Lokakarya Nasional Webometrics

March 6th, 2010 Indri Trisusiyanti 3 comments

Lokakarya Nasional

Strategi Meningkatkan Peringkat Webometrics

(Sebuah Jalan Menuju World Class University)


Tanggal 20-21 April 2010

Hotel Santika Premiere Malang


Universitas Negeri Malang

Learning Center for World Class University

Telkom Indonesia

Bank BTN Malang

http://lcwcu.um.ac.id

e-mail: lcwcu@um.ac.id

A. Latar Belakang

Universitas Negeri Malang (UM) melalui website http://um.ac.id, membuat kejutan dalam pemeringkatan world class university versi Webometrics. UM yang belum masuk peringkat pada edisi Januari 2009, menempati peringkat 13 Indonesia (2.791 dunia, 82 Asia Tenggara) pada edisi Juli 2009. Lebih mengejutkan lagi, UM menempati peringkat 6 Indonesia (1.256 dunia, 28 Asia Tenggara) pada edisi Januari 2010.

Peringkat indikator scholar dari 161 naik menjadi 107, peringkat rich files dari 5.467 naik menjadi 1.544, peringkat visibility dari 6.768 naik menjadi 1.873, dan peringkat size dari 4.519 naik menjadi 3.545.

Banyak perguruan tinggi yang ingin mengetahui rahasia sukses UM dalam pemeringkatan Webometrics. Sejalan dengan identitas UM, The Learning University, UM selalu bersedia membagikan ilmunya kepada perguruan tinggi lain. Learning Center for World Class University Universitas Negeri Malang  (LCWCU UM), merupakan kelompok studi Webometrics, akan mengupas tuntas rahasia sukses UM dalam lokakarya “Strategi Meningkatkan Peringkat Webometrics (Sebuah Jalan Menuju World Class University)”.

B.  Tujuan

Peserta memahami strategi meningkatkan peringkat Webometrics.

C.  Peserta

Peserta lokakarya adalah pimpinan yang bertanggung jawab meningkatkan peringkat Webometrics perguruan tinggi, yaitu:

  • Pimpinan pusat.
  • Tim Webometrics.
  • Kepala pusat informasi.
  • Kepala perpustakaan.
  • Kepala humas.
  • Penanggung jawab teknologi informasi fakultas.

Catatan:

Peserta harap membawa laptop yang dilengkapi jaringan nirkabel.

D.  Materi dan Pembicara

Banyak perguruan tinggi yang telah menyusun strategi untuk  meningkatkan peringkat Webometrics tetapi memperoleh hasil yang kurang memuaskan bahkan semakin mundur. Mengapa?

Jawabannya adalah karena belum adanya pemahaman yang benar tentang indikator-indikator Webometrics yaitu size, visibility, rich files, dan scholar. Pemahaman yang benar dan ditunjang oleh cara mengukur indikator akan memunculkan inspirasi tentang cara meningkatkan indikator. Jika pemahaman, cara mengukur, dan cara meningkatkan dilengkapi dengan cara menentukan peringkat maka lengkaplah bahan yang dibutuhkan untuk merumuskan strategi yang tepat.

Materi disampaikan oleh Johanis Rampisela. Dia adalah seorang peneliti Webometrics di LCWCU (http://lcwcu.um.ac.id) yang merupakan konseptor “Strategi UM 10 Besar Indonesia” sekaligus “komandan lapangan” dalam penerapannya. Pengalaman berharga tersebut akan dibagikan kepada peserta lokakarya dengan cara yang jelas, singkat, dan praktis.

E.  Pelaksanaan

  • Waktu

Selasa, 20 April 2010, pukul 13.00-21.30 dan Rabu, 21 April 2010, pukul 06.00-13.00

  • Tempat

Hotel Santika Premiere Malang, Jl. Letjen Sutoyo 79 Malang 65141, Telepon 0341-405 405, Fax 0341-405 500,

http://www.santika.com/malang-premiere.php

  • Acara

Selasa, 20 April 2010

13.00 : Awal check in dan registrasi

18.30-19.15 : Pembukaan

19.15-20.00 : Makan malam

20.00-21.30 : Strategi Meningkatkan Size

Rabu, 21 April 2010

06.00-07.30 : Makan Pagi

07.30-08.45 : Strategi Meningkatkan Visibility

08.45-10.00 : Strategi Meningkatkan Rich Files

10.00-10.15 : Makan buah

10.15-11.15 : Strategi Meningkatkan Scholar

11.15-12.15 : Cara Menentukan Peringkat

12.15-13.00 : Penutupan, makan siang, dan check out

F.  Pendaftaran

  • Tempat terbatas 26 orang, pendaftaran ditutup 13 April 2010.
  • Fasilitas:
    • Materi
      • Cetakan materi lokakarya (berwarna).
      • File materi lokakarya (berbentuk PDF).
      • File perhitungan peringkat Webometrics (berbentuk XLS).
      • Username, password, dan URL untuk mengakses software Webometrics.
      • Peta pikiran materi lokakarya.
    • Menginap satu malam di Hotel Santika Premiere Malang (****)+ makan (malam, pagi, buah, siang) + meeting kits.
    • Transportasi bandara/stasiun ke hotel (datang dan kembali).
    • Sertifikat.
  • Biaya pendaftaran
    • Rp 4.500.000 per orang (dengan penginapan 2 orang/kamar)
    • Rp 4.800.000 per orang (dengan penginapan 1 orang/kamar)
    • Rp 4.000.000 per orang (tanpa penginapan)

ditransfer ke rekening BCA 440-1213-273 atas nama Anida Etikawati/Indri Tri Susiyanti paling lambat 13 April 2010.

G.  Panitia

  • Pengarah: Suparno (Rektor UM), Isnandar (Pembantu Rektor IV UM), Dawud (Dekan Fakultas Sastra UM)
  • Ketua: Johanis Rampisela (LCWCU), Darmono (Perpustakaan UM), Rahadyas Bharata W (Telkom Indonesia), Nasrul Utama (BTN Malang)
  • Sekretaris: Aminarti Siti Wahyuni (PSI UM), Gloria Hardiningsih (PSI UM)
  • Bendahara: Anida Etikawati (LCWCU), Indri Tri Susiyanti (LCWCU)
  • Publikasi: Zulkarnain Nasution (Humas UM), Nike V. Yuarko (Humas UM)

***

File materi lokakarya (berbentuk PDF).

Categories: 2-Webometrics Tags:

Webometrics Notes (January 2010)

Notes

The Universities marked with one asterisk (*) have two or more webdomains, this it is not only a bad practice but also penalizes their ranking. We urge to these institutions to use only one domain and discard the other ones.

Our current policy is to choose the best ranked domain, even if the selected one is the older or no longer main webdomain. We do not currently try to merge figures from different domains anymore (Imperial, Manchester, München, Barcelona, Cardiff, Zurich, Strasbourg, Dortmünd, Illinois, Griffith).

The two asterisks (**) are reserved for very special situations:

  • For the University of Helsinki a 20% of the raw numbers for size and visibility is taken out considering that the City Hall shares the same domain.
  • Johns Hopkins University, its School of Medicine and other units with different domains are combined in one unique entry.
  • The Caltech domain is merged with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory one (under jpl.nasa.gov).
  • The portal of journals Redalyc has been excluded from the data of the Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México.
  • Data from the very large repository CiteSeerX has been excluded from the calculations related to the Pennsylvania State University and the University of Arkansas Fayetteville.
  • The same applies for the database DBLP regarding University of Trier in Germany, Dialnet regarding Universidad de La Rioja (Spain) and Compludoc from Universidad Complutense de Madrid.
  • The newspaper “La Jornada” pages have been excluded from the UNAM figures.
  • The Jussieu campus webdomain has been merged to the UPMC and its entry deleted.
  • The City College from CUNY is included into the main list even without having independent domain.
  • The different entries corresponding to the Warsaw University (Poland) and to the Universidad de la República (Uruguay) has been merged for each case.
Categories: About Webometrics Tags:

Webometrics Glossary (January 2010)

Glossary

This section is really a hybrid between a real Glossary and a FAQ that intends to explain some of the terms and the meanings as used in the building of this ranking.

Database size. The number of records in the search engine databases that it publicly accessible from external sources. Not all the robots crawl the Web at the same time or with identical procedures, besides post crawling processes and other commercial requirements finally result in really different databases. The current size, composition and evolution of the figures are a relevant point in webometric analysis.

Delimited search. A key characteristic of the search engines that allow the cybermetric analysis. A delimiter operator has a specific syntax and meaning that can differ among engines. It provides the number of records (web pages) that satisfied a certain condition filtering the results according to strings in the address (URL) or other characteristics (language, format) of the page. Special relevance has the link delimiter that can be used in combination with site or other similar to calculate inlinks.

Discipline differences. The ranking does not provide any kind of thematic assignation to the units, so a formal thematic analysis is not possible at the moment. But there are important differences regarding academic focus on our universities database that should be taken into account. Research focused universities are mixed with learning institutions and a group of discipline oriented (mainly pedagogy, medicine and theology) organizations are also present.

Formal characteristics. As there is neither universal document control nor formal guidelines for web page building, there is a huge diversity of formal aspects in the Webspace, including obvious malpractices. Some authors have focused on these to provide new indicators such as link density, link quality, expressed as ratios of non working links, missing tags, including those so relevant as title or metadata, or updating frequency. None of these characteristics are taken into account in our rankings, but they should be taken into consideration for micro-analysis.

Geographical biases. The use of several search engines in our ranking is due to the geographical bias observed in some of them. We do not know if this is due to topological or traffic problems in the network (some eastern Asian countries are usually poorly covered) or to the crawlers behaviour or if the biases are equal long the time. Alexa biases preclude us to add the popularity data in our rankings.

Institutional domains. The basic unit of our analysis refers to the common URL domain shared by all the web sites of an institution. Unfortunately some organizations maintain two or more equivalent domains, without a preferred marked one. Also for concern is the fact that some second level departments maintain completely different domains. Usually we maintain two entries for those institutions with two top level equivalent domains. We intend to merge results of smaller domains with those of the main one in the near future, but it is a difficult task.

Invocation. The presence of the name of an institution or a researcher in a Web page. The global presence is the number of times the name appears in the Web and can be calculated easily using quotation marks around the name in the search engines. Sometimes this figure is referred as the number of times this name is cited in the Web. Some authors refer this as Web visibility, although we prefer to reserve this word for link visibility. This indicator usually favours large, well-known, old institutions independently of their real effort for having a relevant Web presence.

No invocation measure was used in our ranking, mainly because it is not possible to assign a unique, unambiguous universal name for every institution.

Invisible Web. Traditionally refers to the information available through gateways or search interfaces that is not accessible by the search engines’ robots. It is a huge part of the Internet content, including library catalogues, bibliographic and alphanumeric databases or even some repositories of documents. During last years some engines, specially Google, has made a great effort to index these records and in fact several databases are more or less covered in their systems (i.e. PubMed is partially indexed by Google). Our ranking do not consider the Invisible or Deep Web and we encourage transforming it in crawler friendly information.

Language. English is the “lingua franca” for scientific communication and it is also the language of a significant fraction of the internet users. Non-english institutions publishing only in their mother tongue alone achieved a lower visibility than those with multilingual websites.

Link motivation. Major concern in link analysis is the motivations behind a link creation. Previous studies suggest that “sitations”, the hypertextual equivalent to bibliographic citations, are still rare. We think this situation will improve when more papers became available on the Web, but we consider other reasons to link very useful to describe scholarly communication. Informal linking is a powerful source of information about intellectual, economic and political connections of the academic and scientific activities.

CATEGORY CASE COMMENTS
Sitation Link to paper or document Generally in pdf/ps/doc format
Teaching/learning Link to course materials Mainly html pages but also pdf, doc or ppt
Research oriented Resources index Portal type
Software repository
Research projects sites
Conferences, seminars or meetings pages
Raw data Including media files if applicable
Personal Self archive Pre or post prints, but also unpublished material
Team or colleagues pages
Blog
Third parties (non-research)
Institutional Parent institution And related ones
Funding organization

Link popularity. Another term to refer to link visibility that has been used extensively. We prefer to reserve popularity for the measure of number of visits. Although not yet implemented on the Ranking, we intend to consider number of visits or popularity as a relevant factor for our rankings in the future.

Open access. The movement to distribute in an open way the scientific production of, at least, the public funded researchers is facing tougher opposition than expected. A strong bet for open access initiatives will be clearly reflected in our rankings.

Personal pages. A frequently heard statement about web contents quality is related to the information provided by the personal pages of students or staff members. There is a lot of free space hosted by the university web servers that is used for personal purposes, and in general it is thought that it is used with low quality information or not academic related. Data suggest a large number of small websites are crowding the institutional domains, but most of them are interesting enough to merit consideration. Some “personal” pages are in fact the research group site, while others are institutional (scientific societies, electronic bulletins, conference sites). True personal pages cover both extremes of the contents range, with people offering only CVs to others providing very large arrangements of information of their academic or research topics with links to personal repositories of documents. A striking pattern is the absence of links to other colleague’s websites or institutions.

