Multivariate approach to imposing additional constraints on the Benefit-of-the-Doubt model: The case of QS World University Rankings by Subject

1. Bornmann, L., Marx, W. (2014). How to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences meaningfully? A proposal of methods based on percentiles of citations. Scientometrics, Vol. 98, No. 1, pp. 487-509.10.1007/s11192-013-1161-ySearch in Google Scholar

2. Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 2, No. 6, pp. 429-444.10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8Search in Google Scholar

3. Cherchye, L., Moesen, W., Rogge, N., Van Puyenbroeck, T. (2007). An introduction to ‘benefit of the doubt’composite indicators. Social Indicators Research, Vol. 82, No. 1, pp.111-145.10.1007/s11205-006-9029-7Search in Google Scholar

4. Davenport, T. H., Patil, D. J. (2012). Data Scientist: The Sexiest Job of the 21st Century. Harvard Business Review, 70, October 2012.Search in Google Scholar

5. Dobrota, M., Bulajic, M., Bornmann, L., Jeremic, V. (2016). A new approach to QS University Ranking using composite I-distance indicator: uncertainty and sensitivity analyses. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 67, No. 1, pp. 200-211.10.1002/asi.23355Search in Google Scholar

6. Dobrota, M., Jeremic, V. (in press). Shedding the Light on the Stability of University Rankings in the ICT Field. IETE Technical Review.Search in Google Scholar

7. Dobrota, M., Martic, M., Bulajic, M., Jeremic, V. (2015). Two-phased composite I-distance indicator approach for evaluation of countries’ information development. Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 39, No. 5, pp. 406-420.10.1016/j.telpol.2015.03.003Search in Google Scholar

8. Federkeil, G. (2015). Doing Field-based Rankings: Lessons Learned from U-Multirank and CHE-rankings, in Subject and Discipline Related Rankings - a More Inclusive Approach to University Performance (IREG 2015)Search in Google Scholar

9. Intelligence Unit. (2015). QS World University Rankings by Subject. Available on: http://www.iu.qs.com/university-rankings/subject-tables/ [9 January 2015]Search in Google Scholar

10. IREG. (2015). Rankings by Subject. Available on: http://iregobservatory.org/en/index.php/forum-aalborg-invitation [28 December 2015]Search in Google Scholar

11. Ivanovic, B. (1977). Classification theory. Belgrade: Institute for Industrial Economics.Search in Google Scholar

12. Jeremic, V., Bulajic, M., Martic, M., Radojicic, Z. (2011). A fresh approach to evaluating the academic ranking of world universities. Scientometrics, Vol. 87, No. 3, pp. 587-596.10.1007/s11192-011-0361-6Search in Google Scholar

13. Jovanovic-Milenkovic, M., Brajovic, B., Milenkovic, D., Vukmirovic, D., Jeremic, V. (2015). Beyond the equal-weight framework of the Networked Readiness Index a multilevel Idistance methodology. Information Development. In press.Search in Google Scholar

14. Marginson, S. (2014). University rankings and social science. European Journal of Education, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 45-59.10.1111/ejed.12061Search in Google Scholar

15. Maričić, M., Bulajić, M., Dobrota, M. (2016a). The alteration of U21 ranking methodology: from expert-driven to data-driven weighting scheme. Proceedings of the SYMORG 2016 Conference, June 10-13, Zlatibor, Serbia, pp. 84-91.Search in Google Scholar

16. Maricic, M., Bulajic, M., Dobrota, M, Jeremic, V. (2016b). Redesigning The Global Food Security Index: A Multivariate Composite I-Distance Indicator Approach. International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 69-86.Search in Google Scholar

17. Maricic, M., Kostic-Stankovic, M. (2016). Towards an impartial Responsible Competitiveness Index: a twofold multivariate I-distance approach. Quality & Quantity, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 103-120.10.1007/s11135-014-0139-zSearch in Google Scholar

18. Melyn, W., Moesen, W. (1991). Towards a synthetic indicator of macroeconomic performance: unequal weighting when limited information is available. Public Economics Research Paper 17, CES, KU Leuven.Search in Google Scholar

19. Mizobuchi, H. (2014). Measuring world better life frontier: a composite indicator for OECD better life index. Social Indicators Research, Vol. 118, No. 3, pp. 987-1007.10.1007/s11205-013-0457-xSearch in Google Scholar

20. Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Hoffman, A., Giovannini, E. (2005). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide. (No. 2005/3). OECD publishingSearch in Google Scholar

21. Perišić, A. (2015). Data-driven weights and restrictions in the construction of composite indicators. Croatian Operational Research Review, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 29-42.10.17535/crorr.2015.0003Search in Google Scholar

22. QS. (2015a). QS World University Rankings by Subject: Methodology. Available on: http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings-articles/university-subject-rankings/qsworld- university-rankings-subject-methodology [8 January 2016]Search in Google Scholar

23. QS. (2015b). QS World University Rankings by Subject 2015 - Statistics & Operational Research. Available at http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/universitysubject-rankings/2015/statistics-operationalresearch#sorting=rank+region=+country=+faculty=+stars=false+search= [Accessed 15 January 2016]Search in Google Scholar

24. Radojicic, M., Savic, G., Radovanovic, S., Jeremic, V. (2015). A novel bootstrap dba-dea approach in evaluating efficiency of banks. Scientific Bulletin" Mircea cel Batran" Naval Academy, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 375-384.Search in Google Scholar

25. Rauhvargers, A. (2013). Global university rankings and their impact: Report II. pp. 21-23. Brussels: European University Association.Search in Google Scholar

26. Rauhvargers, A. (2014). Where are the global rankings leading us? An analysis of recent methodological changes and new developments. European Journal of Education, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 29-44.10.1111/ejed.12066Search in Google Scholar

27. Rogge, N., (2012). Undesirable specialization in the construction of composite policy indicators: The Environmental Performance Index. Ecological indicators, Vol. 23, pp.143-154.10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.03.020Search in Google Scholar

28. Saisana, M., Saltelli, A. (2014). JCR statistical audit of the WJP Rule of Law index 2014. In World Justice Project: The World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2014, pp. 188-197Search in Google Scholar

29. Siwinski, W. (2015). The era of rankings by subject is coming [Online]. Available on: http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20150803133240109 [12 January 2016]Search in Google Scholar

30. UN. (2014). The Post ‐ 2015 Development Agenda: The Role of Statistical Community. Available on: http://www.un.org/esa/population/meetings/twelfthcoord2014/documents/presentations/KEIKO_presentation_12CM.pdf. [5 January 2016]Search in Google Scholar

31. Ziman, J. (2000). Real Science. What it Is, and What it Means. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9780511541391Search in Google Scholar

32. Zornic, N., Bornmann, L., Maricic, M., Markovic, A., Martic, M., Jeremic, V. (2015). Ranking institutions within a university based on their scientific performance: A percentile-based approach. El Profesional de la informacion, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 551-566. 10.3145/epi.2015.sep.05Search in Google Scholar