ArticleBMC medicine2007
International ranking systems for universities and institutions: a critical appraisal.
Article in BMC medicine, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Science-wide mapping of institutions based on affiliated authors' impact and research integrity proxies.Royal Society open science · 2026Article
- University rankings: Time to reconsider.BioImpacts : BI · 2025Article
- Early-career factors largely determine the future impact of prominent researchers: evidence across eight scientific fields.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- A correlation study of sustainable development goal (SDG) interactions.Quality & quantity · 2023Article
- Why social accountability of medical schools in Sudan can lead to better primary healthcare and excellence in medical education?Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2020Review
- Turning the tables: A university league-table based on quality not quantity.F1000Research · 2019Article
- Educational ranking of medical universities in Iran (ERMU).Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2018Article
- Authorial and institutional stratification in open access publishing: the case of global health research.PeerJ · 2018Article
- How can Ethics be Considered as a Criterion for Universities Ranking?Science and engineering ethics · 2017Article
- Considerations for higher efficiency and productivity in research activities.BioData mining · 2016Article
- Effect of Doximity Residency Rankings on Residency Applicants' Program Choices.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2015Article
- CREATING: a sustainable plan for biomedical higher education in Saudi Arabia. Phase I.International journal of health sciences · 2015Review
- Article
- Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: an online survey of academics from high-ranking universities.BMC medical research methodology · 2013Review
- The analysis of health research system evaluation in medical sciences universities.Iranian journal of public health · 2013Article
- Too much noise in the Times Higher Education rankings.Scientometrics · 2010Article
- Do pressures to publish increase scientists' bias? An empirical support from US States Data.PloS one · 2010Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRanking of universities and institutions has attracted wide attention recently. Several systems have been proposed that attempt to rank academic institutions worldwide.
methodsWe review the two most publicly visible ranking systems, the Shanghai Jiao Tong University 'Academic Ranking of World Universities' and the Times Higher Education Supplement 'World University Rankings' and also briefly review other ranking systems that use different criteria. We assess the construct validity for educational and research excellence and the measurement validity of each of the proposed ranking criteria, and try to identify generic challenges in international ranking of universities and institutions.
resultsNone of the reviewed criteria for international ranking seems to have very good construct validity for both educational and research excellence, and most don't have very good construct validity even for just one of these two aspects of excellence. Measurement error for many items is also considerable or is not possible to determine due to lack of publication of the relevant data and methodology details. The concordance between the 2006 rankings by Shanghai and Times is modest at best, with only 133 universities shared in their top 200 lists. The examination of the existing international ranking systems suggests that generic challenges include adjustment for institutional size, definition of institutions, implications of average measurements of excellence versus measurements of extremes, adjustments for scientific field, time frame of measurement and allocation of credit for excellence.
conclusionNaïve lists of international institutional rankings that do not address these fundamental challenges with transparent methods are misleading and should be abandoned. We make some suggestions on how focused and standardized evaluations of excellence could be improved and placed in proper context.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.