IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cem/doctra/911.html

Entendiendo mejor los rankings globales de universidades

Author

Listed:
  • Gustavo Ferro
  • Juan Dip

Abstract

Se utilizan modelos avanzados de análisis de eficiencia para decodificar los pesos implícitos de los tres índices compuestos globales que rankean universidades: Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) y Times Higher Education (THE), tras una discusión de la literatura sobre los rankings de universidades, sus aportes y sus problemas. La metodología central empleada por Ferro & Dip (2025), cuyos resultados se reseñan aquí, se basa en los modelos Benefit-of-the-Doubt (BoD), que, a su vez, derivan del Análisis Envolvente de Datos (DEA). Las principales contribuciones analíticas del estudio giran en torno a la aplicación de metodologías avanzadas de eficiencia para decodificar las estructuras de peso implícitas en los rankings (ARWU, QS y THE) y generar diagnósticos detallados y útiles para la mejora institucional. El análisis revela discrepancias entre los pesos oficiales asignados por las agencias de ranking y los pesos derivados de los modelos BoD (pesos implícitos de importancia).

Suggested Citation

  • Gustavo Ferro & Juan Dip, 2025. "Entendiendo mejor los rankings globales de universidades," CEMA Working Papers: Serie Documentos de Trabajo. 911, Universidad del CEMA.
    • Handle: RePEc:cem:doctra:911
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ucema.edu.ar/sites/default/files/2025-11/dt911.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vidoli, F. & Fusco, E. & Pignataro, G. & Guccio, C., 2024. "Multi-directional Robust Benefit of the Doubt model: An application to the measurement of the quality of acute care services in OECD countries," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    2. Jamil Salmi & Alenoush Saroyan, 2007. "League Tables as Policy Instruments: Uses and Misuses," Higher Education Management and Policy, OECD Publishing, vol. 19(2), pages 1-38.
    3. Olcay, Gokcen Arkali & Bulu, Melih, 2017. "Is measuring the knowledge creation of universities possible?: A review of university rankings," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 153-160.
    4. Juan Antonio Dip, 2021. "What does U-multirank tell us about knowledge transfer and research?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3011-3039, April.
    5. Jill Johnes, 2018. "University rankings: What do they really show?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 585-606, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Annamaria Demarinis Loiotile & Francesco De Nicolò & Adriana Agrimi & Loredana Bellantuono & Marianna La Rocca & Alfonso Monaco & Ester Pantaleo & Sabina Tangaro & Nicola Amoroso & Roberto Bellotti, 2022. "Best Practices in Knowledge Transfer: Insights from Top Universities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-23, November.
    2. Csató, László & Tóth, Csaba, 2020. "University rankings from the revealed preferences of the applicants," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(1), pages 309-320.
    3. Juan Antonio Dip, 2021. "What does U-multirank tell us about knowledge transfer and research?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3011-3039, April.
    4. Christoph Burmann & Fernando García & Francisco Guijarro & Javier Oliver, 2021. "Ranking the Performance of Universities: The Role of Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-16, November.
    5. Tommaso Agasisti & Guo-liang Yang & Yao-yao Song & Carolyn-Thi Thanh Dung Tran, 2021. "Evaluating the higher education productivity of Chinese and European “elite” universities using a meta-frontier approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5819-5853, July.
    6. Foroudi, Pantea & Yu, Qionglei & Gupta, Suraksha & Foroudi, Mohammad M., 2019. "Enhancing university brand image and reputation through customer value co-creation behaviour," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 218-227.
    7. Kuckertz, Andreas & Scheu, Maximilian, 2024. "From chalkboard to boardroom: Unveiling the role of entrepreneurship in bolstering academic achievement among professors," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    8. Daraio, Cinzia & Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Simar, Léopold, 2015. "Rankings and university performance: A conditional multidimensional approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 244(3), pages 918-930.
    9. Cinzia Daraio & Simone Di Leo & Loet Leydesdorff, 2022. "Using the Leiden Rankings as a Heuristics: Evidence from Italian universities in the European landscape," LEM Papers Series 2022/08, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    10. Murat Perit Çakır & Cengiz Acartürk & Oğuzhan Alaşehir & Canan Çilingir, 2015. "A comparative analysis of global and national university ranking systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 813-848, June.
    11. Fernando García & Francisco Guijarro & Javier Oliver, 2021. "A Multicriteria Goal Programming Model for Ranking Universities," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-17, February.
    12. Gabriel Bratucu & Alexandra Palade (Zamfirache) & Anca Madar & Nicoleta Andreea Neacsu, 2017. "Competition on the University Educational Services Market in Romania and the Protection of Students’ Rights and Interests," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 19(45), pages 414-414, May.
    13. Benito, M. & Gil, P. & Romera, R., 2020. "Evaluating the influence of country characteristics on the Higher Education System Rankings’ progress," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3).
    14. Lutz Bornmann & Werner Marx, 2020. "Thomas theorem in research evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 553-555, April.
    15. Jamil Salmi, 2009. "The Growing Accountability Agenda in Tertiary Education : Progress or Mixed Blessing?," World Bank Publications - Reports 18547, The World Bank Group.
    16. Csóka, Imola & Sebestyén, Géza & Neszveda, Gábor, 2019. "Tudományos teljesítmény mérése a magyar felsőoktatás gazdasági képzéseiben [Measuring scientific performance of business and economics faculties in Hungarian higher education]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(7), pages 751-770.
    17. Avenali, Alessandro & Daraio, Cinzia & Di Leo, Simone & Wolszczak-Derlacz, Joanna, 2024. "Heterogeneity of national accounting systems, world-class universities and financial resources: What are the links?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2).
    18. Syed Haider Khalil & Syed Mohsin Ali Shah & Fahad Sultan & Muhammad Ibrahim Khan & Sher Nawaz, 2023. "Categories and Institutional Change: Contesting the Uncontested Space Through National Rankings," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(3), pages 21582440231, September.
    19. Adéla Fajčíková & Hana Urbancová, 2019. "Factors Influencing Students’ Motivation to Seek Higher Education—A Case Study at a State University in the Czech Republic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-14, August.
    20. Pinto-Delacadena, Pablo A. & Liern, Vicente & Acosta-Vargas, Patricia & Vinueza-Cabezas, Andrea, 2024. "A multicriteria approach to ranking Latin-American universities based on region-specific criteria," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cem:doctra:911. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lucila Solla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cemaaar.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.