Colleges and universities are not only the cradle of training talents, but also the base of incubating innovation. The influence on ranking reflects the strength of universities, and also represents the social recognition of universities.
OBJECTIVE:
It is of great significance to identify and analyze the key factors that affect the university ranking.
METHODS:
In this paper, the DANP method is used to identify the key factors of university influence. It is considered that the amount of alumni donation, world ranking, media attention of alumni, dual micromedia communication and industry media attention are the key factors that enhance universities’ social influence.
CONCLUSIONS:
The conclusion of this study enriches the theory of university evaluation, innovates the research methods of university evaluation, and puts forward a precise index adjustment scheme to guide universities to strengthen their own influence construction, which has important theoretical and practical significance for the development of university edifice.
Overall plan to promote the construction of world-class universities and first-class disciplines. Issued by the State Council. Chinese Government Website. 2015-11-05[Quote date2015-11-05]
2.
National Medium- and Long-Term Education Reform and Development Plan (2010-2020) Issued by the CPC Central Committee and the State Council. People’s Education. 2010;(17):2–15.
3.
PenghuLi, UniversityX. Rational Thought on the University Ranking and the Construction of World-Class University. China Higher Education Research. (2016).
4.
KimSK, ParkMJ, RhoJJ. Effect of the Government’s Use of Social Media on the Reliability of the Government: Focus on Twitter. Public Management Review. 2015;17(3):328–55.
5.
Al-Kabi Mohammed N. Exploring the relationships between web accessibility, web traffic, and university rankings: A case study of Jordanian universities. International Journal of High Performance Computing and Networking. 2018;12(3):235–50.
6.
GiovanniA, CiceroT, D’AngeloCA. The impact of unproductive and top researchers on overall university research performance. Journal of Informetrics. 2013;7(1):166–75.
7.
WunnavaPV, LauzeMA. Alumni giving at a small liberal arts college: Evidence from consistent and occasional donors. Economics of Education Review. 2001;20(6):533–43.
8.
Saaty, ThomasL. Fundamentals of the analytic network process — Dependence and feedback in decision-making with a single network. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering. 2004;13(2):129–57.
9.
Saaty, ThomasL. Decision making-the analytic hierarchy and network processes(AHP/ANP). Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering. 2004;13(1):1–35.
10.
Lee, ShiungWen, et al.Analysis of decision making factors for equity investment by DEMATEL and Analytic Network Process. Expert Systems with Applications. 2011;38(7):8375–83.
11.
Zhang, XiaoHui, et al.Influencing Factors in Rural Cooperative Economic System in Changjitu Area——On the basis of DEMATEL Method. Asian Agricultural Research. 2011;3(5):81–3.
12.
Chen, Tinghao, SunKS. Exploring the strategy to improve senior citizens’ participations on recreational sports. Knowledge-Based Systems. 2012;26:86–92.
13.
Yi-Chung, Hu, & Wang, Jen-Hung & CHEN, CHUN-TSUNG. (2018). The Key Factors of New Car Models Development. DEStech Transactions on Engineering and Technology Research. 10.12783/dtetr/ecame2017/18374.
14.
NesterovAV. The influence of rankings on the development of universities. Scientific & Technical Information Processing. 2011;38(1):13–6.
15.
Shehatta, Ibrahim, MahmoodK. Correlation among top 100 universities in the major six global rankings: Policy implications. Scientometrics. 2016;109(2):1231–54.
16.
Bornmann, Lutz, LeydesdorffL. The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000. Journal of Informetrics. 2013;7(2):286–91.
17.
Wu, Zhiqiang. Average evaluation intensity: A quality-oriented indicator for the evaluation of research performance. Library & Information Science Research. 2015;37(1):51–60.
18.
Altbach, PhilipG. The Costs and Benefits of World-Class Universities. Journal of Higher Education. 2004;90(1):20–3.
19.
Shin. Institutionalization of World-Class University in Global Competition[J]. Changing Academy –the Changing Academic Profession in InternationalComparative Perspective, 2013, 6.
20.
Butler, Linda. Explaining Australia’s increased share of ISI publications—the effects of a funding formula based on publication counts. Research Policy. 2003;32(1):0–155.
21.
Hicks, Diana. Evolving Regimes of Multi-University Research Evaluation. Higher Education. 2009;57(4):393–404.
22.
Webster, ThomasJ. A Principal Component Analysis of the U.S. News & World Report Tier Rankings of Colleges and Universities. Economics of Education Review. 2001;20(3):235–44.
23.
Wunnava, PhanindraV, LauzeMA. Alumni giving at a small liberal arts college: Evidence from consistent and occasional donors. Economics of Education Review. 2001;20(6):533–43.
24.
Monks, James. Patterns of giving to one’s alma mater among young graduates from selective institutions. Economics of Education Review. 2003;22(2):121–30.
25.
MLALaw, R, H. [. H. N. L. Fong, and K. [. K. C. D. Fong. How useful are university rankings in tourism?Annals of Tourism Research. 2015;54:219–21.
26.
Shaw, EugeneF. Media Credibility: Taking the Measure of a Measure. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 1973;50(2):306–11.
27.
Flanagin, AndrewJ, MetzgerMJ. The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information:. New Media & Society. 2007;9(2):319–42.
28.
Kiousis, Spiro. Public Trust or Mistrust? Perceptions of Media Credibility in the Information Age. Mass Communication & Society. 2001;4(4):381–403.
29.
MLAJohnson, ThomasJ, KayeBK. For Whom the Web Toils: How Internet Experience Predicts Web Reliance and Credibility. Atlantic Journal of Communication. 2004;12(1):19–45.
30.
FrostT, StimpsonDV, MaughanMR. Some correlates of trust. Journal of Psychology. 1978;99(1st Half):103.
31.
SohKaycheng. What the Overall doesn’t tell about world university rankings: Examples from ARWU, QSWUR, and THEWUR in 2013. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. 2015;37(3):295–307, DOI: 10.1080/1360080X.2015.1035523
32.
HuangM.-H.. Opening the black box of QS World University Rankings. Research Evaluation. 2012;21(1):71–8.
33.
Chen, HuaKuang, LiaoPY. A comparative study on world university rankings: A bibliometric survey. Scientometrics. 2012;92(1):89–103.
34.
Soh, Kaycheng. Rectifying an honest error in world university rankings: A solution to the problem of indicator weight discrepancies. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. 2013;35(6):574–85.
35.
Sheil, Tony. rankings and the reshaping of higher education: The battle for world-class excellenceby Ellen Hazelkorn. Higher Education. 2012;63(3):397–9.
36.
Kivinen, Osmo, HedmanJ, ArtukkaK. Scientific publishing and global university rankings. How well are top publishing universities recognized?Scientometrics. 2017;112(1):679–95.
37.
WenX, ZengJQ, KhuramShahzad, ShafaqSalam, ZahidLatif. Customer-knowledge enabled innovation: An empirical assessment. Human Systems Management. 2019;(2):179–96.
38.
AliHamidizadeh, FadardiMohammadnezhad, Mansoureh. The brand of a university as an employer. Human Systems Management. 2019;(1):73–86.
39.
RastogiP.N.. Sustaining enterprise competitiveness –is human capital the answer?Human Systems Management. 2000;(3):193–203.
40.
Hiwaki, Kensei. Own culture-based integral education for a viable human future. Human Systems Management. 2014;(4):121–38.
41.
Gehlert Kurt M, ThomasRessler, DonoxtiBaylon. Global challenges demand global education of systems thinking. Human Systems Management. 2013;(2):79–94.
