SynthesisPloS one2018
Are university rankings useful to improve research? A systematic review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Science-wide mapping of institutions based on affiliated authors' impact and research integrity proxies.Royal Society open science · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of organizational and leadership success factors associated with fast-growing biomedical research.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Resilience of science after austerity.PNAS nexus · 2025Article
- Network assortativity for a multidimensional evaluation of socio-economic territorial biases in university rankings.PloS one · 2025Article
- Proposal of an objective formula-based model for equitable ranking of veterinary colleges.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- A New Model for Ranking Schools of Public Health: The Public Health Academic Ranking.International journal of public health · 2024Article
- A bibliometric analysis of the research outcome of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Khartoum 2019-2023.Sudanese journal of paediatrics · 2024Article
- Possibilities for ranking business schools and considerations concerning the stability of such rankings.PloS one · 2024Article
- The Association of Research Quantitative Measures With Faculty Ranks of Australian and New Zealand Dental Schools.Cureus · 2023Article
- Relationship between bibliometric indicators and university ranking positions.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Variations in surgical peer-reviewed publications among editorial board members, associate editors and their respective journal: Towards maintaining academic integrity.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2020Article
- How to grow a successful - and happy - research team.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2020Article
- Scientific output scales with resources. A comparison of US and European universities.PloS one · 2019Article
- Turning the tables: A university league-table based on quality not quantity.F1000Research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionConcerns about reproducibility and impact of research urge improvement initiatives. Current university ranking systems evaluate and compare universities on measures of academic and research performance. Although often useful for marketing purposes, the value of ranking systems when examining quality and outcomes is unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate usefulness of ranking systems and identify opportunities to support research quality and performance improvement.
methodsA systematic review of university ranking systems was conducted to investigate research performance and academic quality measures. Eligibility requirements included: inclusion of at least 100 doctoral granting institutions, be currently produced on an ongoing basis and include both global and US universities, publish rank calculation methodology in English and independently calculate ranks. Ranking systems must also include some measures of research outcomes. Indicators were abstracted and contrasted with basic quality improvement requirements. Exploration of aggregation methods, validity of research and academic quality indicators, and suitability for quality improvement within ranking systems were also conducted.
resultsA total of 24 ranking systems were identified and 13 eligible ranking systems were evaluated. Six of the 13 rankings are 100% focused on research performance. For those reporting weighting, 76% of the total ranks are attributed to research indicators, with 24% attributed to academic or teaching quality. Seven systems rely on reputation surveys and/or faculty and alumni awards. Rankings influence academic choice yet research performance measures are the most weighted indicators. There are no generally accepted academic quality indicators in ranking systems. DISCUSSION: No single ranking system provides a comprehensive evaluation of research and academic quality. Utilizing a combined approach of the Leiden, Thomson Reuters Most Innovative Universities, and the SCImago ranking systems may provide institutions with a more effective feedback for research improvement. Rankings which extensively rely on subjective reputation and "luxury" indicators, such as award winning faculty or alumni who are high ranking executives, are not well suited for academic or research performance improvement initiatives. Future efforts should better explore measurement of the university research performance through comprehensive and standardized indicators. This paper could serve as a general literature citation when one or more of university ranking systems are used in efforts to improve academic prominence and research performance.
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.