IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/has/discpr/2106.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Ranking Institutions within a Discipline: The Steep Mountain of Academic Excellence

Author

Listed:
  • Balázs R. Sziklai

    (Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, Hungary and Department of Operations Research and Actuarial Sciences, Corvinus University of Budapest, Hungary)

Abstract

We present a novel algorithm to rank smaller academic entities such as university departments or research groups within a research discipline. The Weighted Top Candidate (WTC) algorithm is a generalisation of an expert identification method. The axiomatic characterisation of WTC shows why it is especially suitable for scientometric purposes. The key axiom is stability -- the selected institutions support each other's membership. The WTC algorithm, upon receiving an institution citation matrix, produces a list of institutions that can be deemed experts of the field. With a parameter we can adjust how exclusive our list should be. By completely relaxing the parameter, we obtain the largest stable set -- academic entities that can qualify as experts under the mildest conditions. With a strict setup, we obtain a short list of the absolute elite. We demonstrate the algorithm on a citation database compiled from game theoretic literature published between 2008--2017. By plotting the size of the stable sets with respect to exclusiveness, we can obtain an overview of the competitiveness of the field. The diagram hints at how difficult it is for an institution to improve its position.

Suggested Citation

  • Balázs R. Sziklai, 2021. "Ranking Institutions within a Discipline: The Steep Mountain of Academic Excellence," CERS-IE WORKING PAPERS 2106, Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies.
    • Handle: RePEc:has:discpr:2106
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mtakti.hu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/CERSIEWP202106.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bouyssou, Denis & Marchant, Thierry, 2016. "Ranking authors using fractional counting of citations: An axiomatic approach," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 183-199.
    2. Ludo Waltman & Nees Jan van Eck, 2012. "A new methodology for constructing a publication‐level classification system of science," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(12), pages 2378-2392, December.
    3. Balázs Sziklai, 2018. "How to identify experts in a community?," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 47(1), pages 155-173, March.
    4. Kevin W. Boyack & Richard Klavans, 2010. "Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(12), pages 2389-2404, December.
    5. Balázs R Sziklai & Károly Héberger, 2020. "Apportionment and districting by Sum of Ranking Differences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-20, March.
    6. Ludo Waltman & Nees Jan Eck, 2012. "A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(12), pages 2378-2392, December.
    7. Marchiori, Massimo & Latora, Vito, 2000. "Harmony in the small-world," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 285(3), pages 539-546.
    8. Sigifredo Laengle & José M. Merigó & Nikunja Mohan Modak & Jian-Bo Yang, 2020. "Bibliometrics in operations research and management science: a university analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 294(1), pages 769-813, November.
    9. Dag W. Aksnes & Liv Langfeldt & Paul Wouters, 2019. "Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, February.
    10. Siniša Maričić & Jagoda Spaventi & Leo Pavičić & Greta Pifat‐Mrzljak, 1998. "Citation context versus the frequency counts of citation histories," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 49(6), pages 530-540.
    11. Themis Lazaridis, 2010. "Ranking university departments using the mean h-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 82(2), pages 211-216, February.
    12. Philippe Mongeon & Adèle Paul-Hus, 2016. "The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(1), pages 213-228, January.
    13. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 2015. "Evaluating university research: Same performance indicator, different rankings," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 514-525.
    14. Guerrero-Bote, Vicente P. & Moya-Anegón, Félix, 2012. "A further step forward in measuring journals’ scientific prestige: The SJR2 indicator," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 674-688.
    15. Richard Dusansky & Clayton J. Vernon, 1998. "Rankings of U.S. Economics Departments," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(1), pages 157-170, Winter.
    16. Kevin W. Boyack & Richard Klavans, 2010. "Co‐citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: Which citation approach represents the research front most accurately?," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 61(12), pages 2389-2404, December.
    17. Naoki Shibata & Yuya Kajikawa & Yoshiyuki Takeda & Katsumori Matsushima, 2009. "Comparative study on methods of detecting research fronts using different types of citation," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(3), pages 571-580, March.
    18. Karol Flores-Szwagrzak & Rafael Treibich, 2020. "Teamwork and Individual Productivity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(6), pages 2523-2544, June.
    19. Daniel Torres-Salinas & Emilio Delgado Lopez-Cózar & Evaristo Jiménez-Contreras, 2009. "Ranking of departments and researchers within a university using two different databases: Web of Science versus Scopus," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 80(3), pages 761-774, September.
    20. Thierry Marchant, 2009. "An axiomatic characterization of the ranking based on the h-index and some other bibliometric rankings of authors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 80(2), pages 325-342, August.
    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. Xiang Li & Chengli Zhao & Zhaolong Hu & Caixia Yu & Xiaojun Duan, 2022. "Revealing the character of journals in higher-order citation networks," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(11), pages 6315-6338, November.
    2. Ádám Ipkovich & Károly Héberger & János Abonyi, 2021. "Comprehensible Visualization of Multidimensional Data: Sum of Ranking Differences-Based Parallel Coordinates," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(24), pages 1-17, December.
    3. Cena, Anna & Gagolewski, Marek & Siudem, Grzegorz & Żogała-Siudem, Barbara, 2022. "Validating citation models by proxy indices," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).

    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. Ignacio Rodríguez-Rodríguez & José-Víctor Rodríguez & Niloofar Shirvanizadeh & Andrés Ortiz & Domingo-Javier Pardo-Quiles, 2021. "Applications of Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Big Data and the Internet of Things to the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scientometric Review Using Text Mining," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-29, August.
    2. Matthias Held & Grit Laudel & Jochen Gläser, 2021. "Challenges to the validity of topic reconstruction," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4511-4536, May.
    3. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    4. Muñoz-Écija, Teresa & Vargas-Quesada, Benjamín & Chinchilla Rodríguez, Zaida, 2019. "Coping with methods for delineating emerging fields: Nanoscience and nanotechnology as a case study," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4).
    5. Wang, Feifei & Jia, Chenran & Wang, Xiaohan & Liu, Junwan & Xu, Shuo & Liu, Yang & Yang, Chenyuyan, 2019. "Exploring all-author tripartite citation networks: A case study of gene editing," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 856-873.
    6. Wang, Qi & Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "Large-scale analysis of the accuracy of the journal classification systems of Web of Science and Scopus," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 347-364.
    7. Li, Menghui & Yang, Liying & Zhang, Huina & Shen, Zhesi & Wu, Chensheng & Wu, Jinshan, 2017. "Do mathematicians, economists and biomedical scientists trace large topics more strongly than physicists?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 598-607.
    8. Michel Zitt, 2015. "Meso-level retrieval: IR-bibliometrics interplay and hybrid citation-words methods in scientific fields delineation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(3), pages 2223-2245, March.
    9. Bornmann, Lutz & Haunschild, Robin, 2022. "Empirical analysis of recent temporal dynamics of research fields: Annual publications in chemistry and related areas as an example," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    10. Yun, Jinhyuk & Ahn, Sejung & Lee, June Young, 2020. "Return to basics: Clustering of scientific literature using structural information," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    11. Gabriele Sampagnaro, 2023. "Keyword occurrences and journal specialization," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(10), pages 5629-5645, October.
    12. Lovro Šubelj & Nees Jan van Eck & Ludo Waltman, 2016. "Clustering Scientific Publications Based on Citation Relations: A Systematic Comparison of Different Methods," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-23, April.
    13. Xu, Shuo & Hao, Liyuan & Yang, Guancan & Lu, Kun & An, Xin, 2021. "A topic models based framework for detecting and forecasting emerging technologies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    14. R. Fileto Maciel & P. Saskia Bayerl & Marta Macedo Kerr Pinheiro, 2019. "Technical research innovations of the US national security system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 539-565, August.
    15. Leydesdorff, Loet & Bornmann, Lutz & Zhou, Ping, 2016. "Construction of a pragmatic base line for journal classifications and maps based on aggregated journal-journal citation relations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 902-918.
    16. Yun, Jinhyuk, 2022. "Generalization of bibliographic coupling and co-citation using the node split network," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    17. Sjögårde, Peter & Ahlgren, Per, 2018. "Granularity of algorithmically constructed publication-level classifications of research publications: Identification of topics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 133-152.
    18. Raminta Pranckutė, 2021. "Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-59, March.
    19. Nees Jan Eck & Ludo Waltman, 2017. "Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 1053-1070, May.
    20. Xu, Shuo & Hao, Liyuan & An, Xin & Yang, Guancan & Wang, Feifei, 2019. "Emerging research topics detection with multiple machine learning models," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    University departments; Ranking; Weighted Top Candidate method; Research discipline;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C80 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - General
    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:has:discpr:2106. 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: Nora Horvath (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iehashu.html .

    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.