University rankings have gained growing attention from university administrations and faculty members, markets, governments, mass media and the public at large, affecting nearly all aspects directly or indirectly related to academia. This Theme Section includes 12 essays from 16 authors, coming from 9 countries (i.e. Singapore, the USA, the UK, Ireland, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Cyprus and Greece). These essays cover different methodological, socio-political, econom- ical and ethical 'hot issues' emerging from the dominance of rankings in the higher education sec- tor through the views and thoughts of different stakeholders (i.e. university administrators, people involved in performing the rankings, and scientists). We hope that this Theme Section and the questions it raises will further contribute to the recent debate and future of university rankings, whether they be global or regional, as well as help find the nexus between numbers (i.e. rankings) and knowledge (i.e. higher education institutions); to paraphrase Plato's quote 'a good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers'.
{"title":"Global university rankings uncovered: introduction","authors":"K. Stergiou, Athanassios C. Tsikliras","doi":"10.3354/ESEP00148","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3354/ESEP00148","url":null,"abstract":"University rankings have gained growing attention from university administrations and faculty members, markets, governments, mass media and the public at large, affecting nearly all aspects directly or indirectly related to academia. This Theme Section includes 12 essays from 16 authors, coming from 9 countries (i.e. Singapore, the USA, the UK, Ireland, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Cyprus and Greece). These essays cover different methodological, socio-political, econom- ical and ethical 'hot issues' emerging from the dominance of rankings in the higher education sec- tor through the views and thoughts of different stakeholders (i.e. university administrators, people involved in performing the rankings, and scientists). We hope that this Theme Section and the questions it raises will further contribute to the recent debate and future of university rankings, whether they be global or regional, as well as help find the nexus between numbers (i.e. rankings) and knowledge (i.e. higher education institutions); to paraphrase Plato's quote 'a good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers'.","PeriodicalId":40001,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics","volume":"13 1","pages":"59-64"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69655483","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this essay we explore parallels in the birth, evolution and final ‘banning’ of journal impact factors (IFs) and university rankings (URs). IFs and what has become popularized as global URs (GURs) were born in 1975 and 2003, respectively, and the obsession with both ‘tools’ has gone global. They have become important instruments for a diverse range of academic and higher education issues (IFs: e.g. for hiring and promoting faculty, giving and denying faculty tenure, distributing research funding, or administering institutional evaluations; URs: e.g. for reforming university/ department curricula, faculty recruitment, promotion and wages, funding, student admissions and tuition fees). As a result, both IFs and GURs are being heavily advertised — IFs in publishers’ webpages and GURs in the media as soon as they are released. However, both IFs and GURs have been heavily criticized by the scientific community in recent years. As a result, IFs (which, while originally intended to evaluate journals, were later misapplied in the evaluation of scientific performance) were recently ‘banned’ by different academic stakeholders for use in ‘evaluations’ of individual scientists, individual articles, hiring/promotion and funding proposals. Similarly, URs and GURs have also led to many boycotts throughout the world, probably the most recent being the boycott of the German ‘Centrum fuer Hochschulentwicklung’ (CHE) rankings by German sociologists. Maybe (and hopefully), the recent banning of IFs and URs/GURs are the first steps in a process of academic self-reflection leading to the insight that higher education must urgently take control of its own metrics.
{"title":"On impact factors and university rankings: from birth to boycott","authors":"K. Stergiou, S. Lessenich","doi":"10.3354/ESEP00141","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3354/ESEP00141","url":null,"abstract":"In this essay we explore parallels in the birth, evolution and final ‘banning’ of journal impact factors (IFs) and university rankings (URs). IFs and what has become popularized as global URs (GURs) were born in 1975 and 2003, respectively, and the obsession with both ‘tools’ has gone global. They have become important instruments for a diverse range of academic and higher education issues (IFs: e.g. for hiring and promoting faculty, giving and denying faculty tenure, distributing research funding, or administering institutional evaluations; URs: e.g. for reforming university/ department curricula, faculty recruitment, promotion and wages, funding, student admissions and tuition fees). As a result, both IFs and GURs are being heavily advertised — IFs in publishers’ webpages and GURs in the media as soon as they are released. However, both IFs and GURs have been heavily criticized by the scientific community in recent years. As a result, IFs (which, while originally intended to evaluate journals, were later misapplied in the evaluation of scientific performance) were recently ‘banned’ by different academic stakeholders for use in ‘evaluations’ of individual scientists, individual articles, hiring/promotion and funding proposals. Similarly, URs and GURs have also led to many boycotts throughout the world, probably the most recent being the boycott of the German ‘Centrum fuer Hochschulentwicklung’ (CHE) rankings by German sociologists. Maybe (and hopefully), the recent banning of IFs and URs/GURs are the first steps in a process of academic self-reflection leading to the insight that higher education must urgently take control of its own metrics.","PeriodicalId":40001,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics","volume":"13 1","pages":"101-111"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69655254","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Athanassios C. Tsikliras, David Z. Robinson, K. Stergiou
Global university rankings are provided by several organisations based on various cri- teria, most of which are, directly or indirectly, related to the wealth of the university. The main objec- tive of this work was to examine the effect of money on rankings and vice versa. First, we examined the relationship between global university rankings and professors' salaries and found an asymptotic trend for all ranks of professors across the top 200 US universities, but no trend for the top Canadian universities. Second, we examined the relationship between global university rankings and univer- sity income and found a positive trend for UK and Canadian universities. Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that the funding (as well as autonomy and support of the state) of a university and its position in global rankings are related. We maintain that European universities in several coun- tries will not make it into the top 100 list unless their autonomy and public funding are increased. Instead, the recent decrease in public funding of universities in many European countries, as a result of the economic crisis, threatens to push these institutions further down the ranking lists.
{"title":"Which came first: the money or the rank?","authors":"Athanassios C. Tsikliras, David Z. Robinson, K. Stergiou","doi":"10.3354/ESEP00147","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3354/ESEP00147","url":null,"abstract":"Global university rankings are provided by several organisations based on various cri- teria, most of which are, directly or indirectly, related to the wealth of the university. The main objec- tive of this work was to examine the effect of money on rankings and vice versa. First, we examined the relationship between global university rankings and professors' salaries and found an asymptotic trend for all ranks of professors across the top 200 US universities, but no trend for the top Canadian universities. Second, we examined the relationship between global university rankings and univer- sity income and found a positive trend for UK and Canadian universities. Our results are consistent with the hypothesis that the funding (as well as autonomy and support of the state) of a university and its position in global rankings are related. We maintain that European universities in several coun- tries will not make it into the top 100 list unless their autonomy and public funding are increased. Instead, the recent decrease in public funding of universities in many European countries, as a result of the economic crisis, threatens to push these institutions further down the ranking lists.","PeriodicalId":40001,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics","volume":"13 1","pages":"203-213"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69655118","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Any formulation of the university ranking game involves the perspectives of the 3 key actors: (1) graduating high-school students, (2) universities, and (3) ranking publications. These university rankings are developed and maintained by for-profit publications or magazines, which must balance 2 potentially conflicting motives: (1) to provide students with information to help them decide which university to attend and (2) to increase the revenues of the publication. The actions of the students involve their decision on which universities to apply to and which uni- versity to attend among those they are admitted to. The universities seek to attract the best stu- dents and seek to improve their ranking to do so. We frame these diverse motives and the ensuing actions of these 3 sets of actors as the university ranking game and discuss the potential inefficien- cies in the game and the possibility for unethical behavior by publications and universities.
{"title":"Framing the university ranking game: actors, motivations, and actions","authors":"J. Dearden, Rajdeep Grewal, G. Lilien","doi":"10.3354/ESEP00138","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3354/ESEP00138","url":null,"abstract":"Any formulation of the university ranking game involves the perspectives of the 3 key actors: (1) graduating high-school students, (2) universities, and (3) ranking publications. These university rankings are developed and maintained by for-profit publications or magazines, which must balance 2 potentially conflicting motives: (1) to provide students with information to help them decide which university to attend and (2) to increase the revenues of the publication. The actions of the students involve their decision on which universities to apply to and which uni- versity to attend among those they are admitted to. The universities seek to attract the best stu- dents and seek to improve their ranking to do so. We frame these diverse motives and the ensuing actions of these 3 sets of actors as the university ranking game and discuss the potential inefficien- cies in the game and the possibility for unethical behavior by publications and universities.","PeriodicalId":40001,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics","volume":"13 1","pages":"131-139"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69655153","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper examines the limitations and biases of world university rankings and asks what drivers explain their ongoing proliferation and popularity. It is argued that rankings are hav- ing a corrosive effect on higher education systems, institutions and staff by encouraging policy reforms at the governmental level and a reallocation of resources at the institutional level that may improve standings in the rankings but do not necessarily enhance quality research and teaching. Global rankings are linked to the rise of an international market in higher education, particularly with respect to international students. The author argues that what is at stake in the debate over university rankings is fundamentally whether higher education is to be thought of as having intrinsic value, or whether it is defined narrowly in instrumentalist and consumerist terms.
{"title":"The mismeasure of higher education? The corrosive effect of university rankings","authors":"D. Robinson","doi":"10.3354/ESEP00135","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3354/ESEP00135","url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines the limitations and biases of world university rankings and asks what drivers explain their ongoing proliferation and popularity. It is argued that rankings are hav- ing a corrosive effect on higher education systems, institutions and staff by encouraging policy reforms at the governmental level and a reallocation of resources at the institutional level that may improve standings in the rankings but do not necessarily enhance quality research and teaching. Global rankings are linked to the rise of an international market in higher education, particularly with respect to international students. The author argues that what is at stake in the debate over university rankings is fundamentally whether higher education is to be thought of as having intrinsic value, or whether it is defined narrowly in instrumentalist and consumerist terms.","PeriodicalId":40001,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics","volume":"43 1","pages":"65-71"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69655021","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article, written as a critical dialogue between 2 interlocutors, puts forward a number of arguments justifying and critiquing the practice of university ranking. It draws attention to 3 key problematics: the ideological construction of institutional ranking as a professionally necessary and inevitable activity, the symbolically violent character of ranking as a form of social categorization and hierarchization, and the possibility of denying the system legitimacy by practicing more prefigurative forms of its critique. Through the progression of this dialogue, the article ultimately makes a case for turning away from university rankings on both scientific and ethicopolitical grounds.
{"title":"University ranking: a dialogue on turning towards alternatives","authors":"Sarah Amsler","doi":"10.3354/ESEP00136","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3354/ESEP00136","url":null,"abstract":"This article, written as a critical dialogue between 2 interlocutors, puts forward a \u0000number of arguments justifying and critiquing the practice of university ranking. It draws attention \u0000to 3 key problematics: the ideological construction of institutional ranking as a professionally \u0000necessary and inevitable activity, the symbolically violent character of ranking as a form of social \u0000categorization and hierarchization, and the possibility of denying the system legitimacy by practicing \u0000more prefigurative forms of its critique. Through the progression of this dialogue, the article \u0000ultimately makes a case for turning away from university rankings on both scientific and ethicopolitical \u0000grounds.","PeriodicalId":40001,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics","volume":"51 1","pages":"155-166"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3354/ESEP00136","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69655092","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper examines 2 of the major international university rankings, the Shanghai Jiao Tong University ranking and the Times Higher Education Supplement ranking, and asks why, when they use such different measures of performance, they produce such similar rankings. The author introduces Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and shows how this can be an effective method for setting up a range of ranking systems. This is used to explore a number of key issues that are raised by league tables, including which indicators to select, and whether to treat them as inputs or outputs. The paper then examines the assumptions that would need to be incorporated into the DEA approach in order to produce a league table that is similar to the 2 extant examples. It concludes that the currently accepted league tables assume that costs are of no interest, and that high quality outputs are to be valued at any cost. This raises the question of whether such rankings are appropriate for an age of austerity, or whether value-for-money rankings might not be more appropriate.
{"title":"World class universities and international rankings","authors":"D. Turner","doi":"10.3354/ESEP00132","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3354/ESEP00132","url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines 2 of the major international university rankings, the Shanghai Jiao Tong University ranking and the Times Higher Education Supplement ranking, and asks why, when they use such different measures of performance, they produce such similar rankings. The author introduces Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) and shows how this can be an effective method for setting up a range of ranking systems. This is used to explore a number of key issues that are raised by league tables, including which indicators to select, and whether to treat them as inputs or outputs. The paper then examines the assumptions that would need to be incorporated into the DEA approach in order to produce a league table that is similar to the 2 extant examples. It concludes that the currently accepted league tables assume that costs are of no interest, and that high quality outputs are to be valued at any cost. This raises the question of whether such rankings are appropriate for an age of austerity, or whether value-for-money rankings might not be more appropriate.","PeriodicalId":40001,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics","volume":"13 1","pages":"167-176"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69655355","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The aim of this article is to render global university rankings (GURs) as a paradigmatic instance of knowledge/power (Foucault) within our post-industrial ‘knowledge societies’. At the same time, I examine a possible connection between GURs and ‘scientification’ of social sciences and humanities (SSH), i.e. promotion of the belief that if SSH are to count as ‘sciences’ proper, they must subscribe to the epistemological and methodological tenets of positivist− empiricist natural sciences. Based on recent literature and on the methodological information that is provided by the compilers of GURs on the relevant websites, the second part of the article traces some structural features (such as underestimation of teaching and systematic biases of bibliometrics) which might be taken as supporting the hypothesis that GURs are connected with the the wider trend of scientification of social sciences and humanities. I conclude that, even if we could ever overcome the deficiencies of existing rankings, we should take seriously that there can be no ranking system that would be epistemically objective, value neutral, and politically incontestable.
{"title":"University rankings and the scientification of social sciences and humanities","authors":"Costas Stratilatis","doi":"10.3354/ESEP00144","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3354/ESEP00144","url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this article is to render global university rankings (GURs) as a paradigmatic instance of knowledge/power (Foucault) within our post-industrial ‘knowledge societies’. At the same time, I examine a possible connection between GURs and ‘scientification’ of social sciences and humanities (SSH), i.e. promotion of the belief that if SSH are to count as ‘sciences’ proper, they must subscribe to the epistemological and methodological tenets of positivist− empiricist natural sciences. Based on recent literature and on the methodological information that is provided by the compilers of GURs on the relevant websites, the second part of the article traces some structural features (such as underestimation of teaching and systematic biases of bibliometrics) which might be taken as supporting the hypothesis that GURs are connected with the the wider trend of scientification of social sciences and humanities. I conclude that, even if we could ever overcome the deficiencies of existing rankings, we should take seriously that there can be no ranking system that would be epistemically objective, value neutral, and politically incontestable.","PeriodicalId":40001,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics","volume":"1 1","pages":"177-192"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3354/ESEP00144","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69655378","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As countries worldwide have become increasingly interconnected due to globalisation, universities have likewise undergone significant changes. To achieve and maintain academic and research excellence in today’s fast-paced knowledge economy, it is critical for international universities to transcend traditional education. With the blurring of boundaries and rise of Asia, universities worldwide have increased collaborative efforts. Several Asian universities have acquired top academic rankings and achieved international recognition in parity with many western iconic counterparts. These rankings have galvanised the world of higher education, resulting in a virtuous circle impact on universities’ drive for academic and research excellence. Since the emergence of global rankings, universities have been compared on a national and international basis and this has affected the way they operate. The rankings — used as a tool to maintain and build institutional position and reputation — have also resulted in an increasing trend of policy makers utilising the ranking results to make decisions on resource allocation or structure of higher education systems. The Singapore universities, which are crucial for elevating Singapore’s society towards the future knowledge economy, have transformed rapidly from teaching institutions into top international research-intensive universities. This article examines how Nanyang Technological University (NTU) strategises its progress and establishes platforms for the creation of greater scientific knowledge and research innovation, which impact on higher education rankings and vice versa. Some of the issues covered include institutional management structure, talent retention/attraction, research competitiveness, and international and industry collaborations.
{"title":"Strategies for academic and research excellence for a young university: perspectives from Singapore","authors":"C. Lim, F. Boey","doi":"10.3354/ESEP00139","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3354/ESEP00139","url":null,"abstract":"As countries worldwide have become increasingly interconnected due to globalisation, universities have likewise undergone significant changes. To achieve and maintain academic and research excellence in today’s fast-paced knowledge economy, it is critical for international universities to transcend traditional education. With the blurring of boundaries and rise of Asia, universities worldwide have increased collaborative efforts. Several Asian universities have acquired top academic rankings and achieved international recognition in parity with many western iconic counterparts. These rankings have galvanised the world of higher education, resulting in a virtuous circle impact on universities’ drive for academic and research excellence. Since the emergence of global rankings, universities have been compared on a national and international basis and this has affected the way they operate. The rankings — used as a tool to maintain and build institutional position and reputation — have also resulted in an increasing trend of policy makers utilising the ranking results to make decisions on resource allocation or structure of higher education systems. The Singapore universities, which are crucial for elevating Singapore’s society towards the future knowledge economy, have transformed rapidly from teaching institutions into top international research-intensive universities. This article examines how Nanyang Technological University (NTU) strategises its progress and establishes platforms for the creation of greater scientific knowledge and research innovation, which impact on higher education rankings and vice versa. Some of the issues covered include institutional management structure, talent retention/attraction, research competitiveness, and international and industry collaborations.","PeriodicalId":40001,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics","volume":"13 1","pages":"113-123"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3354/ESEP00139","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69655165","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the present essay, I briefly describe the transition from the original Times Higher Education Supplement World University Rankings, which were developed together with Qua - quarelli Symonds (QS), to the Times Higher Education world rankings powered by Thomson Reuters. In addition, I describe the 'sample' characteristics (i.e. the distribution of respondents by geographic area and scientific discipline) of the Thomson Reuters' annual academic reputational surveys, upon which 2 key indicators for the categories of teaching and research are based, during 2010 to 2012. Finally, I briefly discuss the criticisms raised concerning these 2 ranking systems.
{"title":"The Times Higher Education World University Rankings, 2004-2012","authors":"Phil Baty","doi":"10.3354/ESEP00145","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3354/ESEP00145","url":null,"abstract":"In the present essay, I briefly describe the transition from the original Times Higher Education Supplement World University Rankings, which were developed together with Qua - quarelli Symonds (QS), to the Times Higher Education world rankings powered by Thomson Reuters. In addition, I describe the 'sample' characteristics (i.e. the distribution of respondents by geographic area and scientific discipline) of the Thomson Reuters' annual academic reputational surveys, upon which 2 key indicators for the categories of teaching and research are based, during 2010 to 2012. Finally, I briefly discuss the criticisms raised concerning these 2 ranking systems.","PeriodicalId":40001,"journal":{"name":"Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics","volume":"13 1","pages":"125-130"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3354/ESEP00145","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69655454","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：