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.
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.
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.
Altbach, P. G. (2012). The globalization of college and university rankings. Change, 1, 26–31.
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.
Bowden, R. (2000). Fantasy higher education: University and college league tables. Quality in Higher Education, 6(1), 41–60.
Cakir, M. P., Acarturk, C., Alasehir, O., & Cilingir, C. (2015). A comparative analysis of global and national university ranking systems. Scientometrics, 103, 813–848.
Chen, K., & Liao, P. (2012). A comparative study on world university rankings: A bibliometric survey. Scientometrics, 92(1), 89–103.
Cheng, S. K. (2011). World university rankings: Take with a large pinch of salt. European Journal of Higher Education, 1(4), 369–381.
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.
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.
Hazelkorn, E. (2008). Learning to live with league tables and ranking: The experience of institutional leaders. Higher Education Policy, 21, 193–215.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Huang, M. X. (2011). The comparison of performance ranking of scientific papers for world universities and other ranking systems. Evaluation Bimonthly, 29, 53–59.
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.
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.
Ritzen, J. (2010). A chance for European universities. Amsterdam: University Press.
Salmi, J., & Saroyan, A. (2007). League tables as policy instruments: Uses and misuses. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19, 1–39.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tofallia, C. (2012). A different approach to university rankings. Higher Education, 63, 1–18.
Usher, A., & Savino, M. (2007). A global survey of university league tables. Higher Education in Europe, 32(1), 5–15.
Official websites of ranking systems
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2065-4