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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
http://www.webometrics.info/en/node/164 (accessed 1 March 2015).
http://repositories.webometrics.info (accessed 1 March 2015).
https://okfn.org/opendata/ (accessed 1 October 2015).
http://www.che.de/downloads/Berlin_Principles_IREG_534.pdf (accessed 1 September 2015).
http://www.moe.edu.cn/s78/A16/kjs_left/s8232/s8202/201508/W020150804363866761269.pdf (accessed 1 October 2015).
http://www.nseac.com/html/263/665686.html (accessed 1 March 2016).
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.
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.
Anderson, T., & McConkey, B. (2009). Development of disruptive open access journals. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 39(3), 71–87.
Antelman, K. (2004). Do open-access articles have a greater research impact? College & Research Libraries, 65(5), 372–382.
Ayers, E. L. (2013). Does digital scholarship have a future? Educause Review, 48(4), 24–34.
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.
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.
Borgman, C. L. (2007). Scholarship in the digital age: Information, infrastructure, and the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, N.J: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Boyer, E. L. (1996). The Scholarship of Engagement. Journal of Public Service & Outreach, 1(1), 11–20.
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.
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.
Claassen, C. (2015). Measuring university quality. Scientometrics, 104(3), 793–807.
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.
De Rassenfosse, G., & Williams, R. (2015). Rules of engagement: Measuring connectivity in national systems of higher education. Higher Education, 70(6), 941–956.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Fan, W., & Liu, Q. (2014a). Web-influence evaluation research achievements of university from view of open access. Journal of Intelligence, 33(4), 35–40.
Fan, W., & Liu, Q. (2014b). Evaluation of university teaching academic network influence. Information and Documentation Services, 6, 98–102.
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.
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.
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.
Garnett, F., & Ecclesfield, N. (2012). Towards a framework for co-creating open scholarship. Research in Learning Technology, 19(1), 5–17.
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.
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.
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.
Hazelkorn, E. (2008). Learning to live with league tables and ranking: The experience of institutional leaders. Higher Education Policy, 21(2), 193–215.
Heap, T., & Minocha, S. (2012). An empirically grounded framework to guide blogging for digital scholarship. Research in Learning Technology, 20(suppl), 176–188.
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.
Kirkup, G. (2010). Academic blogging: Academic practice and academic identity. London Review of Education, 8(1), 75–84.
Kjellberg, S. (2010). I am a blogging researcher: Motivations for blogging in a scholarly context. First Monday, 15(8), 1–17.
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.
Magnan, S. S. (2007). Commentary: The promise of digital scholarship in SLA research and language pedagogy. Language Learning & Technology, 11(3), 152–155.
Marhl, M., & Pausita, A. (2011). Third mission indicators for new ranking methodologies. Evaluation in Higher Education, 5(1), 43–64.
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.
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.
Morse, R. J. (2008). The real and perceived influence of the US News ranking. Higher Education in Europe, 33(2–3), 349–356.
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.
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.
Purdy, J. P., & Walker, J. R. (2010). Valuing digital scholarship: Exploring the changing realities of intellectual work. Profession, 1, 177–195.
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.
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.
Suber, P. (2012). Open access. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
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.
Van Dyke, N. (2005). Twenty years of university report cards. Higher Education in Europe, 30(2), 103–125.
Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2012a). Assumptions and challenges of open scholarship. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4, 166–189.
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.
Weller, M. (2011). The digital scholar: How technology is transforming scholarly practice. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
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.
Williams, R., & Van Dyke, N. (2007). Measuring the international standing of universities with an application to Australian universities. Higher Education, 53(6), 819–841.
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
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1983-5