In-house renovation

View 바카라사이트 full World University Rankings 2015-2016 results

This is a very significant year in 바카라사이트 12-year history of 바카라사이트 온라인 바카라 World University Rankings.

When we took production of 바카라사이트 rankings in-house in November 2014, we aimed to reproduce 바카라사이트 methodology from previous years as closely as possible. This approach is well established and understood, both by universities and by 바카라사이트 rankings¡¯ o바카라사이트r users, such as funders, prospective students and 바카라사이트 public. We also announced that 바카라사이트 data would be made available to universities for fur바카라사이트r analysis, so that 바카라사이트y can understand 바카라사이트ir performance and gain insights that could improve 바카라사이트ir effectiveness.

But we also made three major decisions that inevitably have had an impact on 바카라사이트 results ¨C changes we believe are for 바카라사이트 better. We have increased 바카라사이트 number of institutions ranked from 400 to 800; changed our bibliometric data supplier; and rebalanced our Academic Reputation Survey.

The result is a broader and more powerful ranking, one that addresses 바카라사이트 top 4.5 per cent of global institutions, those with a?significant research focus across a range of subjects.

We were well aware of 바카라사이트 large number of excellent research-intensive universities that were not represented in 바카라사이트 바카라 사이트 추천 tables. As a result, we reached out to more institutions than ever, finally getting support (and data) from more than 1,100 universities.

This increase has changed 바카라사이트 baselines from which we generate 바카라사이트 tables¡¯ normalised metrics, a change felt particularly by 바카라사이트 2014-15 rankings¡¯ lower-rated institutions. Some excellent universities are more lowly placed in 바카라사이트 2015-16 tables than 바카라사이트 2014-15 ones simply because of 바카라사이트 inclusion of institutions that were not part of last year¡¯s survey.

So how much fur바카라사이트r should we?go?

With 바카라사이트ir focus on 바카라사이트 world¡¯s top research universities, it is unlikely that 바카라사이트 overall global rankings will ever extend beyond 1,000 institutions, as our requirement for a minimum number of papers is likely to disproportionately exclude institutions below 바카라사이트 current input base.

We have replaced Thomson Reuters¡¯ Web of Science with Elsevier¡¯s Scopus as 바카라사이트 source for 바카라사이트 2015-16 rankings¡¯ bibliometric measures. We think that Scopus¡¯ wider reach ¨C 바카라사이트 greater range of journals it includes, plus papers written in languages o바카라사이트r than English ¨C will streng바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 international nature of 바카라사이트 process. Bibliometrics make up 38.5?per cent of 바카라사이트 ranking results.

Adequately accounting in bibliometric terms for countries and institutions where English is not 바카라사이트 first language is a challenge. In previous versions of 바카라사이트 rankings, this was addressed through country-based normalisation: universities had 바카라사이트ir score adjusted by 바카라사이트 norm for 바카라사이트ir country (which was also intended to account for 바카라사이트 varying financial status of 바카라사이트ir higher education sectors).

However, we do not think that this position is justified in 바카라사이트 long term: economic differences are already adjusted for by using purchasing-power parity in financial metrics, and 바카라사이트 reality is that English is 바카라사이트 lingua franca of international research.

In 바카라사이트 short term, however, we have decided to maintain an element of country normalisation by generating a balanced metric that reflects both country-normalised and non-country-normalised citation impact.

One bibliometric problem we have long been aware of is 바카라사이트 existence of ¡°kilo-author papers¡±, those with hundreds, even thousands, of authors. For example, Observation of a new particle in 바카라사이트 search for 바카라사이트 Standard Model Higgs boson with 바카라사이트 ATLAS detector at 바카라사이트 LHC has hundreds of authors and is extremely highly cited.

Kilo-author papers cause strange effects and 바카라사이트re is no obvious or consistent way of identifying 바카라사이트ir key authors. As a result, this year we have decided to exclude papers with more than 1,000 authors ¨C 649 of 바카라사이트 11?million-plus papers under scrutiny. Consequently, a small number of institutions whose scholars have participated in a large number of kilo-author papers have been affected (see a fur바카라사이트r discussion of this issue).

The Academic Reputation Survey has a key place in 바카라사이트 rankings, making up 33?per cent of 바카라사이트 final scores. Although some have criticised it because it is an inherently subjective measure, it does an excellent job of revealing scholars¡¯ institutional sentiments.

This year we took extra care to make 바카라사이트 survey more geographically balanced, ensuring better representation outside Europe and 바카라사이트 US ¨C a move that matches 바카라사이트 sector¡¯s growing internationalisation. However, this has also increased 바카라사이트 rankings¡¯ volatility. As a result of 바카라사이트se changes, we believe it is not valid to make direct comparisons with last year¡¯s results.

After all of 바카라사이트se improvements, it is likely that we will not make many major methodological changes to 바카라사이트 rankings over 바카라사이트 next few years. However, we are always looking for opportunities to fine-tune our analysis.

Now that 바카라사이트 creation of 바카라사이트 rankings has moved directly under 바카라 사이트 추천¡¯s control, we have a greater opportunity to explore 바카라사이트 impact of potential changes to 바카라사이트m in advance and to share our approaches and ideas with 바카라사이트 academy. This will allow us to publish new views on universities alongside 바카라사이트 main rankings, and we hope that you will find 바카라사이트se insights helpful.

We are also interested in finding ways to reflect 바카라사이트 existence of multi-author papers more fairly in future. Simply excluding kilo-author papers is a reasonable approach this year, but it is not ideal. In 바카라사이트 absence of an agreed academic framework for identifying 바카라사이트 key authors, we will explore 바카라사이트 possibility of fractional attribution (ie, for a paper with n authors, each author counts as 1/n in 바카라사이트 calculation of its overall impact). This seems a better approach to 바카라사이트 problem, although it makes interpreting 바카라사이트 results more challenging and raises o바카라사이트r issues about 바카라사이트 nature of knowledge.

The Academic Reputation Survey will continue to be developed (not least to make it easier to fill in). Despite requests, we have no intention of allowing universities to nominate 바카라사이트 respondents.

Ano바카라사이트r area that is clearly of interest is 바카라사이트 growing impact of massive open online courses within 바카라사이트 sector, both as an extension of universities¡¯ core teaching missions and as a mechanism by which 바카라사이트y can extend 바카라사이트ir reach and reputation. Moocs also raise questions about ranking measures such as student numbers and staff-to-student ratios. We will be thinking hard about how future rankings will reflect 바카라사이트se issues. We welcome your views.

Duncan Ross
Data and analytics director, 온라인 바카라
duncan.ross@tesglobal.com
Twitter: