More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

article

Productivity analysis of research in Natural Sciences, Technology and Clinical Medicine: an input---output model applied in comparison of Top 300 ranked universities of 4 North European and 4 East Asian countries

Authors:

Päivi KaipainenAuthors Info & Claims

Scientometrics, Volume 94, Issue 2

Pages 683 - 699

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0808-4

Published: 01 February 2013 Publication History

Abstract

The article introduces a relational input---output model for the productivity analysis of university research. The comparative analyses focus on top university research in hard sciences from 4 East Asian countries (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan) and 4 North European countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden), universities of which get altogether 95 recognitions in the HEEACT Top 300 rankings in the Natural Sciences (Sci), Technology (Tec) or Clinical Medicine (Med). According to productivity ratings (A₀, A, A⁺, A⁺⁺), Taiwan receives 10 A⁺⁺ ratings (Sci 5, Tec 5), Sweden 9 (Sci 4, Med 4, Tec 1) and Hong Kong 9 (Tec 4, Med 2, Sci 1). The smallest numbers of A⁺⁺ ratings are found in Norway, 1 (Med) and Finland 3 (all in Med). The only university with an A⁺⁺ rating in the top of all three fields is the National University of Singapore. The Pohang University of Science and Technology (South Korea) and the National Tsing Hua University (Taiwan) are exceptionally productive in Sci and Tec; Karolinska Institutet (Sweden) and the University of Helsinki (Finland) belong to the top in Med. Even though Northern European countries are ranked higher in the `knowledge economy indicators', East Asians fare better by indicators of learning outcomes and by productivity of university research in Natural Sciences and Technology; North European countries are stronger in Clinical Medicine.

References

[1]

Abramo, G., Cicero, T., & D'Angelo, C. A. (2012). Revisiting size effects in higher education research productivity. Higher Education, 63(6), 701-717.

[2]

Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C. A., & Di Costa, F. (2010). Testing the trade-off between productivity and quality in research activities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(1), 132-140.

[3]

Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C. A., & Di Costa, F. (2011). A national-scale cross-time analysis of university research performance. Scientometrics, 87(2), 399-413.

Digital Library

[4]

Altbach, P. (2006). The dilemmas of ranking. International Higher Education, 42, 2-3.

[5]

Billaut, J.-C., Bouyssou, D., & Vincke, P. (2010). Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking? An MCDM view. Scientometrics, 84(1), 237-263.

[6]

Bulle, N. (2011). Comparing OECD educational models through the prism of PISA. Comparative Education, 47(4), 503-521.

[7]

Crespi, G. A., & Geuna, A. (2008). An empirical study of scientific production: a cross country analysis, 1981-2002. Research Policy, 37(4), 565-579.

[8]

Dehon, C., McCathie, A., & Verardi, V. (2010). Uncovering excellence in academic rankings: a closer look at the Shanghai ranking. Scientometrics, 83(2), 515-524.

[9]

EUA. (2011). Global University Rankings and their Impact. EUA Report on Rankings, 2011. Rauhvargers, Andrejs. Brussels: European University Association.

[10]

Florian, R. V. (2007). Irreproducibility of the results of the Shanghai academic ranking of world universities. Scientometrics, 72(1), 25-32.

[11]

GCI (2011-2012) The Global Competitiveness Index 2011-2012 rankings, http://www3.weforum.org/ docs/WEF_GCR_CompetitivenessIndexRanking_2011-12.pdf.

[12]

Hazelkorn, E. (2011). Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education. The Battle for world-class excellence. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

[13]

Hazelkorn, E. (2012) The Effects of Rankings on Student Choices and Institutional Selection. Forthcoming in B.W.A. Jongbloed and J.J. Vossensteyn (Eds.), Access and Expansion Post-Massification. Opportunities and Barriers to Further Growth in Higher Education Participation, Routledge.

[14]

HEEACT Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities, home page: http:// ranking.heeact.edu.tw/en-us/2011/Page/Methodology. Accessed 25 May 2012.

[15]

Herbst, M. (2007). Financing Public Universities. Higher Education Dynamics, vol. 18. Berlin: Springer.

[16]

Hicks, D. (2012). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy, 41(2), 251-261.

[17]

IDI (2011) Measuring the Information Society 2011. Geneva: International Telecommunication Union, ITU. http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/backgrounders/general/pdf/5.pdf.

[18]

Kauppi, N., & Erkkilä, T. (2011). The struggle over global higher education: actors, institutions, and practices. International Political Sociology, 5(3), 314-326.

[19]

KEI (2012) Knowledge Economy Index (KEI) 2012 Rankings, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ INTUNIKAM/Resources/2012.pdf.

[20]

Kivinen, O. & Hedman, J. (2004). Yliopistolaitoksen tuloksellisuus Suomessa 1999-2003. Yliopistojen panokset ja tulokset tieteenaloittaisessa tarkastelussa. Research Unit for the Sociology of Education (RUSE). Research report 64. Turku: University of Turku.

[21]

Kivinen, O., & Hedman, J. (2008). World-wide University Rankings--A Scandinavian approach. Scientometrics, 74(3), 391-408.

