Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Correlation among top 100 universities in the major six global rankings: policy implications

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The discrepancies among various global university rankings derive us to compare and correlate their results. Thus, the 2015 results of six major global rankings are collected, compared and analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively using both ranking orders and scores of the top 100 universities. The selected six global rankings include: Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), Quacquarelli Symonds World University Ranking (QS), Times Higher Education World University Ranking (THE), US News & World Report Best Global University Rankings (USNWR), National Taiwan University Ranking (NTU), and University Ranking by Academic Performance (URAP). Two indexes are used for comparison namely, the number of overlapping universities and Pearson’s/Spearman’s correlation coefficients between each pair of the studied six global rankings. The study is extended to investigate the intra-correlation of ARWU results of the top 100 universities over a 5-year period (2011–2015) as well as investigation of the correlation of ARWU overall score with its single indicators. The ranking results limited to 49 universities appeared in the top 100 in all six rankings are compared and discussed. With a careful analysis of the key performance indicators of these 49 universities one can easily define the common features for a world-class university. The findings indicate that although each ranking system applies a different methodology, there are from a moderate to high correlations among the studied six rankings. To see how the correlation behaves at different levels, the correlations are also conducted for the top 50 and the top 200 universities. The comparison indicates that the degree of correlation and the overlapping universities increase with an increase in the list length. The results of URAP and NTU show the strongest correlation among the studied rankings. Shortly, careful understanding of various ranking methodologies are of utmost importance before analysis, interpretation and usage of ranking results. The findings of the present study could inform policy makers at various levels to develop policies aiming to improve performance and thereby enhance the ranking position.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguillo, I. F., Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., & Ortega, J. L. (2010). Comparing university rankings. Scientometrics, 85(1), 243–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Ohali, M., & Shin, I. C. (2013). International collaboration. In L. Smith & A. Abouammoh (Eds.), Higher education in Saudi Arabia (pp. 159–166). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Altbach, P. G. (2012). The globalization of college and university rankings. Change, 1, 26–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bastedo, M. N., & Bowman, N. A. (2011). College rankings as an inter-organizational dependency: Establishing the foundation for strategic and institutional account. Research in Higher Education, 52(1), 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowden, R. (2000). Fantasy higher education: University and college league tables. Quality in Higher Education, 6(1), 41–60.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Cakir, M. P., Acarturk, C., Alasehir, O., & Cilingir, C. (2015). A comparative analysis of global and national university ranking systems. Scientometrics, 103, 813–848.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, K., & Liao, P. (2012). A comparative study on world university rankings: A bibliometric survey. Scientometrics, 92(1), 89–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, S. K. (2011). World university rankings: Take with a large pinch of salt. European Journal of Higher Education, 1(4), 369–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dill, D., & Soo, M. (2005). Academic quality, league tables and public policy: A cross-national analysis of university ranking systems. Higher Education, 49(4), 494–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gawellek, B., & Sunder, M. (2016). The German excellence initiative and efficiency change among universities, 2001-2011. http://econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/126581/1/846676990.pdf. Accessed June 27, 2016.

  • Harvey, L. (2008). Rankings of higher education institutions: A critical review. Quality in Higher Education, 14(3), 187–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazelkorn, E. (2008). Learning to live with league tables and ranking: The experience of institutional leaders. Higher Education Policy, 21, 193–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazelkorn, E. (2009). Rankings and the battle for world-class excellence: Institutional strategies and policy choices. Higher Education Management and Policy, 21(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hazelkorn, E. (2014). Reflections on a decade of global rankings: What we’ve learned and outstanding issues. European Journal of Higher Education, 49(1), 12–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazelkorn, E. (2015a). Rankings and quality assurance: Do rankings measure quality? Policy Brief Number 4. CHEA International Quality Group: Washington, DC.

  • Hazelkorn, E. (2015b). Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: The battle for world-class excellence. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hou, Y. Q., Morse, R., & Jiang, Z. L. (2011). Analyzing the movement of ranking order in world universities’ rankings: How to understand and use universities’ rankings effectively to draw up a universities’ development strategy. Evaluation Bimonthly, 30, 43–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, M. X. (2011). The comparison of performance ranking of scientific papers for world universities and other ranking systems. Evaluation Bimonthly, 29, 53–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • IHEP (Institute for Higher Education Policy). (2009). Impact of college rankings on institutional decision making: Four country case studies. http://www.ihep.org/sites/default/files/uploads/docs/pubs/impactofcollegerankings.pdf. Accessed June 26, 2016.

  • Khosrowjerdi, M., & Seif Kashani, Z. (2013). Asian top universities in six world university ranking systems. Webology, 10(2), Article 114. Retrieved from http://www.webology.org/2013/v10n2/a114.pdf.

  • Marginson, S. (2007). Global university rankings: Implications in general and for Australia. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 29(2), 131–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, S., & van der Wende, M. (2007). Globalisation and higher education. OECD education working papers no. 8. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/173831738240. Accessed June 25, 2016.

  • Marope, P. T. M., Wells, P. J., & Hazelkorn, E. (Eds.). (2013). Rankings and accountability in higher education: Uses and misuses. Paris: UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritzen, J. (2010). A chance for European universities. Amsterdam: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmi, J., & Saroyan, A. (2007). League tables as policy instruments: Uses and misuses. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19, 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shehatta, I., & Mahmood, K. (2016). Research collaboration in Saudi Arabia 1980–2014: Bibliometric patterns and national policy to foster research quantity and quality. Libri, 66(1), 13–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soh, K. C. (2011a). Don’t read university rankings like reading football league tables: Taking a close look at the indicators. Higher Education Review, 44(1), 15–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soh, K. C. (2011b). Mirror, mirror on the wall: A closer look at the top ten in university rankings. European Journal of Higher Education, 1(1), 77–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P., & Braddock, R. (2007). International university ranking systems and the idea of university excellence. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, 29(3), 245–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tofallia, C. (2012). A different approach to university rankings. Higher Education, 63, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Usher, A., & Savino, M. (2007). A global survey of university league tables. Higher Education in Europe, 32(1), 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Official websites of ranking systems

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ranking Unit, University of Dammam, Dammam, Saudi Arabia

    Ibrahim Shehatta

  2. Chemistry Department, Faculty of Science, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt

    Ibrahim Shehatta

  3. Deanship of Library Affairs, University of Dammam, Dammam, Saudi Arabia

    Khalid Mahmood

  4. Department of Information Management, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan

    Khalid Mahmood

Authors
  1. Ibrahim Shehatta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Khalid Mahmood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ibrahim Shehatta.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shehatta, I., Mahmood, K. Correlation among top 100 universities in the major six global rankings: policy implications. Scientometrics 109, 1231–1254 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2065-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2065-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation