We take a new look at the Shanghai Jiao Tong Academic Ranking of World Universities to evaluate the performance of whole university systems. We deal with system aggregates by means of averaging scores taken over a number of institutions from each higher education system according to the Gross Domestic Product of its country. We treat the set of indicators (measures) at the country level as a scale, and investigate its reliability and dimensionality using appropriate statistical tools. After a Principal Component Analysis is performed, a clear picture emerges: at the aggregate level ARWU seems to be a very reliable one-dimensional scale, with a first component that explains more than 72% of the variance of the sample under analysis. The percentages of variance of the indicators explained by the first component do shed light on the fact that ARWU is in fact measuring the research quality (both at the individual and collective levels) of a university system. When the second principal component is taken into account, the two principal components contribute to explain more than 90% of the variance. The rotated solution facilitates the interpretation of the components and provides clear and interesting clustering information about the 32 higher education systems under analysis.

No abstract

The objective assessment of the prestige of an academic institution is a difficult and hotly debated task. In the last few years, different types of university rankings have been proposed to quantify it, yet the debate on what rankings are exactly measuring is enduring.To address the issue we have measured a quantitative and reliable proxy of the academic reputation of a given institution and compared our findings with well-established impact indicators and academic rankings. Specifically, we study citation patterns among universities in five different Web of Science Subject Categories and use the PageRank algorithm on the five resulting citation networks. The rationale behind our work is that scientific citations are driven by the reputation of the reference so that the PageRank algorithm is expected to yield a rank which reflects the reputation of an academic institution in a specific field. Given the volume of the data analysed, our findings are statistically sound and less prone to bias, than, for instance, ad-hoc surveys often employed by ranking bodies in order to attain similar outcomes. The approach proposed in our paper may contribute to enhance ranking methodologies, by reconciling the qualitative evaluation of academic prestige with its quantitative measurements via publication impact.

World University rankings have become well-established tools that students, university managers and policy makers read and use. Each ranking claims to have a unique methodology capable of measuring the 'quality' of universities. The purpose of this paper is to analyze to which extent these different rankings measure the same phenomenon and what it is that they are measuring. For this, we selected a total of seven world-university rankings and performed a principal component analysis. After ensuring that despite their methodological differences, they all come together to a single component, we hypothesized that bibliometric indicators could explain what is being measured. Our analyses show that ranking scores from whichever of the seven league tables under study can be explained by the number of publications and citations received by the institution. We conclude by discussing policy implications and opportunities on how a nuanced and responsible use of rankings can help decision making at the institutional level

The Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) published by researchers at Shanghai Jiao Tong University has become a major source of information for university administrators, country officials, students and the public at large. Recent discoveries regarding its internal dynamics allow the inversion of published ARWU indicator scores to reconstruct raw scores for five hundred world class universities. This paper explores raw scores in the ARWU and in other contests to contrast the dynamics of rank-driven and score-driven tables, and to explain why the ARWU ranking is a score-driven procedure. We show that the ARWU indicators constitute sub-scales of a single factor accounting for research performance, and provide an account of the system of gains and non-linearities used by ARWU. The paper discusses the non-linearities selected by ARWU, concluding that they are designed to represent the regressive character of indicators measuring research performance. We propose that the utility and usability of the ARWU could be greatly improved by replacing the unwanted dynamical effects of the annual re-scaling based on raw scores of the best performers.