Top Ranked University Ghauth Jasmon Kuru Ratnavelu University

Top Ranked University Ghauth Jasmon & Kuru Ratnavelu University of Malaya

How do we rank a university? Can we measure these attributes that defines a Top Ranked University? National ranking? International Ranking?

Best Soccer team in the world! Spain or Italy or Germany or Brazil?

Why rank universities globally? It is difficult to equate and compare academic indicators between vastly disparate economies.

University Ranking and Global Competition n n n University Ranking have intensified Global Competition among TOP institutions. Universities are judged by their Research Performance, Production of Quality Graduates, Attracting Quality Faculties. Increased Investments in Research Universities. Better University Leadership. Growth of Financial Resources/Endowments. Smarter Partnerships in Asia – Shift in Priority.

“Universities operate in both national and global contexts. The world class idea is in the global sphere. It assumes that the university is competing with the best academic institutions in the world and is aspiring to the pinnacle of excellence and recognition. … To label one world-class while relegating the others to the nether regions of the academic hierarchy is perhaps inevitable, but nonetheless unfortunate. How to relate to these varying realities is not easy, but it is of central importance” Philip G. Altbach, International Higher Education 2002 Boston College 6/5/2021 6

“The variety of outcomes in the THES study underlies the fact that universities have different missions & different strengths that make them difficult to compare. There is no sign that a high ranking university in our table is better than one lowly ranked” John O’Leary Editor The Times Higher Education Supplement 2005 World University Rankings 6/5/2021 7

“It would be impossible to attribute too much weight to the small differences in overall scores between universities low down the rankings ” Martin Ince (2005), Contributing Editor of The Times Higher Education Supplement 6/5/2021 8

World Class Universities n n It has become quite common to observe that there is a rapidly growing trend among universities in the world to have a Mission or Vision statement that states their aspiration to become a World Class University capable of delivering world-class education to their students. What is a world-class university? What is a world-class education? These questions are now becoming increasingly important to many universities and higher education administrators throughout the world. There is no clear definition of what is a world-class university. What is needed to be a world-class educating university? 6/5/2021 9

Some Possible Definition of World Class University 1) • • • A University that Excels in Research, Teaching and Service to the Community Where Through: Research: Most of the Academics and their Outputs are Globally Leading in the Field Teaching: Cutting Edge Knowledge Taught and Graduates are Highly Demanded and They rise to Become Leaders , Innovators and Entrepreneurs Service to Community: Expertise of Staff and Students Sought After to Guide or Solve Community’s Problems

Some Pertinent Questions 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Does Malaysia Have World Class Universities? Malaysia’s Vision To Become Centre of Academic Excellence – Myth or Reality? Are Malaysian Universities Like Malaysian Soccer in the World Cup? (FIFA Ranking > 150) Is The Universities World Ranking Exercise Important – THE-QS, Shanghai-Jiaotong? Are Universities Built For Global Competition? Universities Getting More Autonomy But Need To Be Financially More Self-Sustaining?

Key Issues in UM? No Proper Definition, Measurement & Exercise of Academic Excellence Claimed to be World Class - But Is It True? Resting on Its Laurels Best Practices/True Academic Culture? Huge Gap - Best and Weakest Quality of Research – Accumulating Citations Attitude and Mindset - Resistance to Change KPIs that are Incompatible Promotion System That Is Not Helpful 12

Key Issues in UM? Barriers and Ineffective Communications Lax In Imposing Discipline: Action on Non. Performing Staff/Standards of Integrity? World Class Initiatives – But Are Staff Ready? VC’s Terms Are Short-Lived Management That Lacks Courage & Vision Bureaucratic Walls/Inefficiencies

10 KEY SUCCESS FACTORS 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) Cutting Edge Research & Research Productivity Impact, Citations and Recognition International Networking & Partnerships Market-driven Programs & Quality Graduates Service to Community & the World Industry and External Support Entrepreneurship & Commercialization Effective Leadership & Support Services Recruitment of ‘Bright Sparks’ Strategic Collaboration Shift West to East - Top Asian Universities

Majority of the universities in the top rank adopts both the classical and modern definitions. They are self governing and form an independent institution. These institutions develop linkages with large industries, conduct research which transgress their own borders and looks at worldwide issues. They also produce graduates with comprehensive appreciation. Another reason why these universities are world class is because they recruit first rate faculty members from all over the world and inadvertently the staff memberscomprises of a large percentage of international recruits.

Research is the one of the MAIN core business of any university which wishes to claim itself as world class.

To pursue quality research means the immense need to attain certain amount of funding. It is definitely critical that there should be sufficient grants for research to be carried out.

Ranking exercises to stay By KAREN CHAPMAN UM wants to be continuously gauged to see how it fares against other varsities. UNIVERSITI Malaya (UM) will continue to participate in world ranking exercises as it needs to benchmark itself against the best. Its vice-chancellor Prof Datuk Dr Ghauth Jasmon said all top universities wanted to be part of such exercises as it was a good way of knowing how they fared against the others. We want 200, 000 foreign students by 2020 but how do we sell Malaysian education if we don’t have a top university? This is why it’s important to continually improve the university’s performance and although we have seen some impact, it would take some years to see the results, ” he explained. http: //thestar. com. my/education/story. asp? file=/2010/11/14/education/7349782&sec=education some years to see the results 6/5/2021 18

A Preamble n Who decides which is the best university in the world? THES? SJTU? n It is difficult to equate and compare academic indicators between vastly disparate economies. 6/5/2021 19

The fall of UM – the soul of the nation?

What Happened to UM? Utusan Malaysia 31 October 2005 6/5/2021 21

New Straits Times 29 October 2005 6/5/2021 The Star 30 October 2005 22

owledge – ies! Upgrade your kn pt your universit a d n a t, c e n n co enhance, repair, A GUIDE TO Ranking Universities Kuru Ratnavelu 23

Some insights: “A world-class university will be widely recognised as an eminent institution, as a place where top staffs wish to congregate. Given the chance, staff from other universities will migrate to world-class university and top faculty attract top students. The process is auto-catalytic. This means such a university will certainly be a research-intensive university. It must also teach well…” John Niland, past Vice-Chancellor UNSW (1992 -2002) 6/5/2021 24

“The mission of MIT is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas of scholarship that will best serve the nation and the world in the 21 st century. The Institute is committed to generating, disseminating, and preserving knowledge, and to working with others to bring this knowledge to bear on the world's great challenges. MIT is dedicated to providing its students with an education that combines rigorous academic study and the excitement of discovery with the support and intellectual stimulation of a diverse campus community. We seek to develop in each member of the MIT community the ability and passion to work wisely, creatively, and effectively for the betterment of humankind. n 6/5/2021 http: //web. mit. edu/facts/mission. html on 12 June 2007 25

Imperfect world rankings “All of our universities have for years been striving to succeed in an increasingly competitive international environment with decreased government funding. Now this international competition has become obvious to all with the publication of academic rankings by the London Times Higher Education Supplement, Shanghai Jiao Tong University and Newsweek. … China and Singapore continue to pump funds into their leading universities. Taiwan and Korea have begun multibillion-dollar schemes to create world-class universities and Germany and Japan, which feel they have slipped, are also providing large sums of money to boost their top universities. Imperfect though they are, international rankings matter because people use them. They ensure a seat at the global table and they attract outstanding academics and students alike. Professor Gavin Brown, Vice-chancellor and principal of the University of Sydney and the chairman of the Association of Pacific Rim Universities. Sydney Morning Herald on the 5 June 2007 6/5/2021 26

Malaysia’s National Agenda 6/5/2021 27

National Higher Education Action Plan Chapter 6 – Strengthening the IPT 4 th Thrust Section 6. 43 (Diagram 6. 4) 1 st Phase(Fundamentals 2007 -2010) - It is expected that 3 universities in the Top 200 and at least one in the Top 100 in the world. 2 nd Phase (Strengthening and Improving 20112015) - It is expected that two universities will be among the Top 100 and one in the Top 50. 3 rd Phase (Excellence - 2016 -2020) – 3 universities in the Top 100 and at least 1 in the Top 50. 4 th Phase (Beyond 2020) – Two universities in the Top 50. 28

World University Rankings ü ü ü The defunct Asiaweek Survey of Asia-Pacific Universities (1997 -2000). The Shanghai Jiao-Tong Survey since 2003. The THES World University Rankings since 2004. ØMacleans-Canadian ØUS News- US Colleges ØMelbourne Institute Index (MII) of the International Standing of Australian Universities 2005 6/5/2021 Limited to specific countries 29

Criteria AW v v v 6/5/2021 2000 Academic Reputation Student Selectivity Faculty Resources Research Financial resources 30

Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU) Academic World Ranking Universities 6/5/2021 31

SJTU Criteria 1. 2. 3. 4. Quality of Education Quality of Faculty Research Output Size of Institution Weight 10% 40% 10% Total 100% 6/5/2021 32

SJTU Criteria Indicators 1. Quality of Education Alumni winning Nobel Prize/Field Medal 2. Quality of Faculty i) Staff winning Nobel Prize/Field Medals ii) Highly Cited Researchers 3. Research Output 4. Size of Institution 6/5/2021 i) Articles published in Nature & Science ii) Articles in Citation Index Academic performance with respect to size of institution 33

SJTU Criteria Indicators Total no. of Alumni winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals v Alumni (Bachelor, Master's or doctoral degrees) Weights: 100% for alumni from Class of 1991 -2000. 90% for alumni from Class of 1981 -1990. 80% for alumni from Class of 1971 -1980. … 10% for alumni from Class of 1901 -1910. If a person obtains more than one degree from an institution, the institution is considered once only. 6/5/2021 34

SJTU Criteria Indicators No. of Awards won by staff of an institution (Nobel Prizes & Fields Medal in Mathematics) v Staff is defined as those who work at an institution at the time of winning the prize. Different weights were set according to the periods of winning the prizes. Weights: 100% for winners in 2001 -2004 90% for winners in 1991 -2000 80% for winners in 1981 -1990 … 10% for winners in 1911 -1920. If a winner is affiliated with more than one institution, each institution is assigned the reciprocal of the number of institutions. For Nobel prizes, if a prize is shared by more than one person, weights are set for winners according to their proportion of the prize. 6/5/2021 35

SJTU Criteria Indicators Highly Cited researchers The number of highly cited researchers in broad subject categories in life sciences, medicine, physical sciences, engineering and social sciences. Nature & Science The number of articles published in Nature and Science between 2000 and 2004. 6/5/2021 36

SJTU Criteria Indicators SCI Total number of articles indexed in Science Citation Indexexpanded, Social Science Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index in 2004. Size The weighted scores of the above five indicators divided by the number of full-time equivalent academic staff. If the number of academic staff for institutions of a country cannot be obtained, the weighted scores of the above five indicators is used. For ranking 2005, the numbers of full-time equivalent academic staff are obtained for institutions in USA, Japan, China, Italy, Australia, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Slovenia, etc. 6/5/2021 37

The Times Higher Education Supplement World Ranking Universities THES -QS 6/5/2021 38

Criteria Indicator 1. Peer Review 2. Recruiter Review 3. International Staff 4. International Students 5. Faculty/Staff Ratio 6. Citations/Staff Ratio Weight 40% 10% 5% 5% 20% Total 100% 6/5/2021 39

NEWSWEEK 2000 A hybrid of SJTU and THES rankings: 50% of the score came from equal parts of three measures used by Shanghai Jiatong: Ø Ø Ø the number of highly-cited researchers in various academic fields the number of articles published in Nature and Science, the number of articles listed in the ISI Social Sciences and Arts & Humanities indices. 40% of the score came from equal parts of four measures used by the Times: v v the percentage of international faculty, the percentage of international students, citations per faculty member (using ISI data), and the ratio of faculty to students. The final 10% came from library holdings (number of volumes). 6/5/2021 40

THERE ARE NOW 2 WORLD RANKINGS SURVEYS TILL 2009 - THAT IS BEING WIDELY ACCEPTED 1. The Higher Education (THE) – QS World University Rankings (since 2004) In this ranking, UM (Top 200 in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2009), USM were listed in Top 200 in 2004. UKM (2006). 2. The Shanghai Jiao Tong Academic Ranking of World Universities (since 2003) NO MALAYSIAN UNIVERSITIES LISTED 41

THERE IS ALSO 2 OTHER RANKINGS: QS-ASIAN UNIVERSITY RANKINGS (SINCE 2009) & THEM 2010 (SEPT 2010) 1. 2. 3. The QS-AUR(Asian University Rankings)- In 2010, 5 Malaysian universities listed in Top 100. The THEM is the new Times Education Magazine ranking in September 2010 – No Malaysian universities participated. Participation by invitation. UM is absolutely committed to participate and compete in World Ranking to place Malaysia in the World Map in QUALITY HIGHER EDUCATION 42

2010 QS WORLD RANKING (WUR) IN 2010, UNIV CAMBRIDGE FINISHED NO. 1 AHEAD OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY (NO. 2). UNIV OXFORD HAS FALLEN ANOTHER PLACE IN THIS YEAR AGAIN TO 6 TH AS DID UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON 43

The rise and fall of universities. Among the Asia-Pacific universities, ANU is still No. 1 among the universities in this region. Nevertheless it fell from 17 th in WUR 2009 to 20 th in WUR 2010. University of Hong Kong has displaced University of Tokyo as the No. 2 university (rising from 24 th to 23 rd in 2010) in the Asia -Pacific region. Tokyo U has fallen from 22 nd to 24 th in the rankings. Kyoto maintains its position as 25 th in these rankings. NUS remains as 5 th in Asia-Pacific ( its ranking has fallen from 30 th to 31 st)! Among the Australian Universities, Monash U has fallen down to 61 st in WUR 2010 ( it was 45 th in 2009). The same was observed for Adelaide U which fell out of Top 100 in 2010. It was ranked 103 rd in comparison of its 81 st position last year. Auckland has also fallen 7 places from 61 st to 68 th. Chulalongkorn Univ has fallen to 180 th from 138! There a number of Hong Kong, South Korean, Taiwan and Chinese universities moving upwards in the WUR 2010.

Are we to believe that the standards of Tokyo, NUS, Adelaide, Monash and Chulalongkorn Univ have dropped over the last year? It is a numbers’ game essentially! Furthermore, the fluctuation in the WUR ranking has been sometimes been very drastic. But the public perception is, that these universities have fallen according to the WUR 2010. 6/5/2021 45

Comparison of Selected universities Univ Tokyo NUS Monash Adelaide Chulalongkorn Rank 2010 (Score 2010) 24(86. 74) 31(82. 78) 61(72. 54) 103(63. 87) 180(50. 21) Rank 2009(Score 2009) 22 (88. 9) 30 (84. 3) 45(80. 0) 81(70. 8) 138(62. 3) In WUR 2010, among the Malaysia universities, the top university, UM, has fallen from 180 th to 207 nd. UKM, UPM and USM have shown some improvement. UTM has also dropped slightly. UNIV WUR 2010 Rank Score 2010 WUR 2009 Rank/Score UM 207 47. 1 180/56. 5 UKM 263 unknown 291/44. 5 USM 309 unknown 314/42. 6 UPM 319 unknown 345/39. 8 UTM 365 unknown 320/42. 0

Why UM fell 27 places in the WUR 2010?

27 Good reasons!

i. iii. iv. v. viii. ix. x. xiii. xiv. xv. National Tsing Hua University ( 223 to 196) Queen’s University of Belfast (201 to 197) Universitat Bonn (237 to 200) Radbiud University Netherlands (moved from 220 th in 2009 to 149 th in 2010) RWTH Aachen Germany (from 182 nd to 158 th) Univ Bern (193 to 162) Hong Kong Polytechnic Univ (195 to 166) Universitat Karlsruhe (184 to 166) Stockholm University (215 to 168) Univ Leicester (196 to 169) Univ Boulder (186 to 170) Universitat Autonama Barcelona (211 to 176) Universite Paris Sorbonne, Paris 4 (228 to 186) Korea University (211 to 191). Universitat Frankfurt am Main (233 to 195)

Analysis of UM Ranking in QS-AUR 2009 -2010 2009 (QS-AUR) 2010 (QS-AUR) 2011 (QS-AUR) 39 42 ? ? ? ? Fall of 3 places in 2010 • Three Taiwan Universities have catapulted. See comparison of their publications later in this presentation. • This will pose a great challenge for UM and other Malaysian IPTAs to compete in this unfair ground. Can UM • Fall further? 50

Analysis of UM Ranking in THES (THE) for 2004 -2009 2004 (THES) 2005 (THES) 2006 (THES) 2007 (THES) 2008 (THE) 2009 (THE) 2010 (THE) 89 169 192 246 230 180 207 Fall of 80 places in 2005 • UM’s fall [as well as USM] in 2005 was due to THES interpreting Chinese and Indian students as foreigners and [thus the large international student % put UM in 89 th position. The inclusion of employability survey had an effect also. • Until today, THES did not explain who supplied the data on Chinese and Indian students as foreign students! The drop from the Top 200 in 2007 • There are many contributing factors – low staff/student ratio, drop in peer review and changes in methodology UM’s return to Top 200 • In late 2008 & 2009, UM management strategised to increase staff especially international staff and gradually decrease undergraduates and increase postgraduates in tandem. This has attributed to UM back to the Top 200. 51

In 1980, UM and Univ of Singapore’s ISI publication was about the same – 100+ ISI papers per year. üToday, annually NUS publishes about ~5000 ISI journal papers and UM just reached ~1300 ISI journal papers 52

Citations (to a paper) • • An author’s first paper will have zero citation. The citations/author ratio

Universities 2000 -2010 No. Of ISI Papers Total Citations per Paper AUR 2010 Rankings UM 4123 17450 4. 23 42 USM 3782 15832 4. 19 69 Mahidol Tehran 5819 50271 8. 64 27 6338 23521 3. 71 Shanghai Rankings 401500 NYMU 7196 65729 9. 13 41 NTHU 10446 75271 7. 21 34 Fudan 15822 110, 549 6. 99 24 Hiroshima 15078 139, 286 9. 24 38 Nanyang. TU 16826 101, 003 6. 0001 18 NCKU 16413 107, 368 6. 54 31 Un. Hong. K 18890 215, 045 11. 38 1 NTU(Taiwan) 28, 127 225, 837 8. 03 21 NUS 29, 151 279, 895 9. 6 3 Tokyo 66433 928, 743 13. 98 5

UM Strengths and Records in High Impact Journals

New England Journal of Medicine – High Impact Factor of 50. 017 (JCR 2008) 1980 -2010 As of June 10, 2010 UM – 7 IMU – 3 USM – 1 UKM – 1 IJN – 1 IMR – 1 UNIMAS- 1

MALAYSIAN CITATIONS in NEJM Web of Science – 10 th June 2010 5 am

Web of Science (ISI) 2001 -2009 Number of Publications Times Cited Average cites per publication h-index score 58 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2001 -2009 UM 267 255 364 448 496 499 654 898 1169 5050 USM 272 257 314 326 421 501 581 960 1023 4655 UKM 122 141 169 265 231 314 396 757 643 3038 UPM 171 191 253 271 289 353 368 589 661 3146 UM 2176 2105 1815 3168 1778 1715 1632 905 318 15612 USM 2323 2034 1891 1708 1959 1768 1647 1292 398 15020 UKM 846 973 807 2069 774 671 844 449 204 7637 UPM 1335 1581 1493 1362 1253 771 647 413 116 8971 UM 8. 15 8. 25 4. 99 7. 07 3. 58 3. 44 2. 5 1. 01 0. 27 3. 09 USM 8. 54 7. 91 6. 02 5. 24 4. 65 3. 53 2. 83 1. 35 0. 39 3. 24 UKM 6. 93 6. 9 4. 78 7. 81 3. 35 2. 14 2. 13 0. 59 0. 32 2. 52 UPM 7. 81 8. 28 5. 9 5. 05 4. 34 2. 18 1. 76 0. 7 0. 18 2. 85 UM 23 22 21 23 17 18 16 12 5 42 USM 25 21 20 20 19 16 15 15 6 38 UKM 15 14 15 17 12 12 12 7 5 31 UPM 18 19 17 17 16 12 10 7 4 34

Report on Publications in Wo. S 2009 by academics at University of Malaya Quality or Quantity- Where will UM go in 2010 and beyond This is an updated version of the previous Report in October 2009 with latest downloaded data from Wo. S (12. 1. 2010). It is essentially the analysis of citations of published research work that has been done or being undertaken at UM or with collaboration with non-UM authors (local or otherwise). I wish to stress again that there are essentially two measures of a university’s (science-based) research output: the total number of publications in ISI journals and what journals the works appear in. In scientific research, the first of the two measures is intimately intertwined with the issue of Impact Factors. Here, it must be stressed that Impact Factors refer to the journal, not the article itself. The significance of a publication is better judged by the number of citations for the publication. Nevertheless, I like to caution that the quality of the paper, the journal (Impact factor) and other aspects of the publications should be considered.

A Story of Two Countries Thai vs Malaysia Even in soccer Thailand has beaten Malaysia

Comparing Malaysia’s ISI® output with Thailand (19962005)

Comparing Malaysia’s ISI® output with Thailand (19962005) 2006 ISI Ranking Malaysia is ranked 56 th with a total of 14, 606 publications in all fields among the 179 countries. Singapore is ranked 38 th and Thailand is ranked 51 st.

A comparison of 4 regional universities

Publications under Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) 4, 500 UM 4, 000 3, 500 3, 000 UM 2, 500 USM Chulalongkorn 2, 000 NUS 1, 500 1, 000 500 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Publications under Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) 600 UM 500 400 UM USM 300 Chulalongkorn NUS 200 100 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Publications under Arts & Humanitites Citation Index (AHCI) 80 UM 70 60 50 UM USM 40 Chulalongkorn NUS 30 20 10 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

UM Cumulative citations under Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) 40, 000 35, 000 30, 000 25, 000 UM USM 20, 000 Chulalongkorn NUS 15, 000 10, 000 5, 000 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Cumulative citations under Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) UM 1, 800 1, 600 1, 400 1, 200 UM 1, 000 USM Chulalongkorn 800 NUS 600 400 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Cumulative citations under Arts & Humanitites Citation Index (AHCI) 30 UM 25 20 UM USM 15 Chulalongkorn NUS 10 5 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Comparison of Output of ISI ® papers in ASEAN (2001 -2005) Extracted from Chapter 8 National Science & Technology Indicators 2006

PUBLICATIONS (in Selected CHEMISTRY Journal Benchmarked Against Some APRU Universities) ACS Journals Angewandte Chemie International Edition Journal of the American Chemical Society Chemical Communications Chemistry - A European Journal NUS – National University of Singapore UOS - University of Sydney UBC - University of British Columbia FU - Fudan University HKUST - Hong Kong University of Science & Technology NTHU - National Tsinghua University USTC - University of Science & Technology China ZU - Zhejiang University NTWU - National Taiwan University KU - Keio University KTU - Kyoto University OU - Osaka University WU - Waseda University SNU - Seoul National University UOM - University of Malaya

Citations vary among fields Mathematics Engineering/technology Biology Earth/space sciences Chemistry Physics Biomedical Research Clinical Medicine 1 (normalized) 5 8 9 15 19 78 78

Citations for subject fields Fields 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 All Years All Fields 18. 24 17. 67 16. 48 15. 09 13. 24 11. 49 9. 14 6. 52 4. 18 1. 68 0. 26 10. 06 Agricultural Sciences 12. 10 12. 22 11. 13 10. 23 9. 35 8. 02 6. 19 4. 51 2. 69 0. 93 0. 14 6. 40 Biology & Biochemistry 29. 24 28. 53 26. 10 23. 56 20. 79 17. 60 13. 65 9. 62 6. 12 2. 52 0. 36 16. 35 Chemistry 16. 68 16. 83 15. 39 15. 02 13. 31 11. 81 9. 77 7. 13 4. 69 2. 06 0. 32 10. 10 Clinical Medicine 21. 29 20. 65 19. 52 18. 18 16. 38 14. 24 11. 55 8. 21 5. 17 1. 96 0. 30 12. 14 Computer Science 6. 84 6. 27 6. 58 6. 66 4. 32 3. 12 2. 50 1. 54 1. 57 0. 60 0. 10 3. 25 Economics & Business 10. 67 10. 07 9. 00 8. 89 7. 56 6. 35 4. 71 3. 08 1. 76 0. 63 0. 13 5. 37 Engineering 7. 28 7. 13 6. 90 6. 26 5. 66 5. 10 4. 00 2. 86 1. 97 0. 76 0. 14 4. 18 Environment/Ecology 19. 46 19. 66 17. 21 15. 87 14. 01 11. 95 9. 25 6. 55 4. 12 1. 49 0. 26 10. 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Immunology 34. 47 34. 80 32. 79 29. 27 25. 74 23. 09 18. 16 13. 26 8. 66 3. 48 0. 48 20. 66 Materials Science 10. 18 10. 49 9. 90 8. 98 8. 63 7. 39 5. 93 4. 46 2. 89 1. 21 0. 19 6. 09 Mathematics 6. 38 5. 78 5. 09 4. 91 4. 26 3. 65 2. 97 2. 13 1. 31 0. 56 0. 12 3. 17 Microbiology 28. 14 26. 51 24. 52 22. 11 19. 58 17. 05 14. 18 9. 57 5. 85 2. 38 0. 30 14. 98 Molecular Biology & Genetics 46. 55 44. 58 41. 32 37. 24 31. 82 27. 30 21. 17 15. 21 9. 54 3. 97 0. 55 24. 71 3. 19 3. 90 4. 95 6. 67 7. 01 5. 81 5. 98 6. 20 4. 60 2. 86 0. 71 4. 48 Neuroscience & Behavior 33. 69 32. 14 30. 51 26. 91 22. 76 19. 64 15. 72 11. 32 6. 92 2. 72 0. 38 18. 29 Pharmacology & Toxicology 19. 39 19. 24 18. 63 17. 82 15. 05 13. 93 10. 54 8. 29 5. 07 2. 04 0. 28 11. 32 Physics 14. 15 14. 01 12. 76 11. 54 10. 35 9. 43 7. 72 5. 73 3. 42 1. 59 0. 25 8. 45 Plant & Animal Science 13. 22 12. 84 11. 84 10. 82 9. 48 8. 23 6. 29 4. 49 2. 76 1. 10 0. 20 7. 16 Psychiatry/Psycho logy 19. 97 18. 56 17. 57 15. 33 14. 11 11. 83 9. 03 6. 30 3. 62 1. 35 0. 23 10. 21 8. 00 7. 83 7. 13 6. 72 5. 95 5. 31 4. 26 2. 91 1. 69 0. 62 0. 14 4. 26 24. 42 19. 35 21. 21 16. 83 17. 61 14. 97 12. 97 9. 83 7. 31 3. 00 0. 76 13. 52 Multidisciplinary 17 18 19 20 21 22 Social Sciences, general Space Science

SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTIONS of SOME ISLAMIC COUNTRIES on ISI & SCOPUS ISI 2008 2007 2006 Turkey 24, 755 19, 690 18, 091 Iran 13, 569 9, 157 6, 831 Egypt 4, 775 3, 990 3, 639 Malaysia 3, 372 2, 244 2, 056 Saudi Arabia 2, 213 1, 841 1, 637 Bangladesh 968 719 680 Indonesia 967 852 718 56 48 44 3 9 3 2008 22, 384 15, 808 5, 385 5, 620 2, 606 1, 104 1, 216 86 3 2007 22, 654 13, 553 5, 199 4, 335 2, 469 1, 024 1, 299 83 11 2006 21, 096 10, 326 4, 586 3, 724 2, 306 976 985 62 8 Brunei Maldives SCOPUS Turkey Iran Egypt Malaysia Saudi Arabia Bangladesh Indonesia Brunei Maldives 75

AT UM, ACADEMICS AT ACADEMY OF ISLAMIC STUDIES HAVE RISEN TO THE BENCHMARKS Breakdown of 2009 UM publications by faculty. Faculty *Publication Count **Percent from total publications in 2009 (1169) Acad Islam Studies 2 0. 17% fac arts & social sci 8 0. 68% fac built environm 3 0. 26% fac business & accountancy 7 0. 60% fac comp sci & informat technol 34 2. 91% fac dent 25 2. 14% fac econ & adm 16 1. 37% fac educ 5 0. 43% fac engn 146 12. 49% fac languages & linguist 1 0. 09% fac law 1 0. 09% fac med 382 32. 68% fac sci 682 58. 34% 76

Citation Classics The number of times a paper is cited in the work of other researchers gives an indication of the usefulness of the paper. Citation analysis can expose well-funded researchers publishing in obscure national journals and permit comparison with poorly-funded but well-cited researchers publishing in international journals.

Measures of achievement • • Number of papers published Number of citations Mean number of citations Number of papers with h citations

To move UM forward, we initiated various new initiatives since Jan 2009

UM Academic Transformation 2009 – Phase 1 Initiatives Introduction of Standard Academic Performance Target H-index, Minimum citation Research Culture Workshops ISI Journal Paper Writing Seminars – A new unit created for ISI/Wo. S Publication Unit

Phase 1 – Initiatives - Cont ISI journal submission as requirement for Thesis submission - Ph. D : - 2 ISI journal submission - MSc : - 1 ISI journal submission Rewards for ISI journal Publication according to ISI Journal Tiering Q 1 – Top 25% : RM 6, 000. Q 2 – Top 50% : RM 4, 000. Q 3 – Top 75% : RM 2, 000. Q 4 – Others : RM 1, 000. Reward to Staff/Student for Early Completion of Ph. D - Less than 4 years RM 1, 000. 00 - Less than 3 years RM 2, 000. 00 [Supervisor 50% of the amount]

Phase 1 – Initiatives - Cont An alternative Ph. D award scheme by way of 5 ISI journal publications Commercialization Scheme: Academic staff are allowed to set-up companies for commercialization of their research fundings Balancing postgraduate to undergraduate ratio as 1: 1

Bright Sparks Program introduced in Phase II Identifying top foreigners who can contribute as short and long term measure Attracting and Retaining the Best Malaysian s Bright Sparks Program Identifying the Brightest UM students for building the best human capital resources for UM in the future

“I am not arguing that the new infrastructure fund should simply be handed over to our obvious leaders: Sydney, Melbourne and the Australian National University. I do believe that it must be allocated competitively where it can have the greatest chance of ensuring that we have a few genuinely world-class universities. We can't afford 38 world-class Australian universities. … and our results in the teaching and learning allocation are handicapped because our students have higher entry scores. … It is true that success breeds success, so we are likely to do well in competition. The point is, the world isn't running a handicap race, so Australia (in our case, Malaysia)shouldn't hobble its horses. We must strive for excellence in teaching and learning and the all-round student experience as well as in cutting-edge research, and that requires a sustainable resource base. … Our competitor nations have also recognised that world-class, research-intensive universities are engines of innovation that are critical for the economy…. . It should not be so hard to recognise these differences and celebrate and reward outstanding performance.

Top Cited Academics in UM Prof Edward Tiekink ~ 11, 623 citations ; ISI publications ~ 1176 (Australian) (Sci) Prof Ng Seik Weng ~ 5503 citations; ISI publications ~ 1484 (Retired; UM now) (Sci) Prof Lam S K ~2214 citations; ISI publications ~ 81 (Prof Emeritus)(Med) Prof Mohd Niyaz Khan ~ 1486 citations; ISI publications ~ 174 (Retired; UM now) (Sci) Prof Kam ST ~ 1455 citations; ISI publications ~ 116 (Retired, UM now) (Sci) Prof Chen Wei ~ 1428 citations; ISI publications ~ 110 (Not extended in 2002) (Sci) Prof Kumar Das ~ 1362 citations; ISI publications ~ 110 (Not extended in 1999)(Sci) Prof W. A. T. Abdullah ~ 1309 citations; ISI publications ~ 96 (Sci) Prof Goh KL ~ 1288 citations; ISI publications ~ 154 (Med) Prof Prasad U ~ 1062 citations; ISI publications ~ 36 (Prof Emeritus) (Med) Prof Looi L M ~ 999 citations; ISI publications ~ 79 (Med) Prof Puthuchary ~882 citations; ISI publications ~ 79 (Med) Prof C. T. Tan ~ 920 citations; ISI publications ~ 56 (Med) Prof Wong Kam Tong ~ 987 citations; ISI publications ~ 65 (Med) Prof Sazaly Abu Bakar ~ 380 citations; ISI publications ~ 38 (Med) Prof Adeeba K ~ 787 citations; ISI publications ~ 51 (Med) Prof Datuk A. Hamid A. Hadi ~ 679 citations; ISI publications ~ 86 (Sci) Prof Saad Tayyab ~ 555 citations; ISI publications ~ 69 (Sci) Prof Mohd Ali Hashim ~ 505 citations; ISI publications ~ 62 (Engineering) Prof Harith Ahmad ~ 685 citations; ISI publications ~ 207 (Sci) Prof Sulaiman Wadi Harun ~ 550 citations; ISI publications ~ 163 (Eng) Prof Siar Chong Huat ~ 422 citations; ISI publications ~ 59 (Dent) Prof Masjuki Hassan ~ 411 citations; ISI publications ~ 77 (Eng)

3000 UM ISI Publications 2000 -2009 + 5 year projection R 2 = 0. 9815 2670. 10177963393 2500 Introduction of UM’s strategy in Nov 2008 2000 2250. 38200068255 200 Publications 1899. 20608028142 ISI per Staff: 0. 53 (2009) 1605. 38021537296 1500 2009 1359. 53864744715 1326 Expected: ISI/staff: ~ >1. 00 Based on Staff size: ~2500 in 2014 1000 914 50 657 500 448 496 503 364 249 269 255 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Year (from 2000) forecast (anchored from 2000 -2009) UM publications (2000 -2009) Expon. (forecast (anchored from 2000 -2009)) 16

NUS 2009: ~1. 2 ISI papers per staff NUS publications 2000 -2009 + 5 year projection 10000 9000 8694. 90459807335 8000 7947. 33915931799 7000 7264. 04746605554 6639. 50342766493 Publications 6000 R 2 = 0. 9804 6068. 6560725232 500 0 5000 4505 4000 5037 4690 4915 4210 2009 3910 3000 3312 20002406 2568 2738 200 0 1000 0 0 2 4 forecast anchored from 2000 -2009 6 8 Year (from 2000) NUS publications 10 12 Expon. (forecast anchored from 2000 -2009) 14 16

UM Citations In 2009: 2. 65 citations/staff UM citations 2000 -2009 + 5 year projection 14000 Introduction of UM’s strategy in Nov 2008 Cumulative citations at citing year 12000 10000 11823. 9344646166 R 2 = 0. 987 10275. 1239299387 8929. 1912173181 1000 0 8000 7759. 56147478855 6000 6743. 14087531738 6643 500 0 4000 5503 4091 3295 2000 2523 1863 2018 3481 2606 2031 0 0 2 4 forecast (anchored from 2000 -2009) 6 8 Citing year (from 2000) UM citations (all publications within 1980 -2009) 10 12 14 Expon. (forecast (anchored from 2000 -2009)) 16

