GLOBAL: Break-up means new global rankings

The UK-based Times Higher Education has ditched its long-term partner in
its annual World University Rankings in a move that will expand the number of international league tables published next year to five.

Unabashed, QS said it would not only continue to operate its rankings independent of the THE from 2010 but would also continue to publish results in leading media around the world, "ensuring the continued growth in visibility and awareness of the rankings".

The methodology used by the THE-QS rankings drew heavily on citation data provided from Scopus, journal publisher Elsevier's research literature database. But, unlike the metrics-heavy Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) compiled by the Shanghai Jiao Tong University, the THE-QS rankings also controversially includes the results of reputational surveys of academics and leading employers.

These have been criticised for perpetuating out-of-date perceptions of universities and reinforcing a received hierarchy of institutions. Their supporters have criticised the ARWU approach for using unashamedly historical data such as the number of staff winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals.

The fourth ranking, produced at the École des Mines in Paris, ranks universities according to the number of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies a university has produced. It has appeared twice and the French university is proposing to publish a third next year. And the fifth, produced twice-yearly by the Cybermetrics Lab in Spain and called the Webometrics Ranking of World Universities, compares universities based on their web presence.

It is not known whether international rankings compiled earlier this year by a Russian non-profit research organisation, and in 2007 by National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, will appear next year.

Jonathan Adams, Director of Research Evaluation at Thomson Reuters, said the 2010 THE rankings would continue to include reputational survey data. But Adams said the organisation would work closely with the academic community through the THE's academic advisory board and other channels to devise ways of reducing the "reputational hangover" effect.

"We are expecting next year's ranking will look rather different, with more information about the methodology," he told University World News. "Over two to three cycles, we expect to see some further changes, refinements and improvements. We are aiming for something that people will be able to pick up and say 'Yes, that makes a lot of sense - this probably agrees with what I see of the landscape around me'."

THE editor Ann Mroz said: "We acknowledge the criticism and now want to work with the sector to produce a legitimate and robust research tool for academics and university administrators."

Thomson Reuters' Web of Science platform provides access to citation databases covering 12,000 of the highest-impact academic journals and more than 110,000 conference proceedings. It spans the sciences, social sciences, arts and humanities, including retrospective coverage dating back to 1900.

The QS World University Rankings will continue with its existing methodology, including the Scopus database covering almost 18,000 titles from more than 5,000 international publishers, results from 435 million scientific web pages, 23 million patent records from five patent offices and 'articles-in-press' from over 3,000 journals.

Nunzio Quacquarelli, Managing Director of QS, said: "The partnership with THE may be at an end but the QS World University Rankings are unaffected. QS will continue its commitment to producing world class institutional research and providing ranking, classification and evaluation tools for a growing number of geographical and disciplinary contexts."

The last QS-THE rankings were published on schedule last month. The timing of next year's rival rankings poses something of a dilemma for the THE-Thomson Reuters team and for QS. Should they go head to head and publish at the same time or race to be first in the field?

david.jobbins@uw-news.com

* See our Features section for a discussion comparing prominent university league tables