Academic Ranking of World Universities

Global rankings

Overall

Methodology

Reception

EU Research Headlines reported the *ARWU'''s work on 31 December 2003: "The universities were carefully evaluated using several indicators of research performance." A survey on higher education published by The Economist in 2005 commented ARWU as "the most widely used annual ranking of the world's research universities." In 2010, The Chronicle of Higher Education called *ARWU'' "the best-known and most influential global ranking of universities" and Philip G. Altbach named ARWU's 'consistency, clarity of purpose, and transparency' as significant strengths. University of Oxford Chancellor Chris Patten has said "the methodology looks fairly solid ... it looks like a pretty good stab at a fair comparison." While ARWU has originated in China, the ranking have been praised for being unbiased towards Asian institutions, especially Chinese institutions.

Criticism

The ranking has been criticised for "relying too much on award factors" thus undermining the importance of quality of instruction and humanities. A 2007 paper published in the journal Scientometrics found that the results from the Shanghai rankings could not be reproduced from raw data using the method described by Liu and Cheng. A 2013 paper in the same journal finally showed how the Shanghai ranking results could be reproduced. In a report from April 2009, J-C. Billaut, D. Bouyssou and Ph. Vincke analyse how the ARWU works, using their insights as specialists of Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM). Their main conclusions are that the criteria used are not relevant; that the aggregation methodology has a number of major problems; and that insufficient attention has been paid to fundamental choices of criteria.

The ARWU researchers themselves, N.C. Liu and Y. Cheng, think that the quality of universities cannot be precisely measured by mere numbers and any ranking must be controversial. They suggest that university and college rankings should be used with caution and their methodologies must be understood clearly before reporting or using the results. ARWU has been criticised by the European Commission as well as some EU member states for "favour[ing] Anglo-Saxon higher education institutions". For instance, ARWU is repeatedly criticised in France, where it triggers an annual controversy, focusing on its ill-adapted character to the French academic system and the unreasonable weight given to research often performed decades ago. It is also criticised in France for its use as a motivation for merging universities into larger ones.

Several methods for ranking universities were analyzed. Many scholars proposed developing new methodologies for global university rankings, expressing concerns about bias against universities in the Arab region within current ranking systems. They emphasized the need to adjust the weighting of indicators to account for overlooked institutional differences.

Indeed, a further criticism has been that the metrics used are not independent of university size, e.g. number of publications or award winners will mechanically add as universities are grouped, independently of research (or teaching) quality; thus a merger between two equally-ranked institutions will significantly increase the merged institutions' score and give it a higher ranking, without any change in quality.

Subjects

There are two categories in ''ARWU'''s disciplinary rankings: broad subject fields and specific subjects. The methodology is similar to that adopted in the overall table, including award factors, paper citation, and the number of highly cited scholars.

• Natural sciences
  • Atmospheric science
  • Chemistry
  • Earth sciences
  • Ecology
  • Geography
  • Mathematics
  • Oceanography
  • Physics
• Engineering
  • Aerospace engineering
  • Automation and control
  • Biomedical engineering
  • Biotechnology
  • Chemical engineering
  • Civil engineering
  • Computer science and engineering
  • Electrical and electronic engineering
  • Energy science and Engineering
  • Environmental science and engineering
  • Food science and technology
  • Instruments science and technology
  • Marine/ocean engineering
  • Materials science and engineering
  • Mechanical engineering
  • Metallurgical engineering
  • Mining and mineral engineering
  • Nanoscience and nanotechnology
  • Remote sensing
  • Telecommunication engineering
  • Transportation science and technology
  • Water resources
• Life sciences
  • Agricultural sciences
  • Biological sciences
  • Human biological sciences
  • Veterinary sciences
• Medical sciences
  • Clinical medicine
  • Dentistry and oral sciences
  • Medical technology
  • Nursing
  • Pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences
  • Public health
• Social sciences
  • Business administration
  • Communication
  • Economics
  • Education
  • Finance
  • Hospitality and tourism management
  • Law
  • Library and information science
  • Management
  • Political sciences
  • Psychology
  • Public administration
  • Sociology
  • Statistics

Regional rankings

Considering the development of specific areas, two independent regional league tables with different methodologies were launched – Ranking of Top Universities in Greater China and Best Chinese Universities Ranking.