[22]

Kivinen, O., Hedman, J., & Peltoniemi, K. (2008). Productivity of research by disciplines in Finland in 2002-2006. Research Unit for the Sociology of Education (RUSE), Research report 73. Turku: University of Turku.

[23]

Kivinen, O., Hedman, J., & Peltoniemi, K., (2011). Towards the Best A++Rating. Productivity of Research and Teaching in Finnish Universities. Research Unit for the Sociology of Education (RUSE), 2011. Turku: University of Turku, 47 pages. Online at: http://www.doria.fi/handle/10024/69353.

[24]

Luwel, M. (2004). The Use of input data in the performance analysis of R&D systems. Potentialities and Pitfalls. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research: The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S & T Systems (pp. 315-338). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

[25]

Macri, J., & Sinha, D. (2006). Rankings methodology for international comparisons of institutions and individuals: an application to economics in Australia and New Zealand. Journal of Economic Surveys, 20(1), 111-156.

[26]

Marginson, S., & van der Wende, M. (2009) The New Global Landscape of Nations and Institutions. In: Higher Education to 2030. Volume 2: Globalization. Paris: OECD Publishing, 17-62.

[27]

Merisotis, J., & Sadlak, J. (2005). Higher education rankings: evolution, acceptance, and dialogue. Higher Education in Europe, 30(2), 97-101.

[28]

Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.

[29]

Moed, H.F., Glänzel, W., & Schmoch U. (2004). Editor's Introduction. In: Moed, H.F., Glänzel, W., & Schmoch U. (eds.) Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research: The Use of Publication and Patent Statistics in Studies of S & T Systems. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1-15. Electronic version: (2005) Published by Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. http://www. springerlink.com/content/978-1-4020-2702-4#section=546116&page=1&locus=0.

[30]

O'Leary, J., Quacquarelli, N., & Ince, M. (2010). Top Universities Guide 2010. 4th revised and updated edition exclusively featuring the QS World University Rankings. London: QS Quacquarelli Symonds Limited.

[31]

van Raan, A. F. J. (2005a). Fatal attraction: conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 62(1), 133-143.

[32]

van Raan, A. F. J. (2005b). Academic ranking of world universities using scientometrics--A comment to the "Fatal Attraction" --Reply. Scientometrics, 64(1), 111-112.

[33]

Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) home page: http://www.shanghairanking.com/. Accessed 25 May 2012.

[34]

Leiden Ranking home page: http://www.leidenranking.com/. Accessed 25 May 2012.

[35]

QS World University Rankings home page: http://www.topuniversities.com. Accessed 25 May 2012.

Cited By

Kivinen OHedman JArtukka K(2018)Scientific publishing and global university rankings. How well are top publishing universities recognized?Scientometrics10.1007/s11192-017-2403-1112:1(679-695)Online publication date: 27-Dec-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11192-017-2403-1
Babić DKutlača ĐŽivković LŠtrbac DSemenčenko D(2018)Evaluation of the quality of scientific performance of the selected countries of Southeast EuropeScientometrics10.1007/s11192-015-1649-8106:1(405-434)Online publication date: 26-Dec-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11192-015-1649-8
Safón V(2018)What do global university rankings really measure? The search for the X factor and the X entityScientometrics10.1007/s11192-013-0986-897:2(223-244)Online publication date: 26-Dec-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11192-013-0986-8
Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Arab Spring's effect on scientific productivity and research performance in Arab countries

This study focuses on the Arab literature published by researchers from all 22 members of the Arab League during the last 5 years before Arab Spring (2006---2010) and the 5 years after Arab Spring (2011---2015), in order to identify effects of the Arab ...
Bibliometric analysis of complementary and alternative medicine research over three decades

This study applies bibliometric analysis to investigate the quantity and citation impact of scientific papers in the field of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). The data are collected from 19 CAM journals in the Science Citation Index ...
Information Technology and Productivity Growth: German Trends and OECD Comparisons

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Scientometrics

Scientometrics Volume 94, Issue 2

February 2013

365 pages

ISSN:0138-9130

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © Copyright © 2013 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.

Publisher

Springer-Verlag

Berlin, Heidelberg

Publication History

Published: 01 February 2013

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

4
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 09 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Kivinen OHedman JArtukka K(2018)Scientific publishing and global university rankings. How well are top publishing universities recognized?Scientometrics10.1007/s11192-017-2403-1112:1(679-695)Online publication date: 27-Dec-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11192-017-2403-1
Babić DKutlača ĐŽivković LŠtrbac DSemenčenko D(2018)Evaluation of the quality of scientific performance of the selected countries of Southeast EuropeScientometrics10.1007/s11192-015-1649-8106:1(405-434)Online publication date: 26-Dec-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11192-015-1649-8
Safón V(2018)What do global university rankings really measure? The search for the X factor and the X entityScientometrics10.1007/s11192-013-0986-897:2(223-244)Online publication date: 26-Dec-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11192-013-0986-8
Lin PChen JYang C(2014)Academic research resources and academic qualityScientometrics10.1007/s11192-014-1362-z101:1(109-123)Online publication date: 1-Oct-2014
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11192-014-1362-z

View Options

View options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents