**4. Webometrics ranking system: advantages and disadvantages**

Like other ranking systems, Webometrics ranking system has a range of advantages and disadvantages. Differently from other systems of ranking of scientists and universities, one can say that webometrics is a "global" ranking system. Why global? Most of the ranking systems include only several hundreds or thousands of the best universities, such as Shanghai list, while Webometrics includes most of the universities of the world, i.e., currently 28,000 scientific institutions from all over the world [60]. This list also enables ranking of scientific institutions, institutes, and individual members of a university, which can entice competitive spirit among individual members of a university. Why is this important? An extremely small number of universities of the world satisfy the Shanghai list criterium. However, this does not mean that there are no other universities of good quality besides those which are ranked as well as scientists working at those universities all over the world. It is easy to conclude that the universities from the Shanghai list and similar lists mainly originate from countries from well-developed economics and well-ordered educational systems, developed democracies, and high degrees of autonomies of their universities. Higher education systems of developed economies follow up the needs of the labor market and technology progress, and the quality of educational institutions is institutionally maintained due to strict accreditation criteria prescribed by authorized organs and ministries in every state. In developing countries and in poorly developed economies, there are great problems regarding an objective assessment and ranking of quality of institutions of higher education due to:


In such circumstances, Webometrics ranking system actually represents a system of neutral international evaluation of quality of scientific institutions and scientists at all institutions not included into the Shanghai list. It is important to underline that there are not any significant deviations in the placing of the first 100 ranked universities on the Shanghai list and on the Webometrics list. Namely, the Webometrics list, through the four of its criteria (**Table 2**) [60], evaluates situations at the universities all over the world and positions them on its lists assessing every of the four criteria individually. This ranking procedure cannot be affected by any university, ministry, or state trying to improve its institution's ranking position. In most of the low-developed or non-developed countries, there is not any adequate system to control and follow up the success of reforms or define weaknesses and evaluate destructiveness of the involvement of policy into activities of institutions of higher education. This is one of the great advantages of Webometrics because it actually represents a very simple international tool for quality control of higher education institutions and enables competition among higher education institutions all over the world. In such process, it is clearly visible through the ranking system which of the four ranking parameters (presence, visibility, transparency, excellence) an institution progresses or stagnates. This enables development of a strategy for improvement of quality of scientific institutions, particularly in the weakest segments being evaluated. An extremely good point of Webometrics is that it performs ranking of institutions within states, within regions, or within the whole world [63]. In total, a university can be better positioned in some country, but it does not simultaneously mean that it is better than others by all of the four ranking parameters.

According to the last Webometrics list for Bosnia and Herzegovina [64] (January 2019, Edition 2019.1.2.), the University of Banja Luka is positioned second in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but in "presence rank" category, the International University of Sarajevo (which, in total, takes only the fourth position in Bosnia and Herzegovina) is ranked better than the University of Banja Luka (**Figure 1**).

How important having an international ranking list as a corrective showing and assessing situation at higher education institutions in developing countries may be analyzed on the example of universities of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bosnia and Herzegovina is composed of two entities (the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Srpska), and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina is administratively divided into ten cantons. At the level of the state, there is the Framework Law on Higher Education in Bosnia and Herzegovina, while at the level of entities and cantons, there are educational policies being implemented according to the laws of entities and cantons. There are 8 public and 35 private universities and faculties in Bosnia and Herzegovina which are ranked by the Webometrics list from January 2019 (January 2019, Edition 2019.1.2.)[64], which is an extremely great number for the country with about 3.5 million of inhabitants. Work permits and work control of these higher education institutions, without clear international criteria, are issued and implemented by cantonal ministries of education with laws differing from canton to canton. Cantonal laws often are not in compliance with the Framework Law on Higher Education in Bosnia and Herzegovina ("Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina" no. 59/07 and 59/09, hereinafter: the Framework Law), and very often they are subjects of dispute before the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (rating of constitutionality: U-19/16, U-22/18) [65, 66]. Cantonal laws are often changed for the purpose of involvement of politics into the universities in order to weaken and cancel their autonomy which is guaranteed by the Framework Law on Higher Education in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In such conditions, the only measure and objective evaluation is the Webometrics list. Namely, the University of Tuzla has been progressing on the Webometrics list over the years

**33**

effect of such measure.

**Figure 1.**

*Advantages and Disadvantages of the Webometrics Ranking System*

(after implementation of a set of measures by a quality team), and in June 2016, it took the 3186th position on the list, which was the best position of this university in the history (**Figure 2**). Immediately after this event, the Law on Higher Education in Tuzla Canton was changed, and in a day the management of the university was replaced, the Senate was dissolved, and receivership with temporary organs under political patronage was imposed. Although it is difficult to find such case in developed economies, or anywhere in the world, the key issue is how to measure the

*The Webometrics list for Bosnia and Herzegovina with all parameters (January 2019, Edition 2019.1.2.) [64].*

In circumstances where there is not any adequate reaction of state institutions (Agency for Higher Education, parliamentary committees for education, state Ministry for Civil Affairs) to such situation because everything is politically controlled and the Constitutional Court is declared authorized for interpretation of compliance of the Cantonal Law on Higher Education with the Framework Law on Higher Education in Bosnia and Herzegovina (U-19/16) [65], an independent international factor unaffected by politics, i.e., Webometrics, is necessary. Although such measure was allegedly implemented to improve quality and position of the University of Tuzla, the Webometrics list soon showed all the effects of this measure. The position of the University of Tuzla on the Webometrics list was becoming weaker and weaker over the years, and in January 2019, it ended on the 3795th [64] place (**Figure 2**) and experienced the fall for 609 positions or 19.11%. The university which in July 2016 (**Figure 2**) took the second position in Bosnia and Herzegovina by quality took the 5th place. One more advantage of Webometrics is ranking of four segments, which provides an insight into segments where the university became weaker and into those where it became stronger. The mentioned indicators show fall of quality in almost all of the ranked segments, and it imposes the conclusion that cancelation of autonomy, involvement of politics into the university, and compulsory administration cause weakening of the quality of the university. Similar processes and measures were implemented at the University of Bihać, which

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87207*


**Figure 1.**

*Scientometrics Recent Advances*

ranking parameters.

In such circumstances, Webometrics ranking system actually represents a system of neutral international evaluation of quality of scientific institutions and scientists at all institutions not included into the Shanghai list. It is important to underline that there are not any significant deviations in the placing of the first 100 ranked universities on the Shanghai list and on the Webometrics list. Namely, the Webometrics list, through the four of its criteria (**Table 2**) [60], evaluates situations at the universities all over the world and positions them on its lists assessing every of the four criteria individually. This ranking procedure cannot be affected by any university, ministry, or state trying to improve its institution's ranking position. In most of the low-developed or non-developed countries, there is not any adequate system to control and follow up the success of reforms or define weaknesses and evaluate destructiveness of the involvement of policy into activities of institutions of higher education. This is one of the great advantages of Webometrics because it actually represents a very simple international tool for quality control of higher education institutions and enables competition among higher education institutions all over the world. In such process, it is clearly visible through the ranking system which of the four ranking parameters (presence, visibility, transparency, excellence) an institution progresses or stagnates. This enables development of a strategy for improvement of quality of scientific institutions, particularly in the weakest segments being evaluated. An extremely good point of Webometrics is that it performs ranking of institutions within states, within regions, or within the whole world [63]. In total, a university can be better positioned in some country, but it does not simultaneously mean that it is better than others by all of the four

According to the last Webometrics list for Bosnia and Herzegovina [64] (January 2019, Edition 2019.1.2.), the University of Banja Luka is positioned second in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but in "presence rank" category, the International University of Sarajevo (which, in total, takes only the fourth position in Bosnia and Herzegovina)

How important having an international ranking list as a corrective showing and assessing situation at higher education institutions in developing countries may be analyzed on the example of universities of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Bosnia and Herzegovina is composed of two entities (the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Srpska), and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina is administratively divided into ten cantons. At the level of the state, there is the Framework Law on Higher Education in Bosnia and Herzegovina, while at the level of entities and cantons, there are educational policies being implemented according to the laws of entities and cantons. There are 8 public and 35 private universities and faculties in Bosnia and Herzegovina which are ranked by the Webometrics list from January 2019 (January 2019, Edition 2019.1.2.)[64], which is an extremely great number for the country with about 3.5 million of inhabitants. Work permits and work control of these higher education institutions, without clear international criteria, are issued and implemented by cantonal ministries of education with laws differing from canton to canton. Cantonal laws often are not in compliance with the Framework Law on Higher Education in Bosnia and Herzegovina ("Official Gazette of Bosnia and Herzegovina" no. 59/07 and 59/09, hereinafter: the Framework Law), and very often they are subjects of dispute before the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (rating of constitutionality: U-19/16, U-22/18) [65, 66]. Cantonal laws are often changed for the purpose of involvement of politics into the universities in order to weaken and cancel their autonomy which is guaranteed by the Framework Law on Higher Education in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In such conditions, the only measure and objective evaluation is the Webometrics list. Namely, the University of Tuzla has been progressing on the Webometrics list over the years

is ranked better than the University of Banja Luka (**Figure 1**).

**32**

*The Webometrics list for Bosnia and Herzegovina with all parameters (January 2019, Edition 2019.1.2.) [64].*

(after implementation of a set of measures by a quality team), and in June 2016, it took the 3186th position on the list, which was the best position of this university in the history (**Figure 2**). Immediately after this event, the Law on Higher Education in Tuzla Canton was changed, and in a day the management of the university was replaced, the Senate was dissolved, and receivership with temporary organs under political patronage was imposed. Although it is difficult to find such case in developed economies, or anywhere in the world, the key issue is how to measure the effect of such measure.

In circumstances where there is not any adequate reaction of state institutions (Agency for Higher Education, parliamentary committees for education, state Ministry for Civil Affairs) to such situation because everything is politically controlled and the Constitutional Court is declared authorized for interpretation of compliance of the Cantonal Law on Higher Education with the Framework Law on Higher Education in Bosnia and Herzegovina (U-19/16) [65], an independent international factor unaffected by politics, i.e., Webometrics, is necessary. Although such measure was allegedly implemented to improve quality and position of the University of Tuzla, the Webometrics list soon showed all the effects of this measure. The position of the University of Tuzla on the Webometrics list was becoming weaker and weaker over the years, and in January 2019, it ended on the 3795th [64] place (**Figure 2**) and experienced the fall for 609 positions or 19.11%. The university which in July 2016 (**Figure 2**) took the second position in Bosnia and Herzegovina by quality took the 5th place. One more advantage of Webometrics is ranking of four segments, which provides an insight into segments where the university became weaker and into those where it became stronger. The mentioned indicators show fall of quality in almost all of the ranked segments, and it imposes the conclusion that cancelation of autonomy, involvement of politics into the university, and compulsory administration cause weakening of the quality of the university. Similar processes and measures were implemented at the University of Bihać, which

**Figure 2.**

*Position of the University of Tuzla in the world and in Bosnia and Herzegovina according to the Webometrics list for the period from January 2016 to January 2019.*

resulted in its taking 11,546th position according to the list from January 2019 [64], and it would be very hard to improve its position significantly. This resulted in a significant decrease of the number of enrolled students, in the decrease of competitiveness, and in the struggle for huge international projects and low percentage of scientific production in the leading index bases of the world. An obvious decline of publishing and quoting of works is confirmed by the criterium of excellence by which the University of Tuzla takes the 4th place in Bosnia and Herzegovina [64], with a condition that the mentioned parameters probably are not correct which is a consequence of Google Scholar and webometrics itself. Although it measures the researching productivity on the basis of the presence on the web, the mentioned ranking system depends on categories related to publishing and quoting of scientific works (of excellence (SCImago) and transparency (Google Scholar))[60]. These two parameters bring 45% out of the total score in ranking of a university. Over the years there has been a notable tendency of increase of the weight of these two parameters in Webometrics ranking system. Here we see first the disadvantages of Webometrics ranking system. Webometrics uses GS for transparency criterium, which enables creation of a profile of a scientist with verification of an address from a scientific institution.

Google Scholar is a system in which the academic community has been very interested [67], and it has been used by a great number of universities and research institutions both for ranking of institutions and ranking of academic personnel [68–72]. The system is very good; it is automatized in the way that a computer program performs the main role in the whole process, from data collection to data processing. Like any other system, this one is not perfect, and it has some critical omissions which are mostly related to ascribing a quotation from a scientific paper to some authors to whom it does not belong.

