Reputation survey - world ranking of universities

Today I have responded, for the second time, to the questions of Thomson Reuters' annual academic reputation survey (see also Academic reputation survey - results). Last year there were 13,388 respondents globally. 16% said Western Europe were their region of greatest familiarity, and under 6 % said their area was Arts and Humanities. I am thus one out of approximately 2.000 with familiarity first of all to Western Europe, and one out of 100+ linked to Western Europe and placed within Arts and humanities.

Each respondent is asked to name up to 15 universities in four rounds, all within their own subject area (in my case philosophy): 1) the best universities regionally (in my case in Western Europe) in teaching, 2) the best universities regionally in research, 3) the best universities in teaching globally, and 4) the best universities in research globally. The reputational survey is the second stage of Thomson Reuters' process eventually resulting in Times Higher Education World University Rankings, preceding institutional data collection.

Thomson Reuters have now, I see, compiled a Top 100 World Reputation Ranking, based on last year's survey involving me and 13,387 other respondents. Six universities stand out: Harvard, MIT, University of Cambridge, University of California Berkeley, Stanford University and University of Oxford.

Here's a link to a list of all higher education institutions covered by the survey (and here to all in Western Europe).

See also What's the best university in Norway? and THE world ranking of universities.

Academic Reputation Survey - results

Last year I was one of the respondents in Thomson Reuters global Academic Reputation Survey, which was used as part of the foundation for the 2010 Times Higher Education World University Rankings. See Report of findings for the full report.

Excerpts:

* 13,388 respondents
* of which 16% said Western Europe was their region of greatest familiarity
* of which 3,790 scholars were based in Europe
* of which 69% were academic staff, 15% research staff, 7% senior institutional leadership, 6% graduate/post-graduate students, and 2% teaching staff
* All in all, the average respondent reported spending 52% of the worktime doing research, 31% teaching and 18% administering. While senior institutional leadership spends 48% of the time administering, and 32% doing research, research staff spent 81% of the time doing research, teaching staff spent 57% of the time teaching, and graduate/post-graduate students spent 81% doing research, 13% teaching and 6% administering. Academic staff, the majority group (9,219 respondents), spent 46% researching, 37% teaching and 18% administering.
* of which 78% were male - most (87%) in Engineering & technology; fewest (69%) in Social Sciences
* of which only 779 identified as Arts & Humanities, the smallest group (Social Sciences and Life Sciences were both represented by 2000+ respondents)
* Research papers published: In average, a respondent said to have published 53.4 research papers (median: 30; meaning that a few publishes a lot and increases the average). Those with tenure had in average published 64.9 papers (median: 40), those without tenure in average 29.2 (median: 15). Even among those without tenure, however, 5% had published 100+ (with tenure: 17%). Males had published in average 58.9 papers (median: 32), females 33.5 (median: 20) - note that the survey says nothing about age distribution, which might explain part of the gender gap.
* Of senior institutional leadership, who had an average of 101.7 published papers (median: 70), 59% had published 50+ research papers and 34% 100+. Of academic staff, 33% had published 0-20 papers and 31% 20-50. Of research staff, 60% had published 0-20 papers, and of teaching staff 61%. Of graduate/post-graduate students, who had an average of 8.6 papers published (median: 6), 94% had published 0-20 papers and 6% 20-50.

Thomson Reuters remarks that respondents from Arts & Humanities were poorly represented in line with the poor publishing frequency compared to scholars from harder sciences (I wonder how the numbers would look like if a distinction was introduced between single authorship and co-authorship; or if the number of pages published had been counted...).

Biosemiotics Impact Factor for 2015

Thomson Reuters has recently announced 2015 Impact Factors. The Impact Factor for Biosemiotics, for which I am one of three Editors-in-Chief, was 0.391, a decline from the two previous years and especially from 2014 (0.593).

Biosemiotics achieves ISI acceptance and indexing

A few days ago I was informed by Editor-in-chief Marcello Barbieri and Managing Editor Catherine Cotton that the academic journal Biosemiotics, where I am a member of the editorial board, has been accepted by ISI, the Institute for Scientific Information (a part of Thomson Reuters), the top rating organization in the publishing world. Starting with volume 1, issue 1, Biosemiotics will be indexed in:

* Science Citation Index Expanded (also known as SciSearch®)
* Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition
* Arts and Humanities Citation Index®
* Current Contents®/Arts & Humanities
* Social Sciences Citation Index®
* Journal Citation Reports/ Social Sciences Edition
* Current Contents®/Social and Behavioral Sciences

I have written three articles that have been published in Biosemiotics, and co-written one, and further co-edited a special issue:

— 2009. Umwelt Transitions: Uexküll and Environmental Change. Biosemiotics 2 (1): 47-64.

— 2010a. Guest aditor, along with Kati Lindström, of a special issue of Biosemiotics (Springer), vol. 3, no. 3 (December 2010); entitled Semiotics of Perception. 136 pp.

— 2010b. Being in the World of the Living – Semiotic Perspectives: Introduction to the special issue Semiotics of Perception. Co-written with Kati Lindström. Biosemiotics 3.3: 257-261 (online version, published April 20, 2010: DOI: 10.1007/s12304-010-9073-1).

— 2010c. Steps to a Semiotics of Being. Biosemiotics 3.3: 375-392 (online version, published April 30, 2010: DOI: 10.1007/s12304-010-9074-0).

— 2010d. Wolf Land. Biosemiotics 3.3: 289-297 (online version, published April 23, 2010: DOI: 10.1007/s12304-010-9077-x).

Environment, embodiment and gender: Content list, links

The newly published book Environment, Embodiment and Gender, edited by Ane Faugstad Aarø and Johannes Servan, is sold by its publisher Hermes Text. The book is featured on the webpages of University of Bergen's Department of Philosophy.

Contents:
Introduction
Part I: Introduction to ecophenomenology
Charles Brown: The unity of eco-phenomenology: A reply to Thomson
David Abram: The invisibles
Ted Toadvine: Ecophenomenology and the resistance of nature
Part II: Embodiment and gender
Monika Langer: Sartre in the company of Merleau-Ponty, Foucault, and Düden
Kirsti Kuosa: The embodied self and identity of three women living with multiple sclerosis
Claus Halberg: The tangible invisible: Irigaray's phenomenological critique of Merleau-Ponty's notion of the flesh
Joanna Handerek: On pain and fear. The concept of the body in Gernot Böhme's philosophy
Part III: Contemporary environmental philosophy
Gunnar Skirbekk: Ethical gradualism, beyond anthropocentrism and biocentrism?
Jørgen Pedersen: Habermas and environmental ethics
Svenn Anders Noer Lie & Fern Wickson: The relational ontology of deep ecology: A dispositional alternative to intrinsic value?
Jon Helén Pedersen: Løgstrup's philosophy as environmental philosophy
Stig Ingebrigtsen & Ove Jakobsen: Circulation economics - an ecological image of Man based upon an organic worldview
Linda McGuffe: Questions concerning technology and food
Jan van Boeckel: A point of no return. Artistic transgression in the more-than-human world
Morten Tønnessen: I, wolf. The ecology of existence