how is research and ranking

• SEBI IPO Status
• Live Subscription
• Allotment Status
• Shareholder Quota
• Market Holidays

Top 10 Most Expensive Stocks In India 2024

Updater Services: A Unique Model Combining Facility Management and Business Support…

Best IPO Stocks That Doubled Investors’ Money

Best Option Trading Strategies For Beginners

NSCCL- 7 Most Important Points about NSE Clearing

• Mainboard IPOs in 2024
• Mainboard IPOs in 2023
• Mainboard IPOs in 2022
• Mainboard IPOs in 2021
• Mainboard IPOs in 2020
• Mainboard IPOs in 2019
• Mainboard IPOs in 2018
• Mainboard IPOs in 2017
• Mainboard IPOs in 2016
• SME IPOs in 2024
• SME IPOs in 2023
• SME IPOs in 2022
• SME IPOs in 2021
• SME IPOs in 2020
• SME IPOs in 2019
• SME IPOs in 2018
• SME IPOs in 2017
• About IPO Central
• Authors’ Corner
• Advertise with IPO Central

TBO Tek IPO GMP, Price, Date, Allotment

Refractory Shapes IPO GMP, Review, Price, Allotment

Indegene IPO GMP, Price, Date, Allotment

Aadhar Housing Finance IPO GMP, Price, Date, Allotment

Sai Swami Metals IPO GMP, Review, Price, Allotment

Indegene IPO: 10 Points Investors Should Know

JNK India IPO Ratings: Here is Why Analysts Are Positive Ratings

Slone Infosystems IPO GMP, Review, Price, Allotment

Amkay Products IPO GMP, Review, Price, Allotment

Racks and Rollers IPO GMP, Review, Price, Allotment

Ashnoor Textile Rights Issue Date, Price, Allotment, Entitlement

Savani Financials Rights Issue Date, Price, Allotment, Entitlement

VMS Industries Rights Issue Date, Price, Allotment, Entitlement

Scanpoint Geomatics Rights Issue Date, Price, Allotment, Entitlement

Vodafone Idea FPO Ratings: Here is Why Analysts Are Positive Ratings

SRM Contractors IPO Review: 10 Key Points You Need to Know

Popular Vehicles IPO Ratings: Brokers Upbeat About Prospects

Sharda Motor Buyback Record Date 2024, Price, Entitlement Ratio

Anand Rathi Wealth Buyback Record Date 2024, Price, Entitlement Ratio

Dwarikesh Sugar Buyback Record Date 2024, Price, Entitlement Ratio

Tips Industries Buyback Record Date 2024, Price, Entitlement Ratio

Shervani Industrial Syndicate Buyback Record Date 2024, Price, Entitlement Ratio

Oravel Stays Unlisted Share Price

Philips India Unlisted Share Price

Cochin International Airport Unlisted Share Price

Swiggy IPO: Valuation Markup But Shares Continue at Discount in Pre-IPO…

Bira 91 Unlisted Share Price

Upstox Vs Groww: Stock Broker Comparison

Top Bootstrapped Companies in India

• Advisory Review

Research and Ranking Review: Charges, Services, Trial, Complaints

Established in the year 2016, Research & Ranking is a SEBI registered equity advisory which aims to aid equity investors in wealth building through long-term investing. The firm offers a robust technology-enabled platform backed by detailed research that helps in wealth creation by generating personalized portfolios as per investors financial goals. We dived into the firm’s service offerings and here is Research and Ranking Review.

Research & Ranking is a part of Equentis Group, established in the year 2009. Over the years, the advisory built a team of  professionals across Mumbai, Thane, Delhi and Bengaluru, while the company’s registered office is based in Mumbai.

Over the next 2-3 years, Research & Ranking plans to get listed as well as go overseas and serve international investors by mirroring their technology-based investment advisory model’s success in developed markets including the UK, the USA and Middle-east.

Research and Ranking (Equentis Wealth Advisory Services Private Limited) Details

Research and ranking review: services.

Research and Ranking services primarily focus on long-term investing and has built its investment schemes accordingly.

5 in 5 Wealth Creation Strategy: It is designed to help investors to invest in a personalized and competently diversified portfolio of 20-25 stocks with the potential to generate 4-5 times returns in 5-6 years.

MisPriced Opportunities (MPO): This service helps investors to profit from market fluctuations by investing in stocks trading below their underlying value, thereby having the potential to generate 25-50% returns in 6-12 months.

Research & Ranking service named Dhanwaan and EWA Exclusive are their two premium offering for HNI and Ultra-HNI clients who wish to create massive wealth by investing in high growth businesses with the potential to grow at a rapid rate with India’s growth trajectory, thus compounding investor wealth at a CAGR rate of 25-35%.

Dhanwaan – A Premium Non-Discretionary Portfolio Management Service: Invest in a highly personalized and concentrated portfolio of 20-25 stocks with the strong past track record of 4-5 times returns in 5-6 years.

Informed InvestoRR: It helps investors to by giving regular relevant information which thus impact your investment as an investor. Research and Ranking is collecting all the quality information on stocks and market and is providing it on a single platform.

Research and Ranking Charges

Research and Ranking charges for its services on yearly basis, with the plans for one and five years and the paying cycle being in every 6 months. Please note that GST charges of 18% are imposed separately in addition to the prices shown below:

As seen above, Research and Rankings charges goes from moderate to high. Customers can choose subscription plans according to their needs and service required, as the plans seem to cater to small as well as large & HNI investors.

Read also: Upcoming IPOs in 2024

Research and Ranking Complaints and Customer Service

Research and Ranking reviews have been quite positive according to their customers for the services they got, and its registered complaints on the site portal has been also very low. Most of the business websites have rated it with good ratings with moderate customer complaints. Research and Ranking customer service seem to be quite nice according to its long-term users.

Research and Ranking Review: Pros and Cons

• Good customer service
• Variety of services
• Long-term investments only
• No free trial

Explore more advisory reviews

Disclaimer  – The objective behind Research and Ranking   review is to offer an unbiased view of the company’s service offerings and cost of subscription services. This review of Research and Ranking service offerings is only for information purpose and is not a recommendation for investors

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Advertise with Us
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Are university rankings useful to improve research? A systematic review

Contributed equally to this work with: Marlo M. Vernon, E. Andrew Balas

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Department of Clinical and Digital Health Sciences, College of Allied Health Sciences, Augusta University, Augusta, Georgia, United States of America

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Roles Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan, Nonlinear Analysis and Applied Mathematics (NAAM) Research Group, Faculty of Science, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

• Marlo M. Vernon, 
• E. Andrew Balas, 
• Shaher Momani

• Published: March 7, 2018
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193762
• Reader Comments

Introduction

Concerns about reproducibility and impact of research urge improvement initiatives. Current university ranking systems evaluate and compare universities on measures of academic and research performance. Although often useful for marketing purposes, the value of ranking systems when examining quality and outcomes is unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate usefulness of ranking systems and identify opportunities to support research quality and performance improvement.

A systematic review of university ranking systems was conducted to investigate research performance and academic quality measures. Eligibility requirements included: inclusion of at least 100 doctoral granting institutions, be currently produced on an ongoing basis and include both global and US universities, publish rank calculation methodology in English and independently calculate ranks. Ranking systems must also include some measures of research outcomes. Indicators were abstracted and contrasted with basic quality improvement requirements. Exploration of aggregation methods, validity of research and academic quality indicators, and suitability for quality improvement within ranking systems were also conducted.

A total of 24 ranking systems were identified and 13 eligible ranking systems were evaluated. Six of the 13 rankings are 100% focused on research performance. For those reporting weighting, 76% of the total ranks are attributed to research indicators, with 24% attributed to academic or teaching quality. Seven systems rely on reputation surveys and/or faculty and alumni awards. Rankings influence academic choice yet research performance measures are the most weighted indicators. There are no generally accepted academic quality indicators in ranking systems.

