Search

AbstractThe main objective of the current study is to establish a justifiable data-driven students-faculty ratio (SFR) benchmark for higher education institutions (HEIs) in the Sultanate of Oman. This is established based on analyzing selected secondary data from three sources using purposive sampling. This study reflects quantitative research adopting descriptive analysis (frequency and percentage). The three sources of data used to arrive at this national benchmark are: (1) World Bank Open Data, (2) Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) University Rankings, and (3) THE (Times Higher Education) University Rankings. Based on 13 data points, the simple (unweighted) average SFR for Oman is 19.04. The current study recommends an upper limit of 30 students per academic full time faculty member in Omani HEIs. When the most-recent records in the World Bank Open Data portal for the 22 Arab League countries were averaged, a regional benchmark of 24.82 was obtained (which decreases to 17.00 if a subset of the six Gulf Cooperation Council, or GCC, countries is considered). The seven HEIs (all are universities) that received a rank in the latest edition (2024 edition) of QS Arab Region University Rankings (QS-AUR) were among the data points considered in the analysis. These QS ranking results were published online on 18/October/2023, with a total of 223 ranked Arab HEIs. The five HEIs (four universities and one standalone university college) that either received a rank (only Sultan Qaboos University, or SQU) or were recognized as a reporter without being qualified enough to officially receive a rank in the latest edition (2024 edition) of THE World University Rankings (THE-WUR) were also considered in the analysis. These THE ranking results were published online on 27/September/2023, with a total of 1,904 ranked HEIs worldwide. As a secondary objective, the study assesses the level of mismatch in the SFR value for four Omani universities that appeared in the 2024 edition of both QS-AUR and THE-WUR. The percentage of mismatch in SFR between the QS and THE values (with respect to the average of the two values) for each of these four universities ranged from 0.68% to 25.30%. As a tertiary objective, the study gives an overview about three popular university ranking services, which are: QS, THE, and ARWU (Academic Ranking of World Universities, also known as Shanghai Ranking). Sultan Qaboos University (SQU) is the only Omani HEI that received a global rank through either the QS or THE ranking service in their respective latest edition (edition 2024, released in 2023), and it is the only Omani HEI that was ever ranked by ARWU since its first edition in June 2003 (but it was not ranked in the latest ‘2023’ edition). The enrollment of Arab HEIs in the regional Arab version of THE rankings has grown faster than the regional QS counterpart when the latest 3 released editions are considered for both types of regional rankings, where the number of Arab HEIs ranked in the 2023 edition (released on 15/November/2023) of the Arab version of THE rankings (having 207 ranked Arab HEIs) is notably higher than its value in the earlier 2021 edition released on 27/July/2021 (having 125 ranked Arab HEIs).

Rankings are important to compare higher education institutions with other higher education institutions in the world, to develop international cooperation, to attract investments and foreign professors and students, to show their competitiveness and to be recognized at the international level. In this paper, an attempt is made to clarify the position of higher education institutions in Uzbekistan in international rankings, their participation in the events of international ranking agencies, and the factors that lead to the improvement of the position of universities in international rankings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study intended to examine ISC World University Ranking (ISC WUR) as an emerging ranking system. It draws on a descriptive-correlational method. First, the internal correlation held between the criteria of the ISC WUR was examined to clarify the representation of the total university score from each of its functional criteria in the ISC WUR system. Afterwards, the study assessed the extent to which the ISC WUR results diverge or converge at the general level and examined the similarities and differences between ISC WUR criteria and indicators results and those of Leiden, Nature Index, THE, and QS as complicated university rankings. The research sample included the universities ranked via the five global ranking systems in 2020. All ISC WUR's indicators revealed significant and positive correlations with the total ranking scores of the universities. There was a significantly positive correlation between the ISC WUR and those of Leiden, Nature Index, THE, and QS. Moreover, the indicators similarly present in ISC WUR and other ranking systems were significantly and positively correlated. In conclusion, the overall performance of each university in ISC WUR reflects all the functional criteria of that university, especially the criteria of research and international activities. Besides, although the ICS WUR and the other systems have differences and similarities in methodology, the results obtained from these systems are similar to a certain extent. Nevertheless, these similarities are not strong enough to claim that the ISC WUR presents the same results as other ranking systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Retos, Revista de Ciencias Administrativas y Económicas is the property of Universidad Politecnica Salesiana and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Moscow International University Ranking (MosIUR) is a global university ranking launched in 2017 with the intention of evaluating universities by considering three essential dimensions (education, research, and knowledge transfer). This ranking was designed and developed by the Russian Union of Rectors following a direct request from President Vladimir Putin. The objective of this work is to perform a threefold analysis of this ranking. First, a methodological analysis is carried out, focused on describing the nature of the indicators and sources employed. Second, a geopolitical analysis aims to determine how countries are represented in this new global ranking. Third, a webometric analysis is done, focused on the online visibility of the ranking. The results reveal MosIUR to be a ranking with an outstanding number of webometric indicators and clearly oriented towards transference to society. However, some methodological concerns arise regarding a few metrics. The geopolitical position of developed countries is similar to that in other global rankings, but slight differences emerge, such as the stronger presence of Russian universities. The cybermetric analysis confirms that, despite being international, this ranking is strongly limited to Russia. It can be concluded that, except for the palpable predominance of the USA, each ranking tends to place universities from their own country in a better position. The creation of MosIUR by the Russian government can thus be perceived as a political strategy to improve the reputation of Russian universities, increase funding, and accelerate their transformation into world-class universities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Moscow International University Ranking (MosIUR) is a global university ranking launched in 2017 with the intention of evaluating universities by considering three essential dimensions (education, research, and knowledge transfer). This ranking was designed and developed by the Russian Union of Rectors following a direct request from President Vladimir Putin. The objective of this work is to perform a threefold analysis of this ranking. First, a methodological analysis is carried out, focused on describing the nature of the indicators and sources employed. Second, a geopolitical analysis aims to determine how countries are represented in this new global ranking. Third, a webometric analysis is done, focused on the online visibility of the ranking. The results reveal MosIUR to be a ranking with an outstanding number of webometric indicators and clearly oriented towards transference to society. However, some methodological concerns arise regarding a few metrics. The geopolitical position of developed countries is similar to that in other global rankings, but slight differences emerge, such as the stronger presence of Russian universities. The cybermetric analysis confirms that, despite being international, this ranking is strongly limited to Russia. It can be concluded that, except for the palpable predominance of the USA, each ranking tends to place universities from their own country in a better position. The creation of MosIUR by the Russian government can thus be perceived as a political strategy to improve the reputation of Russian universities, increase funding, and accelerate their transformation into world-class universities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drawing on the concepts of mediatisation and celebrification, this paper analyses how the Nobel Prize is used as a proxy of excellence by the 'Big Three' university rankers and top-ranked universities. Ranking advisories, university leadership at top-ranked institutions, and Nobel Prize adjudication committees are overwhelming from the same demographic: white men from the Global North. Who they deem 'world class' is overwhelmingly from the same demographic. Even though universities no longer have policies that keep out equity-seeking groups, the metrics used to determine world-classness re-entrench who is seen as a scholarly and administrative leader in higher education and what is considered world class knowledge. Drawing on social network analysis and multimedia critical discourse analysis, this paper argues that Nobel adjudication committees, ranking advisories and the leadership of top-ranked institutions form an echo chamber that conflates academic excellence with being white, male, wealthy, and famous. The paper concludes with the urgent need to address the cognitive dissonance of universities promoting spurious media-based metrics while at the same time claiming a commitment to equity policies and practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]