MASSEY UNIVERSITY RESEARCH RANKINGS STRATEGY

HE WAIHANGA AKE I TE WHARE RANGAHAU BUILDING A RESEARCH 2018–POWERHOUSE 2022

Building a Research Powerhouse, our strategy for achieving increased performance in international research rankings, sits within Massey University’s planning framework and is to be read alongside the Massey University Strategy 2018-2022 and the University’s new Research Strategy 2018-2022. This strategy proposes eight key actions to be implemented over the five-year period 2018-2022, noting that a number of the suggested activities are already underway.

It should also be acknowledged that this is a rapidly moving and competitive space; other universities will have their own ‘ranking strategies’ and our own targets sit within a broader contextual framework of other organisations steadily improving their performance.

1   HE HOROPAKI BACKROUND

HE AHA E MANA NEI NGÄ Many governments are increasingly using rankings PAE WÄNANGA O TE AO? to make funding decisions domestically, both in terms WHY INTERNATIONAL of the national institutions they support, as well as the level of support, and internationally too, in terms RESEARCH RANKINGS MATTER of the tertiary destinations they support for their Research rankings, bench markings, and/or citizens by way of scholarships. Some countries classification initiatives such as New Zealand’s (e.g. China, Germany and Singapore) have national Performance Based Research Fund (PBRF) are ranking strategies, with the aim of lifting some of their increasingly being applied to universities at both a institutions to an elite level. For instance, German national and international level. Indeed, international universities have significantly increased in the world research rankings metrics have effectively managed rankings through that country’s Excellence Initiative. to ‘shake up’ and disrupt the world of higher education. In 2005, only 9 German universities appeared in the There is evidence, too, that performance in research Times Higher Education (THE) top 200; now, there are rankings influences student choice, particularly at 22. The Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität-München the postgraduate level. Rankings outcomes also play (LMU) which tops the German list in most years, rose an important role in staff recruitment. In addition, from 61st place in the Times Higher Education (THE) in the information gleaned from international research 2011, to 30th in 2017. As a result, Germany now ranks rankings is increasingly used by tertiary education above the United States for the percentage of papers institutes to fill an information gap; for benchmarking it publishes among the top 10% most highly-cited purposes, to inform institutional decision making, publications. Similarly, the Singapore Government and such as partnership schemes, and for marketing university strategic efforts have lifted both the National purposes. Finally, while governments (especially in University of Singapore and Nanyang Technological New Zealand) have been less responsive to explicitly University (NTU) from 30 and 60 to 12 and 15 linking research rankings performances to funding respectively in the Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) rankings, decisions, there is no doubt that research rankings have with similar improvements in THE Rankings over the made a significant impact in generating greater public same period. Further, the Malaysia Education Blueprint awareness of the changing dynamics of the tertiary Report 2015-2025 outlines that nation’s strategy to education environment, with an increased focus on improve its universities’ positions in the QS Rankings. quality and performance. The Russian government has the ‘5–100’ project, where the aim is to ensure five Russian universities Research performance is the main driver for the top secure placings in the top 100 of world rankings by 2025. four research rankings1 , in addition to the Performance Based Research Fund (PBRF), and while many While in New Zealand, there is (as yet) no national universities have reservations about the different strategy around international research rankings and methodologies that are being used to rank or benchmark linking performance with funding, this is highly likely institutions, there is a growing recognition that to be of interest to a future New Zealand Government. these are here to stay. Research undertaken by the This is especially relevant if New Zealand continues to European University Association in 2014 has found that decline as a nation in international research rankings ‘institutional responses further shows that despite the and this affects – or is perceived to impact – negatively widely acknowledged methodological shortcomings, on New Zealand’s international education market. rankings and classifications have a growing impact on institutional decision-making and actions. Shedding light on the ways in which universities respond to rankings and other transparency tools – consciously or unconsciously – would be the first step towards identifying opportunities for using rankings in beneficial ways for institutional development’.2

1 QS, THE, ARWU and US News Best Global. 2 http://eua.be/activities-services/projects/past-projects/quality-assurance-and-transaparency/Rankings-in-Institutional-Strategies-and-Processes.aspx   2 A recently completed European Universities 7 Student choice: The Effects of Rankings on Association study (conducted over a two-and-a half- Student Choices and Institutional Selection5 year period) on the impact of rankings on European study outlines how rankings affect the universities,3 identifies 10 main reasons why rankings choice of study destination, particularly matter and most of these are relevant in the New when studying internationally. Especially Zealand context: as, in such cases, information about institutions and education system in the 1 National policy: Many governments now direct network of prospective students is use rankings to provide funding for selected often limited. institutions deemed as capable of becoming 8 Quality of enrolled students: The quality of world-class. the students enrolled correlates with how 2 Institutional decision making: The majority well a university performs in rankings. That of the respondents reported that rankings is, students with good academic records affect institutional decision making; for prefer to enrol at highly ranked institutions instance, the research areas prioritised and perceived as offering better education the criteria for recruitment and promotion. – or, at the very least, more impressive 3 Monitoring and benchmarking: The vast credentials. majority of survey respondents reported that 9 Attracting researchers: Researchers they monitor their institutional performance tend to seek employment at institutions in rankings and that senior institutional that are perceived as prestigious in their leadership is involved in this process. Some field. Respondents of the survey believe even have dedicated staff or units for rankings influence prospective researchers, monitoring. Many use rankings not only to particularly for internationally-ranked monitor their own performance, but institutions. also that of their partners and competitors 10 Research choices: Due to the indicators for benchmarking purposes. used, rankings reportedly affect research 4 Data collection: The Institute of Higher choices in three different ways: the Education Policy (Washington) states that, language of publication, with an increased in practice, rankings impact discussions preference for English; publishing on matters about, and collection of, comparative data on of international interest; and prioritising both a national (USA) and institutional level. publishing in specific journals. Rankings encourage not only the collection but also the publication of education data. The examples above serve to illustrate that 5 Partnering: Most research indicates that Massey University’s approach does not sit in a static rankings impact institutional partnering. environment, but within an aggressively rising tide. This applies particularly to international It is therefore imperative that Massey is actively partnering, as knowledge of (prospective) engaging in this dynamic and strategical positioning partner institutions is often not sufficiently to maximise our performance in international research available. Having a highly ranked partner can rankings measures. also be used for reputational purposes. 6 Branding: The Trends in Higher Education Marketing, Recruitment, and Technology4 study shows that university branding requires constant effort and data to support a desired image. Ranking outcomes are often mentioned on institutional websites, on social media and institutional presentations in order to increase institutional visibility and credibility.

3 https://www.eaie.org/blog/10-reasons-rankings-matter-higher-education/ See also https://www.oecd.org/edu/imhe/39802910.pdf 4 https://arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1015&context=cserbk 5 https://arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1015&context=cserbk TOHUA TE PAE TAUMATA HEI WHAI? ME PËHEA RÄ TE ANGITÜTANGA? IDENTIFYING THE RANKINGS SYSTEMS: HOW CAN WE INFLUENCE OUR SUCCESS WHAT RANKINGS SHOULD WE PARTICIPATE IN? IN RANKINGS? Massey University currently participates in a number The evidence to date makes it clear that for Massey of international research rankings which include: to advance its position in the international research rankings and the PBRF it needs to develop a greater capacity for producing both more and higher quality • Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) including World University Rankings, Employability, Subject Areas, Stars research outputs, manage research performance more effectively, enhance research quality in key • Times Higher Education (THE) areas through recruitment and support, engage more • Academic Ranking of World Universities (AWRU) - strategically with drawing value from partnerships and Shanghai Ranking collaborations, and intensify activities that generate

• US News Best Global external research income. In addition, Massey must continue to refine its data collection processes, • EdUniversal Best Masters ensuring definitions applied by the ranking agencies • Leiden are captured in data submissions – particularly for academic staff. Colleges are encouraged to focus • Red Dot strategically on staff appointments, managing research outputs for optimum benefit, and developing and The methodologies applied to the first four of these promoting strategic research clusters. Postgraduate rankings are provided in Appendix 1. We are also research recruitment is also a key metric that needs committed to improving performance in the PBRF, to be considered more strategically, at both college and now increasingly viewed as a ranking system both university levels. within the media and elsewhere. It is important to note that our participation in these ranking exercises is not necessarily by choice. Data driven systems will rank us regardless of our deliberate engagement (or not), with potential reputational harm should Massey perform poorly.

