CWTS Leiden Ranking: A Step Toward Epistemic Justice

PUBLIC NOTICE: TÜBİTAK ANNOUNCES THE 2025 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP PROGRAMS The Ministry of Higher Education, Research, Science and Technology is thrilled to announce The Presidency of the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye (TÜBİTAK) has opened applications for two programs: 1. The 2025 International Leading Researchers Program, and 2. International Young Researchers Programs. These prestigious fellowship programs aim to attract qualified and experienced researchers from around the world to conduct high-level scientific and technological research in Türkiye, particularly in areas of strategic importance to the country. The International Leading Researchers Program is designed for outstanding researchers who have demonstrated excellence and leadership in their fields and have international research experience, while the International Young Researchers Program targets promising early-career researchers under the age of 40 who have made significant scientific contributions and are eager to advance their careers through research in Türkiye. Both programs provide comprehensive support, including:  Monthly scholarship and family allowance  Initial research and project grants  Funding for graduate students and postdoctoral researchers (up to 5 team members)  Health and travel allowances for the researcher and family  Institutional support for the host organization  Mentorship and career development opportunities Applications must be submitted online via the TÜBİTAK Management Information System https://lnkd.in/e7eCHTpt no later than 24th November, 2025. Researchers are encouraged to review the detailed call documents and eligibility requirements available on the TÜBİTAK website:  International Fellowship for Outstanding Researchers: https://lnkd.in/eRMQ94tR international-fellowship-outstanding-researchers.  International Fellowship for Early Stage Researchers: https://lnkd.in/eRUwT6_c international-fellowship-early-stage-researchers. Wishing all researchers the best of luck!

🎯 Spain’s University Rankings in Focus: How Methodologies Shape Results University ranking systems such as ARWU, THE, QS, and CWUR assess academic productivity, impact, and visibility using different methodologies and data sources — often leading to significant variations in outcomes. 🔍 The AD Scientific Index takes a different approach. With its bottom-up, real-time evaluation model based on individual scientist data, it provides transparent and continuously updated insights into the academic performance of institutions. This approach is further strengthened by the SMART Institutional Excellence Plan, which offers universities and research institutions a strategic, data-driven framework for academic advancement. 🚀 The SMART Plan provides: 🎯 Real-time performance analysis: Enables institutions to monitor academic progress instantly and identify areas of strength. 🧩 Field- and individual-based contribution analytics: Clearly shows which scientists, departments, and disciplines contribute most to institutional success. 📊 Strategic decision support: Helps shape effective policies to enhance academic productivity, visibility, and impact. 🌐 Global competitiveness: Supports institutions in improving their position and visibility in international rankings. 💡 Transparency and ethical oversight: Contributes to detecting unethical behaviors such as excessive publishing, gift authorship, and citation manipulation. 📈 In Spain, variations among ranking outcomes are mainly driven by differences in data sources (Google Scholar, Scopus, Web of Science) and weighting criteria adopted by each system. 🌍 This analysis is part of a large-scale comparative study of 1,265 universities across 32 countries. Its primary goal is to demonstrate how methodological diversity and database selection shape national ranking outcomes and influence scientific visibility. 💬 Discussion Points 1️⃣ How do you assess the accuracy and transparency of the AD Scientific Index compared to traditional university rankings? 2️⃣ Which global rankings include your university, and do they truly reflect its academic strength? 3️⃣ How do you think the choice of database affects your country’s position in global rankings? 🔗 www.adscientificindex.com Universidad Complutense de Madrid Universitat de Barcelona Universidad de Sevilla Universitat de València Universidad de Zaragoza Universidad Autónoma de Madrid Universitat Politècnica de València (UPV) Universidade de Santiago de Compostela Universidad de Murcia Universidad de Salamanca

Exploring the 2026 QS Arab Region Ranking Indicators: What do the correlations among indicators tell us? This post explores correlations among indicators of private and public universities (see descriptions in the comments) in the 2026 QS Arab Region Ranking to gain insights on how reputation, research productivity, and internationalization interact to shape institutional performance and strategic positioning across different university models in the region. Here is what the correlations tell us: Tables 1 and 2 present, respectively, the heatmaps of the clustered correlations among the indicators for Groups 1 and 2. International Faculty is not in Table 1 because its value is 100 across all universities, and consequently, the correlation is 0. Exploring the correlations reveals interesting insights, as highlighted below: Reputation and Internationalization 1/ In both groups, Academic Reputation and Employer Reputation are strongly correlated with each other. 2/ In both groups, the International Research Network exhibits higher correlations with Academic Reputation and Employer Reputation than with other indicators, but it is higher in Group 1. Implication: The three indicators above form the main drivers of reputation and internationalization. Research Output 1/ In both groups, Papers per Faculty show a weak positive connection with Academic Reputation, Employer Reputation, and Faculty with PhD. 2/ In group 1, Papers per Faculty shows moderate correlation (0.63) with International Research and (0.47) with Staff with PhD Implication: Increasing the number of Staff with PhD, within the acceptable Faculty-Student Ratio, and expanding the International Research Network “could” increase research output, provided research funding is sufficient. 3/ However, in Group 2, Papers per Faculty is weakly correlated (0.06) with International Research Network but has a moderate correlation (0.49) with Staff with PhD, and (0.38) with International Faculty. Implication: Increasing the number of Staff with PhD and International Faculty, within the acceptable Faculty-Student Ratio, and expanding the International Research Network could increase research output, provided research funding is sufficient. In conclusion, the correlations in the 2026 QS Arab Region Rankings reveal two complementary models of excellence. Private universities, sampled from the UAE, show globally integrated systems driven by reputation, research, and internationalization. Public universities from selected MENA countries reflect nationally grounded models focused on research growth and faculty strength. Together, they illustrate that excellence in the Arab region emerges from balancing global engagement with national relevance. To make the ranking balanced, the term “International” should be revised to reflect the true diversity and inclusiveness of faculty and students, emphasizing intercultural collaboration and global engagement rather than nationality alone.

🌍💻 Joint Masters programme MULTICOM bridging humanities and tech 💻🌍 An Erasmus Mundus grant will fund the first International Joint Masters programme on the Data Science of Human Multimodal Communication (MULTICOM). The programme, jointly awarded to Universidad de Murcia (lead), Lunds universitet and FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg, will train students to analyse complex human communication – speech, gestures, gaze, facial expressions – using cutting-edge data science tools combined with theories of language and cognition 🗣️👋👾 – This is very exciting, it’s the first Erasmus Mundus Joint MA programme in the humanities at Lund University, says Marianne Gullberg who leads the programme at the Centre for Languages and Literature in Lund. But more importantly, MULTICOM bridges the humanities and technology 🤝 – In an AI-age, understanding human communication requires data and tools, but also insights into cognition, and linguistic and cultural diversity. This international programme will ensure that students understand both facets, says Marianne Gullberg. The programme is funded with €4,632,000.00 through an Erasmus Mundus grant. 🔗 Read more https://lnkd.in/dUsGKbWv

📣 🌍 🌎 🌏 We are so excited to be part of this excellent Joint Masters programme on the Data Science of Human Multimodal Communication (MULTICOM)! The programme, jointly awarded to the Universities of Murcia (lead), Lund and FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg, will train students to analyse complex human communication—speech, gestures, gaze, facial expressions, etc.—using cutting-edge data science tools combined with theories of language and cognition. Looking forward to introducing experimental methods to the MULTICOM EM master students in the lab! 🧑🎓

Three rules for developing a personal journal list (or my unscientific process for developing a journal list for young German IS scholars). When I visit schools, I'm most often asked what I think are the best journals in my discipline. First, I respond by derogating journal lists - I feel that they lead to commoditizing scholarship - with each paper being treated more as a good & less as an intellectual artifact. Second, I acknowledge that there is a place for journal lists - I feel that they help communities coalesce & define norms for where good work appears - with papers being treated more seriously if they appear in journals "listed" as high quality by faculty in their field. Third, I suggest that early career scholars develop personal journal lists - bc only they know the journals they like, what their university values, & what their community values - so they are best positioned to isolate whether a journal is taken seriously by people that matter to them. This third response leads people to ask - ok - so if you were in my country, what would be my journal list? If you were an early career scholar? So being in Germany & being tired of not having a good rubric for picking journals, I offer one here a nuanced, country-specific scheme for an early career scholar interested in creating a journal list; that is good enough to be credible yet nuanced enough to acknowledge that not every country or group requires the same journal list. So what were my heuristics? And what is my list? First, you need a mix of domain-specific & interdisciplinary journals with global brands. Why? BC you want your work to be seen by the best scholars in your field & adjacent fields. In my field, there are four journals with truly global brands that anyone should aspire to publish in. #ISR, #MISQ, #ManagementScience, & #OrgizationScience. Second, you need journals of high quality that speak to your discipline. In my field, I can think of four journals that have a substantial in-discipline reach that anyone would be proud to publish in. #JAIS, #JMIS, #ISJ, & #EJIS. I like these journals bc they are inclusive of methods & topics. Third, you need a mix of journals that speak to where you live & that help to build your national community. Too often lists focus on international glory. They should also be attentive to the communities that we want to build. In Germany, #BISE, #JBE, & #ElectronicMarkets have a strong impact - partly because the boards sit in #Germany but more so - that they publish exceptional work & are overlooked in some global conversations. In the States, I would pick different journals. In China, I would pick yet another set of journals. So there it is, the list I would pursue if I were a youngI S scholar in #Germany. I hope my heuristics help folks sort out their personal journal lists. If not, feel free to bend my ear at the next conference! #informationsystems #journallists

The release of the 2025 Leiden Ranking marks a series of critical steps towards a more open research information system. It is great to see the Open Edition placed side by side with the traditional version of Ranking. Debates continue on the qualities and risks of moving to fully open research information systems. Putting the evidence together is key to having an informed conversation. But perhaps more exciting for me is the opportunity it illustrates to expand the Ranking and make it more inclusive. My main criticism of the Leiden Ranking methodology has always been that it excludes non-English and diverse outputs that don't fit into the definition of "core" journals. Now we can see how that inclusion shifts the picture. And as always the work and the data from the CWTS | Leiden University shows the highest standards of technical quality and transparency. Not just saying what could be done, but showing what difference it makes so you can make your own choices. This is a great step forward and demonstration of what can be done with Open Research Information #OpenResearchInformation #BarcelonaDeclaration #OpenResearch https://lnkd.in/g74yVP47

