International ranking systems for universities and institutions: a critical appraisal
International ranking systems for universities and institutions: a critical appraisal
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1741-7015-5-30
复制
发表时间：
2007-10-25
期刊：
影响因子：
9.3
通讯作者：
Liberopoulos, George
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ioannidis, John Pa;Patsopoulos, Nikolaos A.;Liberopoulos, George
背景：大学和机构的排名最近引起了广泛的关注。已经提出了几个系统，试图对世界各地的学术机构进行排名。研究方法：我们回顾了两个最公开可见的排名系统，上海交通大学的“世界大学学术排名”和《泰晤士报高等教育增刊》的“世界大学排名”，并简要回顾了其他使用不同标准的排名系统。我们评估了卓越的教育和研究的结构效度和每个建议的排名标准的测量效度，并试图确定在大学和机构的国际排名的一般挑战。结果如下：国际排名的审查标准似乎没有一个对教育和研究卓越都有很好的结构效度，大多数甚至对这两个方面的卓越之一都没有很好的结构效度。许多项目的测量误差也很大，或者由于缺乏相关数据和方法详细信息的发布而无法确定。2006年上海大学和《泰晤士报》的排名之间的一致性充其量是适度的，只有133所大学在他们的前200名名单中共享。对现有国际排名系统的审查表明，一般性挑战包括机构规模的调整，机构的定义，卓越的平均测量与极端测量的影响，科学领域的调整，测量的时间框架和卓越的信贷分配。结论：不以透明的方法应对这些根本挑战的幼稚的国际机构排名清单具有误导性，应该放弃。我们提出了一些建议，如何重点突出和标准化的优秀评价可以改善和放置在适当的背景下。
Background: Ranking of universities and institutions has attracted wide attention recently. Several systems have been proposed that attempt to rank academic institutions worldwide. Methods: We review the two most publicly visible ranking systems, the Shanghai Jiao Tong University 'Academic Ranking of World Universities' and the Times Higher Education Supplement 'World University Rankings' and also briefly review other ranking systems that use different criteria. We assess the construct validity for educational and research excellence and the measurement validity of each of the proposed ranking criteria, and try to identify generic challenges in international ranking of universities and institutions. Results: None of the reviewed criteria for international ranking seems to have very good construct validity for both educational and research excellence, and most don't have very good construct validity even for just one of these two aspects of excellence. Measurement error for many items is also considerable or is not possible to determine due to lack of publication of the relevant data and methodology details. The concordance between the 2006 rankings by Shanghai and Times is modest at best, with only 133 universities shared in their top 200 lists. The examination of the existing international ranking systems suggests that generic challenges include adjustment for institutional size, definition of institutions, implications of average measurements of excellence versus measurements of extremes, adjustments for scientific field, time frame of measurement and allocation of credit for excellence. Conclusion: Naive lists of international institutional rankings that do not address these fundamental challenges with transparent methods are misleading and should be abandoned. We make some suggestions on how focused and standardized evaluations of excellence could be improved and placed in proper context.