4 TE PAE TAWHITI ME PËHEA TE MOANA PUKEPUKE NEI E EKE? THE TARGET: ACTIONS: HOW WILL WE GET THERE? Improving our performance in the various rankings TE PAE TATA and in the six-yearly PBRF assessment will largely WHERE SHOULD WE BE? rely on the level of performance of academic staff, • As an institution, Massey will be in the 200 – 250 band in whether existing staff members of Massey or new staff QS international rankings. employed in areas of strategic relevance. The majority »» We currently sit in the 300-350 band6. of the suggested action items are intrinsically linked to the development and successful implementation of the • For subject areas, we will have five subject areas in University Research Strategy. It will also be necessary the top 50 in QS rankings. These will be agriculture and forestry, art and design, development studies, nursing, and that college research strategies align with these veterinary science. goals. Noting that given the breadth of our academic research expertise, a ‘one size fits all approach’ need »» These five subject areas are currently ranked in the top to be nuanced to relevance to disciplinary needs. 100, with two in the top 50 (veterinary science is ranked Nonetheless, success in the rankings will depend on a 23rd, agriculture and forestry it is ranked 27th). concerted, collective effort across colleges and service • We will maintain our performance with 20 subjects in the lines. QS top 500 with 8 of these subjects in the QS top 300.

»» We currently have 16 subjects ranked in the QS top Massey University’s ability to promote quality 500: linguistics, computer science and information research outputs and outcomes can only be advanced systems, chemical engineering, electrical engineering, if it is able to: biological sciences, psychology, chemistry, geography, environmental sciences, mathematics, accounting and • recruit and retain talented academic staff in designated finance, business and management studies, education, areas of research strength; economics and econometrics, sociology, and statistics and operational research. • provide sufficient resources to conduct relevant, quality research; • PBRF ranking number 3 in quality score by 2024. • support researchers in the dissemination of their research;

These subject areas are provided by QS ranking • promote cultural change within the research environment methodology, but they do not preclude (a) high scoring of the University, and subject areas in the Shanghai and other rankings; and • understand how to generate research with discipline (b) new and emerging subject areas. relevant impact.

If met, these targets will enhance our performance in other rankings systems. The timeline for these targets is suggested as a 5 – 7-year period.

6 Massey typically sits in the 300-350 band in QS. Note that more than 85% of universities in the top 250 have Medical Schools. Such schools have significant impact on the rankings both in terms of reputation and productivity. The effective target is the more challenging ‘top 50 of those universities without a medical school’ . 5 IMPROVEMENT IN RANKINGS WILL BE ACHIEVED BY THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS

1 HE MAHERE MANAAKI 2 HE WHAKAWHANAKE PÜMANAWA TANGATA RAUTAKI TÄNGA RANGAHAU DEVELOPING A TALENT DEVELOPING A MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK PUBLICATION FRAMEWORK

• Leverage our best people as mentors/guides and recruitment • Ensure all academic staff are aware of journals and/or advocates and encourage them to provide peer support to new disciplinary relevant publication channels that matter to ranking academic staff. Massey has significant talent in many areas and methodologies. we can engage with this expertise, rather than setting up new • Build a discipline based ‘target’ database of journals and/ management structures. However, we also need to identify where or disciplinary relevant publication platforms that staff aim we do not have talent and where we need to build this capacity to publish/appear in, distribute this appropriately, and where and expertise. necessary, Massey will support publication in these journals. • Ensure that Massey’s academic hiring process is robust and • Prioritize co-publication with external research partners (over focused on strategy and excellence by implementing the following: internal co-publication) and communicate the benefits of ‘open »» Appointment Committees of academic staff with research access’ publication with regard to citation, impact and timing. expectations will normally include leading international • Support effective communication of research through different discipline specific representation or commentary (after a mediums (e.g. conferences, subject networks and media shortlisting process). opportunities), noting that staff visibility impacts recognition »» Appointment Committees should have PVC level representation and reputation. from outside the discipline and, for professorial appointments, include the AVC RAE or nominee in the process. HE WHAKARITE MAHERE • Ensure that new academic appointments will have available a 3 ‘start-up package’ that normally includes conference travel, PUTANGA RANGAHAU technical support and, where appropriate, research assistance, DEVELOPING A RESEARCH with associated research costs7. Initial teaching and supervision INTENSITY FRAMEWORK loads will initially be reduced, arriving at a full load over 2 or 3 years.

