4.5 Article

What does U-multirank tell us about knowledge transfer and research?

Journal

SCIENTOMETRICS
Volume 126, Issue 4, Pages 3011-3039

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03838-2

Keywords

Knowledge transfer; U-multirank; Benefit of the doubt; University rankings

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper introduces a ranking system based on research and knowledge transfer indicators using data-driven weights from U-multirank data. The study focuses on exploring the sensitivity of choosing specific weights and comparing ranks, with particular emphasis on the importance of co-publications with industrial partners and interdisciplinary publications. This research aims to fill a gap in understanding the role of co-publications with industrial partners in university efficiency worldwide.
The economic and social need to spread knowledge between universities and industry has become increasingly evident in recent years. This paper presents a ranking based partly on research and knowledge transfer indicators from U-multirank data but using data-driven weights. The choice of specific weights and the comparison between ranks remain a sensitive topic. A restricted version of the benefit of the doubt method is implemented to build a new university ranking that includes an endogenous weighting scheme. Furthermore, a novel procedure is presented to compare the principal method with U-multirank. At the best of my knowledge, the U-multirank data set has been unapplied to achieve alternative rankings that include research and knowledge transfers dimensions. A significant result arises from the benefit of the doubt: the highest importance weight is assigned to the co-publications with industrial partners and interdisciplinary publication indicators. This paper fills a bit of the existing gap on the role of co-publications with industrial partners in the university efficiency around the world.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available