Subject Ranking 2013-14: Engineering & Technology methodology

October 3, 2013

 

The Times Higher Education World University Rankings’ Engineering & Technology subject ranking includes a wide range of narrower subject areas, defined by our data partners Thomson Reuters.

The full list of Engineering & Technology subjects used to create this ranking is:

  • Acoustics
  • Aerospace Engineering
  • Automation & Control Systems
  • Biomedical Engineering
  • Chemical Engineering
  • Civil Engineering
  • Computer & Information Science
  • Construction & Building Technology
  • Earth & Environmental Engineering
  • Electrical & Electronic Engineering
  • Energy & Fuels
  • Imaging Science & Photographic Technology
  • Industrial Engineering
  • Instruments & Instrumentation
  • Marine Engineering
  • Materials Science
  • Mechanical Engineering
  • Mechanics
  • Metallurgy & Metallurgical Engineering
  • Mining & Mineral Processing
  • Nuclear Science & Technology
  • Operations Research & Management Science
  • Robotics
  • Telecommunications
  • Transportation
  • Engineering & Technology - Other topics

Different weights and measures

The subject tables employ the same range of 13 performance indicators used in the overall World University Rankings, brought together with scores provided under five categories.

However, the overall methodology is carefully recalibrated for each subject, with the weightings changed to suit the individual fields.

The weightings for the Engineering and Technology ranking are:

Teaching: the learning environment – 30 per cent
Research: volume, income and reputation – 30 per cent
Citations: research influence – 27.5 per cent
International outlook: staff, students and research - 7.5 per cent
Industry income: innovation – 5 per cent

Criteria
No institution can be included in the overall World University Rankings unless it has published a minimum of 200 research papers a year over the five years we examine.

But for the six subject tables, the threshold drops to 100 papers a year for subjects that generate a high volume of publications and 50 a year in subjects such as social sciences where the volume tends to be lower. Although we apply some editorial discretion, we generally expect an institution to have at least 10 per cent of its staff working in the relevant discipline in order to include it in the subject table.

The majority of institutions in Thomson Reuters’ Global Institutional Profiles database provide detailed subject-level information.

In rare cases where such data are not supplied, institutions are either excluded or public sources are used to underpin estimates.

You've reached your article limit

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Featured Jobs

Post-doctoral Research Associate in Chemistry

University Of Western Australia

PACE Data Support Officer

Macquarie University - Sydney Australia

Associate Lecturer in Nursing

Central Queensland University
See all jobs

Most Commented

women leapfrog. Vintage

Robert MacIntosh and Kevin O’Gorman offer advice on climbing the career ladder

Mitch Blunt illustration (23 March 2017)

Without more conservative perspectives in the academy, lawmakers will increasingly ignore and potentially defund social science, says Musa al-Gharbi

Michael Parkin illustration (9 March 2017)

Cramming study into the shortest possible time will impoverish the student experience and drive an even greater wedge between research-enabled permanent staff and the growing underclass of flexible teaching staff, says Tom Cutterham

The University of Aberdeen

Tim Ingold and colleagues at the University of Aberdeen have created a manifesto that they hope will preserve higher education's true values

Interactive app at natural history museum

If the outcomes of ‘active learning’ are so much better than those for traditional lectures, why stick with the old format? asks Simone Buitendijk