Abstract:The objective assessment of the prestige of an academic institution is a difficult and hotly debated task. In the last few years, different types of University Rankings have been proposed to quantify the excellence of different research institutions in the world. Albeit met with criticism in some cases, the relevance of university rankings is being increasingly acknowledged: indeed, rankings are having a major impact on the design of research policies, both at the institutional and governmental level. Yet, the debate on what rankings are {\em exactly} measuring is enduring. Here, we address the issue by measuring a quantitive and reliable proxy of the academic reputation of a given institution and by evaluating its correlation with different university rankings. Specifically, we study citation patterns among universities in five different Web of Science Subject Categories and use the \pr~algorithm on the five resulting citation networks. The rationale behind our work is that scientific citations are driven by the reputation of the reference so that the PageRank algorithm is expected to yield a rank which reflects the reputation of an academic institution in a specific field. Our results allow to quantifying the prestige of a set of institutions in a certain research field based only on hard bibliometric data. Given the volume of the data analysed, our findings are statistically robust and less prone to bias, at odds with ad--hoc surveys often employed by ranking bodies in order to attain similar results. Because our findings are found to correlate extremely well with the ARWU Subject rankings, the approach we propose in our paper may open the door to new, Academic Ranking methodologies that go beyond current methods by reconciling the qualitative evaluation of Academic Prestige with its quantitative measurements via publication impact.

A comparison of university performance scores and ranks by MNCS and FSS

Comparison of research productivity of Italian and Norwegian professors and universities

A farewell to the MNCS and like size-independent indicators

National research assessment exercises: a measure of the distortion of performance rankings when labor input is treated as uniform

The dispersion of research performance within and between universities as a potential indicator of the competitive intensity in higher education systems

The dangers of performance-based research funding in non-competitive higher education systems

From rankings to funnel plots: the question of accounting for uncertainty when measuring university research performance

National research assessment exercises: a comparison of peer review and bibliometrics rankings

Accounting for gender research performance differences in ranking universities

Assessing the accuracy of the h and g indexes for measuring researchers' productivity

Individual research performance: a proposal for comparing apples to oranges

The different responses of universities to introduction of performance-based research funding

Errors and secret data in the Italian research assessment exercise. A comment to a reply

Assessing public-private research collaboration: is it possible to compare university performance?

Variability of research performance across disciplines within universities in non-competitive higher education systems

Mind the gap in university rankings: a complex network approach towards fairness

The impact of unproductive and top researchers on overall university research performance

National-scale research performance assessment at the individual level

Measuring the academic reputation through citation networks via PageRank

The ratio of top scientists to the academic staff as an indicator of the competitive strength of universities

Informed peer review for publication assessments: Are improved impact measures worth the hassle?