Abstract
We formulate the problem of how to climb in multi-attribute rankings with known weights using mathematical optimization. A model is derived based on familiar practices used in rankings in higher education where several attributes are combined using known weights to obtain a score. The method applies in any situation where multiple attributes are used to rank entities. We invoke several assumptions such as independence among attributes and that administrators can affect the values of some of the attributes and know the cost of doing so. Our results suggest that a strategy to advance in the rankings is to focus on modifying the value of fewer rather than more attributes. The model is generalized to allow for synergies and antagonisms among the attributes.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Billaut, J. C., Bouyssou, D. & Vincke, P. (2010). Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking? Scientometrics, 84, 237–263.
Bougnol, M. L. & Dulá, J. H. (2006). Validating DEA as a ranking tool: an application of DEA to assess performance in higher education, Annals of Operations Research, 145(1), 339–365.
Brooks, J. P. & Dulá, J. H. (2012) The L-1-norm best-fit hyperplane problem. Applied Mathematics Letters. Eprint available at: http://www.optimization-online.org/DB_HTML/2009/05/2291.html. doi:10.1016/j.aml.2012.03.031.
Capaldi, E. D., Lombardi J. V., Abbey C. W., & Craig, D. D. (2010). The Top American Research Universities, 2010 Annual Report, The Center for measuring university performance at Arizona State University.
Eckles, J. E. (2010). Evaluating the efficiency of top liberal arts colleges. Research in Higher Education, 51, 266–293.
Eff, E. A., Klein, C. C., Kyle, R. (2012). Identifying the best buys in US higher education. Research in Higher Education, in press. doi:10.1007/s11162−012−9259–2.
Gerst, A. (2003). Law school eyes US News ranks. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Johnes, J. (2006). Measuring efficiency: a comparison of multilevel modelling and data envelopment analysis in the context of higher education. Bulletin of Economic Research, 58, 0307–3378.
Kuah, C. T. & Wong, K. Y. (2011). Efficiency assessment of universities through data envelopment analysis. Procedia Computer Science, 3, 499–506.
Liu, N. C. & Cheng, Y. (2005). The Academic Ranking of World Universities Higher Education in Europe, 30, 127–136. doi:10.1080/03797720500260116.
Marciszewski, A. (2006). TU rises, OU drops in the latest rankings. Tulsa World (Tulsa, OK).
Masterson, K. (2010). Fund raising. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Murty, K. G. (1985). Linear and combinatorial programming, Malabar: R. E. Krieger.
O’Leary, J., Quacquarelli, N., & Ince, M. (2011). Top Universities Guide 2011, 5th revised and updated edition exclusively featuring the QS-World University Rankings, retrieved August 08, 2012. http://www.topuniversities.com/.
Tofallis, C. (2012). A different approach to university rankings. Higher Education, 63, pp. 1–18.
Van Der Werf, M. (2009). Researcher offers unusually candid description of university’s effort to rise in rankings. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Waltman, L., Calero-Medina, C., Kosten, J., Noyons, E. C. M., Tijssen, R. J. W., Van Eck, N. J., Van Leeuwen, T. N., Van Raan, A. F. J., Visser, M. S., & Wouters, P. (2012). The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation, submitted to Computer Science.
Woodbury, R. L. (2003). How to make your college no.1 in U.S. News and World Report... and lose your integrity in the process. Connection: The Journal of the New England Board Education, pp. 18–20.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bougnol, M.L., Dulá, J.H. A mathematical model to optimize decisions to impact multi-attribute rankings. Scientometrics 95, 785–796 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0844-0
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0844-0