Abstract
University rankings are typically presenting their results as league tables with more emphasis on final scores and positions, than on the clarification of why the universities are ranked as they are. Finding out the latter is often not possible, because final scores are based on weighted indicators where raw data and the processing of these are not publically available. In this study we use a sample of Scandinavian universities, explaining what is causing differences between them in the two most influential university rankings: Times Higher Education and the Shanghai-ranking. The results show that differences may be attributed to both small variations on what we believe are not important indicators, as well as substantial variations on what we believe are important indicators. The overall aim of this paper is to provide a methodology that can be used in understanding universities’ different ranks in global university rankings.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bookstein, F. L., Seidler, H., Fieder, M., & Winckler, G. (2010). Too much noise in the Times Higher Education rankings. Scientometrics, 85(1), 295–299.
Bowman, N. A., & Bastedo, M. N. (2011). Anchoring effects in world university rankings: Exploring biases in reputation scores. Higher Education, 61(4), 431–444.
Carter, N., Klein, R., & Day, P. (1992). How organizations measure success. The use of performance indicators in government. London: Routledge.
Dichev, I. (2001). New or noise? Estimating the noise in the US News university rankings. Research in Higher Education, 42(3), 237–266.
Docampo, D., & Cram, L. (2015). On the effects of institutional size in university classifications: The case of the Shanghai ranking. Scientometrics, 102(2), 1325–1346.
Elken, M., Hovdhaugen, E., & Stensaker, B. (2016). Global rankings in the Nordic region: Challenging the identity of research-intensive universities? Higher Education. doi:10.1007/s10734-015-9975-6.
Gnolek, S. L., Falciano, V. T., & Kuncel, R. W. (2014). Modeling change and variation in U.S. News and World Report College Rankings: What would it really take to be in the Top 20? Research in Higher Education, 55, 761–779.
Harvey, L. (2008). Rankings of higher education institutions: A critical review. Quality in Higher Education, 14(3), 187–207.
Kehm, B., & Stensaker, B. (Eds.). (2009). University rankings, diversity and the new landscape of higher education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Liu, N. C., & Cheng, Y. (2005). The academic ranking of world universities. Higher Education in Europe, 30(2), 127–136.
Piro, F. N., Hovdhaugen, E., Elken, M., Sivertsen, G., Benner, M., & Stensaker, B. (2014): Nordiske universiteter og internasjonale universitetsrangeringer. Hva forklarer nordiske plasseringer og hvordan forholder universitetene seg til rangeringene? NIFU Report 25/2014. Oslo: NIFU.
Safón, V. (2013). What do global university rankings really measure? The search for the X factor and the X entity. Scientometrics, 97, 223–244.
Waltman, L., Calero-Medina, C., Kosten, J., Noyons, E. C. M., Tijssen, R. J. W., van Eck, N. J., et al. (2012). The Leiden Ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation. CWTS Working Paper Series (CWTS-WP-2012-007). Leiden: Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS).
Acknowledgments
This paper is based on a NIFU-report (Piro et al. 2014) commissioned by the Ministry of Education and Research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Piro, F.N., Sivertsen, G. How can differences in international university rankings be explained?. Scientometrics 109, 2263–2278 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2056-5
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2056-5