The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation

نویسندگان

  • Ludo Waltman
  • Clara Calero-Medina
  • Joost Kosten
  • Ed C. M. Noyons
  • Robert J. W. Tijssen
  • Nees Jan van Eck
  • Thed N. van Leeuwen
  • Anthony F. J. van Raan
  • Martijn S. Visser
  • Paul Wouters
چکیده

The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 is a ranking of universities based on bibliometric indicators of publication output, citation impact, and scientific collaboration. The ranking includes 500 major universities from 41 different countries. This paper provides an extensive discussion of the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012. The ranking is compared with other global university rankings, in particular the Academic Ranking of World Universities (commonly known as the Shanghai Ranking) and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings. Also, a detailed description is offered of the data collection methodology of the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 and of the indicators used in the ranking. Various innovations in the Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 are presented. These innovations include (1) an indicator based on counting a university’s highly cited publications, (2) indicators based on fractional rather than full counting of collaborative publications, (3) the possibility of excluding non-English language publications, and (4) the use of stability intervals. Finally, some comments are made on the interpretation of the ranking, and a number of limitations of the ranking are pointed out.

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

Bootstrapping to Evaluate Accuracy of Citation-Based Journal Indicators

Introduction Bibliometric indicators ranking aggregate units have a long tradition, including criticisms of methodology, interpretation and application. Despite the criticism, there is a demand for these indicators, and recent developments have led to improvements of methodology and interpretation. An essential element of these interpretations is to provide estimates of the accuracy, robustness...

متن کامل

What proportion of excellent papers makes an institution one of the best worldwide? Specifying thresholds for the interpretation of the results of the SCImago Institutions Ranking and the Leiden Ranking

University rankings generally present users with the problem of placing the results given for an institution in context. Only a comparison with the performance of all other institutions makes it possible to say exactly where an institution stands. In order to interpret the results of the SCImago Institutions Ranking (based on Scopus data) and the Leiden Ranking (based on Web of Science data), i...

متن کامل

Multilevel-statistical reformulation of citation-based university rankings: The Leiden ranking 2011/2012

Since the 1990s, with the heightened competition and the strong growth of the international higher education market, an increasing number of rankings have been created that measure the scientific performance of an institution based on data. The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012 (LR) was published early in 2012. Starting from Goldstein and Spiegelhalter’s (1996) recommendations for conducting quantitativ...

متن کامل

What Does it Mean that UCSB is Ranked Number 7 in the World in “ Research Impact ? ” Ted Bergstrom March 12 , 2012

has published the Leiden Ranking for 2011/2012 that " measures the scientific performance of 500 major universities worldwide. " They rank universities by several distinct criteria, based on publications by authors affiliated with the university, the journals in which they publish, and citations to works written in these journals. By the indicator that they call " the most important impact indi...

متن کامل

Normalization, CWTS indicators, and the Leiden Rankings: Differences in citation behavior at the level of fields

Van Raan et al. (2010; arXiv:1003.2113) have proposed a new indicator (MNCS) for field normalization. Since field normalization is also used in the Leiden Rankings of universities, we elaborate our critique of journal normalization in Opthof & Leydesdorff (2010; arXiv:1002.2769) in this rejoinder concerning field normalization. Fractional citation counting thoroughly solves the issue of normali...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

عنوان ژورنال:
  • JASIST

دوره 63  شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2012