Global Ranking Systems Research Articles

Patterns and trends of university-industry research collaboration in Ghana between 2011 and 2020

Purpose The ranking of universities and other research-intensive institutions in global ranking systems is based on numerous indicators, including number of articles with external collaboration, number of articles with international collaboration, number of articles with industry collaboration as well as co-patents with industry. The purpose of this paper is to examine university–industry research collaboration in Ghana, with the aim of exploring the relationship between the research output collaborations in the top four universities in Ghana and industry across different geographical scales. Design/methodology/approach This study’s data was obtained from the SciVal database, which drawn its data from the Scopus bibliographic and citation database. The bibliographic and citation data were extracted using a search of the publications affiliated to the University of Ghana, for the period 2011–2020. Findings Key findings demonstrate a constant rise in the number of research publications by the selected universities over time. Research collaboration intensity in the selected universities in terms of co-authored publications was higher as compared to single-authored publications. University–industry research co-authorships were, however, lower when compared to university–university research co-authorships. The university–industry research co-authorships occurred mostly with Europe, Asia-Pacific and North American-based institutions as opposed to African-based institutions. In Ghana, four industry-based institutions were engaged in intensive research with the selected universities. Originality/value This study demonstrates that, for each selected university, it is possible to measure the performance of individual universities in both intra-regional and international collaboration. Such results may be useful in informing policy as well as merit-based public funding of universities in Ghana.

A Comparison of Six Global Ranking Systems Considering Weight Distribution and Indicator Types by Correlation Analysis

The study examines and compares the indicators used by the six global ranking systems, as well as the weights assigned to the indicators used by each ranking system. In the comparison process, the inter-ranking correlation between the ranking systems is determined by Spearman’s rank correlation method to understand primarily the similarities between different ranking systems based on rank or positions held by different institutions. The study frames all the indicators, considering various ranking systems, in a common ranking framework for establishing the co-relation matrix. The framing of seven distinct ranking characteristics or indications aids in understanding the weighting scheme used by the six ranking methods. The work then further investigates the reasons for differing Spearman’s ranking correlation values by exploring different ways of calculating the ranking indices adopted by different ranking agencies. The weight distribution across the indicators is another factor which is required to be taken into consideration while observing the correlation between the two ranking systems. Karl Pearson’s statistical measure is applied to find the similarities of the weights associated with each indicator in different raking systems. The outcome of this research provides a comprehensive view of countries like India which are participating in different international ranking systems to improve their ranking while taking part in various ranking systems. Different test cases and in-depth analyses show that it is not an easy task for the institutes to perform better in all the ranking systems.

Exploring the role of ranking systems towards university performance improvement: A focus group-based study

The development of multiple university ranking systems at national and global levels has been driven by increasing interest in improving efficiency in the national educational sector without compromising the demand for international standards. Global university ranking systems play an important role by providing the foundation for competing in this global era. One approach could be developing and evaluating criteria to reduce the unnecessary use of standard, less productive indicators. This study aims to systematically exploit national and global university ranking systems in terms of their indicators and relevance to national educational needs. This study uses two online qualitative focus groups with 10 participants each. The participants were purposively sampled, and the transcribed data from the focus group were thematically analyzed. Findings indicate that university ranking should include indicators like governance and digital presence, as these are missing in global ranking indicators. These findings will guide the development of a university ranking framework that policymakers and universities can implement to improve institutional performance.

Sustaining the ecosystem of higher education in China: Perspectives from young researchers

The sustainable development of higher education in China has been a key priority for the national, social, economic and political development. Responding to the severe competition in various university ranking systems, most universities in China have set aims to enhance their sustainability in research and publication. There has been a prominent conflict that young scholars are expected to be productive, with publications in academic journals, competitive in receiving national and municipal research grants, and prestigious in the national and international arenas, or they will be terminated by the ‘six-year-up-or-out’ policy. Recent reform in higher education that calls for a sustainable development for young researchers is a strategy to revert the side effects from global university ranking systems by nurturing young researchers in their early academic lives, enhancing their productivity in research and publication internationally, and enhancing their global competitiveness without harming sustainability in academic development. This research explored (i) the difficulties that most young scholars face in sustainable academic research development, (ii) the factors that enhance or inhibit research productivity of young researchers, and (iii) the work lives in their early-career development in China. A qualitative study was conducted with data obtained from semistructured, in-depth interviews of 24 young university researchers from three provinces and a municipality in China. Findings show that factors that relate to sustainable research productivity are individual attributes, discipline attributes, institutional attributes and policy attributes. Lastly, suggestions for policy making in higher education and for improving sustainable research development of young researchers in China are provided and implications for future research are discussed.

Questionable conferences and presenters from top-ranked universities

This article aims to investigate the structures of 935 conferences organised by OMICS and 296 conferences organised by WASET from 2015 through 2017. These conferences are characterised in existing literature as so-called predatory or questionable conferences that provide low-quality academic meetings. We analyse 40,224 presenters, focusing on top-ranked institutions according to three global university ranking systems (Academic Ranking of World Universities, Times Higher Education World University Rankings, and QS World University Rankings). Our analysis shows that participants in OMICS events were primarily researchers from the United States, India, the United Kingdom, and China. WASET attracted more researchers from Turkey, India, and South Korea. We found that 11.0% of OMICS and 5.7% of WASET presenters were affiliated with institutions ranked in the top 100 in one of the three aforementioned rankings. We also found that both companies mostly organised conferences in cities that were top tourist destinations.

Global and national university rankings: A multivariate analysis

Introduction. In the context of globalisation and internationalisation of higher education, university rankings are becoming an important tool for assessing the quality of education received by students at various higher education institutions around the world. These processes actualise the issues of possibilities for practical use of methodologies for calculation of global and national university rankings.The aim of the study was to develop and apply a methodological approach to multivariate the analysis of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) classification procedures, to construct and analyse aggregated indicators for global and national rating systems of higher education organisations, and to assess the relationship between them.Methodology and research methods. The current paper presents a system analysis of databases of rating systems and an aggregation of independent evaluations of global and national rankings of HEIs using the methodology of league table analysis based on mathematical apparatus of the voting theory. The dependence of global and national university rankings indicators was investigated using correlation, cluster, factor, regression (linear and polynomial) and dispersion methods of analysis.Results and scientific novelty. A comprehensive comparative analysis of ranking systems and their results was carried out. The authors solved the problem of aggregating multiple heterogeneous studies of global and national ranking systems with their qualitative and quantitative variety of criteria, indicators and methods of assessment. The correlation between the indicators of aggregated global and national rankings was revealed; the regression dependence of the integral national ranking with the results of the leading global rating systems was determined.Practical significance. The developed methodical approach is a convenient and effective mechanism for comprehensive monitoring of the members of educational process.

Students’ perspectives on quality of engineering education in India

It is widely held that engineering education in India has expanded massively at the cost of quality, quality being perceived in terms of, inter alia, ranking of institutions in the national and global university ranking systems, and employability and attributes of graduates. Evidence on these aspects is based on the perspectives of the policy makers, administrators in higher education and employers in the labour market. Rarely the students’ perspectives on quality of their education are considered in formulating these conclusions. Assuming that students’ perceptions on the quality of education, which may differ from prevailing perceptions of the others, are important and they need to be paid attention to in research and policy making, the attempt in this study is to examine this aspect and fill the gap in research to some extent. Based on a survey of about 7,000 students enrolled in undergraduate engineering studies in 48 public and private institutions in four major states in India, this article presents a contrasting perspective on quality of engineering education in India. The findings are indeed perplexing, as a majority of students are ‘satisfied’ with the quality of education in their institutions, and they are well prepared for the world of work in India or abroad, and/or for further education. These findings will compel the researchers to widen their approach to study quality-related problems of higher education in India, and administrators and policy makers to rethink on their perspectives and associated actions.

Systematic Evaluation Model for Developing Sustainable World-Class Universities: An East Asian Perspective

Due to the unbalance between Asian and Western countries in terms of higher education development and pressure from global competition, universities in several East Asian countries have striven to become world-class universities (WCUs) by actively assessing themselves using various global ranking systems and subsequently investing in key performance indicators. Numerous scholars have suggested that for these East Asian catch-up universities (EACUs), independently improving the elements related to high-weight indicators could produce short-term increases in ranking performance; however, this approach is not conducive to sustainable development. In addition, little is currently understood regarding sustainable development strategies for developing EACUs into WCUs. This study proposes a systematic evaluation model for self-assessment and the creation of strategies to transform EACUs into sustainable WCUs. The fuzzy Delphi method was used to determine criteria for a new evaluation framework, and the decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory method was employed to construct the influential relationships among the criteria. Two cases were then selected to demonstrate the superiority of the model for creating sustainable development strategies for EACUs. This study provides a systematic perspective and a useful tool for decision-makers at EACUs to achieve sustainable development goals.

Revisiting Ranking of Academic Institutions

The article provides an overview of ranking systems including its historical evolution, use of rankings by different stakeholders, ranking indicators, merits and demerits of different ranking systems and performance of Indian universities in in past one decade in global ranking systems. The article briefly describes nine global ranking systems and compares them based on weightage assigned to different categories of indicators and source of data used for ranking of HEIs. Lastly, article provides statistical inter-correlation amongst various ranking systems as well as intra-correlation within ranking systems at interval of five years (2011:2015; and 2016:2020) and 10 years (2011-2020).

Soft Power of Higher Education as a Global Leadership Factor

Introduction. The main objectives of foreign policy of any state include the extension of its influence in the international arena. In the era of information and knowledge, one of the most effective tools for this task is soft power of education. In this respect, education is seen as a promising soft power instrument, which long-term character allows a country to promote not only its cultural, scientific and technological achievements, but also its cultural values and norms of social organisation. Today, universities are also seeking to strengthen their positions in global education rankings, which are used to define the status and reputation of a particular university in the global market of educational services. This ranking serves as a guide for future students and their parents, when choosing a prestigious education location and when developing individual career paths.The aims of the present research are the following: to analyse soft power of higher education as a soft power mechanism, which allows a country to achieve and maintain leadership positions in the international arena; to specify conditi ons, factors and barriers that determine the position of universities in global ranking systems.Methodology and research methods. The methodological framework is based on the concept of soft power and the theory of internationalisation of higher education. The empirical study was conducted following the tradition of qualitative sociological research. In 2018, a series of semi-structured interviews was conducted among Ural Federal University employees, whose responsibilities were related to the promotion of the university on the global educational market. The Ural Federal University (UrFU) can be considered representative in terms of practices aimed at attracting foreign students to the BRICS countries. In addition, UrFU is a place where the concept of a network BRICS University was realised in 2017. A total of 5 expert interviews were conducted. The collected data were analysed in the context of the World Bank statistics on the money spent by the BRICS countries on education and R&D during the 1999–2015 period (% of GDP), as well as the data provided by the QS World University Rankings – 2019 to analyse the reputation of BRICS universities.Results and scientific novelty. The case study of Ural Federal University allowed the authors to consider the specific practices of BRICS zones for attracting foreign students. The authors analysed the specifics of actions taken by a university to promote its international leadership positions in the international space on the example of students from China. It is shown that the role of global ranking systems (institutional and faculty) in the choice of a university is steadily growing. At the same time, factors determining the attractiveness of the Ural Federal University for foreign students, in particular for Chinese students, include a reasonable level of tuition, the quality of the education and the formed ethnic social networks. For them, the Russian education is expected to be a factor in achieving a higher social status in their home countries. This demonstrates the effective role of education as a soft power instrument, although in the long-term perspective. The authors identified a number of findings concerning the barriers faced by Russian universities on the way to recognising them as global actors of higher vocational education. It is possible to enter the Top 500 best world universities; however, the task of maintaining the achieved position in global rankings is more complicated and cannot be completed without a steady increase in the performance over several years. A world-class university should attract gifted youth, qualified teachers and researchers. The reduction in the number of talented people and research results leads to the loss of geopolitical mission by the educational organisation. Inadequate funding may prevent universities from breakthrough and sustainable improvement of their reputation.Practical significance. The research findings might be useful for managers of higher education and for strategists involved in positioning and making forecasts of educational institutions development. Also, the present findings can be applied by specialists engaged in the issues of educational policy, distribution of public investments, as well as the issues of international interaction and competition between states in order to realise national interests and support national economy in the country in the long term.

The creation of the UTS Social Impact Framework: A collaborative approach for transformational change

The relationship between education and public purpose has been historical and remains fundamental to the core mission of the higher education sector. Alongside the growth of engaged scholarship and practice, increasing and, at times, competing forces work to influence institutional focus and direction. Key amongst these are global university ranking systems, which have begun to shift their gaze beyond traditional notions of academic excellence to also consider impact and engagement. The tension between external and internal drivers for social engagement can fragment institutional focus and undermine community impact. In the face of this challenge, holistic institutional frameworks that systemically and culturally underpin, enable and make inherent engaged scholarship remain scarce. Their absence risks marginalising engaged university practice, teaching and research, thereby limiting the potential impact of universities.
 This article aims to address this gap in the literature by examining the question of how universities can create a whole-of-institution approach to their public purpose agenda. Using the University of Technology Sydney as a case, the development of the UTS Social Impact Framework is shared here. We detail the use of Appreciative Inquiry and Theory of Change as underpinning participatory methodologies that have resulted in a systems approach to change, based on institutional strengths. The resulting framework articulates a shared vision and outlines a guiding roadmap encompassing six domains of change, expressed as outcomes, and an additional three preconditions. Woven together, these create a robust image of the systemic and cultural dynamics needed to realise the shared vision of the university, ensuring that contribution to social outcomes remains a core mission of this higher education institution. The adopted approach used in this study can inform the development of contextually relevant frameworks across the sector, with potential to reposition engagement, beyond an aspect of practice, as a systemic precondition that enables broader social change.

HEC Ranking Criteria in the Perspective of Global University Ranking Systems

Globalization and market-based orientation of higher education institutions has increased interest of students, parents, employers, universities, funding agencies, governments, and relevant stakeholders in knowing the rank of their concerned universities at national/global level. This has led to the emergence of several global university ranking systems. Aligned with international trends of ranking, Higher Education of Pakistan [HEC] also initiated ranking of universities at the national level in Pakistan. Subsequently, HEC designed comprehensive ranking criteria for ranking of universities and has implemented it since 2010. This study analyzes the nature of HEC ranking criteria and its constituent indicators from the perspective of global university ranking systems. Using content and thematic analysis, this study found that global university ranking systems mainly focus quality of research and teaching, while HEC additionally focuses effective and efficient use of resources, provision of facilities, social integration, and impact on community development.

Sustainability and Indicators of Newly Formed World-Class Universities (NFWCUs) between 2010 and 2018: Empirical Analysis from the Rankings of ARWU, QSWUR and THEWUR

In the 21st century, sustainability and indicators of world-class universities have come within the scope of an academic cottage industry. The complex problem of university sustainability implies a big challenge for countries and educators to implement important strategies in an integrated and comprehensive way. This paper highlights and analyzes the sustainability indicators of universities included as newly formed world-class universities (NFWCUs) in the top 100 from 2010 and 2018. The integration of three global ranking scales—the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), the Quacquarelli–Symonds World University Ranking (QS) and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THEs)—allows us to minimize the impact of the methodology used. This study integrates regression analysis by using statistical grouping, case studies and normative analysis. Our principal findings are as follows: among the commonly ranked top 100 universities in 2018, the ARWU, QS and THE counted 57, compared with 47 in 2010. Thus, comparing 2010 and 2018 shows that 44 of the universities appeared simultaneously in ARWU, QS and THE rankings and maintained a sustainable position in any ranking system in the family of top 100 groups. Three lower-ranked NFWCUs in the hybrid list for 2010 lost their ranking and did not appear in the group of top 100 universities in 2018, which are covered by some catch-up and young universities. The NFWCUs were from US, Australia, China, Singapore, Germany and Belgium. By systematic comparison, the US and UK continued to dominate the stability of NFWCUs in 2010 and 2018. The key sustainability indicators include a high concentration of talent, abundant resources to offer a rich learning environment and conduct advanced research. Generally, the factors were negatively associated with ranking suggesting that a higher score result in top ranking and vice versa. Teaching, research, citation and international outlook were negatively correlated with THE ranking in 2018. Similarly, Alumni and PUB were negatively associated with ARWU ranking in 2018. All factors except international student ratio were significantly correlated in QS ranking either in 2010 or 2018, where negative association was observed. The significant contribution of our study is to highlight that for the sustainability of universities, it is necessary to have an increasing emphasis on the effectiveness and efficiency of government-supported research, stability of investments and more approaches to employ international initiatives. The results also confirm the appropriate governance, developing global students and place emphasis on science and technology as additional factors in the approaches of pathways to NFWCUs, with delivery of outstanding educational programs and comprehensive internationalization as a key indicator for performance improvement and global university ranking systems.

Indicators of global university rankings: The theoretical issues

The main goal of this paper is to determine the significance of identified university ranking indicators in relation to the overall measurement system of selected global ranking systems. The realisation of the research was divided into two phases. The first phase consists of a systematic overview of the literature that has resulted in the identification of 16 global ranking systems. In the second phase, an empirical analysis of 10 active ranking systems which were selected based on the set criteria. The ranking systems are observed regarding their measurement focus. According to the results of empirical analysis, the research category indicators account for 67.93% of the sum of the weight coefficients in the overall measurement system, followed by the reputation category indicators with 13.5% and the Web performance category indicators with 9.37%. The most significant number of global ranking systems dominantly puts its focus in the context of measuring research performance as the crucial indicator of the quality and competitiveness of universities.

World University Rankings: Reflections on Teaching and Learning as the Cinderella function in the South African Higher Education System

Within universities, a tension exists between research and teaching and learning, where research is often accorded a higher status creating a Cinderella effect by rendering teaching and learning of lesser importance. World university rankings, also referred to as global rankings, are contentious although they have become a permanent feature of the higher education (HE) system internationally (Rauhvargers 2013; Swail 2011; Altbach et al. 2009; Marginson 2007b). Lindsay (2013) argues that institutions have emphasized the importance of publications and prestige, which contribute to national and institutional reputation. Publications increase rankings thereby contributing to the lower prestige given to excellent teachers as compared to excellent researchers. This has consequently led to a decline in the attention given to teaching. Pressure exists in the HE system to play the ranking game without acknowledging that there are expertise and pockets of teaching excellence in universities. Through their performance criteria, global rankings are transforming universities into becoming similar and conforming to a single hierarchy (Marginson 2007a). In order to compete in the global HE market and improve their rankings, some universities have adopted a business model to mitigate the effects of globalisation and have begun to view themselves and higher education as a business. Global ranking systems thus have the agency either to perpetuate teaching and learning as the Cinderella function in HE, through the ranking game or to holistically focus their performance criteria on all the core functions of universities. Ethical policy decision-making in higher is thus essential.

The Comparative Study of Ranking System of Islamic Countries Universities and National Ranking of Universities in Iran Using the Most Famous Ranking Systems in the World

This research is aiming at a comparative study of Islamic countries university`s ranking system and Iran`s universities` national ranking system with the most famous ranking system in the world which are as Academic Ranking of World University (ARWU), The Times Higher Education World University Rankings (THE), The Quacquarelli Symonds World University Rankings (QS), The U.S. News rankings (USN), Center for World University Rankings (CWUR). In this research, the criteria and indicators of each of the five higher education ranking systems are described based on the two ranking systems of ISC and National Ranking of universities of Iran and using George Bradley's comparative analysis and considering the list of top universities in the last update of the Internet portal by the date 05/09/2017. In this research, it is revealed that there is not any similarity between QS ranking system and ISC ranking system. However, based on the results, Iran and ISC ranking systems are mostly compatible with THE, from among the globally most famous ranking systems. Combining THE and Iran`s ranking systems could offer a far more global system which is capable of covering all aspects of ranking and universities` universal status. THE and ARWU can be named as the most complete combined systems, from among the global and most famous ranking systems, which can be used as a substitution for Iran`s ranking system.

Invisible higher education: Higher education institutions from Central and Eastern Europe in global rankings

The starting point of this study is the argument that not only rankings of higher education institutions (HEIs) are inescapable, but so is the constant criticism to which they are subjected. Against this background, the paper discusses how HEIs from Central and Eastern Europe countries (CEECs) are (non)represented in the main global university rankings. The analysis adopts two perspectives: 1) From the point of view of higher education in CEECs – what are the specificity, basic problems and perspectives of higher education in CEECs as seen through the prism of the global ranking systems? 2) From the point of view of the ranking systems – what strengths and weaknesses of the global ranking systems can be identified through the prism of higher education in CEECs? The study shows that most of the HEIs from CEECs remain invisible in the international and European academic world and tries to identify the main reasons for their (non)appearance in global rankings. It is argued that although global rankings are an important instrument for measuring and comparing the achievements of HEIs by certain indicators, they are only one of the mechanisms – and not a perfect one – for assessing the quality of higher education.

Academic Rankings — Where Are They Heading?

The global ranking system is in a state of violent transformation. We can already see the emerging contours of a new ranking system with the four distinguished elements: regional systems, customer-centered systems, multi-league systems, discipline-based systems. To reflect regional characteristics, including language, culture, global ranking systems should become regional ranking systems. To satisfy readers’ different expectations towards rankings, ranker-centered systems should become customer-centered ystems. To reflect different institutional missions; size, locations, current unified ranking systems, they should become multiple ranking systems. Institutional ranking systems should become discipline-based ranking systems in order to reflect disciplinary differences. One of the most significant directions of changes in rankings is a search for a way to include in the international rankings other missions than research; especially important here are such aspects as excellence in teaching and the so called third mission or the university’s social mission.

The ‘world class’ university and international ranking systems: what are the policy implications for governments and institutions?

ABSTRACTThe aim of this article is to explore the relationship between the concept of the ‘world class’ university and the evidence provided by published global institutional ranking systems and to assess the policy implications of seeking ‘world class’ standing whether driven by governments or by institutions themselves. There would be little disagreement that higher education is subject to a league table culture or that ranking systems have a habit of driving policy [Hazelkorn, E. 2011. Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education. London: Palgrave Macmillan]. What is less clear is whether policy-makers fully recognise the limitations of the messages which ranking systems seem to convey. In an increasingly market-conscious higher education environment the claim to be ‘world class’ is ubiquitous and is rarely subjected to critical scrutiny in public discourse so that the concept has become overused and devalued, albeit it remains a powerful element in policy formation. The paper argues that the concept can distort policy and lead to a concentration on unrealistic and unachievable goals.

The Content and Quality of Health Information on the Internet for Patients and Families on Adult Kidney Cancer.

The Internet is one of the major sources for health information for patients and their families, particularly when patients face serious life-threatening conditions such as kidney cancer in adults. In this study, we evaluate the content and quality of health information on adult kidney cancer using several validated instruments. We accessed the three most popular search engines (Google, Yahoo, Bing), using two terms: "kidney cancer" and "renal cell carcinoma," and reviewed the top 30 hits. After exclusion of duplicated websites, websites targeting health care professionals, and unrelated websites, 35 websites were included. Content was assessed using a 22-item checklist adapted from the American Cancer Society. We assessed website quality using the DISCERN questionnaire, HONcode and JAMA benchmark criteria, readability using three readability scores, and ALEXA for global traffic ranking systems. The average website had 16 of 22 content items while 6 websites fulfilled all 22 items. Among all websites, the average DISCERN quality score was 42 out of 80, 15 (42.8%) of websites had HONcode certification, and only 3 (8.5%) fulfilled all JAMA benchmark criteria. The average website readability was at the ninth grade reading level. The content and quality of health-related information on the Internet for adult kidney cancer are variable in comprehensiveness and quality. Many websites are difficult to read without a high school education. A standardized approach to presenting cancer information on the Internet for patients and families may be warranted.