University Ranking by Academic Performance

The University Ranking by Academic Performance^[1] (URAP) is a university ranking developed by the Informatics Institute^[2] of Middle East Technical University. Since 2010, it has been publishing annual national^[3] and global^[4] college and university rankings for top 2000 institutions. The scientometrics measurement of URAP is based on data obtained from the Institute for Scientific Information via Web of Science and inCites. For global rankings, URAP employs indicators of research performance including the number of articles, citation, total documents, article impact total, citation impact total, and international collaboration. In addition to global rankings, URAP publishes regional rankings for universities in Turkey using additional indicators such as the number of students and faculty members obtained from Center of Measuring, Selection and Placement ÖSYM.

"URAP" redirects here. For the dish, see Urap. For the language, see Urap language.

https://urapcenter.org/Rankings/2020-2021/fields

Where Are the Global Rankings Leading Us? An Analysis of Recent Methodological Changes and New Developments, European Journal of Education

[14]

World university ranking systems: an alternative approach using partial least squares path modelling, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management

[16]

Sustainable Development and Quality Assurance in Higher Education: Transformation of Learning and Society

[19]

Determinants of University Choice: A Study on Economics Departments in Turkey, Journal of Higher Education.

[20]

Collecting University Rankings for Comparison Using Web Extraction and Entity Linking Techniques, Information and Communication Technologies in Education, Research, and Industrial Applications.

[21]

URAP-TR: a national ranking for Turkish universities based on academic performance, Scientometrics.

[22]

Global University Rankings and Their Impact, EUA Report in Rankings 2013, European University Association.

[15]

Contributions of Turkish academicians supervising PhD dissertations and their universities to economics: an evaluation of the 1990–2011 period, Scientometrics.

[23]

A Type-2 Fuzzy MCDM Method for Ranking Private Universities in İstanbul, Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering, 2014.

[24]

Adoption of Web 2.0 in academic libraries of top African universities, The Electronic Library.

[25]

Examining Job Description to Develop Job Performance Indicators for Higher Education Institution Based on MBNQA Education Criteria, Journal of Education & Vocational Research.

[26]

Software Quality in Academic Curriculum: A Case Study in Turkey, 12th International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications (ICCSA).

[27]

University Ranking Lists:A directory., 2013 Report, Division of Analysis and Evaluation, University of Gothenburg.

[28]

The "ASERF E News Bulletin on Education" published by Apeejay Stya Education Research Foundation compares the ranking results of THE with other ranking systems, including URAP and QS, for the top 10 universities in some countries.

[29]

Criticism[edit]

The indicators used in URAP are absolute values and size-dependent making it biased towards larger institutions.^[15]^[17] According to the “EUA report on Ranking for 2013“ published by the European University Association, URAP disregards books, excludes studies in arts and humanities areas, and under-represents social sciences. Furthermore, URAP does not employ any compensation for different publication cultures due to the lack of field-normalization of the results of bibliometric indicators. The report further states that “The results of the indicator on citation numbers in particular, as well as those on publication counts, are thus skewed towards the natural sciences and especially medicine.” It also states that excluding teaching indicators by URAP makes its focus solely on research-oriented institutions.^[15]

The “University Ranking Lists: A directory” report published by the Division for Analysis and Evaluation of the University of Gothenburg points out a problem that might arise from including more than 500 institutions in the ranking system. It states that “It [URAP] lists 2000 universities, and the purpose is to provide a ranking that covers not only institutions in the Western elite group. This purpose contrasts starkly with other ranking producers’ decisions not to publish more than the 400-500 top positions of their lists, since they do not consider their methods reliable below that level. [URAP] do not comment this problem.”^[28]