University rankings and academic metrics that raise eyebrows Premium

Despite decades of experience, the agency’s data may not accurately represent the realities of performance among Indian universities, and it must critically evaluate its entire ranking process

The Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings (WUR) 2025, released in early October 2024, have shaken public faith and sown doubts about the credibility of ranking Indian institutions based on research quality. India’s top research institution for decades, which is undisputed, namely, the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) Bangalore, has been ranked 50 with a score of 51.5. Surprisingly, institutions such as Chitkara University Chandigarh, Saveetha Institute Chennai, Shoolini University Solan, Lovely Professional University Phagwara, and Thapar Institute Patiala occupy the top five positions with scores of 88.9, 88.6, 87.2, 84.7, and 83.3, respectively. Notably, four of these five institutions are concentrated within a small geographical region of Chandigarh, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh, raising questions about the methodology and fairness of the rankings.

The announcement has sparked controversy regarding the assessment of Indian institutions, with doubts being raised over the objectivity and credibility of the ranking system. Further exacerbating these concerns, several of India’s premier institutions, including the older and some the newer Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), chose not to participate in the rankings. Their abstention was driven by apprehensions regarding the transparency and fairness of THE’s evaluation processes, which they believe may lead to skewed and arbitrary rankings. This collective withdrawal underscores the broader scepticism surrounding the efficacy and the accuracy of global university ranking systems.

THE World University Rankings 2024 evaluated over 2,000 institutions from 115 countries and regions. The methodology assesses performance across five key areas: teaching (learning environment); research environment (includes volume, income, and reputation); research quality; international outlook (covering staff, students, and research); and industry (knowledge transfer). The first three categories each carry a weight of approximately 30%, while the fourth and fifth categories contribute 7.5% and 4%, respectively.

The research ranking is based on two key areas: research environment and research quality. The research environment includes factors such as research reputation, income, and productivity, while research quality is evaluated through citation impact, research strength, excellence, and influence. Research reputation carries a weight of 18%; citation impacts 15%, and the remaining factors, i.e., research strength, excellence, and influence, account for approximately 5% each.

The fundamental premise is that a robust research environment is the foundation for achieving research quality and ensures overall excellence. These two aspects are strongly correlated. However, this premise is under question when examining the scores of the top five universities ranked for research quality, which are surprisingly low: 11.4, 16.0, 21.3, 14.6, and 13.9, respectively.

In contrast, the 50th-ranked IISc in research quality holds the top position in the research environment, scoring 50. This ranking is undisputed, as the IISc is recognised as a leader in fostering a robust research environment. The low scores of the top five universities in research quality further highlight that none of these institutions is well-known for its research environments.

These observations suggest that achieving high research quality without robust research environments undermines the credibility of the THE ranking system, rendering it a subject of ridicule among the public and relevant stakeholders. This situation raises significant questions about the system’s objectivity, credibility, and fairness. Further, the metrics used to measure research quality appear flawed and susceptible to manipulation.