No single ranking system provides a comprehensive evaluation of research and academic quality. Utilizing a combined approach of the Leiden, Thomson Reuters Most Innovative Universities, and the SCImago ranking systems may provide institutions with a more effective feedback for research improvement. Rankings which extensively rely on subjective reputation and “luxury” indicators, such as award winning faculty or alumni who are high ranking executives, are not well suited for academic or research performance improvement initiatives. Future efforts should better explore measurement of the university research performance through comprehensive and standardized indicators. This paper could serve as a general literature citation when one or more of university ranking systems are used in efforts to improve academic prominence and research performance.

Citation: Vernon MM, Balas EA, Momani S (2018) Are university rankings useful to improve research? A systematic review. PLoS ONE 13(3): e0193762. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193762

Editor: Lutz Bornmann, Max Planck Society, GERMANY

Received: July 31, 2017; Accepted: February 16, 2018; Published: March 7, 2018

Copyright: © 2018 Vernon et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Considering the significance of university innovation, there is a pressing need for outcome studies and quality improvement initiatives in the research enterprise. Keupp et al. [ 1 ] point out that current innovation management is characterized by conflicting predictions, knowledge gaps and theoretical inconsistencies. These issues may negatively impact the translation of academic research into discovery and applicable societal benefit. Research quality issues exist within university research; in the last 10 years, several studies and commentaries have highlighted the need for improvement in transparency, replicability, and meaningful research outcome reporting [ 2 – 6 ].

Many university administrators rely on university ranking systems as indicators of improvement over time and in comparison to other institutions. Universities promote improvement in standings as evidence of progress in the academic and research environments when requesting funding from government sources [ 7 ]. Other universities use ranking systems as evidence of cost-benefit for previously funded initiatives and to support additional funding requests. Consumers use university rankings to evaluate higher education opportunities both nationally and internationally.

Previous reviews of university rankings found that emphasis on reputation and institutional resources may not truly represent university quality [ 8 – 12 ]. Reviews of five ranking systems by Dill &Soo [ 8 ] focused on the suitability of rankings as representative of academic quality. Their findings demonstrate that ranking system indicators are not sufficient for promoting policy decisions or consumer choice. Suggested academic quality indicators include student entry criteria, program completion rates, proportion of graduates entering employment upon graduation, professional training, higher degrees, and the average starting salaries of graduates. Frey and Rost [ 13 ] concluded that publications and citations were not suitable indicators of scientific institutional worth. Their results suggest that multiple criteria should be implemented when assessing institutions for quality or choice for career decision.

Moed [ 12 ] most recently evaluated five world ranking systems and concluded that while ranking systems have improved in the last decade, the tendency to be one-dimensional hinders a more comprehensive university evaluation.

An evaluation of the Shanghai and Times Higher Education rankings conductd 70 simulations to replicate rankings; their results indicate that inaccurate weights were used to calculate the overall score [ 10 ]. The lack of replicability emphasizes the need for ongoing research quality evaluation and improvement. Trustworthiness of research influences not only scientific credibility but also effective innovation.

Assessment of the validity of research and academic quality indicators in university rankings is often unexplored; only once in the literature were two ranking systems so evaluated [ 14 ]. Integrating the much cited definitions of validity by Carmines and Hammersley, validity is the extent to which a measuring instrument accurately represents those features of a phenomena, that it is intended to describe[ 15 , 16 ].

While academic institutions have a responsibility to ensure that research process and outcomes efficiently and prudently manage resources, standardized research performance evaluation mechanisms for comparison across institutions do not currently exist. Academic institutions and administrators need reliable evaluation indicators of research and academic quality and university ranking systems are often used for this purpose. The objective of this study is to evaluate the usefulness of ranking systems for both academic and research performance and quality improvement, through a systematic review of publicly available university ranking systems.

We conducted a systematic review of university ranking systems utilizing the PRISMA protocol and checklist, researched relevant measures to ascertain commonly used indicators for evaluating research performance and innovation ( Fig 1 , S1 Table ) [ 17 ]. The review protocol for this study is available from the authors.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193762.g001

Eligibility criteria

Ranking systems which include over 100 doctoral granting universities in their sample were eligible. Rankings must be currently produced on an ongoing basis and include US and global universities. Ranking systems also needed to publish rank calculation methodology in English. Ineligible criteria included rankings which were solely based on reputation surveys, did not include research outcome indicators or ranked institutions solely by subject area.