GS system has several possibilities to ascribe articles to their authors. The first possibility is automatic. Computer system collects information about published scientific publications on the web, with all auxiliary elements of the paper which besides the title of the work include names of the authors, keywords, and a brief description of the paper. According to these data, GS system browses its basis of user profiles and proposes to a potential author found in its database of publications, which contains a name of a potential author, to ascribe the found article to his/her profile. On the basis of available data, GS system "assumes" that the user is the author of the publication found, which does not have to be true. This often

**35**

users' profiles.

author of the concerned publications.

manipulation of GS system [74, 75].

*Advantages and Disadvantages of the Webometrics Ranking System*

course, an author has to have his/her profile on GS system.

causes situations where papers and quotes on certain profiles are not true. Of

crawler computers which have their time scheme of performance of tasks.

The third possibility is to add publications manually but not data. One browses the database of GS system and finds a desired publication and ascribes it to the user profile. This differs from the previous approach by the fact that the work concerned was already indexed in GS system and all necessary data (which besides the main data contain data about all quotes related to the publication) were ascribed to it. In this case, if a publication having a certain number of quotes has already been ascribed to an author who is its real author and if a user manually adds the publication to his/her profile, then all existing quotes of the publication concerned would be ascribed to his/her profile regardless of the fact that he/she is not the real author or co-author of the publication. According to our best knowledge, currently there is not any mechanism to heck credibility of an author—if a person really is the author of the co-author of the concerned publication. This is one of the great disadvantages of the current version of GS system regarding manual ascription of publications to

Since we believe that the last mentioned situation represents a serious omission in GS system, we tested the concerned situation with two articles. One publication which we added to a profile of a user (with No = 47 quotes) who is not the author of the publication (one of the authors of this article) had a significant number of quotes (No = 388), while the other one did not (No = 20). Two publications with different numbers of quotes were added in order to check if it was really practically possible to add a publication with any number of quotes. We made a screenshot before adding the concerned publications to the profile of a user who was not the author of any of the articles (**Figure 3**) and after the publications were added (**Figure 4**). These two illustrations clearly show that after the concerned publications were added, the number of quotes of "new author" increased significantly proportionally to the number of quotes ascribed to the source publication. GS system did not, at any time, report that the "new author " actually was not the

This represents significant omission in Google Scholar system, which opens possibilities for new ways of manipulation in all systems of ranking, of universities, and of researchers themselves, which use this system as a part of some other systems for various types of ranking. Some authors had already been pointing to manipulations with quotes in academic researches [73], but this is the case of

Where does this omission become very "disputable?" Namely, examining profiles of scientists from the University of Tuzla, one defined that even 30% of profiles out of the first ten ranked contain papers of which they are not authors or co-authors. Those are profiles taken into consideration in ranking of parameters on the list from January 2019. It is significant to mention that even 446 quotes

Another possibility is manual addition of a publication with all of its auxiliary meta-information. By this approach, GS system enables a user who has a profile on the system to enter data about his/her paper manually: a title of the paper, a list of all authors, a name of a publisher, a title of a journal or a conference, a year of publication, etc. There is not any mechanism to check authenticity of an author, i.e., if a person is the author or a co-author of the paper. The only good point of this approach, bearing in mind manipulation of quotes in the concerned publication, is that all quotes related to the paper concerned would not unconditionally be ascribed to the user of a profile, i.e., to the "author" who adds the paper to his/her profile. A possible explanation for this situation may be in the fact that there is not any possibility to acquire all quotes of a paper at once since it is done automatically by web

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87207*

### *Advantages and Disadvantages of the Webometrics Ranking System DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87207*

*Scientometrics Recent Advances*

*list for the period from January 2016 to January 2019.*

**Figure 2.**

resulted in its taking 11,546th position according to the list from January 2019 [64], and it would be very hard to improve its position significantly. This resulted in a significant decrease of the number of enrolled students, in the decrease of competitiveness, and in the struggle for huge international projects and low percentage of scientific production in the leading index bases of the world. An obvious decline of publishing and quoting of works is confirmed by the criterium of excellence by which the University of Tuzla takes the 4th place in Bosnia and Herzegovina [64], with a condition that the mentioned parameters probably are not correct which is a consequence of Google Scholar and webometrics itself. Although it measures the researching productivity on the basis of the presence on the web, the mentioned ranking system depends on categories related to publishing and quoting of scientific works (of excellence (SCImago) and transparency (Google Scholar))[60]. These two parameters bring 45% out of the total score in ranking of a university. Over the years there has been a notable tendency of increase of the weight of these two parameters in Webometrics ranking system. Here we see first the disadvantages of Webometrics ranking system. Webometrics uses GS for transparency criterium, which enables creation of a profile of a scientist with verification of an address from

