IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v17y2008i1p71-81.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Important factors when interpreting bibliometric rankings of world universities: an example from oncology

Author

Listed:
  • Clara Calero-Medina
  • Carmen López-Illescas
  • Martijn S Visser
  • Henk F Moed

Abstract

This paper presents bibliometric characteristics of the 386 most frequently publishing world universities and of a (partly overlapping) set of 529 European universities. Rather than presenting a ranking itself, it presents a statistical analysis of ranking data, focusing on more general patterns. It compares US universities with European institutions; countries with a strong concentration of academic research activities among universities with nations showing a more even distribution; a ranking of universities based on indicators calculated for all research fields combined with one compiled for a single field (oncology); general with specialised universities; and rankings based on a single indicator with maps combining social network analysis and a series of indicators. It highlights important factors that should be taken into account in the interpretation of rankings of research universities based on bibliometric indicators. Moreover, it illustrates policy-relevant research questions that may be addressed in secondary analyses of ranking data. In this way, this paper aims at contributing to a public information system on research universities. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Clara Calero-Medina & Carmen López-Illescas & Martijn S Visser & Henk F Moed, 2008. "Important factors when interpreting bibliometric rankings of world universities: an example from oncology," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 71-81, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:17:y:2008:i:1:p:71-81
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/095820208X280907
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ludo Waltman & Clara Calero-Medina & Joost Kosten & Ed C.M. Noyons & Robert J.W. Tijssen & Nees Jan Eck & Thed N. Leeuwen & Anthony F.J. Raan & Martijn S. Visser & Paul Wouters, 2012. "The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(12), pages 2419-2432, December.
    2. Richard Klavans & Kevin W. Boyack, 2010. "Toward an objective, reliable and accurate method for measuring research leadership," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(3), pages 539-553, March.
    3. Chaocheng He & Jiang Wu & Qingpeng Zhang, 2021. "Characterizing research leadership on geographically weighted collaboration network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4005-4037, May.
    4. Félix Moya-Anegón & Carmen López-Illescas & Henk F. Moed, 2014. "How to interpret the position of private sector institutions in bibliometric rankings of research institutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 283-298, January.
    5. Feng Li & Yong Yi & Xiaolong Guo & Wei Qi, 2012. "Performance evaluation of research universities in Mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan: based on a two-dimensional approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 90(2), pages 531-542, February.
    6. Carmen López-Illescas & Félix Moya-Anegón & Henk F. Moed, 2011. "A ranking of universities should account for differences in their disciplinary specialization," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(2), pages 563-574, August.
    7. Zaida Chinchilla-Rodríguez & Grisel Zacca-González & Benjamín Vargas-Quesada & Félix Moya-Anegón, 2016. "Benchmarking scientific performance by decomposing leadership of Cuban and Latin American institutions in Public Health," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(3), pages 1239-1264, March.
    8. Henk F. Moed & Gali Halevi, 2015. "Multidimensional assessment of scholarly research impact," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(10), pages 1988-2002, October.
    9. Moed, Henk F. & de Moya-Anegón, Félix & López-Illescas, Carmen & Visser, Martijn, 2011. "Is concentration of university research associated with better research performance?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 649-658.
    10. Henk F. Moed, 2017. "A critical comparative analysis of five world university rankings," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(2), pages 967-990, February.
    11. Yong Yi & Wei Qi & Dandan Wu, 2013. "Are CIVETS the next BRICs? A comparative analysis from scientometrics perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 615-628, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:17:y:2008:i:1:p:71-81. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.