1.
ISI Rankings of the Spanish universities by scientific fields: The IFQ 2 A - Index Torres-Salinas, Daniel * ; Herrera, Francisco ** ; Delgado López-Cozar *** , Emilio; Moreno Torres, José G ** . * “Evaluación de la Ciencia y la Comunicación” research group at the University of Navarra ** “Soft Computing and Intelligent Information Systems “ at the University of Granada *** “Evaluación de la Ciencia y la Comunicación” research group at the University of Granada

2.
0. Intro

3.
Presentation objetives and research team <ul><li>The objetives of this presentation are: </li></ul><ul><li>Introduce a new indicator ( the IFQ 2 A Index ) for Institucional Fields Rankings. </li></ul><ul><li>Introduce a new Spanish Universities ranking that take into account research with international visibility and 12 scientific fields. </li></ul>Research Team This works have been developed by a interdisciplinary team from two reseach groups “ Evaluación de la Ciencia y la Comunicación Científica – EC ”) (Univ. Granada y Navarra) and “ Soft Computing and Intelligent Information Systems - SCI 2 S “ (Univ. Granada)

4.
Presentation index <ul><li>Why another ranking </li></ul><ul><li>The IFQ 2 A-Index </li></ul><ul><li>Definition of the fields </li></ul><ul><li>Example in Biological Sciences </li></ul><ul><li>Details of the “Rankings ISI” </li></ul><ul><li>Epilogue </li></ul>

5.
1. Why another ranking?

6.
A new ranking of Spanish Universities ¿why? 1. We propose a new measure (IFQ 2 A-INDEX) that synthesizes 6 bibliometric indicators measuring qualitative and quantitative aspects of the scientific production of Spanish universities. So we don´t use raw indicators to order institutions because smaller are at a disadvantage with most bibliometric indicators. We don´t use subjective weight of the indicators. 2. Actually, it doesn´t exist any ranking product in Spain that uses exclusively Thomson Reuters products. We use Web of Science and Journal Citation Reports, these products are a selection of the best scientific journals worldwide and basic reference database for evaluation agencies in Spain as CNEAI or ANECA. 3. Most rankings do not take into account the specialization of the universities or analyzed disciplines too broad so that in this new ranking we provide the results in 12 different scientific fields.

7.
A new ranking of Spanish Universities ¿why? 1. We present a ranking of public and private Spanish universities based on research published in scientific with international visibility. Therefore reflect universities with the best research performance don’t reflect others aspect as teaching. 2. Its main objective is to discover the strengths and weaknesses of the Spanish university research system in different scientific fields . 3. Is a product of interest to policy makers and research managers linked to the academic world 4. Results are presented in two different time frames : a ten-year period (2000-2009) and a period of five years (2005-2009). 6. We called this new product as “ Rankings ISI de las Universidades Españolas según Campos Científicos ” or just “ Rankings ISI ”

8.
2. The IFQ 2 A-INDEX

9.
Definition of IFQ 2 A-INDEX The indicator designed to rank the institutions is called the IFQ 2 A-index: Institutional Field Quantitative-Qualitative Analysis Index The IFQ 2 A-index can be formally defined as a bidimensional bibliometric measure to compare and rank the scientific productions and their impact of different institutions in a given field. This indicator considered two dimensions: • QuaNtitative Institution-Field index (QNIF ) • QuaLitative Institution-Field index (QLIF)

10.
Indicators • NDOC : Number of citable items (article, review, procedings, letters) indexed in Journal Citation Journals. • NCIT : Number of citations received by all citable documents • H-INDEX : h-index, as proposed by Hirsch • %1Q : Ratio of documents published in journals in the top JCR quartile • ACIT : Average number of citations received by all citable documents • TOPCIT : Ratio of highly cited documents Ratio of highly cited documents We have used six bibliometric measures to compute the two partial indices QNIF (Quantitative Dimension) and QLIF (Qualitative Dimension)

11.
Indicators and dimensions The quantitative dimension shows the net production of an Institution using raw indicators that correlated with staff and size of the institution. The qualitative dimension focuses on the ratio of high-quality papers on each Institution-and is mostly independent of the size of the institution.