• Recognise that emerging talent has become highly sought after by • Accept that Massey University needs to increase research funding leading universities and retain this talent. Massey must support applications and both diversify and increase the volume and incentivise young researchers and up-and-coming academic of external research income (ERI). leaders, particularly those who have been identified through • Align internal research support with areas of excellence. formal University channels (e.g. Early Career medals). • Ensure that new academic appointments will have a professional • Use ERI successful academic mentors to support ERI activity on performance review after 4-5 years with a focus on research a regular basis. performance. Clear expectations (discipline specific KPIs) • Develop and implement reliable activities to enhance the quality, will be developed, adhered to and independent (international) relevance and alignment with goals of major granting agencies assessment will be required to support and monitor this (MBIE, Marsden, etc.). performance. • Develop more effective Personal Development Plans for academic staff, by ensuring agreed research plans have clear quality HE WHAKARITE outputs and outcomes, clear publication timelines, as well as 4 ensuring there is clear accountability when performance is PÜNAHA TAUTOKO E not met, support to improve performance where needed, MANA AI TE RANGAHAU and rewards and recognition are given to staff performing at DEVELOPING SUPPORTING outstanding levels. CASE STUDIES • Maximize the research performance of its Departments, Institutes and Schools. This can be achieved by implementing a regular cycle of external reviews as is common practice at • Recognize that Massey has lessons to learn from other other New Zealand universities and internationally. organizations as they face similar challenges in a global market for staff, students and recognition.

7 Where resources permit, this could be a PhD scholarship student. 8 In the New Zealand context, the University of Waikato and Canterbury University have raised their performance on different measures over a relatively short timeframe (Canterbury outputs per FTE are the highest in New Zealand and citations per FTE are the second highest. Similarly, Waikato has risen dramatically 6 in recent years.) We need to understand what they did and how we can replicate this success. • Establish a group of international peer organizations to benchmark • Identify benchmark levels of academic staffing and type for data against. Visit to learn what they do well. attribution, i.e. reporting research academics vs all academics.

• Engage in case study analysis of rankings success and • Identify key employers for rankings database (we currently only acceleration to discover how other universities have accelerated have 200 of possible 400). their performance in international research rankings.8 • Identify those disciplines near threshold publications levels to ensure they do not fall below and/or they rise above. 5 NGÄ TUKANGA RAWA • Track and report rankings against benchmarks. STRATEGICALLY ALLOCATING OUR RESOURCES 7 TUIA KIA Ü NGÄ MUKA HERENGA TANGATA • Support growth in excellence for activities in areas identified LEVERAGING AND as having strategic importance to the University. This process INCREASING OUR will be: EXTERNAL CONNECTIONS »» Data supported, but strategically driven, striking a balance between research and financial performance; key performance indicators will be set and regularly monitored for both research • Recognise that the ability to be recognised as an excellent and rankings and will be used as part of the budget allocation university by peers is crucial for improving performance in most process rankings.

»» Acknowledge that all subjects are not equal in international • Ensure that academic staff engage with peers from other rankings and consider the relative intensity of research and universities by: intensity of seeking external research income. »» Investing in networking opportunities, such as hosting »» Gain a clear understanding of what we need to be good at in the conference presentations and research symposia, leading future in terms of disciplinary strengths. joint research projects (particularly at international level), and ensuring there are tangible outcomes (return on • Reduce and/or exit subject and research areas where there are investment) from these activities. no tangible, visible, or strategic outcomes in either teaching or research. »» Encouraging and supporting research collaboration with other universities, particularly in Australia and Asia. • Continue with the rationalisation of academic programmes and teaching time to gain efficiencies and greater resourcing for »» Working to strengthen the current brand to emphasise research. Massey University as a ‘research powerhouse’ with significant capability and opportunities for other universities, industry, • Ensure more effective workload management, thus providing business, government and not-for-profit organisations. academic staff with dedicated time for research activities.

