University Ranking by Academic Performance

"URAP" redirects here. For the dish, seeUrap.For the language, seeUrap language.

TheUniversity Ranking by Academic Performance(URAP) is auniversity rankingdeveloped by the Informatics InstituteofMiddle East Technical University.Since 2010, it has been publishing annual nationaland globalcollege and university rankingsfor top 2000 institutions. Thescientometricsmeasurement of URAP is based on data obtained from theInstitute for Scientific InformationviaWeb of Scienceand inCites. For global rankings, URAP employs indicators of research performance including the number of articles, citation, total documents, article impact total, citation impact total, and international collaboration. In addition to global rankings, URAP publishes regional rankings for universities inTurkeyusing additional indicators such as the number of students and faculty members obtained from Center of Measuring, Selection and PlacementÖSYM.

Methodology

URAP gathers data from international bibliometric databases such asWeb of Scienceand InCites provided by theInstitute for Scientific Information.URAP uses data of 2,500 Higher Education Institutions (HEI) with highest number of articles published. The overall score of each HEI is based on its performance over several indicators. Of 2500 selected HEIs, the top 2000 are included in the rankings published by URAP. Field based rankings are performed on 23 fields based on Australia ERA.

Indicators

URAP uses 6 main indicator to measure the academic performance. These indicators are number of articles, citation, total documents, article impact total, citation impact total, and international collaboration. The raw bibliometric data underlying URAP's 6 main indicators have highly skewed distribution. To address this issue, the median of the indicators have been used. The Delphi system was conducted with a group of experts to assign weighting scores to the indicators. Total score of 600 is distributed to indicators. URAP uses additional indicators for ranking universities inTurkeyincluding the number of students and faculty members. The following table shows the indicators used for global rankings in URAP as of 2014.

Indicator	Objective	Weight (out of 600)	Source
Number of Articles	Scientific Productivity	%21	InCites
Citation	Research Impact	%21	InCites
Total Documents	Scientific Productivity	%10	InCites
Article Impact Total	Research Quality	%18	InCites
Citation Impact Total	Research Quality	%15	InCites
International Collaboration	International Acceptance	%15	InCites

Number of articles

Number of articles is used as a measure of current scientific productivity which includes articles indexed by Web of Science. This indicator covers articles, reviews and notes. The weight of this indicator in the overall ranking is %21.

Citation

Citation, as an indicator in URAP ranking, is a measure of research impact. It is scored according to the total number of citations received. The weight of this indicator in the overall ranking is %21.

Total documents

Total documents is the measure of sustainability and continuity of scientific productivity. The total document count covers all scholarly literature provided by the Web of Science database, including conference papers, reviews, letters, discussions, scripts, and journal articles. The weight of this indicator in the overall ranking is %10.

Article Impact Total (AIT)

Article Impact Total (AIT) is a measure of scientific productivity adjusted by the ratio of institution's Citation Per Publication (CPP) to the world CPP in 23 subject areas. The ratio of the institution's CPP and the world CPP indicates whether the institution is performing above or below the world average in that field. This ratio is multiplied by the number of publications in that field and then summed across the 23 fields, as shown in the following formula:

$AIT=\sum _{i=1}^{23}{\Bigg [}{\Bigg (}{\frac {CPP_{i}}{CPP\_{World_{i}}}}{\Bigg )}*Articles_{i}{\Bigg ]}$

The weight of this indicator in the overall ranking is %18.

Citation Impact Total (CIT)

Citation Impact Total (CIT) is a measure of research impact corrected by the institution's normalized CPP with respect to the world CPP in 23 subject areas. The ratio of the institution's CPP and the world CPP indicates whether the institution is performing above or below the world average in that field. This ratio is multiplied by the number of citations in that field and then summed across the 23 fields, as shown in the following formula:

$CIT=\sum _{i=1}^{23}{\Bigg [}{\Bigg (}{\frac {CPP_{i}}{CPP\_{World_{i}}}}{\Bigg )}*Citations_{i}{\Bigg ]}$

The weight of this indicator in the overall ranking is %15.

International collaboration

International Collaboration is a measure of global acceptance of the institution. International collaboration data, which is based on the total number of published studies conducted in collaboration with foreign universities, is obtained from InCites. The weight of this indicator in the overall ranking is %15.

Current rankings

Global ranking

University Ranking by Academic Performance—Top 50

Institution	2021-22	2020-21	2019–20	2018–19	2017–18	2016–17	2015–16	2014–15
Harvard University	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
University of Toronto	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
University College London	3	4	3	5	6	5	6	6
Stanford University	4	3	4	4	5	4	8	7
University of Oxford	5	5	5	3	3	3	3	3
Johns Hopkins University	6	6	6	6	8	6	4	4
University of Cambridge	7	7	7	7	9	8	5	5
University of Michigan	8	8	8	9	11	10	10	10
University of Washington	9	10	9	10	12	11	11	11
Tsinghua University	10	12	12	18	25	38	48	58
Shanghai Jiao Tong University	11	18	19	24	32	39	50	59
Imperial College London	12	13	13	11	16	15	15	15
University of Paris-Saclay	13	9	94	91	80	87	70	69
University of Pennsylvania	14	15	14	15	14	13	13	13
Zhejiang University	15	20	20	31	33	34	42	46
University of California, Los Angeles	16	16	15	13	13	12	12	12
Massachusetts Institute of Technology	17	11	11	8	7	7	7	9
Sorbonne University	18	14	10	17	4	26	26	25
Columbia University	19	17	16	14	15	14	14	14
University of Sydney	20	24	24	23	26	27	29	30
University of Copenhagen	21	19	18	16	17	16	16	22
Peking University	22	21	21	22	29	33	44	48
University of Melbourne	23	25	23	26	30	31	30	29
University of Paris	24	23	97	95	87	85	78	76
University of California, San Diego	25	26	22	19	18	17	17	16
University of California, San Francisco	26	30	31	28	24	22	19	18
National University of Singapore	27	32	28	30	27	29	32	34
Cornell University	28	28	29	25	23	25	25	24
University of British Columbia	29	29	27	27	21	21	22	20
Yale University	30	27	26	21	20	19	20	21
University of São Paulo	31	33	33	38	36	40	35	31
Monash University	32	37	39	46	53	57	62	64
University of California, Berkeley	33	22	17	12	10	9	9	8
University of Queensland	34	35	35	39	40	41	43	51
Sun Yat-sen University	35	48	60	83	93	99	113	116
Duke University	36	34	34	33	28	24	24	23
University of Tokyo	37	31	25	20	19	18	18	17
KU Leuven	38	38	37	42	41	23	23	38
University of New South Wales	39	42	44	52	60	71	74	78
University of Amsterdam	40	40	48	51	63	61	61	61
Ohio State University	41	39	38	36	38	37	33	32
Huazhong University of Science and Technology	42	49	56	81	94	111	135	155
University of Pittsburgh	43	43	40	35	35	32	31	28
Karolinska Institute	44	50	51	48	51	53	60	57
Fudan University	45	54	58	62	68	74	90	94
University of Chicago	46	36	30	29	22	20	21	19
Northwestern University	47	46	45	43	46	38	37	37
Utrecht University	48	45	42	40	45	44	37	35
Seoul National University	49	51	47	49	44	50	36	42
University of Minnesota	50	44	32	32	31	28	27	27

Rankings by field

• https://urapcenter.org/Rankings/2020-2021/fields

Commentary and reception

URAP covers considerably more institutions than other major ranking systems. In a section about URAP in “Where Are the Global Rankings Leading Us? An Analysis of Recent Methodological Changes and New Developments” published in theEuropean Journal of Educationit is mentioned that” While it is less well-known than SRG, ARWU, THE, and QS, it is interesting because it published a list of 2000 universities, while the above rankings cover a maximum of 700 universities.”This is also mentioned in the “EUA report on Ranking for 2013 “published by theEuropean University Association.It indicates that URAP, along withSCImagoranking system, “fill an important gap in the rankings market in that their indicators measure the performance of substantially more universities, up to 2000 in the case of URAP and over 3000 in SCImago, compared to only 400 in THE, 500 in SRC ARWU, NTU ranking and CWTS Leiden, and around 700 in QS.”

URAP is mentioned as one of the four ranking systems that solely measure the academic performance. The other three arePerformance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities,CWTS Leiden Ranking,and SCImago Institutions Rankings.URAP excludes teaching indicators, such as student quality and teaching performance, from global rankings and only covers research-oriented indicators.In the “International Benchmarking in UK higher Education”report of theHigher Education Statistics Agency,URAP is listed among the benchmarking resources for measuring academic. In the same report, URAP is categorized in the “whole university rankings” along withTimes Higher Education World University Rankings(THE),QS World University Rankings,Academic Ranking of World Universities(ARWU), CHE Excellence Rankings, RatER Global University Ranking of World Universities,Webometrics Ranking of World Universities,2010 World University Ranking, SIR World Report,CWTS Leiden Ranking,U-Multirank, European Research Ranking,Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities,Human Resources & Labor Review (HRLR), and Professional Classification of Higher Education Institutions.

URAP in Research, Books, and Reports

URAP is mentioned and used in several studies based on, or referring to, global rankings. In the “World University Ranking Systems: An Alternative Approach Using Partial Least Squares Path Modeling”article, published in theJournal of Higher Education Policy and Management,Urap is incorporated in the suggested model as one of the nine major worldwide university ranking systems along with ARWU, QS, Times, Webometrics, Taiwan. Leiden, SIR, and CWUR. In the same article, URAP is categorized among the ranking systems that are based solely on publication performance. The other ranking systems in the same category arePerformance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities,CWTS Leiden Ranking,and SCImago Institutions Rankings.

The following is a list of some of the books, peer reviewed articles, and conference proceedings that have covered URAP or have incorporated it in their models or comparisons.

• Where Are the Global Rankings Leading Us? An Analysis of Recent Methodological Changes and New Developments, European Journal of Education
• World university ranking systems: an alternative approach using partial least squares path modelling, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management
• Sustainable Development and Quality Assurance in Higher Education: Transformation of Learning and Society
• Determinants of University Choice: A Study on Economics Departments in Turkey, Journal of Higher Education.
• Collecting University Rankings for Comparison Using Web Extraction and Entity Linking Techniques, Information and Communication Technologies in Education, Research, and Industrial Applications.
• URAP-TR: a national ranking for Turkish universities based on academic performance, Scientometrics.
• Global University Rankings and Their Impact, EUA Report in Rankings 2013, European University Association.
• Contributions of Turkish academicians supervising PhD dissertations and their universities to economics: an evaluation of the 1990–2011 period, Scientometrics.
• A Type-2 Fuzzy MCDM Method for Ranking Private Universities in İstanbul, Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering, 2014.
• Adoption of Web 2.0 in academic libraries of top African universities, The Electronic Library.
• Examining Job Description to Develop Job Performance Indicators for Higher Education Institution Based on MBNQA Education Criteria, Journal of Education & Vocational Research.
• Software Quality in Academic Curriculum: A Case Study in Turkey, 12th International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications (ICCSA).
• University Ranking Lists:A directory., 2013 Report, Division of Analysis and Evaluation, University of Gothenburg.
• The "ASERF E News Bulletin on Education" published by Apeejay Stya Education Research Foundation compares the ranking results of THE with other ranking systems, including URAP and QS, for the top 10 universities in some countries.

URAP in Press

• Thomson Reuters partners with Times on university rankings
• Press release ofUniversity of Tübingen,released on 03.04.2013, covered the ranking of the university based in URAP.
• Turkey and Arab states announce new HE collaboration, University World News
• Power and responsibility – The growing influence of global rankings, University World News
• 10 Turkish universities rank among top 500, Hurriyet Daily News
• The report of inclusion of five Romanian universities in international rankings based on QS, URAP, U-maltirank, and other ranking systems.

URAP in university reports and websites

Annual URAP ranking results are used by a number of listed universities to indicate their academic performance. The following is a short list of links to university pages that has mentioned URAP results either independently or in conjunction with other ranking results.

• The comparison of the latest results and previous results of URAP, along with other ranking systems, Provided by thePolytechnic University of Catalonia.
• The profile of the rankings ofNewcastle Universityfrom 2010 to 2014and the current ranking results according to URAP and other ranking systems.
• URAP ranking results for top 16 universities of Thailand for 2013-2014 forMahidol University.The report also includes the results for 2012-2013 and the results of all major ranking systems
• The report of the global standing ofSeoul National Universityincluding the URAP results for 2014-2015
• On page 32 of the "Annual Report for the year ended March 31, 2013" of theUniversity of Calgaryhas used URAP results for 2012 to compare the university with its top 5 peers.
• The report of the ranking ofUniversity of Pittsburghbased on URAP results since 2010.
• News report of the ranking ofUniversity College Dublinbased in URAP and QS.
• Global ranking in 2011 of theGriffith Universitybased in ARWU, QS, THE, Leiden, and URAP.
• On page 6 of the "Facts and Figures" report published by theUniversity of Erlangen-NurembergURAP result is used to justify that their ranking in other systems is not a "one-off success story".

Criticism

The indicators used in URAP are absolute values and size-dependent making it biased towards larger institutions. According to the “EUA report on Ranking for 2013 “published by theEuropean University Association,URAP disregards books, excludes studies in arts and humanities areas, and under-represents social sciences. Furthermore, URAP does not employ any compensation for different publication cultures due to the lack of field-normalization of the results of bibliometric indicators. The report further states that “The results of the indicator on citation numbers in particular, as well as those on publication counts, are thus skewed towards the natural sciences and especially medicine.” It also states that excluding teaching indicators by URAP makes its focus solely on research-oriented institutions.

The “University Ranking Lists: A directory” report published by the Division for Analysis and Evaluation of theUniversity of Gothenburgpoints out a problem that might arise from including more than 500 institutions in the ranking system. It states that “It [URAP] lists 2000 universities, and the purpose is to provide a ranking that covers not only institutions in the Western elite group. This purpose contrasts starkly with other ranking producers’ decisions not to publish more than the 400-500 top positions of their lists, since they do not consider their methods reliable below that level. [URAP] do not comment this problem.”

See also

• College and university rankings

External links

• Official Website