, Volume 93, Issue 3, pp 1081–1099 | Cite as

Ranking of research output of universities on the basis of the multidimensional prestige of influential fields: Spanish universities as a case of study

  • J. A. GarcíaEmail author
  • Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez
  • J. Fdez-Valdivia
  • Daniel Torres-Salinas
  • Francisco Herrera


A university may be considered as having dimension-specific prestige in a scientific field (e.g., physics) when a particular bibliometric research performance indicator exceeds a threshold value. But a university has multidimensional prestige in a field of study only if it is influential with respect to a number of dimensions. The multidimensional prestige of influential fields at a given university takes into account that several prestige indicators should be used for a distinct analysis of the influence of a university in a particular field of study. After having identified the multidimensionally influential fields of study at a university their prestige scores can be aggregated to produce a summary measure of the multidimensional prestige of influential fields at this university, which satisfies numerous properties. Here we use this summary measure of multidimensional prestige to assess the comparative performance of Spanish Universities during the period 2006–2010.


Publication-based ranking Spanish universities Bibliometrics Multidimensional prestige Influential fields of study 



This research was sponsored by the Spanish Board for Science and Technology (MICINN) under grant TIN2010-15157 cofinanced with European FEDER funds. Thanks are due to the reviewers for their constructive suggestions.


  1. Aguillo, I. F., Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., & Priego, J. L. O. (2010). Comparing university rankings. Scientometrics, 85(1), 243–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aksnes, D. (2003). Characteristics of highly cited papers. Research Evaluation, 12, 159–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aksnes, D., & Sivertsen, G. (2004). The effect of highly cited papers on national citation indicators. Scientometrics, 59, 213–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alkire, S., & Foster, J. (2008). Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement, Working Paper 7, Oxford: Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI).Google Scholar
  5. Billaut, J. C., Bouyssou, D., & Vincke, P. (2010) Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking?: An MCDM view. Scientometrics, 84(1), 237–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2008). Selecting manuscripts for a high-impact journal through peer review: A citation analysis of communications that were accepted by Angewandte Chemie International Edition, or rejected but published elsewhere. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 59(11), 1841–1852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buela-Casal, G., Gutierrez-Martinez, O., Bermudez-Sanchez, M. P., & Vadillo-Muñoz, O. (2007). Comparative study of international academic rankings of universities. Scientometrics, 71(3), 349–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dridi, C., Adamowicz, W. L., & Weersink, A. (2010). Ranking of research output of agricultural economics departments in Canada and selected US universities. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 58, 272–282. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7976.2010.01188.x.Google Scholar
  9. Dusansky, R., & Vernon, C. J. (1998). Rankings of U.S. Economics Departments. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(1), 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garcia, J. A., Rodriguez-Sanchez, R., & Fdez-Valdivia, J. (2011a). Overall prestige of journals with ranking score above a given threshold. Scientometrics, 89(1), 229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Garcia, J. A., Rodriguez-Sanchez, R., & Fdez-Valdivia, J. (2011b). Ranking of the subject areas of scopus. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(10), 2013–2023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Garcia, J. A., Rodriguez-Sanchez, R., Fdez-Valdivia, J., & Martinez-Baena, J. (2012b). On first quartile journals which are not of highest impact. Scientometrics, 90(3), 925–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Garcia, J. A., Rodriguez-Sanchez, R., & Fdez-Valdivia, J. (2012a). A comparison of top economics departments in the US and EU on the basis of the multidimensional prestige of influential articles in 2010. Scientometrics. doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0708-7.
  14. Herrera, M., Roberts, D. C., & Gulbahce, N. (2010). Mapping the evolution of scientific fields. PLoS ONE, 5:5, e10355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 102(46), 16569–16572.Google Scholar
  16. Lillquist, E., & Green, S. (2010). The discipline dependence of citation statistics. Scientometrics, 84:3, 749–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Liu, N. C., & Cheng, Y. (2005). Academic ranking of world universities: Methodologies and problems. Higher Education in Europe, 30(2), 127–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. López-Illescas, C., Moya-Anegón, F., & Moed, H. F. (2011). A ranking of universities should account for differences in their disciplinary specialization. Scientometrics, 88(2), 563–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Peichl, A. Schaefer, T., & Scheicher, C. (2008). Measuring richness and poverty: A micro data application to Europe and Germany. IZA Discussion Paper, No. 3790.Google Scholar
  20. Peichl, A., & Pestel, N. (2010). Multidimensional measurement of richness: Theory and an application to Germany. IZA Discussion Paper, No. 4825.Google Scholar
  21. Porter, A. L., & Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81:3, 719–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rankings ISI of Spanish universities according to fields and scientific disciplines: Methodology, (2011). Retrieved Dec, 2011, from
  23. Sen, A. (1976). Poverty: An ordinal approach to measurement. Econometrica, 44(2), 219–231.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Academic ranking of world universities (ARWU). (2011). Shanghai: Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Retrieved Dec, 2011, from
  25. Shin, J. C., Toutkoushian, R. K., & Teichler, U. (Eds.). (2011). University rankings: Theoretical basis, methodology and impacts on global higher education (The Changing Academy—The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative Perspective). Dordrecht: Springer, ISBN 9789400711167.Google Scholar
  26. Takayama, N. (1979). Poverty, income inequality, and their measures: Professor Sen’s axiomatic approach reconsidered. Econometrica, 47(3), 747–759.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Torres-Salinas, D., Moreno-Torres, J. G., Delgado-López-Cózar, E., & Herrera, F. (2011a). A methodology for institution-field ranking based on a bidimensional analysis: The IFQ2A index. Scientometrics, 88, 771–786. doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0418-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Torres-Salinas, D., Moreno-Torres, J. G., Robinson-García, N., Delgado-López-Cózar, E., & Herrera, F. (2011b). Rankings ISI de las universidades españolas según campos y disciplinas científicas (2nd ed.). El Profesional de la Información, 20:6, 701–711.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. A. García
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez
    • 1
  • J. Fdez-Valdivia
    • 1
  • Daniel Torres-Salinas
    • 2
  • Francisco Herrera
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de Ciencias de la Computación e I. A.CITIC-UGR, Universidad de GranadaGranadaSpain
  2. 2.EC3: Evaluación de la Ciencia y la Comunicación Científica, Centro de Investigación Médica AplicadaUniversidad de NavarraPamplonaSpain

Personalised recommendations