Abstract
Many university rankings have been proposed in recent decades. The remarkable divergence among various rankings leads to confusion for decision-makers. In this paper, we propose to generate a comprehensive world university ranking by aggregating existing individual university rankings. We present a new graph-based rank aggregation method by defining a competition graph of universities, in which each node represents a university and each directed edge represents an outranking relation between two universities. We propose to measure the quality of a university by the out-in degree ratio based on which we rank all universities. Moreover, We evaluate the effectiveness of our comprehensive world university ranking from the perspectives of normality and impartiality, respectively. It is shown that the aggregated ranking will be applied as a blend integrating all the information from individual university rankings and can efficiently eliminate the outliers and regional partiality as a “smoother”.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bastedo MN, Bowman NA (2011) College rankings as an interorganizational dependency: establishing the foundation for strategic and institutional accounts. Res High Educ 52(1):3–23
Bougnol ML, Dulá JH (2015) Technical pitfalls in university rankings. High Educ 69(5):859–866
Bowman NA, Bastedo MN (2009) Getting on the front page: organizational reputation, status signals, and the impact of us news and world report on student decisions. Res High Educ 50(5):415–436
Buela-Casal G, Gutiérrez-Martínez O, Bermúdez-Sánchez MP, Vadillo-Muñoz O (2007) Comparative study of international academic rankings of universities. Scientometrics 71(3):349–365
Çakır MP, Acartürk C, Alaşehir O, Çilingir C (2015) A comparative analysis of global and national university ranking systems. Scientometrics 103(3):813–848
Chen YL, Cheng LC, Hsu WY (2013) A new approach to the group ranking problem: finding consensus ordered segments from users’ preference data. Decis Sci 44(6):1091–1119
Cook WD, Kress M (1990) A data envelopment model for aggregating preference rankings. Manag Sci 36(11):1302–1310
Dill DD, Soo M (2005) Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: a cross-national analysis of university ranking systems. High Educ 49(4):495–533
Docampo D (2013) Reproducibility of the Shanghai academic ranking of world universities. Scientometrics 94(2):567–587
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. Econ Educ Rev 26(2):244–255
Hazelkorn E (2007) The impact of league tables and ranking systems on higher education decision making. High Educ Manag Policy 19(2):1–24
Huang MH (2011) A comparison of three major academic rankings for world universities: from a research evaluation perspective. J Libr Inf Stud 9(1):1–25
Ioannidis JP, Patsopoulos NA, Kavvoura FK, Tatsioni A, Evangelou E, Kouri I, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Liberopoulos G (2007) International ranking systems for universities and institutions: a critical appraisal. BMC Med 5(1):1
Kerr C (2001) The uses of the university. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Langville AN, Meyer CD (2012) Who’s# 1?: the science of rating and ranking. Princeton, Princeton University Press
Moed HF (2017) A critical comparative analysis of five world university rankings. Scientometrics 110(2):967–990
Pavel AP (2015) Global university rankings: a comparative analysis. Procedia Econ Finance 26:54–63
Pedings KE, Langville AN, Yamamoto Y (2012) A minimum violations ranking method. Optim Eng 13(2):349–370
Reilly B (2002) Social choice in the south seas: electoral innovation and the Borda count in the Pacific Island countries. Int Political Sci Rev 23(4):355–372
Robinson-Garcia N, Torres-Salinas D, Herrera-Viedma E, Docampo D (2019) Mining university rankings: publication output and citation impact as their basis. Res Eval 28(3):232–240
Safón V (2013) What do global university rankings really measure? The search for the x factor and the x entity. Scientometrics 97(2):223–244
Saisana M, d’Hombres B, Saltelli A (2011) Rickety numbers: volatility of university rankings and policy implications. Res Policy 40(1):165–177
Salmi J, Saroyan A (2007) League tables as policy instruments. High Educ Manag Policy 19(2):1–38
Sorz J, Wallner B, Seidler H, Fieder M (2015) Inconsistent year-to-year fluctuations limit the conclusiveness of global higher education rankings for university management. PeerJ 3:e1217
Sponsler BA (2009) The role and relevance of rankings in higher education policymaking. Institute for Higher Education Policy, Washington, DC
Usher A, Savino M (2007) A global survey of university ranking and league tables. High Educ Europe 32(1):5–15
Van Raan AF (2005) Fatal attraction: conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics 62(1):133–143
Acknowledgements
Jun Wu acknowledges the Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 71871217 and the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province under Grant No. 2019JJ20019. Xin Lu acknowledges the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 71522014, 71771213, 71790615, and 91846301.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zhang, Y., Xiao, Y., Wu, J. et al. Comprehensive world university ranking based on ranking aggregation. Comput Stat 36, 1139–1152 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00180-020-01033-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00180-020-01033-8