Transcript www.ukm.my

Top Ranked University
Ghauth Jasmon & Kuru Ratnavelu
University of Malaya
How do we rank a university?
Can we measure these attributes
that defines a Top Ranked
University?
National ranking? International
Ranking?
Best Soccer team in the world!
Spain or Italy or Germany or Brazil?
Why rank universities globally?
It is difficult to equate and compare
academic indicators between vastly
disparate economies.
University Ranking and Global
Competition






University Ranking have intensified Global
Competition among TOP institutions.
Universities are judged by their Research
Performance, Production of Quality Graduates,
Attracting Quality Faculties.
Increased Investments in Research Universities.
Better University Leadership.
Growth of Financial Resources/Endowments.
Smarter Partnerships in Asia – Shift in Priority.
“Universities operate in both national and global contexts.
The world class idea is in the global sphere. It assumes
that the university is competing with the best academic
institutions in the world and is aspiring to the pinnacle of
excellence and recognition. … To label one world-class
while relegating the others to the nether regions of the
academic hierarchy is perhaps inevitable, but nonetheless
unfortunate. How to relate to these varying realities is not
easy, but it is of central importance”
Philip G. Altbach, International Higher Education 2002
Boston College
7/7/2015
6
“The variety of outcomes in the THES study
underlies the fact that universities have different
missions & different strengths that make them
difficult to compare. There is no sign that a high
ranking university in our table is better than one
lowly ranked”
John O’Leary
Editor
The Times Higher Education Supplement 2005
World University Rankings
7/7/2015
7
“It would be impossible to
attribute too much weight to
the small differences in
overall scores between
universities low down the
rankings ”
Martin Ince (2005),
Contributing Editor of
The Times Higher
Education Supplement
7/7/2015
8
World Class Universities




It has become quite common to observe that there is a rapidly
growing trend among universities in the world to have a Mission or
Vision statement that states their aspiration to become a World
Class University capable of delivering world-class education to their
students.
What is a world-class university? What is a world-class education?
These questions are now becoming increasingly important to many
universities and higher education administrators throughout the
world.
There is no clear definition of what is a world-class university. What
is needed to be a world-class educating university?
7/7/2015
9
Some Possible Definition of World
Class University
1)
•
•
•
A University that Excels in Research, Teaching
and Service to the Community Where Through:
Research: Most of the Academics and their
Outputs are Globally Leading in the Field
Teaching: Cutting Edge Knowledge Taught and
Graduates are Highly Demanded and They rise to
Become Leaders , Innovators and Entrepreneurs
Service to Community: Expertise of Staff and
Students Sought After to Guide or Solve
Community’s Problems
Some Pertinent Questions
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Does Malaysia Have World Class Universities?
Malaysia’s Vision To Become Centre of Academic
Excellence – Myth or Reality?
Are Malaysian Universities Like Malaysian Soccer
in the World Cup? (FIFA Ranking > 150)
Is The Universities World Ranking Exercise
Important – THE-QS, Shanghai-Jiaotong?
Are Universities Built For Global Competition?
Universities Getting More Autonomy But Need To
Be Financially More Self-Sustaining?
Key Issues in UM?
No Proper Definition, Measurement & Exercise of
Academic Excellence
Claimed to be World Class - But Is It True?
Resting on Its Laurels
Best Practices/True Academic Culture?
Huge Gap - Best and Weakest
Quality of Research – Accumulating Citations
Attitude and Mindset - Resistance to Change
KPIs that are Incompatible
Promotion System That Is Not Helpful
12
Key Issues in UM?
Barriers and Ineffective Communications
Lax In Imposing Discipline: Action on NonPerforming Staff/Standards of Integrity?
World Class Initiatives – But Are Staff Ready?
VC’s Terms Are Short-Lived
Management That Lacks Courage & Vision
Bureaucratic Walls/Inefficiencies
10 KEY SUCCESS FACTORS
1)
Cutting Edge Research & Research Productivity
2)
Impact, Citations and Recognition
3)
International Networking & Partnerships
4)
Market-driven Programs & Quality Graduates
5)
Service to Community & the World
6)
Industry and External Support
7)
Entrepreneurship & Commercialization
8)
Effective Leadership & Support Services
9)
Recruitment of ‘Bright Sparks’
10)
Strategic Collaboration Shift West to East - Top Asian
Universities
Majority of the universities in the top rank adopts both
the classical and modern definitions. They are self
governing and form an independent institution. These
institutions develop linkages with large industries,
conduct research which transgress their own borders and
looks at worldwide issues. They also produce graduates
with comprehensive appreciation.
Another reason why these universities are world class is
because they recruit first rate faculty members from all
over the world and inadvertently the staff
memberscomprises of a large percentage of international
recruits.
Research
Research is the one of the MAIN core
business of any university which wishes to
claim itself as world class.
To pursue quality research means the immense
need to attain certain amount of funding.
It is definitely critical that there should be sufficient
grants for research to be carried out.
Ranking exercises to stay
By KAREN CHAPMAN
UM wants to be continuously gauged to see
how it fares against other varsities.
UNIVERSITI Malaya (UM) will continue to participate
in world ranking exercises as it needs to benchmark itself against the
best.
Its vice-chancellor Prof Datuk Dr Ghauth Jasmon said all top
universities wanted to be part of such exercises as it was a good way of
knowing how they fared against the others. We want 200,000 foreign
students by 2020 but how do we sell Malaysian education if we don’t
have a top university? This is why it’s important to continually improve
the university’s performance and although we have seen some impact,
it would take some years to see the results,” he explained.
http://thestar.com.my/education/story.asp?file=/2010/11/14/education/7349782&sec=education some years to see the
results
7/7/2015
18
A Preamble

Who decides which is the best
university in the world? THES? SJTU?

