Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 108, Issue 2, pp 673–691 | Cite as

Open scholarship ranking of Chinese research universities

  • Wenqiang Fan
  • Qinghui Liu
Article

Abstract

Universities and the members of their faculties, by means of open access, open education, and social media engagement, contribute to many publicly accessible resources of academic values, i.e., open scholarship. To encourage universities to contribute even more to open scholarship, in a more focused and sustainable way, the methodology of Open Scholarship Ranking (OSR) was constructed after a thorough examination and several adjustments based on the Berlin Principles on Ranking of Higher Education Institutions (hereinafter referred to as “the Berlin Principles”). The OSR has met most of the Berlin Principles, and new adjustments helped to improve its quality. A significant correlation has been observed between the OSR results of Chinese research universities and the results from existing comprehensive university rankings. The OSR provides an evaluation framework for universities’ performance in open scholarship, and can be regarded as an acceptable way of ranking universities.

Keywords

Open scholarship University ranking Open access Open education Social scholarship Digital scholarship 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the two anonymous referees for their constructive and valuable comments. This paper is supported by Research Funds from the Ministry of Education for Humanities and Social Sciences (China, No. 12YJCZH038) and Fundamental Research Funds of the Central Universities (China).

References

  1. Aguillo, I. F., Ortega, J. L., & Fernández, M. (2008). Webometric ranking of world universities: Introduction, methodology, and future developments. Higher Education in Europe, 33(2–3), 233–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguillo, I. F., Ortega, J. L., Fernández, M., & Utrilla, A. M. (2010). Indicators for a webometric ranking of open access repositories. Scientometrics, 82(3), 477–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, T., & McConkey, B. (2009). Development of disruptive open access journals. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 39(3), 71–87.Google Scholar
  4. Antelman, K. (2004). Do open-access articles have a greater research impact? College & Research Libraries, 65(5), 372–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ayers, E. L. (2013). Does digital scholarship have a future? Educause Review, 48(4), 24–34.Google Scholar
  6. Bartling, S., & Friesike, S. (2014). Towards another scientific revolution. In S. Bartling & S. Friesike (Eds.), Opening science: The evolving guide on how the Internet is changing research, collaboration and scholarly publishing (pp. 3–15). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bastedo, M. N., & Bowman, N. A. (2011). College rankings as an interorganizational dependency: Establishing the foundation for strategic and institutional accounts. Research in Higher Education, 52(1), 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borgman, C. L. (2007). Scholarship in the digital age: Information, infrastructure, and the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bornmann, L. (2014). Validity of altmetrics data for measuring societal impact: A study using data from Altmetric and F1000Prime. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 935–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, N.J: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Google Scholar
  11. Boyer, E. L. (1996). The Scholarship of Engagement. Journal of Public Service & Outreach, 1(1), 11–20.Google Scholar
  12. Burton, G. (2009). The open scholar. Academic Evolution. http://www.academicevolution.com/2009/08/the-open-scholar.html. Accessed 1 Sep 2015.
  13. Çakır, M. P., Acartürk, C., Alaşehir, O., & Çilingir, C. (2015). A comparative analysis of global and national university ranking systems. Scientometrics, 103(3), 813–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen, Z., Alcorn, B., Christensen, G., Eriksson, N., Koller, D., & Emanuel, E. J. (2015). Who’s Benefiting from MOOCs, and Why. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2015/09/whos-benefiting-from-moocs-and-why. Accessed 1 Sep 2015.
  15. Cheng, Y., & Liu, N. C. (2008). Examining major rankings according to the Berlin principles. Higher Education in Europe, 33(2–3), 201–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Claassen, C. (2015). Measuring university quality. Scientometrics, 104(3), 793–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Crow, R. (2002). The case for institutional repositories: A SPARC position paper. Washington, DC: The Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition. http://www.sparc.arl.org/sites/default/files/media_files/instrepo.pdf. Accessed 1 Sep 2015.
