Efficiency analysis of the visibility of Latin American universities and their impact on the ranking web

The study analyzes the factors that contribute to the technical efficiency of the visibility of the universities included in the Top100 of the Latin American Universities Ranking Web published by Webometrics database in January, 2017. Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) was used to calculate the contributions of input variables to efficiency. As data sources for inputs, the study considers the academic data published on the web of each university, the content and profiles displayed from Google Scholar (GS), data by university published in ResearchGate as a scientific network, and finally, data from social networks as Twitter and Facebook accounts of the respective institutions. The postgraduate offer, visibility in GS, and the use of scientific and social networks contribute favorably to the web positioning of Latin American universities

Factors Influencing Cities' Publishing Efficiency

Recently, a vast number of scientific publications have been produced in cities in emerging countries. It has long been observed that the publication output of Beijing has exceeded that of any other city in the world, including such leading centres of science as Boston, New York, London, Paris, and Tokyo. Researchers have suggested that, instead of focusing on cities' total publication output, the quality of the output in terms of the number of highly cited papers should be examined. However, in the period from 2014 to 2016, Beijing produced as many highly cited papers as Boston, London, or New York. In this paper, I propose another method to measure cities' publishing performance; I focus on cities' publishing efficiency (i.e., the ratio of highly cited articles to all articles produced in that city). First, I rank 554 cities based on their publishing efficiency, then I reveal some general factors influencing cities' publishing efficiency. The general factors examined in this paper are as follows: the linguistic environment, cities' economic development level, the location of excellent organisations, cities' international collaboration patterns, and the productivity of scientific disciplines

Applied Evaluative Informetrics: Part 1

This manuscript is a preprint version of Part 1 (General Introduction and Synopsis) of the book Applied Evaluative Informetrics, to be published by Springer in the summer of 2017. This book presents an introduction to the field of applied evaluative informetrics, and is written for interested scholars and students from all domains of science and scholarship. It sketches the field's history, recent achievements, and its potential and limits. It explains the notion of multi-dimensional research performance, and discusses the pros and cons of 28 citation-, patent-, reputation- and altmetrics-based indicators. In addition, it presents quantitative research assessment as an evaluation science, and focuses on the role of extra-informetric factors in the development of indicators, and on the policy context of their application. It also discusses the way forward, both for users and for developers of informetric tools.Comment: The posted version is a preprint (author copy) of Part 1 (General Introduction and Synopsis) of a book entitled Applied Evaluative Bibliometrics, to be published by Springer in the summer of 201

Comparison of websites based on webometrics index, Alexa\u27s traffic rating and estimated value of Sinium Case study: Islamic Azad University (IAU), five units

The purpose here is to compare the status of website of five IAU unites based on webometrics, Alexa\u27s traffic rating and estimated value of Sinium. This applied research is run through a descriptive method, where Webometrics index, Alexa\u27s traffic rating and estimated value of Sinium are applied. The statistical population consists of five: IAU Kerman, Shiraz, Bushehr, Bandar Abbas and Ahwaz units’ websites. The results reveal that Ahvaz unit with the average of 10356 pages is ranked the highest and the first and Bushehr unit with the lowest 4441 pages is ranked the last. As to the enriched files, Kerman and Ahwaz units are ranked first and last, with 2248 and 459 files, respectively. As to visibility (internal linkage), Kerman and Ahwaz units rank first and last with 9th and 5th rankings, respectively. As to Sinium, Shiraz and Bandar-Abbas units have the highest and the lowest estimated values of $18144 and$3780 respectively. In general, based on the webometrics database (size, visibility, formatted files and count of articles in Google Scalar) and the traffic rating of Alexa\u27s website and the estimated value of the web site, Shiraz unit has the highest performance among IAU units. It is assumed that national and global universities in terms of having characteristics and elements like: the active presence of professors and researchers, graduate programs promotion, credibility, up-to-date, user-friendly, free access to articles, popularity, etc. are of higher status. As to their websites in terms of visibility, size, rank, monitoring, traffic rating, and increased value, they are ranked higher

Comparison of websites based on webometrics index, Alexa\u27s traffic rating and estimated value of Sinium Case study: Islamic Azad University (IAU), five units

