, Volume 103, Issue 3, pp 813–848 | Cite as

A comparative analysis of global and national university ranking systems

  • Murat Perit Çakır
  • Cengiz Acartürk
  • Oğuzhan Alaşehir
  • Canan Çilingir


Recent interest towards university rankings has led to the development of several ranking systems at national and global levels. Global ranking systems tend to rely on internationally accessible bibliometric databases and reputation surveys to develop league tables at a global level. Given their access and in-depth knowledge about local institutions, national ranking systems tend to include a more comprehensive set of indicators. The purpose of this study is to conduct a systematic comparison of national and global university ranking systems in terms of their indicators, coverage and ranking results. Our findings indicate that national rankings tend to include a larger number of indicators that primarily focus on educational and institutional parameters, whereas global ranking systems tend to have fewer indicators mainly focusing on research performance. Rank similarity analysis between national rankings and global rankings filtered for each country suggest that with the exception of a few instances global rankings do not strongly predict the national rankings.


National university rankings Global university rankings Higher education Rank similarity 


  1. Aguillo, I. F., Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., & Ortega, J. L. (2010). Comparing university rankings. Scientometrics, 85(1), 243–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ARWU. (2011). Greater China ranking. Accessed 12 June 2013.
  3. ARWU. (2012a). Macedonian higher education institutions ranking. Accessed 12 June 2013.
  4. ARWU. (2012b). Academic ranking of world universities. Accessed 12 June 2013.
  5. Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., & Lin, A. (2007). Some measures for comparing citation databases. Journal of Informetrics, 1(1), 26–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bastedo, M. N., & Bowman, N. A. (2011). College rankings as an interorganizational dependency: Establishing the foundation for strategic and institutional accounts. Research in Higher Education, 52(1), 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowden, R. (2000). Fantasy higher education: university and college league tables. Quality in Higher Education, 6(1), 41–60.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowman, N. A., & Bastedo, M. N. (2009). Getting on the front page: Organizational reputation, status signals, and the impact of US News and World Report on student decisions. Research in Higher Education, 50(5), 415–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Centre for Science and Technology Studies. (2012). The Leiden ranking. Accessed 12 June 2013.
  10. Cybermetrics Lab. (2012). Webometrics ranking of world universities. Accessed 12 June 2013.
  11. Dill, D. D., & Soo, M. (2005). Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross- national analysis of university ranking systems. Higher Education, 49(4), 495–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. El Mercurio. (2012). Ranking de Calidad en la Docencia de Pregrado. Accessed 12 June 2013.
  13. Federkeil, G., van Vught, F. A., & Westerhejden, D. F. (2012). An evaluation and critique of current rankings. In F. A. van Vught & F. Ziegele (Eds.), Multimensional ranking: The design and devlopment of U-multirank (pp. 39–70). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Folha. (2012). Ranking Universitaro Folha. Accessed 12 June 2013.
  15. Griffith, A., & Rask, K. (2007). The influence of the US News and World Report collegiate rankings on the matriculation decision of high-ability students: 1995–2004. Economics of Education Review, 26(2), 244–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hazelkorn, E. (2007). The impact of league tables and ranking system on higher education decision making. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hazelkorn, E. (2008). Learning to live with league tables and ranking: The experience of institutional leaders. Higher Education Policy, 21, 193–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Higher Education Commission of Pakistan. (2010). Quality and research based ranking of Pakistani HEIs. Accessed 12 June 2013.
  19. Independent Kazakhstan Quality Assurance Agency for Education. (2011). University rankings 2011 in Kazakshtan. Accessed 12 June 2013.
  20. Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP). (2007). College and university ranking systems: Global perspectives and American challenges. Washington, DC: IHEP.Google Scholar
  21. Malaysian Qualifications Agency. (2011). The MQA rating system for higher education institutions in Malaysia for 2011 (SETARA ‘11). Accessed 12 June 2013.
  22. National Taiwanese University. (2012). Performance ranking of scientific papers for world universities (formerly known as the HEEACT ranking). Accessed 12 June 2013.
  23. Nielsen, J. (1995). Card Sorting to discover the users’ model of the information space. Retrieved on December 10, 2013.
  24. Perspektywy Education Foundation. (2012). Perspektywy University ranking. Accessed 12 June 2013.
  25. Quacquarelli Symonds Company. (2012). The QS world university rankings. Accessed 12 June 2013.
  26. Saisana, M., d’Hombres, B., & Saltelli, A. (2011). Rickety numbers: Volatility of university rankings and policy implications. Research Policy, 40, 165–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Salmi, J., & Saroyan, A. (2007). League tables as policy instruments: Uses and misuses. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. SCImago Research Group. (2012). SCImago global institutions rankings. Accessed 12 June 2013.
  29. Sponsler, B. A. (2009). The role and relevance of rankings in higher education policymaking. Issue Brief. Institute for Higher Education Policy.Google Scholar
  30. The Complete University Guide. (2012). Accessed 12 June 2013.
  31. Times Higher Education. (2012). The world university rankings. Accessed 12 June 2013.
  32. University Ranking by Academic Performance. (2012a). URAP ranking of Turkish universities. Accessed 12 June 2013.
  33. University Ranking by Academic Performance. (2012b). URAP ranking of top 200 universities. Accessed 12 June 2013.
  34. U.S. News & World Report. (2012). America’s best colleges and universities. Accessed 12 June 2013.
  35. Usher, A., & Savino, M. (2007). A global survey of university league tables. Higher Education in Europe, 32(1), 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Van Dyke, N. (2005). Twenty years of university report cards. Higher Education in Europe, 30(2), 103–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Van Leeuven, T. N., Moed, H. F., Tussen, R. J. W., Visser, M. S., & van Raan, A. F. J. (2001). Language biases in the coverage of the citation index and its consequences for international comparisons of national research performance. Scientometrics, 51(1), 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Van Raan, A. F. J. (2005). Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 62(1), 133–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Veidas Magazine. (2012). Lietuvos Universitetų Reitingas 2012. Accessed 12 June 2013.

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Murat Perit Çakır
    • 1
  • Cengiz Acartürk
    • 1
  • Oğuzhan Alaşehir
    • 1
  • Canan Çilingir
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.URAP Laboratory, Informatics InstituteMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Industrial Engineering DepartmentMiddle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations