IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v107y2016i2d10.1007_s11192-016-1860-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research-driven classification and ranking in higher education: an empirical appraisal of a Romanian policy experience

Author

Listed:
  • Gabriel-Alexandru Vîiu

    (National School of Political and Administrative Studies)

  • Mihai Păunescu

    (National School of Political and Administrative Studies)

  • Adrian Miroiu

    (National School of Political and Administrative Studies)

Abstract

In this paper we investigate the problem of university classification and its relation to ranking practices in the policy context of an official evaluation of Romanian higher education institutions and their study programs. We first discuss the importance of research in the government-endorsed assessment process and analyze the evaluation methodology and the results it produced. Based on official documents and data we show that the Romanian classification of universities was implicitly hierarchical in its conception and therefore also produced hierarchical results due to its close association with the ranking of study programs and its heavy reliance on research outputs. Then, using a distinct dataset on the research performance of 1385 faculty members working in the fields of political science, sociology and marketing we further explore the differences between university categories. We find that our alternative assessment of research productivity—measured with the aid of Hirsch’s (Proc Natl Acad Sci 102(46):16569–16572, 2005) h-index and with Egghe’s (Scientometrics 69(1):131–152, 2006) g-index—only provides empirical support for a dichotomous classification of Romanian institutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Gabriel-Alexandru Vîiu & Mihai Păunescu & Adrian Miroiu, 2016. "Research-driven classification and ranking in higher education: an empirical appraisal of a Romanian policy experience," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 785-805, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:107:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-016-1860-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-1860-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-016-1860-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-016-1860-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anne-Wil Harzing & Satu Alakangas & David Adams, 2014. "hIa: an individual annual h-index to accommodate disciplinary and career length differences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(3), pages 811-821, June.
    2. Bornmann, Lutz & Mutz, Rüdiger & Hug, Sven E. & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2011. "A multilevel meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 346-359.
    3. Pedro Albarrán & Juan A. Crespo & Ignacio Ortuño & Javier Ruiz-Castillo, 2011. "The skewness of science in 219 sub-fields and a number of aggregates," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 88(2), pages 385-397, August.
    4. Jean-Charles Billaut & Denis Bouyssou & Philippe Vincke, 2010. "Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(1), pages 237-263, July.
    5. Leo Egghe, 2006. "Theory and practise of the g-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 69(1), pages 131-152, October.
    6. Ruiz-Castillo, Javier & Costas, Rodrigo, 2014. "The skewness of scientific productivity," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 917-934.
    7. Aldo Geuna, 2001. "The Changing Rationale for European University Research Funding: Are There Negative Unintended Consequences?," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(3), pages 607-632, September.
    8. Kaur, Jasleen & Radicchi, Filippo & Menczer, Filippo, 2013. "Universality of scholarly impact metrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 924-932.
    9. Costas, Rodrigo & Bordons, María, 2007. "The h-index: Advantages, limitations and its relation with other bibliometric indicators at the micro level," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 193-203.
    10. Jamil Salmi & Alenoush Saroyan, 2007. "League Tables as Policy Instruments: Uses and Misuses," Higher Education Management and Policy, OECD Publishing, vol. 19(2), pages 1-38.
    11. Ortega, José Luis & López-Romero, Elena & Fernández, Inés, 2011. "Multivariate approach to classify research institutes according to their outputs: The case of the CSIC's institutes," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 323-332.
    12. repec:dau:papers:123456789/2947 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Ying Cheng & Nian Cai Liu, 2006. "A first approach to the classification of the top 500 world universities by their disciplinary characteristics using scientometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 68(1), pages 135-150, July.
    14. Per O. Seglen, 1992. "The skewness of science," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 43(9), pages 628-638, October.
    15. Jamil Salmi, 2009. "The Challenge of Establishing World-Class Universities," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 2600.
    16. Michael Schreiber, 2008. "An empirical investigation of the g‐index for 26 physicists in comparison with the h‐index, the A‐index, and the R‐index," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 59(9), pages 1513-1522, July.
    17. Hicks, Diana, 2012. "Performance-based university research funding systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 251-261.
