arXiv subjects

Cameron Neylon

Publications and source records attributed to Cameron Neylon.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Guidance List for repOrting Bibliometric AnaLyses (GLOBAL): A Reporting Guideline Informed by a Two-Round Modified Delphi Study

Background: Despite the growth of bibliometric analyses, few studies offer guidance on how to report them, resulting in a lack of research transparency and completeness. To address this gap, we developed the Guidance List for the repOrting of Bibliometric AnaLyses (GLOBAL). Methods: An initial list of items for the GLOBAL was generated through a scoping review and refined through a modified two-round Delphi, as recommended by the EQUATOR Network. The guideline was finalized through a pilot test, where participants assessed their manuscripts using the checklist and Elaboration and Explanation (E&E) document, which outlines item expectations and provides examples. Results: The scoping review resulted in 32 items. In Round 1, 24 items reached consensus and thematic content analysis resulted in one additional item. This item, along with the eight items that did not reach consensus, were discussed in detail in Round 2. During the in-person meeting, one item was split into two, totalling ten voting items. Eight out of ten items reached consensus, five for inclusion and three for exclusion. Conclusions: The finalized 28-item GLOBAL (and its accompanying E&E document) provides users with a framework to report bibliometric analyses, aimed at promoting high-quality reporting of bibliometric analyses in scholarly literature.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2020

A Longitudinal Analysis of University Rankings

Pressured by globalization and the increasing demand for public organisations to be accountable, efficient and transparent, university rankings have become an important tool for assessing the quality of higher education institutions. It is therefore important to carefully assess exactly what these rankings measure. In this paper, the three major global university rankings, The Academic Ranking of World Universities, The Times Higher Education and the Quacquarelli Symonds World University Rankings, are studied. After a description of the ranking methodologies, it is shown that university rankings are stable over time but that there is variation between the three rankings. Furthermore, using Principal Component Analysis and Exploratory Factor Analysis, we show that the variables used to construct the rankings primarily measure two underlying factors: a universities reputation and its research performance. By correlating these factors and plotting regional aggregates of universities on the two factors, differences between the rankings are made visible. Last, we elaborate how the results from these analysis can be viewed in light of often voiced critiques of the ranking process. This indicates that the variables used by the rankings might not capture the concepts they claim to measure. Doing so the study provides evidence of the ambiguous nature of university ranking's quantification of university performance.

cs.SI↗