The document outlines the methodology used in the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU). It discusses the history and development of ARWU since 2003. It describes the selection criteria including alumni awards, staff awards, highly cited researchers, papers in Nature and Science, total papers, and per capita performance. It also summarizes the results, features and impact of ARWU, and considers future directions including subject rankings, improvements to the methodology, and profiling of universities.

1. Methodology of Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) Dr. Ying CHENG Center for World-Class UniversitiesGraduate School of Education Shanghai Jiao Tong University 3 December, 2010 Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

2. Outline History Methodology Results and Analysis Features and Impact Future

3. HISTORY

5. Since 1990s, Chinese government has launched several initiatives for research universities. The best-known one is specially designed to build WCU (985 Project).

7. How many WCU should there be in the world?

8. What are the positions of top Chinese universities in the world?

10. 2004

11. 2005

12. 2006

13. 2007

14. 2008

15. 2009

17. Objective indicators

19. Engineering/Technology and Computer Sciences (ENG)

20. Life and Agriculture Sciences (LIFE)

21. Clinical Medicine and Pharmacy (MED)

23. Physics

24. Chemistry

25. Computer Sciences

28. Major universities of every country with significant amount of papers indexed by Citation Indexes of ThomsonNumber of universities actually ranked 1200 Number of universities published Top 500 Top 100 Top 100 Number of universities scanned > 2000 ARWU ARWU-FIELD ARWU-SUBJECT

29. Criteria and Weights of ARWU *: For institutions specialized in humanities and social sciences such as London School of Economics, N&S is not considered and the weight of N&S is relocated to other indicators

31. Alumni are defined as those who obtain bachelor, Master’s or doctoral degrees from the institution.

32. Different weights are set according to the periods of obtaining degrees. The weight is 100% for alumni of 1991-2000, 90% for alumni of 1981-1990, 80% for alumni of 1971-1980, and so on.

34. Staff is defined as those who work at an institution at the time of winning the prize.

35. Different weights are set according to the periods of winning the prizes. The weight is 100% for winners since 2001, 90% for winners in 1991-2000, 80% and so on.

36. If a winner is affiliated with more than one institution, each institution is assigned the reciprocal of the number of institutions.

38. The definition of categories and detailed procedures can be found at the website of Highlycited.com.

40. To distinguish the order of author affiliation, a weight of 100% is assigned for corresponding author, 50% for first author (second author if the first author is the same as corresponding author), 25% for the next author, and 10% for other authors.

42. A weight of 2 is assigned to articles indexed in SSCI to compensate the bias against social sciences.

44. If the number of academic staff for institutions of a country cannot be obtained, the total scores of the above five indicators is used.

46. Criteria and Weights of ARWU-SUBJECT

48. RESULTS & ANALYSIS

50. Engineering/Technology and Computer Sciences

51. Life and Agriculture Sciences

52. Clinical Medicine and Pharmacy

54. Physics

55. Chemistry

56. Computer Sciences

57. Economics / BusinessARWU-SUBJECT

58. Average Performance by ARWU Indicators

59. Distribution of Top 100 Universities

60. Distribution of Top 500 Universities

61. TOP 500 Universities by Country

62. Number of Top 500 Universities vs GDP More universities than expected Less universities than expected

63. Number of Top 500 Univvs GDP per Capita More universities than expected Less universities than expected

64. Which Countries Could Have More in Top 500? 10 Countries Russia Poland Greece Portugal Czech Turkey Saudi Arabia Iran Argentina Mexico

65. Which countries could have at least one Top 500 University? Asia: Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, UAE, Kuwait,Kazakhstan Europe: Romania, Slovak, Ukraine Americas: Colombia, Venezuela, Peru Africa: Algeria, Egypt, Morocco GDP > 72 Billions and GDP per capita > 1500

66. FEATURES & IMPACT

67. Features

68. Reports Reported by mainstream media in major countries USA The New York Times UKThe Times GermanyDeutsche Welle France Le Figaro Australia The Australian Japan The Yomiuri Shimbun Reported by hundreds of universities worldwide Campus news Annual reports Promotional brochures

69. Comments “the most widely used annual ranking of the world's research universities” A world of opportunity. (2005). Economist, Vol. 376. Issue 8443, p14-16. “the most influential international ranking” Bollag, Burton (2006). International group endorses principles for ranking of higher-education institutions. Chronicle of Higher Education, June 1, 2006 Chris Patten Chancellor of Oxford University “it looks like a pretty good stab at a fair comparison” Chris Patten's speech. (2004, February 5). Guardian “they offer an important comparative view of research performance and reputation” Chubb, I. (2007). Distinguishing (between) universities. Ian Chubb President of ANU

70. Applications To analyze the comparative advantages of Western Europe and US Destler, B. (2008) A new relationship. Nature, 453, 853-854, Dec 2008 “France's poor showing in the Shanghai rankings--helped trigger a national debate about higher education that resulted in a new law, passed last month, giving universities more freedom.” Enserink, M. (2007). Who Ranks the University Rankers? Science, Vol. 317. no. 5841, p 1026-1028. The Pursuit of Excellence. A European Institute of Technology Available at: https://rand.org/pubs/working_papers/2006/RAND_WR346.pdf

71. FUTURE

72. Limitations of Ranking Ranking is controversial, there are limitations and problems in any ranking. However, there are university rankings in almost every major country of the world. Whether universities and other stakeholders agree with rankings, they are clearly here to stay. The key issue then becomes how to improve rankings by rankers and how to wisely use the rankings by various stakeholders.

74. ARWU-FIELD

75. ARWU-SUBJECTmore subjects

79. Profiling and analysis of world-class universities at faculty/school level

80. Benchmarking with top research universities at departmental/program level

81. Annual report of world-class universities