Skip to main content
main-content
Top

Hint

Swipe to navigate through the chapters of this book

2018 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

47. World’s Best Universities and Personalized Rankings

Authors: Mario Inostroza-Ponta, Natalie Jane de Vries, Pablo Moscato

Published in: Handbook of Heuristics

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

share
SHARE

Abstract

This chapter presents a heuristic for a multi-objective ranking problem using a dataset of international interest as an example of its application, namely, the ranking of the world’s top educational institutions. The problem of ranking academic institutions is a subject of keen interest for administrators, consumers, and research policy makers. From a mathematical perspective, the proposed heuristic addresses the need for more transparent models and associated methods related to the problem of identifying sound relative rankings of objects with multiple attributes. The low complexity of the method allows software implementations that scale well for thousands of objects as well as permitting reasonable visualization. It is shown that a simple and multi-objective-aware ranking system can easily be implemented, which naturally leads to intuitive research policies resulting from varying scenarios presented within. The only assumption that this method relies on is the ability to sort the candidate objects according to each given attribute. Thus the attributes could be numerical or ordinal in nature. This helps to avoid the selection of an ad hoc single score based on an arbitrary assignment of attributes’ weights as other heuristics do. To illustrate the use of this proposed methodology, results are presented and obtained using the dataset on the ranking of world universities (of the years 2007–2012), by academic performance, published annually by ARWU.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
go back to reference Agnew T, Whitlock R, Neutze J, Kerr A (1994) Waiting lists for coronary artery surgery: can they be better organised? N Z Med J 107(979):211–215 Agnew T, Whitlock R, Neutze J, Kerr A (1994) Waiting lists for coronary artery surgery: can they be better organised? N Z Med J 107(979):211–215
4.
go back to reference Bang-Jensen J, Gutin G (2001) Digraphs: theory, algorithms and applications. Springer, London Bang-Jensen J, Gutin G (2001) Digraphs: theory, algorithms and applications. Springer, London
18.
go back to reference Gerani S, Zhai C, Crestani F (2012) Score transformation in linear combination for multi-criteria relevance ranking. In: Advances in information retrieval – proceedings of 34th European conference on IR research, ECIR 2012, Barcelona, pp 256–267 Gerani S, Zhai C, Crestani F (2012) Score transformation in linear combination for multi-criteria relevance ranking. In: Advances in information retrieval – proceedings of 34th European conference on IR research, ECIR 2012, Barcelona, pp 256–267
31.
36.
go back to reference López JCL, Chavira DAG, Noriega JJS (2014) A multiobjective genetic algorithm based on NSGA II for deriving final ranking from a medium-sized fuzzy outranking relation. In: 2014 IEEE symposium on computational intelligence in multi-criteria decision-making, MCDM 2014, Orlando, pp 24–31. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​MCDM.​2014.​7007184 López JCL, Chavira DAG, Noriega JJS (2014) A multiobjective genetic algorithm based on NSGA II for deriving final ranking from a medium-sized fuzzy outranking relation. In: 2014 IEEE symposium on computational intelligence in multi-criteria decision-making, MCDM 2014, Orlando, pp 24–31. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​MCDM.​2014.​7007184
51.
go back to reference Reba MNM, Rosli AZ, Makhfuz MA, Sabarudin NS, Roslan NH (2013) Determination of sustainable land potential based on priority ranking: multi-criteria analysis (MCA) technique. In: Computational science and its applications – ICCSA 2013 – proceedings of 13th international conference, Ho Chi Minh City, part VI, pp 212–218. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​ICCSA.​2013.​44 Reba MNM, Rosli AZ, Makhfuz MA, Sabarudin NS, Roslan NH (2013) Determination of sustainable land potential based on priority ranking: multi-criteria analysis (MCA) technique. In: Computational science and its applications – ICCSA 2013 – proceedings of 13th international conference, Ho Chi Minh City, part VI, pp 212–218. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​ICCSA.​2013.​44
59.
go back to reference Thakur M (2007) The impact of ranking systems on higher education and its stakeholders. J Inst Res 13(1):83–96 MathSciNet Thakur M (2007) The impact of ranking systems on higher education and its stakeholders. J Inst Res 13(1):83–96 MathSciNet
63.
go back to reference Voll CA, Goodwin JE, Pitney WA (1999) Athletic training education programs: to rank or not to rank? J Athl Train 34(1):48–52. http://​search.​proquest.​com/​docview/​206648692?​accountid=​45394 Voll CA, Goodwin JE, Pitney WA (1999) Athletic training education programs: to rank or not to rank? J Athl Train 34(1):48–52. http://​search.​proquest.​com/​docview/​206648692?​accountid=​45394
Metadata
Title
World’s Best Universities and Personalized Rankings
Authors
Mario Inostroza-Ponta
Natalie Jane de Vries
Pablo Moscato
Copyright Year
2018
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07124-4_60

Premium Partner