Academic Ranking of World Universities The Academic Ranking of World Universities ( ARWU ) , commonly known as the Shanghai Ranking , is a publication that was founded and compiled by the Shanghai Jiaotong University to rank universities globally . The rankings have been conducted since 2003 and updated annually . Since 2009 , the rankings have been published by the Shanghai Ranking Consultancy . ARWU is the first global ranking of universities to be published . It was initially designed to provide a global benchmark against the various universities in China so they could assess their progress . The Academic Ranking of World Universities is regarded to be one of the three most influential and widely observed international university rankings , along with the QS World University Rankings and the Times Higher Education World University Rankings . Its consistent and objective methodology is praised when compared with other rankings . However , it has also been criticized for its heavy focus on the natural sciences over the social sciences or humanities , and over the quality of instruction . Methodology . The ranking compares 1200 higher education institutions worldwide according to a formula that took into account alumni winning Nobel Prize s and Fields Medal s ( 10 percent ) , staff winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals ( 20 percent ) , highly - cited researchers in 21 broad subject categories ( 20 percent ) , articles published in the journals " Nature " and " Science " ( 20 percent ) , the Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index ( 20 percent ) and the per capita academic performance ( on the indicators above ) of an institution ( 10 percent ) . The methodology is set out in an academic article by its originators , N . C . Liu and Y . Cheng . The methodology used by the Shanghai Rankings is largely academic and research oriented . Influence . As the first multi - indicator ranking of global universities , ARWU has attracted a great deal of attention from universities , governments and media . A survey on higher education published by " The Economist " in 2005 commented ARWU as " the most widely used annual ranking of the world ' s research universities . " In 2010 , the " Chronicle of Higher Education " called ARWU " the best - known and most influential global ranking of universities " . One of the factors in the significant influence of ARWU is that its methodology is said to look globally sound and transparent . EU Research Headlines reported the ARWU ' s work on 31st Dec 2003 : " The universities were carefully evaluated using several indicators of research performance . " Chancellor of Oxford University , Prof . Chris Patten , said " the methodology looks fairly solid . . . it looks like a pretty good stab at a fair comparison . " Vice - Chancellor of Australian National University , Prof . Ian Chubb , said " The SJTU rankings were reported quickly and widely around the world … ( and they ) offer an important comparative view of research performance and reputation . " Margison ( 2007 ) also commented the ARWU ranking that one of the strengths of " the academically rigorous and globally inclusive Jiao Tong approach " is " constantly tuning its rankings and invites open collaboration in that . " Philip G . Altbach named ARWU ' s " consistency , clarity of purpose , and transparency " as significant strengths . The ARWU ranking and its content have been widely cited and applied as a starting point for identifying national strengths and weaknesses as well as facilitating reform and setting new initiatives . Bill Destler ( 2008 ) , the president of the Rochester Institute of Technology , draw reference to the ARWU ranking to analyze the comparative advantages the Western Europe and US have in terms of intellectual talent and creativity in his publication in the journal " Nature " . European commissioner of Education , Jan Figel , pointed out in an interview in 2007 that " if you look at the Shanghai index , we are the strongest continent in terms of numbers and potential but we are also shifting into a secondary position in terms of quality and attractiveness . If we don ' t act we will see an uptake or overtake by Chinese or Indian universities . " Also , Enserink ( 2007 ) referred to ARWU and argued in a paper published in " Science " that " France ' s poor showing in the Shanghai ranking . . . helped trigger a national debate about higher education that resulted in a new law . . . giving universities more freedom . " The world leading think tank Rand Corporation used the ARWU ranking as evidence in their consultancy paper to the European Institute of Innovation and Technology . In two subsequent research papers published by Academic Leadership ( 2009 ) , then in an " article " published by the Times Higher Education ( 2009 ) , Paul Z . Jambor of Korea University established the connection between any unfavorable image / reputation universities may develop ( and / or their association , by country , to those universities linked to the wrongdoing ) to a halt in their climb or even to a drop in their THE – QS World University Rankings . This is because 40 % and 10 % of THE – QS World Methodology is based on Academic Peer Review and Employer Review respectively . In essence , any unfavorable image developed by a group of universities , associated by country , tends to harm their collective rankings . For this reason , universities worldwide should seriously consider adhering to internationally accepted standards so that they do not run the risk of sliding in the ranks on the international front . Consequently , a number of critics consider this aspect of THE – QS World University Rankings unfair and even biased . < ref name = " EUobserver / EU to test new university ranking in 2010 " > < / ref > The new Times Higher Education World University Rankings ( THE - Reuters ) , published since 2010 is based on a revised Methodology . In the Methodology of the THE - Reuters World University Rankigs , the ' Papers per research and academic staff ' { at 4 . 5 % } and the ' Citation impact ( normalised average citation per paper ) ' { at 32 . 5 % } indicators make it evident that a university ' s ranking heavily relies on the number and quality of research papers written by its faculty . With 95 % of research papers written in English , the relationship between English language use and a university ' s subsequent ranking thus becomes ever more clear . Jambor highlights the connection between actual English use and university rankings in a pair of research papers respectively published by the US Department of Education : ERIC and Academic Leadership . Criticism . College and university rankings often stimulate controversy ( see Criticism of college and university rankings ( North America ) and Criticism of college and university rankings ( 2007 United States ) ) and the ARWU is no exception . A 2007 paper published in the journal " Scientometrics " found that the results from the Shanghai rankings could not be reproduced from raw data using the method described by Liu and Cheng . In a report from April 2009 , J - C . Billaut , D . Bouyssou and Ph . Vincke analyze how the ARWU works , using their insights as specialists of Multiple Criteria Decision Making ( MCDM ) . Their main conclusions are that the criteria used are not relevant ; that the aggregation methodology has a number of major problems ; and that insufficient attention has been paid to fundamental choices of criteria . The ARWU researchers themselves , N . C Liu and Y Cheng , think that the quality of universities cannot be precisely measured by mere numbers and any ranking must be controversial . They suggest that university and college rankings should be used with caution and their methodologies must be understood clearly before reporting or using the results . Others have pointed out , the ARWU is known for " relying solely on research indicators " , and " the ranking is heavily weighted toward institutions whose faculty or alumni have won Nobel Prizes " : it does not measure " the quality of teaching or the quality of humanities . " Ioannides et al . suggested that ( in common with all ranking systems they reviewed ) , the ranking lacked construct validity modest concordance between the Shanghai and Times rankings . They highlighted measurement precision , and transparent methodology as important issues . Like the Times Higher Education ' s rankings , the ARWU has been criticized by the European Commission as well as some EU member states for " favour [ ing ] Anglo - Saxon higher education institutions " . Rankings . The table below contains the overall rankings as ordinal numbers ( i . e . , 1 is best , 2 is second best , etc . ) from 2003 to 2012 for all universities that ranked in the top 100 in one of the years tabulated . The ranking is omitted for years in which the school did not land within the top 100 . Note the full ranking contains over 500 universities . If a university is not listed in this table , it did not rank in the top 100 in any of the years tabulated .