• Support colleges to develop and implement plans and policies that encourage key senior academic staff recruitment and HE WHAKAWHANAKE retention, as well as invest appropriate levels of resources for 8 TUKUNGA PAERUNGA research of strategic importance for the University through the implementation of the Research Strategy. GROWING POSTGRADUATE

• Define travel to Australia as domestic.9 Many of our most common PROVISION research collaborations are there.

• Develop a strategy for cotutelle arrangements for the joint supervision of doctoral candidates between supervisors at Massey TE TÄTARI I NGÄ RARAUNGA 6 and international partner universities. KIA MANA AI • Create a postgraduate scholarship strategy that ensures excellence DEVELOPING A ‘CLEAN in research candidates, aligned with areas of strategic importance AND COMPLETE DATA to the University.10 FOR SUBMISSION’ FOCUS • Provide excellent quality support services to ensure our students TO RANKINGS AGENCIES have a successful experience (i.e. that they are engaged, employable and enabled). 9 This is already the practice of many New Zealand government agencies. 10 Note that some universities that have been successful in improving their ranking positions have made deliberate decisions to change their student profile in certain disciplines in favour of postgraduate provision. Massey needs to fully understand the manifold implications of this sort of strategy. 7 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Actions Responsibility Timeline

1 DEVELOPING A TALENT AVCRAE, AVCPOD, Q3, 2018 - ongoing MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK PVCs • Leverage our best people as mentors/guides and recruitment advocates and encourage them to provide peer support to new academic staff.

• Ensure that Appointment Committees of academic staff with research expectations will normally include leading international discipline specific representation or commentary (after a shortlisting process).

• Ensure that Appointment Committees should have PVC level representation from outside the discipline and, for professorial appointments, include the AVC RAE (or nominee) in the process.

• Ensure that new academic appointments will have available a ‘start-up package’.

• Support and incentivise young researchers and up-and-coming academic leaders.

• Ensure that new academic appointments will have a professional performance review after 4-5 years with a focus on research performance.

• Develop more effective Personal Development Plans for all academic staff.

• Implement a regular cycle of external reviews as is common practice at other New Zealand universities and internationally.

2 DEVELOPING A PUBLICATION FRAMEWORK AVCRAE, URC Q2, 2018 - ongoing • Ensure all academic staff are aware of journals and/or disciplinary relevant publication channels that matter to ranking methodologies.

• Build a discipline based ‘target’ database of journals and/or disciplinary relevant publication platforms.

• Prioritize co-publication with external research partners (over internal co- publication) and communicate the benefits of ‘open access’ publication with regard to citation, impact and timing.

• Support effective communication of research through different mediums.

3 DEVELOPING A RESEARCH INTENSITY FRAMEWORK AVCRAE, URC Q2, 2018 - ongoing • Align internal research support with areas of excellence.

• Use successful academic mentors to support ERI activity on a regular basis.

• Develop and implement reliable activities to enhance the quality, relevance and alignment with goals of major grant agencies.

4 DEVELOPING SUPPORTING CASE STUDIES AVCRAE, AVCSFITCO Q3, 2018 – ongoing • Establish a group of international peer organizations to benchmark against.

• Engage in case study analysis of rankings success and acceleration.

8 Actions Responsibility Timeline

5 STRATEGICALLY ALLOCATING OUR RESOURCES AVCRAE, AVCSFITCO, Q4, 2018 - ongoing • Reduce and/or exit subject and research areas where there are no tangible, PVCs visible, or strategic outcomes in research or teaching.

• Continue with the rationalisation of academic programmes and teaching time to gain efficiencies and greater resourcing for research.

• Ensure more effective workload management.

• Colleges to develop and implement plans and policies that encourage key senior academic staff recruitment and retention, as well as invest appropriate levels of resources for research of strategic importance.

• Define travel to Australia as domestic.

6 DEVELOPING A ‘CLEAN AND COMPLETE DATA FOR AVCRAE, AVCSFITCO Annually, commencing SUBMISSION’ FOCUS TO RANKINGS AGENCIES Q1, 2018 • Identify benchmark levels of academic staffing and type for data attribution.

• Identify key employers for rankings database (we currently only have 200 of possible 400).

• Identify those disciplines near threshold publications levels to ensure they do not fall below and/or they rise above.

• Track and report rankings against benchmarks.

7 LEVERAGING AND INCREASING OUR EXTERNAL AVCRAE, URC Q1, 2018 - ongoing CONNECTIONS • Invest in networking opportunities, such as hosting conference presentations and research symposia, leading to joint research projects and outcomes.

• Encourage and support research collaborations with other universities, particularly in Australia and Asia.

• Strengthen the current brand to emphasise Massey as a ‘research powerhouse’, with significant capability and opportunities.

8 GROWING POSTGRADUATE PROVISION GRS, USC, DRC Q2, 2018 • Develop a strategy for cotutelle arrangements for the joint supervision of doctoral candidates between supervisors at Massey and international partner universities.

• Create a postgraduate scholarship strategy that ensures excellence in research candidates and is aligned with areas of strategic importance to the University.

• Provide excellent quality support services to ensure our students have a successful experience (i.e. that they are engaged, employable and enabled).

PVCs – Pro Vice Chancellors AVCPOD – Assistant Vice Chancellor, People and Organisational Development AVCRAE – Assistant Vice Chancellor, Research, Academic and Enterprise USC– University Scholarship Committee AVCSFITCO – Assistant Vice Chancellor, Strategy, Finance, IT and GRS – Graduate Research School Commercial Operations DRC – Doctoral Research Committee

9 APPENDIX 1

UNPACKING RESEARCH PERFORMANCE: Reputation surveys are subjective and all three rankings THE CURRENT STATE conduct their surveys independently. Determined efforts by some universities in, for instance, Singapore, Although methodologies and indicators are different China, Germany, and Switzerland, have raised the across the top four international rankings, research reputation of their institutions through the recruitment performance is the main driver of the top four rankings. and support of high profile quality researchers along In practice, and as noted earlier, international rankings with promotion of their research activities. Indeed, are used by many as a proxy for the quality of teaching within disciplines this effect can be demonstrated at at universities and are used by students and their Massey. Reputational survey results are important as influencers as a source of information upon which to they are used to produce subject area rankings as well. make enrolment choices. Thus, the data that principally generates and drives the rankings (research metrics, Reputation surveys are used by QS (worth 40%), Times in the main) does not always align with the ways Higher (worth 33%) and Best Global (worth 25%). All in which the rankings are read and used (teaching three rankings conduct their surveys independently; QS excellence and drivers for student recruitment). is the only ranking that invites all universities to submit a list of up to 400 contacts to be included. Actions Table 1 shows an analysis of all ranking metrics suggested to improve this indicator include producing combined, as well as analysis of indicators more international research collaborations, increase contributions per ranking. It demonstrates that, network opportunities with peers through formal and as research contributions are proportionally informal settings, increase the visibility of research high across all four rankings; efforts to improve produced by the university as well as increase the performance in the top four rankings should be visibility academic staff association with the university. concentrated on improving research performance. Publication outputs contribute directly and indirectly to Table 1 – All indicators combined (QS, Times Higher, ranking performance. In Best Global, outputs directly ARWU and US News Best Global) contribute 15% to the total weighting, and in Times Higher 6%. In ARWU, publication in Nature and Science Times Best Top 4 journals contribute 20%. Indicator combined QS Higher ARWU Global

Employer 3% 10% --- The impact of publication outputs is more than a lead indicator of research and academic staff productivity. Income 5% - 11% 10% - They drive other important metrics (such as citations and staff productivity) which often have a higher International 4% 10% 7.5% -- weighting. The level of publication outputs from Massey University compared to other universities in Research 76% 60% 62% 80% 100% New Zealand is below average, noting that over half of all outputs in New Zealand come from two universities. Teaching 12% 20% 19.5% 10% - If Massey aims to move to the top 200-bracket ranked universities by QS, or top 300-bracket in Times Higher, we will need to increase output levels somewhere Research performance in international rankings is closer to that of the University of Otago. interpreted through different measures. The most important measures – common across the most influential rankings include:

