Country-specific determinants of world university rankings
Country-specific determinants of world university rankings
Jacek Pietrucha 0 1
0 University of Economics , Katowice , Poland
1 & Jacek Pietrucha
This paper examines country-specific factors that affect the three most influential world university rankings (the Academic Ranking of World Universities, the QS World University Ranking, and the Times Higher Education World University Ranking). We run a cross sectional regression that covers 42-71 countries (depending on the ranking and data availability). We show that the position of universities from a country in the ranking is determined by the following country-specific variables: economic potential of the country, research and development expenditure, long-term political stability (freedom from war, occupation, coups and major changes in the political system), and institutional variables, including government effectiveness.
Ranking indicators policy; Educational system
World university rankings (WUR) have become very popular in recent years. They follow
different methodologies to assess the relative impact of each university on science and
. At the same time, these rankings are sometimes
overestimated in public debate as a mirror reflection of the efficiency of research and the higher
education system. Consequently, rankings are used in public debate to discuss the quality
of university management and the necessity for reform in research and higher education
(Hazelkorn 2007; AUBR 2010; Saisana et al. 2011)
There are a number of studies that explore the factors that determine the positions of
universities in international rankings. A few papers have researched determinants such as
academic quality management
(McCormack et al. 2014)
Aghion et al. (2010)
McCormack et al. (2014)
have pointed out that more autonomous universities that need to
compete more for resources are more productive.
Marconi and Ritze (2015)
relationship between a university’s score in international university rankings and its
expenditure per student and other factors, such as the university mission, size and
productive inefficiency. In an extensive number of studies the shortcomings of the rankings
have been pointed out due to their size, language, and hard science bias
(e.g. Taylor and
Braddock 2007; Saisana et al. 2011; Moed 2017)
. Safon (2013) has looked for hidden
factors, such as the reputation of a country, that are not related to the quality of modern
universities and are determinants of the influential rankings.
This paper aims to investigate more deeper determinants of the position of universities
in the rankings. The study is based on a basic intuition that there are common factors that
determine the international position of universities from a given country. These
countryspecific factors comprise not only economic variables (such as GDP), but also the
longevity and stability of the state, and the quality of institutions. This paper is structured as
follows: first the methodology of the three leading rankings and their shortcomings is
briefly described; secondly the methodology and data used in this study are outlined, and
finally the results are discussed.
The number of university rankings (national and international) is growing every year.
Some of the most prominent world university rankings include: the Academic Ranking of
World Universities (ARWU), the QS World University Ranking, and the Times Higher
Education World University Ranking.
The Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), also known as the Shanghai
Ranking, is conducted by researchers at the Centre for World-Class Universities at
Shanghai Jiao Tong University, and published by Shanghai Ranking Consultancy. A
description of the ranking can be found in
Liu and Cheng (2005)
. The ARWU is based on
four criteria: (1) quality of education, (2) quality of faculty, (3) research output, and (4)
academic performance. Universities that have Nobel laureates, Fields medalists, Highly
Cited Researchers, or papers published in Nature or Science are included in the ranking. In
addition, universities with a significant number of papers indexed by the Science Citation
Index-Expanded (SCIE) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) are also included
The QS World University Ranking is based on six performance indicators designed to
assess universities from four perspectives: research, teaching, employability and
internationalization by collecting information from both public databases and global surveys of
academics and graduate employers. Performance indicators comprise: academic reputation,
employer reputation, student-to-faculty ratio, citations per faculty, international faculty
ratio, and international student ratio. Academic reputation is measured using a global
survey, in which academics are asked to identify the institutions where they believe the
best work is currently taking place within their own field of expertise. In the same vein the
employer reputation indicator is also based on a global survey, asking employers to
identify the universities they perceive to be producing the best graduates
The Times Higher Education World University Ranking employs 13 performance
indicators that are grouped into five areas: teaching (reputation survey, staff-to-student
ratio, doctorate-to-bachelor’s ratio, doctorates-awarded to-academic-staff ratio, and
institutional income), research (reputation survey, research income, research productivity),
citations (research influence), international outlook (staff, students and research), and
industry income (knowledge transfer). The most prominent indicators look at a university’s
reputation for research and teaching excellence among its peers, based on the responses to
the annual Academic Reputation Survey
The WUR are exposed to a great deal of criticism
(Taylor and Braddock 2007; Billaut
et al. 2010; Longden 2011; Moed 2017 among others)
. The main area of the critique
addresses issues specific to creating composite indicators. There is always a question of
whether the qualitative measure was suitably selected, as there is a lingering sense that
some important information might have been missed, and the selection of weights is
usually more or less subjective.
A study done by
summarized the methodical and statistical shortcomings of
the WUR. Most criticism is directed at the simple weight-and-sum approach generally used
in such rankings. Soh counted seven deadly sins of the WUR: spurious precision (rankings
overestimate small differences in the total score), weight discrepancies, assumed mutual
compensation, indicator redundancy, an inter-system discrepancy, negligence of indicator
scores, and an inconsistency between changes in ranking and overall scores. These
methodical weaknesses limit the reliability of the WUR. On the other hand, some of these
shortcomings are common for all highly aggregated indicators. No choice of a method to
create such indicators is free of criticism. It is possible to formulate similar objections to
almost all highly aggregated indicators (e.g. GDP or CPI).
The most prominent other fields addressed by critics include natural science-
sizelanguage- and research bias. (1) The arts, humanities, and to a large extent social sciences
are underrepresented in the rankings. This relative neglect stems from persistent biases that
remain in bibliometric indicators
, which favour medicine, natural
sciences and engineering. These constitute the most prominent fields in the Thomson
Reuters and Elsevier databases, and therefore determine, to a large degree, performance in
the global rankings
. (2) There is a bias towards size dependency,
especially in the ARWU
(Waltman et al. 2012; Docampo and Cram 2015)
. (3) Universities
in the U.S. and in other English-speaking countries dominate the global rankings. Research
written in languages other than English is read and cited less
(van Raan et al. 2011;
. (4) Global university rankings reflect university research performance
far more accurately than teaching
Hidden factors or profiles are also investigated to explore the criteria adopted in the
reviews underlying factors in university rankings such as: language,
country, size (of university), age (of university), scope and research focus, and the
Bearing all the above shortcomings and reservations in mind, there are two reasons for
the investigation of factors determining the position of a given country in the rankings.
Firstly, these measurements, although far from perfect, are the only ones available. More
importantly, however, despite their many shortcomings, biases and flaws, the rankings
enjoy a high level of acceptance among stakeholders and the wider public, resonate
powerfully with the media, and serve as an argument in public debates and private
decisions about choosing a university.
In connection with the methodological doubts concerning the WUR for robustness
check, it is worth performing an analogous study using a ranking created according to
another methodology. Our research was extended using the Ranking of National Higher
Education Systems published by Universitas 21. The ranking includes 25 measures of
performance grouped into four modules: Resources, Environment, Connectivity, and
Output, and intentionally includes countries as the unit of analysis
(U21 Ranking 2016)
according to the methodology described in: Williams et al. (2013). In many ways this
indicator takes a different approach, and was created including the criticism which is
formulated towards WUR.
Methods and data
World university rankings are focused on the individual performance of each university.
Accordingly, while investigating the international position of a university, determinants at
the micro level such as academic quality management may be taken into account. This
research assumes a different perspective. We are looking for country-specific factors that
determine the international position of universities from that country. The focus of the
study is on determinants such as characteristics of the state and its economy. Speaking in
the language of economics, the macro perspective has been adopted. This derives from a
belief that all universities from a given country share common characteristics that
determine their position in the rankings. Some of the determinants have been examined in
previous research (e.g. language). Some others, to the best of our knowledge, have not been
investigated in a systematic way. The latter include the longevity of the state, its stability,
and freedom from armed conflict and internal political upheavals.
In order to investigate the factors determining the position of universities from a given
country in university rankings, a cross-sectional regression was run. The parameters were
estimated using OLS. The dataset used in the paper covers 42–71 countries (depending on
the ranking and data availability). All the models were estimated in two versions: for
different number of the countries (our baseline estimates) and for the same N. In the latter
case, only the countries that appear in all the rankings were included. A negative
consequence is the considerable decrease in N. We have assumed that we cannot obtain identical
Ns in a way that a country not listed in the ranking (e.g. LS) is assigned with 0. The
absence of a country in the ranking may be based on various grounds (ranking scope, data
shortage, etc.) and not only on a low assessment of the universities. All baseline models
(apart from U21 with 47 cases, where heteroscedasticity is found) passed standard tests,
e.g. Shapiro–Wilk for testing normality, and Breusch–Pagan–Godfrey for testing
heteroscedasticity. In the case of U21 we re-estimated the model using
heteroscedasticityconsistent standard errors.
The essential problem in the presented empirical study was that a lack of existing
research in this field made it impossible to rely on a well-verified group of control
variables. We have selected a group of variables that from the perspective of a wider context
appear to be substantially most reasonable, and then the we tested statistical significance
using stepwise regression. For robustness check we have also estimated other models—but
only the results for forward stepwise regression are presented.
For each of the rankings, an indicator was created to define the position of a country in
the ranking while retaining the number of universities examined in the ranking and the
presentation of the results. Each university was assigned with a value depending on its
position in the ranking. The specificity of each ranking was maintained. Then, the values
for universities of a given country were summed up. For example, the ARWU indicator
was calculated in the following way: a university that came first in the ranking was granted
500 points, while universities that came between 401 and 500 were granted 100 points. The
position of a country in the ranking is determined by the sum of the values obtained for
each of the universities. An analogous indicator was calculated for the Times Higher
Education World University Ranking: the leading position in the ranking was granted 700
points, whereas position 601? was granted 100 points. As the distribution of the raw data
is asymmetric, we use log values.
The following independent variables were examined.
The size of the economy
Which is intuitively based on the fact that the value of production and income in the
economy impacts the capacity to sustain academic excellence. The size of the economy
was measured as a log of GDP.
The level of economic development
Which impacts funding capacity (both in the private and public sectors). The level of
economic development was measured as a log of GDP per capita.
Long-term political stability and the longevity of the state structure
Wars, occupations, revolutions, and coups have a disturbing effect on the continuity of
universities, and they often reduce or even annihilate their potential. Considering the
longterm and partially cumulative nature of knowledge and skills (also in the narrow context of
university management), such events have a long-term effect and are often irreversible,
even over extended periods of time. A number of countries in Central and Eastern Europe
are a case in point. From 1939 to 1945, Poland, under German and Soviet occupation
experienced acts of grim repression targeted against intellectuals. The shifting borders after
1945 meant that major academic centres were either closed down or relocated. Stalinist and
communist repression in the 1950s dealt another blow to the intellectual potential of
Poland. In the years that followed, the policy of the communist regime produced waves of
political migration (especially in 1968 and the 1980s). Unfortunately, none of the existing
indicators are able to measure this kind of instability (i.e. the indicator value should grow
as the period of freedom from instability continues). For this reason, a new indicator was
created based on the Polity IV research project.
The Polity IV Project provides an assessment of autocratic and democratic traits
inherent in a political system. The Polity score is computed by subtracting the Autocracy
score from the Democracy score. At the same time, the assessment takes into account
periods of instability in the system, wars, anarchy, etc. As a consequence, the result is a
unified polity scale that ranges from ? 10 (strongly democratic) to - 10 (strongly
autocratic), with special values (66, 77, 88) for cases of foreign ‘‘interruption’’, cases of
‘‘interregnum’’ or anarchy, etc.
(Marshall et al. 2016)
. Accordingly, an indicator was
created that represented the number of years from the last major political instability until
2015. The following interpretation of the indicator was provided: a growth in value reflects
the growing number of years that have elapsed since the last major period of political
This indicator is similar to the Durable indicator from Polity IV, but ours covers only
major changes in the political system (10 points and more). In other words, the new
indicator measures freedom from war, occupation, coups, and major changes in a political
system; it fails to assess political instability involving frequent changes of government or
minor adjustments to the political system.
According to a number of studies, the funding of research (both from public and private
sources) is a key determinant of its success. World Bank data on R&D expenditure were
Quality of institutions
Universities are part of the institutional and governance arrangements of the country.
Institutional arrangements affect the universities in direct (via, e.g. legislation related to the
educational system of the country or knowledge transfer) and indirect ways (via general
public policy and regulatory quality, etc.). World Bank data from The Worldwide
Governance Indicators (WGI) project were used
(World Bank 2017)
. Governance consists
of the traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised. Two
indicators were considered in the study: Regulatory quality and Government effectiveness.
Government effectiveness captures perceptions of the quality of public services, the quality
of the civil service and the degree of its independence from political pressures, the quality
of policy formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government’s
commitment to such policies. Regulatory quality captures perceptions of the ability of the
government to formulate and implement sound policies and regulations that permit and
promote private sector development
(World Bank 2017)
. As they are significantly
correlated with each other, the results can finally be interpreted more broadly from the point of
view of the quality of institutions and public policy.
Detailed information on variables and sources of data is provided in Table 1. Due to
specific rules governing the rankings, data on the position of each country in the rankings
were obtained from rankings published for the year 2016, while the values of dependent
data come from 2015. In several cases the ultimate number of the countries captured in the
research was smaller than in the ranking due to missing data on independent variables. The
relatively largest gap in the data was found in R&D expenditure.
The basic estimates from the cross-sectional regression are reported in Tables 2 and 3.
One of the key factors determining the standing of a university in the WUR is the size of
the country’s economy. One possible interpretation is that GDP reflects the economic
potential of a country, which easily translates into the funding necessary for securing
academic excellence at universities. The variable directly measuring the funding stream
(broadly defined as R&D) is also in most cases (apart from QS) statistically significant.
This confirms the pivotal (and well-known) role of funding in science (from various
sources). U21 takes into account financing of universities in the Resources section
(different measures of expenditure on tertiary education institutions). Examination of the
relationships between subindexes confirms, however, the importance of funding for the
research output and the quality of a nation’s best universities
(U21 Ranking 2016)
Standardized coefficients are reported. In parentheses, t-statistics are reported. Significant coefficients are
denoted with stars (*p \ 0.1; **p \ 0.05; ***p \ 0.01)
Most of the results demonstrate explicitly that the level of economic development has
little effect on WUR. In other words, taking other variables into account, GDP per capita is
not relevant to world university rankings (apart from ARWU). Considering the adopted
methodology, the result remains robust when faced with any change in specifications. This
result is attributed to the fact that the research captured a large number of countries with a
Standardized coefficients are reported. In parentheses, t-statistics are reported. Significant coefficients are
denoted with stars (*p \ 0.1; **p \ 0.05; ***p \ 0.01)
relatively low level of GDP per capita (e.g. India, China, Brazil, etc.) that nonetheless have
relatively high-ranked universities. These are usually large and rapidly-growing economies
that over recent years have made an attempt to switch from the model of growth based on
low-cost labour to a knowledge and innovation-based economy. There are also a number of
countries with extremely high GDP per capita levels (Qatar, Kuwait, Luxembourg, and
others) that nonetheless have very poor universities. These are usually smaller countries
with a lower GDP. Their high levels of GDP per capita are often due to one factor that is
not particularly knowledge-intense or innovative, e.g. crude oil exports or a developed
These results can also be interpreted in a different way, i.e. from the point of view of
methodical specificities of the WUR. Larger countries with greater economic potential
would place better in the ranking. In smaller countries even high levels of GDP per capita
cannot make up for losses derived from limited resources and a smaller economy. This is
one more argument in favour of the limited value of the WUR for the assessment of the
quality of the higher education system. U21, which direct measures the quality of higher
education, does not have such a defect. The results presented in Tables 2 and 3 indicate
that U21 is not dependent on economic potential (in terms of GDP). However, GDP per
capita plays a key role. The authors of the ranking also present the data obtained after
eliminating the impact of GDP per capita
(U21 Ranking 2016)
The results clearly demonstrate that long-term political stability and the continuity of
political structures (in other words freedom from war, occupation, coups and major
changes in the political system) are among the most prominent factors that determine the
position of universities from a given country in international rankings. In contrast to many
other organizations, universities benefit from longevity. Much of their knowledge base is
tacit, and passed on by masters to their apprentices. For centuries, knowledge was confined
to a location (which is why numerous schools of thought were given the name of the city or
university, e.g. Wiener Kreis, Chicago School of Economics, Lwowska Szkoła
Matematyczna) or suggested a specific location (also through the name of the founder or main
researcher). Even now, as new media allow instant and territorially unlimited knowledge
transfer and knowledge access, a prominent body of knowledge and skills remains tacit.
When universities operate for a sufficiently long time in a relatively stable environment,
they are given the opportunity to aggregate suitable social and human capital.
Rapid disturbances to the state structure not only destabilize the academic setting; they
sometimes lead to the marginalization or even extermination of scholarly elites, and as
such preclude knowledge and skill transfer from one generation to the other. Periods of
political instability also upset the fragile balance between the service that universities have
to render to society and the autonomy of research from current political processes.
The dummy variable for English-speaking countries proves to be significant in a few of
the specifications without the STA variable. This part of the study confirms a cultural rent
for English-speaking universities, which is also corroborated by previous research
Raan et al. 2011)
. If takes in account STA a coefficient for dummy variable lose statistical
The results reveal the extremely significant role of broadly defined institutional
arrangements and governance, especially with regard to public and regulatory policies. The
interpretation is limited due to the fact that variables from the World Bank governance data
are marked by a relatively high level of mutual correlations, which is why they should be
interpreted in total as it represents the institutional environment as a whole. Their
significance can be interpreted in two ways. Firstly, universities themselves are subject to
regulatory policy and are part of public policy. The poor quality of broadly defined policies
of this kind (including the autonomy of the civil service) may produce similar implications
for the higher education system. Secondly, broadly defined regulatory and public policy
has a primary impact on the quality of the setting of the economic and political
environment, thereby having a secondary impact on universities and their international
It is worth pointing out a few limitations of the presented study.
The intention was to investigate country-specific determinants of world university
rankings. Therefore, the existing rankings, despite all the shortcomings and inherent
defects, were subject to the study. The results should, thus, be interpreted cautiously
with regards to the actual quality of teaching and research in a given country. The
caution is due to the weakness of the rankings themselves. However, the results
obtained for all rankings (including those for U21) form a basis for more general
conclusions. Nevertheless, it certainly requires further in-depth research.
Part of the variables are statistically significant but their impact is relatively weak, as
indicated by standardized estimates of parameters. However, it is worth remembering
that the study is cross-sectional and thus excluded dynamic effects. Over longer
periods of time even variables that have a relatively weak (but significant) influence
cannot be ignored, as even small changes cumulated over the years can determine
significant differences between countries.
The results should not be interpreted in the spirit of (macro) economic determinism.
The research was focused on selected macroeconomic and institutional determinants.
That said, the results fail to reflect other, e.g. management-related determinants. It is
obvious that the higher education system or university governance have an impact on
how each university fares in the rankings. However, country-specific factors should
also be considered in public debate on university rankings. A rare feature in such a
debate, the role of long-term political stability (defined as freedom from war,
occupation, coups, and major changes in the political system), is particularly
interesting in this aspect.
The conclusions for public policy are not clear. Partly, this is due to the purpose and
scope of the research itself (which was targeted to indicate country-specific
determinants of WUR). Remaining in the scope of the paper, we can say that the
policy of public authorities has no effect (especially in the short term and directly) on
the part of the variables which determine a university’s place in the rankings, e.g. GDP
and political stability. The general public policy conducted in a country is of
significant importance—through the quality of institutional arrangements. And this is
the first way to improve the international position of universities. The main immediate
impact channel (within the test group of variables) involves, however, expenditures on
The main goal of the research was to search for country-specific factors that affect world
university rankings. We show that the position of universities from a country in the ranking
is determined by the following variables: economic potential of the country, research and
development expenditure, long-term political stability (freedom from war, occupation,
coups and major changes in the political system), and some institutional variables,
including government effectiveness and regulatory quality. In other words, there are
common factors that explain how universities perform in the WUR. Similar factors
(funding, stability and institutional arrangements) affect Ranking of National Higher
Education Systems published by Universitas 21. We have also shown some limitations of
the presented results.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Aghion , P. , Dewatripont , M. , Hoxby , C. , Mas-Colell , A. , & Sapir , A. ( 2010 ). The governance and performance of universities: Evidence from Europe and the US . Economic Policy , 25 ( 61 ), 8 - 59 . https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- 0327 . 2009 . 00238 .x
ARWU. ( 2016 ). Academic ranking of world universities 2016 methodology . http://www.shanghairanking. com/ARWU-Methodology- 2016 .html. Accessed 8 Feb 2017 .
AUBR. ( 2010 ). Assessment of University-Based Research Expert Group (AUBR). Assessing Europe's university-based research , K1-NA-24187 -EN-N , Brussels: European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/ research/era/docs/en/areas -of-actions-universities-assessing-europeuniversity-basedresearch-2010-en . pdf.
Billaut , J.-C. , Bouyssou , D. , & Vincke , P. ( 2010 ). Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking ? Scientometrics, 84 ( 1 ), 237 - 263 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0115-x.
Docampo , D. , & Cram , L. ( 2015 ). On the effects of institutional size in university classifications: The case of the Shanghai ranking . Scientometrics , 102 ( 2 ), 1325 - 1346 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014- 1488-z.
Hazelkorn , E. ( 2007 ). Impact and influence of league tables and ranking systems on higher education decision-making . Higher Education Management and Policy , 19 ( 2 ), 87 - 110 .
Liu , N. C. , & Cheng, Y. ( 2005 ). The academic ranking of world universities. Higher Education in Europe . https://doi.org/10.1080/03797720500260116.
Longden , B. ( 2011 ). Ranking indicators and weights . In J. Shin, R. Toutkoushian , & U. Teichler (Eds.), University rankings: Theoretical basis, methodology and impacts on global higher education . Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978 -94-007-1116-7.
Marconi , G. , & Ritze , J. ( 2015 ). Determinants of international university rankings scores. Applied Economics , 47 ( 57 ), 6211 - 6227 . https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846. 2015 . 1068921 .
Marshall M. G. , Gurr T. , Jaggers K. ( 2016 ). Political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800 - 2015 , Dataset Users' Manual, Center for Systemic Peace . http://www.systemicpeace. org/polityproject.html. Accessed 8 Feb 2017 .
McCormack , J. , Propper , C. , & Smith , S. ( 2014 ). Herding cats? Management and university performance . Economic Journal , 124 ( 578 ), F534 - F564 . https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12105.
Moed , H. F. ( 2017 ). A critical comparative analysis of five world university rankings . Scientometrics, 110 , 967 - 990 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2212-y.
QS. ( 2016 ). The QS World University Rankings Methodology. https://www.topuniversities.com/qs-worlduniversity -rankings/methodology. Accessed 29 April 2017 .
Rauhvargers , A. ( 2011 ). Global university rankings and their impact . Brussels: European University Association.
Rauhvargers , A. ( 2013 ). Global university rankings and their impact: Report II . Brussels: European University Association.
Safon , V. ( 2013 ). What do global university rankings really measure? The search for the X factor and the X entity . Scientometrics, 97 , 223 - 244 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-0986-8.
Saisana , M. , d'Hombres , B. , & Saltelli , A. ( 2011 ). Rickety numbers: Volatility of university rankings and policy implications . Research Policy , 40 , 165 - 177 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol. 2010 . 09 .003.
Soh , K. ( 2017 ). The seven deadly sins of world university ranking: A summary from several papers . Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management , 39 ( 1 ), 104 - 115 . https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X. 2016 . 1254431 .
Taylor , P. , & Braddock , R. ( 2007 ). International university ranking systems and the idea of university excellence . Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management , 29 ( 3 ), 245 - 260 . https://doi.org/10. 1080/13600800701457855.
TE. ( 2016 ). World University Rankings 2016-2017 methodology. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/ world-university-rankings/methodology-world-university-rankings-2016 -2017. Accessed 29 April 2017 .
U21 ranking of national higher education systems ( 2016 ). Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research , University of Melbourne.
van Raan , A ., van Leeuwen, T. , & Visser , M. ( 2011 ). Severe language effect in university rankings: Particularly Germany and France are wronged in citation-based rankings . Scientometrics , 88 , 495 - 498 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0382-1.
Waltman , L. , Calero-Medina , C. , Kosten , J. , Noyons , E. C. M. , Tijssen , R. J. W., van Eck, N. J. , et al. ( 2012 ). The leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation . CWTSnWorking Paper Series (CWTS-WP- 2012-007). Leiden: Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS).
Williams , R. , de Rassenfosse, G., Jensen , P. , & Marginson , S. ( 2013 ). The determinants of quality national higher education systems . Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management , 35 ( 6 ), 599 - 611 . https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X. 2013 . 854288 .
Worldbank ( 2017 ) Worldwide governance indicators . www.govindicators.org. Accessed February 18 , 2017 .