Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37053261›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Matrix factorization-based multi-objective ranking-What makes a good university?

János Abonyi, Ádám Ipkovich, Gyula Dörgő, Károly Héberger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

János AbonyiEötvös Loránd Research Network - University of Pannonia Complex Systems Monitoring Research Group, University of Pannonia, Veszprém, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0001-8593-1493
Ádám IpkovichEötvös Loránd Research Network - University of Pannonia Complex Systems Monitoring Research Group, University of Pannonia, Veszprém, Hungary.
Gyula DörgőEötvös Loránd Research Network - University of Pannonia Complex Systems Monitoring Research Group, University of Pannonia, Veszprém, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0003-1864-7315
Károly HébergerPlasma Chemistry Research Group, Institute of Materials and Environmental Chemistry, Research Centre for Natural Sciences, Centre of Excellence, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0003-0965-939X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Non-negative matrix factorization (NMF) efficiently reduces high dimensionality for many-objective ranking problems. In multi-objective optimization, as long as only three or four conflicting viewpoints are present, an optimal solution can be determined by finding the Pareto front. When the number of the objectives increases, the multi-objective problem evolves into a many-objective optimization task, where the Pareto front becomes oversaturated. The key idea is that NMF aggregates the objectives so that the Pareto front can be applied, while the Sum of Ranking Differences (SRD) method selects the objectives that have a detrimental effect on the aggregation, and validates the findings. The applicability of the method is illustrated by the ranking of 1176 universities based on 46 variables of the CWTS Leiden Ranking 2020 database. The performance of NMF is compared to principal component analysis (PCA) and sparse non-negative matrix factorization-based solutions. The results illustrate that PCA incorporates negatively correlated objectives into the same principal component. On the contrary, NMF only allows non-negative correlations, which enable the proper use of the Pareto front. With the combination of NMF and SRD, a non-biased ranking of the universities based on 46 criteria is established, where Harvard, Rockefeller and Stanford Universities are determined as the first three. To evaluate the ranking capabilities of the methods, measures based on Relative Entropy (RE) and Hypervolume (HV) are proposed. The results confirm that the sparse NMF method provides the most informative ranking. The results highlight that academic excellence can be improved by decreasing the proportion of unknown open-access publications and short distance collaborations. The proportion of gender indicators barely correlate with scientific impact. More authors, long-distance collaborations, publications that have more scientific impact and citations on average highly influence the university ranking in a positive direction.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsHumansPrincipal Component AnalysisUniversities

Identifiers

PMID37053261
PMCPMC10101413

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.