Abstract
University rankings, initially conceived as instruments for benchmarking academic performance, have grown into influential global enterprises whose outputs often mirror structural resources more than scholarly merit. Although current university ranking systems present themselves as neutral arbiters of excellence, their reliance on reputation surveys, bibliometric weightings, and composite indices introduces opacity and susceptibility to bias. Methods that appear objective can inadvertently reinforce the advantages of already well-resourced institutions. The consequences are tangible. Faculty may feel pressure to orient research agendas toward citation maximization rather than intellectual originality, while governments and administrators often allocate resources toward incremental movement in numerical tables rather than safeguarding academic freedom or cultivating inquiry of lasting significance. Universities in lower-income settings rich in talent and engaged in contextually important scholarship are often structurally disadvantaged by metrics that reward financial capacity over intellectual diversity. This can narrow scholarly priorities and encourage conformity to external indices. This Editorial argues for a renewed evaluative framework that is transparent, resilient to distortion, and aligned with the university’s enduring mission. Such a system should embody five attributes: transparency of metrics and datasets; integrity through decentralized, auditable infrastructures; emphasis on replicability, open knowledge, and societal contribution; explicit protection of academic freedom as a measurable indicator; and recognition of student outcomes through community contribution and intellectual resilience. At stake is a civilizational choice: whether to persist in mistaking reputation for reality, or to design evaluative measures that sustain the university’s role in seeking, safeguarding, and transmitting knowledge in the service of humanity.
References
Shin JC, Toutkoushian RK. The past, present, and future of university rankings. In: University rankings: Theoretical basis, methodology and impacts on global higher education. Springer; 2011. p. 1-16.
Hazelkorn E. Impact and Influence of Rankings — The View from Inside Higher Education. In: Rankings and the Reshaping of Higher Education: The Battle for World-Class Excellence. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK; 2011. p. 82-120.
Stack M. Global university rankings and the politics of knowledge: University of Toronto Press; 2021.
U.S. News & World Report. Best Global Universities 2025 [Internet]. U.S. News & World Report; 2025. Available from: https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities.
QS Quacquarelli Symonds. QS Universities Rankings - Top Global Universities & Colleges 2025 [Internet]. London, England: QS Quacquarelli Symonds; 2025. Available from: https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings.
Times Higher Education. World University Rankings 2025 [Internet]. London, UK: Times Higher Education; 2025. Available from: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings.
ShanghaiRanking Consultancy. 2025 Academic Ranking of World Universities [Internet]. ShanghaiRanking Consultancy; 2025. Available from: https://www.shanghairanking.com/rankings/arwu/2025.
Ioannidis JP, Patsopoulos NA, Kavvoura FK, Tatsioni A, Evangelou E, Kouri I, et al. International ranking systems for universities and institutions: a critical appraisal. BMC medicine. 2007;5(1):30.
Adam E. Study of the influence of global university rankings on institutional strategies, decision-making, and policy choice: The case of four Canadian research universities: University of Toronto (Canada); 2021.
Aithal P, Kumar P. Global ranking and its implications in higher education. SCHOLEDGE International Journal of Business Policy & Governance. 2020;7(03):25-47.
Willie MM. Citation Cartels: Understanding Their Emergence and Impact on the Academic World. Golden Ratio of Data in Summary. 2024;4(2):862-870.
Amaral A. Equity in higher education: Evidences, policies and practices. Setting the scene. In: Equity policies in global higher education: Reducing Inequality and increasing participation and attainment. Springer; 2022. p. 23-46.
Marope PTM, Wells PJ, Hazelkorn E. Rankings and accountability in higher education: Uses and misuses: Unesco; 2013.
Kaviani R, Salehi N, Ibrahim AZB, Nor MRM, Hamid F, Hamzah NH, et al. The significance of the Bayt al-Hikma (House of Wisdom) in early abbasid caliphate (132A. H-218A. H). Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research. 2012;11(9):1272-1277.
Algeriani AA-A, Mohadi M. The house of wisdom (Bayt al-Hikmah) and its civilizational impact on islamic libraries: a historical perspective. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. 2017;8(5):179-187.
Szpiech R. JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY, AND ISLAM IN. In: The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Europe. Oxford University Press; 2021. p. 79–99.
Hazelkorn E, Altbach P. Caveat Emptor: Higher Education Rankings as Profit Centers. International Higher Education. 2024(120). DOI: 10.6017/895b9e0d.62d562ed.
Johnes J. University rankings: What do they really show? Scientometrics. 2018;115(1):585-606.
Gadd E. Mis-measuring our universities: Why global university rankings don’t add up. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics. 2021;6:680023.
Moustafa K. University rankings: Time to reconsider. BioImpacts: BI. 2024;15:30290.
Hunt JP. Credit rating agencies and the worldwide credit crisis: The limits of reputation, the insufficiency of reform, and a proposal for improvement. Colum Bus L Rev. 2009:109, https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/colb2009&div=7&id=&page=.
Fauzi MA, Tan CN-L, Daud M, Awalludin MMN. University rankings: A review of methodological flaws. Issues in Educational Research. 2020;30(1):79-96.
Baltaru R-D, Manac R-D, Ivan M-D. Do rankings affect universities’ financial sustainability?–financial vulnerability to rankings and elite status as a positional good. Studies in Higher Education. 2022;47(11):2323-2335.
Berman EP, Hirschman D. The sociology of quantification: Where are we now? Contemporary Sociology. 2018;47:257-266.
Horstschräer J. University rankings in action? The importance of rankings and an excellence competition for university choice of high-ability students. Economics of Education Review. 2012;31(6):1162-1176.
Boulton G, Lucas C. What are universities for? Chinese Science Bulletin. 2011;56(23):2506-2517.
Jarocka M. Transparency of university rankings in the effective management of university. Business, management and education. 2015;13(1):64-75.
Hauptman Komotar M. Discourses on quality and quality assurance in higher education from the perspective of global university rankings. Quality Assurance in Education. 2020;28(1):78-88.
Davis M. Can college rankings be believed? She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation. 2016;2(3):215-230.
Lynch K. Control by numbers: New managerialism and ranking in higher education. Critical studies in education. 2015;56(2):190-207.
Millot B. International rankings: Universities vs. higher education systems. International journal of educational development. 2015;40:156-165.
Priporas C-V, Kamenidou I. Perceptions of potential postgraduate Greek business students towards UK universities, brand and brand reputation. Journal of Brand Management. 2011;18(4):264-273.
Ermagun A, Erinne J. A systematic exclusion induced by institutional ranking in engineering faculty hiring: Introducing a cycle of winners and losers. Plos one. 2022;17(12):e0275861.
Kethüda Ö. Evaluating the influence of university ranking on the credibility and perceived differentiation of university brands. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education. 2024;34(2):736-753.
Huang M-H. Opening the black box of QS World University Rankings. Research Evaluation. 2012;21(1):71-78.
Erkkilä T, Piironen O. What counts as world class? Global university rankings and shifts in institutional strategies. In: World class universities: A contested concept. Springer Nature Singapore Singapore; 2021. p. 171-196.
Lim MA, Williams Øerberg J. Active instruments: on the use of university rankings in developing national systems of higher education. Policy Reviews in Higher Education. 2017;1(1):91-108.
United Nations University. Rethinking Quality: UNU-convened Experts Challenge the Harmful Influence of Global University Rankings [Internet]. Tokyo, Japan: United Nations University; 2023. Available from: https://unu.edu/press-release/rethinking-quality-unu-convened-experts-challenge-harmful-influence-global-university.
CLAIR RS. 6 Marginalizing the Marginalized: How Rankings Fail the Global South. In: Global university rankings and the politics of knowledge.2021. p. 133.
Austin I, Jones GA. Emerging trends in higher education governance: Reflecting on performance, accountability and transparency. Research handbook on quality, performance and accountability in higher education. 2018:536-547. DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2017.1381472.
Peters MA. Global university rankings: Metrics, performance, governance. Taylor & Francis; 2019. p. 5-13.
Harvey L. Rankings of higher education institutions: A critical review. Quality in Higher Education. 2008;14:187-207.
Barron GR. The Berlin principles on ranking higher education institutions: Limitations, legitimacy, and value conflict. Higher Education. 2017;73(2):317-333.
Hamann J, Ringel L. The discursive resilience of university rankings. Higher Education. 2023;86(4):845-863.
Lerch JC, Frank DJ, Schofer E. The social foundations of academic freedom: Heterogeneous institutions in world society, 1960 to 2022. American Sociological Review. 2024;89(1):88-125.
Spannagel J, Kinzelbach K. The academic freedom index and its indicators: Introduction to new global time-series V-Dem data. Quality & quantity. 2022:1. DOI: 10.1007/s11135-022-01544-0.
Merlec MM, Sinai NK, In HP, editors. A Blockchain-based Trustworthy and Secure Review System for Decentralized e-Portfolio Platforms. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Information and Communication Technology Convergence (ICTC); 2023 October 11-13; Jeju Island, Korea. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
Alammary AS. Building a sustainable digital infrastructure for higher education: A blockchain-based solution for cross-institutional enrollment. Sustainability. 2024;17(1):194.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 Malik Sallam (Author)

