This paper analyzes the potential impact of reputational bias on academic classifications based upon current research performance measures. Empirical evidence supports the existence of a noticeable effect of reputational bias in the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), informally known as the Shanghai Ranking. Despite using reliable, objective data, the results of the ranking are partially contaminated by the halo effect that pervades peer review processes and citation practices behind two of ARWU’s main indicators: highly cited researchers (HiCi), and papers published in Nature and Science (N&S). ARWU results may contribute to reinforcing reputational bias through a vicious feedback loop. The study describes a method for quantifying the bias present in the aforementioned indicators. Our findings reveal that bias exists in N&S but not in HiCi, and that while it benefits top universities and Japanese universities, it stifles Australian counterparts. The paper paves the way for a new, interesting debate that will require future research to identify and cope with shortcomings derived from the impact of reputational bias in journal procedures both when evaluating and accepting manuscripts, as well as in the methodology of global university rankings.

中文翻译：

---

基于客观研究绩效数据分析声誉偏见对全球大学排名的影响：以上海排名（ARWU）为例

本文根据当前的研究绩效指标分析了声誉偏见对学术分类的潜在影响。实证证据支持在世界大学学术排名（ARWU）（非正式地称为上海排名）中存在明显的声誉偏见影响。尽管使用了可靠、客观的数据，但排名结果在一定程度上受到了同行评审过程和 ARWU 两个主要指标背后的引用实践的光环效应的污染：高被引研究人员 (HiCi) 和发表在《自然与科学》(N&S) 上的论文）。ARWU 结果可能会通过恶性反馈循环加剧声誉偏见。该研究描述了一种量化上述指标中存在的偏差的方法。我们的研究结果表明，N& 中存在偏见 S 但不是在 HiCi 中，虽然它有利于顶尖大学和日本大学，但它扼杀了澳大利亚同行。这篇论文为一场新的、有趣的辩论铺平了道路，未来的研究需要在评估和接受手稿以及全球大学排名方法时识别和应对期刊程序中声誉偏见的影响所产生的缺陷。