Book section Open Access

University Rankings and Governance by Metrics and Algorithms

Chen, George; Chan, Leslie


MARC21 XML Export

<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
<record xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">
  <leader>00000nam##2200000uu#4500</leader>
  <datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">university rankings</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Knowledge infrastructure</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">data analytics</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">algorithmic governance</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">platform society</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">surveillance capitalism</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <controlfield tag="005">20221102222517.0</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="001">4730593</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="u">University of Toronto Scarborough</subfield>
    <subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0001-7779-2059</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">Chan, Leslie</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="s">507935</subfield>
    <subfield code="z">md5:b3a6008ab5ebb11c1451d2ee0c141fe3</subfield>
    <subfield code="u">https://zenodo.org/record/4730593/files/Chen and Chan_University Rankings V4.1.pdf</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="542" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="l">open</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">2021-04-15</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="909" ind1="C" ind2="O">
    <subfield code="p">openaire</subfield>
    <subfield code="p">user-kel</subfield>
    <subfield code="o">oai:zenodo.org:4730593</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="u">JD Student at Harvard Law School</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">Chen, George</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">University Rankings and Governance by Metrics and Algorithms</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="980" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">user-kel</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="540" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="u">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1="1" ind2="7">
    <subfield code="a">cc-by</subfield>
    <subfield code="2">opendefinition.org</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">&lt;p&gt;This paper looks closely at how data analytic providers leverage rankings as a part of their strategies to further extract rent and assets from the university beyond their traditional roles as publishers and citation data providers. Multinational publishers such as Elsevier, with over 2,500 journals in its portfolio, has transitioned to become a data analytic firm. Rankings expand their abilities to monetize further their existing journal holdings, as there is a strong association between publication in high-impact journals and improvement in rankings.&amp;nbsp; The global academic publishing industry has become highly oligopolistic, and a small handful of legacy multinational firms are now publishing the majority of the world&amp;rsquo;s research output (See Larivi&amp;egrave;re et. al. 2015; Fyfe et. al. 2017; Posada &amp;amp; Chen, 2018). It is therefore crucial that their roles and enormous market power in influencing university rankings be more closely scrutinized. We suggest that due to a combination of a lack of transparency regarding, for example, Elsevier&amp;rsquo;s data services and products and their self-positioning as a key intermediary in the commercial rankings business, they have managed to evade the social responsibilities and scrutiny that come with occupying such a critical public function in university evaluation. As the quest for ever-higher rankings often works in conflict with universities&amp;rsquo; public missions, it is critical to raise questions about the governance of such private digital platforms and the compatibility between their private interests and the maintenance of universities&amp;rsquo; public values.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="n">doi</subfield>
    <subfield code="i">isVersionOf</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">10.5281/zenodo.4730592</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="024" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">10.5281/zenodo.4730593</subfield>
    <subfield code="2">doi</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="980" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">publication</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">section</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
2,903
1,618
views
downloads
All versions This version
Views 2,9032,898
Downloads 1,6181,618
Data volume 821.8 MB821.8 MB
Unique views 2,4832,478
Unique downloads 1,4601,460

Share

Cite as