Ioannidis John P A, Patsopoulos Nikolaos A, Kavvoura Fotini K, Tatsioni Athina, Evangelou Evangelos, Kouri Ioanna, Contopoulos-Ioannidis Despina G, Liberopoulos George
BMC Med. 2007 Oct 25;5:30. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-5-30.
Ranking of universities and institutions has attracted wide attention recently. Several systems have been proposed that attempt to rank academic institutions worldwide.
We review the two most publicly visible ranking systems, the Shanghai Jiao Tong University 'Academic Ranking of World Universities' and the Times Higher Education Supplement 'World University Rankings' and also briefly review other ranking systems that use different criteria. We assess the construct validity for educational and research excellence and the measurement validity of each of the proposed ranking criteria, and try to identify generic challenges in international ranking of universities and institutions.
None of the reviewed criteria for international ranking seems to have very good construct validity for both educational and research excellence, and most don't have very good construct validity even for just one of these two aspects of excellence. Measurement error for many items is also considerable or is not possible to determine due to lack of publication of the relevant data and methodology details. The concordance between the 2006 rankings by Shanghai and Times is modest at best, with only 133 universities shared in their top 200 lists. The examination of the existing international ranking systems suggests that generic challenges include adjustment for institutional size, definition of institutions, implications of average measurements of excellence versus measurements of extremes, adjustments for scientific field, time frame of measurement and allocation of credit for excellence.
Naïve lists of international institutional rankings that do not address these fundamental challenges with transparent methods are misleading and should be abandoned. We make some suggestions on how focused and standardized evaluations of excellence could be improved and placed in proper context.
大学和机构的排名近来备受广泛关注。已经提出了若干种试图对全球学术机构进行排名的系统。
我们审视了两种最为公众所熟知的排名系统，即上海交通大学的“世界大学学术排名”和《泰晤士高等教育增刊》的“世界大学排名”，并且还简要回顾了其他使用不同标准的排名系统。我们评估了针对教育与研究卓越性的结构效度以及所提出的各项排名标准的测量效度，并试图找出大学和机构国际排名中的一般性挑战。
所审视的国际排名标准中，似乎没有一项对教育与研究卓越性均具有很好的结构效度，而且即使对于这两个卓越性方面中的仅一个方面，大多数标准也没有很好的结构效度。许多项目的测量误差也相当大，或者由于缺乏相关数据及方法细节的公布而无法确定。上海交通大学和《泰晤士高等教育增刊》2006年排名之间的一致性充其量只是一般，在前200名的榜单中仅有133所大学相同。对现有国际排名系统的审视表明，一般性挑战包括对机构规模的调整、机构的定义、卓越性平均测量与极端测量的影响、对科学领域的调整、测量的时间框架以及卓越性的学分分配。
那些未用透明方法应对这些基本挑战的简单化国际机构排名榜单具有误导性，应当摒弃。我们就如何改进卓越性的针对性和标准化评估并将其置于适当背景下提出了一些建议。
Zotero 插件