A search of publicly available ranking systems for universities was undertaken between January and March 2017, through the use of internet search and qualitative literature review. Search terms included “university ranking”, “research productivity,” “measurement,” and “ranking university research.” Ranking system owners and VP of Research Administration were also consulted. Our searches were not limited to a certain field. Search engines used included PubMed (Search strategy: "university ranking"[All Fields]), Web of Science (WOS), and Google Scholar. To reduce selection bias, additional internet searches were also broadly conducted with the same search terms to identify any additional ranking systems.

Processing/Abstraction

The purpose of the ranking system and methodologies for calculation of ranks were pulled from published statements through each ranking system website or publicly available documentation on methodology. Terms such as “the objective,” or “purpose of” each ranking system are used to identify the stated purpose of the ranking system. All indicators which were stated by the ranking systems to evaluate research and academics were abstracted and compared across systems. The aggregation methodology was also abstracted and compared from the publicly available methodologies and results.

Ranking systems were also evaluated on their utility for institutional quality improvement based on transparency of data and data analysis, consistency of indicators used in rankings over time, and availability of institution level data from ranking system–made available for others to replicate ranking calculations.

In this study, validity of ranking was assessed based on the following criteria: (i) content (i.e., comprehensiveness by including measures of both IP and publications, reliance on empirical data); (ii) consistency (i.e., transparency of indicator calculation; transparency of data/availability of raw institutional data; transparency of data aggregation; consistency of measures over time; process of ranking replicable); and (iii) resistance to bias (i.e., avoidance of self-reported data; does not rely on peer reputation surveys). Transparency of data is evaluated on the availability of raw institutional data used for comparison and whether the data can be used to analyze trends over time. The transparency of the data analysis algorithm is also evaluated as indicator transformations are provided with sufficient detail for replication and if the algorithms used for rankings are replicable by outside entities. The disclosure of the included percentage for each subscale used by the ranking system is included in this item. Subscales refer to the different components or indicators included in each ranking system’s overall score, for example, the percent of the overall score attributed to publications in high impact journals, total citations, or number of PhD graduates. To evaluate the appropriateness of rankings for use in research quality improvement action plans, the consistency of indicators over time is roughly assessed using a binary rating of present or not present. Consistency of indicators used over time is determined by publication of ranking methodology or indicator changes prior to rankings release, the stated frequency of changes, and whether included measures have a life cycle of inclusion. Resistance to bias of the ranking systems is assessed by whether or not data are self-reported to ranking systems, and the presence or absence of a stated validation process to confirm self-reported data is utilized by the system. Resistance to bias is also assessed by degree of reliance on empirical or qualitative survey data (majority percent of total score), as reputation surveys are not factors that institutions can control or design.

For the purposes of this study, the definition of research performance is based on standards for the NIH Research Performance Progress Report: publications, conference papers, and presentations; website(s) or other Internet site(s); technologies or techniques; inventions, patent applications, and/or licenses; other products, such as data or databases, physical collections, audio or video products, software, models, educational aids or curricula, instruments or equipment, research material, interventions (e.g., clinical or educational), or new business creation [ 18 ]. This review of university ranking systems looked for impact and products along these lines. Correspondingly, research performance indicators are interpreted as measures of publications, citations, and/or intellectual property.

Academic quality is defined as improvement in students' capabilities or knowledge as a consequence of their education at a particular college or university [ 19 ]. It is interpreted as measures pertaining to student progress or acheivement, and teaching quality as defined by faculty credintals.

A total of 24 ranking systems were initially identified through searches. Thirteen ranking systems which published in 2015 or 2016 were included in the results ( Table 1 ). Excluded ranking systems were either no longer being published, did not include research performance indicators, or did not publish ranking methodologies. The range of institutions evaluated is between 500 and 5000 institutions. The oldest ranking system is the Carnegie Classification, established in 1973. All other ranking systems were first published between 2003 and 2015. Three ranking systems are run by universities, two by publications or news agencies, five by consulting or independent groups, and one by a government established entity. While the US News and World Report ranking of American universities was not eligible due to a lack of research performance indicators, the US News and World Report Global Ranking is included.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193762.t001

The purpose of most ranking systems is to identify top institutions for consumers, to classify institutions by their research activity, and to compare institutions within countries and across the globe ( Table 2 ). Some ranking systems state that they do not intend for the information to be used to compare institution to institution, but to provide a general interpretation of each institution’s annual performance.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193762.t002

Four ranking systems specifically state that their results are intended to evaluate research quality. The Shanghai and UMR highlight their use in government cost benefit analysis; RUR, Shanghai, UMR, and Times state that their ranking systems may have use in supporting government funding requests.

