Institute for University Evaluation

Overview

This is an annual global university ranking of higher education institutions published by The Times Higher Education, a higher education weekly magazine issued by a newspaper company based in London, United Kingdom. It is also known as the THE Ranking.

Key Features

34.5% of the overall indicators are based on reputation surveys. More specifically, within the research category (30% of the total), 19.5% comes from researcher evaluations via surveys. In addition, the teaching category also includes a relatively high share (15%) of qualitative assessments based on surveys, and other indicators include several items where universities may influence policies to improve scores, as reflected in the evaluation framework.

THE World University Rankings are widely recognized globally among university ranking organizations and are referenced by governments and companies in practice. For example, the UK issues work visas to graduates of top-tier universities; graduates from universities that rank within the global top 50 in at least two of the three major ranking systems (QS, ARWU, THE) are eligible for such visa benefits. According to the UK government, eligible universities include institutions in the United States, Australia, Canada, France, Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, Japan, China, and Singapore.

Criticism

There is criticism that citation-based research indicators may be problematic because THE (as with QS) uses data provided by Elsevier, which operates Scopus, rather than Thomson Reuters’ SCI/SCIE. Critics argue that Scopus tends to be used more by scholars in developing regions and that many internationally prestigious science journals are indexed in SCI, meaning research strength assessments based on THE’s methodology may not be fully reliable.

On top of this, THE’s citation indicator carries a relatively high weight in the composite score compared to other ranking systems, which has led to criticism that individual faculty performance can disproportionately influence overall rankings. In practice, some universities show dramatic rises one year and steep declines the next, which may reflect the temporary citation impact of a small number of faculty members’ highly cited papers.

Exploiting these gaps, some institutions pursue “tailored responses” such as aggressively recruiting faculty with high Scopus-indexed performance or pressuring faculty to align outputs with THE criteria to boost scores. Combined with other approaches—such as improving research reputation, internationalization indicators, and staff numbers—these efforts can affect a very large portion of the weighting (approaching 80%), potentially enabling significant rank increases through strategic optimization.

There is also criticism that international-related indicators disproportionately favor Western universities, especially those in English-speaking countries. Additionally, compared to other rankings, many European universities outside the UK appear relatively strong. Because internationalization scores can rise when universities increase international student intake through policy, this can temporarily boost ranks, which some argue contributes to overestimation of English-speaking universities relative to actual graduate research output and undergraduate quality.

These issues are evident even within Asia: major countries such as South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and China do not use English as an official language and often have relatively homogeneous populations, making it structurally harder to attract foreign faculty and international students. By contrast, international city-states such as Singapore and Hong Kong, where English is an official language within multicultural societies, have inherent advantages in foreign faculty and international student ratios. As a result, critics argue it is difficult to ensure fully fair global comparisons.

Ultimately, there is widespread criticism that the primary purpose is the ranking organizations’ business interests. By publishing multiple categories of rankings and then offering guidance on rank improvement—linked to paid seminars and consulting—ranking organizations can create additional revenue streams.

Participation Status in THE World University Rankings

Participation Status in THE World University Rankings

Category		2024	2025	2026
Global	Number of Participating Universities	1,907	2,092	2,191
Korea	Number of Participating Universities	39	43	41
	New Participants	DGIST, Pukyong National University	Gachon University, Hongik University, Dankook University, Woosong University	None

THE World University Rankings Indicators

THE World University Rankings Indicators

Category	Indicator	Category	Indicator
Teaching (29.5%)	Academic Reputation (15%)	Research Environment (29%)	Research Reputation (18%)
	Staff-to-Student Ratio (4.5%)		Research Income per Staff (5.5%)
	Bachelor’s-to-Doctorate Ratio (2%)		Research Publications per Staff (5.5%)
	Doctorates Awarded per Staff (5.5%)	International Outlook (7.5%)	International Students Ratio (2.5%)
	Institutional Income per Staff (2.5%)		International Staff Ratio (2.5%)
Research Quality (30%)	Citations (15%)		International Co-authorship (2.5%)
	Research Strength (5%)	Industry (4%)	Industry Income (2%)
	Research Excellence (5%)		Patents Cited by Research (2%)
	Research Influence (5%)	Total: 100%

Notes	Research Strength	Based on the 75th percentile FWCI (Field-Weighted Citation Impact) of a university’s publications
	Research Excellence	Number of papers in the top 10% by FWCI (Field-Weighted Citation Impact)
	Research Influence	Extent to which a university’s key papers are cited

2026 THE World University Rankings (Overall Ranking)

2026 THE Korean Universities Comparison