IMPACT WITHOUT MASS: DIVERGENT RESEARCH SIGNALS FOR UZBEK UNIVERSITIES IN THE THE AND QS WORLD UNIVERSITY RANKINGS 2027
Keywords:
university rankings, research quality, citations per faculty, ranking divergence, UzbekistanAbstract
The article examines how Uzbek universities perform in the two most widely used global rankings released for 2027, Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings and QS World University Rankings, and explains why the two rankings send contradictory signals about the same institutions’ research. The study uses the full THE 2027 table (3,146 institutions, of which 2,297 ranked and 849 reporters) and the full QS 2027 table (1,504 institutions). Pillar and indicator medians for Uzbekistan are compared with world and Kazakhstan benchmarks. A name-matched panel of 1,116 institutions appearing in both rankings is used to build a divergence index: the percentile on THE Research quality minus the percentile on QS Citations per faculty. Ranked Uzbek universities have a median THE Research quality score of 66.5, above the world median of 53.3, but a Research environment score of 11.7 and a QS Citations per faculty score of 1.9. The median divergence for Uzbekistan is 53.5 percentile points, the second highest of 57 countries, against -1.0 for the matched panel as a whole. The result holds under three alternative specifications. Forty-five of the 53 Uzbek submissions to THE received reporter status. High citation impact per paper is not matched by publication volume or research income. National performance indicators should shift from citation impact towards publication intensity per academic, research income and the THE eligibility threshold. To the author’s knowledge, this is the first institution-level comparison of Uzbek universities across both 2027 global rankings and the first to quantify the gap between per-paper impact and per-staff research volume as a diagnostic indicator for ranking policy.
References
1. President of the Republic of Uzbekistan. (2019). Decree No. PF-5847 of October 8, 2019, on approval of the Concept for the development of the higher education system of the Republic of Uzbekistan until 2030. https://lex.uz/docs/4545884
2. Hazelkorn, E. (2015). Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: The battle for world-class excellence (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
3. Marginson, S. (2014). University rankings and social science. European Journal of Education, 49(1), 45–59.
4. Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113(1), 1–40.
5. Times Higher Education. (2026, September 15). World University Rankings 2027: Methodology. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/methodology
6. Packer, H. (2026, September 30). World University Rankings 2027: Results announced. Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/world-university-rankings-2027-results-announced
7. QS Quacquarelli Symonds. (n.d.). QS World University Rankings 2027: Methodology. https://www.topuniversities.com/world-university-rankings/methodology
8. Moed, H. F. (2017). A critical comparative analysis of five world university rankings. Scientometrics, 110(2), 967–990.
9. Fauzi, M. A., Tan, C. N.-L., Daud, M., & Awalludin, M. M. N. (2020). University rankings: A review of methodological flaws. Issues in Educational Research, 30(1), 79–96.
10. Huang, M.-H. (2012). Opening the black box of QS World University Rankings. Research Evaluation, 21(1), 71–78.
11. 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.
12. Lim, M. A. (2018). The building of weak expertise: The work of global university rankers. Higher Education, 75(3), 415–430.
13. Aguillo, I. F., Bar-Ilan, J., Levene, M., & Ortega, J. L. (2010). Comparing university rankings. Scientometrics, 85(1), 243–256.
14. Shehatta, I., & Mahmood, K. (2016). Correlation among top 100 universities in the major six global rankings: Policy implications. Scientometrics, 109(2), 1231–1254.
15. Selten, F., Neylon, C., Huang, C.-K., & Groth, P. (2020). A longitudinal analysis of university rankings. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(3), 1109–1135.
16. Waltman, L. (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 365–391.
17. Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429–431.
18. Fire, M., & Guestrin, C. (2019). Over-optimization of academic publishing metrics: Observing Goodhart’s Law in action. GigaScience, 8(6), giz053.
19. Ioannidis, J. P. A., Patsopoulos, N. A., Kavvoura, F. K., Tatsioni, A., Evangelou, E., Kouri, I., Contopoulos-Ioannidis, D. G., & Liberopoulos, G. (2007). International ranking systems for universities and institutions: A critical appraisal. BMC Medicine, 5, Article 30.
20. Rauhvargers, A. (2013). Global university rankings and their impact: Report II. European University Association.
21. Bekhradnia, B. (2016). International university rankings: For good or ill? (HEPI Report 89). Higher Education Policy Institute.