Asia University Rankings 2013 methodology

四月 11, 2013


The Asia University Rankings guarantee quality by employing the same methodology as the blue-riband World University Rankings: here we detail the criteria that lie behind the calculations

The Times Higher Education Asia University Rankings use the same methodology as the Times Higher Education World University Rankings to judge institutions' teaching, research, knowledge transfer and international outlook.

We employ 13 carefully calibrated performance indicators to provide the most comprehensive and balanced comparisons, which are trusted by students, academics, university leaders, industry and governments.

Our 13 performance indicators are grouped into five areas:

  • Teaching: the learning environment (worth 30 per cent of the overall score)
  • Research: volume, income and reputation (worth 30 per cent)
  • Citations: research influence (worth 30 per cent)
  • Industry income: innovation (worth 2.5 per cent)
  • International outlook: staff, students and research (worth 7.5 per cent).

Institutions are excluded from the Times Higher Education Asia University Rankings if they do not teach undergraduates; if they teach only a single narrow subject; or if their research output amounted to fewer than 1,000 articles between 2006 and 2010 (200 papers a year).

In some exceptional cases, institutions that are below the 200-paper threshold are included if they have a particular focus on disciplines with generally low publication volumes, such as engineering or the arts and humanities.
To calculate the overall rankings, "Z-scores" were created for all data sets except the results of the academic reputation survey.

The calculation of Z-scores standardises the different data types on a common scale and allows fair comparisons between different types of data essential when combining diverse information into a single ranking.

Each data point is given a score based on its distance from the mean average of the entire data set, where the scale is the standard deviation of the data set.

The Z-score is then turned into a "cumulative probability score" to arrive at the final totals.

If University X has a cumulative probability score of 98, for example, then a random institution from the same data distribution will fall below the institution 98 per cent of the time.

For the results of the reputation survey, the data are highly skewed in favour of a small number of institutions at the top of the rankings, so in 2011 we added an exponential component to increase differentiation between institutions lower down the scale, a method we have retained for these tables.
Data collection
Institutions provide and sign off their institutional data for use in the rankings.

On the rare occasions when a particular data point is missing which affects only low-weighted indicators such as industrial income we enter a low estimate between the average value of the indicators and the lowest value reported: the 25th percentile of the other indicators.

By doing this, we avoid penalising an institution too harshly with a "zero" value for data that it overlooks or does not provide, but we do not reward it for withholding them.

This category looks at diversity on campus and to what degree academics collaborate with international colleagues on research projects both signs of how global an institution is in its outlook.

The ability of a university to attract undergraduates and postgraduates from all over the planet is key to its success on the world stage: this factor is measured by the ratio of international to domestic students and is worth 2.5 per cent of the overall score.

The top universities also compete for the best faculty from around the globe. So in this category we adopt a 2.5 per cent weighting for the ratio of international to domestic staff.

In the third international indicator, we calculate the proportion of a university's total research journal publications that have at least one international co-author and reward higher volumes.

This indicator, which is also worth 2.5 per cent, is normalised to account for a university's subject mix and uses the same five-year window as the "Citations: research influence" category.

This category is made up of three indicators. The most prominent, given a weighting of 18 per cent, looks at a -university's reputation for research excellence among its peers, based on the 16,000-plus responses to our annual academic reputation survey.

This category also looks at university research income, scaled against staff numbers and normalised for purchasing-power parity. This is a controversial indicator because it can be influenced by national policy and economic circumstances.

But income is crucial to the development of world-class research, and because much of it is subject to competition and judged by peer review, our experts suggested that it was
a valid measure.

This indicator is fully normalised to take account of each university's distinct subject profile, reflecting the fact that research grants in science subjects are often bigger than those awarded for the highest-quality social science, arts and humanities research. It is given a weighting of 6 per cent.

The research environment category also includes a simple measure of research productivity - research output scaled against staff numbers.

