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

article

URAP-TR: a national ranking for Turkish universities based on academic performance

Authors:

Oğuzhan Alaşehir,

Murat Perit Çakır,

Cengiz Acartürk,

Ural AkbulutAuthors Info & Claims

Scientometrics, Volume 101, Issue 1

Pages 159 - 178

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1333-4

Published: 01 October 2014 Publication History

Abstract

This study describes the basic methodological approach and the results of URAP-TR, the first national ranking system for Turkish universities. URAP-TR is based on objective bibliometric data resources and includes both size-dependent and size-independent indicators that balance total academic performance with performance per capita measures. In the context of Turkish national university rankings, the paper discusses the implications of employing multiple size-independent and size-dependent indicators on national university rankings. Fine-grained ranking categories for Turkish universities are identified through an analysis of ranking results across multiple indicators.

References

[1]

Al, U., Sahiner, M., & Tonta, Y. (2006). Arts and humanities literature: Bibliometric characteristics of contributions by Turkish authors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1011-1022.

Digital Library

[2]

Baskurt, O. K. (2011). Time series analysis of publication counts of a university: What are the implications? Scientometrics, 86(3), 645-656.

Digital Library

[3]

Bastedo, M. N., & Bowman, N. A. (2011). College rankings as an interorganizational dependency: Establishing the foundation for strategic and institutional accounts. Research in Higher Education, 52(1), 3-23.

[4]

Bergerson, A. A. (2009). Special Issue: College choice and access to college: Moving policy, research, and practice to the 21st Century. ASHE Higher Education Report, 35(4), 1-141.

[5]

Bowden, R. (2000). Fantasy higher education: University and college league tables. Quality in Higher Education, 6(1), 41-60.

[6]

Bowman, N. A., & Bastedo, M. N. (2009). Getting on the front page: Organizational reputation, status signals, and the impact of US News and World Report on student decisions. Research in Higher Education, 50(5), 415-436.

[7]

Broto, C., & Ruiz, E. (2004). Estimation methods for stochastic volatility models: A survey. Journal of Economic Surveys, 18(5), 613-649.

[8]

Cartter, A. M., & Sawyer, R. A. (1966). An assessment of quality in graduate education. Physics Today, 19, 75.

[9]

Cattell, J. M. (1906a). American men of science. Utrecht: Science Press.

[10]

Cattell, J. M. (1906b). A statistical study of American men of science III. Science, 24(623), 732-742.

[11]

Dill, D. D., & Soo, M. (2005). Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross-national analysis of university ranking systems. Higher Education, 49(4), 495-533.

[12]

DiStefano, C., Zhu, M., & Mindrila, D. (2009). Understanding and using factor scores: Considerations for the applied researcher. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14(20), 1-11.

[13]

Ellis, H. (1904). A study of British genius. London: Hurst and Blackett.

[14]

Galton, F. (1875). English men of science: Their nature and nurture. New York City: D. Appleton.

[15]

Gokceoglu, C., Okay, A. I., & Sezer, E. (2008). International earth science literature from Turkey-- 1970-2005: Trends and possible causes. Scientometrics, 74(3), 409-423.

[16]

Griffith, A., & Rask, K. (2007). The influence of the US News and World Report collegiate rankings on the matriculation decision of high-ability students: 1995-2004. Economics of Education Review, 26(2), 244-255.

[17]

Gossart, C., & Özman, M. (2009). Co-authorship networks in social sciences: The case of Turkey. Scientometrics, 78(2), 323-345.

[18]

Gülgöz, S., Yedekçio¿lu, Ö. A., & Yurtsever, E. (2002). Turkey's output in social science publications: 1970-1999. Scientometrics, 55(1), 103-121.

[19]

Hazelkorn, E. (2007). The impact of league tables and ranking system on higher education decision making. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19, 1-24.

[20]

Hazelkorn, E. (2008). Learning to live with league tables and ranking: The experience of institutional leaders. Higher Education Policy, 21, 193-215.

[21]

Hughes, R. M. (1925). A study of the graduate schools of America. Oxford, OH: Miami University.

[22]

InCites. (2013). Total number of documents published by Turkey in 2007-2011 for ESI subject categories. Thomson Reuters. http://incites.isiknowledge.com/.

[23]

Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP). (2007). College and university ranking systems: Global perspectives and American challenges. Washington, DC: IHEP.

[24]

Jones, L. V., Lindzey, G., & Coggeshall, P. E. (1982). An assessment of research-doctorate programs in the United States: Social and behavioral sciences. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press.

[25]

Li, F., Yi, Y., Guo, X., & Qi, W. (2012). Performance evaluation of research universities in Mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan: Based on a two-dimensional approach. Scientometrics, 90(2), 531-542.

Digital Library

[26]

Liu, N. C., & Liu, L. (2005). University rankings in China. Higher Education in Europe, 30(2), 217-227.