*Position of the University of Tuzla in the world and in Bosnia and Herzegovina according to the Webometrics* 

Google Scholar is a system in which the academic community has been very interested [67], and it has been used by a great number of universities and research institutions both for ranking of institutions and ranking of academic personnel [68–72]. The system is very good; it is automatized in the way that a computer program performs the main role in the whole process, from data collection to data processing. Like any other system, this one is not perfect, and it has some critical omissions which are mostly related to ascribing a quotation from a scientific paper

GS system has several possibilities to ascribe articles to their authors. The first possibility is automatic. Computer system collects information about published scientific publications on the web, with all auxiliary elements of the paper which besides the title of the work include names of the authors, keywords, and a brief description of the paper. According to these data, GS system browses its basis of user profiles and proposes to a potential author found in its database of publications, which contains a name of a potential author, to ascribe the found article to his/her profile. On the basis of available data, GS system "assumes" that the user is the author of the publication found, which does not have to be true. This often

**34**

a scientific institution.

to some authors to whom it does not belong.

causes situations where papers and quotes on certain profiles are not true. Of course, an author has to have his/her profile on GS system.

Another possibility is manual addition of a publication with all of its auxiliary meta-information. By this approach, GS system enables a user who has a profile on the system to enter data about his/her paper manually: a title of the paper, a list of all authors, a name of a publisher, a title of a journal or a conference, a year of publication, etc. There is not any mechanism to check authenticity of an author, i.e., if a person is the author or a co-author of the paper. The only good point of this approach, bearing in mind manipulation of quotes in the concerned publication, is that all quotes related to the paper concerned would not unconditionally be ascribed to the user of a profile, i.e., to the "author" who adds the paper to his/her profile. A possible explanation for this situation may be in the fact that there is not any possibility to acquire all quotes of a paper at once since it is done automatically by web crawler computers which have their time scheme of performance of tasks.

The third possibility is to add publications manually but not data. One browses the database of GS system and finds a desired publication and ascribes it to the user profile. This differs from the previous approach by the fact that the work concerned was already indexed in GS system and all necessary data (which besides the main data contain data about all quotes related to the publication) were ascribed to it. In this case, if a publication having a certain number of quotes has already been ascribed to an author who is its real author and if a user manually adds the publication to his/her profile, then all existing quotes of the publication concerned would be ascribed to his/her profile regardless of the fact that he/she is not the real author or co-author of the publication. According to our best knowledge, currently there is not any mechanism to heck credibility of an author—if a person really is the author of the co-author of the concerned publication. This is one of the great disadvantages of the current version of GS system regarding manual ascription of publications to users' profiles.

Since we believe that the last mentioned situation represents a serious omission in GS system, we tested the concerned situation with two articles. One publication which we added to a profile of a user (with No = 47 quotes) who is not the author of the publication (one of the authors of this article) had a significant number of quotes (No = 388), while the other one did not (No = 20). Two publications with different numbers of quotes were added in order to check if it was really practically possible to add a publication with any number of quotes. We made a screenshot before adding the concerned publications to the profile of a user who was not the author of any of the articles (**Figure 3**) and after the publications were added (**Figure 4**). These two illustrations clearly show that after the concerned publications were added, the number of quotes of "new author" increased significantly proportionally to the number of quotes ascribed to the source publication. GS system did not, at any time, report that the "new author " actually was not the author of the concerned publications.

This represents significant omission in Google Scholar system, which opens possibilities for new ways of manipulation in all systems of ranking, of universities, and of researchers themselves, which use this system as a part of some other systems for various types of ranking. Some authors had already been pointing to manipulations with quotes in academic researches [73], but this is the case of manipulation of GS system [74, 75].

