Peer assessment of CS doctoral programs shows strong correlation with faculty citations

Abstract

Strong correlation indicates notable research productivity of individual faculty members in turn boosts the standing of their programs.

References

1. Aguillo, I.F., Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., and Ortega, J.L. Comparing university rankings. Scientometrics 85, 1 (Feb. 2010), 243--256.
2. Altbach, P.G. The dilemmas of ranking. International Higher Education 25, 42 (Mar. 2015); https://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ihe/article/view/7878
3. Bernat, A. and Grimson, E. Doctoral program rankings for U.S. computing programs: The national research council strikes out. Commun. ACM 54, 12 (Dec. 2011), 41--43.
4. Billaut, J.C., Bouyssou, D., and Vincke, P. Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking? Scientometrics 84, 1 (July 2010), 237--263.
5. Black, D. On the rationale of group decision-making, Journal of Political Economy 56, 1 (Feb. 1948), 23--34.
6. Docampo, D. Reproducibility of the Shanghai Academic Ranking of World Universities results. Scientometrics 94, 2 (Feb. 2013), 567--587.
7. Delgado Lopez-Cozar, E., Robinson-Garcia, N., and Torres-Salinas, D. The Google Scholar experiment: How to index false papers and manipulate bibliometric indicators. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 65, 3 (Mar. 2014), 446--454.
8. Gertler, E., Mackin, E., Magdon-Ismail, M., Xia, L., and Yi, Y. Computing manipulations of ranking systems. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (Istanbul, Turkey, May 4--8). ACM Press, New York, 2015, 685--693.
9. Hazelkorn, E. Learning to live with league tables and ranking: The experience of institutional leaders. Higher Education Policy 21, 2 (June 2008), 193--215.
10. Hazelkorn, E. How rankings are reshaping higher education. Chapter in Los Rankings Universitarios, Mitos y Realidades, V. Climent, F. Michavila, and M. Ripolles, Eds. Tecnos, Dublin Institute of Technology, Ireland, 2013, 1--9.
11. Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman L., De Rijcke, S., and Rafols, I. The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature 520, 7548 (Apr. 23, 2015), 429--431.
12. Hirsch, J.E. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102, 46 (Nov. 15, 2005), 16569--16572.
13. Jacsoo, P. Deflated, inflated and phantom citation counts. Online Information Review 30, 3 (May 2006), 297--309.
14. Kehm, B.M. and Erkkila, T. Editorial: The ranking game. European Journal of Education 49, 1 (Mar. 2014), 3--11.
15. Lazaridis, T. Ranking university departments using the mean h-index. Scientometrics 82, 2 (Feb. 2010), 211--216.
16. Lin, C.S., Huang, M.H., and Chen, D.Z. The influences of counting methods on university rankings based on paper count and citation count. Journal of Informetrics 7, 3 (July 2013), 611--621.
17. Liu, N.C. and Cheng, Y. The Academic Ranking of World Universities. Higher Education in Europe 30, 2 (July 2005), 127--136.
18. Radicchi, F. and Castellano, C. Testing the fairness of citation indicators for comparison across scientific domains: The case of fractional citation counts. Journal of Informetrics 6, 1 (Jan. 2012), 121--130.
19. Raykar, V.C., Yu, S., Zhao, L.H., Valadez, G.H., Florin, C., Bogoni, L., and Moy, L. Learning from crowds. Journal of Machine Learning Research 11 (Apr. 2010), 1297--1322.
20. Saisana, M., d'Hombres, B., and Saltelli, A. Rickety numbers: Volatility of university rankings and policy implications. Research Policy 40, 1 (Feb. 2011), 165--177.

Index Terms

• Applied computing

  • Operations research

• Mathematics of computing

  • Probability and statistics

• Social and professional topics

  • Professional topics

    • Computing education