Hey, researchers and universities, want to be included in a new ranking scheme? No problem, just pony up some cash.
Tanvir Ahmed, a postdoc at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, says this year has seen a rise in news stories— for example from Bangladesh, Kashmir, and Nigeria — reporting so-called predatory rankings. These come to light due to the lack of knowledge about rankings at universities and the media in certain countries, he says.
Ahmed is referring to AD Scientific Index, which charges $30 USD for an individual researcher to be included in the ranking and an unspecified sum for institutions wishing to be ranked.
That’s unusual for a ranking, Ahmed says. Typically, university rankings — such as Times Higher Education’s — don’t charge universities for being listed. (Such rankings have also fallen under scrutiny.)
“This is clearly a money-making scheme,” concludes Kyle Siler, a meta-science researcher at the University of Montreal in Quebec, Canada, who has previously written about predatory publishing. “This is a new innovation in predation.”
Whenever such rankings are published, some researchers tend to make a big deal out of them, says Saleh Naqib, a physicist at the University of Rajshahi in Bangladesh. These rankings have been widely reported in newspapers and promoted extensively on social media, adds Naqib, who completed his doctorate at the University of Cambridge, UK.
Naqib says rankings become the primary focus in places that don’t have a mature research culture or a strong focus on ethical research. “If you don’t really understand bibliographic indices then you are in trouble,” he said.
On their website, AD Scientific lists the methodology on its website, explaining that it relies on Google Scholar data and bases its ranking on nine undisclosed parameters but it’s unclear what those are.
Ahmed says AD Scientific Index doesn’t use appropriate data to rank scientists and universities, and that their methodology hasn’t been explained in any peer-reviewed studies.
Naqib and Siler echoed similar concerns. “The rankings are not particularly well done,” Siler adds. “They’re just using Google Scholar. There’s not a lot of thought or nuance put into this.”
Retraction Watch reached out to Turkey-based AD Scientific Index co-founders Murat Alper of the University of Health Sciences in Istanbul, and Cihan Doger at the Ankara Bilkent City Hospital for a comment but didn’t hear back.
Ahmed, who is of Bangladeshi origin, is concerned that news outlets in the country aren’t giving enough scrutiny to the index’s figures before reporting them and universities are also promoting the index when it favours them. “But they don’t know what is behind the black box.”
Siler says university press offices are pushing these sorts of rankings and newspaper editors jumping on these sorts of stories. “It’s easy content for them,” he says. “The public likes horse races. The public likes competitions. The average reader doesn’t really understand how complex universities are and all the things they do.”
Promoting scientists without scrutiny and diligence may have ramifications when it comes to allocating funding, Ahmed says. This is a legitimate concern, agrees Naqib, since policymakers are increasingly becoming interested in these sorts of rankings. “I think it will influence funding allocation,” says Naqib. “Policymakers are not that knowledgeable and they don’t have that kind of understanding. It’s very easy to manipulate them.”
“I think there’s a danger that the AD Scientific Index might end up becoming the de facto ranking in a lot of the developing world,” Siler adds.
“Measuring quality is really challenging,” Siler notes. “I don’t have a problem with competently measuring quality with intellectual humility and the necessary caveat that you’re trying to quantify a very qualitative thing. Universities are just so complex and can’t entirely be boiled down to a single number.”
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a one-time tax-deductible contribution by PayPal or by Square, or a monthly tax-deductible donation by Paypal to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
Don’t we already have the Copernicus Index?
I am included in this ranking but neither my institution nor me gave any money. Just saying
Do they have individual ranking as well? That is interesting? Are you in the top 2%?
Schemes like what is alleged need to prime their pump, so their listing people/institutions (preferably prestigious ones) who did not pay does not by itself disprove what they are accused of.
Was included in the index without my knowledge. Looks like they took info from Google Scholar (account now deleted). Have requested removal. Do not want to be party to this.
Murat Alper, just told me that they are not scammers because I happened to ask them a direct question if they are scamming? Perhaps I did not use the appropriate word. But I thanked him for listing me and I did pay AUD35.
Jigme
I am included in the ranking, I did not kniw about it…I have not pay any money.
Exactly the same with me, my institute, many colleagues, and I are included but no money has been paid. The ranking is based on verifiable data so it looks ok to me
Neither myself nor anyone else from my University, nor anyone else known to me, among those included, has been asked anything in return by AD Scientific.
Moreover, AD Scientific ranks EVERY scientist of whose Google Scholar files it can access and so featuring in that list isn’t any honour by itself. The ranking is essentially based on Hirsch Index with some weightage for total citations. The figures of both are given along with the scientist’s names. Hence if anyone has any doubts hw/she can refer to the Google Scholar files.
The Concept of Predatory:
A journal or an academic service cannot be considered predatory only because it is not free. The concept of predatory is used for describing any unethical action including those with factitious, spurious, exaggerated, or deceptive quality, performed in return for a fee. Any predatory activity is misleading and unfair. As an institution that does not receive any governmental, institutional, or financial support and with the aim of maintaining the sustainability of our academic services and the preservation of editorial independence, we have reached the following figures of 1.351.035 academicians and 22.404 universities included in our database completely free of charge through the extensive efforts of a large team within the scope of expanding our data in terms of countries, branches, and universities. Our expansion continues at a certain pace. However, we charge a small service fee from those, who prefer to be included in the system faster, without compromising ethical principles.
A methodology that increases transparency and visibility. The “AD Scientific Index” not only provides ranking services, but also shines a light on ethical violations by presenting publicly available data, thus paving the way for ethical violations to be resolved. By carrying the torch in this way, we are improving controllability, transparency and accountability at both individual and corporate levels. These efforts have led individuals and institutions to focus on academic profiles, and tens of thousands of academics have revised and rearranged their profiles, removing inaccurate data. As well as stressing the need for academics to regularly review the information in their profiles, we also emphasise the need for institutions to review the profiles of their academic staff. You are always welcome to contribute by reporting incorrect data via the Red List link.
Just saying : in my department a faculty member who just got hired is featured. I have been teaching for 33 years at the said department and I am not included (thanks Allah). Just for those who would say
” well you do not publish” just google my name….
One of the most recent Fields Medallists in mathematics is not listed.
Good company to be in – put in your c.v. that you were ranked with a Fields Medallist.