📊 CWTS published the 2025 release of its Leiden Ranking Open Edition: a concrete step toward open research information. With the CWTS | Leiden University Ranking Open Edition built on OpenAlex data, we’re seeing: • Transparent indicators built on open research information • Recognition of national and regional publishing, not just “core” international journals • Broader global coverage: 2,800 universities (not ~1,500) This work aligns with the Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information : an open and inclusive research information ecosystem. Congratulations to everyone involved in making this happen 👏 🔗 Explore the Leiden Ranking 2025: https://lnkd.in/eh9icwp 📝 Read the full story: https://lnkd.in/eGQqBMPf

🔍 Critical Reflections on the RI² Ranking Recently, the RI² (Research Integrity Risk Index) ranking has attracted attention for its novel approach to evaluating universities through indicators assumed to reflect “research integrity risks.” While promoting research integrity is both noble and necessary, the methodological foundation of this ranking warrants deeper academic scrutiny. ⸻ 1️⃣ Lack of Scientific Basis in Indicator Selection The ranking relies on a limited set of indicators chosen without clear scientific justification or transparent methodology explaining why these were prioritized. In academic evaluation, indicators should be based on validated theoretical models or empirical evidence, rather than arbitrary choices, to avoid results reflecting subjective bias rather than objective measurement. ⸻ 2️⃣ Misalignment with Established Global Ranking Frameworks Reputable rankings such as Times Higher Education (THE) and Shanghai ARWU evaluate universities using comprehensive, multidimensional indicators, including institutional strategy and governance, research quality and impact, teaching and learning, citations, international outlook, industry engagement, infrastructure, and community contribution. This holistic approach reflects true academic excellence, unlike RI²’s narrow focus on research integrity risks, which alone cannot capture the full complexity of higher education quality. ⸻ 3️⃣ Subjectivity in Indicator Selection and Weighting From my experience as a PhD holder in Numerical Analysis, where I spent years developing and validating criteria for selecting numerical methods, I have observed that choice and weighting of indicators can significantly influence evaluation outcomes. It is not difficult to design indicators that align with a researcher’s intended results, whether by increasing certain indicators or reducing others. Thus, any ranking relying on indicator selection without transparency and clear methodology may reflect the researcher’s intent more than institutional reality. Recognizing this is crucial when interpreting any new ranking or metric, especially when used as an academic reference or assessment tool. ⸻ 🎯 Concluding Insight Research integrity is a cornerstone of academic excellence, but it cannot serve as the sole criterion for evaluating universities. Universities should be assessed through scientifically grounded, transparent, multidimensional frameworks that balance research ethics with educational quality, innovation, and societal impact. Universities deserve rankings that highlight their genuine strengths, not ones that oversimplify or misrepresent the complex realities of academic ecosystems. ⸻ ✍️ Dr. Riyadh Hamed Manager, Quality Assurance and Academic Performance Division Al-Mustaqbal University

5 Types of Research Gaps Every Researcher Should Know Ever struggled to define your research gap while writing a proposal or dissertation? You’re not alone — most researchers find this to be one of the hardest parts of academic writing. But once you understand what kind of gap you’re addressing, your research purpose becomes crystal clear. Here are 5 major types of research gaps every scholar should know 1. Theoretical Gap When there’s a missing or incomplete conceptual framework to explain a phenomenon. - Example: “There’s no existing theory explaining how AI influences creative decision-making.” 2. Methodological Gap When previous studies used outdated, limited, or inappropriate research methods. - Example: “Most studies used surveys; few applied experimental or mixed-methods approaches.” 3. Empirical Gap When there’s a lack of real-world data or insufficient studies on a topic. - Example: “Few empirical studies have tested this model using actual company data.” 4. Knowledge Gap When the overall understanding of a topic remains incomplete or inconsistent. - Example: “Existing research provides mixed results about the link between social media and productivity.” 5. Evidence Gap When strong proof or supporting evidence is missing to validate existing theories or claims. - Example: “There’s limited evidence on how digital tools improve student retention rates.” FREE Websites for Downloading PhD Thesis   1. Open Access Theses and Dissertations https://oatd.org/ 2. Open Thesis http://www.openthesis.org/ 3. DART-Europe E-theses Portal https://lnkd.in/d4SUFCTX 4. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses https://www.proquest.com/ 5. MIT Theses https://lnkd.in/dMs-PuYs  6. Digital Library of Theses & Dissertations http://www.ndltd.org/  7. Caltech Thesis https://lnkd.in/dZ6f8T5J  8. British Library https://www.bl.uk/  9. Electronic Theses & Dissertation Centre https://etd.ohiolink.edu/  10. Harvard DASH https://dash.harvard.edu/ Follow me Europe Academic Helper for more