1 Reputation surveys 2 Publication outputs 3 Publication impact, and 4 Academic staff productivity.

10 Table 2. Scholarly outputs and citation per academic Table 3 – Citations per Publication by New Zealand FTE (2011-2015) universities (2011-2015)

Academic Outputs per Citations Name FTE FTE per FTE Name Citations Overall

University of 698 9.88 65.21 University of 104,129 7.98 Canterbury Otago

University of 1,337 9.76 77.88 University of 134,639 7.10 Otago Auckland

University of 2,025 9.36 66.49 Lincoln University 11,054 6.83 Auckland University of 45,519 6.60 Lincoln University 223 7.26 49.57 Canterbury

Victoria University 944 6.60 30.44 Massey University 36,842 5.30 of Wellington University of 16,782 4.78 University of 582 6.04 28.84 Waikato Waikato Victoria University 28,736 4.61 Massey University 1,276 5.44 28.87 Auckland 14,907 4.17 Auckland 1,073 3.33 13.89 University of University of Technology Technology Source: Elsevier (SciVal Benchmarking tool) Source: Elsevier (SciVal Benchmarking tool) and QS Rankings Most rankings have now introduced adjustments Table 2 uses the academic data provided to QS in this such as normalisation to citations to ensure universities year’s ranking and provides comparability across NZ with strong research profiles in areas of large research universities using outputs and citations extracted from output (e.g. life sciences, medicine) are not unfairly Scopus. Massey University has much lower research advantaged over areas that have lower outputs intensity (in terms of outputs produced and citation (e.g. social sciences). It is difficult to recreate the generated by academic staff FTE) compared to other normalisation processes used by the ranking agencies, NZ universities. but it is possible to measure field-weighted citation impact through benchmarking using Scopus (same Publication impact is measured mostly through citation source as the rankings) as the basis for analysis. count per publication. In THE, this is worth 30%; in Table 4 shows the field weighted citation impact for ARWU 20%, in Best Global 40%, and QS uses citations all New Zealand universities. Overall, New Zealand per publications and the h-index for subject area universities perform well compared to the rest of rankings, applying different weightings depending on the world (performance equal to the rest of the world the subject. Table 3 presents information on overall equals to an impact of 1.0, any value higher than citation levels for all New Zealand universities between 1.0 demonstrates greater impact), but note that 2011 and 2015 and may be viewed as a proxy for quality. Massey University’s performance compared to other The level of citations per publications from Massey New Zealand universities is much lower. University (5.30) compared to other universities in New Zealand is both below average (5.92) and median (5.95). Note that this is un-weighted and most rankings apply some subject area normalisation.

There are a number of factors that affect performance in this indicator, including choice of journals (publishing in top journals increase visibility of research), quality of outputs and relevance of research topic.

11 Table 4 – Field Weighted Citation Impact for New Zealand (2011-2015)

Name Field Weighted Citation Impact

University of Auckland 1.70

University of Otago 1.68

University of Canterbury 1.52

Lincoln University 1.39

University of Waikato 1.35

Auckland University of 1.34 Technology

Massey University 1.33

Victoria University of Wellington 1.33

Source: Elsevier (SciVal Benchmarking tool)

UNPACKING RESEARCH PERFORMANCE: THE MAIN TRENDS Research performance as measured in international rankings relies on five-year rolling periods to analyse research data; thus, there are no immediate fixes to improve research performance in rankings, particularly around impact (citations per publication). Figure 1 provides information on scholarly outputs used in the ranking assessment for NZ universities. Between 2007 and 2016, Massey outputs increased by 75%, the lowest rate of increase for the sector. The overall number of outputs for all NZ universities increased by 114% during the same period. Figure 1 – Scholarly outputs from NZ universities in five-year cycles (2007-2016)

20000 Auckland 18000 Otago 16000 Massey 14000 Canterbury 12000 Victoria 10000 Waikato 8000 6000 AUT 4000 Lincoln 2000 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Source: Elsevier (SciVal Benchmarking tool)

12

2018– 2022