Abstract
This study evaluates a total of 65 Turkish Private Universities considering their both academic and social benefits to the students. The principal aim of this paper is to provide a ranking for all Turkish Private Universities. Therefore, all universities can access their ranking since “University Ranking by Academic Performance” (URAP) only provides the ranking of 56 universities. Also, they can see their different impacts on several issues, such as environmental impacts, technological impacts, as well as academical impacts. The data for this study is obtained from open source reliable corporate sources such as Higher Education Institution of Turkey, Scopus and Univerlist web site. Univerlist is a university guide which provides informed-decision making support for students. It also supported this study. The findings indicate that the positions of private universities in the rankings of research, academic staff and opportunities do not vary much. However, their positions differ when the rankings for teaching, student choice and mobility indicators are considered. The findings of this paper could help students, administrators, and academicians to understand how the universities are performing in terms of many different perspectives.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Hossain, M., Ahmed, S.M.Z.: Use of scholarly communication and citation-based metrics as a basis for university ranking in developing country perspective Glob. Knowl. Mem. Commun. ahead-of-p (2020). https://doi.org/10.1108/gkmc-09-2019-0112
O'Meara, K., Meekins, M.: Inside rankings: Limitations and possibilities (Working Paper, 2012 Series, Issue No. 1). Boston, MA: New England Resource Center for Higher Education (2012). http://scholarworks.umb.edu/nerche_pubs/24/
Mussard, M., James, A.P.: Engineering the global university rankings: gold standards, limitations and implications. IEEE Access 6, 6765–6776 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2789326
Hou, Y.-W., Jacob, W.J.: What contributes more to the ranking of higher education institutions? A comparison of three world university rankings. Int. Educ. J. 16, 29–46 (2017)
Komotar, M.H.: Discourses on quality and quality assurance in higher education from the perspective of global university rankings. Qual. Assur. Educ. 28, 78–88 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1108/qae-05-2019-0055
Hou, A.Y.C., Morse, R., Chiang, C.-L.: An analysis of mobility in global rankings: making institutional strategic plans and positioning for building world-class universities. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 31(6), 841–857 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.662631
Perez-Esparrells, C., Orduna-Malea, E.: Do the technical universities exhibit distinct behaviour in global university rankings? A times higher education (THE) case study. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 48, 97–108 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2018.04.007
Reddy, K.S., Xie, E., Tang, Q.: Higher education, high-impact research, and world university rankings: a case of India and comparison with China. Pac. Sci. Rev. B Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2(1), 1–21 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psrb.2016.09.004
Jöns, H., Hoyler, M.: Global geographies of higher education: the perspective of world university rankings. Geoforum 46, 45–59 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.12.014
Dowsett, L.: Global university rankings and strategic planning: a case study of Australian institutional performance. J. High. Educ. Policy Manag. 1–17 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080x.2019.1701853
Olcay, G.A., Bulu, M.: Is measuring the knowledge creation of universities possible?: A review of university rankings. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 123, 153–160 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.03.029
Csató, L., Tóth, C.: University rankings from the revealed preferences of the applicants. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 286(1), 309–320 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2020.03.008
Meseguer-Martinez, A., Ros-Galvez, A., Rosa-Garcia, A.: Linking YouTube and university rankings: research performance as predictor of online video impact. Telemat. Inform. 43, 101264 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.101264
Kunsch, P.L., Ishizaka, A.: Multiple-criteria performance ranking based on profile distributions: an application to university research evaluations. Math. Comput. Simul. 154, 48–64 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matcom.2018.05.021
Ivančević, V., Luković, I.: National university rankings based on open data: a case study from Serbia. Procedia Comput. Sci. 126, 1516–1525 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2018.08.124
Alma, B., Coşkun, E., Övendireli, E.: University ranking systems and proposal of a theoretical framework for ranking of turkish universities: a case of management departments. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 235, 128–138 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.11.008
Kosztyán, Z.T., Orbán-Mihálykó, É., Mihálykó, C., Csányi, V.V., Telcs, A.: Analyzing and clustering students’ application preferences in higher education. J. Appl. Stat. 1–23 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/02664763.2019.1709052
Lukman, R., Krajnc, D., Glavič, P.: University ranking using research, educational and environmental indicators. J. Clean. Prod. 18(7), 619–628 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.09.015
Ragazzi, M., Ghidini, F.: Environmental sustainability of universities: critical analysis of a green ranking. Energy Procedia 119, 111–120 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.07.054
Torres-Samuel, M., Vásquez, C.L., Cardozo, M.L., Bucci, N., Viloria, A., Cabrera, D.: Clustering of top 50 Latin American universities in SIR, QS, ARWU, and webometrics rankings. Procedia Comput. Sci. 160, 467–472 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.11.063
Aguillo, I.F., Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., Ortega, J.L.: Comparing university rankings. Scientometrics 85(1), 243–256 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0190-z
Millot, B.: International rankings: universities vs. higher education systems. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 40, 156–165 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2014.10.004
UniverList: University guidance platform (2020). https://univerlist.com/. Accessed 12 June 2020
ARWU: Ranking methodology of academic ranking of world universities (2019). www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU-Methodology-2019.html. Accessed 11 June 2020
QS World University Rankings: QS world university rankings: top universities – methodology (2019). www.topuniversities.com/qs-world-university-rankings/methodology. Accessed 11 June 2020
Times higher education world university rankings: world university rankings 2019: methodology (2019). https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/world-university-rankings-2019-methodology. Accessed 11 June 2020
Webometrics ranking of world universities: ranking web of universities (2019). http://www.webometrics.info/en/current_edition. Accessed 11 June 2020
NTU Ranking: Performance ranking of scientific papers for world universities (2019). http://nturanking.lis.ntu.edu.tw/methodoloyg/indicators. Accessed 20 June 2011
SCImago Institutions Rankings: SCImago institutions ranking: SIR methodology. https://www.scimagoir.com/methodology.php. Accessed 11 June 2020
URAP: University ranking by academic performance: national methodology (2019). http://tr.urapcenter.org/2019/2019.php. Accessed 11 June 2020
URAP: University ranking by academic performance: international methodology (2019). https://www.urapcenter.org/Methodology. Accessed 11 June 2020
Van Raan, A.F.J.: Fatal attraction: conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics 62(1), 133–143 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0008-6
Billaut, J.-C., Bouyssou, D., Vincke, P.: Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking? Scientometrics 84(1), 237–263 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0115-x
Huang, M.-H.: Opening the black box of QS world university rankings. Res. Eval. 21(1), 71–78 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvr003
Basu, A., Banshal, S.K., Singhal, K., Singh, V.K.: Designing a composite index for research performance evaluation at the national or regional level: ranking central universities in India. Scientometrics 107(3), 1171–1193 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1935-0
YOK: Higher education management information system (2020). https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/. Accessed 07 June 2020
TUMA: Turkish university satisfaction survey (2019). https://www.uniar.net/tuma. Accessed 07 June 2020
Acknowledgment
This study was supported by Univerlist, which is a platform of the universities, in the data collection and analysis steps.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Kızılay, D., Ödemiş, M. (2021). Ranking of Private Turkish Universities: Proposal of New Indicators. In: Durakbasa, N.M., Gençyılmaz, M.G. (eds) Digital Conversion on the Way to Industry 4.0. ISPR 2020. Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62784-3_83
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-62784-3_83
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-62783-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-62784-3
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)