Rickety numbers: Volatility of university rankings and policy implications

By Michaela Saisana, B. d’Hombres, Andrea Saltelli. 2011

335 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management Science and Operations Research, Political Science and International Relations

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/358e7efa1f8306b35f715176af1b81ef2c229c3b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Management Science and Operations Research

1. Paolo Paruolo
2. Andrea Saltelli
3. Michaela Saisana
4. Ludo Waltman
5. Nees Jan van Eck

In Political Science and International Relations

1. Ludo Waltman
2. Paolo Paruolo
3. Andrea Saltelli
4. Michaela Saisana
5. Paul F. Wouters
6. Robert J. W. Tijssen
7. Anthony F. J. van Raan

Citations in the corpus

• The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation (2012, background): “Like the Leiden Ranking, this is a bibliometrics-based ranking that focuses exclusively on scientific performance.”
• Ratings and rankings: voodoo or science? (2011, methodology): “For example, a policy maker might think of merging higher education institutions just because the most popular league table of universities puts a prize on larger universities, see Saisana et al. (2011).”
• Academic misconduct, misrepresentation and gaming: A reassessment (2019, neutral): “In China, university ranking systems are at play, in particular the widely used Shanghai Jiaotong University Academic Ranking of World Universities, which was initially funded by the Chinese government to provide ‘objective’ measures of its universities’ performance (Saisana et al., 2011).”