Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39963558›Full record

ArticleBioImpacts : BI2025

University rankings: Time to reconsider.

Khaled Moustafa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BioImpacts : BI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Khaled MoustafaThe Arabic Preprint Server (ArabiXiv)‎.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0819-9064

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

University rankings offer some benefits but also come with significant drawbacks. While they can encourage healthy competition, they often lead to unethical practices and prioritize short- term gains over long-term educational purposes. Relying on biased metrics like citations and journal impact factors is a major flaw, potentially misrepresenting the true value of scholarly work. The foremost focus of universities should be on educating proficient students, advancing dependable knowledge, and addressing societal needs. Annual rankings based on one year's criteria and output prove impractical, as research outcomes and educational impact require more time to materialize. It is crucial to consider abandoning or reevaluating ranking systems to prevent biased, financially-driven approaches from causing harm. An internal assessment, gauging satisfaction levels within the university community and the quality of education provided, could offer a more effective approach to ranking universities. Acknowledging the negative impact of journal rankings took decades. It is imperative to avoid subjecting educational systems to similarly detrimental effects from university rankings. The most effective method for ranking universities is through an internal system that takes into account the satisfaction levels of university community members regarding their work conditions and overall institution, as well as whether students are acquiring the education and skills they seek.

Indexed as

Academic excellenceJournal impact factorMedical school rankingSchool rankingShanghai rankingTop universitiesUniversity ranking

Identifiers

PMID39963558
PMCPMC11830122

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.