KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Ranking
World Class University
• World class universities are seen as necessary for economic development, growth, competitiveness,
innovation and sustainable society, and, above all, as the engine in the new knowledge economy
• Research heavy and conduct high quality research with an emphasis on excellence
• Requires large resources to create a creative learning environment and advanced, cutting edge research
• High percentage of students at the advanced level (high percentage of talent)
• A high proportion of internationalization • Prestige / reputation
Why rankings are important
• Recruitment of international students and faculty • Alumni employability
• Opportunities for cooperation with other world class universities and large multinational companies
• Assert itself in the international competition for external research funding as well as in investment in excellence • Hugh influence on political decisions (policy),
policymakers and the media • Prestige and visibility
• Easy accessible way to show what a research and educational system/university performs
Indicators, what measures the rankings ?
• Reputation: Research and education
• Research: research productivity, research impact and research excellens that are measured by bibliometric indicators (number of publications, citations per faculty, number of citations, field
normalized citation rate, the average number of citations, share/ number of highly cited publications, top ten percent, number of
articles in High Impact journals, H-Index etc.) and how successfully the university is to attract external funds, prizes & research
achievements, etc.
• Education: Percentage of students at the advanced level, number of students per teacher, throughput, retention, income per teacher, number of degrees etc.
• Internationalization: Proportion of international faculty, proportion of international students and international co-publication
• Knowledge transfer: Co-publication with industry, income from industry, patents , etc.,
Rank positions, a selection
• THE: 126 (2013: 117) • QS: 110 (2013: 118)
Engineering & Technology • THE: 30 (2013:27)
• QS: 33 (2013:27)
• US News & World Report: 29
QS Subject rankings
• Mechanical Engineering: 22 (2013: 21) • Electrical Engineering 31: (2013: 24)
• Civil & Structural Engineering: 46 (2013: 41) • Materials Science: 48 (2013: 51-100)
Strengths KTH
• A very high production of publications per faculty and researchers • A very high proportion of co-publication with researchers from other
international universities and industry
• High proportion of international researchers, teachers and students • Ranked in eleven different subjects (four in the top 50)
• Strongest subjects: Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Chemical Engineering and Materials Science
• KTH publications based on large collaborative networks are cited very well. Publications with more than 100 authors have a very high citation rate
• Relatively high average citation rates in Chemistry, Chemical Engineering, Electrical Engineering and Mechanical Engineering • Relatively strong reputation in research and education. Stronger
Weakneses KTH
• Performs moderately in indicators measuring research impact, and research excellence
• Relatively low field normalized citation rate, regardless of the outcome are fractionalized or not, among the best 300-360
• Relatively few very highly citied articles and relatively few articles in High Impact Journals
• Fairly few publications among the top ten percent or top one percent. Top ten percent: KTH 9.5% , DTU 14.1%
• Fairly low citation impact of publications with one hundred or fewer authors, especially when it's one to ten writers (89 percent of all KTH publications)
Weaknesses KTH
• Mediocre impact when all writers have Swedish
addresses. The citation level for national publications is about 25 percent lower than it is for the international
• To be among the top universities, such as the DTU, KTH citation impact must significantly be improved in all
Publications ITM
Publications in DiVA ‐ Fractionalized
Year Total WoS coverage
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Article, peer review 115.0 105.5 126.0 149.5 182.5 189.5 223.0 1091.1 84% Article, other 2.5 7.7 12.0 7.7 6.9 10.7 3.3 50.8 33% Conference paper, pee 58.5 72.3 69.1 88.8 121.4 94.7 101.5 606.3 29% Conference paper, othe43.8 25.3 39.6 45.4 59.6 56.9 29.8 300.5 1.6%
Book 4.9 2.7 6.2 3.2 3.0 1.8 2.7 24.5 0.0%
Anthology (editor) 1.0 0.5 2.3 . 2.3 0.8 0.6 7.5 0.0%
Chapter in book 22.0 21.0 21.2 9.8 29.8 9.2 11.2 124.2 0.0%
Article, book review 2.0 1.0 . . 3.0 2.5 3.0 11.5 78% Proceeding (editor) 1.0 1.2 5.0 1.4 . . 1.0 9.6 0.0%
Report 25.3 29.5 39.4 34.7 35.1 12.3 10.4 186.6 0.0%
Doctorate thesis 30.0 20.0 42.0 35.0 37.0 37.5 43.0 244.5 0.0%
Citations
Citations
3
‐
year
window
P
frac
C3
frac
C3
mean
frac
2007
107.6
249.9
2.3
2008
114.1
202.9
1.8
2009
130.6
323.0
2.5
2010
159.6
414.1
2.6
2011
189.4
459.7
2.4
Total
701.3
1649.6
2.4
Field normalized citation rate and top ten
percent
Field normalized citations ‐ Fractionalized (3‐year moving average)
P frac
cf
Ptop10%
Ptop10%
Count
Share
2007‐2009
287.3
1.01
28.4
9.9%
2008‐2010
324.2
0.96
24.8
7.7%
2009‐2011
386.1
0.95
30.0
7.8%
2010‐2012
442.9
0.87
26.6
6.0%
Total
730.2
0.93
55.1
7.5%
Journal Impact
Journal
impact
(3
‐
year
moving
average)
P
frac
Jcf
frac
Jtop20%
sum Jtop20%
share
(frac)
(frac)
2007
‐
2009
287.3
1.16
64.5
22%
2008
‐
2010
324.2
1.09
69.2
21%
2009
‐
2011
386.1
1.08
87.4
23%
2010
‐
2012
443.0
1.08
102.9
23%
2011
‐
2013
493.9
1.07
113.5
23%
Total
910.8
1.09
203.2
22%
Co-publishing
Co
‐
publishing
‐
Internationally
and
with
Swedish
non
‐
university
organizations
(3
‐
year
moving
average)
P
full
Swe.
non
‐
univ.
International
Count
Share
Count
Share
2007
‐
2009
559
48
8.6%
321
57%
2008
‐
2010
593
56
9.4%
337
57%
2009
‐
2011
684
69
10%
402
59%
2010
‐
2012
770
95
12%
449
58%
2011
‐
2013
849
119
14%
507
60%
Total
1634
189
12%
960
59%
