Engineering the Global University Rankings: Gold Standards, Limitations and Implications

IEEE Access, 2018

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.1109/access.2017.2789326
Data confidence 85 high
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

Global University ranking tables influence students and public opinion perceptions and the overall reputations of universities among an international audience. In this paper, the credibility of such ranking tables is questioned based on the tendency of ranking systems to promote questionable universities, documented instances of ethical misconduct, and inconsistencies between different ranking tables. The findings are validated using the Academic Ranking of World Universities (or Shanghai ranking), the QS University ranking, and the THE World University ranking, which are considered the golden standards today among Global University ranking tables. Inconsistencies between ranking tables with respect to parameters used in analysis and validation are pointed out. Furthermore, it is shown that all three ranking tables can be gamed by universities to get a high ranking using parameters that do not capture the wide spectrum of characteristics that reflect academic excellence in research, teaching, and services.