Catalogue Search | MBRL
Search Results Heading
Explore the vast range of titles available.
MBRLSearchResults
-
DisciplineDiscipline
-
Is Peer ReviewedIs Peer Reviewed
-
Series TitleSeries Title
-
Reading LevelReading Level
-
YearFrom:-To:
-
More FiltersMore FiltersContent TypeItem TypeIs Full-Text AvailableSubjectCountry Of PublicationPublisherSourceDonorLanguagePlace of PublicationContributorsLocation
Done
Filters
Reset
3,803,313
result(s) for
"Rankings"
Sort by:
A critical comparative analysis of five world university rankings
2017
To provide users insight into the value and limits of world university rankings, a comparative analysis is conducted of five ranking systems: ARWU, Leiden, THE, QS and U-Multirank. It links these systems with one another at the level of individual institutions, and analyses the overlap in institutional coverage, geographical coverage, how indicators are calculated from raw data, the skewness of indicator distributions, and statistical correlations between indicators. Four secondary analyses are presented investigating national academic systems and selected pairs of indicators. It is argued that current systems are still one-dimensional in the sense that they provide finalized, seemingly unrelated indicator values rather than offering a dataset and tools to observe patterns in multi-faceted data. By systematically comparing different systems, more insight is provided into how their institutional coverage, rating methods, the selection of indicators and their normalizations influence the ranking positions of given institutions.
Journal Article
The 100 best stocks to buy in 2020
Recommendations for one hundred stocks which have a history of beating the stock market average and have positive investment potential based on a variety of investment criteria.
Comparing university rankings
by
Bar-Ilan, Judit
,
Levene, Mark
,
Ortega, José Luis
in
Accreditation
,
Author productivity
,
Bibliometrics
2010
Recently there is increasing interest in university rankings. Annual rankings of world universities are published by QS for the Times Higher Education Supplement, the Shanghai Jiao Tong University, the Higher Education and Accreditation Council of Taiwan and rankings based on Web visibility by the Cybermetrics Lab at CSIC. In this paper we compare the rankings using a set of similarity measures. For the rankings that are being published for a number of years we also examine longitudinal patterns. The rankings limited to European universities are compared to the ranking of the Centre for Science and Technology Studies at Leiden University. The findings show that there are reasonable similarities between the rankings, even though each applies a different methodology. The biggest differences are between the rankings provided by the QS-Times Higher Education Supplement and the Ranking Web of the CSIC Cybermetrics Lab. The highest similarities were observed between the Taiwanese and the Leiden rankings from European universities. Overall the similarities are increased when the comparison is limited to the European universities.
Journal Article
The Power of Rankings: Quantifying the Effect of Rankings on Online Consumer Search and Purchase Decisions
2018
Online search intermediaries, such as Amazon or Expedia, use rankings (ordered lists) to present third-party sellers’ products to consumers. These rankings decrease consumer search costs and increase the probability of a match with a seller, ultimately increasing consumer welfare. Constructing relevant rankings requires understanding their causal effect on consumer choices. However, this is challenging because rankings are endogenous: consumers pay more attention to highly ranked products, and intermediaries rank the most relevant products at the top. In this paper, I use the first data set with experimental variation in the ranking from a field experiment at Expedia to make three contributions. First, I identify the causal effect of rankings and show that they affect what consumers search, but conditional on search, do not affect purchases. Second, I quantify the effect of rankings using a sequential search model and find an average position effect of $1.92, which is lower than literature estimates obtained without experimental variation. I also use model predictions, data patterns, and a feature of the data set (opaque offers) to show rankings lower search costs, instead of affecting consumer expectations or utility. Finally, I show a utility-based ranking built on this model’s estimates benefits consumers and the search intermediary.
Data and the online appendix are available at
https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2017.1072
.
Journal Article
Which canned chicken noodle soup is best? We ranked them
2026
The Post held a blind taste test to see which of the top-selling chicken noodle soup brands are worth stocking up on — and which deserve to get canned.
Streaming Video