WEBOMETRICS 2010
3 likes1,585 views
The document discusses a Webometrics report on the performance of Turkish universities in web rankings. It finds that no Turkish university ranks in the top 500 globally and provides some explanations for this, including biases against non-English content, lack of internationalization, and duplicate domains. It suggests Turkish universities could improve their rankings by increasing the amount and quality of web content, especially research outputs, teaching materials, and content in English.
![Thanks! Questions? Isidro F. Aguillo The Cybermetrics Lab IPP-CCHS-CSIC. Madrid, Spain. [email_address] www.webometrics.info](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/webometrics-101208081151-phpapp01/85/WEBOMETRICS-2010-23-320.jpg)
WEBOMETRICS 2010
- 1. PERFORMANCE OF THE TURKISH UNIVERSITIES IN THE WEBOMETRICS RANKING Isidro F. Aguillo The Cybermetrics Lab. CSIC www.webometrics.info
- 2. Introducing The Cybermetrics Lab Who we are www.webometrics.info Research group of the Spanish Research Council (CSIC) CSIC is the largest public research body in Spain Research is funded by Spanish and EU projects granted in competitive open calls Our research agenda is our priority Publication of results in peer-reviewed journals Chapters in monographs dealing with R&D indicators Open Websites without commercial banners Quality in our ranking exercises Evolving methodology as it is research-guided: Not obsessed with the stability Comparisons with other Rankings: Critical analysis of their methods and results (academic assessment and self-review) Transparency: Data sharing with other scholars
- 3. Agenda Rankings, Universities and the Ranking Web www.webometrics.info Our model for a Ranking of Universities Scientific and … … political agenda Ranking Universities Indicators: Desiderata and feasibility Some facts and figures Webometrics: The Ranking Web Methodology, results and shortcomings The Turkish Academic Webspace Major problems and lessons Cybermetrics Lab Consultancy Good practices, taking the web seriously Open Forum
- 4. World Rankings A model www.webometrics.info A Ranking is a RANKING A league table easy to understand, not a (customizable) confusing rating system A Ranking is ONE Ranking Several rankings with different results (positions) using the same data are useless A World Ranking is GLOBAL Covering most of the universities, not only the Top 500 (3%) A Ranking also for the “emerging” countries, including the so-called World –class universities, but also “Regional-class” and “Nation-building” universities A Ranking of Universities should be COMPRENHENSIVE Not focusing only on research, but considering all the other missions: learning, knowledge transfer, community engagement
- 5. World Rankings A useful model www.webometrics.info A Ranking should be USEFUL No strange positions (even if methodology looks sound) Or at least explanations for those cases A Ranking with a LONG-TERM strategy Supporting Open Access initiatives , promoting the free dissemination of academic knowledge A Ranking of Universities should be made by SCHOLARS A scientific evolving tool, not subject of political or commercial interests A Feasible and CHEAP Ranking Rankings critics are proposing improved rankings, with more and better indicators Great ideas, but without no empirical results
- 6. World Rankings Top500 by country www.webometrics.info
- 7. Indicators Shortcomings and feasibility www.webometrics.info Data availability No data, or not trusted figures, or uncooperative managers Lack of standards, no common definitions Data quality Discrimination power (Nobel prizes, student/faculty ratio) Biases of the bibliometric data Country/region, language Discipline (against technology, humanities) Surveys: Inadequate, uneven coverage, small samples Worldwide?, teaching? Composing indicators Strong correlation among variables Inconsistent normalization Weighting models arbitrary
- 8. Web Ranking Description www.webometrics.info Published since 2004 , two editions per year (January & July) The largest and most updated Directory with more than 20,000 Higher Education Institutions from all over the World The Ranking provides the Top 12,000 universities according to web indicators The hypothesis is that in the 21st century the web reflects the organization, activities, research results, knowledge transfer, prestige, and international visibility of the universities If the web performance is below the expected position could be due to lack of commitment to the electronic publication, or bad web practices
- 9. Justification Advantages of the ranking Web www.webometrics.info Large coverage All the Higher Education Institutions More contents and activities are considered Bibliometrics neglected disciplines ( Technologies, Computer Science, Social Sciences, Humanities ) Formal (papers) and informal (drafts, presentations, reports) scholarly communication Teaching supporting materials, specially for distance learning Relationships with third parties (industrial or technological stakeholders), community engagement (social, cultural or environmental commitments) Useful Promoting good web practices Supporting Open Access initiatives
- 10. Web Ranking Methodology Activity (50%) Virtual Referendum Size Number of webpages 20% Rich Files Number of documents 15% Scholar Number of papers 15% Visibility Number of external inlinks Impact (50%) ratio 1:1
- 11. Normalization Top 500 in the main World Rankings www.webometrics.info SCORE RANK WR QS CWTS ARWU HEEACT log-norm z-score
- 12. World universities Ranking Web 3485 149 569 6142 3486 355 4975 19161 WR July 2010
- 13. Web Ranking Results July 2010 www.webometrics.info
- 14. Universities in Turkey According to Webometrics Ranking www.webometrics.info 173 entries (different web domains) 161 different higher education institutions 11 universities with two “main” domains Middle East Technical, Pamukkale, Sabanci, Cukurova, Dumlupinar, Fatih, Hacettepe, Arel, Aydin, Izmir Institute of Technology 1 university with three domains Izmir University of Economics None in World Top 500 No web address for 6 universities Istanbul Sabahattin Zaim, Kayseri Abdullah Gül, Konya, Süleyman Şah, TED, Yıldırım Beyazıt Not included Turkish universities outside the country
- 16. Scopus vs Google Scholar Commitment to Open Access
- 17. Size Number of web pages (Nov’10) www.webometrics.info
- 20. Turkish Academic Web Presence Explanations www.webometrics.info Universities out of Top 500 Only 6 among the first one thousand Long term effects Scientific and cultural (web) colonialism Brain drain, not attracting foreign students/scholars Reasons (and suggestions) Biases in search engines coverage Improve the academic internet networks Lack of international contents and language related problems Increase the use of English Duplicate domains (Delete older domains) Student-oriented homepages Customize the central pages for larger audiences Low quality scientific portals Set up repositories and digital libraries
- 21. Additional suggestions Lessons www.webometrics.info More Web Contents More authors, everybody should be involved Identify gaps, specially of local knowledge, in the Web Archive contents for the future Hosting (relevant) third parties Quality contents Research results, not only papers Teaching supporting resources Rich personal/group pages Web 2.0, Multimedia Web Positioning strategies Avoid bad practices Promote interlinking
- 22. Final comments Ready, Set, Go! www.webometrics.info 21st Century: Web is the way Competitive global academic market “ Web Publish or Perish” A challenge, but also an opportunity Not only prestige, but quality web contents New actors from developing world, unexpected success stories Everybody should be involved Size matters, commitment too !! Not only IST and webmasters Open Access Global: Huge audiences Cheap Easy to monitor Quality and Multilingual contents are the key
- 23. Thanks! Questions? Isidro F. Aguillo The Cybermetrics Lab IPP-CCHS-CSIC. Madrid, Spain. [email_address] www.webometrics.info