Re-evaluation of the TÜBİTAK Entrepreneurial and Innovative University Index using objective weighting methods

Year 2025, Volume: 13 Issue: 2, 137 - 165, 31.12.2025

Seda Karakaş Geyik

https://doi.org/10.17093/alphanumeric.1723778

Abstract

Today, the performance of universities is evaluated not only based on their academic outputs but also on their collaboration, intellectual property production, and economic and social contributions. In this context, the Entrepreneurial and Innovative University Index (EIUI), developed by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye (TÜBİTAK), evaluates universities in Türkiye according to four dimensions and 23 indicators. The EIUI methodology is based on subjective weights determined by expert opinions and policy priorities; however, in multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problems, results are often sensitive to the weighting approach employed. This study uses objective weighting methods such as CRITIC (Criterion Importance Through Correlation of Criteria), SD (Standard Deviation), CILOS (Criterion Impact Loss of Significance), and LOPCOW (Logarithmic Percentage Change Objective Weighting). Based on these weights, university rankings were re-established through the TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) and ARAS (Additive Ratio Assessment) methods and compared with the original TÜBİTAK ranking. Ranking consistency was examined using Spearman's rank correlation analysis, and it was found that all correlations were statistically significant (p-value < 0.05), and that the highest correlation was observed between the TÜBİTAK ranking and the LOPCOW–ARAS method (ρ=0.985). The findings were supported by visualization tools such as heatmaps and radar charts. The highest variation in criterion weights among the methods was observed for Net Sales Revenue of Companies Owned by Students/Graduates, Number of BİGG Companies, Net Sales Revenue of Companies Owned by Academics, and Number of Faculty Members/Students with Mobility. In the ranking results, Middle East Technical University and Istanbul Technical University frequently occupy the top positions. In general, universities in the top and bottom ranks exhibit consistent positions across different methods, while universities in the middle ranks are more sensitive to methodological choices. This highlights the importance of considering alternative weighting and ranking approaches in university performance evaluations.

Keywords

Objective Weighting Methods , TÜBİTAK Entrepreneurial and Innovative University Index , TOPSIS , ARAS , Visualization Tools

References

• Altbach, P. (2006). The Dilemmas of Ranking. International Higher Education, 42. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2006.42.7878
• Altbach, P. G., & Salmi, J. (2011). The Road to Academic Excellence. World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-8805-1
• Belton, V., & Stewart, T. J. (2002). Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1495-4
• Bezanson, J., Edelman, A., Karpinski, S., & Shah, V. B. (2017). Julia: A Fresh Approach to Numerical Computing. SIAM Review, 59(1), 65–98. https://doi.org/10.1137/141000671
• Bowman, N. A., & Bastedo, M. N. (2011). Anchoring effects in world university rankings: exploring biases in reputation scores. Higher Education, 61(4), 431–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9339-1
• Çınaroğlu, E. (2021). CRITIC Temelli MARCOS Yöntemi ile Yenilikçi ve Girişimci Üniversite Analizi. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 10(1), 111–133.
• Clarivate. (2025). The top 50 universities powering global innovation: The flow of university research to patented inventions. Institute for Scientific Information. https://clarivate.com/top-100-innovators
• Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organisational pathways of transformation. Guildford: IAU Pergamon/Elsevier.
• Çoban, B. (2024). The Classification of Success Performance of Entrepreneurial and Innovative Universities with Artificial Intelligence Methods. Ege Akademik Bakis (Ege Academic Review). https://doi.org/10.21121/eab.20240406
• Demir, G., & Arslan, R. (2022). Sensitivity Analysis in Multi-Criterion Decision-Making Problems. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi İktisadi Ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(3), 1025–1056. https://doi.org/10.26745/ahbvuibfd.1103531
• Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., & Papayannakis, L. (1995). Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The critic method. Computers & Operations Research, 22(7), 763–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(94)00059-h
• Ecer, F., & Pamucar, D. (2022). A novel LOPCOW-DOBI multi-criteria sustainability performance assessment methodology: An application in developing country banking sector. Omega, 112, 102690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2022.102690
• Elevli, S., & Elevli, B. (2024). A study of entrepreneur and innovative university index by entropy-based grey relational analysis and PROMETHEE. Scientometrics, 129(6), 3193–3223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05033-z
• Fauzi, M. A., Tan, C. N. L., Daud, M., & Awalludin, M. M. N. (2020). University rankings: A review of methodological flaws. Issues in Educational Research, 30(1), 79–96.
• Harvey, L. (2008). Rankings of Higher Education Institutions: A Critical Review. Quality in Higher Education, 14(3), 187–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538320802507711
• Hazelkorn, E. (2015). What Rankings Measure. In Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education (pp. 26–90). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137446671_2
• Hazelkorn, E. (2021). Are Rankings (Still) Fit for Purpose?. In The Promise of Higher Education (pp. 293–299). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67245-4_45
• Huang, M.-H. (2012). Opening the black box of QS World University Rankings. Research Evaluation, 21(1), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvr003
• Hunter, J. D. (2007). Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment. Computing in Science & Engineering, 9(3), 90–95. https://doi.org/10.1109/mcse.2007.55
• Hwang, C.-L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Methods for Multiple Attribute Decision Making. In Multiple Attribute Decision Making (pp. 58–191). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9_3
• Jahan, A., Mustapha, F., Sapuan, S. M., Ismail, M. Y., & Bahraminasab, M. (2012). A framework for weighting of criteria in ranking stage of material selection process. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 58(1–4), 411–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-011-3366-7
• Karahan, M., & Kızkapan, L. (2022). Türkiye'deki Bazı Üniversitelerin Girişimcilik ve Yenilikçilik Performanslarının Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri ile Değerlendirilmesi. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 12(3), 610–620. https://doi.org/10.5961/higheredusci.1105382
• Marginson, S., & van der Wende, M. (2007). To Rank or To Be Ranked: The Impact of Global Rankings in Higher Education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 306–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315307303544
• Mirkin, B. (1974). The problem of group choice. Russia: Publishing house Nauka.
• Oğuz, S. (2022). Evaluation of the Entrepreneurial and Innovative Universities in Turkey through MultipleCriteria Decision Making Methods. Kastamonu Eğitim Dergisi, 30(2), 353–361. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.799505
• Ömürbek, N., & Karataş, T. (2018). Girişimci ve yenilikçi üniversitelerin performanslarının çok kriterli karar verme teknikleri ile değerlendirilmesi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 10(24), 176–198. https://doi.org/10.20875/makusobed.414685
• Salmi, J. (2009). The Challenge of Establishing World Class Universities. The World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-7865-6
• Satıcı, S. (2022). MEREC Temelli WASPAS Yöntemiyle Üniversitelerin Girişimci ve Yenilikçi Performanslarının Değerlendirilmesi. Girişimcilik Ve Kalkınma Dergisi, 17(2), 106–128.
• Satman, M., Yıldırım, B. F., & Kuruca, E. (2021). JMcDM: A Julia package for multiple-criteria decision-making tools. Journal of Open Source Software, 6(65), 3430. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03430
• Triantaphyllou, E. (2000). Multi-criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3157-6
• TÜBİTAK. (2024a). Entrepreneurial and Innovative University Index 2024 Indicator Definitions and Sources Report. https://www.tubitak.gov.tr/
• TÜBİTAK. (2024b). Entrepreneurial and Innovative University Index 2024 methodology report. https://www.tubitak.gov.tr/
• Uslu, B., Çalıkoğlu, A., Seggie, F. N., & Seggie, S. H. (2020). Evaluating the Criteria of TÜBİTAK Entrepreneurial and Innovative University Index in Terms of the Prominent Operations of the Entrepreneurial University. Yuksekogretim Dergisi, 10. https://doi.org/10.2399/yod.19.011
• Waskom, M. (2021). seaborn: statistical data visualization. Journal of Open Source Software, 6(60), 3021. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03021
• WURI. (2025). The First Hanseatic League of Universities Conference. https://www.wuri.world/history
• Yazdani, M., Zarate, P., Kazimieras Zavadskas, E., & Turskis, Z. (2019). A Combined Compromise Solution (CoCoSo) Method for Multi-criteria Decision-making Problems. Management Decision, 57(9), 2501–2519. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-05-2017-0458
• Yenilmez, İ. (2024). Productivity, Efficiency and Entrepreneurial - Innovative University Index: An Analysis for Universities in Türkiye. Eskişehir Technical University Journal of Science and Technology a - Applied Sciences and Engineering, 25(3), 415–426. https://doi.org/10.18038/estubtda.1455818
• Yıldırım, B. F., & Kuzu Yıldırım, S. (2020). Yenilikçi ve Girişimci Üniversite Endeksi Verilerinin 2012-2017 Dönem Aralığında ARAS-G Yöntemi İle Değerlendirilmesi. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 9(2), 166–187.
• Zardari, N. H., Ahmed, K., Shirazi, S. M., & Yusop, Z. B. (2014). Weighting Methods and their Effects on Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model Outcomes in Water Resources Management. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12586-2
• Zavadskas, E. K., & Podvezko, V. (2016). Integrated Determination of Objective Criteria Weights in MCDM. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 15(2), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219622016500036
• Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2010). A New Additive Ratio Assessment (ARAS) Method in Multicriteria Decision-making. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 16(2), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2010.10
• Zavadskas, E., Turskis, Z., & Vilutiene, T. (2010). Multiple criteria analysis of foundation instalment alternatives by applying Additive Ratio Assessment (ARAS) method. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 10(3), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1644-9665(12)60141-1