A comparative analysis of global and national university ranking systems

Çakır, Murat; Acartürk, Cengiz; Alaşehir, Oğuzhan; Çilingir, Canan

doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1586-6

Cited by 87 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, in 2010, after separating from THE, QS continued with virtually the similar criteria for its annual rankings, on the whole with some changes in the weight of the requirements ranks about 700 of the world's top universities [33,54]. Being the only international ranking to have received International Ranking Expert Group(IREG) approval, the QS is viewed as one of the three most-widely ready university rankings in the world [55,56].…”

Section: Quacquarelli-symonds World-university Ranking (Qs-wur)mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Quacquarelli-symonds World-university Ranking (Qs-wur)mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3, pp. 043-054 Çilingir, 2015;Khosrowjerdi & Kashani, 2013;Olcay & Bulu, 2017). When determining the strength of the relationship between the individual ranking systems and the indicators they use, the Spearman's correlation (Chen & Liao, 2012;Khosrowjerdi & Kashani, 2013;Moed, 2017;Shehatta & Mahmood, 2016) and Pearson's correlation were used (Claassen, 2015;Delgado-Márquez, Hurtado-Torres, & Bondar, 2011;Olcay & Bulu, 2017;Shehatta & Mahmood, 2016;Waltman et al, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Indicators of global university rankings: The theoretical issues

Lukić¹,

Tumbas²

2019

Strategic Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…All the world over, the growth and expansion of access to higher education have created demand for information on universities' standards and have led to the development of university ranking systems in several countries (Çakır, Acartürk, Alaşehir, & Çilingir, 2015;Dill & Soo, 2005;Taylor & Braddock, 2007;Usher & Savino 2007). Rankings can be used for benchmarking the performance of universities and higher-education systems (Marconi & Ritzen, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, prospective students and their families are interested in university rankings in order to enable their choice of an appropriate university with respect to different aspects such as the quality of education, future career prospects, and cost of education Çakır, Acartürk, Alaşehir, & Çilingir, 2015;Hazelkorn, 2008). Second, academics, policymakers, and university managers use rankings; they see rankings as a key driver for the advancement of their own careers and the furtherance of institutions' strategic planning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to these indicators, staff and student quality, academic reputation, financial information, and infrastructure and facilities on university campuses are also used as other important components of existing ranking systems with different percentage weights. Even if each ranking system uses a distinct set of criteria (e.g., assigning different weights to each criterion), it has been observed that research performance, mainly including the publications (books and articles), journal quality index, citation indexes, number of honors and awards, number of papers presented in meetings, number of dissertations, number of invitations to present papers, and success in obtaining research grant funding, is the backbone of many existing ranking systems (Bazeley 2010;Burke, Fender, & Taylor, 2007;Cheng, Wang, & Liu, 2014;Çakır et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Review on the Major Global University Ranking Systems and the Turkish Universities’ Overall Position in Rankings

Aydin¹

2017

Educational Administration: Theory and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Amidst the increasingly competitive environment in the field of higher education, world ranking systems have gained more research attention in recent years. In this article, the main objectives are to attract attention of especially Turkish academics and policy makers to university ranking systems in the world and to show the overall position of Turkish universities in these ranking systems. With this aim, the major rankings were specially examined in terms of their measurements from the original websites of them. As a result of this review, the position of Turkish universities among the top 500 universities in these rankings over a six-year period are determined from 2011 to 2016; then, obtained data through the original websites of these ranking systems and the reports of the URAP are compiled and presented in tables. Two issues can be observed from the study: research performance is one of the major indicators used in all world ranking systems, and the overall position of Turkish universities in such rankings is not very good. This article can help all staff in academia provide the better understand the goals, importance and measurements of ranking systems and Turkish Universities' position in these rankings. Thus, the study tries to create awareness about the need of improving their position. After this paper, the further research is likely to examine the concept of research performance as an important criterion of determining the universities' position in the major world rankings to obtain a broad and comprehensive perspective. ÖzYükseköğrenim alanında giderek artan rekabetçi ortam etkisiyle son yıllarda üniversite sıralama sistemleri üzerine olan araştırmalar oldukça önem kazandı. Bu makale, özellikle Türkiye'deki akademisyenlerin ve bu konuda söz sahibi yöneticilerin, uluslararası üniversite sıralama sistemleri üzerine dikkatlerini çekmeyi ve Türk üniversitelerinin bu sıralamalardaki konumunu ortaya koymayı amaçlanmıştır. Bu bağlamda, dünyadaki en önemli sıralama sistemleri kendi internet sitelerinden özellikle ölçütleri açısından incelenmiştir. Bu inceleme sonucunda, 2011'den başlayarak 2016 yılına kadar 6 yıllık bir dönemde üniversitelerimizin bu sıralamalarda ilk 500'deki yeri, her sıralama sisteminin orijinal web sitesinden ve URAP raporlarından elde edilen veriler derlenerek tablolar halinde sunulmuştur. Bu çalışma sonucunda özellikle iki bulgu dikkate değer bulunmuştur. Birincisi, incelenen altı sıralama sisteminde de araştırma performansının ne denli önemli bir ölçüt olduğu; ikincisi ise üniversitelerimizin bu sıralamalarda çok da iyi bir pozisyonda olmadığıdır. Bu araştırma, akademiyle ilgilenen tüm paydaşlara üniversite sıralama sistemlerinin amaçlarını, önemini, ölçütlerini göstermeyi ve üniversitelerimizin uluslararası sıralamalardaki konumunu anlamaları hususunda onlara yardımcı olmayı hedeflemiştir. Böylelikle, çalışmanın, üniversitelerimizin konumunun iyileştirilmesinin gerekliliği hususunda bir farkındalık oluşturması beklenmektedir. Bir sonraki araştırmamızda, birçok sıralama sist...

show abstract

A comparative analysis of global and national university ranking systems

Cited by 87 publications

References 16 publications

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

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

Indicators of global university rankings: The theoretical issues

A Review on the Major Global University Ranking Systems and the Turkish Universities’ Overall Position in Rankings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About