Quality. We advice against the use of the rankings as global or partial indicator of quality. Impact or visibility describes better our aims, but in the particular context of promotion of open and universal access to the scientific activities and results through the Web.

Ranking. As their main objective is purely commercial, current search engines are not offering stable, reliable, or trustworthy results for webometric purposes. The situation has improved in the last years but there are still important bias and a worrisome instability. This is the reason we are using absolute values but relative positions for our analysis.

Rich files. A general term comprising a rather heterogeneous group of file types, mainly those devoted to represent unitary enriched documents, such as MS Word doc, Adobe Acrobat pdf or PostScript ps. In our analysis we also included MS Powerpoint ppt and excluded xls or latex or tex. Rich files are relevant because they are use for scholarly communication as authors usually distribute their papers and presentations in these formats. Certainly some of these types are used extensively for bureaucratic purposes (forms, administrative documents, internal reports) but these can only explain a small percentage of large numbers observed in domains with extensive repositories.

There are several other file types that can be considered as rich files, and even raw formats like txt are being used for distributing academic content. But their individual contribution is too low to be considered.

Rounding. Google and Yahoo offer rounded results, ending in ,000, which means an error rate in the order of 2 to 5%. Moreover the numbers provided by Yahoo in the first page is about another 4-5% higher that the one showed in the following pages that show a trend towards the “correct” number.

Search Engine. The software that searches an index and returns matches. Search engine is often used synonymously with spider and index, although these are separate components that work with the engine. There are only four engines useful for quantitative analysis purposes as they have a large and independent self crawled database and their recovery system allow filtering of results according to url-related delimiters:

Google www.google.com
Yahoo Search search.yahoo.com
Bing www.bing.com
Exalead www.exalead.com/search

Self archiving. Self-archiving involves depositing a free copy of a digital document on the World Wide Web in order to provide open access to it. The term usually refers to the self-archiving of peer reviewed research journal and conference articles as well as theses, deposited in the author’s own institutional repository or open archive for the purpose of maximizing its accessibility, usage and citation impact. This practice is common among most prolific authors and in certain disciplines. However globally it is only a minority of authors who support this option. As much of these papers are published as rich files, pdf, ps or doc, this practice increases notably the performance of an institution in our rankings.

Size. The size of an institutional domain is the combined number of pages of all the websites with that domain, including html and non html formats that can be assimilated. From a practical point of view, size refers to the number provided by a search engine when a search like site:domain is done. This indicator is central for our rankings and it is used also as denominator for Web Impact Factor calculations by other authors. However there is a wide range of pages according to different criteria, including content size measured in bytes. For example, a page containing a pdf document that can be a monograph consisting of several hundreds pages totalling several Mb of texts and images, while other page consists only of the phrase “page under construction”. Global size could be an interesting indicator and we expect to provide it for selected websites.

Stability. From the early times instability of the search results in general, and of the number that represents results in particular has been a subject of special concern. Certainly the Web is a highly dynamic system, growing at an incredible pace, but also the crawlers change their specifications and schedule unexpectedly. A world crawling round can last from 15 to 45 days and in this meantime.

Visibility. In the context of this ranking, the term refers to link visibility: The number of external inlinks received by an institutional domain. The most used syntax for this request in search engines is:

linkdomain:webometrics.info –site:webometrics.info

Web cost. Maintain a very large presence on the Web can be quite costly; including specific funding and human resources, but the total cost is far below any other publication method and the potential audience is truly global. A way to undertake large projects is distributed effort, so individual graduate students, professors or researchers, scientific teams and other administrative units have an autonomous web presence. A rich content page should include a large diversity of objects including images and other media files, certain amount of navigational links and a selected group of external outlinks. That can require a huge effort that can be only face if theses tasks are subject of evaluation as other academic and scientific activities.

Web Impact Factor. The most cited cybermetric indicator, although its usage is not universal due to several shortcomings. It is the defined as the ratio between the external inlinks received by a website and the number of webpages comprising that website. Some authors suggested modifications to the denominator, using different alternative measures for the size of the institution using non-internet data such us number of potential authors (staff, professors, graduate students), economic wealth (funding, projects) or bibliometric data (papers in journals).
Our ranking is derived from WIF in which a ratio 1:1 is established between visibility and size.

Categories: About Webometrics Tags:

Best Practices Webometrics (January 2010)

Decalogue of good practices in institutional web positioning

The following recommendations are intended to give some advice to Universities and R&D institutions worldwide in order they have an adequate web presence. Their websites should represent correctly their resources, activities and global performance, providing visitors with a true vision of the institution. We encourage medium and long term projects that give priority to the publication of large volume of quality contents under Open Access type models.

We reject the use of abusive positioning techniques that can generate misleading indicators. If discovered the involved university will be expelled from the Ranking.

1. URL naming

Each institution should choose a unique institutional domain that can be used by all the websites of the institution. We sugest well known acronyms and if it is possible full words describing the city, the state or other descriptive item.

It is very important to avoid changing the institutional domain as it can generate confusion and it has a devastating effect on the visibility values. The alternative or mirror domains should be disregarded even when they redirection to the preferred one.

Today it is very easy and cheap to rent a service for hosting your webpages. If you are unable for technical, political or economic reasons to build your own web service we suggest to contact foreign providers that can guarantee also worldwide access.

Reliable and independent information about web hosting services

2. Contents: Create

A large web presence is made possible only with the effort of a large group of authors. The best way to do that is to allow a large number of your scholars, researchers or graduate students to be potential authors.

A distributed system of authoring can be operative at several levels:

Central organisation can be responsible of the design guidelines and institutional information

Libraries, documentation centres and similar services can be responsible of large databases, including bibliographic ones but also large repositories (thesis, pre-prints, and reports)

Individual persons or teams should maintain their own websites, enriching them with self archiving practices.

Hosting external resources can be interesting for third parties and increase the visibility: Conference websites, software repositories, scientific societies and their publications, especially electronic journals.

3. Contents: Convert

Important resources are available in non electronic format that can be converted to web pages easily. Most of the universities have a long record of activities that can be published in historical web sites.

Other resources are also candidate for conversion, including past activities, reports or pictures collections.

4. Interlinking

The Web is a hipertextual corpus with links connecting pages. If your contents are not known (bad design, limited information, or minority language), there are no enough pages or they have low quality, the site probably will receive few links from other sites.

Measuring and classifying the links from others can be insightful. You should expect links from your “natural” partners: Institutions from your locality or region, web directories from similar organisations, portals covering your topics, colleagues or partners personal pages. Your pages should make an impact in your common language community.

Check for the orphaned pages, i.e. pages not linked from another.

5. Language, especially English

The Web audience is truly global, so you should not think locally. Language versions, especially in English, are mandatory not only for the main pages, but for selected sections and specially from scientific documents.

6. Rich and media files

Although HTML is the standard format of web pages, sometimes it is better to use rich file formats like Adobe Acrobat pdf or MS Word doc as they allow a better distribution of documents. PostScript is a popular format in certain areas (physics, engineering, mathematics) but it can be difficult to open, so it is recommended to provide an alternative version in pdf format.

Bandwidth is growing exponentially, so it is a good investment to archive all media materials produced in web repositories. Collections of videos, interviews, presentations, animated graphs, and even digital pictures could be very useful in the long term.

7. Search engine friendly designs

Avoid cumbersome navigation menus based on Flash, Java or JavaScript that can block the robot access.
Deep nested directories or complex interlinking can block robots too.

Databases and even highly dynamic pages can be invisible for some search engines, so use directories or static pages instead or as an option.

There are several large collections of tricks and advices that can be useful

8. Popularity and statistics

Number of visits is important, but it as much as important to monitor their origin, distribution and the causes why they reach your web sites. Most of the current log analysers offer a great diversity of tables and graphs showing relevant demographic and geographic data, but make sure there is an option to show the referrers, the web pages from which the visit arrives or the search term or phrase used if the visit came from a search engine. Most popular pages or directories are also relevant.

Consider Google Analytics

9. Archiving and persistence

To maintain a copy of old or outdated material in the site should be mandatory. Sometimes relevant information is lost when the site is redesigned or simply updated and there is no way to recover easily the vanished pages.

10. Standards for enriching sites

The use of meaningful titles and descriptive metatags can increase the visibility of the pages. There are some standards like Dublin Core that can be used to add authoring info, keywords and other data about the web sites.

Check the Dublin Core portal

Categories: About Webometrics Tags:

Methodology Webometrics (January 2010)

March 1st, 2010 Indri Trisusiyanti 1 comment

PRESENTATION

The Webometrics Ranking formally and explicitly adheres to the Berlin Principles of Higher Education Institutions. The ultimate aim is the continuous improvement and refinement of the methodologies according to a set of agreed principles of good practices.

0) Background of the project.

The “World Universities’ ranking on the Web” is an initiative of the Cybermetrics Lab, a research group of the Centro de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales (CCHS), part of the National Research Council (CSIC), the largest public research body in Spain.

Cybermetrics Lab is devoted to the quantitative analysis of the Internet and Web contents specially those related to the processes of generation and scholarly communication of scientific knowledge. This is a new emerging discipline that has been called Cybermetrics (our team developed and publishes the free electronic journal Cybermetrics since 1997) or Webometrics.

Cybermetrics electronic journal scientometrics bibliometrics webometrics

With these rankings we intend to provide extra motivation to researchers worldwide for publishing more and better scientific content on the Web, making it available to colleagues and people wherever they are located.

The “Webometrics Ranking of World Universities” was officially launched in 2004, and it is updated every 6 months (data collected in January and July and published one month later). The Web indicators used are based and correlated with traditional scientometric and bibliometric indicators and the goal of the project is to convince academic and political communities of the importance of the web publication not only for dissemination of the academic knowledge but for measuring scientific activities, performance and impact too.

A) Purposes and Goals of Rankings

1. Assessment of higher education (processes, and outputs) in the Web. The Web indicators and we are already publishing comparative analysis with similar initiatives. But the current objective of the Webometrics Ranking is to promote Web publication by universities, evaluating the commitment to the electronic distribution  of these organizations and to fight a very concerning academic digital divide which is evident even among world universities from developed countries. However, even when we do not intend to assess universities performance solely on the basis of their web output, Webometrics Ranking is measuring a wider range of activities than the current generation of bibliometric indicators that focuses only in the activities of scientific elite

2. Ranking purpose and target groups. Webometrics Ranking is measuring the volume, visibility and impact of the web pages published by universities, with special emphasis in the scientific output (referred papers, conference contributions, pre-prints, monographs, thesis, reports, …) but also taking into account other materials (courseware, seminars or workshops documentation, digital libraries, databases, multimedia, personal pages, …) and the general information on the institution, their departments, research groups or supporting services and people working or attending courses.
There is a direct target group for the Ranking which are the university authorities. If the web performance of an institution is below the expected position according to their academic excellence, they should reconsider their web policy, promoting substantial increases in the volume and quality of their electronic publications.
Faculty members are indirect target groups as we expect that in a near future the web information could be as important as other bibliometric and scientometric indicators for the evaluation of the scientific performance of scholars and their research groups.
Finally, candidate students should not used this data as the sole guide for choosing university, although a Top position means that the institution has a policy that encourages new technologies and it has resources for their adoption.

3. Diversity of institutions: Missions and goals of the institutions. Quality measures for research-oriented institutions, for example, are quite different from those that are appropriate for institutions that provide broad access to underserved communities. Institutions that are being ranked and the experts that inform the ranking process should be consulted often.

4. Information sources and interpretation of the data provided. Access to the Web information is done mainly through search engines. These intermediaries are free, universal, and very powerful even when considering their shortcomings (coverage limitations and biases, lack of transparency, commercial secrets and strategies, irregular behaviour). Search engines are key for measuring visibility and impact of university’s websites.
There are a limited number of sources that can be useful for webometric purposes: 7 general search engines (Google*, Yahoo Search*, Live (MSN) Search*, Exalead*, Ask (Teoma), Gigablast and Alexa) and 2 specialised scientific databases (Google Scholar* and Live Academic). All of them have very large (huge) independent databases, but due to the availability of their data collection procedures (Apis), only those marked with asterisk are used in compiling the Webometrics Ranking.

5. Linguistic, cultural, economic, and historical contexts. The project intends to have true global coverage, not narrowing the analysis to a few hundreds of institutions (world-class universities) but including as many organizations as possible. The only requirement in our international rankings is having an autonomous web presence with an independent web domain. This approach allows a larger number of institutions to monitor their current ranking and the evolution of this position after adopting specific policies and initiatives. Universities in developing countries have the opportunity to know precisely the indicators’ threshold that marks the limit of the elite.
Current identified biases of the Webometrics Ranking includes the traditional linguistic one (more than half of the internet users are English-speaking people), and a new disciplinary one (technology instead of biomedicine is at the moment the hot topic) Since in most cases the infrastructure (web space) and the connectivity to the Internet already exits , the economic factor is not considered a major limitation (at least for the 3.000 Top universities).

