Massachusetts Institute of Technology · Johns Hopkins University

Radar chart profiling Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Johns Hopkins University on output, citations, h-index, impact, reach and breadth — A profile, not a scoreboard: further out means more of that measure, never better. Each axis is scaled to the larger of the two on a log scale.

Output	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Johns Hopkins University	Larger
Indexed articlesDocuments attributed to the organisation.	279,884	362,868	Johns Hopkins University
CitationsCitations those documents have received.	17,906,884	17,279,076	comparable
Articles in 2-star journalsOutput placed in the second tier of journals.	80,283	109,549	Johns Hopkins University
Articles in 3-star journalsOutput placed in the top tier of journals.	10,833	10,420	comparable

Reach	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Johns Hopkins University	Larger
Peer-reviewed h-indexDepth of the cited record rather than its recent average.	1,009	893	Massachusetts Institute of Technology
h-index (all documents)The same across every indexed document, not only peer-reviewed ones.	1,173	1,021	Massachusetts Institute of Technology
2-year impactCitations in the last two years per citable item.	5.81	3.40	Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Score C tierWhere the prestige-weighted citation ratio places it among all organisations of its type. Tier 1 is the top 5%.	1	2	Johns Hopkins University

Spread of the work	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Johns Hopkins University	Larger
Journals citing the workHow widely the output is picked up, counted in distinct journals.	55,457	56,222	comparable
Disciplines citing the workHow far outside its own subjects the output travels.	9,086	9,016	comparable
Journals published inDistinct journals the organisation has appeared in.	32,151	39,795	Johns Hopkins University
Disciplines published inHow broad the research programme is.	13,476	15,240	Johns Hopkins University
Open-access shareShare of articles under an open licence, among those whose licence could be read.	43.4%	40.3%	Massachusetts Institute of Technology

How the work is cited over time	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Johns Hopkins University	Larger
Self-citation rateCitations whose citing paper comes from the same organisation.	5.0%	7.0%	Johns Hopkins University
Citation half-lifeYears over which half of an article's citations arrive. A longer half-life means work that keeps being read.	32.37	96.80	Johns Hopkins University
Immediacy indexHow quickly citations start arriving after publication.	1.21	0.78	Massachusetts Institute of Technology

This describes the indexed record of each university and nothing else. The two are very often of different sizes, and most of the measures above grow with size, so a larger figure means a larger organisation before it means anything else. Nothing here ranks one against the other. Full detail: Massachusetts Institute of Technology · Johns Hopkins University · compare a different pair.

Download this comparison:JSON CSV

What this page is

This is a description, not a ranking. Two universities are put side by side so the differences between them are visible — how much they publish, how widely it is cited, how far it travels and how it ages. No measure here is presented as better than another, and no overall verdict is drawn, because there is no single question a university comparison answers the way "where should this paper go" is answered for journals.

Reading the chart

The chart summarises six of the measures below. It is a profile, not a scoreboard: further out means more of that thing, never better.

Output — indexed articles attributed to the organisation.
Citations — citations those articles have received.
Depth — the peer-reviewed h-index, which describes the depth of the cited record rather than its recent average.
Impact — the 2-year impact: citations in the last two years per citable item. This is the one axis that does not simply grow with size.
Reach — how many distinct journals cite the work, i.e. how widely it is picked up.
Breadth — how many distinct disciplines the organisation publishes in.

Each axis is scaled to the larger of the two on a log scale. Four of the six grow with size, so a large organisation beside a small one will look larger on most of them — that is the difference in scale being shown, not a difference in quality.

Comparable universities

Compare

Massachusetts Institute of Technology vs Johns Hopkins University