    18. J.A. García & Rosa Rodríguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia & N. Robinson-García & D. Torres-Salinas, 2012. "Mapping academic institutions according to their journal publication profile: Spanish universities as a case study," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(11), pages 2328-2340, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Rachida Aïssaoui & J. Michael Geringer & Grigorios Livanis, 2020. "International Collaboration and European Contributions to International Business Research," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 60(6), pages 827-868, December.
    2. Claudiu Vasile Kifor & Ana Maria Benedek & Ioan Sîrbu & Roxana Florența Săvescu, 2023. "Institutional drivers of research productivity: a canonical multivariate analysis of Romanian public universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(4), pages 2233-2258, April.
    3. Claudiu Vasile Kifor & Daniel Teodorescu & Tudorel Andrei & Roxana Săvescu, 2021. "Research Production and International Visibility in Higher Education: The Evolution of Romanian Universities from 2011 to 2019," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-18, December.
    4. Gabriel-Alexandru Vîiu & Mihai Păunescu, 2021. "The citation impact of articles from which authors gained monetary rewards based on journal metrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 4941-4974, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Haddawy, Peter & Cicero, Tindaro & Hassan, Saeed-Ul, 2017. "The solitude of stars. An analysis of the distributed excellence model of European universities," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 435-454.
    2. Vîiu, Gabriel-Alexandru, 2017. "Disaggregated research evaluation through median-based characteristic scores and scales: a comparison with the mean-based approach," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 748-765.
    3. Marcel Clermont & Johanna Krolak & Dirk Tunger, 2021. "Does the citation period have any effect on the informative value of selected citation indicators in research evaluations?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1019-1047, February.
    4. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    5. Yves Fassin, 2020. "The HF-rating as a universal complement to the h-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 965-990, November.
    6. Parul Khurana & Kiran Sharma, 2022. "Impact of h-index on author’s rankings: an improvement to the h-index for lower-ranked authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4483-4498, August.
    7. James C. Ryan, 2016. "A validation of the individual annual h-index (hIa): application of the hIa to a qualitatively and quantitatively different sample," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(1), pages 577-590, October.
    8. Anne-Wil Harzing & Wilfred Mijnhardt, 2015. "Proof over promise: towards a more inclusive ranking of Dutch academics in Economics & Business," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 727-749, January.
    9. Marek Kwiek, 2018. "High research productivity in vertically undifferentiated higher education systems: Who are the top performers?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 415-462, April.
    10. Bornmann, Lutz & Marx, Werner, 2012. "HistCite analysis of papers constituting the h index research front," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 285-288.
    11. Ruiz-Castillo, Javier & Costas, Rodrigo, 2018. "Individual and field citation distributions in 29 broad scientific fields," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 868-892.
    12. Lorna Wildgaard & Jesper W. Schneider & Birger Larsen, 2014. "A review of the characteristics of 108 author-level bibliometric indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 125-158, October.
    13. Mingers, John & Yang, Liying, 2017. "Evaluating journal quality: A review of journal citation indicators and ranking in business and management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(1), pages 323-337.
    14. Ruiz-Castillo, Javier & Waltman, Ludo, 2015. "Field-normalized citation impact indicators using algorithmically constructed classification systems of science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 102-117.
    15. Lina M. Cortés & Andrés Mora-Valencia & Javier Perote, 2016. "The productivity of top researchers: a semi-nonparametric approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(2), pages 891-915, November.
    16. Kaur, Jasleen & Ferrara, Emilio & Menczer, Filippo & Flammini, Alessandro & Radicchi, Filippo, 2015. "Quality versus quantity in scientific impact," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 800-808.
    17. Ruiz-Castillo, Javier & Costas, Rodrigo, 2014. "The skewness of scientific productivity," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 917-934.
    18. Mingers, John & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2015. "A review of theory and practice in scientometrics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(1), pages 1-19.
    19. Anne-Wil Harzing & Satu Alakangas & David Adams, 2014. "hIa: an individual annual h-index to accommodate disciplinary and career length differences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(3), pages 811-821, June.
    20. Vîiu, Gabriel-Alexandru, 2018. "The lognormal distribution explains the remarkable pattern documented by characteristic scores and scales in scientometrics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 401-415.

    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:spr:scient:v:107:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-016-1860-2. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.