B) Design and Weighting of Indicators

6. Methodology used to create the rankings. The unit for analysis is the institutional domain, so only universities and research centres with an independent web domain are considered. If an institution has more than one main domain, two or more entries are used with the different addresses. About 5-10% of the institutions have no independent web presence, most of them located in developing countries. Our catalogue of institutions includes not only universities but also other Higher Education institutions following the recommendations of UNESCO. Names and addresses were collected from both national and international sources including among others:

Universities Worldwide univ.cc
All Universities around the World www.bulter.nl/universities/
Braintrack University Index www.braintrack.com
Canadian Universities www.uwaterloo.ca/canu
UK Universities www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/ukinfo
US Universities www.utexas.edu/world/univ/state

University activity is multi-dimensional and this is reflected in its web presence. So the best way to build the ranking is combining a group of indicators that measures these different aspects. Almind & Ingwersen proposed the first Web indicator, Web Impact Factor (WIF), based on link analysis that combines the number of external inlinks and the number of pages of the website, a ratio of 1:1 between visibility and size. This ratio is used for the ranking but adding two new indicators to the size component: Number of documents, measured from the number of rich files in a web domain, and number of publications being collected by Google Scholar database. As it has been already commented, the four indicators were obtained from the quantitative results provided by the main search engines as follows:

Size (S). Number of pages recovered from four engines: Google, Yahoo, Live Search and Exalead. For each engine, results are log-normalised to 1 for the highest value. Then for each domain, maximum and minimum results are excluded and every institution is assigned a rank according to the combined sum.
Visibility (V). The total number of unique external links received (inlinks) by a site can be only confidently obtained from Yahoo Search. Results are log-normalised to 1 for the highest value and then combined to generate the rank.
Rich Files (R). After evaluation of their relevance to academic and publication activities and considering the volume of the different file formats, the following were selected: Adobe Acrobat (.pdf), Adobe PostScript (.ps), Microsoft Word (.doc) and Microsoft Powerpoint (.ppt). These data were extracted using Google and merging the results for each filetype after log-normalising in the same way as described before.
Scholar (Sc). Google Scholar provides the number of papers and citations for each academic domain. These results from the Scholar database represent papers, reports and other academic items.

The four ranks were combined according to a formula where each one has a different weight:

7. Relevance and validity of the indicators. The choice of the indicators was done according to several criteria (see note), some of them trying to catch quality and academic and institutional strengths but others intending to promote web publication and Open Access initiatives. The inclusion of the total number of pages is based on the recognition of a new global market for academic information, so the web is the adequate platform for the internationalization of the institutions. A strong and detailed web presence providing exact descriptions of the structure and activities of the university can attract new students and scholars worldwide . The number of external inlinks received by a domain is a measure that represents visibility and impact of the published material, and although there is a great diversity of motivations for linking, a significant fraction works in a similar way as bibliographic citation. The success of self-archiving and other repositories related initiatives can be roughly represented from rich file and Scholar data. The huge numbers involved with the pdf and doc formats means that not only administrative reports and bureaucratic forms are involved. PostScript and Powerpoint files are clearly related to academic activities.

8. Measure outcomes in preference to inputs whenever possible. Data on inputs are relevant as they reflect the general condition of a given establishment and are more frequently available. Measures of outcomes provide a more accurate assessment of the standing and/or quality of a given institution or program. We expect to offer a better balance in the future, but current edition intend to call the attention to incomplete strategies, inadequate policies and bad practices in web publication before attempting a more complete scenario.

9. Weighting the different indicators: Current and future evolution. The current rules for ranking indicators including the described weighting model has been tested and published in scientific papers. More research is still done on this topic, but the final aim is to develop a model that includes additional quantitative data, especially bibliometric and scientometric indicators.

C) Collection and Processing of Data

10. Ethical standards. We identified some relevant biases in the search engines data including under-representation of some countries and languages. As the behaviour is different for each engine, a good practice consists of combining results from several sources. Any other mistake or error is unintentional and it should not affect the credibility of the ranking. Please contact us if you think the ranking is not objective and impartial in any way.
11. Audited and verifiable data. The only source for the data of the Webometrics Ranking is a small set of globally available, free access search engines. All the results can be duplicated according to the describing methodologies taking into account the explosive growth of the web contents, their volatility and the irregular behaviour of the commercial engines.
12. Data collection. Data are collected during the same week, in two consecutive rounds for each strategy, being selected the higher value. Every website under common institutional domain is explored, but no attempt has been done to combine contents or links from different domains.
13. Quality of the ranking processes. After automatic collection of data, positions are checked manually and compared with previous editions. Some of the processes are duplicated and new expertise is added from a variety of sources. Pages that linked to the Webometrics Ranking are explored and comments from blogs and other fora are taken into account. Finally, our mailbox receives a lot of requests and suggestions that are acknowledged individually.
14. Organizational measures to enhance credibility. The ranking results and methodologies are discussed in scientific journals, and presented in international conferences. We expect international advisory or even supervisory bodies to take part in future developments of the ranking.

D) Presentation of Ranking Results

15. Display of data and factors involved. The published tables show all the Web indicators used in a very synthetic and visual way. Rankings are provided not only from a central Top 4000 classification but also considering several regional rankings for comparative purposes.
16. Updating and error reducing. The listings are offered from asp dynamic pages build on several databases that can be corrected when errors or typos are detected.

Coments welcomed

Our group thanks the comments, suggestions and proposals than can be useful for improving this website. We try to maintain an objective position on the quantitative data provided but mistakes can occur. Please, take into account that merging, domain change or networks problems can affect the ranking of the institutions.

Currently the members of our team are Isidro F. AGUILLO, José Luis ORTEGA, Mario FERNÁNDEZ (Webmaster), Ana UTRILLA and Ana ALARCÓN.

For more information please contact:

Isidro F. Aguillo
CCHS – CSIC
Albasanz, 26-28
28037 Madrid. SPAIN

Notes:

- Aguillo, I. F.; Granadino, B.; Ortega, J. L.; Prieto, J. A. (2006). Scientific research activity and communication measured with cybermetric indicators. Journal of the American Society for the Information Science and Technology, 57(10): 1296 – 1302.

- Wouters, P.; Reddy, C. & Aguillo, I. F. (2006). On the visibility of information on the Web: an exploratory experimental approach. Research Evaluation, 15(2):107-115.

- Ortega, J L; Aguillo, I.F.; Prieto, JA. (2006). Longitudinal Study of Contents and Elements in the Scientific Web environment. Journal of Information Science, 32(4):344-351.

- Kretschmer, H. & Aguillo, I. F. (2005).New indicators for gender studies in Web networks. Information Processing & Management, 41 (6): 1481-1494.

- Aguillo, I. F.; Granadino, B.; Ortega, J.L. & Prieto, J.A. (2005). What the Internet says about Science. The Scientist, 19(14):10, Jul. 18, 2005.

- Kretschmer, H. & Aguillo, I. F. (2004). Visibility of collaboration on the Web. Scientometrics, 61(3): 405-426.

- Cothey V, Aguillo IF & Arroyo N (2006). Operationalising “Websites”: lexically, semantically or topologically?. Cybermetrics, 10(1): Paper 4. http://www.cindoc.csic.es/cybermetrics/articles/v10i1p4.html

Categories: About Webometrics Tags:

About the Ranking Webometrics (January 2010)

About the Rangking

Objectives of the Webometrics Ranking of World’s Universities

The original aim of the Ranking was to promote Web publication. Supporting Open Access initiatives, electronic access to scientific publications and to other academic material are our primary targets. However web indicators are very useful for ranking purposes too as they are not based on number of visits or page design but on the global performance and visibility of the universities.

As other rankings focused only on a few relevant aspects, specially research results, web indicators based ranking reflects better the whole picture, as many other activities of professors and researchers are showed by their web presence.

The Web covers not only only formal (e-journals, repositories) but also informal scholarly communication. Web publication is cheaper, maintaining the high standards of quality of peer review processes. It could also reach much larger potential audiences, offering access to scientific knowledge to researchers and institutions located in developing countries and also to third parties (economic, industrial, political or cultural stakeholders) in their own community.

The Webometrics ranking has a larger coverage than other similar rankings (see table below). The ranking is not only focused on research results but also in other indicators which may reflect better the global quality of the scholar and research institutions worldwide.

We intend to motivate both institutions and scholars to have a web presence that reflect accurately their activities. If the web performance of an institution is below the expected position according to their academic excellence, university authorities should reconsider their web policy, promoting substantial increases of the volume and quality of their electronic publications.

Candidate students should use additional criteria if they are trying to choose university. webometrics Ranking correlates well with quality of education provided and academic prestige, but other non-academic variables need to be taken into account.

Comparison of the main World Universities’ Rankings

Coverage of the Webometrics Ranking of World Universities

This table summarize the actual coverage of the Ranking, in terms of number of countries and higher education institutions around the world.

Design and Weighting of Indicators

The unit for analysis is the institutional domain, so only universities and research centres with an independent web domain are considered. If an institution has more than one main domain, two or more entries are used with the different addresses.

The first Web indicator, Web Impact Factor (WIF), was based on link analysis that combines the number of external inlinks and the number of pages of the website, a ratio of 1:1 between visibility and size. This ratio is used for the ranking, adding two new indicators to the size component: Number of documents, measured from the number of rich files in a web domain, and number of publications being collected by Google Scholar database.

Four indicators were obtained from the quantitative results provided by the main search engines as follows:

Size (S). Number of pages recovered from four engines: Google, Yahoo, Live Search and Exalead.

Visibility (V). The total number of unique external links received (inlinks) by a site can be only confidently obtained from Yahoo Search.

Rich Files (R). After evaluation of their relevance to academic and publication activities and considering the volume of the different file formats, the following were selected: Adobe Acrobat (.pdf), Adobe PostScript (.ps), Microsoft Word (.doc) and Microsoft Powerpoint (.ppt). These data were extracted using Google, Yahoo Search, Live Search and Exalead.

Scholar (Sc). Google Scholar provides the number of papers and citations for each academic domain. These results from the Scholar database represent papers, reports and other academic items.

The four ranks were combined according to a formula where each one has a different weight but maintaining the ratio 1:1:

The inclusion of the total number of pages is based on the recognition of a new global market for academic information, so the web is the adequate platform for the internationalization of the institutions. A strong and detailed web presence providing exact descriptions of the structure and activities of the university can attract new students and scholars worldwide.

The number of external inlinks received by a domain is a measure that represents visibility and impact of the published material, and although there is a great diversity of motivations for linking, a significant fraction works in a similar way as bibliographic citation.

The success of self-archiving and other repositories related initiatives can be roughly represented from rich file and Scholar data. The huge numbers involved with the pdf and doc formats means that not only administrative reports and bureaucratic forms are involved. PostScript and Powerpoint files are clearly related to academic activities.

More info:

Aguillo, I.F.; Ortega, J. L. & Fernández, M. (2008). Webometric Ranking of World Universities: Introduction, Methodology, and Future Developments. Higher Education in Europe, 33(2/3): 234-244.

Ortega, J. L., Aguillo, I. F. (2009). Mapping World-class universities on the Web. Information Processing & Management, 45(2): 272-279

Aguillo, I. F.; Granadino, B.; Ortega, J. L.; Prieto, J. A. (2006). Scientific research activity and communication measured with cybermetric indicators. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 57(10): 1296-1302

Aguillo, I. F.; Granadino, B.; Ortega, J.L. & Prieto, J.A. (2005). What the Internet says about Science. The Scientist, 19(14):10

Categories: About Webometrics Tags:

Homepage Webometrics (January 2010)

Colleges and Universities and Open Access Initiatives

Webometrics Ranking 2010 edition

Since 2004, the Ranking Web is published twice a year (January and July), covering more than 18,000 Higher Education Institutions worldwide. Web presence measures the activity and visibility of the institutions and it is a good indicator of impact and prestige of universities. Rank summarizes the global performance of the University, provides information for candidate students and scholars, and reflects the commitment to the dissemination of scientific knowledge.

We intend to motivate both institutions and scholars to have a web presence that reflect accurately their activities. If the web performance of an institution is below the expected position according to their academic excellence, university authorities should reconsider their web policy, promoting substantial increases of the volume and quality of their electronic publications.

If you need further clarification regarding the motivations of the Ranking or the methodology, please read the FAQ.

Top 8,000!

As announced, this January 2010 edition ranks more universities in order to make consistent the world and regional rankings. Now we have expanded the Top ranking to 8,000 institutions.

If your university appears on the Directory, but it is not included in the Top 8,000 ranking, please consider to make a strong effort to increase the number of international academic quality web pages at your website. If you think there is a mistake, you can contact us.

We do not supply rank info about universities beyond that limit. The section Premier League (Excel Files) is the repository of the current and previous editions’ excel files (xls) for the Top 500 that can be used freely citing the source. We do not provide larger, or previous years files and we do not answer commercial or anonymous requests.

News and important info

The Directory has been updated and enlarged, comprising more than 18.000 different entries. Several countries like Mexico, Ukraine, Hong Kong or Turkey have been completely revised. We thank several correspondents worldwide for providing information about new institutions, mergers or forgotten universities in previous editions.

We maintain the use of a composite indicator of normalized values instead of ranks, but we still provide the individual ranks for each of the four indicators (as in previous editions).