NUS in 2009: 21 citations/staff NUS citations 2000 -2009 + 5 year projection 300000 Cumulative citations at citing year 250000 R 2 = 0. 9988 240, 680 200000 198, 060 150000 162, 987 134, 125 100000 110, 374 90, 976 78, 103 50000 60, 254 42, 765 016, 480 0 19, 239 22, 386 28, 473 50, 655 31, 689 2 forecast (anchored from 2000 -2009) 4 6 8 Citing year (from 2000) NUS Citations (all publications within 1980 -2009) 10 12 14 Expon. (forecast (anchored from 2000 -2009)) 16

Comparison of Budgets’ of UM against leading Universities Institution UM Harvard World THE Rank 2009 180 1 Total Assets (Including Endowments) RM 20, 450, 544. 85 2008 Annual Report US 64 billion (RM 250 billion) 2008 Annual Report NUS NTU 2 73 Research Funding RM 102 million for 2008 US 535 million (RM 2. 0 Billion) for 2008 RM 11. 2 billion 2008 Annual Report RM 650 million for 2008 RM 6. 00 billion 2007 Annual Report RM 400 million for 2007 91

KPI UNIVERSITI Malaya’s key performance indicators, although challenging, are well-defined, acknowledges Prof Dr Kurunathan Ratnavelu, head of the unit for ranking and development of higher education at UM, “I believe that the KPIs introduced in UM in 2007 and their further evolution this year are an objective method to measure productivity, ” says Prof Kurunathan. He accepts that radical measures were needed to raise standards. “The challenge for us academics, including myself, will be great. We have to accept that many of us might have to make way for stronger academic staff in the next five to 10 years if we want a world-class university. ” The Star 6. 9. 2009 6/5/2021 92

Rising to the challenges 6/5/2021 93

“The Future is embedded in the Present” Naisbitt When we look back in history, we always say. ‘The signs were already there – we should’ve known!’ Looking back, we’re always much smarter – we just knew it too late 9/23/2008 94

Catalysing Systemic Change-APEX An important approach towards achieving world-class status is the establishment of one or two APEX universities. An APEX university is a conceptual construct that in due time will stand atop the pyramid of institutions. The APEX universities will be the nations centres of academic distinction (Transforming Higher Education in Malaysia – downloaded on 22. 9. 2008 MOHE webpage) 9/23/2008 Kuru Ratnavelu-PKAUM Forum ppt 95

The findings indicate an urgent need for Malaysia to take steps to increase S & T knowledge outputs so as to achieve better status in world science, as well as fulfill the country’s Vision 2020… (The Bibliometric Study of Science and Technology Knowledge Productivity in Malaysia 2004) 9/23/2008 Kuru Ratnavelu-PKAUM Forum ppt 96

These indicators for R & D output as measured by the productivity of the researchers and the quality of their publications is a useful barometer to monitor for university managers as well as funding bodies. 9/23/2008 Kuru Ratnavelu-PKAUM Forum ppt 97

Comments on Academic Leadership 6/5/2021 World Class University attributes @KR&HY 2006 98

“In higher education, implacable external forces combine with the nature of the academic culture-the fundamental values and beliefs of academic and other university staff-to produce a potent mixture. This mixture makes up the unique challenge which each person who undertakes a leadership role in a university must address” (Paul Ramsden 1998).

What is academic leadership? Can the present breed of academic leaders in Malaysian IPTAs take up the ardous challenge in leading their universities? Can we classify these academic leaders in the last decade within the categories extolled by Cox (2001) essentially divides them into two distinct types of leaders: Transactional and transformational leadership. The first gratified the followers for their work and loyalty The latter were those who engaged with followers and raised consciousness of significance of specific 6/5/2021 outcomes and changing the ways to achieve (Barbuto 100

In an attempt to gauge the quality of academic research leadership, Hashim and Ratnavelu (2008) undertook a preliminary survey of the Research Productivity Output Of The Top Management In various public and research universities In Malaysia over the last two decades. Hashim and Ratnavelu (2008) strongly believe that academics in general look to the shining examples of their managers’ leadership for inspiration and impetus. Thus it is only natural that academic staff at these universities will inevitably look at their leaders as the example to follow both in research and teaching leadership. Thus, there seems be a(1998) strong among the poor performance of Paul to Ramsden Learningcorrelation to lead in higher education, 288 pgs these academic(Routledge) leaders and the research performance of their universities. P. L. Cox (2001) Transformational leadership: A success story at Cornell University, Proceedings of the ATEM/AAPPA conference (http: //www. anu. edu. au/facilties/atem-aappaa/full_papers/Coxkeynote. html) J. E. Barbutto (Jnr) (2005) Motivation and transactional, charismatic and transformational leadership: A test of antecedents, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol 11 (4), 26 -40 Y. Hashim and K. Ratnavelu (2008), personal communication. 6/5/2021 101

“Yet at the top of my list of undesirable jobs would be running Harvard University, where Larry Summers resigned last week just in time to save himself the ignominy of a vote of no confidence. It is not just the top slot at Harvard I would turn down. It is the head of any university, in particular a successful one. The point of being at the helm of a ship (or organization) is that you get to steer the thing. In most companies changing course is hard: at big, successful universities it seems impossible” Lucy Kellaway, Financial Times 2006 6/5/2021 102

How would a Malaysian university reach the status of a world ranked university? üIts clear that we need to do good quality research that is globally acknowledged. 103