Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Open scholarship ranking of Chinese research universities

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Universities and the members of their faculties, by means of open access, open education, and social media engagement, contribute to many publicly accessible resources of academic values, i.e., open scholarship. To encourage universities to contribute even more to open scholarship, in a more focused and sustainable way, the methodology of Open Scholarship Ranking (OSR) was constructed after a thorough examination and several adjustments based on the Berlin Principles on Ranking of Higher Education Institutions (hereinafter referred to as “the Berlin Principles”). The OSR has met most of the Berlin Principles, and new adjustments helped to improve its quality. A significant correlation has been observed between the OSR results of Chinese research universities and the results from existing comprehensive university rankings. The OSR provides an evaluation framework for universities’ performance in open scholarship, and can be regarded as an acceptable way of ranking universities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.webometrics.info/en/node/164 (accessed 1 March 2015).

  2. http://repositories.webometrics.info (accessed 1 March 2015).

  3. https://okfn.org/opendata/ (accessed 1 October 2015).

  4. http://www.che.de/downloads/Berlin_Principles_IREG_534.pdf (accessed 1 September 2015).

  5. http://www.moe.edu.cn/s78/A16/kjs_left/s8232/s8202/201508/W020150804363866761269.pdf (accessed 1 October 2015).

  6. http://www.nseac.com/html/263/665686.html (accessed 1 March 2016).

  7. http://learning.sohu.com/20150127/n408112906.shtml (accessed 1 March 2016).

References

  • Aguillo, I. F., Ortega, J. L., & Fernández, M. (2008). Webometric ranking of world universities: Introduction, methodology, and future developments. Higher Education in Europe, 33(2–3), 233–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguillo, I. F., Ortega, J. L., Fernández, M., & Utrilla, A. M. (2010). Indicators for a webometric ranking of open access repositories. Scientometrics, 82(3), 477–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, T., & McConkey, B. (2009). Development of disruptive open access journals. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 39(3), 71–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antelman, K. (2004). Do open-access articles have a greater research impact? College & Research Libraries, 65(5), 372–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayers, E. L. (2013). Does digital scholarship have a future? Educause Review, 48(4), 24–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartling, S., & Friesike, S. (2014). Towards another scientific revolution. In S. Bartling & S. Friesike (Eds.), Opening science: The evolving guide on how the Internet is changing research, collaboration and scholarly publishing (pp. 3–15). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bastedo, M. N., & Bowman, N. A. (2011). College rankings as an interorganizational dependency: Establishing the foundation for strategic and institutional accounts. Research in Higher Education, 52(1), 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgman, C. L. (2007). Scholarship in the digital age: Information, infrastructure, and the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L. (2014). Validity of altmetrics data for measuring societal impact: A study using data from Altmetric and F1000Prime. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 935–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, N.J: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, E. L. (1996). The Scholarship of Engagement. Journal of Public Service & Outreach, 1(1), 11–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, G. (2009). The open scholar. Academic Evolution. http://www.academicevolution.com/2009/08/the-open-scholar.html. Accessed 1 Sep 2015.

  • Çakır, M. P., Acartürk, C., Alaşehir, O., & Çilingir, C. (2015). A comparative analysis of global and national university ranking systems. Scientometrics, 103(3), 813–848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Z., Alcorn, B., Christensen, G., Eriksson, N., Koller, D., & Emanuel, E. J. (2015). Who’s Benefiting from MOOCs, and Why. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2015/09/whos-benefiting-from-moocs-and-why. Accessed 1 Sep 2015.

  • Cheng, Y., & Liu, N. C. (2008). Examining major rankings according to the Berlin principles. Higher Education in Europe, 33(2–3), 201–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claassen, C. (2015). Measuring university quality. Scientometrics, 104(3), 793–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crow, R. (2002). The case for institutional repositories: A SPARC position paper. Washington, DC: The Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition. http://www.sparc.arl.org/sites/default/files/media_files/instrepo.pdf. Accessed 1 Sep 2015.