We are working in a new visibility indicator derived from the G factor (which is made counting links between the Top 1,000 universities) in order to better reflect the academic impact. In the next months we will make available a G factor ranking corresponding to the mentioned Top 1,000 universities for open discussion before the final introduction in our Ranking.

Recently Google Scholar has improved the way the data is tagged allowing to filter records with at least a summary. This a major advance and for the moment we still maintain Scholar as our source for scientific bibliographic information. In any case, we are still evaluating Thomson-ISI (Web of Knowledge) or Elsevier (Scopus) citation databases. Essential Science Indicators has been discarded due to the poor standardization of institutions’ name and Scimago list is not large enough.

The Notes section contains all those institutions that presents a problem with the domain name (*), and also those universities that present a special situation (**) for whom we have decided to make a change with respect their Ranking.

We notice in the July edition problems with some of the visibility ranks of Central and Eastern European universities, probably due to Yahoo coverage biases that has been solved by now.

Croatian universities are using multiple independent domains for their faculty web sites. So we are considering excluding them in future editions given the difficulty that poses to calculate their precise rank.

Some Taiwanese and Brazilian universities are publishing in their repositories mixed production from internal and external papers which makes very difficult the calculations made for the Google Scholar indicator. So we are considering for future editions to apply an educated guess of a 50% decrease for this indicator.

Stronger actions are scheduled for punishing the ranking of institutions using bad practices according to our criteria. We have discovered several universities that are hosting large numbers of academic papers authored by scientist that do not belong to those institutions. This is not only unfair, but it clearly violates copyright of the involved papers. We are also reviewing the repositories of other universities which consist mainly of abstracts with almost no full text documents. If you know of any other institution acting in a similar way we will be grateful if you can provide us with evidence of misbehavior.

Country Scoreboard

The updated version of this section will be published at the end of February. This is a classification of countries according to several indicators such as Web Ranking of Top Universities, population and GDP.

Contact Us

As usual we will thank your comments if you address them to our MAILBOX.

Categories: About Webometrics Tags:

Fisika Interaktif

February 8th, 2010 shofyan No comments
Categories: 1-Riset LCWCU Tags:

Tentang Pemeringkatan Webometrics

February 8th, 2010 Dona Harinda No comments

Tujuan Pemeringkatan Webometrics dari Universitas-universitas di Dunia.

Maksud sebenarnya dari pemeringkatan ini adalah untuk memajukan publikasi web. Sebagai dukunganuntuk Open Access, akses elektronik untuk publikasi ilmu pengetahuan, dan untuk materi akademik yang lain adalah target utama Webometrics. Indikator-indikator web juga sangat berguna untuk tujuan pemeringkatan selama tidak dikaitkan dengan  banyaknya kunjungan ataupun desain halamannya namun lebih kepada kinerja secara global dan visibilitas dari universitas-universitas tersebut.

Pemeringkatan-pemeringkatan yang lain difokuskan hanya kepada sedikit aspek-aspek yang relevan, khususnya hasil-hasil penelitian, pemeringkatan berbasis indikator web lebih mencerminkan keseluruhan gambaran dengan lebih baik, sebagaimana yang ditunjukan oleh aktivitas-aktivitas lain dari para professor dan peneliti yang diperlihatkan pada web mereka.

Web tidak hanya mencakup hal yang formal (e-journal, penyimpanan data) namun juga komunikasi ilmu pengetahuan dan ilmiah yang informal. Publikasi web lebih murah,dan mampu mempertahankan standar kualitas yang tinggi dalam memperlihatkan proses-proses review. Dapat pula mencapai pengunjung potensial yang jauh lebih besar jumlahnya, menawarkan akses ke pengetahuan ilmiah ke para peneliti dan institusi-institusi yang berada di negara-negara berkembang dan juga untuk pihak ketiga (pelaku ekonomi, industri, politik dan budaya) dalam komunitas mereka sendiri.

Pemeringkatan Webometrics memiliki cakupan lebih besar daripada pemeringkatan-pemeringkatan lain yang sejenis (lihat tabel di bawah). Peringkat tidak hanya difokuskan pada hasil penelitian namun juga pada indikator-indikator lain yang mungkin mencerminkan kualitas global dari penyedia ilmu pengetahuan dan insitusi penelitian di seluruh dunia dengan lebih baik.

Webometrics bermaksud untuk memotivasi baik institusi dan penyedia ilmu pengetahuan untuk memiliki tampilan web yang secara akurat mencerminkan aktivitas-aktivitas mereka. Jika kinerja web dari sebuah institusi di bawah posisi yang diharapkan berdasarkan kemajuan akademik, maka autoritas universitas harus mempertimbangkan lagi kebijakan web mereka, mempromosikan penambahan substansi terhadap jumlah dan kualitas dari publikasi elektronik mereka.

Calon mahasiswa harus menggunakan kriteria-kriteria tambahan jika mereka mencoba untuk memilih universitas. Peringkat Webometrics berkorelasi dengan baik terhadap kualitas edukasi yang ditawarkan dan reputasi akademik, namun variabel non-akademik yang lain butuh untuk dimasukkan dalam perhitungan.

Perbandingan dari Pemeringkatan Utama Universitas-universitas di Dunia

Cakupan Pemeringkatan Universitas Dunia Webometrics

Tabel berikut ini merangkum cakupan aktual dari Pemeringkatan, dalam jumlah negara dan institusi pendidikan di seluruh dunia.

Desain dan Indikator Bobot

Satuan untuk analisis adalah Domain institusi, jadi hanya universitas dan pusat penelitian dengan web domain yang independen yang diamati. Jika sebuah institusi memiliki lebih dari satu Domain, dua atau lebih masukan data dipakai dalam alamat-alamat yang berbeda.

Indikator web yang pertama, Web Impact Factor (WIF), didasarkan pada analisis sambungan (Link analysis) yang mengkombinasikan jumlah sambungan eksternal yang masih berhubungan dan jumlah halaman dari website, perbandingan 1:1 antara visibilitas dan ukuran. Perbandingan ini digunakan untuk pemeringkatan, menambahkan dua indikator baru untuk komponen ukuran : jumlah dokumen, diukur dari jumlah file-file berharga dalam web domain, dan jumlah publikasi yang dikumpulkan dari basis data Google Scholar

Empat indikator yang diperoleh dari hasil kuantitatif yang disajikan oleh mesin pencari yang utama sebagai berikut :

Size (S). Jumlah halaman yang diperoleh kembali dari empat mesin pencari : Google, Yahoo, Live Search dan Exalead.

Visibility (V). Jumlah total link eksternal unik yang diterima (inlink) dari sebuah situs hanya dapat diperoleh secara terpercaya dari Yahoo Search.

Rich Files (R). Setelah evaluasi dari relevansi terhadap aktifitas akademik dan publikasi dan memperhatikan volume dari beberapa format file yang berbeda, berikut ini adalah yang terpilih : Adobe Acrobat (.pdf), Adobe PostScript (.ps), Microsoft Word (.doc), dan Microsot Powerpoint(.ppt). Data-data ini dapat diekstrak menggunakan Google, Yahoo Search, Live Search dan Exalead.

Scholar (Sc). Google Scholar menyajikan jumlah karya tulis dan penghargaan untuk setiap domain akademik. Hasil ini diperoleh dari basis data Scholar termasuk karya tulis, laporan dan item akademik yang lain.

Empat rangking dikombinasikan berdasarkan rumus dimana setiap item memiliki bobot yang berbeda namun tetap mempertahankan perbandingan 1:1.

Pencantuman jumlah total halaman didasarkan pada pengakuan dari pasar global yang baru untuk informasi akademik, jadi web adalah panggung yang sesuai untuk internasionalisasi dari sebuah institusi. Kehadiran web yang kuat dan detail memberikan deskripsi yang tepat dari struktur dan aktifitas dari universitas dan dapat menarik mahasiswa baru dan ilmu pengetahuan dunia.

Jumlah inlink eksternal yang diperoleh dari domain adalah ukuran yang merepresentasikan visibilitas dan dampak materi yang dipublikasikan, dan meskipun terdapat perbedaan yang besar pada motivasi untuk menyambungkan (linking), sebuah bagian kecil yang signifikan bekerja dalam jalur yang sama sebagaimana kutipan dari sebuah karya tulis.

Kesuksesan dari pengarsipan sendiri dan penyimpanan yang lain dapat secara kasar direpresentasikan dari data Rich File dan scholar. Jumlah yang besar melibatkan format pdf dan doc berarti bahwa tidak hanya laporan administratif dan birokrasi yang dilibatkan. File PostScript dan Powerpoint sangat jelas berhubungan dengan aktifitas akademik.

Artikel di atas merupakan terjemahan dari artikel di bawah ini,

About the Ranking

Objectives of the Webometrics Ranking of World’s Universities

The original aim of the Ranking was to promote Web publication. Supporting Open Access initiatives, electronic access to scientific publications and to other academic material are our primary targets. However web indicators are very useful for ranking purposes too as they are not based on number of visits or page design but on the global performance and visibility of the universities.

As other rankings focused only on a few relevant aspects, specially research results, web indicators based ranking reflects better the whole picture, as many other activities of professors and researchers are showed by their web presence.

The Web covers not only only formal (e-journals, repositories) but also informal scholarly communication. Web publication is cheaper, maintaining the high standards of quality of peer review processes. It could also reach much larger potential audiences, offering access to scientific knowledge to researchers and institutions located in developing countries and also to third parties (economic, industrial, political or cultural stakeholders) in their own community.

The Webometrics ranking has a larger coverage than other similar rankings (see table below). The ranking is not only focused on research results but also in other indicators which may reflect better the global quality of the scholar and research institutions worldwide.

We intend to motivate both institutions and scholars to have a web presence that reflect accurately their activities. If the web performance of an institution is below the expected position according to their academic excellence, university authorities should reconsider their web policy, promoting substantial increases of the volume and quality of their electronic publications.

Candidate students should use additional criteria if they are trying to choose university. webometrics Ranking correlates well with quality of education provided and academic prestige, but other non-academic variables need to be taken into account.

Comparison of the main World Universities’ Rankings

Coverage of the Webometrics Ranking of World Universities

This table summarize the actual coverage of the Ranking, in terms of number of countries and higher education institutions around the world.

Design and Weighting of Indicators

The unit for analysis is the institutional domain, so only universities and research centres with an independent web domain are considered. If an institution has more than one main domain, two or more entries are used with the different addresses.

The first Web indicator, Web Impact Factor (WIF), was based on link analysis that combines the number of external inlinks and the number of pages of the website, a ratio of 1:1 between visibility and size. This ratio is used for the ranking, adding two new indicators to the size component: Number of documents, measured from the number of rich files in a web domain, and number of publications being collected by Google Scholar database.

Four indicators were obtained from the quantitative results provided by the main search engines as follows:

Size (S). Number of pages recovered from four engines: Google, Yahoo, Live Search and Exalead.

Visibility (V). The total number of unique external links received (inlinks) by a site can be only confidently obtained from Yahoo Search.

Rich Files (R). After evaluation of their relevance to academic and publication activities and considering the volume of the different file formats, the following were selected: Adobe Acrobat (.pdf), Adobe PostScript (.ps), Microsoft Word (.doc) and Microsoft Powerpoint (.ppt). These data were extracted using Google, Yahoo Search, Live Search and Exalead.

Scholar (Sc). Google Scholar provides the number of papers and citations for each academic domain. These results from the Scholar database represent papers, reports and other academic items.

The four ranks were combined according to a formula where each one has a different weight but maintaining the ratio 1:1:

The inclusion of the total number of pages is based on the recognition of a new global market for academic information, so the web is the adequate platform for the internationalization of the institutions. A strong and detailed web presence providing exact descriptions of the structure and activities of the university can attract new students and scholars worldwide.

The number of external inlinks received by a domain is a measure that represents visibility and impact of the published material, and although there is a great diversity of motivations for linking, a significant fraction works in a similar way as bibliographic citation.

The success of self-archiving and other repositories related initiatives can be roughly represented from rich file and Scholar data. The huge numbers involved with the pdf and doc formats means that not only administrative reports and bureaucratic forms are involved. PostScript and Powerpoint files are clearly related to academic activities.

More info:

Aguillo, I.F.; Ortega, J. L. & Fernández, M. (2008). Webometric Ranking of World Universities: Introduction, Methodology, and Future Developments. Higher Education in Europe, 33(2/3): 234-244.

Ortega, J. L., Aguillo, I. F. (2009). Mapping World-class universities on the Web. Information Processing & Management, 45(2): 272-279

Aguillo, I. F.; Granadino, B.; Ortega, J. L.; Prieto, J. A. (2006). Scientific research activity and communication measured with cybermetric indicators. Journal of the American Society of Information Science and Technology, 57(10): 1296-1302

Aguillo, I. F.; Granadino, B.; Ortega, J.L. & Prieto, J.A. (2005). What the Internet says about Science. The Scientist, 19(14):10

Categories: 1-Riset LCWCU Tags:

datawebsite

February 8th, 2010 ekofuji No comments
Categories: 1-Riset LCWCU Tags: