Cargando…

Are university rankings useful to improve research? A systematic review

INTRODUCTION: Concerns about reproducibility and impact of research urge improvement initiatives. Current university ranking systems evaluate and compare universities on measures of academic and research performance. Although often useful for marketing purposes, the value of ranking systems when exa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vernon, Marlo M., Balas, E. Andrew, Momani, Shaher
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5841788/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29513762
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193762
_version_ 1783304797793812480
author Vernon, Marlo M.
Balas, E. Andrew
Momani, Shaher
author_facet Vernon, Marlo M.
Balas, E. Andrew
Momani, Shaher
author_sort Vernon, Marlo M.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Concerns about reproducibility and impact of research urge improvement initiatives. Current university ranking systems evaluate and compare universities on measures of academic and research performance. Although often useful for marketing purposes, the value of ranking systems when examining quality and outcomes is unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate usefulness of ranking systems and identify opportunities to support research quality and performance improvement. METHODS: A systematic review of university ranking systems was conducted to investigate research performance and academic quality measures. Eligibility requirements included: inclusion of at least 100 doctoral granting institutions, be currently produced on an ongoing basis and include both global and US universities, publish rank calculation methodology in English and independently calculate ranks. Ranking systems must also include some measures of research outcomes. Indicators were abstracted and contrasted with basic quality improvement requirements. Exploration of aggregation methods, validity of research and academic quality indicators, and suitability for quality improvement within ranking systems were also conducted. RESULTS: A total of 24 ranking systems were identified and 13 eligible ranking systems were evaluated. Six of the 13 rankings are 100% focused on research performance. For those reporting weighting, 76% of the total ranks are attributed to research indicators, with 24% attributed to academic or teaching quality. Seven systems rely on reputation surveys and/or faculty and alumni awards. Rankings influence academic choice yet research performance measures are the most weighted indicators. There are no generally accepted academic quality indicators in ranking systems. DISCUSSION: No single ranking system provides a comprehensive evaluation of research and academic quality. Utilizing a combined approach of the Leiden, Thomson Reuters Most Innovative Universities, and the SCImago ranking systems may provide institutions with a more effective feedback for research improvement. Rankings which extensively rely on subjective reputation and “luxury” indicators, such as award winning faculty or alumni who are high ranking executives, are not well suited for academic or research performance improvement initiatives. Future efforts should better explore measurement of the university research performance through comprehensive and standardized indicators. This paper could serve as a general literature citation when one or more of university ranking systems are used in efforts to improve academic prominence and research performance.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5841788
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58417882018-03-23 Are university rankings useful to improve research? A systematic review Vernon, Marlo M. Balas, E. Andrew Momani, Shaher PLoS One Research Article INTRODUCTION: Concerns about reproducibility and impact of research urge improvement initiatives. Current university ranking systems evaluate and compare universities on measures of academic and research performance. Although often useful for marketing purposes, the value of ranking systems when examining quality and outcomes is unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate usefulness of ranking systems and identify opportunities to support research quality and performance improvement. METHODS: A systematic review of university ranking systems was conducted to investigate research performance and academic quality measures. Eligibility requirements included: inclusion of at least 100 doctoral granting institutions, be currently produced on an ongoing basis and include both global and US universities, publish rank calculation methodology in English and independently calculate ranks. Ranking systems must also include some measures of research outcomes. Indicators were abstracted and contrasted with basic quality improvement requirements. Exploration of aggregation methods, validity of research and academic quality indicators, and suitability for quality improvement within ranking systems were also conducted. RESULTS: A total of 24 ranking systems were identified and 13 eligible ranking systems were evaluated. Six of the 13 rankings are 100% focused on research performance. For those reporting weighting, 76% of the total ranks are attributed to research indicators, with 24% attributed to academic or teaching quality. Seven systems rely on reputation surveys and/or faculty and alumni awards. Rankings influence academic choice yet research performance measures are the most weighted indicators. There are no generally accepted academic quality indicators in ranking systems. DISCUSSION: No single ranking system provides a comprehensive evaluation of research and academic quality. Utilizing a combined approach of the Leiden, Thomson Reuters Most Innovative Universities, and the SCImago ranking systems may provide institutions with a more effective feedback for research improvement. Rankings which extensively rely on subjective reputation and “luxury” indicators, such as award winning faculty or alumni who are high ranking executives, are not well suited for academic or research performance improvement initiatives. Future efforts should better explore measurement of the university research performance through comprehensive and standardized indicators. This paper could serve as a general literature citation when one or more of university ranking systems are used in efforts to improve academic prominence and research performance. Public Library of Science 2018-03-07 /pmc/articles/PMC5841788/ /pubmed/29513762 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193762 Text en © 2018 Vernon et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Vernon, Marlo M.
Balas, E. Andrew
Momani, Shaher
Are university rankings useful to improve research? A systematic review
title Are university rankings useful to improve research? A systematic review
title_full Are university rankings useful to improve research? A systematic review
title_fullStr Are university rankings useful to improve research? A systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Are university rankings useful to improve research? A systematic review
title_short Are university rankings useful to improve research? A systematic review
title_sort are university rankings useful to improve research? a systematic review
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5841788/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29513762
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193762
work_keys_str_mv AT vernonmarlom areuniversityrankingsusefultoimproveresearchasystematicreview
AT balaseandrew areuniversityrankingsusefultoimproveresearchasystematicreview
AT momanishaher areuniversityrankingsusefultoimproveresearchasystematicreview