12.
Correlations Both QNIF and QLIF correlate strongly with the indicators that compose them (which shows they manage to synthesize the information of three indicators each); but the correlation between them (QNIF against QLIF) is extremely low, proving they are independent and thus the IFQ2A-index is a truly bidimensional measure.

13.
Final computation Thus once the indicators have been selected and defined all the indicators use in quantitative and qualitative dimensions are subsequently normalized in setting the highest value to 1, and the rest proportionally. QNIF (Quantitative Dimension) and QLIF (Qualitative Dimension) are respectively calculated as: We can define an index that aggregates the two previous ones as a hypervolume measure (the surface area associated to both indices, the area under the position in the map)

14.
Final computation

15.
Algorithm for the calculation of the IFQ 2 A index

16.
3. Definition of the Fields

17.
<ul><li>Mathematics </li></ul><ul><li>Physics </li></ul><ul><li>Chemistry </li></ul><ul><li>Biological Sciences </li></ul><ul><li>Clinical Medicine, Pharmacy & Pharmacology </li></ul><ul><li>Earth & Enviromental Sciences </li></ul><ul><li>Agricultural Sciences </li></ul><ul><li>Engineering </li></ul><ul><li>Information & Communication Technologies </li></ul><ul><li>Economics </li></ul><ul><li>Psychology & Education </li></ul><ul><li>Others Social Sciences </li></ul>Scientific Fields First: we stablished 12 scientific fields

18.
Scientific Fields Second: The Journal Citation Reports (JCR) categories (228) and therefore its journals were assigned to each of the 12 scientific fields. Example:

19.
4. Example of the computation of the IFQ 2 A-Index in Biological Sciences.

20.
Example of the IFQ 2 A-Index in Biological Sci. 1. Computation of the indicators

21.
Example of the IFQ 2 A-Index in Biological Sci. 2. Normalization of the indicators

22.
Example of the IFQ 2 A-Index in Biological Sci. 3. Computation of the dimensions and final IFQ 2 A-Index

23.
5. Details of the “Rankings ISI”

24.
Presentation of the ranking The ISI rankings of Spanish universities will be available in a web page. For each discipline is presented 1) a pdf with the QLIF QNIF indicators and universities ranked by IF 2 A-Index and an annex with raw and standardized indicators 2) A two-dimensional interactive graph

25.
Example in Clinical Medicine…Dimensions & IFQ 2 A Index

26.
Example in Clinical Medicine… Indicators

27.
Example in Clinical Medicine… Bidimensional Graph

28.
Extra material in the web site and date A XLS dataset including raw /normalized indicators, dimensions and IFQ 2 A-Index for each discipline and periods (2000-2009; 2005-2009). A total of 24 rankings A resume of the universities position in each scientif field for the two periods. the website with all the information will be able the next week (20th of october)

29.
7. Epilogue

30.
Comparing the IFQ2A-Index with ARWU: the case of Computer Science

31.
<ul><li>The correlation between Total Score in ARWU and IFQ2A INDEX is 0,757 . The correlation between ranks in AEWU and IFQ 2 A INDEX is 0,630 </li></ul><ul><li>The main difference in the rankings appears in universities with low or no score in the Alumni, Award or HiCi indicators. For example: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The rank given to institutions like Harvard University, California Institute of Technology (Caltech) is significantly better in IFQ 2 A-index than in ARWU. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>On the other hand, institutions with a mid-level production but high scores in Alumni, Award or HiCi are ranked higher in ARWU than in IFQ 2 A-index rankings, such as Pricenton. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The main advantage the IFQ 2 A-index is the avoidance of the elitist indicators (Alumni, Award and HiCi) which might be more indicative of quality past than present, a problem that is aggravated by the high weight (over 50% combined) these indicators have in the ARWU ranking. </li></ul>Comparing the IFQ2A-Index with ARWU: the case of Computer Science

32.
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION Contact: [email_address]