  18. Davis, P. M. (2011). Open access, readership, citations: A randomized controlled trial of scientific journal publishing. The FASEB Journal, 25(7), 2129–2134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De Rassenfosse, G., & Williams, R. (2015). Rules of engagement: Measuring connectivity in national systems of higher education. Higher Education, 70(6), 941–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dill, D. D., & Soo, M. (2005). Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross-national analysis of university ranking systems. Higher Education, 49(4), 495–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Docampo, D., & Cram, L. (2014). On the effects of institutional size in university classifications: The case of the Shanghai ranking. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1325–1346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Esposito, A. (2013). Neither digital or open. Just researchers: Views on digital/open scholarship practices in an Italian university. First Monday, 18(1). http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3881. Accessed 1 Sep 2015.
  23. Fan, W. (2015). Contribution of the institutional repositories of the Chinese Academy of Sciences to the webometric indicators of their home institutions. Scientometrics, 105(3), 1889–1909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fan, W., & Liu, Q. (2013). Comparisons of e-Learning, online education and OER in top universities between China and America and its inspirations. Modern Educational Technology, 23(2), 23–26.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. Fan, W., & Liu, Q. (2014a). Web-influence evaluation research achievements of university from view of open access. Journal of Intelligence, 33(4), 35–40.Google Scholar
  26. Fan, W., & Liu, Q. (2014b). Evaluation of university teaching academic network influence. Information and Documentation Services, 6, 98–102.Google Scholar
  27. Fan, W., & Liu, Q. (2014c). On the academic effects of universities civic engagement in cyber space. Journal of Ningbo University (Educational Science Edition), 36(4), 43–48.Google Scholar
  28. Fan, W., Liu, Q., Lei, Q., & Zheng, X. (2015). Public oriented evaluation of web-influence of universities’ scholarship. China Higher Education Research, 5, 49–54.Google Scholar
  29. Federkeil, G., van Vught, F. A., & Westerhejden, D. F. (2012). An evaluation and critique of current rankings. In F. A. van Vught & F. Ziegele (Eds.), Multimensional ranking: The design and development of U-multirank (pp. 39–70). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Garnett, F., & Ecclesfield, N. (2012). Towards a framework for co-creating open scholarship. Research in Learning Technology, 19(1), 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Getz, M. (2005). Open scholarship and research universities. http://ideas.repec.org/p/van/wpaper/0517.html. Accessed 1 Mar 2015.
  32. Goldstein, H., Bergman, E. M., & Maier, G. (2012). University mission creep? Comparing EU and US faculty views of university involvement in regional economic development and commercialization. The Annals of Regional Science, 50(2), 453–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Greenhow, C., & Gleason, B. (2014). Social scholarship: Reconsidering scholarly practices in the age of social media. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(3), 392–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Greyson, D., Vezina, K., Morrison, H., Taylor, D., & Black, C. (2009). University supports for open access: A Canadian national survey. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 39(3), 1–32.Google Scholar
  35. Hazelkorn, E. (2008). Learning to live with league tables and ranking: The experience of institutional leaders. Higher Education Policy, 21(2), 193–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Heap, T., & Minocha, S. (2012). An empirically grounded framework to guide blogging for digital scholarship. Research in Learning Technology, 20(suppl), 176–188.Google Scholar
  37. Hilton, J., & Wiley, D. (2011). Open-access textbooks and financial sustainability: A case study on flat world knowledge. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(5). http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/960/1860. Accessed 1 Mar 2015.
  38. Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56(3), 303–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kirkup, G. (2010). Academic blogging: Academic practice and academic identity. London Review of Education, 8(1), 75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kjellberg, S. (2010). I am a blogging researcher: Motivations for blogging in a scholarly context. First Monday, 15(8), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lafferty, N. T., & Manca, A. (2015). Perspectives on social media in and as research: A synthetic review. International Review of Psychiatry, 27(2), 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Magnan, S. S. (2007). Commentary: The promise of digital scholarship in SLA research and language pedagogy. Language Learning & Technology, 11(3), 152–155.Google Scholar
  43. Marhl, M., & Pausita, A. (2011). Third mission indicators for new ranking methodologies. Evaluation in Higher Education, 5(1), 43–64.Google Scholar
  44. McCormick, A. C. (2008). The complex interplay between classification and ranking of colleges and universities: Should the Berlin Principles apply equally to classification? Higher Education in Europe, 33(2–3), 209–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Montesinos, P., Carot, J. M., Martinez, J.-M., & Mora, F. (2008). Third mission ranking for world class universities: Beyond teaching and research. Higher Education in Europe, 33(2/3), 259–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Morse, R. J. (2008). The real and perceived influence of the US News ranking. Higher Education in Europe, 33(2–3), 349–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Niyazov, Y., Vogel, C., Price, R., Lund, B., Judd, D., Schwartzman, J., & Shron, M. (2015). Open access meets discoverability: Citations to articles posted to Academia.edu. https://www.academia.edu/12297791/Open_Access_Meets_Discoverability_Citations_to_Articles_Posted_to_Academia.edu. Accessed 1 Oct 2015.
  48. Ordorika, I., & Lloyd, M. (2015). International rankings and the contest for university hegemony. Journal of Education Policy, 30(3), 385–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pearce, N., Weller, M., Scanlon, E., & Kinsley, S. (2010). Digital scholarship considered: How new technologies could transform academic work. In education, 16(1). http://ineducation.ca/index.php/ineducation/article/view/44 Accessed 1 Oct 2015.
  50. Porter, S. (2015). The economics of MOOCs: A sustainable future? The Bottom Line, 28(1/2), 52–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Purdy, J. P., & Walker, J. R. (2010). Valuing digital scholarship: Exploring the changing realities of intellectual work. Profession, 1, 177–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ranger, M., & Bultitude, K. (2014). ‘The kind of mildly curious sort of science interested person like me’: Science bloggers’ practices relating to audience recruitment. Public Understanding of Science,. doi: 10.1177/0963662514555054.Google Scholar
  53. Solomon, D. J. (2006). Strategies for developing sustainable open access scholarly journals. First Monday, 11(6). http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1335/1255. Accessed 1 Sept 2015.
  54. Sowter, B. (2008). The Times Higher Education Supplement and Quacquarelli Symonds (THES–QS) World University Rankings: New Developments in Ranking Methodology. Higher Education in Europe, 33(2–3), 345–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Suber, P. (2012). Open access. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  56. Trinidad, S. B., Fullerton, S. M., Bares, J. M., Jarvik, G. P., Larson, E. B., & Burke, W. (2010). Genomic research and wide data sharing: Views of prospective participants. Genetics in Medicine, 12(8), 486–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Van Dyke, N. (2005). Twenty years of university report cards. Higher Education in Europe, 30(2), 103–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2012a). Assumptions and challenges of open scholarship. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4, 166–189.Google Scholar
  59. Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2012b). Networked participatory scholarship: Emergent techno-cultural pressures toward open and digital scholarship in online networks. Computers & Education, 58(2), 766–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Weller, M. (2011). The digital scholar: How technology is transforming scholarly practice. London: Bloomsbury Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wiley, D. (2006). Open source, openness, and higher education. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 3(1). http://nsuworks.nova.edu/innovate/vol3/iss1/1. Accessed 1 Sept 2015.
  62. Wiley, D., & Green, C. (2012). Why openness in education? In D. Oblinger (Ed.), Game changers: Education and information technologies (pp. 81–89). Louisville: Educause.Google Scholar
  63. Williams, R., & Van Dyke, N. (2007). Measuring the international standing of universities with an application to Australian universities. Higher Education, 53(6), 819–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Higher EducationBeihang UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations