URAP-TR: a national ranking for Turkish universities based on academic performance
- 535 Downloads
This study describes the basic methodological approach and the results of URAP-TR, the first national ranking system for Turkish universities. URAP-TR is based on objective bibliometric data resources and includes both size-dependent and size-independent indicators that balance total academic performance with performance per capita measures. In the context of Turkish national university rankings, the paper discusses the implications of employing multiple size-independent and size-dependent indicators on national university rankings. Fine-grained ranking categories for Turkish universities are identified through an analysis of ranking results across multiple indicators.
KeywordsNational university ranking Higher education Academic performance Size dependency Ranking indicators
The research reported in this article has been partially supported by METU Scientific Research Projects BAP-08-11-2012-008 ‘Academic Performance of World Universities’. We thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions.
- Cattell, J. M. (1906a). American men of science. Utrecht: Science Press.Google Scholar
- DiStefano, C., Zhu, M., & Mindrila, D. (2009). Understanding and using factor scores: Considerations for the applied researcher. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14(20), 1–11.Google Scholar
- Ellis, H. (1904). A study of British genius. London: Hurst and Blackett.Google Scholar
- Galton, F. (1875). English men of science: Their nature and nurture. New York City: D. Appleton.Google Scholar
- Hughes, R. M. (1925). A study of the graduate schools of America. Oxford, OH: Miami University.Google Scholar
- InCites. (2013). Total number of documents published by Turkey in 2007-2011 for ESI subject categories. Thomson Reuters. http://incites.isiknowledge.com/.
- Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP). (2007). College and university ranking systems: Global perspectives and American challenges. Washington, DC: IHEP.Google Scholar
- Jones, L. V., Lindzey, G., & Coggeshall, P. E. (1982). An assessment of research-doctorate programs in the United States: Social and behavioral sciences. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Lykes, R. W. (1975). Higher education and the United States Office of Education (1867-1953). Superintendent of Documents, U.S: Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- Maclean, A. H. H. (1900). Where we get our best men: Some statistics showing their nationalities, counties, towns, schools, universities, and other antecedents, 1837-1897. Marshall, Hamilton: Simpking.Google Scholar
- Maclean’s. (2012). Maclean’s ranking indicators – Maclean’s On Campus. Retrieved May 24, 2013, from http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2012/11/02/macleans-ranking-indicators-2/.
- Sponsler, B. A. (2009). The Role and Relevance of Rankings in Higher Education Policymaking. Institute for Higher Education Policy: Issue Brief.Google Scholar
- Van Raan, A. F. J. (2004). Measuring science. Capita selecta of current main issues. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 19–50). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
- Wegner, E. L. (1967). The relationship of college characteristics to graduation. Madison: University of Wisconsin–Madison.Google Scholar
- Zhang, J., & Cai, F. (2009). Food demand and nutritional elasticity in poor rural areas of China. In China’s Economy: Rural Reform and Agricultural Development (Vol. 1, pp. 309–335). World Scientific.Google Scholar