It is difficult to equate and compare
academic indicators between vastly
disparate economies.
7/7/2015
19
The fall of UM – the soul of the
nation?
What Happened to UM?
Utusan Malaysia
31 October 2005
7/7/2015
21
New Straits Times 29 October 2005
7/7/2015
The Star
30 October 2005
22
A GUIDE TO
Ranking
Universities
Kuru Ratnavelu
23
Some insights:
“A world-class university will be widely recognised as an
eminent institution, as a place where top staffs wish to
congregate. Given the chance, staff from other universities
will migrate to world-class university and top faculty attract
top students. The process is auto-catalytic. This means
such a university will certainly be a research-intensive
university. It must also teach well…”
John Niland, past Vice-Chancellor UNSW (1992-2002)
7/7/2015
24
“The mission of MIT is to advance knowledge and educate students in
science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the
nation and the world in the 21st century. The Institute is committed to
generating, disseminating, and preserving knowledge, and to working with
others to bring this knowledge to bear on the world's great challenges. MIT
is dedicated to providing its students with an education that combines
rigorous academic study and the excitement of discovery with the support
and intellectual stimulation of a diverse campus community. We seek to
develop in each member of the MIT community the ability and passion
to work wisely, creatively, and effectively for the betterment of
humankind.

7/7/2015
http://web.mit.edu/facts/mission.html on 12June 2007
25
Imperfect world rankings
“All of our universities have for years been striving to succeed in an
increasingly competitive international environment with decreased government
funding. Now this international competition has become obvious to all with the
publication of academic rankings by the London Times Higher Education
Supplement, Shanghai Jiao Tong University and Newsweek. … China and
Singapore continue to pump funds into their leading universities. Taiwan and
Korea have begun multibillion-dollar schemes to create world-class universities
and Germany and Japan, which feel they have slipped, are also providing large
sums of money to boost their top universities.
Imperfect though they are, international rankings
matter because people use them. They ensure a seat at
the global table and they attract outstanding
academics and students alike.
Professor Gavin Brown, Vice-chancellor and principal of the University of Sydney and the chairman of the
Association of Pacific Rim Universities. Sydney Morning Herald on the 5 June 2007
7/7/2015
26
Malaysia’s National Agenda
7/7/2015
27
 1st Phase(Fundamentals 2007 -2010) - It is expected that
3 universities in the Top 200 and at least one in the Top
100 in the world.
 2nd Phase (Strengthening and Improving 2011-2015) It is expected that two universities will be among the
Top 100 and one in the Top 50.
 3rd Phase (Excellence - 2016-2020) – 3 universities in the
Top 100 and at least 1 in the Top 50.
 4th Phase (Beyond 2020) – Two universities in the Top 50.
28
World University Rankings



The defunct Asiaweek Survey of Asia-Pacific
Universities (1997-2000).
The Shanghai Jiao-Tong Survey since 2003.
The THES World University Rankings since
2004.
Macleans-Canadian
US News- US Colleges
Melbourne Institute Index (MII) of the
International Standing of Australian Universities
2005

7/7/2015
Limited
to
specific
countries
29
Criteria AW





7/7/2015
2000
Academic Reputation
Student Selectivity
Faculty Resources
Research
Financial resources
30
Shanghai Jiao Tong University
(SJTU)
Academic World Ranking
Universities
7/7/2015
31
SJTU Criteria
Criteria
1.
2.
3.
4.
Quality of Education
Quality of Faculty
Research Output
Size of Institution
Weight
10%
40%
40%
10%
Total 100%
7/7/2015
32
SJTU Criteria Indicators
Criteria
Indicators
1. Quality of Education
Alumni winning
Nobel Prize/Field Medal
2. Quality of Faculty
i) Staff winning
Nobel Prize/Field Medals
ii) Highly Cited
Researchers
3. Research Output
4. Size of Institution
7/7/2015
i) Articles published in
Nature & Science
ii) Articles in Citation
Index
Academic performance
with respect to size of
institution
33
SJTU Criteria Indicators
Total no. of Alumni winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals

Alumni (Bachelor, Master's or doctoral degrees)
Weights:
100% for alumni from Class of 1991-2000.
90% for alumni from Class of 1981-1990.
80% for alumni from Class of 1971-1980.
…10% for alumni from Class of 1901-1910.
If a person obtains more than one degree from an institution, the
institution is considered once only.
7/7/2015
34
SJTU Criteria Indicators
No. of Awards won by staff of an institution
(Nobel Prizes & Fields Medal in Mathematics)

