Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medicine 1/2007

Open Access 01-12-2007 | Correspondence

International ranking systems for universities and institutions: a critical appraisal

Authors: John PA Ioannidis, Nikolaos A Patsopoulos, Fotini K Kavvoura, Athina Tatsioni, Evangelos Evangelou, Ioanna Kouri, Despina G Contopoulos-Ioannidis, George Liberopoulos

Published in: BMC Medicine | Issue 1/2007

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Ranking of universities and institutions has attracted wide attention recently. Several systems have been proposed that attempt to rank academic institutions worldwide.

Methods

We review the two most publicly visible ranking systems, the Shanghai Jiao Tong University 'Academic Ranking of World Universities' and the Times Higher Education Supplement 'World University Rankings' and also briefly review other ranking systems that use different criteria. We assess the construct validity for educational and research excellence and the measurement validity of each of the proposed ranking criteria, and try to identify generic challenges in international ranking of universities and institutions.

Results

None of the reviewed criteria for international ranking seems to have very good construct validity for both educational and research excellence, and most don't have very good construct validity even for just one of these two aspects of excellence. Measurement error for many items is also considerable or is not possible to determine due to lack of publication of the relevant data and methodology details. The concordance between the 2006 rankings by Shanghai and Times is modest at best, with only 133 universities shared in their top 200 lists. The examination of the existing international ranking systems suggests that generic challenges include adjustment for institutional size, definition of institutions, implications of average measurements of excellence versus measurements of extremes, adjustments for scientific field, time frame of measurement and allocation of credit for excellence.

Conclusion

Naïve lists of international institutional rankings that do not address these fundamental challenges with transparent methods are misleading and should be abandoned. We make some suggestions on how focused and standardized evaluations of excellence could be improved and placed in proper context.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
3.
go back to reference Cheng Y, Liu NC: A first approach to the classification of the top 500 world universities by their disciplinary characteristics using scientometrics. Scientometrics. 2006, 68: 135-150. 10.1007/s11192-006-0087-z.CrossRef Cheng Y, Liu NC: A first approach to the classification of the top 500 world universities by their disciplinary characteristics using scientometrics. Scientometrics. 2006, 68: 135-150. 10.1007/s11192-006-0087-z.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Liu NC, Cheng Y, Liu L: Academic ranking of world universities using scientometrics – a comment to the "Fatal Attraction". Scientometrics. 2005, 64: 101-109. 10.1007/s11192-005-0241-z.CrossRef Liu NC, Cheng Y, Liu L: Academic ranking of world universities using scientometrics – a comment to the "Fatal Attraction". Scientometrics. 2005, 64: 101-109. 10.1007/s11192-005-0241-z.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Van Raan AFJ: Fatal attraction: conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics. 2005, 62: 133-43. 10.1007/s11192-005-0008-6.CrossRef Van Raan AFJ: Fatal attraction: conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics. 2005, 62: 133-43. 10.1007/s11192-005-0008-6.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Slone RM: Coauthors' contributions to major papers published in the AJR: frequency of undeserved coauthorship. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996, 167: 571-9.CrossRefPubMed Slone RM: Coauthors' contributions to major papers published in the AJR: frequency of undeserved coauthorship. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996, 167: 571-9.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Van Raan AFJ: Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups. Scientometrics. 2006, 67: 491-502.CrossRef Van Raan AFJ: Comparison of the Hirsch-index with standard bibliometric indicators and with peer judgment for 147 chemistry research groups. Scientometrics. 2006, 67: 491-502.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Ioannidis JP: Concentration of the most-cited papers in the scientific literature: analysis of journal ecosystems. PLoS One. 2006, 1: e5-10.1371/journal.pone.0000005. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000005.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ioannidis JP: Concentration of the most-cited papers in the scientific literature: analysis of journal ecosystems. PLoS One. 2006, 1: e5-10.1371/journal.pone.0000005. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000005.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Patsopoulos NA, Analatos AA, Ioannidis JP: Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. JAMA. 2005, 293: 2362-6. 10.1001/jama.293.19.2362.CrossRefPubMed Patsopoulos NA, Analatos AA, Ioannidis JP: Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences. JAMA. 2005, 293: 2362-6. 10.1001/jama.293.19.2362.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Bhandari M, Swiontkowski MF, Einhorn TA, Tornetta P, Schemitsch EH, et al: Interobserver agreement in the application of levels of evidence to scientific papers in the American volume of the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004, 86-A: 1012-6.PubMed Bhandari M, Swiontkowski MF, Einhorn TA, Tornetta P, Schemitsch EH, et al: Interobserver agreement in the application of levels of evidence to scientific papers in the American volume of the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004, 86-A: 1012-6.PubMed
14.
go back to reference Garfield E: The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA. 2006, 295: 90-3. 10.1001/jama.295.1.90.CrossRefPubMed Garfield E: The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA. 2006, 295: 90-3. 10.1001/jama.295.1.90.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Schein M, Paladugu R: Redundant surgical publications: tip of the iceberg?. Surgery. 2001, 129: 655-61. 10.1067/msy.2001.114549.CrossRefPubMed Schein M, Paladugu R: Redundant surgical publications: tip of the iceberg?. Surgery. 2001, 129: 655-61. 10.1067/msy.2001.114549.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Kostoff RN, Johnson D, Rio JA, Bloomfield LA, Shlesinger MF, et al: Duplicate publication and 'paper inflation' in the Fractals literature. Sci Eng Ethics. 2006, 12: 543-54. 10.1007/s11948-006-0052-5.CrossRefPubMed Kostoff RN, Johnson D, Rio JA, Bloomfield LA, Shlesinger MF, et al: Duplicate publication and 'paper inflation' in the Fractals literature. Sci Eng Ethics. 2006, 12: 543-54. 10.1007/s11948-006-0052-5.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Heller DE: Student price response in higher education – An update to Leslie and Brinkman. J Higher Educ. 1997, 68: 624-10.2307/2959966.CrossRef Heller DE: Student price response in higher education – An update to Leslie and Brinkman. J Higher Educ. 1997, 68: 624-10.2307/2959966.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Drewes T, Michael C: How do students choose a university? An analysis of applications to universities in Ontario, Canada. Res Higher Educ. 2006, 47: 781-800. 10.1007/s11162-006-9015-6.CrossRef Drewes T, Michael C: How do students choose a university? An analysis of applications to universities in Ontario, Canada. Res Higher Educ. 2006, 47: 781-800. 10.1007/s11162-006-9015-6.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Dickersin K, Scherer R, Suci ES, Gil-Montero M: Problems with indexing and citation of articles with group authorship. JAMA. 2002, 287: 2772-4. 10.1001/jama.287.21.2772.CrossRefPubMed Dickersin K, Scherer R, Suci ES, Gil-Montero M: Problems with indexing and citation of articles with group authorship. JAMA. 2002, 287: 2772-4. 10.1001/jama.287.21.2772.CrossRefPubMed
23.
27.
go back to reference Garfield E: Citation Indexing : Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology and Humanities. 1979, Philadelphia: ISI Press Garfield E: Citation Indexing : Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology and Humanities. 1979, Philadelphia: ISI Press
29.
go back to reference Palla G, Barabasi AL, Vicsek T: Quantifying social group evolution. Nature. 2007, 446: 664-7. 10.1038/nature05670.CrossRefPubMed Palla G, Barabasi AL, Vicsek T: Quantifying social group evolution. Nature. 2007, 446: 664-7. 10.1038/nature05670.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Ioannidis JP: Global estimates of high-level brain drain and deficit. FASEB J. 2004, 18: 936-9. 10.1096/fj.03-1394lfe.CrossRefPubMed Ioannidis JP: Global estimates of high-level brain drain and deficit. FASEB J. 2004, 18: 936-9. 10.1096/fj.03-1394lfe.CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Ioannidis JP, Ahmed T, Awasthi S, Clarfield AM, Clark J, et al: Open letter to the leader of academic medicine. BMJ. 2007, 334: 191-3. 10.1136/bmj.39043.676898.94.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ioannidis JP, Ahmed T, Awasthi S, Clarfield AM, Clark J, et al: Open letter to the leader of academic medicine. BMJ. 2007, 334: 191-3. 10.1136/bmj.39043.676898.94.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
go back to reference Dill DD, Soo M: Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross-national analysis of university ranking systerns. Higher Educ. 2005, 49: 495-533. 10.1007/s10734-004-1746-8.CrossRef Dill DD, Soo M: Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross-national analysis of university ranking systerns. Higher Educ. 2005, 49: 495-533. 10.1007/s10734-004-1746-8.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Green RG, Baskind FR, Fassler A, Jordan A: The validity of the 2004 U.S. News & World Report's rankings of schools of social work. Soc Work. 2006, 51: 135-45.CrossRefPubMed Green RG, Baskind FR, Fassler A, Jordan A: The validity of the 2004 U.S. News & World Report's rankings of schools of social work. Soc Work. 2006, 51: 135-45.CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference McGaghie WC, Thompson JA: America's best medical schools: a critique of the U.S. News & World Report rankings. Acad Med. 2001, 76: 985-92.CrossRefPubMed McGaghie WC, Thompson JA: America's best medical schools: a critique of the U.S. News & World Report rankings. Acad Med. 2001, 76: 985-92.CrossRefPubMed
35.
36.
go back to reference Banatvala J, Bell P, Symonds M: The Research Assessment Exercise is bad for UK medicine. Lancet. 2005, 365: 458-60.CrossRefPubMed Banatvala J, Bell P, Symonds M: The Research Assessment Exercise is bad for UK medicine. Lancet. 2005, 365: 458-60.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
International ranking systems for universities and institutions: a critical appraisal
Authors
John PA Ioannidis
Nikolaos A Patsopoulos
Fotini K Kavvoura
Athina Tatsioni
Evangelos Evangelou
Ioanna Kouri
Despina G Contopoulos-Ioannidis
George Liberopoulos
Publication date
01-12-2007
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medicine / Issue 1/2007
Electronic ISSN: 1741-7015
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-5-30

Other articles of this Issue 1/2007

BMC Medicine 1/2007 Go to the issue