Where does this omission become very "disputable?" Namely, examining profiles of scientists from the University of Tuzla, one defined that even 30% of profiles out of the first ten ranked contain papers of which they are not authors or co-authors. Those are profiles taken into consideration in ranking of parameters on the list from January 2019. It is significant to mention that even 446 quotes

## *Scientometrics Recent Advances*


### **Figure 3.**

### **Figure 4.**

*Author's profile on GS after adding two papers with belonging quotes.*

which do not belong were ascribed to the mentioned profiles [76]. This data becomes extremely significant if we consider the fact that only 8 scientists from the University of Tuzla have more than 400 quotes (the real number is even less when one takes out nonexisting quotes and scientists who do not work at the University of Tuzla anymore). Analyzing the following 10 profiles of scientists (by order of 11–20), we found 186 more non-belonging quotes [76]. This becomes a greater problem if we bear in mind that most of those "added" works were published in journals of extremely good quality [76], so the quotes have been distributed over the years which affects the parameters of ranking of the university even more. If we know that the first ten ranked profiles are taken into consideration in ranking, we have to ask ourselves if those are really the best ranked scientists and if the position of the university on the Webometrics list is dully calculated [76]. A checkup may easily show that the order, the number of quotes, and the index are not correct, which leads us to a process of incorrect ranking of profiles and incorrect evaluation of the Webometrics list. Knowing the evaluation system on which webometrics functions, it is easy to conclude that adding highly quoted papers from prestigious publications can significantly improve the position of a university. This is also extremely important for ranking of scientists because many universities in the world do not have any access to WOS, and it is very easy for all to use GS ranking lists to measure quality of scientists and a degree of their being quoted. These lists

**37**

**5. Conclusion**

*Advantages and Disadvantages of the Webometrics Ranking System*

other omissions could be performed in the first phase.

As a global ranking system, webometrics represents an important step in the assessment of scientific institutions and scientists. It is very important, especially in countries which do not implement international standards and criteria through their institutional educational system. Through its main four parameters, the system entices healthy competition among scientific institutions and scientists. Along with all of the advantages, the system, like any other system, has some

should be reviewed in order to obtain a realistic picture in ranking of scientists in institutions and by states as an adequate hierarchy of universities. The example from our experiment can easily show that h-index has changed significantly. By adding only two papers, it increased from 3 to even 5, and i-index increased from 2 to 4 (**Figures 3** and **4**). Since the mentioned omissions were found at many other universities as well, we believe that changes in the ranking order of universities and scientists would be very significant. Authors on profiles often are not aware that those are not their works because they update their profiles automatically. Many of them do not pay great attention to it, while a great number of scientists do not have a great knowledge about ranking systems. Another disadvantage of this system is retention of scientists' profiles, although they are engaged by another institution. This means that their profiles are retained after cessation of their engagements. Movements of scientists in the system of scientific institutions and going from one institution to another for the purpose of increasing quality of individual institutions are also a process which should be followed up by GS. To solve this problem, one needs to design a system which would obligate scientific institutions to update data in time and to ask for removal of profiles of those scientists who are not engaged anymore (i.e., the profiles should be adjusted to the new institution). Gaining benefits for quotes on profiles of retired scientists and of those who passed away by institutions is not fair. We found such omission at our university where even 2 out of the first 12 scientists left the University of Tuzla, having together over 1300 citations and being involved in the process of ranking of the university [76]. This omission may not be ascribed only to GS, but one needs to design a system of annual verification of profiles for which scientific institution would be in charge. On the other hand, there are scientists who are not ranked within the frame of an institution due to wrong entries of affiliation and do not contribute to the reputation of a university although they have a great number of quotes. Although Webometrics in its rules hinted at a possibility of sanctioning institutions for double profiles and ascribing papers to wrong authors [60], we noticed that the mentioned sanction has not been implemented, and we saw such cases at several universities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. There is a simple way to solve the mentioned manipulations and omissions. One of the ways is introduction of *Z* score system [77–79] into Webometrics ranking system. Namely, this system would check authorship, i.e., it would be impossible that a system or a man adds a paper to a scientist's profile if he/she is not its author. For the purpose of further increase of quality of ranking related to publications, one could think about introduction of a certain percentage of ranking on the basis of publications indexed in the best databases in WOS through this system. Authors would also be ranked by the volume of work, i.e., *Z* score would perform ranking of scientist on the basis of a type of authorship (first author, corresponding author, other authors), number of authors of a paper, quality of a journal, and a number of quotes. Should this process be too demanding in the first phase, a process of filtration of profiles and removal of double profiles, non-belonging papers, and

