The methodology used for the Times Higher Education World University Rankings’ citations metric can distort benchmarking

Natt, Avtar

dc.contributor.author	Natt, Avtar	en
dc.date.accessioned	2017-11-02T10:04:22Z
dc.date.available	2017-11-02T10:04:22Z
dc.date.issued	2017-10-31
dc.identifier.citation	Natt A (2017) 'The methodology used for the Times Higher Education World University Rankings’ citations metric can distort benchmarking'. LSE Impact Blog.	en
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10547/622340
dc.description.abstract	LSE Impact Blog The Times Higher Education World University Rankings can influence an institution’s reputation and even its future revenues. However, Avtar Natt argues that the methodology used to calculate its citation metrics can have the effect of distorting benchmarking exercises. The fractional counting approach applied to only a select number of papers with high author numbers has led to a situation whereby the methodologists have unintentionally discriminated against certain types of big science paper. This raises questions about the benchmarking and also reiterates the importance of such rankings maintaining transparency in their data and methods.
dc.language.iso	en	en
dc.relation.url	http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/10/31/the-methodology-used-for-the-times-higher-education-world-university-rankings-citations-metric-can-distort-benchmarking/	en
dc.rights.uri	http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/	*
dc.subject	citations	en
dc.subject	university ranking	en
dc.title	The methodology used for the Times Higher Education World University Rankings’ citations metric can distort benchmarking	en
dc.type	Other	en
dc.contributor.department	University of Bedfordshire	en
dc.identifier.journal	LSE Impact Blog	en
dc.date.updated	2017-11-02T09:52:15Z
dc.description.note	Creative Commons Attribution 3.0
html.description.abstract	LSE Impact Blog The Times Higher Education World University Rankings can influence an institution’s reputation and even its future revenues. However, Avtar Natt argues that the methodology used to calculate its citation metrics can have the effect of distorting benchmarking exercises. The fractional counting approach applied to only a select number of papers with high author numbers has led to a situation whereby the methodologists have unintentionally discriminated against certain types of big science paper. This raises questions about the benchmarking and also reiterates the importance of such rankings maintaining transparency in their data and methods.