University rankings are commonly used as benchmarks of academic excellence and for evaluating scholarly achievements. Despite criticisms that rankings may not fully represent excellence, they have become a powerful force in global higher education over the past 2 decades. Many universities now prioritize improving their rankings, and in many countries, these rankings have significantly influenced the restructuring of national higher education systems.
The top world university rankings are published by major organizations, each using distinct methodologies:
- •Quacquarelli Symonds World University Rankings: It assesses universities based on academic reputation, employer reputation, faculty/student ratio, citations per faculty, international faculty ratio, and international student ratio.
- •Times Higher Education World University Rankings: This ranking focuses on teaching, research, citations, international outlook, and industry income.
- •Academic Ranking of World Universities: Also known as the ShanghaiRanking, it considers research output and quality, including Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals won, highly cited researchers, and articles published in Nature and Science.
Sport science remains a relatively young field of research that has rapidly established a substantial academic footprint. This is evident from the launch of the Global Ranking of Sport Science Schools and Departments by ShanghaiRanking in 2016.1 This ranking identifies the top 300 universities worldwide offering sport science programs, showcasing the breadth of educational opportunities within this emerging discipline. ShanghaiRanking considers various metrics, including publication, citation, citations per publication, top 25% journals publications, and internationally collaborated publications. This invited commentary uses the ShanghaiRanking as an example to discuss the complexity of university rankings as a true reflection of academic excellence within the field of sport science.
The Purpose and Utility of Global University Rankings
University world rankings serve various strategic functions, extending beyond mere indicators of academic excellence. These rankings play crucial roles:
- 1.Demonstrating academic excellence: Higher rankings are viewed as a testament to academic excellence, attracting top faculty and distinguished researchers.
- 2.Attracting students and influencing career choices: Prospective students often consult rankings when selecting universities, assuming that higher-ranked institutions offer superior education and career prospects.
- 3.Facilitating international collaboration: Universities with top rankings are more likely to be chosen for international research collaborations and academic partnerships.
- 4.Boosting employability: Graduates from esteemed institutions generally enjoy better job prospects as employers often consider the university’s ranking as a measure of quality.
- 5.Elevating institutional prestige: A high ranking enhances a university’s reputation, which can influence stakeholders’ decisions, attracting more funding and increasing the institution’s influence.
- 6.Guiding policy and strategy: University administrators may use rankings to set strategic priorities, allocate resources, and benchmark in relation to other institutions.
- 7.Marketing and recruitment: Rankings serve as a marketing tool for universities to showcase their status, helping to recruit both students and faculty.
Current Landscape
The ShanghaiRanking data, covering the period from 2016 to 2023 for the “Global Ranking of Sport Science Schools and Departments,” reveal a consistent dominance by Australia (23.1%), Canada (18.0%), and the United States (12.0%). Collectively, these countries have consistently held over half of the top 50 universities worldwide (Figure 1).1 This stronghold is attributed to substantial investments in higher education and research, a cultural emphasis on sport, a robust tradition in sport science research, international collaborations, the quality of academic staff and research, notable achievements in major sport events like the Olympics, and the appeal of these destinations for international students. The top 4 countries are also home to leading associations (Australia: Exercise & Sports Science Australia; Canada: Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology; United States: American College of Sports Medicine; United Kingdom: British Association for Sport and Exercise Science). In addition, several European countries, particularly in Northern Europe, consistently have 1 to 3 universities (representing about 2%–6%) in the top 50 of this ranking. Notably, the University of Copenhagen in Denmark has maintained a position among the top 5 sport science universities globally.2 As discussed elsewhere,3 several Asian (China), South American (Brazil), and African (South Africa) countries are emerging in sport science, as evidenced by their increased representation in the top 50 universities globally.
—Representation by countries in the Global Ranking of Sport Science Schools and Departments by ShanghaiRanking for 2023 and the period 2016–2023, along with other criteria of academic excellence to be considered in the future.
Citation: International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 20, 4; 10.1123/ijspp.2024-0109
Despite possessing long-established research traditions and substantial representation in major conferences (ie, Japan consistently records one of the highest numbers of delegates at the European College of Sport Science annual conferences),4 some European countries (eg, France) and Asian countries (eg, Japan) have no entries in the top 50 universities. This absence could be attributed to various factors, including the specific criteria and methodology used by ShanghaiRanking, which may not fully capture the strengths of every country’s sport science programs.
The Challenges of Global University Rankings
Ranking sport science universities is a complex process that entails making choices in deciding which activities and indicators to assess. The central question regarding current university rankings is whether they genuinely represent the realities of sport science institutions or whether they are significantly influenced by the specific methodologies chosen by the ranking bodies. Arguably, there is uncertainty about how the methodology behind these rankings shapes a reality as much as it reflects one.
Issues With Methodology and Transparency
Relying on an aggregated single number lacks the subtlety required to evaluate research excellence in specific sport science disciplines. For example, the formula used by ShanghaiRanking, combining various activities and performance indicators with arbitrary weighting factors into a single number, may potentially favor certain institutions and countries. The use of a 5-year window also suggests significant overlap between releases, and considering a shorter time window might offer a more accurate reflection of emerging trends. Some countries, like China, only recently appeared in the ranking, and the impact of these emerging countries in the sport science industry, although not recent, may not have been adequately captured using the current methodology. In addition, limiting inclusion to only journal articles and reviews may erroneously suggest that other publication formats, like editorials, viewpoints, and conference proceedings, have limited impact. Given the heightened demand for freely accessible research outcomes, considering the total number or percentage of open-access publications may be imperative for broader accessibility.
Although many calculations in the ranking are automated, there is a need for more qualitative analysis that is clearly communicated for replication by others. For instance, how duplicate references and retracted articles are removed from the count is not clear. Publications could potentially be screened for keywords in the title/abstract to ensure direct relevance to sport science. However, this is not without challenges as general keywords, for instance “human performance,” may be relevant not only to sport science but also to other fields of research.
Size, Nature, and Naming of Research Institutions
The inclusion of all publications from an institution, regardless of their direct relevance to sport science, can significantly impact metrics. Large institutions classified as sport science entities may produce a high volume of publications, but not all may pertain to specific sport science subdisciplines (eg, exercise physiology, motor control, sport biomechanics, and psychology). This situation can potentially provide a competitive advantage to sport science departments within larger entities (eg, nutrition, rehabilitation, health and/or medical sciences). Therefore, a crucial decision must be made regarding the analysis of raw numbers, which may favor larger institutions, or the normalization of data based on the institution’s size. Normalizing data can level the playing field for smaller institutions or countries.
Despite producing cutting-edge research in various areas relevant to sport science, many world-renowned sport science institutions are absent from the ShanghaiRanking, which exclusively considers universities. Notably, Expertscape recognizes Aspetar Orthopedic and Sports Medicine Hospital in Doha, Qatar, as the leading institution in the field of “soccer.”5 Unfortunately, institutions like Aspetar, situated in smaller countries with emerging research cultures and lacking current rankings, may not receive public recognition as top research institutions despite their excellence in popular sport science areas (ie, environmental physiology).
Institutions are chosen based on the department or school name, but the precise search strategy lacks clarity. Variations in department or school naming (ie, the absence of a standard affiliation form) and instances wherein researchers do not specify their department/school affiliation (opting for only the university name) cannot be dismissed. Such variations may result in overlooked publications, potentially leading to an inaccurate representation of the academic landscape. A possible remedy could involve assigning unique ID numbers to institutions, akin to ORCID numbers for individual researchers, to address this challenge.
Research Impact
Although certain activities, such as research outputs, are relatively easy to measure, others like policy, economic, or societal impacts present more significant challenges.6 In the sport science industry, distinguishing between academic output and research impact remains a significant challenge. Although international collaboration undeniably benefits researchers and institutions, questioning the effectiveness of this subcategory metric in the ShanghaiRanking for enhancing research quality is valid. Institutions have diverse priorities, with some emphasizing global recognition through academic outputs and others prioritize collaborations with local communities for enhanced local relevance. Consequently, there is a need to adjust university rankings by incorporating multidimensional alternatives, ideally employing qualitative methods. For example, focusing on the research–teaching nexus could provide a new perspective by measuring how the generation of firsthand knowledge improves students’ experiences and new graduate employability. This approach could also aid in measuring other sources of impact, such as the adoption of research outcomes by industry and the community as well as the generation of commercial patents.
Representation of Researchers’ Profiles
It seems relevant to explore whether the performance of an institution is primarily driven by a select few individuals or whether the contribution is evenly distributed among all staff members. This analysis may provide new insights into collaborative dynamics within a department or school, offering information on teamwork, interdisciplinary collaboration, and the overall research culture. Moving forward, attention should be directed toward factors such as the following.
Inclusion of Adjunct/Honorary Staff
Acknowledging the role and impact of adjunct or honorary staff in contributing to research output could provide a more comprehensive view of collaborative efforts within an institution.
Diversity and Inclusion Metrics
Introducing metrics to measure diversity and inclusion within the research team may ensure that rankings consider both quantity and quality in the research environment. This could include aspects like gender diversity, cultural representation, and inclusivity initiatives, promoting a more equitable research landscape.
Contribution of Early-Career Researchers
Recognizing and assessing the contributions of early-career researchers would be crucial for understanding the sustainability and long-term impact of an institution, fostering a dynamic and forward-thinking research environment.
Journal Quality
The ShanghaiRanking system uses the number of publications in the top 25% journals by impact factor as a quality metric. In the sport science category, consisting of 87 journals in the 2022 Journal Citation Reports (Clarivate Analytics) ranking, some reputable journals fall outside the top quartile. Notably, certain journals with a primary focus on orthopedic and sport medicine, boasting higher impact factors due to their listing in more established categories, rank high but may not publish directly relevant content to sport science. Even considering journals with a clear “sport science” focus, (exercise) physiology outperforms other subcategories in top journals, making the evaluation unfair for departments emphasizing research in areas unrecognized in SCIMAGO’s journal ranking. Using (sport) biomechanics as an example, wherein most top journals rank in Q2 or Q3 categories, institutions risk having a lower number of publications included in their ranking.
Practical Applications—Exploring Innovative and Underutilized Approaches for Recognizing Excellence
When ranking universities in sport science, placing more emphasis on various aspects of academic excellence beyond traditional research metrics could offer a more comprehensive view of program quality and effectiveness. These aspects include (in no specific order; Figure 1):
- 1.Teaching quality: Evaluation of curriculum relevance, teaching methods, integration of first-hand knowledge and latest research evidence into teaching, student evaluations of teaching effectiveness, student-to-faculty ratio, graduation and retention rates, and the qualifications of faculty members.
- 2.Practical training and applied learning: Emphasis on practical, hands-on experience through internships, labs, fieldwork, and collaborations with industry partners, sport organizations, clinics, and research facilities for real-world learning opportunities.
- 3.Industry connections and employability: The extent of a university’s connections with the sport industry and related sectors, employment rates of graduates in the field of sport science, and notable alumni success stories.
- 4.Student support services: Availability of academic advising, career services, mental health support, and resources for research and innovation.
- 5.Facilities and equipment: The availability and modernity of sport science and specialized facilities, like biomechanics and nutrition labs, and so on.
- 6.International collaboration and diversity: The number of international students and faculty in the sport science program, collaborative international research projects or publications, exchange programs, and international internship opportunities.
- 7.Community engagement and outreach: Programs aimed at community health and sport participation, involvement in public sport events or health campaigns, and outreach programs.
- 8.Sustainability and ethical practices: Policies and practices for sustainable operations in the sport science department, courses and initiatives focusing on ethical issues in sport science.
- 9.Interdisciplinary approach: Research projects that involve multiple disciplines, collaborations with other departments and schools or external institutions in interdisciplinary work.
Academic excellence is undeniably multidimensional, encompassing various facets of educational and research quality. It is an intricate interplay of quantitative and qualitative dimensions that shape the future of academia. As a relatively young discipline, most sport science institutions derive the majority of their income from teaching while concurrently conducting research. This, coupled with the fact that the place of teaching evaluations in rankings differs internationally, reflects the different priorities across countries. Another layer of complexity is when ranking systems cluster sport science with other disciplines under a life science category, thereby obscuring its visibility within larger subjects.
Although certain aspects of the aforementioned criteria are used by some of the ranking systems, the call is to establish internationally standardized measures for academic excellence that truly exemplify a world-class sport science institution. This will represent a transformative shift toward a more holistic and inclusive evaluation of educational and research institutions and allow for comparability between countries.
Conclusion
The complexity of ranking sport-science institutions becomes apparent when considering the multitude of factors that influence academic excellence and the diverse priorities of national agendas. It is increasingly clear that the pursuit of a more holistic and nuanced evaluation system is both a challenging and a necessary task. Collaborative efforts from the sport-science community are necessary to define the key dimensions of academic excellence in the field and develop evaluation frameworks that align with global standards. Furthermore, the ability to adapt and incorporate emerging trends and priorities in education and research is vital to ensure the relevance and effectiveness of the evaluation criteria. This effort, albeit intricate and potentially lengthy in its realization, promises to enrich our understanding and appreciation of what it truly means to excel in the realm of sport science.
References
- 1.↑
ShanghaiRanking. Global Ranking of Sport Science Schools and Departments. 2023. Accessed March 7, 2024. https://www.shanghairanking.com/rankings/grsssd/2023
- 2.↑
Schantz P. Along paths converging to Bengt Saltin’s early contributions in exercise physiology. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2015;25(4):7–15. doi:
- 3.↑
Yan B, Girard O. Sport science is a global field of research: Issue resolved, or perhaps not? J Sci Med Sport. 2023;26(8):396–398. doi:
- 4.↑
European Database of Sport Science. 2024. Accessed March 7, 2024, https://www.ecss2006.com/asp/congress/TOOLS/Benefits/EDSS.asp
- 5.↑
Expertscape Database (Institutions) for Expertise on “Soccer”: Worldwide. 2024. Accessed March 7, 2024, https://expertscape.com/ex/soccer
- 6.↑
Büttner F, Ardern CL, Blazey P, et al. Counting publications and citations is not just irrelevant: it is incentive that subvert the impact of clinical research. Br J Sports Med. 2021;55(12):647–648. doi:
