Abstract
Now-a-days ranking of universities and institutions has become an appealing topic to study or research, and it has got wide attention to all over the world to recognize the top higher education institutes. Therefore, study on the strategies of the ranking system is vital to ensure the acceptability. There are number of strategies have been developed to rank higher education institutions worldwide. This Study has focused to critically evaluate the potential shortcomings of the top four widely accepted ranking systems. These are the Times World University Rankings, QS World University Rankings, Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) and Webometrics Ranking. We critically reviewed and analyzed these four higher education ranking systems to identify potential shortcomings in their strategies. Based on our investigation, it was observed that none of these ranking systems can provide satisfactory evaluation in terms of their construct validity and other parameters related to disputation. Nevertheless, these ranking systems are the most popular for what they have been doing over the decades but unfortunately each and every one of them has to some extent lacking as far as ranking excellency is concerned. Lack of availability of data and publications through which ranking is done is one major obstacle faced to determine the authenticity of ranking systems. Overall observation of these four ranking systems reflects the fact that generic challenges include adjustment for institutional size, differences between average and extreme, defining the institutions, measurement of time frame, credit allocation, excellency factors as well as adjustment for scientific fields. Misinterpretation of measurement data is also responsible for some of the ranking disputes. We have proposed a number of recommendations that could address the identified inadequacy and considerably improve the ranking system as well as incorporate more participation of higher education institutes form developing world.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Shanghai Jiao Tong University and S. J. T. University, Academic Ranking of World Universities 2007. Graduate School of Education, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 2007.
“Times Higher Education - Education news and university jobs,” http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/.
K. Soh, “Times Higher Education 100 under 50 ranking: old wine in a new bottle?,” Quality in Higher Education, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 111–121, 2013.
“QS Intelligence Unit | The latest insights into university rankings, higher education performance evaluation and institutional research,” http://www.iu.qs.com/.
“QS World University Rankings,” 2012, http://www.itesm.la/archivos/QS_World_University_Rankings.pdf
“Welcome to Ranking Web of Universities | Ranking Web of Universities,” http://www.webometrics.info/en.
J. P. Ioannidis, N. A. Patsopoulos, F. K. Kavvoura, A. Tatsioni, E. Evangelou, I. Kouri, D. G. Contopoulos-Ioannidis, and G. Liberopoulos, “International ranking systems for universities and institutions: a critical appraisal,” BMC Medicine, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 30, 2007.
G. Buela-Casal, O. Gutiérrez-Martínez, M. P. Bermúdez-Sánchez, and O. Vadillo-Muñoz, “Comparative study of international academic rankings of universities,” Scientometrics, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 349–365, 2007.
“QS Intelligence Unit | QS Stars Methodology,” http://www.iu.qs.com/services/qs-stars/qs-stars-methodology/#access.
H. Jöns and M. Hoyler, “Global geographies of higher education: The perspective of world university rankings,” Geoforum, vol. 46, pp. 45–59, May 2013.
K. Chen and P. Liao, “A comparative study on world university rankings: a bibliometric survey,” Scientometrics, vol. 92, no. 1, pp. 89–103, Apr. 2012.
M. Devlin, “Policy, preparation , prevention and punishment: One Faculty’s holistic approach to minimising plagiarism,” In proceedings of the Inaugural Educational Integrity Conference, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, 21–22 November, 2003, pp. 39–47.
L. Gourlay and J. Deane, “Loss, responsibility, blame? Staff discourses of student plagiarism,” Innovations in Education and Teaching International, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 19–29, Feb. 2012.
T. L. Elliott, L. M. Marquis, and C. S. Neal, “Business Ethics Perspectives: Faculty Plagiarism and Fraud,” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 112, pp. 91–99, Feb. 2012.
H. Maurer and F. Kappe, “Plagiarism - A Survey,” vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 1050–1084, 2006.
M.-H. Huang, “Opening the black box of QS World University Rankings,” Research Evaluation, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 71–78, Feb. 2012.
J.-C. Billaut, D. Bouyssou, P. Vincke, “Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking? An MCDM view,” Scientometrics, vol. 84, pp. 237–263, 2010.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Anowar, F., Helal, M.A., Afroj, S., Sultana, S., Sarker, F., Mamun, K.A. (2015). A Critical Review on World University Ranking in Terms of Top Four Ranking Systems. In: Elleithy, K., Sobh, T. (eds) New Trends in Networking, Computing, E-learning, Systems Sciences, and Engineering. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol 312. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06764-3_72
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06764-3_72
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-06763-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-06764-3
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)