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87207*

## *Advantages and Disadvantages of the Webometrics Ranking System DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.87207*

*Scientometrics Recent Advances*

*Author's profile on GS with an accurate number of quotes.*

**Figure 3.**

**Figure 4.**

which do not belong were ascribed to the mentioned profiles [76]. This data

*Author's profile on GS after adding two papers with belonging quotes.*

becomes extremely significant if we consider the fact that only 8 scientists from the University of Tuzla have more than 400 quotes (the real number is even less when one takes out nonexisting quotes and scientists who do not work at the University of Tuzla anymore). Analyzing the following 10 profiles of scientists (by order of 11–20), we found 186 more non-belonging quotes [76]. This becomes a greater problem if we bear in mind that most of those "added" works were published in journals of extremely good quality [76], so the quotes have been distributed over the years which affects the parameters of ranking of the university even more. If we know that the first ten ranked profiles are taken into consideration in ranking, we have to ask ourselves if those are really the best ranked scientists and if the position of the university on the Webometrics list is dully calculated [76]. A checkup may easily show that the order, the number of quotes, and the index are not correct, which leads us to a process of incorrect ranking of profiles and incorrect evaluation of the Webometrics list. Knowing the evaluation system on which webometrics functions, it is easy to conclude that adding highly quoted papers from prestigious publications can significantly improve the position of a university. This is also extremely important for ranking of scientists because many universities in the world do not have any access to WOS, and it is very easy for all to use GS ranking lists to measure quality of scientists and a degree of their being quoted. These lists

**36**

should be reviewed in order to obtain a realistic picture in ranking of scientists in institutions and by states as an adequate hierarchy of universities. The example from our experiment can easily show that h-index has changed significantly. By adding only two papers, it increased from 3 to even 5, and i-index increased from 2 to 4 (**Figures 3** and **4**). Since the mentioned omissions were found at many other universities as well, we believe that changes in the ranking order of universities and scientists would be very significant. Authors on profiles often are not aware that those are not their works because they update their profiles automatically. Many of them do not pay great attention to it, while a great number of scientists do not have a great knowledge about ranking systems. Another disadvantage of this system is retention of scientists' profiles, although they are engaged by another institution. This means that their profiles are retained after cessation of their engagements. Movements of scientists in the system of scientific institutions and going from one institution to another for the purpose of increasing quality of individual institutions are also a process which should be followed up by GS. To solve this problem, one needs to design a system which would obligate scientific institutions to update data in time and to ask for removal of profiles of those scientists who are not engaged anymore (i.e., the profiles should be adjusted to the new institution). Gaining benefits for quotes on profiles of retired scientists and of those who passed away by institutions is not fair. We found such omission at our university where even 2 out of the first 12 scientists left the University of Tuzla, having together over 1300 citations and being involved in the process of ranking of the university [76]. This omission may not be ascribed only to GS, but one needs to design a system of annual verification of profiles for which scientific institution would be in charge. On the other hand, there are scientists who are not ranked within the frame of an institution due to wrong entries of affiliation and do not contribute to the reputation of a university although they have a great number of quotes. Although Webometrics in its rules hinted at a possibility of sanctioning institutions for double profiles and ascribing papers to wrong authors [60], we noticed that the mentioned sanction has not been implemented, and we saw such cases at several universities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. There is a simple way to solve the mentioned manipulations and omissions. One of the ways is introduction of *Z* score system [77–79] into Webometrics ranking system. Namely, this system would check authorship, i.e., it would be impossible that a system or a man adds a paper to a scientist's profile if he/she is not its author. For the purpose of further increase of quality of ranking related to publications, one could think about introduction of a certain percentage of ranking on the basis of publications indexed in the best databases in WOS through this system. Authors would also be ranked by the volume of work, i.e., *Z* score would perform ranking of scientist on the basis of a type of authorship (first author, corresponding author, other authors), number of authors of a paper, quality of a journal, and a number of quotes. Should this process be too demanding in the first phase, a process of filtration of profiles and removal of double profiles, non-belonging papers, and other omissions could be performed in the first phase.
