DECEMBER 5 — Academia is clearly divided in favour of and against global university rankings. Out of roughly fifty thousand universities globally, 1,500 and 2,191 universities are listed for QS and THE ranking, respectively, in the year 2026. If not all, many aim to be ranked among the top 50 or top 100 in the list.
Many universities might find that others are moving faster as their reason for falling behind in the ranking race. However, in reality, the known 50 or 100 universities every year remain in top-notch rank. The others either continue to strive, or their dreams remain an enigma. Yet, they come up with immediate ad hoc measures that in the long run might be proven futile.
The number of research publications and citations per academic staff contributes to the major share of the credits that is needed to increase the university’s ranking status. Hence, a makeshift solution to have immediate publication outputs to have a quick fix in the number game of the ranking race becomes a strategic focus for ranking.
Giving incentives for open access publications, recruiting postdoctoral researchers on an ad hoc basis, or hastily changing the goal post of publication KPI with a condition for appointment or promotion, are becoming universities’ robust action plans.
Consequently, research and academic staff are encouraged (read burdened) with KPI for increased (read irrational) open access publications in journals with a higher impact factor — the so-called Q1 or Q2 journals.
This is mostly based on the assumption that papers published in those journals receive higher citations. Ironically, the evidence of having higher citations of open access publications uncovers a bitter truth — there is no value in the content unless it is accessible.
Nevertheless, what does it really mean by merely increasing the number of publications and citations?
This brings up the recently proposed j-metric in the journal Nature. The j-metric measures the weight of scholarship by dividing the total weight (in kilograms) of all books a scientist has authored by the number of years since the author earned their doctorate. When research productivity is measured in numbers, the j-metric might one day become the ultimate measure of scholarship.
Jokes apart, does the increased number of publications and citations add any value in the chain of industrial development, economic prosperity, or societal change? Hardly so.
According to a recent estimate, the key Scopus content statistics show over 100 million records in 2025, which has increased by ~2.5 million every year since 2022. According to a conservative estimation, ~90 per cent of all published papers are never cited by other papers.
At the same time, many government and non-government organizations, such as ministries and industries, are funding research that does not allow them to publish the output of the research they fund.
Besides, immediate ad hoc measures for soaring research outputs, i.e., research publications and citations in Q1 and Q2 journals for a higher university ranking, might create a bubble of publication productivity that in the long run would be challenging to sustain, if not burst.
Generally speaking, publishing a paper in a Q1 or Q2 journal requires quality. This, in turn, depends on the intellectual potential and experience of the researchers. A handful of the young researchers are able to publish their papers in those journals during their postgraduate studies, mostly under the supervision of experienced mentors.
More importantly, most of the research published in those journals requires investment of effort, time, and money. Again, papers published in Q1 or Q2 journals present novelty — an output of novel ideas. Eureka moments of having novel ideas do not pop up every day or every year.
To make the long story short, publication in Q1 and Q2 journals for a researcher neither sets in motion overnight nor occurs fortnightly.
Any university racing for a higher ranking needs to evaluate the intellectual potential of its academics and researchers in terms of generating novel ideas, their years of experience in research, publications, and securing research grants. Ironically, amidst the increasingly reduced opportunities for research grants, obtaining one also depends on the proposal with novel ideas and a track record of publications.
Merely depending on the simple statistics of how many papers or citations a university needs for a higher ranking, a deeper understanding of the actual strength of research and publications requires a better evaluation and planning. Above all, the universities must provide a working environment where researchers and academics have their sound mind for creative thinking.
Publications under pressure not only destroy their inspiration for ingenious instinct but also force (or provoke) the academicians and researchers to rely on one or another form of scientific misconduct. Needless to say, the publish or perish policy has been criticized for increasing scientific misconduct in academia.
Remembering the race between a rabbit and a turtle might be useful to conclude — slow and steady wins the race. And that is the best way to sustain a prestigious status in the ranking race in the long run.
*Prof Mohammad is the Deputy Executive Director (Development, Research & Innovation) at International Institute of Public Policy and Management (INPUMA), Universiti Malaya, and can be reached at [email protected]
**This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
