See Behind the Curtain of QS World University Rankings 2022

 

I will begin on a lighter note because what follows is serious and may be tough, harsh and unsavoury for quite a few learned people.

There is a joke about a man asking his son about his result in the school, which is narrated nearly in all parts of the country. Rendered in local dilect with local nuances and cultural flavour, the outcome is always hilarious.  This joke goes something like this –

Man (to his son Ramu) – tell me, whether you passed this time or have failed the exams once again

Ramu (replying to his father) – I have stood fourth in the class

Man – very good Ramu, but did you pass

Ramu – Gopal (Head master’s son) has stood sixth in the class, I have done better than Gopal

Man – Poor Gopal, he remained behind you, but did he pass or not

Ramu - only Dheeru and Golu passed, they stood first and second. Don’t get angry with me, I am better than 36 in my class. Only 3 are better than me.

Man (in angry and abusive tone) - Idiot, you failed again

Clearly, the result was only 5% (2 out of 40) pass rate.

 

Let us now look at the QS World University Rankings 2022. India has celebrated that three of our institutions – IIT Bombay (shared rank 177), IIT Delhi (rank 185) and IISc Bangalore (shared rank 186) continue to remain in the top 200 ranked Universities of the World even in 2022. The Prime Minister (https://twitter.com/narendramodi/status/1402628065474203650) and the Education Minister (https://twitter.com/DrRPNishank/status/1402559433259962371) also congratulated these institutions, and rightly so, rankings do give us a sense of achievement. We need to be careful however, if our euphoria (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/india-emerging-a-vishvaguru-says-ramesh-pokhriyal-after-3-indian-institutes-figure-in-top-200-qs-world-university-rankings/articleshow/83373333.cms ) is like that of a Ramu or a Golu?

QS World University Rankings 2022 feature 1,300 universities from around the world. There are 35 Indian Universities in this list of 1300. (https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2022 )

Universities were evaluated according to a weighted average of the six metrics - Academic Reputation (40%), Employer Reputation (10%), Faculty/Student Ratio (20%), Citations per faculty (20%), International Faculty Ratio (5%), and International Student Ratio (5%).

The matrices are reported as measurements on an analogue interval scale (0-100) which are then aggregated into an overall score (weighted average). The overall score is therefore on an analogue interval scale (0-100).

The overall score was then ordered from high to low and discreet ranks awarded as 1, 2, 3, and 4 and so on. Universities tied at same overall score share the same rank and the next rank is then skipped to account for double cases at same rank. In such ranking, among the top 200 ranks, three institutions from India figured.

 

Let us try to see beneath the veil of these ranks.

• MIT, which ranks first has an overall score of 100 (rounded up) composed of Academic Reputation (40% of 100), Employer Reputation (10% of 100), Faculty/Student Ratio (20% of 100), Citations per faculty (20% of 100), International Faculty Ratio (5% of 100), and International Student Ratio (5% of 91.4).
• The overall scores are thus some kind of ratings for the Universities. Interestingly, as we go down the ranking list, the overall score drops very fast - Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh United States scores less than 75% but ranks at 53; Hanyang University, Seoul South Korea scores less than 50% but ranks at 156; Maastricht University, Maastricht Netherlands scores less than 50% but ranks at 156; and University of Missouri, Columbia United States scores less than 25% but ranks at 476.
• Overall Scores for Universities ranked at 501 or lower are nor reported (they scored 24 or less out of 100)

 

Let us revert to performance by the institutions from India. There are 35 institutions from India in the list of 1300 ranked institutions, of which 3 are in top-200, 5 more are in the 201-500 group, another 14 are in the next 500 ranks while the remaining 13 are in the last 300 ranks. The top-3 institutions from India are rated and ranked as under:

• IIT Bombay (Academic Reputation -51.3, Employer Reputation -79.6, Faculty/Student Ratio- 32.5, Citations per faculty -55.5, International Faculty Ratio – 1.5, International Student Ratio – 1.6; Overall score – 46.4; rank-177),
• IIT Delhi (Academic Reputation -45.8, Employer Reputation -70.8, Faculty/Student Ratio- 30.9, Citations per faculty -70.0, International Faculty Ratio – 1.2, International Student Ratio – 1.7; Overall score – 45.9; rank 185), and
• IISc Bangalore (Academic Reputation -34.2, Employer Reputation -19.2, Faculty/Student Ratio- 48.8, Citations per faculty -100.0, International Faculty Ratio – 1.2, International Student Ratio – 1.8; Overall score – 45.7; rank 186)

 

The next 5 ranked institutions are:

• IIT Madras (Overall score – 38.1, rank 255),
• IIT Kanpur (Overall score – 36.4, rank 277),
• IIT Kharagpur (Overall score – 36.3, rank 280),
• IIT Guwahati (Overall score – 28.3, rank 395) and
• IIT Roorkee (Overall score – 28.0, rank 400).

 

Here is what the rating data displays:

• Only the public institutions of technology and science are able to find a place in the top-500 club. These are deemed to be universities but not a university in the real sense of the term. A university is multi-disciplinary, spanning across humanities, science, commerce and social sciences rather than being confined to a very narrow focus on technology.
• There is no real Indian University in the top-500 ranks. South Africa has 4 real universities in the top-500 club.
• As against 8 institutions from India in the top-500 club, Europe has 212 institutions, United States has 87 institutions while Rest of Asia has 117 institutions (includes 26 from mainland China, 16 from Japan).
• These 8 institutions do not account for even 1% of the total university enrolment in India.
• The best of best in India scores only 46% marks as compared to the best in the world score of 100%.
• There are large variances in the scores for Academic Reputation, Employer Reputation, Faculty/Student Ratio and Citations per faculty within the top 3 whose ranks are spread over only 9 ranks.
• Employer reputation seems to exceed Academic Reputation for the high ranked institutions in India. IISc turns out to be an exception in reputation as well as in its Citation score.

 

Makeup is used as a beauty aid to help build up the self-esteem and confidence of an individual. Like NIRF Rankings (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350354434_NIRF%27s_India_Rankings_Are_Ludicrous) QS World University Rankings 2022 are a makeup for educational institutions. This makeup conceals the ugly pockmarks on the face of Universities in India. It is unfortunate that the Education Minister has utilized this makeup to beat the harsh lights and the glare of camera flashes which would expose the rot in education system.

 

By calling these rankings as a testimony for India’s “leap in the field of Education & Research and is emerging as a VISHVAGURU” Education Minister is only proving his lack of understanding and literateness. Surely, he remembers well – “Parde Mein Rehne Do Parda Na Uthao, Parda Jo Uth Gaya To Bhedh Khul Jayega, Allah Meri Tauba - Allah Meri Tauba” (परदे में रहने दो पर्दा न उठाओ, पर्दा जो उठ गया तो भेद खुल जायेगा, अल्लाह मेरी तौबा - अल्लाह मेरी तौबा) keep the curtain on, don't lift the curtain, If the curtain is lifted, then the secret will be revealed, Allah is my repentance - Allah is my repentance.

 

**

First published 12 June 2021

***

“Likes” "Follows" "Shares" and "Comments" are welcome.

We hope to see energetic, constructive and thought provoking conversations. To ensure the quality of the discussion, we may edit the comments for clarity, length, and relevance. Kindly do not force us to delete your comments by making them overly promotional, mean-spirited, or off-topic.

***

Peer-Reviewed and Impact-Factor Dilemma in Research

 

Peer review (as the publishers claim) is designed to assess the validity, quality and often the originality of articles for publication. Its ultimate purpose is to maintain the integrity of science by filtering out invalid or poor quality articles.

From a publisher’s perspective, peer review functions as a filter for content, directing better quality articles to better quality journals and so creating journal brands.

Different journals use different types of peer review. At least four main types of peer review processes are in vogue:

• Single-Blind: the reviewers know the names of the authors, but the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript unless the reviewer chooses to sign their report.
• Double-Blind: the reviewers do not know the names of the authors, and the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript.
• Open Peer: authors know who the reviewers are, and the reviewers know who the authors are. If the manuscript is accepted, the named reviewer reports are published alongside the article and the authors’ response to the reviewer.
• Transparent Peer: the reviewers know the names of the authors, but the authors do not know who reviewed their manuscript unless the reviewer chooses to sign their report. If the manuscript is accepted, the anonymous reviewer reports are published alongside the article and the authors’ response to the reviewer.

The peer review system is not without criticism. Studies show that even after peer review, some articles still contain inaccuracies and demonstrate that most rejected papers will go on to be published somewhere else.

Despite criticisms, peer review is still the only widely accepted method for research validation and has continued with relatively minor changes for some 350 years.

The impact factor (IF) is a measure of the frequency with which the average article in a journal has been cited in a particular year. It is used to measure the importance or rank of a journal by calculating the times its articles are cited.

The calculation of Impact Factor is based on a two-year period and involves dividing the number of times articles were cited by the number of articles that are citable. To illustrate - Calculation of 2010 IF of a journal:

• A = the number of times articles published in 2018 and 2019 were cited by indexed journals during 2020.
• B = the total number of "citable items" published in 2018 and 2019.
• A/B = 2020 impact factor 

If one publishes an article in a Journal with Impact Factor 2.0, then it must live up to the average citation performance of articles in that journal and it must therefore be cited at least twice in each of the succeeding years, or else, the article will contribute towards lowering of the IF of the journal.

The belief that peer-reviewed publications should be the metric for research success seems to be rooted in the following assertions that are accepted as truths:

• A peer-reviewed publication conveys more research authority because its findings have been vetted and then accepted by other members of the discipline.
• The peer-review process is anonymous, more competitive and (supposedly) more objective in its selection process
• Peer-reviewed publications are more prestigious and convey the expertise of the researcher.

These assertions are oversimplifications that erase the real nuance of peer-review publication. The peer-review process leaves the fate of someone’s research findings subject to the whims of two or three people who, like all of us, are influenced by variables including their own natural preferences for certain kinds of work. It is just a generalization to claim that peer-reviewed publications are always more selective or rigorous. (Admittedly, however, a peer-reviewed publication will almost always take longer to appear in print, which, for some people, adds to the genre’s perceived rigour.)

Peer-reviewed publications are simply not the only place where intellectual conversations are happening and where a researcher might want to share their ideas.

Over emphasis on Peer-Reviewed and high IF journals for publishing has resulted into more of replication and conformist research. Within my limited experience, I have found that most of the people who are creative types produce work that would not make sense in many of the “top” academic journals. They would therefore follow the path of Influencing without High IF Publishing through Usable, Useful and Timely Preprints and overcome the limitations inherent in High IF Publishing without Influencing.

A great research paper is not enough and it requires development, mobilisation, and exposure. A preprint is a version of a scientific manuscript posted on a public server prior to any formal peer review. Once it is posted, the preprint becomes a permanent part of the scientific record and is citable with its own unique DOI. By sharing ones research early, one can accelerate the speed at which science moves forward.

One Rewarding Story:

I am gratified with the fact that instead of waiting to publish my research in esoteric journals with high impact factors, which would have taken their own sweet time to convey their rejection or seeking revision or acceptance and publication, titled "Modelling Spread of Corona Virus Using Adapted Bass Model" ResearchGate DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30944.43522), I chose to publish it as a non-peer-reviewed, preprint under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC allowing others to remix, adapt, and build upon my work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge me and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.

The benefit of giving free access to my Applied Managerial Research to others is that the same has been pursued, acknowledged, utilised and improved upon quickly and proactively. Here are the citations that I am now aware of (in the chronological order of their appearance and not conforming to citation styles):

1. Zeny L Maureal, Jovelin Lapates, Madelaine S Dumandan, Vanda Kay B. Bicar and Derren Gaylo (of Bukidnon State University, Philippines) (August 2020) “Adapted Bass Diffusion Model for the Spread of COVID-19 in the Philippines: Implications to Interventions and Flattening the Curve” International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change.  www.ijicc.net Volume 14, Issue 3, 2020
2. Ted G Lewis (of Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, United States) and Waleed I. Al (of Bahrain Defence Ministry, Manama, Bahrain) (March 2021) “Predicting the Size and Duration of the COVID-19 Pandemic” Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics.   Vol.6. DOI: 10.3389/fams.2020.611854
3. Ted G Lewis (of Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, United States) (July 2021) “Emergence of Contagion Networks from Random Populations” Research Gate, Pre-print.

The above story has enthused me to do more creative and out-of-box research and not care too much about getting it endorsed and accepted by 2-3 unknown peers. I would prefer to share my research with the world without any delay and leave it to a more inclusive, extensive and democratic review by fellow researchers and audiences. I have been actively involved in delivering keynote addresses at non-academic conferences and writing hard-hitting op-ed piece that shapes public policy. These have often been contrarian approaches to conformist thinking.

The views of pure-applied research which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of abstraction of observations into model-building and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth management-theory by itself, and management-practice by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality of managerial wisdom.

 

**

First Published 19 July 2021

**

“Likes” "Follows" "Shares" and "Comments" are welcome.

We hope to see energetic, constructive and thought provoking conversations. To ensure the quality of the discussion, we may edit the comments for clarity, length, and relevance. Kindly do not force us to delete your comments by making them overly promotional, mean-spirited, or off-topic.

***