Matic Girard Ivana, Girard Olivier
School of Human Sciences, Exercise and Sport Science, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2024 Sep 13;20(4):600-604. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2024-0109. Print 2025 Apr 1.
University rankings often serve as benchmarks for excellence in academic evaluation. For example, ShanghaiRanking data from 2016 to 2023 for the Global Ranking of Sport Science Schools and Departments reveal consistent dominance by Australia (23.1%), Canada (18.0%), and the United States (12.0%), collectively counting over half of the top 50 universities worldwide. Nevertheless, there is uncertainty about how the methodology behind these rankings shapes a reality as much as it reflects one.
Our intention is to discuss the complexity of university rankings, using ShanghaiRanking as an example, to highlight how these rankings reflect academic excellence within the field of sport science. Current Evidence: When ranking universities in sport science, several aspects of academic excellence could be considered in addition to research metrics currently considered in ShanghaiRanking (publication, citation, citations per publication, top 25% journal publications, and internationally collaborated publications). These aspects may include (1) teaching quality, (2) practical training, (3) industry links and employability, (4) support services, (5) facilities and equipment, (6) international network, (7) community engagement, (8) sustainability and ethical practices, and (9) interdisciplinary approach. Altogether, they could provide a more comprehensive view of the quality and effectiveness of a sport-science program.
The ranking of sport-science institutions poses a complex challenge due to diverse factors influencing academic excellence. Engaging in a broader dialogue and refining internationally relevant evaluation methodologies are crucial. These steps enable comparability between countries and provide a holistic understanding of the multidimensional nature of academic excellence in sport science.
大学排名常被用作学术评估卓越性的基准。例如,2016年至2023年体育科学院校及系科全球排名的软科数据显示,澳大利亚(23.1%)、加拿大(18.0%)和美国(12.0%)持续占据主导地位,全球排名前50的大学中,这三个国家的大学合计占比超过一半。然而,这些排名背后的方法在多大程度上塑造了现实,又在多大程度上反映了现实,仍存在不确定性。
我们旨在以软科排名为例,探讨大学排名的复杂性,以突出这些排名如何反映体育科学领域的学术卓越性。现有证据:在对体育科学领域的大学进行排名时,除了软科排名目前所考虑的研究指标(出版物、引用次数、每篇出版物的引用次数、前25%期刊出版物以及国际合作出版物)外,还可以考虑学术卓越性的几个方面。这些方面可能包括:(1)教学质量;(2)实践培训;(3)行业联系与就业能力;(4)支持服务;(5)设施与设备;(6)国际网络;(7)社区参与;(8)可持续性与道德实践;(9)跨学科方法。总体而言,它们可以提供对体育科学项目质量和有效性更全面的看法。
由于影响学术卓越性的因素多种多样,体育科学机构的排名面临复杂挑战。开展更广泛的对话并完善国际相关评估方法至关重要。这些步骤能够实现国家间的可比性,并提供对体育科学学术卓越性多维度本质的全面理解。