The purpose here is to compare the status of website of five IAU unites based on webometrics, Alexa\u27s traffic rating and estimated value of Sinium. This applied research is run through a descriptive method, where Webometrics index, Alexa\u27s traffic rating and estimated value of Sinium are applied. The statistical population consists of five: IAU Kerman, Shiraz, Bushehr, Bandar Abbas and Ahvaz units’ websites. The results reveal that Ahvaz unit with the average of 10356 pages is ranked the highest and the first and Bushehr unit with the lowest 4441 pages is ranked the last. As to the enriched files, Kerman and Ahvaz units are ranked first and last, with 2248 and 459 files, respectively. As to visibility (internal linkage), Kerman and Ahvaz units rank first and last with 9th and 5th rankings, respectively. As to Sinium, Shiraz and Bandar-Abbas units have the highest and the lowest estimated values of $18144 and$3780 respectively. In general, based on the webometrics database (size, visibility, formatted files and count of articles in Google Scalar) and the traffic rating of Alexa\u27s website and the estimated value of the web site, Shiraz unit has the highest performance among IAU units. It is assumed that national and global universities in terms of having characteristics and elements like: the active presence of professors and researchers, graduate programs promotion, credibility, up-to-date, user-friendly, free access to articles, popularity, etc. are of higher status. As to their websites in terms of visibility, size, rank, monitoring, traffic rating, and increased value, they are ranked higher

Determinants of researchgate (rg) score for the top 100 of Latin American universities at webometrics

This paper has the purpose of establishing the variables that explain the behavior of ResearchGate for the Top100 Latin American universities positioned in Webometrics database for January 2017. For this purpose, a search was carried out to get information about postgraduate courses and professors at the institutional websites and social networks, obtaining documents registered in Google Scholar. For the data analysis, the econometric technique of ordinary least squares was applied, a cross-sectional study for the year 2017 was conducted, and the individuals studied were the first 100 Latin American universities, obtaining a coefficient of determination of 73.82%. The results show that the most significant variables are the number of programs, the number of teacher’s profiles registered in Google Scholar, the number of subscribers to the institutional YouTube channel, and the GDP per capita of the university origin country. Variables such as (i) number of undergraduate programs, (ii) number of scientific journals; (iii) number of documents found under the university domain; (iv) H-index of the 1st profile of researcher at the university; (vi) number of members of the institution; (v) SIR Scimago ranking of Higher Education Institutions; (vi) number of tweets published in the institutional account; (vii) number of followers in the Twitter institutional account; (vii) number of “likes” given to the institutional count, were not significantCorporación Universitaria Minuto de Dios, Fundación Universitaria Konrad Lorenz, Universidad Nacional Experimental Politécnica, Universidad Centroccidental “Lisandro Alvarado, Universidad de la Costa

Efficiency Analysis of Graduate Alumni Insertion into the Labor Market as a Sustainable Development Goal

The assumption that greater education levels of a given population leads to better employability levels thanks to higher education institutions (HEI) is widely known. However, most of the research related to HEI is focused on the determination of efficiency levels from an eminently academic perspective. The objective of this research is to carry out a comparative analysis of the efficiency degree of Latin American universities in terms of labor insertion for their graduate alumni, in order to evaluate the Sustainable Development Goal 8 related to decent work and economic growth. The data enveloping analysis (DEA) methodology was implemented. Main results showed different levels of labor efficiency among the studied institutions that were classified into eight groups of universities. Likewise, it was noted that Latin American university students showed employment levels above those of workers with lower levels of education and training

Impact of College Rankings on Institutional Decision Making: Four Country Case Studies

Examines how global or national rankings influence colleges' strategic positioning and planning, staffing and organization, quality assurance, resource allocation and fundraising, and admissions and financial aid in Australia, Canada, Germany, and Japan

A Comparative Analysis between Global University Rankings and Environmental Sustainability of Universities