Staff is defined as those who work at an institution at
the time of winning the prize. Different weights were
set according to the periods of winning the prizes.
Weights:
100% for winners in 2001-2004
90% for winners in 1991-2000
80% for winners in 1981-1990
…10% for winners in 1911-1920.
If a winner is affiliated with more than one institution, each institution is assigned
the reciprocal of the number of institutions.
For Nobel prizes, if a prize is shared by more than one person, weights are set for
winners according to their proportion of the prize.
7/7/2015
35
SJTU Criteria Indicators
Highly Cited researchers
The number of highly cited researchers in broad
subject categories in life sciences, medicine,
physical sciences, engineering and social
sciences.
Nature & Science
The number of articles published in Nature and
Science between 2000 and 2004.
7/7/2015
36
SJTU Criteria Indicators
SCI
Total number of articles indexed in Science Citation Indexexpanded, Social Science Citation Index, and Arts &
Humanities Citation Index in 2004.
Size
The weighted scores of the above five indicators divided by the
number of full-time equivalent academic staff. If the number of
academic staff for institutions of a country cannot be obtained,
the weighted scores of the above five indicators is used. For
ranking 2005, the numbers of full-time equivalent academic
staff are obtained for institutions in USA, Japan, China, Italy,
Australia, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium,
Slovenia, etc.
7/7/2015
37
The Times Higher Education
Supplement
World Ranking Universities
THES -QS
7/7/2015
38
Criteria Indicator
1. Peer Review
2. Recruiter Review
3. International Staff
4. International Students
5. Faculty/Staff Ratio
6. Citations/Staff Ratio
Weight
40%
10%
5%
5%
20%
20%
Total 100%
7/7/2015
39
NEWSWEEK 2000
A hybrid of SJTU and THES rankings:
50% of the score came from equal parts of three measures
used by Shanghai Jiatong:



the number of highly-cited researchers in various academic fields
the number of articles published in Nature and Science,
the number of articles listed in the ISI Social Sciences and Arts & Humanities indices.
40% of the score came from equal parts of four measures used
by the Times:




the percentage of international faculty,
the percentage of international students,
citations per faculty member (using ISI data),
and the ratio of faculty to students.
The final 10% came from library holdings (number of volumes).
7/7/2015
40
THERE ARE NOW 2 WORLD RANKINGS
SURVEYS TILL 2009- THAT IS BEING
WIDELY ACCEPTED
1.
2.
The Higher Education (THE) – QS World University
Rankings (since 2004)
In this ranking, UM (Top 200 in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2009),
USM were listed in Top 200 in 2004. UKM (2006).
The Shanghai Jiao Tong Academic Ranking of World
Universities (since 2003)
NO MALAYSIAN UNIVERSITIES LISTED
41
THERE IS ALSO 2 OTHER RANKINGS:
QS-ASIAN UNIVERSITY RANKINGS (SINCE 2009)
&
THEM 2010 (SEPT 2010)
1.
2.
3.
The QS-AUR(Asian University Rankings)- In 2010,
5 Malaysian universities listed in Top 100.
The THEM is the new Times Education Magazine
ranking in September 2010 – No Malaysian
universities participated. Participation by
invitation.
UM is absolutely committed to participate and
compete in World Ranking to place Malaysia in
the World Map in QUALITY HIGHER EDUCATION
42
2010 QS WORLD RANKING
(WUR)
IN 2010, UNIV CAMBRIDGE FINISHED NO. 1
AHEAD OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY (NO. 2).
UNIV OXFORD HAS FALLEN ANOTHER
PLACE IN THIS YEAR AGAIN TO 6TH AS DID
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON
43
The rise and fall of universities
.

Among the Asia-Pacific universities, ANU is still No.1 among the
universities in this region. Nevertheless it fell from 17th in WUR
2009 to 20th in WUR 2010. University of Hong Kong has displaced
University of Tokyo as the No. 2 university (rising from 24th to 23rd
in 2010) in the Asia-Pacific region. Tokyo U has fallen from 22nd to
24th in the rankings. Kyoto maintains its position as 25th in these
rankings. NUS remains as 5th in Asia-Pacific ( its ranking has fallen
from 30th to 31st)!

Among the Australian Universities, Monash U has fallen down to 61st in
WUR 2010 ( it was 45th in 2009). The same was observed for Adelaide U
which fell out of Top 100 in 2010. It was ranked 103rd in comparison of its
81st position last year. Auckland has also fallen 7 places from 61st to 68th.
Chulalongkorn Univ has fallen to 180th from 138!

There are a number of Hong Kong, South Korean, Taiwan and Chinese
universities moving upwards in the WUR 2010.
Are we to believe that the standards of Tokyo, NUS,
Adelaide, Monash and Chulalongkorn Univ have
dropped over the last year?
It is a numbers’ game essentially! Furthermore, the
fluctuation in the WUR ranking has been sometimes
been very drastic. But the public perception is, that
these universities have fallen according to the WUR
2010.
7/7/2015
45
Comparison of Selected universities
Univ
Tokyo
NUS
Monash
Adelaide
Chulalongkorn
Rank 2010 (Score2010)
24(86.74)
31(82.78)
61(72.54)
103(63.87)
180(50.21)
Rank 2009(Score 2009)
22 (88.9)
30 (84.3)
45(80.0)
81(70.8)
138(62.3)
In WUR 2010, among the Malaysia universities, the top university, UM, has fallen from 180 th to 207nd.
UKM, UPM and USM have shown some improvement. UTM has also dropped slightly.
UNIV
WUR 2010 Rank
Score 2010
WUR 2009 Rank/Score
UM
207
47.1
180/56.5
UKM
263
unknown
291/44.5
USM
309
unknown
314/42.6
UPM
319
unknown
345/39.8
UTM
365
unknown
320/42.0
Why UM fell 27 places in the WUR
2010?
27 Good reasons!
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
xi.
xii.
xiii.
xiv.
xv.
National Tsing Hua University ( 223 to 196)
Queen’s University of Belfast (201 to 197)
Universitat Bonn (237 to 200)
Radbiud University Netherlands (moved from 220th in 2009 to 149th
in 2010)
RWTH Aachen Germany (from 182nd to 158th)
Univ Bern (193 to 162)
Hong Kong Polytechnic Univ (195 to 166)
Universitat Karlsruhe (184 to 166)
Stockholm University (215 to 168)
Univ Leicester (196 to 169)
Univ Boulder (186 to 170)
Universitat Autonama Barcelona (211 to 176)
Universite Paris Sorbonne, Paris 4 (228 to 186)
Korea University (211 to 191).
Universitat Frankfurt am Main (233 to 195)
Analysis of UM Ranking in QS-AUR 2009-2010
2009
(QS-AUR)
2010
(QS-AUR)
2011
(QS-AUR)
39
42
????????
Fall of 3 places in
2010
• Three Taiwan Universities have
catapulted. See comparison of their
publications later in this presentation.
• This will pose a great challenge for UM
and other Malaysian IPTAs to compete in
this unfair ground.
•Fall
further?
Can UM
50
Analysis of UM Ranking in THES (THE) for 2004-2009
2004
(THES)
2005
(THES)
2006
(THES)
2007
(THES)
2008
(THE)
2009
(THE)
2010
(THE)
89
169
192
246
230
180
207
Fall of 80 places in 2005
• UM’s fall [as well as USM] in 2005 was due to
THES interpreting Chinese and Indian students as
foreigners and [thus the large international student
% put UM in 89th position. The inclusion of
employability survey had an effect also.
• Until today, THES did not explain who supplied the
data on Chinese and Indian students as foreign
students!
The drop from the
Top 200 in 2007
• There are many contributing factors – low staff/student
ratio, drop in peer review and changes in methodology
UM’s return to Top
200
• In late 2008 & 2009, UM management strategised
to increase staff especially international staff and
gradually decrease undergraduates and increase
postgraduates in tandem. This has attributed to UM
back to the Top 200.
51
In 1980, UM and Univ of Singapore’s
ISI publication was about the same –
100+ ISI papers per year.
Today, annually NUS publishes
about ~5000 ISI journal papers and
UM just reached ~1300 ISI journal
papers
52
Citations (to a paper)
•
•
An author’s first paper
will have zero citation.
The citations/author ratio
A Comparison of AUR Universities
2000-2010
No. Of ISI Papers
Total Citations
Citations per Paper
AUR 2010 Rankings
UM
4123
17450
4.23
42
USM
3782
15832
4.19
69
Mahidol
Tehran
5819
50271
8.64
27
6338
23521
3.71
Shanghai Rankings 401500
NYMU
7196
65729
9.13
41
NTHU
10446
75271
7.21
34
Fudan
15822
110,549
6.99
24
Hiroshima
15078
139,286
9.24
38
NanyangTU
16826
101,003
6.0001
18
NCKU
16413
107,368
6.54
31
UnHongK
18890
215,045
11.38
1
NTU(Taiwan)
28,127
225,837
8.03
21
NUS
29,151
279,895
9.6
3
Tokyo
66433
928,743
13.98
5
UM Strengths and Records in High
Impact Journals
New England Journal of Medicine –
High Impact Factor of 50.017 (JCR 2008)
1980-2010
As of June 10, 2010
 UM – 7
 IMU – 3
 USM – 1
 UKM – 1
 IJN – 1
 IMR – 1
 UNIMAS- 1
MALAYSIAN CITATIONS in NEJM
Web of Science – 10th June 2010 5am
Web of Science (ISI) 2001-2009
Number of
Publications
Times Cited
Average
cites per
publication
h-index
score
58
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2001-2009
UM
267
255
364
448
496
499
654
898
1169
5050
USM
272
257
314
326
421
501
581
960
1023
4655
UKM
122
141
169
265
231
314
396
757
643
3038
UPM
171
191
253
271
289
353
368
589
661
3146
UM
2176
2105
1815
3168
1778
1715
1632
905
318
15612
USM
2323
2034
1891
1708
1959
1768
1647
1292
398
15020
UKM
846
973
807
2069
774
671
844
449
204
7637
UPM
1335
1581
1493
1362
1253
771
647
413
116
8971
UM
8.15
8.25
4.99
7.07
3.58
3.44
2.5
1.01
0.27
3.09
USM
8.54
7.91
6.02
5.24
4.65
3.53
2.83
1.35
0.39
3.24
UKM
6.93
6.9
4.78
7.81
3.35
2.14
2.13
0.59
0.32
2.52
UPM
7.81
8.28
5.9
5.05
4.34
2.18
1.76
0.7
0.18
2.85
UM
23
22
21
23
17
18
16
12
5
42
USM
25
21
20
20
19
16
15
15
6
38
UKM
15
14
15
17
12
12
12
7
5
31
UPM
18
19
17
17
16
12
10
7
4
34
Report on Publications in WoS 2009 by academics at University of Malaya
Quality or Quantity- Where will UM go in 2010 and beyond
This is an updated version of the previous Report in October 2009 with latest downloaded data
from WoS (12.1.2010). It is essentially the analysis of citations of published research work that has
been done or being undertaken at UM or with collaboration with non-UM authors (local or
otherwise).
I wish to stress again that there are essentially two measures of a
university’s (science-based) research output: the total number of publications in
ISI journals and what journals the works appear in. In scientific research, the
first of the two measures is intimately intertwined with the issue of Impact
Factors. Here, it must be stressed that Impact Factors refer to the journal, not
the article itself. The significance of a publication is better judged by the
number of citations for the publication. Nevertheless, I like to caution that the
quality of the paper, the journal (Impact factor) and other aspects of the
publications should be considered.
A Story of Two Countries
Thai vs Malaysia
Even in soccer Thailand
has beaten Malaysia
Comparing Malaysia’s ISI® output with Thailand (1996-2005)
Malaysia
Thailand
2600
2400
2200
Number of Papers
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
Comparing Malaysia’s ISI® output with Thailand (1996-2005)
2006 ISI Ranking
Malaysia is ranked 56th with a total of
14,606 publications in all fields among the
179 countries.
Singapore is ranked 38th and Thailand is
ranked 51st.
A comparison of 4 regional
universities
Publications under Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE)
4,500
UM
4,000
3,500
3,000
UM
2,500
USM
Chulalongkorn
2,000
NUS
1,500
1,000
500
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Publications under Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI)
600
UM
500
400
UM
USM
300
Chulalongkorn
NUS
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Publications under Arts & Humanitites Citation Index (AHCI)
80
UM
70
60
50
UM
USM
40
Chulalongkorn
NUS
30
20
10
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
UM
Cumulative citations under Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE)
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
UM
USM
20,000
Chulalongkorn
NUS
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Cumulative citations under Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI)
UM
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
UM
1,000
USM
Chulalongkorn
800
NUS
600
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Cumulative citations under Arts & Humanitites Citation Index (AHCI)
30
UM
25
20
UM
USM
15
Chulalongkorn
NUS
10
5
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Comparison of Output of ISI® papers in ASEAN (2001-2005)
25000
Number of Papers
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
Laos
Malaysia Mynamar PhilippinesSingaporeThailand Vietnam
Countries
No. of Selected Publications 2000 - 2008
Chemistry Departments of Universities under APRU
(Association of Pacific Rim Universities)
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
NUS
UOS
UBC
FU
ACS Journals
Angewandte Chemie International Edition
Journal of the American Chemical
Society
Chemical Communications
Chemistry - A European Journal
HKUST NTHU
USTC
ZU
NTWU
KU
NUS – National University of Singapore
UOS - University of Sydney
UBC - University of British Columbia
FU - Fudan University
HKUST - Hong Kong University of Science &
Technology
NTHU - National Tsinghua University
USTC - University of Science & Technology China
ZU - Zhejiang University
KTU
OU
WU
SNU
UOM
NTWU - National Taiwan University
KU - Keio University
KTU - Kyoto University
OU - Osaka University
WU - Waseda University
SNU - Seoul National University
UOM - University of Malaya
Citations vary among fields
Mathematics
Engineering/technology
Biology
Earth/space sciences
Chemistry
Physics
Biomedical Research
Clinical Medicine
1 (normalized)
5
8
9
15
19
78
78
Citations for subject fields
Fields
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
All Years
All Fields
18.24
17.67
16.48
15.09
13.24
11.49
9.14
6.52
4.18
1.68
0.26
10.06
Agricultural Sciences
12.10
12.22
11.13
10.23
9.35
8.02
6.19
4.51
2.69
0.93
0.14
6.40
Biology &
Biochemistry
29.24
28.53
26.10
23.56
20.79
17.60
13.65
9.62
6.12
2.52
0.36
16.35
Chemistry
16.68
16.83
15.39
15.02
13.31
11.81
9.77
7.13
4.69
2.06
0.32
10.10
Clinical Medicine
21.29
20.65
19.52
18.18
16.38
14.24
11.55
8.21
5.17
1.96
0.30
12.14
Computer Science
6.84
6.27
6.58
6.66
4.32
3.12
2.50
1.54
1.57
0.60
0.10
3.25
Economics & Business
10.67
10.07
9.00
8.89
7.56
6.35
4.71
3.08
1.76
0.63
0.13
5.37
Engineering
7.28
7.13
6.90
6.26
5.66
5.10
4.00
2.86
1.97
0.76
0.14
4.18
Environment/Ecology
19.46
19.66
17.21
15.87
14.01
11.95
9.25
6.55
4.12
1.49
0.26
10.10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
Immunology
34.47
34.80
32.79
29.27
25.74
23.09
18.16
13.26
8.66
3.48
0.48
20.66
Materials Science
10.18
10.49
9.90
8.98
8.63
7.39
5.93
4.46
2.89
1.21
0.19
6.09
Mathematics
6.38
5.78
5.09
4.91
4.26
3.65
2.97
2.13
1.31
0.56
0.12
3.17
Microbiology
28.14
26.51
24.52
22.11
19.58
17.05
14.18
9.57
5.85
2.38
0.30
14.98
Molecular
Biology &
Genetics
46.55
44.58
41.32
37.24
31.82
27.30
21.17
15.21
9.54
3.97
0.55
24.71
3.19
3.90
4.95
6.67
7.01
5.81
5.98
6.20
4.60
2.86
0.71
4.48
Neuroscience &
Behavior
33.69
32.14
30.51
26.91
22.76
19.64
15.72
11.32
6.92
2.72
0.38
18.29
Pharmacology &
Toxicology
19.39
19.24
18.63
17.82
15.05
13.93
10.54
8.29
5.07
2.04
0.28
11.32
Physics
14.15
14.01
12.76
11.54
10.35
9.43
7.72
5.73
3.42
1.59
0.25
8.45
Plant & Animal
Science
13.22
12.84
11.84
10.82
9.48
8.23
6.29
4.49
2.76
1.10
0.20
7.16
Psychiatry/Psycho
logy
19.97
18.56
17.57
15.33
14.11
11.83
9.03
6.30
3.62
1.35
0.23
10.21
8.00
7.83
7.13
6.72
5.95
5.31
4.26
2.91
1.69
0.62
0.14
4.26
24.42
19.35
21.21
16.83
17.61
14.97
12.97
9.83
7.31
3.00
0.76
13.52
14
15
16
Multidisciplinary
17
18
19
20
21
22
Social Sciences,
general
Space Science
ISI
2008
2007
2006
Turkey
24,755
19,690
18,091
Iran
13,569
9,157
6,831
Egypt
4,775
3,990
3,639
Malaysia
3,372
2,244
2,056
Saudi Arabia
2,213
1,841
1,637
Bangladesh
968
719
680
Indonesia
967
852
718
56
48
44
3
9
3
2008
22,384
15,808
5,385
5,620
2,606
1,104
1,216
86
3
2007
22,654
13,553
5,199
4,335
2,469
1,024
1,299
83
11
2006
21,096
10,326
4,586
3,724
2,306
976
985
62
8
Brunei
Maldives
SCOPUS
Turkey
Iran
Egypt
Malaysia
Saudi Arabia
Bangladesh
Indonesia
Brunei
Maldives
75
AT UM, ACADEMICS AT ACADEMY OF ISLAMIC
STUDIES HAVE RISEN TO THE BENCHMARKS
Breakdown of 2009 UM publications by faculty.
Faculty
*Publication Count
**Percent from total publications in 2009 (1169)
Acad Islam Studies
2
0.17%
fac arts & social sci
8
0.68%
fac built environm
3
0.26%
fac business & accountancy
7
0.60%
fac comp sci & informat technol
34
2.91%
fac dent
25
2.14%
fac econ & adm
16
1.37%
fac educ
5
0.43%
fac engn
146
12.49%
fac languages & linguist
1
0.09%
fac law
1
0.09%
fac med
382
32.68%
fac sci
682
58.34%
76
Citation Classics
The number of times a paper is cited in the work
of other researchers gives an indication of the
usefulness of the paper.
Citation analysis can expose well-funded
researchers publishing in obscure national
journals and permit comparison with poorlyfunded but well-cited researchers publishing in
international journals.
Measures of achievement
•
•
•
•
Number of papers published
Number of citations
Mean number of citations
Number of papers with h citations
To move UM forward, we initiated various new
initiatives since Jan 2009
UM Academic Transformation 2009 –
Phase 1 Initiatives
Introduction of Standard Academic Performance Target
H-index, Minimum citation
Research Culture Workshops
ISI Journal Paper Writing Seminars –
A new unit created for ISI/WoS Publication Unit
Phase 1 – Initiatives - Cont
ISI journal submission as requirement for Thesis submission
- PhD : - 2 ISI journal submission
- MSc : - 1 ISI journal submission
Rewards for ISI journal Publication according to ISI Journal Tiering
Q1 – Top 25% : RM 6,000.
Q2 – Top 50% : RM 4,000.
Q3 – Top 75% : RM 2,000.
Q4 – Others : RM 1,000.
Reward to Staff/Student for Early Completion of PhD
- Less than 4 years  RM 1,000.00
- Less than 3 years  RM 2,000.00
[Supervisor  50% of the amount]
Phase 1 – Initiatives - Cont
An alternative PhD award scheme by way of 5 ISI journal publications
Commercialization Scheme: Academic staff are
allowed to set-up companies for
commercialization of their research fundings
Balancing postgraduate to undergraduate ratio as 1:1
Bright Sparks Program introduced in
Phase II
Bright Sparks Program
Identifying top foreigners
who can contribute as
short and long term
measure
Attracting and Retaining the Best
Malaysians
Identifying the Brightest UM students for
building the best human capital resources
for UM in the future
“I am not arguing that the new infrastructure fund should simply be handed over
to our obvious leaders: Sydney, Melbourne and the Australian National University.
I do believe that it must be allocated competitively where it can have the greatest
chance of ensuring that we have a few genuinely world-class universities. We
can't afford 38 world-class Australian universities. … and our results in the
teaching and learning allocation are handicapped because our students have higher
entry scores. … It is true that success breeds success, so we are likely to do well
in competition.
The point is, the world isn't running a handicap race, so
Australia (in our case, Malaysia)shouldn't hobble its horses.
We must strive for excellence in teaching and learning and the all-round student
experience as well as in cutting-edge research, and that requires a sustainable resource
base. … Our competitor nations have also recognised that world-class,
research-intensive universities are engines of innovation that are critical for
the economy….. It should not be so hard to recognise these differences and celebrate
and reward outstanding performance.
Professor Gavin Brown,Vice-chancellor and principal of the University of
Sydney (2007)
Top Cited Academics in UM

Prof Edward Tiekink ~ 11,623 citations ; ISI publications ~ 1176 (Australian) (Sci)

Prof Ng Seik Weng ~ 5503 citations; ISI publications ~ 1484 (Retired; UM now) (Sci)

Prof Lam S K ~2214 citations; ISI publications ~ 81 (Prof Emeritus)(Med)

Prof Mohd Niyaz Khan ~ 1486 citations; ISI publications ~ 174 (Retired; UM now) (Sci)

Prof Kam ST ~ 1455 citations; ISI publications ~ 116 (Retired, UM now) (Sci)

Prof Chen Wei ~ 1428 citations; ISI publications ~ 110 (Not extended in 2002) (Sci)

Prof Kumar Das ~ 1362 citations; ISI publications ~ 110 (Not extended in 1999)(Sci)

Prof W. A.T. Abdullah ~ 1309 citations; ISI publications ~ 96 (Sci)

Prof Goh KL ~ 1288 citations; ISI publications ~ 154 (Med)

Prof Prasad U ~ 1062 citations; ISI publications ~ 36 (Prof Emeritus) (Med)

Prof Looi L M ~ 999 citations; ISI publications ~ 79 (Med)

Prof Puthuchary ~882 citations; ISI publications ~ 79 (Med)

Prof C. T. Tan ~ 920 citations; ISI publications ~ 56 (Med)

Prof Wong Kam Tong ~ 987 citations; ISI publications ~ 65 (Med)

Prof Sazaly Abu Bakar ~ 380 citations; ISI publications ~ 38 (Med)

Prof Adeeba K ~ 787 citations; ISI publications ~ 51 (Med)

Prof Datuk A. Hamid A. Hadi ~ 679 citations; ISI publications ~ 86 (Sci)

Prof Saad Tayyab ~ 555 citations; ISI publications ~ 69 (Sci)

Prof Mohd Ali Hashim ~ 505 citations; ISI publications ~ 62 (Engineering)

Prof Harith Ahmad ~ 685 citations; ISI publications ~ 207 (Sci)

Prof Sulaiman Wadi Harun ~ 550 citations; ISI publications ~ 163 (Eng)

Prof Siar Chong Huat ~ 422 citations; ISI publications ~ 59 (Dent)

Prof Masjuki Hassan ~ 411 citations; ISI publications ~ 77 (Eng)
3000
y = 208.84e0.1829x
R² = 0.9815
UM ISI Publications 2000-2009 + 5 year projection
2670
2500
Introduction of
UM’s strategy
in Nov 2008
2000
2250
2000
Publications
1899
ISI per Staff: 0.53
1605
(2009)
1500
2009
1326
1360
Expected:
ISI/staff:
~ >1.00
Based on
Staff size:
~2500
in 2014
1000
1000
914
500
657
500
448
496
503
364
249
269
255
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Year (from 2000)
forecast (anchored from 2000-2009)
UM publications (2000-2009)
Expon. (forecast (anchored from 2000-2009))
16
NUS 2009: ~1.2 ISI papers per staff
NUS publications 2000-2009 + 5 year projection
10000
9000
8695
8000
7947
7000
7264
6640
Publications
6000
5000
5000
5037
4505
4000
4690
4915
4210
2009
3910
3000
2000
y = 2469.7e0.0899x
R² = 0.9804
6069
3312
2406
2568
2738
2000
1000
0
0
2
4
forecast anchored from 2000-2009
6
8
Year (from 2000)
NUS publications
10
12
Expon. (forecast anchored from 2000-2009)
14
16
UM Citations In 2009: 2.65 citations/staff
UM citations 2000-2009 + 5 year projection
14000
Cumulative citations at citing year
12000
Introduction of
UM’s strategy
in Nov 2008
10000
y = 1656.2e0.1404x
R² = 0.987
10275
11824
10000
8929
8000
7760
6000
6643
5000
6743
5503
4000
4091
3295
2523
2000
1863
2018
3481
2606
2031
0
0
2
forecast (anchored from 2000-2009)
4
6
8
Citing year (from 2000)
UM citations (all publications within 1980-2009)
10
12
14
Expon. (forecast (anchored from 2000-2009))
16
NUS in 2009: 21 citations/staff
NUS citations 2000-2009 + 5 year projection
300000
Cumulative citations at citing year
250000
y = 15721e0.1949x
R² = 0.9988
240,680
200000
198,060
150000
162,987
134,125
100000
110,374
90,976
78,103
50000
60,254
42,765
16,480
0
0
19,239
22,386
28,473
50,655
31,689
2
forecast (anchored from 2000-2009)
4
6
8
Citing year (from 2000)
NUS Citations (all publications within 1980-2009)
10
12
14
Expon. (forecast (anchored from 2000-2009))
16
Comparison of Budgets’ of UM
against leading Universities
Institution
World THE
Rank
2009
UM
180
Harvard
1
Total Assets
(Including Endowments)
Research Funding
RM 20, 450, 544.85
2008 Annual Report
RM 102 million for 2008
US 64 billion (RM 250
billion)
2008 Annual Report
NUS
NTU
US535 million (RM 2.0
Billion) for 2008
2
RM 11.2 billion
2008 Annual Report
RM 650 million for
2008
73
RM 6.00 billion
2007 Annual Report
RM 400 million for
2007
91
KPI
UNIVERSITI Malaya’s key performance indicators,
although challenging, are well-defined,
acknowledges Prof Dr Kurunathan Ratnavelu, head
of the unit for ranking and development of higher
education at UM,
“I believe that the KPIs introduced in UM in 2007
and their further evolution this year are an
objective method to measure productivity,” says
Prof Kurunathan.
He accepts that radical measures were needed to
raise standards. “The challenge for us academics,
including myself, will be great. We have to accept
that many of us might have to make way for
stronger academic staff in the next five to 10 years
if we want a world-class university.” The Star
6.9.2009
7/7/2015
92
Rising to the challenges
7/7/2015
93
“The Future is embedded in the
Present” Naisbitt
When we look back in history, we
always say. ‘The signs were already there
– we should’ve known!’ Looking back,
we’re always much smarter – we just
knew it too late
9/23/2008
94
Catalysing Systemic Change-APEX
An important approach towards achieving
world-class status is the establishment of
one or two APEX universities. An APEX
university is a conceptual construct that in
due time will stand atop the pyramid of
institutions. The APEX universities will be
the nations centres of academic distinction
(Transforming Higher Education in
Malaysia – downloaded on 22.9.2008
MOHE webpage)
9/23/2008
Kuru Ratnavelu-PKAUM Forum ppt
95
The findings indicate an urgent need for
Malaysia to take steps to increase S & T
knowledge outputs so as to achieve better
status in world science, as well as fulfill the
country’s Vision 2020…
(The Bibliometric Study of Science and
Technology Knowledge Productivity in
Malaysia 2004)
9/23/2008
Kuru Ratnavelu-PKAUM Forum ppt
96
These indicators for R & D output as
measured by the productivity of the
researchers and the quality of their
publications is a useful barometer to
monitor for university managers as well
as funding bodies.
9/23/2008
Kuru Ratnavelu-PKAUM Forum ppt
97
Comments on Academic Leadership
7/7/2015
World Class University attributes @KR&HY
2006
98
“In higher education, implacable external forces combine with
the nature of the academic culture-the fundamental values and
beliefs of academic and other university staff-to produce a
potent mixture. This mixture makes up the unique
challenge which each person who undertakes a leadership
role in a university must address”
(Paul Ramsden 1998).
What is academic leadership?
Can the present breed of academic leaders in Malaysian IPTAs take
up the ardous challenge in leading their universities?
Can we classify these academic leaders in the last decade within the
categories extolled by Cox (2001).
Cox (2001) essentially divides them into two distinct types of
leaders:
Transactional and transformational leadership.
The first gratified the followers for their work and loyalty
The latter were those who engaged with followers and raised
consciousness of significance of specific outcomes and
changing the ways to achieve (Barbuto 2005).
7/7/2015
100
In an attempt to gauge the quality of academic research leadership, Hashim and Ratnavelu
(2008) undertook a preliminary survey of the Research Productivity Output Of The Top
Management In various public and research universities In Malaysia over the last two
decades.
Hashim and Ratnavelu (2008) strongly believe that academics in general look to the
shining examples of their managers’ leadership for inspiration and impetus.
Thus it is only natural that academic staff at these universities will inevitably look at their
leaders as the example to follow both in research and teaching leadership.
Thus, there seems to be a strong correlation among the poor performance of these
academic leaders and the research performance of their universities.
Paul Ramsden (1998) Learning to lead in higher education, 288 pgs (Routledge)
P. L. Cox (2001) Transformational leadership: A success story at Cornell University,
Proceedings of the ATEM/AAPPA conference (http://www.anu.edu.au/facilties/atemaappaa/full_papers/Coxkeynote.html)
J. E. Barbutto (Jnr) (2005) Motivation and transactional, charismatic and
transformational leadership: A test of antecedents, Journal of Leadership and
Organizational Studies, Vol 11 (4), 26-40
Y. Hashim and K. Ratnavelu (2008), personal communication.
7/7/2015
101
“Yet at the top of my list of undesirable jobs
would be running Harvard University, where
Larry Summers resigned last week just in time
to save himself the ignominy of a vote of no
confidence. It is not just the top slot at Harvard I
would turn down. It is the head of any university,
in particular a successful one.
The point of being at the helm of a ship (or
organization) is that you get to steer the thing. In
most companies changing course is hard: at big,
successful universities it seems impossible”
Lucy Kellaway, Financial Times 2006
7/7/2015
102
How would a Malaysian university
reach the status of a world ranked
university?
Its clear that we need to do good
quality research that is globally
acknowledged.
103