University Rankings by Scientific Research Output
-
Was looking at https://traditional.leidenranking.com/ranking/2025/list ... it keeps scores on how many scientific research papers have been published by researchers of which universities from year to year.
American universities used to dominate this sort of rankings, Harvard was the perennial #1 for a long time. But lately the Chinese universities have taken over. Harvard has dropped to #7 on sheer number of scientific papers published, but Harvard is still #1 if you count only the papers that are most frequently cited (e.g., 10% of the most cited papers).
I have read somewhere else that the American universities have been publishing more papers, so the sheer volume of scientific research output has increased. But, still, American universities dropped in ranking because China has been investing a lot more into scientific research. The U.S. government cutting research funding is unlikely to help.
-
Meh.
-
We had like 150 papers over 6 months that said “Masks do nothing!” “Yes, they do!” “No, they don’t!” “They might! And it doesn’t hurt!” “Yes it does, and besides, we have horse de-wormer!”
-
Published scientific papers said chemically castrating children was great, and completely reversible.
You’ll excuse me if I’ve developed a little callousness over what’s called science these days.
-
Published scientific papers said chemically castrating children was great, and completely reversible.
You’ll excuse me if I’ve developed a little callousness over what’s called science these days.
@LuFins-Dad mmm not a great take - high impact publications remain a metric of research quality albeit av somewhat noisier one these days. That doesn't mean a given publication can't be wrong even if it's high impact.
(And were publications you have issue with actually in high impact journals?)
-
@LuFins-Dad mmm not a great take - high impact publications remain a metric of research quality albeit av somewhat noisier one these days. That doesn't mean a given publication can't be wrong even if it's high impact.
(And were publications you have issue with actually in high impact journals?)
@Moonbat said in University Rankings by Scientific Research Output:
@LuFins-Dad mmm not a great take - high impact publications remain a metric of research quality albeit av somewhat noisier one these days. That doesn't mean a given publication can't be wrong even if it's high impact.
(And were publications you have issue with actually in high impact journals?)
The general public doesn’t differentiate as much between the high impact journals and the Indian/Chinese paper mills that have flooded Academia. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03974-8
But beyond that, there have still been too many retractions and problems in highly regarded publications like NEJM, Scirnce, and Harvard.
I would strongly suggest you read Dalrymple’s “False Positive”.
All of these issues have led to a significant degradation of trust in Science reporting, and in my opinion is a major reason Brain Worm Guy is currently heading up HHS in the US.
-
I do think LD’s view is exaggerated. Take masks for instance. Generally speaking observational studies showed a positive effect and randomized trials didn’t.
But wait, aren’t randomized trials the gold standard? Well sure if they’re double blinded and the intervention (be it treatment or placebo) is sure to happen.
But in masking both trial types had issues. RCTs (half the study told ‘wear a mask’, the other half not told that) have obvious adherence issues. Observational trials (look at what they DO) have obvious cofounding issues. The guys that mask all the time probably do a bunch of other things to lower their risk of transmission.
I think to a great extent (with some exceptions of course) the problem was over-interpretation and simplification of studies rather than the studies themselves.
The tranny stuff is in its own category as it truly suffered from ideological capture. That I’ll give you.
The whole reason we call them illegal aliens is because they’re subject to our laws.
-
The problem by ranking on scientific research output is that there is very often no qualitative comparison possible.
Peer reviews are almost non-existent because everyone is creating loads and loads of unnecessary papers.
Eventual reviews that do appear are more often than not written by minions who don't know what they're writing/talking about.
Academic freedom is a notion that is completely corrupted by financial greed
️ -
I do think LD’s view is exaggerated. Take masks for instance. Generally speaking observational studies showed a positive effect and randomized trials didn’t.
But wait, aren’t randomized trials the gold standard? Well sure if they’re double blinded and the intervention (be it treatment or placebo) is sure to happen.
But in masking both trial types had issues. RCTs (half the study told ‘wear a mask’, the other half not told that) have obvious adherence issues. Observational trials (look at what they DO) have obvious cofounding issues. The guys that mask all the time probably do a bunch of other things to lower their risk of transmission.
I think to a great extent (with some exceptions of course) the problem was over-interpretation and simplification of studies rather than the studies themselves.
The tranny stuff is in its own category as it truly suffered from ideological capture. That I’ll give you.
@jon-nyc said in University Rankings by Scientific Research Output:
I do think LD’s view is exaggerated.
Of course, it’s exaggerated. I thought I was pretty clear with the paraphrasing. But we’re having a debate and it’s not fun or effective to say “The inexact nature of the types of studies created confusion over the efficacy of cloth masks in preventing the contraction of…”
Take masks for instance. Generally speaking observational studies showed a positive effect and randomized trials didn’t.
But wait, aren’t randomized trials the gold standard? Well sure if they’re double blinded and the intervention (be it treatment or placebo) is sure to happen.
But in masking both trial types had issues. RCTs (half the study told ‘wear a mask’, the other half not told that) have obvious adherence issues. Observational trials (look at what they DO) have obvious cofounding issues. The guys that mask all the time probably do a bunch of other things to lower their risk of transmission.
I think to a great extent (with some exceptions of course) the problem was over-interpretation and simplification of studies rather than the studies themselves.
Koo The tranny stuff is in its own category as it truly suffered from ideological capture. That I’ll give you.
Great. Is climate science ideological capture, too?
https://science.house.gov/2017/2/former-noaa-scientist-confirms-colleagues-manipulated-climate-recordsAlzheimer’s probably isn’t… https://retractionwatch.com/2026/01/10/weekend-reads-academic-enshittification-alzheimers-trial-sites-faking-data-drug-developers-bill-ackman-fund-gino-defense/
Neither is Cancer Research - https://retractionwatch.com/2026/01/14/northwestern-to-pay-2-3-million-for-falsified-research-in-nih-grants/
In 2023 there were over 10,000 academic studies retracted by publishers. But there’s not a problem and the public isn’t losing trust… Sure thing.