[27]

Lykes, R. W. (1975). Higher education and the United States Office of Education (1867-1953). Superintendent of Documents, U.S: Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

[28]

Maclean, A. H. H. (1900). Where we get our best men: Some statistics showing their nationalities, counties, towns, schools, universities, and other antecedents, 1837-1897. Marshall, Hamilton: Simpking.

[29]

Maclean's. (2012). Maclean's ranking indicators - Maclean's On Campus. Retrieved May 24, 2013, from http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2012/11/02/macleans-ranking-indicators-2/.

[30]

Salmi, J., & Saroyan, A. (2007). League tables as policy instruments: Uses and misuses. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19, 1-39.

[31]

Sponsler, B. A. (2009). The Role and Relevance of Rankings in Higher Education Policymaking. Institute for Higher Education Policy: Issue Brief.

[32]

Stolz, I., Hendel, D. D., & Horn, A. S. (2010). Ranking of rankings: Benchmarking twenty-five higher education ranking systems in Europe. Higher Education, 60(5), 507-528.

[33]

Usher, A., & Savino, M. (2007). A global survey of university ranking and league tables. Higher Education in Europe, 32(1), 5-15.

[34]

Uzun, A. (1990). A quantitative analysis of Turkish publication output in physics between 1938-1987. Scientometrics, 19(1), 57-73.

[35]

Waltman, L., & Van Eck, N. J. (2012). The inconsistency of the h-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(2), 406-415.

Digital Library

[36]

Van Dyke, N. (2005). Twenty years of university report cards. Higher Education in Europe, 30(2), 103-125.

[37]

Van Raan, A. F. J. (2004). Measuring science. Capita selecta of current main issues. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 19-50). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

[38]

Wegner, E. L. (1967). The relationship of college characteristics to graduation. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison.

[39]

West, J., Bergstrom, T., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2010). Big Macs and Eigenfactor scores: Don't let correlation coefficients fool you. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(9), 1800-1807.

Digital Library

[40]

Zhang, J., & Cai, F. (2009). Food demand and nutritional elasticity in poor rural areas of China. In China's Economy: Rural Reform and Agricultural Development (Vol. 1, pp. 309-335). World Scientific.

Cited By

Ayyildiz EMurat MImamoglu GKose Y(2023)A novel hybrid MCDM approach to evaluate universities based on student perspectiveScientometrics10.1007/s11192-022-04534-z128:1(55-86)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11192-022-04534-z
El Gibari SGómez TRuiz F(2022)Combining reference point based composite indicators with data envelopment analysis: application to the assessment of universitiesScientometrics10.1007/s11192-022-04436-0127:8(4363-4395)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11192-022-04436-0
Şahin KCandan G(2018)Scientific productivity and cooperation in Turkic world: a bibliometric analysisScientometrics10.1007/s11192-018-2730-x115:3(1199-1229)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11192-018-2730-x
Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comparison of medical research performance by thermodynamic and citation analysis methods

Beside citation metrics, in recent years, the thermodynamic indicators have been introduced. So, we want to compare citation metrics like h-index to thermodynamic indicators such as the exergy for determining the best indicator to rank the scientific ...
A comparative study on world university rankings: a bibliometric survey

Recently there are many organizations conducting projects on ranking world universities from different perspectives. These ranking activities have made impacts and caused controversy. This study does not favor using bibliometric indicators to evaluate ...
Exploring the correlation between acknowledgees’ contributions and their academic performance
Abstract
Bibliometric analysis of acknowledgment has been expanding and has aroused the intense interest of academia. However, there is no scientific proof of the relationship between the academic performance of the acknowledgees and the acknowledged paper ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Scientometrics

Scientometrics Volume 101, Issue 1

October 2014

912 pages

ISSN:0138-9130

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © Copyright © 2014 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.

Publisher

Springer-Verlag

Berlin, Heidelberg

Publication History

Published: 01 October 2014

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 12 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Ayyildiz EMurat MImamoglu GKose Y(2023)A novel hybrid MCDM approach to evaluate universities based on student perspectiveScientometrics10.1007/s11192-022-04534-z128:1(55-86)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11192-022-04534-z
El Gibari SGómez TRuiz F(2022)Combining reference point based composite indicators with data envelopment analysis: application to the assessment of universitiesScientometrics10.1007/s11192-022-04436-0127:8(4363-4395)Online publication date: 1-Aug-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11192-022-04436-0
Şahin KCandan G(2018)Scientific productivity and cooperation in Turkic world: a bibliometric analysisScientometrics10.1007/s11192-018-2730-x115:3(1199-1229)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11192-018-2730-x
Gul SNisa NShah TGupta SJan AAhmad S(2018)Middle EastScientometrics10.1007/s11192-015-1722-3105:2(1157-1166)Online publication date: 27-Dec-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s11192-015-1722-3

View Options

View options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents