Mapping the Rise of University Rankings in Scientific Literature: A Global Bibliometric Perspective

Redacción HC
17/05/2023

In an era where universities compete not only in academia but also in public reputation, university rankings have emerged as powerful benchmarks of institutional prestige. But how has the academic world responded to these rankings? A recent bibliometric study by King-Domínguez, Llinàs-Audet, and Améstica-Rivas explores the evolution of scholarly research on university rankings over a 30-year period, shedding light on a rapidly expanding and geographically concentrated body of literature.

Published in Formación Universitaria in 2020, this research analyzes trends in authorship, institutional contribution, thematic focus, and collaboration patterns in 557 scientific articles published between 1988 and 2018. Its findings reveal a dramatic rise in academic interest—particularly after the launch of the influential Shanghai Ranking (ARWU) in 2003.

The Central Question: How Has Research on Rankings Evolved?

The authors set out to answer a fundamental question: How has the global scientific production on university rankings evolved in terms of volume, contributors, publishing venues, and key themes?

To address this, the study employs bibliometric methods using the Web of Science (WoS) database. Through keyword searches such as "university ranking*", the team compiled metadata on 557 articles, which were then analyzed using tools like VOSviewer to map networks and identify trends.

Findings: A Rapid and Concentrated Academic Response

1. Publication Growth and Concentration

Between 1988 and 2003, only 13 articles addressed university rankings. But from 2004 to 2018, a staggering 544 articles were published—97.7% of the total—clearly reflecting the disruptive impact of ARWU. The average number of articles per journal nearly doubled during this time, signaling thematic consolidation.

Twelve journals account for one-third of all publications. Scientometrics leads with 78 articles (14%), followed by Higher Education and Journal of Informetrics. These journals focus on areas such as education policy, bibliometrics, and information science, highlighting the interdisciplinary nature of the topic.

2. Institutional and Geographic Distribution

The study maps contributions from 598 institutions. The University of Granada ranks highest with 20 publications, followed by University of Belgrade, Max Planck Society, and Universidad Carlos III de Madrid.

Regional distribution is stark:

• Europe: 61%
• Asia: 19.2%
• Americas: 16.9%
• Oceania: 5.2%
• Africa: 2.9%

Despite the global implications of university rankings, Latin American representation remains minimal, with only 7% of articles written in Spanish and few regional institutions among the top contributors.

3. Key Authors and Collaborative Networks

Out of 1,049 total authors, only a few stand out for their high productivity:

• Lutz Bornmann (Max Planck): 13 articles
• Domingo Docampo (University of Vigo): 10 articles
• Jeremic (Belgrade): 10 articles

Collaborative clusters are evident between institutions such as Max Planck–Belgrade–CSIC, and Granada–Navarra–Carlos III, suggesting strong European academic networks.

One article by Van Raan garnered 363 citations, making it a central reference in critiques of bibliometric methodologies.

4. Thematic Clusters in Ranking Research

Through co-word analysis, the study identifies three dominant research lines:

• Productivity and scientific impact
• Higher education policy, globalization, and performance management
• Critiques and methodological analysis of rankings

These themes reflect the dual nature of rankings as tools of measurement and objects of critique—an academic paradox with growing relevance.

Implications for Policy and Latin America’s Role

This bibliometric mapping offers practical insights for academic institutions and policy-makers:

• Strategic Planning: Identifying leading journals and institutions helps scholars align research with high-impact platforms.
• Collaboration Opportunities: Revealing existing research networks can facilitate future cross-institutional partnerships.
• Policy Evaluation: Understanding dominant narratives allows governments to assess how rankings shape public perception and funding decisions.

For Latin America, the findings underscore a significant gap—and opportunity. The region accounts for a small share of global literature on rankings, despite facing unique challenges in higher education equity, diversity, and accessibility.

The authors recommend expanding research visibility by:

• Incorporating regional databases like SciELO or Redalyc into future studies
• Encouraging transnational academic networks within Latin America
• Developing locally adapted indicators that consider social and institutional diversity

Conclusion: Measuring the Measurers

The study by King-Domínguez and colleagues offers a compelling narrative: university rankings have not only shaped academic institutions—they have reshaped academic research itself.

From a bibliometric standpoint, the field has matured rapidly in the past two decades, with Europe at its center. Yet critical gaps remain in regional participation and methodological diversity.

As global debates about what constitutes academic excellence continue, this research reminds us that rankings are more than numbers—they’re reflections of values, resources, and power structures. And understanding their academic footprint is the first step in redefining them for a more inclusive and equitable higher education future.

Topics of interest

Academia