University rankings have been shared with the public for years as a very important criterion for both students who will make university preferences and academics. However, it is known that as the criteria in these rankings and the weights of these criteria change, the rankings will change very differently. This situation has been criticized for years and has been the subject of many publications. In this study, Times Higher Education (THE) ranking is taken into consideration and based on the view that the weights of the criteria used in the creation of this ranking are subjective, new criteria weights are created with the help of FUCOM, one of the multi-criteria decision making methods, and the results are interpreted.

university rankings, the world university rankings, FUCOM.

Received: January 27, 2024; Accepted: March 30, 2024; Published: April 18, 2024

How to cite this article: Özlem Deniz Başar and Seda Bağdatlı Kalkan, A critical review of the determination of weights used in university rankings, Far East Journal of Mathematical Education 26(1) (2024), 39-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.17654/0973563124006

This Open Access Article is Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References:
[1] J. Ioannidis, N. Patsopoulos, F. Kavvoura, A. Tatsioni, E. Evangelou, I. Kouri and G. Liberopoulos, International ranking systems for universities and institutions: a critical appraisal, BMC Medicine 5 (2007), 1-9.
[2] M. Ishikawa, University rankings, global models, and emerging hegemony: critical analysis from Japan, Journal of Studies in International Education 13(2) (2009), 159 173.
[3] G. Arkali Olcay and M. Bulu, Is measuring the knowledge creation of universities possible?: A review of university rankings, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 123 (2017), 153-160.
[4] E. Ayçin, İş zekası uygulamaları seçimindeki kriterlerin önem ağırlıklarının FUCOM yöntemi ile belirlenmesi, KOCATEPEIIBFD 23(2) (2021, 8 23), 195 208.
[5] D. Çevik Aka, Evaluation of the effects of industry 4.0 on organizational agility with FUCOM: implementation in the textile industry, International Journal of Economic and Administrative Studies 40 (2023), 33-48.
[6] J. Dearden, R. Grewal and G. Lilien, Strategic manipulation of university rankings, the prestige effect, and student university choice, Journal of Marketing Research 56(4) (2019), 691-707.
[7] F. Ecer, Çok Kriterli Karar Verme: Geçmişten Günümüze Kapsamlı bir Yaklaşım, Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi, 2020.
[8] T. H. Education, World University Rankings 2024: methodology, Times Higher Education, (2023, 10 10). https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/world-university-rankings-2024-methodologyadresindenalındı
[9] H. F. Moed, A critical comparative analysis of five world university rankings, Scientometrics 110 (2017), 967-990.
[10] L. Harvey, Rankings of higher education institutions: a critical review, Quality in Higher Education 14(3) (2008), 187-207.
[11] H. Jöns and M. Hoyler, Global geographies of higher education: the perspective of world university rankings, Geoforum 46 (2013), 45-59.
[12] D. Pamucar, F. Ecer and M. Deveci, Assessment of alternative fuel vehicles for sustainable road transportation of United States using integrated fuzzy FUCOM and neutrosophic fuzzy MARCOS methodology, Science of the Total Environment 788 (2021), 1-21.
[13] D. Pamučar, Ž. Stević and S. Sremac, A new model for determining weight coefficients of criteria in MCDM models: full consistency methods (FUCOM), Symmetry 10(9) (2018), 393.
[14] B. Saraç and B. Z. Erdoğan, What do(‘nt) university rankings tell us? The visible and invisible side of the iceberg, TÜBA Higher Education Research Review 13(2) (2023), 257-271.
[15] P. Szluka, E. Csajbók and B. Győrffy, Relationship between bibliometric indicators and university ranking positions, Scientific Reports 13(1) (2023), 1-11.