Chinese university ranks 6th out of top 10 in world science rankings

University leaders pay close attention to comparative rankings provided by Times Higher Education, ShanghaiRanking Consultancy, and others. Rankings influence student enrollment, attract talented faculty, and justify donations from wealthy donors. Although university leaders have criticized universities and some schools have “withdrew” from universities, rankings have an impact.

Fundamental changes in the data on which rankings are based are turning the world of rankings upside down – and this is largely in favor of China.

For example, in early 2024, the Leiden University Center for Science and Technology Research CWTS Group published a new university ranking that adds open data sources to the traditionally selective list of elite journals that have become the norm. The results show that the world of university rankings has been turned upside down.

The list of universities with the highest scientific impact was once dominated by US and British schools such as Cambridge, Stanford, Harvard and MIT, but the new top 10 list of universities with the highest scientific impact includes China’s Includes 6 universities.

What does this change mean for our understanding of academic excellence? I study global research systems and their contribution to social welfare. China’s rapid advances in science and technology, driven by investment in research and the power of its universities, are alarming the United States and other countries. Concerns are growing that the United States is losing competitive advantage against more aggressive rivals, with potential implications for national security, economic standing, and global influence. . These new rankings may cause even more alarm.

Providing a wider range of sources

Ranking programs rely heavily on quantitative evaluations called “metrics.” A quick glance at the influential ShanghaiRanking criteria reveals that the inputs to its rating include “articles indexed in major citation indexes.” The popular index is drawn from a highly curated set of academic journals, including Cell, The Lancet, and Chemical Reviews. The most popular index for gathering information about these and other journals is Web of Science’s Science Citation Index (SCI). This is the result of careful standardization and data enrichment by Clarivate.

However, SCI represents only a small portion of the published works worldwide. Among other criticisms, many decry SCI’s exclusivity and perceived Western bias.

However, with careful curation, this can become the gold standard for academic indexing and something that journals and authors will aspire to be a part of. Its value lies in its replicability. It is possible to dip multiple times using different search strategies and produce comparable results.

With the introduction of rankings based on open data, such as those collected by OpenAlex, dependence on curated databases is coming to an end. OpenAlex claims to include over 100,000 journals, which vary widely in quality and editorial approach, compared to SCI’s 9,200 journals. All OpenAlex data is released into the public domain with the laudable goal of making research freely available to all. The downside is that this wide net has swept through predatory journals that exploit researchers and undermine the quality and integrity of scholarly communication.

Reflecting China’s research productivity

The amount of academic papers included in open databases has a significant impact on China’s position in open source rankings. Chinese scholars have written a huge amount of work, some in English and some in Chinese. Estimates for the proportion of languages ​​vary widely, but hover around 50-50. As China invests in education and increases its science and engineering capabilities, more people are publishing academic papers.

By 2023, China will have 2.2 million scientists and engineers, up from a very small number in the 1980s, according to UNESCO data. The academic output of scientific and engineering papers in China has increased very rapidly since the 1990s, and its growth rate has exceeded that of all other countries. Although quality lags behind quantity, my calculations show that China surpasses the United States in the total number of scientific publications on the Web of Science. This change in leadership has not been seen since the United States overtook Britain in 1948.

The numbers are old, but when we counted China’s academic publications in 2010, my colleagues and I estimated that between 2000 and 2009, China had about 1 million scientific papers not published in the Web of Science. It is assumed that it has been published. In other words, it was not “counted” in the traditional rankings. These publications will be counted in the newly opened database. Many of the articles included in open source or open access journals are not considered high quality. Nevertheless, they become part of the written record.

Open access publishing services are growing rapidly and enabling rapid publication, but the quality of journals is questionable. Open publishing services such as MDPI and Frontiers have significantly more Chinese contributors compared to contributors from other countries.

Open access services often include content from potential paper mills, companies that produce things like academic papers for sale. Despite concerns about the reputations and editorial practices of these publishers and editors, there is little oversight. These services flood the publishing world with tons of low-quality articles.

Chinese researchers and their sponsoring institutions place great importance on publishing in international journals, even those sponsored by dubious publishers. The practice of citation stacking – when authors cite the works of co-countries to increase their citation profile – biases the count and improves China’s performance.

China is trying to address bad practices. To its credit, the Chinese government recently announced the retraction of 17,000 papers with Chinese authors or co-authors. Efforts are underway to improve quality. Government payments to researchers for articles in ranked journals are being discontinued.

Although there are quality questions, the numbers alone will push China up the ranking list. This rapid change will enhance China’s standing relative to other countries in the world. Although this rise does not itself reflect changes in quality, status, or output, it will continue to fuel the fires of those wary of China’s rise in the world’s science, technology, and innovation fields, and will likely change the rankings. It will raise even more questions.

The Conversation has updated the headline and table to correctly report the numbers for CWTS Leiden Rankings Open Edition 2023.

caroline wagnerProfessor of Public Relations; ohio state university

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.