These rankings derive from the standard version of Thomson Scientific’s United Kingdom University Science Indicators, 1981-2005, a database containing publication and citation statistics on upwards of 150 U.K. universities and affiliated institutions in nearly two dozen main fields. As in the 1997 survey, two institutions predictably dominate here: Cambridge
and Oxford, both of which appear in the tables far more frequently than do any
of the other universities. Yet, as was the case last time, in many instances the
"Oxbridge" establishment leaves room for other schools to distinguish
themselves, especially by the measure of citations per paper. These distinct measurements of impact and total citations, as Science Watch reliably points out, often produce markedly different results. Larger institutions that publish numerous papers generally have the advantage in collecting total citations. Thus, it’s hardly surprising that Cambridge, with more than 21,000 Thomson Scientific-indexed papers published between 2001 and 2005, looms so large in the total-citations table. In all, Cambridge appears in 12 of the table’s 21 fields, and in the #1 spot in 10 of those 12. Similarly, Oxford, with its 19,000+ papers produced during the five-year period, earned 11 spots in the total-citations table. Not far behind are Imperial College London, with nearly 19,000 papers and 10 spots in the total-citations table, and University College London (roughly 20,000 papers, 7 total-citations placements). The impact measurement, meanwhile, by gauging performance according to
citations per paper, tends to remove the advantage conferred by large size and
output, allowing the comparatively small to compete more equitably with the
great. Nevertheless, Cambridge and Oxford
It’s typically in the impact rankings, however, that smaller producers can come to the fore, and this survey is no exception. The University of Sussex, for example, despite relatively modest paper counts, takes the top spot in impact in both physics and space science. The story is similar for the University of Dundee, which grabs the top tier in impact in molecular biology/genetics as well as in biology & biochemistry. Other universities manage to make appearances in both of the tables. Of the Big Two, Oxford holds a slight edge by this measure, appearing in both the impact and total-citations rankings in six fields, compared to Cambridge’s five. Oxbridge aside, some of the smaller players also distinguish themselves in this regard. The University of Southampton, for example, takes the #1 spot for impact in computer science and agricultural sciences, appearing in the total-citations rankings for both fields as well. Southampton also appears in both rankings in the field of geosciences, as does Durham University in space science. And Imperial College London makes a good showing, landing in both tables in the fields of clinical medicine, microbiology, and mathematics. As in the 1997 U.K. survey, the mention of Imperial College prompts some
clarification regarding the procedure for dealing with large university systems.
In this study, as last time, the vast University of London system is treated not
as a single entity but is instead assessed in terms of its dozens of component
institutions, including not only Imperial College but King’s College London,
University College London, Queen Mary and Westfield College, not to mention the
London Business School and the London School of Economics & Political
Science (the last two of which, respectively, display the highest impact and the
highest total-citation count in the field of economics & business). Similarly, in clinical medicine, the United Kingdom University Science Indicators database considers research not only from the main universities, but from their affiliated medical schools and hospitals. The assessment of Imperial College in clinical medicine, for example, included papers from authors at the College’s medical school at St. Mary’s Hospital, as well as from the affiliated Charing Cross and Westminster Medical School and the Royal Postgraduate Medical School. Oxford’s affiliated medical institutions include Radcliffe Infirmary, the John Radcliffe Hospital, Churchill Hospital, and Horton Hospital. In this survey, as in all its studies of institutional research, Science Watch strove to balance citation impact against a reasonably substantial quantity of papers published in each field over the five-year period (otherwise, a university with a comparative handful of papers, but one or two highly cited reports, might achieve an artificially inflated impact mark). To that end, a minimum threshold of papers was set for each field in the impact rankings, with the threshold varying from field to field to reflect different overall volumes of published papers. These output thresholds meant that some universities with high citations-per-paper scores were excluded due to an insufficient number of Thomson-indexed papers published during the five-year period. In physics, for example, Royal Holloway, University of London, garnered an impact score of 15.10 but produced 334 physics papers—shy of the threshold of 500 set for the field. Another near miss was recorded by the University of Exeter in engineering, with an impact score of 3.27 but an output of 192 papers, just below the threshold of 200. Tantalizingly closest of all was the University of Nottingham in space science: an impact mark of 19.28 but a paper count just three short of this survey’s benchmark of 200.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Search | May/Jun Index | Archives | Contact | Home
|
|
|
|
|
Science
Watch® is an editorial component of Essential
Science Indicators |
|
|
|
(c) 2008 The
Thomson Corporation. |
ith
nearly a decade having passed since this publication last surveyed university
research in the United Kingdom (Science Watch, 8[1]: 1-2,
January/February 1997), the focus again moves across the pond. Updating the
previous study, Science Watch evaluates performance in 21 main fields of
science and the social sciences over the last five years, ranking U.K.
universities according to two separate measures: impact (or citations per
paper), and total citations. The
show their clout via this measure as
well, with each institution earning a top-three spot in 10 of the 21 fields
(with their closest battle, and identical marks, in the field of biology &
biochemistry, although Oxford narrowly takes the higher #2 spot thanks to its
score prior to rounding).
.