[EN] Global University Rankings (GURs) intend to measure the performance of universities worldwide. Other rankings have recently appeared that evaluate the creation of environmental policies in universities, e.g., the Universitas Indonesia (UI) GreenMetric. This work aims to analyze the interaction between the Top 500 of such rankings by considering the geographical location of universities and their typologies. A descriptive analysis and a statistical logistical regression analysis were carried out. The former demonstrated that European and North American universities predominated the Top 500 of GURs, while Asian universities did so in the Top 500 of the UI GreenMetric ranking, followed by European universities. Older universities predominated the Top 500 of GURs, while younger ones did so in the Top 500 of the UI GreenMetric ranking. The second analysis demonstrated that although Latin American universities were barely present in the Top 500 of GURs, the probability of them appearing in the Top 500 of the UI GreenMetric ranking was 5-fold. We conclude that a low association exists between universities' academic performance and their commitment to the natural environment in the heart of their institutions. It would be advisable for GURs to include environmental indicators to promote sustainability at universities and to contribute to climate change.Muñoz-Suárez, M.; Guadalajara Olmeda, MN.; Osca Lluch, JM. (2020). A Comparative Analysis between Global University Rankings and Environmental Sustainability of Universities. Sustainability. 12(14):1-19. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145759S1191214Dill, 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. doi:10.1007/s10734-004-1746-8Shehatta, I., & Mahmood, K. (2016). Correlation among top 100 universities in the major six global rankings: policy implications. Scientometrics, 109(2), 1231-1254. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2065-4Basu, A., Malhotra, D., Seth, T., & Kumar Muhuri, P. (2019). Global Distribution of Google Scholar Citations: A Size-independent Institution-based Analysis. Journal of Scientometric Research, 8(2), 72-78. doi:10.5530/jscires.8.2.12Mussard, M., & James, A. P. (2018). Engineering the Global University Rankings: Gold Standards, Limitations and Implications. IEEE Access, 6, 6765-6776. doi:10.1109/access.2017.2789326Olcay, G. A., & Bulu, M. (2017). Is measuring the knowledge creation of universities possible?: A review of university rankings. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 153-160. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.03.029Moed, H. F. (2016). A critical comparative analysis of five world university rankings. Scientometrics, 110(2), 967-990. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2212-yKivinen, O., Hedman, J., & Artukka, K. (2017). Scientific publishing and global university rankings. How well are top publishing universities recognized? Scientometrics, 112(1), 679-695. doi:10.1007/s11192-017-2403-1Alcaide, M. Á., De La Poza, E., & Guadalajara, N. (2019). Assessing the Sustainability of High-Value Brands in the IT Sector. Sustainability, 11(6), 1598. doi:10.3390/su11061598Massaro, M., Dumay, J., Garlatti, A., & Dal Mas, F. (2018). Practitioners’ views on intellectual capital and sustainability. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 19(2), 367-386. doi:10.1108/jic-02-2017-0033De Filippo, D., Sandoval-Hamón, L. A., Casani, F., & Sanz-Casado, E. (2019). Spanish Universities’ Sustainability Performance and Sustainability-Related R&D+I. Sustainability, 11(20), 5570. doi:10.3390/su11205570Trencher, G., Nagao, M., Chen, C., Ichiki, K., Sadayoshi, T., Kinai, M., … Yarime, M. (2017). Implementing Sustainability Co-Creation between Universities and Society: A Typology-Based Understanding. Sustainability, 9(4), 594. doi:10.3390/su9040594Sonetti, G., Lombardi, P., & Chelleri, L. (2016). True Green and Sustainable University Campuses? Toward a Clusters Approach. Sustainability, 8(1), 83. doi:10.3390/su8010083Zou, Y., Zhao, W., Mason, R., & Li, M. (2015). Comparing Sustainable Universities between the United States and China: Cases of Indiana University and Tsinghua University. Sustainability, 7(9), 11799-11817. doi:10.3390/su70911799An, Y., Davey, H., & Harun, H. (2017). Sustainability Reporting at a New Zealand Public University: A Longitudinal Analysis. Sustainability, 9(9), 1529. doi:10.3390/su9091529Blasco, N., Brusca, I., & Labrador, M. (2019). Assessing Sustainability and Its Performance Implications: An Empirical Analysis in Spanish Public Universities. Sustainability, 11(19), 5302. doi:10.3390/su11195302Alshuwaikhat, H., Adenle, Y., & Saghir, B. (2016). Sustainability Assessment of Higher Education Institutions in Saudi Arabia. Sustainability, 8(8), 750. doi:10.3390/su8080750Xiong, W., & Mok, K. H. (2020). Sustainability Practices of Higher Education Institutions in Hong Kong: A Case Study of a Sustainable Campus Consortium. Sustainability, 12(2), 452. doi:10.3390/su12020452Leal Filho, W., Emblen-Perry, K., Molthan-Hill, P., Mifsud, M., Verhoef, L., Azeiteiro, U. M., … Price, E. (2019). Implementing Innovation on Environmental Sustainability at Universities Around the World. Sustainability, 11(14), 3807. doi:10.3390/su11143807Brusca, I., Labrador, M., & Larran, M. (2018). The challenge of sustainability and integrated reporting at universities: A case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 188, 347-354. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.292Alonso-García, S., Aznar-Díaz, I., Cáceres-Reche, M.-P., Trujillo-Torres, J.-M., & Romero-Rodríguez, J.-M. (2019). Systematic Review of Good Teaching Practices with ICT in Spanish Higher Education. Trends and Challenges for Sustainability. Sustainability, 11(24), 7150. doi:10.3390/su11247150Von Hauff, M., & Nguyen, T. (2014). Universities as Potential Actors for Sustainable Development. Sustainability, 6(5), 3043-3063. doi:10.3390/su6053043Roos, N., & Guenther, E. (2020). Sustainability management control systems in higher education institutions from measurement to management. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 21(1), 144-160. doi:10.1108/ijshe-01-2019-0030Caeiro, S., Sandoval Hamón, L. A., Martins, R., & Bayas Aldaz, C. E. (2020). Sustainability Assessment and Benchmarking in Higher Education Institutions—A Critical Reflection. Sustainability, 12(2), 543. doi:10.3390/su12020543Lehmann, M., Christensen, P., Thrane, M., & Jørgensen, T. H. (2009). University engagement and regional sustainability initiatives: some Danish experiences. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(12), 1067-1074. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.03.013Salvioni, D. M., Franzoni, S., & Cassano, R. (2017). Sustainability in the Higher Education System: An Opportunity to Improve Quality and Image. Sustainability, 9(6), 914. doi:10.3390/su9060914Li, X., Ni, G., & Dewancker, B. (2019). Improving the attractiveness and accessibility of campus green space for developing a sustainable university environment. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 26(32), 33399-33415. doi:10.1007/s11356-019-06319-zSuwartha, N., & Berawi, M. A. (2019). The Role of UI GreenMetric as a Global Sustainable Rankings for Higher Education Institutions. International Journal of Technology, 10(5), 862. doi:10.14716/ijtech.v10i5.3670Puertas, R., & Marti, L. (2019). Sustainability in Universities: DEA-GreenMetric. Sustainability, 11(14), 3766. doi:10.3390/su11143766Academic Ranking of World Universities-ARWUhttp://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU-Methodology-2017.htmlQS Top University Rankingshttps://www.topuniversities.com/qs-world-university-rankings/methodologyTHE World University Rankingshttps://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankingsRanking Web de Universidades-Webometricshttp://www.webometrics.info/en/About_UsLiu, Z., Moshi, G. J., & Awuor, C. M. (2019). Sustainability and Indicators of Newly Formed World-Class Universities (NFWCUs) between 2010 and 2018: Empirical Analysis from the Rankings of ARWU, QSWUR and THEWUR. Sustainability, 11(10), 2745. doi:10.3390/su11102745Marginson, S. (2013). University Rankings and Social Science. European Journal of Education, 49(1), 45-59. doi:10.1111/ejed.12061Hauptman Komotar, M. (2019). Global university rankings and their impact on the internationalisation of higher education. European Journal of Education, 54(2), 299-310. doi:10.1111/ejed.12332Peters, M. A. (2017). Global university rankings: Metrics, performance, governance. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 51(1), 5-13. doi:10.1080/00131857.2017.1381472Hosier, M., & Hoolash, B. K. A. (2017). The effect of methodological variations on university rankings and associated decision-making and policy. Studies in Higher Education, 44(1), 201-214. doi:10.1080/03075079.2017.1356282Safón, V. (2019). Inter-ranking reputational effects: an analysis of the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE) reputational relationship. Scientometrics, 121(2), 897-915. doi:10.1007/s11192-019-03214-9Tuesta, E. F., Garcia-Zorita, C., Ayllon, R. R., & Sanz-Casado, E. (2019). Does a Country/Region’s Economic Status Affect Its Universities’ Presence in International Rankings? Journal of Data and Information Science, 4(2), 56-78. doi:10.2478/jdis-2019-0009Dobrota, M., & Dobrota, M. (2015). ARWU ranking uncertainty and sensitivity: What if the award factor was Excluded? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 67(2), 480-482. doi:10.1002/asi.23527Dowsett, L. (2020). Global university rankings and strategic planning: a case study of Australian institutional performance. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 42(4), 478-494. doi:10.1080/1360080x.2019.1701853Rehman, M. A., Kashif, M., & Mingione, M. (2017). Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability (CSRS) Initiatives among European and Asian Business Schools: A Web-based Content Analysis. Global Business Review, 20(5), 1231-1247. doi:10.1177/0972150917737435Doğan, G., & Al, U. (2019). Is it possible to rank universities using fewer indicators? A study on five international university rankings. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 71(1), 18-37. doi:10.1108/ajim-05-2018-0118Siniksaran, E., & Satman, M. H. (2019). WURS: a simulation software for university rankings—software review. Scientometrics, 122(1), 701-717. doi:10.1007/s11192-019-03269-8Çakır, M. P., Acartürk, C., Alaşehir, O., & Çilingir, C. (2015). A comparative analysis of global and national university ranking systems. Scientometrics, 103(3), 813-848. doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1586-6Docampo, D., & Cram, L. (2016). Academic performance and institutional resources: a cross-country analysis of research universities. Scientometrics, 110(2), 739-764. doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2189-6Jöns, H., & Hoyler, M. (2013). Global geographies of higher education: The perspective of world university rankings. Geoforum, 46, 45-59. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.12.014UI GreenMetric World University Rankinghttp://greenmetric.ui.ac.id/Suwartha, N., & Sari, R. F. (2013). Evaluating UI GreenMetric as a tool to support green universities development: assessment of the year 2011 ranking. Journal of Cleaner Production, 61, 46-53. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.02.034Lauder, A., Sari, R. F., Suwartha, N., & Tjahjono, G. (2015). Critical review of a global campus sustainability ranking: GreenMetric. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 852-863. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.080Ragazzi, M., & Ghidini, F. (2017). Environmental sustainability of universities: critical analysis of a green ranking. Energy Procedia, 119, 111-120. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.07.054Marrone, P., Orsini, F., Asdrubali, F., & Guattari, C. (2018). Environmental performance of universities: Proposal for implementing campus urban morphology as an evaluation parameter in Green Metric. Sustainable Cities and Society, 42, 226-239. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2018.07.012Drahein, A. D., De Lima, E. P., & Da Costa, S. E. G. (2019). Sustainability assessment of the service operations at seven higher education institutions in Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production, 212, 527-536. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.293Parvez, N., & Agrawal, A. (2019). Assessment of sustainable development in technical higher education institutes of India. Journal of Cleaner Production, 214, 975-994. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.305Undetermined Scalehttps://www.google.es/maps/@39.4657727,-0.8023025,3zQGIS Geographic Information Systemhttps://qgis.orgGao, X. (Andy), & Zheng, Y. (2018). ‘Heavy mountains’ for Chinese humanities and social science academics in the quest for world-class universities. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 50(4), 554-572. doi:10.1080/03057925.2018.1538770Zhou, Y., & Wu, J. (2016). The Game Plan: Four Contradictions in the Development of World Class Universities from the Global South. TED EĞİTİM VE BİLİM, 41(184). doi:10.15390/eb.2016.6152Alba-Hidalgo, D., Benayas del Álamo, J., & Gutiérrez-Pérez, J. (2018). Towards a Definition of Environmental Sustainability Evaluation in Higher Education. Higher Education Policy, 31(4), 447-470. doi:10.1057/s41307-018-0106-