Best Chinese Universities Ranking was first released in 2015. Ranking of Top Universities in Greater China was first released in 2011.

Methodology

Notes

References

References

1. Pavel, Adina-Petruta. (2015). "Global university rankings – a comparative analysis". Procedia Economics and Finance.
2. (2013). "World university rankings: how much influence do they really have?". The Guardian.
3. (2014). "About Academic Ranking of World Universities". Shanghai Ranking Consultancy.
4. (8 December 2010). "Shanghai rankings rattle European universities". ABS-CBN Interactive.
5. (2014). "ARWU International Advisory Board". Shanghai Ranking Consultancy.
6. Network, QS Asia News. (2018-03-02). "The history and development of higher education ranking systems – QS WOWNEWS". QS WOWNEWS.
7. "About Academic Ranking of World Universities {{!}} About ARWU".
8. Ariel Zirulnick. (2010-09-16). "New world university ranking puts Harvard back on top". Christian Science Monitor.
9. Indira Samarasekera & Carl Amrhein. "Top schools don't always get top marks". The Edmonton Journal.
10. Philip G. Altbach. (11 November 2010). "The State of the Rankings".
11. (2016-09-14). "Strength and weakness of varsity rankings". NST Online.
12. Marszal, Andrew. (2012-10-04). "University rankings: which world university rankings should we trust?". Daily Telegraph.
13. (29 August 2013). ""Shanghai Academic Ranking: a French Controversy" by Marc Goetzmann, for ''La Jeune Politique''". Lajeunepolitique.com.
14. Bahram Bekhradnia. (15 December 2016). "International university rankings: For good or ill?". Higher Education Policy Institute.
15. (2014). "ARWU – Methodology". Shanghai Ranking Consultancy.
16. (2003). "Chinese study ranks world's top 500 universities". European Research Headlines.
17. (8 September 2005). "A world of opportunity". The Economics.
18. (10 October 2010). "International Group Announces Audit of University Rankings". The Chronicle of Higher Education.
19. Philip G. Altbach. (11 September 2010). "The State of the Rankings". INSIDE HIGHER ED.
20. (2013). "Rankings and Accountability in Higher Education: Uses and Misuses". United Nations Educational.
21. (2013-08-15). "Academic Ranking of World Universities 2013 released".
22. (2015). "University rankings: which world university rankings should we trust?". The Telegraph.
23. J. Scott Armstrong and Tad Sperry. (1994). "Business School Prestige: Research versus Teaching". Energy & Environment.
24. "1741-7015-5-30.fm".
25. Răzvan V. Florian. (17 June 2007). "Irreproducibility of the results of the Shanghai academic ranking of world universities". Scientometrics.
26. Domingo Docampo. (1 July 2012). "Reproducibility of the results of the Shanghai academic ranking of world universities". Scientometrics.
27. Jean-Charles Billaut, Denis Bouyssou & Philippe Vincke. (2 November 2010). "Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking?". CCSD.
28. (29 August 2013). ""Shanghai Academic Ranking: a French Controversy" by Marc Goetzmann, for ''La Jeune Politique''". Lajeunepolitique.com.
29. Spongenberg, Helena. (5 June 2014). "EUobserver / EU to test new university ranking in 2010". Euobserver.com.
30. Dagorn, Gary. (16 August 2016). "Universités : pourquoi le classement de Shanghaï n'est pas un exercice sérieux". lemonde.fr.
31. Gérand, Christelle. (September 2016). "Aix-Marseille, laboratoire de la fusion des universités". www.monde-diplomatique.fr.
32. Altakhaineh, Abdel Rahman Mitib. (2021-09-02). "A new perspective on university ranking methods worldwide and in the Arab region: facts and suggestions". Quality in Higher Education.
33. "A World of Difference: A Global Survey of University League Tables".
34. Mohareb, Esraa. (2015-06-12). "Another Arab University Ranking is Out. But Is It Needed?".
35. Badran, Adnan. (2019-03-25). "Major Challenges Facing Higher Education in the Arab World: Quality Assurance and Relevance". Springer.
36. (2020). "Global Rankings of Academic Subjects 2020". Shanghai Ranking Consultancy.
37. "2022 中国最好大学排名 (Best Chinese Universities Rankings)".
38. (2014). "Greater China Ranking – Methodology". Shanghai Ranking Consultancy.