Ranking of Indian Research Intensive Higher Education Institutions using Multiple Ranking Methodologies a Correlation Analysis

This article ranks the same set of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in India using four different ranking methodologies, namely, i) NIRF (Overall): used for Overall category of India Rankings; ii) NIRF (Only Research and Professional Practices parameters); iii) Research Ranking Methodology; a new methodology evolved for ranking of research-intensive institutions under NIRF; and vi) IFQ2A index developed by Spanish group of scientists. The four sets of ranked institutions were obtained using methodologies mentioned above and correlation analysis was carried out on these four sets using Pearson Bivariate Correlation. It was found that a very strong and positive correlation exists between ranking of HEIs using new methodology (R2M) evolved for ranking of research-intensive institutions and ranking by HEIs using IFQ2A Index.

Underrepresentation of women in the senior levels of Brazilian science

Despite significant progress, there is still a gender gap in science all over the world, especially at senior levels. Some progressive countries are recognizing the need to address barriers to gender equality in order to retain their best scientists and innovators, and ensure research excellence and social and economic returns on the investment made by taxpayers each year on training women scientists. We investigated the gender distribution of: (i) the productivity scholarship (PS) holders of the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, CNPq,N= 13,625), (ii) the members of the Brazilian Academy of Science (Academia Brasileira de Ciências, ABC,N= 899), and (iii) the amount of funding awarded for top quality research (“Universal” Call of CNPq,N= 3,836), between the years of 2013 and 2014. Our findings show evidence for gender imbalances in all the studied indicators of Brazilian science. We found that female scientists were more often represented among PS holders at the lower levels of the research ranking system (2). By contrast, male scientists were more often found at higher levels (1A and 1B) of PS holders, indicating the top scientific achievement, both in “Engineering, Exact Sciences, Earth Sciences”, and “Life Sciences”. This imbalance was not found in Humanities and Social Sciences. Only 14% of the ABC members were women. Humanities and Applied Social Sciences had a relatively low representation of women in the Academy (3.7%) compared to Engineering, Exact and Earth Sciences: 54.9% and Life Sciences: 41.4%. Finally, female scientists obtained significantly more funding at the lower level of the research ranking system (2), whereas male scientists obtained significantly more funding at the higher levels (1A and 1B). Our results show strong evidence of a gender imbalance in Brazilian science. We hope that our findings will be used to stimulate reforms that will result in greater equality in Brazilian science, and elsewhere.

Accounting Education Research: Ranking Institutions and Individual Scholars

ABSTRACT Previous rankings of accounting literature have largely ignored the subtopic of accounting education research. Given the important role that rankings play in creating incentives and benchmarks, ranking education research may improve both the quality and quantity of research in this subtopic. This paper ranks academic institutions and individual accounting researchers based on their production of accounting education research. We show that the correlation between education research rankings and singular, noneducation research rankings is very low (i.e., ranges from 0.20 to 0.31), emphasizing the importance of considering education rankings separately from other topical areas in accounting research. We also provide evidence of the institutional factors that contribute to producing accounting education research and when professors produce this type of research in their careers. These findings will likely be of interest to current faculty, administrators, and industry leaders as they make decisions based on accounting education research. JEL Classifications: M4; M40; M41; M49. Data Availability: Requests for data may be made to the authors.