  • Davis, P. M. (2011). Open access, readership, citations: A randomized controlled trial of scientific journal publishing. The FASEB Journal, 25(7), 2129–2134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Rassenfosse, G., & Williams, R. (2015). Rules of engagement: Measuring connectivity in national systems of higher education. Higher Education, 70(6), 941–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dill, D. D., & Soo, M. (2005). Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross-national analysis of university ranking systems. Higher Education, 49(4), 495–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Docampo, D., & Cram, L. (2014). On the effects of institutional size in university classifications: The case of the Shanghai ranking. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1325–1346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esposito, A. (2013). Neither digital or open. Just researchers: Views on digital/open scholarship practices in an Italian university. First Monday, 18(1). http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3881. Accessed 1 Sep 2015.

  • Fan, W. (2015). Contribution of the institutional repositories of the Chinese Academy of Sciences to the webometric indicators of their home institutions. Scientometrics, 105(3), 1889–1909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan, W., & Liu, Q. (2013). Comparisons of e-Learning, online education and OER in top universities between China and America and its inspirations. Modern Educational Technology, 23(2), 23–26.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Fan, W., & Liu, Q. (2014a). Web-influence evaluation research achievements of university from view of open access. Journal of Intelligence, 33(4), 35–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan, W., & Liu, Q. (2014b). Evaluation of university teaching academic network influence. Information and Documentation Services, 6, 98–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan, W., & Liu, Q. (2014c). On the academic effects of universities civic engagement in cyber space. Journal of Ningbo University (Educational Science Edition), 36(4), 43–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan, W., Liu, Q., Lei, Q., & Zheng, X. (2015). Public oriented evaluation of web-influence of universities’ scholarship. China Higher Education Research, 5, 49–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federkeil, G., van Vught, F. A., & Westerhejden, D. F. (2012). An evaluation and critique of current rankings. In F. A. van Vught & F. Ziegele (Eds.), Multimensional ranking: The design and development of U-multirank (pp. 39–70). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Garnett, F., & Ecclesfield, N. (2012). Towards a framework for co-creating open scholarship. Research in Learning Technology, 19(1), 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Getz, M. (2005). Open scholarship and research universities. http://ideas.repec.org/p/van/wpaper/0517.html. Accessed 1 Mar 2015.

  • Goldstein, H., Bergman, E. M., & Maier, G. (2012). University mission creep? Comparing EU and US faculty views of university involvement in regional economic development and commercialization. The Annals of Regional Science, 50(2), 453–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenhow, C., & Gleason, B. (2014). Social scholarship: Reconsidering scholarly practices in the age of social media. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(3), 392–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greyson, D., Vezina, K., Morrison, H., Taylor, D., & Black, C. (2009). University supports for open access: A Canadian national survey. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 39(3), 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazelkorn, E. (2008). Learning to live with league tables and ranking: The experience of institutional leaders. Higher Education Policy, 21(2), 193–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heap, T., & Minocha, S. (2012). An empirically grounded framework to guide blogging for digital scholarship. Research in Learning Technology, 20(suppl), 176–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilton, J., & Wiley, D. (2011). Open-access textbooks and financial sustainability: A case study on flat world knowledge. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(5). http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/960/1860. Accessed 1 Mar 2015.

  • Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56(3), 303–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkup, G. (2010). Academic blogging: Academic practice and academic identity. London Review of Education, 8(1), 75–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kjellberg, S. (2010). I am a blogging researcher: Motivations for blogging in a scholarly context. First Monday, 15(8), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lafferty, N. T., & Manca, A. (2015). Perspectives on social media in and as research: A synthetic review. International Review of Psychiatry, 27(2), 85–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnan, S. S. (2007). Commentary: The promise of digital scholarship in SLA research and language pedagogy. Language Learning & Technology, 11(3), 152–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marhl, M., & Pausita, A. (2011). Third mission indicators for new ranking methodologies. Evaluation in Higher Education, 5(1), 43–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, A. C. (2008). The complex interplay between classification and ranking of colleges and universities: Should the Berlin Principles apply equally to classification? Higher Education in Europe, 33(2–3), 209–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montesinos, P., Carot, J. M., Martinez, J.-M., & Mora, F. (2008). Third mission ranking for world class universities: Beyond teaching and research. Higher Education in Europe, 33(2/3), 259–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morse, R. J. (2008). The real and perceived influence of the US News ranking. Higher Education in Europe, 33(2–3), 349–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niyazov, Y., Vogel, C., Price, R., Lund, B., Judd, D., Schwartzman, J., & Shron, M. (2015). Open access meets discoverability: Citations to articles posted to Academia.edu. https://www.academia.edu/12297791/Open_Access_Meets_Discoverability_Citations_to_Articles_Posted_to_Academia.edu. Accessed 1 Oct 2015.

  • Ordorika, I., & Lloyd, M. (2015). International rankings and the contest for university hegemony. Journal of Education Policy, 30(3), 385–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, N., Weller, M., Scanlon, E., & Kinsley, S. (2010). Digital scholarship considered: How new technologies could transform academic work. In education, 16(1). http://ineducation.ca/index.php/ineducation/article/view/44 Accessed 1 Oct 2015.

  • Porter, S. (2015). The economics of MOOCs: A sustainable future? The Bottom Line, 28(1/2), 52–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purdy, J. P., & Walker, J. R. (2010). Valuing digital scholarship: Exploring the changing realities of intellectual work. Profession, 1, 177–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranger, M., & Bultitude, K. (2014). ‘The kind of mildly curious sort of science interested person like me’: Science bloggers’ practices relating to audience recruitment. Public Understanding of Science,. doi:10.1177/0963662514555054.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, D. J. (2006). Strategies for developing sustainable open access scholarly journals. First Monday, 11(6). http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1335/1255. Accessed 1 Sept 2015.

  • Sowter, B. (2008). The Times Higher Education Supplement and Quacquarelli Symonds (THES–QS) World University Rankings: New Developments in Ranking Methodology. Higher Education in Europe, 33(2–3), 345–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suber, P. (2012). Open access. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trinidad, S. B., Fullerton, S. M., Bares, J. M., Jarvik, G. P., Larson, E. B., & Burke, W. (2010). Genomic research and wide data sharing: Views of prospective participants. Genetics in Medicine, 12(8), 486–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dyke, N. (2005). Twenty years of university report cards. Higher Education in Europe, 30(2), 103–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2012a). Assumptions and challenges of open scholarship. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4, 166–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2012b). Networked participatory scholarship: Emergent techno-cultural pressures toward open and digital scholarship in online networks. Computers & Education, 58(2), 766–774.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weller, M. (2011). The digital scholar: How technology is transforming scholarly practice. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, D. (2006). Open source, openness, and higher education. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 3(1). http://nsuworks.nova.edu/innovate/vol3/iss1/1. Accessed 1 Sept 2015.

  • Wiley, D., & Green, C. (2012). Why openness in education? In D. Oblinger (Ed.), Game changers: Education and information technologies (pp. 81–89). Louisville: Educause.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R., & Van Dyke, N. (2007). Measuring the international standing of universities with an application to Australian universities. Higher Education, 53(6), 819–841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the two anonymous referees for their constructive and valuable comments. This paper is supported by Research Funds from the Ministry of Education for Humanities and Social Sciences (China, No. 12YJCZH038) and Fundamental Research Funds of the Central Universities (China).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Higher Education, Beihang University, 37# Xueyuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100191, China

    Wenqiang Fan & Qinghui Liu

Authors
  1. Wenqiang Fan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Qinghui Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wenqiang Fan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fan, W., Liu, Q. Open scholarship ranking of Chinese research universities. Scientometrics 108, 673–691 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1983-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1983-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation