Google Scholar University Ranking Algorithm to Evaluate the Quality of Institutional Research
Source abstract
Abstract
Education quality has undoubtedly become an important local and international benchmark for education, and an institute’s ranking is assessed based on the quality of education, research projects, theses, and dissertations, ... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on Tech Science Press
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Online Learning and Analytics · scientometrics and bibliometrics research · Online and Blended Learning
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (41)
Show source-provided references
1. A general perspective about institutional rankings, ranking framework, benefits of rankings and ranking methodological flaws and best approach for being a world class institution10.24331/ijere.1067952 ↗
2. Stack · Global University Rankings and the Mediatization of Higher Education · 2016 · 5110.1057/9781137475954_5 ↗
3. The times higher education supplement and quacquarelli Symonds (THES-QS) World university rankings: New developments in ranking methodology10.1080/03797720802254247 ↗
4. Academic analytics and data mining in higher education10.20429/ijsotl.2010.040217 ↗
5. Auto-Prep: Efficient and robust automated data preprocessing pipeline10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3198662 ↗
6. Rankings and university performance: A conditional multidimensional approach10.1016/j.ejor.2015.02.005 ↗
7. Impact evaluation in Norway and the UK: A comparative study, based on REF 2014 and Humeval 2015–2017
8. Using Google Scholar institutional level data to evaluate the quality of university research
9. Artificial general intelligence based rational behavior detection using cognitive correlates for tracking online harms
10. The UK research assessment exercise: Performance measurement and resource allocation10.1111/j.1835-2561.2010.00076.x ↗
11. Preparing impact submissions for REF 2014: An evaluation. Findings and observations
12. UK research assessment exercises: Informed judgments on research quality or quantity10.1007/s11192-008-0108-1 ↗
13. Beyond REF 2014: The impact of impact assessment on the future of information research10.1177/0165551516636291 ↗
14. Preparing impact submissions for REF 2014: An evaluation
15. Microsoft Academic: Is the phoenix getting wings10.1007/s11192-016-2185-x ↗
16. Google Scholar compared to Web of Science. A literature review10.15845/noril.v1i1.10 ↗
17. Counting the citations: A comparison of web of science and Google Scholar in the field of business and management10.1007/s11192-010-0270-0 ↗
18. An overview on web scraping techniques and tools
19. Green communication for wireless body area networks: Energy aware link efficient routing approach
20. Data mining techniques to analyze the impact of social media on the academic performance of high school students10.1155/2022/9299115 ↗
21. A comparison of bibliometric indicators for computer science scholars and journals on Web of Science and Google Scholar10.1007/s11192-009-0021-2 ↗
22. Microsoft Academic is one year old: The Phoenix is ready to leave the nest10.1007/s11192-017-2454-3 ↗
23. Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: A multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4 ↗
24. The impact of electronic theses and dissertations: A study of the institutional repository of a university in South Africa10.1007/s11192-018-2657-2 ↗
25. Use of Scopus and Google Scholar to measure social sciences production in four major Spanish universities10.1007/s11192-009-0043-9 ↗
26. Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: A longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison10.1007/s11192-015-1798-9 ↗
27. Whale optimization algorithm: A systematic review of contemporary applications, modifications and developments10.1007/s00521-020-04849-z ↗
28. hIa: An individual annual h-index to accommodate disciplinary and career length differences10.1007/s11192-013-1208-0 ↗
29. A review of theory and practice in scientometrics10.1016/j.ejor.2015.04.002 ↗
30. Running the REF on a rainy Sunday afternoon: Can we exchange peer review for metrics
31. Two new kids on the block: How do crossref and dimensions compare with Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus and the Web of Science10.1007/s11192-019-03114-y ↗
32. Universities through the eyes of bibliographic databases: A retroactive growth comparison of Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science10.1007/s11192-019-03208-7 ↗
33. National institutional ranking framework (NIRF): Analyzing performance of top 50 management schools
34. The assessment of research quality in UK universities: Peer review or metrics10.1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00722.x ↗
35. Traffic priority-aware medical data dissemination scheme for IoT based WBASN healthcare applications10.32604/cmc.2022.022826 ↗
36. A novel method for depicting academic disciplines through Google Scholar citations: The case of bibliometrics10.1007/s11192-017-2587-4 ↗
37. Comparison of a citation-based indicator and peer review for absolute and specific measures of research-group excellence10.1007/s11192-013-1058-9 ↗
38. Google Scholar metrics evolution: An analysis according to languages10.1007/s11192-013-1164-8 ↗
39. Comprehensiveness and uniqueness of commercial databases and open access systems10.1007/s11192-019-03252-3 ↗
40. A simple back-of-the-envelope test for self-citations using Google Scholar author profiles10.1007/s11192-020-03521-6 ↗
41. What I have learned from my Google Scholar and H index10.1007/s11192-019-03316-4 ↗