We count the number of papers published in the academic journals indexed by Thomson Reuters per academic, scaled for a university's total size and also normalised for subject.

This gives an idea of an institution's ability to get papers published in quality peer-reviewed journals.

This indicator is worth 6 per cent overall.

Our research influence indicator is the flagship. Weighted at 30 per cent of the overall score, it is the single most influential of the 13 indicators, and looks at the role of universities in spreading new knowledge and ideas.

We examine research influence by capturing the number of times a university's published work is cited by scholars globally. Our data supplier Thomson Reuters examined more than 50 million citations to 6 million journal articles, published over five years. The data are drawn from the 12,000 academic journals indexed by Thomson Reuters' Web of Science database and include all indexed journals published between 2006 and 2010.

Citations to these papers made in the six years from 2006 to 2011 are also collected.
The citations help to show us how much each university is contributing to the sum of human knowledge: they tell us whose research has stood out, has been picked up and built on by other scholars and, most importantly, has been shared around the global scholarly community to push further the boundaries of our collective understanding, irrespective of discipline.

The data are fully normalised to reflect variations in citation volume between different subject areas. This means that institutions with high levels of research activity in subjects with traditionally high citation counts do not gain an unfair advantage.

We exclude from the rankings any institution that publishes fewer than 200 papers a year to ensure that we have enough data to make statistically valid comparisons.

A university's ability to help industry with innovations, inventions and consultancy has become a core mission of the contemporary global academy.

This category seeks to capture such "knowledge transfer" by looking at how much research income an -institution earns from industry, scaled against the number of academic staff it employs.

"Industry income: innovation" suggests the extent to which businesses are willing to pay for research and a university's ability to attract funding in the competitive commercial marketplace useful indicators of institutional quality.

The category is worth 2.5 per cent of the overall ranking score.

This category employs five separate performance indicators designed to provide a clear sense of the teaching and learning environment of each institution from both the student and the academic perspective.

The dominant indicator here - uses the results of the world's largest invitation-only academic reputation survey.

Thomson Reuters carried out its latest reputation survey - a worldwide poll of experienced scholars - in spring 2012.

It examined the perceived prestige of institutions in both research and teaching. There were 16,639 responses, statistically representative of global higher education's geo-graphical and subject mix.

The results of the survey with regard to teaching make up 15 per cent of the overall rankings score. The teaching and learning category also employs a staff-to-student ratio (an institution's total student numbers) as a simple (and admittedly crude) proxy for teaching quality.

The proxy suggests that where there is a healthy ratio of students to staff, the former will get the personal attention they require from the institution's faculty.

This measure is worth 4.5 per cent of the overall ranking score.

The teaching category also examines the ratio of doctoral to bachelor's degrees awarded by each institution.

We believe that institutions with a high density of research students are more knowledge-intensive and that the presence of an active postgraduate community is a marker of a research-led teaching environment valued by undergraduates and postgraduates alike.

The doctorate-to-bachelor's ratio is worth 2.25 per cent of the overall ranking score.

The teaching category also uses data on the number of doctorates awarded by an institution, scaled against its size as measured by the number of academic staff it employs.

As well as giving a sense of how committed an institution is to nurturing the next generation of academics, a high proportion of postgraduate research students also suggests the  provision of teaching at the highest level that is thus attractive to graduates and effective
at developing them.

Undergraduates also tend to value working in a rich environment that includes postgraduates. This indicator is normalised to take account of a university's unique subject mix, reflecting the different volume of doctoral awards in different disciplines, and makes up 6 per cent of overall scores.

The final indicator in the category is a simple measure of -institutional income scaled against academic staff numbers.

This figure, adjusted for purchasing-power parity so that all nations may compete on a level playing field, indicates the general status of an institution and gives a broad sense of the infrastructure and facilities available to students and staff. This measure is worth 2.25 per cent overall.



  • 注册是免费的,而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后,您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
Please 登录 or 注册 to read this article.