Asian University Rankings - QS.com Asian University Rankings vs. THE QS World University Rankings
Methodology: Asian University Rankings vs. World University Rankings
The table below outlines the methodological differences between the THE-QS World University Rankings and the QS.com Asian University Rankings.
|
Criteria |
THE – QS World University Rankings |
QS.com Asian University Rankings In association with Chosun Ilbo |
||
|
Indicator |
Weight |
Indicator |
Weight |
|
|
Research Quality |
Global Academic Peer Review |
40% |
Asian Academic Peer Review |
30% |
|
Citations per Faculty |
20% |
Papers per Faculty |
15% |
|
|
|
|
Citations per Paper |
15% |
|
|
Teaching Quality |
Student Faculty Ratio |
20% |
Student Faculty Ratio |
20% |
|
Graduate Employability |
Global Employer Review |
10% |
Asian Employer Review |
10% |
|
Internationalisation |
International Faculty |
5% |
International Faculty |
2.5% |
|
International Students |
5% |
International Students |
2.5% |
|
|
|
|
Inbound Exchange Students |
2.5% |
|
|
|
|
Outbound Exchange Students |
2.5% |
|
KEY DIFFERENCES
Bibliometric Data
In the THE – QS World University Rankings the exercise is centered on large comprehensive institutions that are leaders in their own countries but have a global focus.
The Citations per Faculty indicator takes into account the strength of an institution’s research factored against the number of faculty members to take the size of institution in to account. For the QS.com Asian University Rankings, the objective is to reach the next tier of institutions in each country – institutions whose principal focus is on their own country. Much of the research carried out in these institutions, however strong, is carried out and published in the local language. The Scopus database is accepting of non-English language content but fundamentally, citations in any volume are an English language phenomenon. Here the bibliometric data has been separated into Papers per Faculty which is a productivity measure that should take into account ALL sources in Scopus independent of language and Citations per Paper which provides an average quality rating for each paper.
Internationalisation
Internationalisation is a far more complex notion than is reflected by the selection of just two indicators in the THE – QS World University Rankings. Due to problems with the availability of data, developing a richer picture at a global level is challenging but in this narrower geographic area we can include additional factors. For many countries with first languages other than English, exchange, rather than full time undergraduates is a key aspect of institutions’ approach to internationalisation. This is reflected, therefore, in the QS.com Asian University Rankings.
Future additional measures of internationalisation such as faculty exchange and something to look at international partnerships are likely to take effect in these regional rankings prior to global ones.
Weightings
The two bibliometric indicators provide a richer picture on research productivity and quality. Drilling down to a less well-known set of universities also means that the results of the peer review survey tail off somewhat more quickly than they do for the THE – QS World University Rankings. The combination of these factors leads to a reduced weighting for the Peer Review and an increase in the bibliometric factors.
IMPACT AND EFFECTS
In combination with additional responses to surveys and updated data from universities and third parties, these changes in methodology will have some inevitable effects on the results of the QS.com Asian University Rankings in contrast to the THE – QS World University Rankings.