| <!-- @page { margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: | | | | alternative to Google scholar because by selecting |
| 0.21cm } --> | | | | another for profit institution would mean that we |
| We have been working and developing our | | | | support and endorse that institution which could lead |
| methodology on evaluating ranking data for sometime | | | | the universities to feel pressured into signing up with |
| now just to ensure that we reach a real benchmark | | | | that particular institution in order to improve their |
| using good analysis tactics when measuring university | | | | ranking. However that is a completely unacceptable |
| performance. How is Eduroute's 2010 ranking | | | | approach when considering ranking indicators since we |
| different? For the 2010 ranking we have concentrated | | | | fully support the Open Archives Initiative (OAI). After |
| more on what the world needs from the university and | | | | the announcement of the 2009 ranking results we |
| who needs or benefits from this information i.e. | | | | initiated a comparison between us and the other |
| Students, parents, alumni, academic staff . We have | | | | university ranking institutions. |
| focused more on measuring the level of commitment | | | | |
| between the universities and other different academic | | | | Although the methodologies used are different the |
| institutions using a new and from our point of view | | | | university ranking results obtained were very similar. |
| good indicator which is the G-factor. The G-factor | | | | This goes to show that the top universities generally |
| mainly measures the interaction level between the | | | | take into consideration all the general ranking indicator |
| universities and the many other academic institutions. | | | | measures despite being different in their methods of |
| | | | | execution. Finally we would like to dedicate the 2010 |
| With the 2010 ranking we have focused more on the | | | | university ranking results to the beneficiaries of the |
| universities social contributions and activities that have | | | | different academic institutions and the academic |
| been published on the internet. We have also | | | | institutions themselves in the hope of being totally |
| decreased the percentage given to the Google | | | | transparent in the way we rank the universities and |
| scholar indicator despite it being one of the largest and | | | | the methodologies that we use. One of the main goals |
| most comprehensive free nonprofit online scientific | | | | of publishing the 2010 university ranking results is to |
| library. The reason for doing so is that we have found | | | | create a competitive environment between the |
| out that many institutions misuse this excellent tool | | | | different universities and especially the universities with |
| provided by Google and till the contents entered are | | | | low ranking results in order to encourage them to |
| better monitored and sorted we will continue place a | | | | score better results and improve their general |
| low percentage on the Google scholar indicator. It has | | | | performance. The 2010 ranking results will be |
| not been easy however to currently choose another | | | | announced at the end of March 2010. |