The Carnegie Classification specifically states that their rankings are not intended to evaluate research performance. The Carnegie Classification System relies on R&D expenditure data in both STEM and non-STEM fields from the NSF Survey of Research and Development Expenditures at Universities and Colleges. Total staff working in science and engineering research are included from the NSF Survey of Graduate Students and Post-doctorates in Science and Engineering. No measures of research performance are assessed. The UMR system also provides indicators of quality, but leaves the definition of quality up to user preferences, by allowing a choice of indicators to be selected.

Tables 3 and 4 list the indicators utilized by the ranking systems to evaluate research performance or quality. Nine systems used total publications as an indicator–this is typically defined by the number of peer-reviewed articles that are included in either the Thomson Reuters Web of Science Core Collections database, or SCOPUS, produced by Elsevier. On average, 33.8% of ranking scores are assigned to publications and citations or various versions of these metrics. In most analyses, this is not dependent on first author affiliation, meaning that articles could be counted more than once across different institutions in collaborative works. Peer evaluation of both academic and research reputation and cumulative faculty awards contribute on average 39.8% of total ranking score among those who report weighting.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193762.t003

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193762.t004

Ranking systems which rely heavily on publication and citation metrics include the Leiden Ranking, Shanghai, SCImago, URAP, US News and World Report and the EU U-Multirank systems. The Leiden Ranking provides size-dependent and size-independent variants of all indicators, except publication output. Citation indicators are also normalized for scientific field differences. The counting method is conducted using a full counting and a fractional counting method- wherein collaborative publications are given less weight than non-collaborative ones (Leiden indicators description, page 4). An algorithm is applied to calculate field-normalized impact indicators, described by Waltman and Van Eck [ 20 ]. In the Shanghai ranking system, publications in Nature/Science and Nobel or Fields Awards comprise 50% of the score–indicating a reliance on highly selective indicators. Rankings are created by scoring the highest institution as 100, and the rest as a percentage of 100. URAP rankings are entirely based on publication and citation metrics. Scores are normalized according to field of study. CWUR rankings are the only ranking system that incorporates the h -index developed by Hirsch [ 21 ] to indicate the broad impact of a university’s research based on performance and citation impact. The h- index of an institution equals x if the institution has published x papers that have each been cited at least x times. For all but two ranking systems, Leiden and Carnegie, data used in the calculations are not made available making replicability of the rankings impossible. Leiden and Carnegie both provide downloadable spreadsheets of the ranking indicator data.

The percent of scores attributed to intellectual property (IP) measures, such as patents, was only 3.5% across all systems. Four systems incorporated at least one of these indicators–CWUR, SCImago, CA, and UMR. The Clarivate Analytics Most Innovative Universities is the only ranking system heavily focused on intellectual property indicators and includes indicators based on independent empirical data. A patent success ratio is calculated from patent awards per applications. Raw data is not available for validation and replication. The UMR, CWUR include patent applications. The one indicator of IP performance in SCImago is based on citation metrics (publications cited in patent applications) and heavily weights this in the summary score at 30%.

Academic quality indicators are presented in Table 5 . Six systems incorporate academic quality by various indicators. The most common is a peer to peer survey, used by QS World, Times, US News and World Report, UMR, and RUR. Student/Faculty ratio is employed by each of these systems, excluding the US News and World Report. Carnegie, Times, and the UMR also use total doctoral degrees conferred when evaluating academic quality. Diversity of faculty and students are also used by QS World, Times, UMR and RUR as indicators of academic quality. CWUR attributes 25% of their ranking score to the number of alumni who are CEOs on the Forbes 100 list as the only measure of academic quality.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193762.t005

The SCImago rank web presence by Google metrics makes up 20% of the total score. Similarly, Webometrics includes all global universities that have a web presence. The goal is to encourage universities and staff to increase their visibility through the number of webpages and external networks originating at institution websites. Citations and publications make up 40% of the score, based on the production of the most cited faculty.

Five ranking systems include reputation surveys as a significant component of the ranking calculation. The QS World ranking attributes 50% of the institution score to academic and employer reputation surveys. Research and academic reputation surveys contribute 33% of the Times ranking system.

An audit by PricewaterhouseCooper was completed for this methodology, yet there is no independent validation of self-report data or explanation of the weighting of the indicator percentages. Raw data is not provided for independent replication or validation. USN&WR Global Rankings incorporates surveys of global and regional research reputation (25% of the total score), the results of which are not publicly available. Round University Ranking, based out of Moscow, Russia, uses surveys for 16% of the overall score.

Standardization and aggregation methods are employed in various iterations by the ranking systems ( Table 6 ). Efforts are made by all evaluated systems to normalize indicators by calculating ratios according to faculty numbers or research expenditures. Others normalized citations by field of study to lessen advantage of highly cited disciplines. Z scores, fractional counting, and weighted subscales are also used to standardize the ranking scores.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193762.t006

The suitability of ranking systems for use in research performance improvement is reported in Table 7 . It provides a rough binary assessment of the various ranking systems on the different dimensions. All ranking systems refine their analysis prior to each publication. No ranking systems report any specific measures or analysis of their indicator validity. Leiden provides a stability interval to support the individual indicator.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193762.t007

One research institution was compared across all ranking systems in Table 8 , to demonstrate the variability of ranking systems.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193762.t008

Administrators, funders, and consumers should look for rankings which are consistent over time, cover multiple areas of measurement and are less reliant on peer reputation. Based on our results, reputation surveys, self-reported and unvalidated data, and non-replicable analyses create an impractical foundation for research improvement assessment, and can lead to a wide range of institutional ranks. When rankings are used to as support for budget requests, or as evidence of return on investment, indicators which provide a balanced approach have the best opportunity to be truly reflective.

When used in tandem, several ranking systems may have more reasonable comprehensiveness and validity. Use of the Leiden Ranking System, the Clarivate Analytics Innovation Ranking System, and SCImago process for systematic evaluation and comparison may be a promising approach for research administrators. The U-Multirank is the broadest of the systems examined, but without the ability to compare a university’s performance over time rather than in overall categories, trend analysis becomes difficult.

We found that current ranking systems rarely incorporate the promotion of innovation culture through patents or intellectual property disclosures. Increasing the research product: publication/patent, may be easily manipulated to increase rankings without actually increasing contribution to science [ 22 , 23 ].

In our sample, eight of the thirteen systems include indicators to measure academic quality. These are mainly focused on peer reputation, faculty achievement, student to faculty ratios, and the total number of awarded doctorates in both STEM and non-STEM fields. Valid measures of academic quality are not universally standardized [ 8 ]. Many ranking systems are marketed either for academic choice/comparison, yet, these indicators do not sufficiently reflect the teaching and learning environments of students.

Research expenditure is often used an indicator of the strength and quality of an institution’s research capabilities. However, no correlation has been found between more research expenditure and better quality research. A Canadian evaluation found a diminishing rate of return between the two factors, and in the US, NIH funding was significantly correlated with increased publications, but not with development of novel therapeutics [ 24 , 25 ].

University rankings tend to focus on bibliometric sources which are biased towards English language journals and are therefore not comprehensive or fully accurate. Peer reputation surveys are not published, nor is the data made available, and bias towards larger more well-known institutions may be inevitable. In addition, measures such as the number of Nobel Prize winners could be considered “luxury” indicators, accessible to elite universities but are out of reach and un-motivating for most other universities.

In this review, we explore the validity and suitability of ranking systems for research performance improvement. Clearly, there is a need for improvement in ranking methodologies. Applying organizational management principles may improve the validity and reliability of university ranking systems and assist with appropriate indicator choices.

We propose that the ideal ranking systems limits the significance of peer reputation to no more than 10%, and meets the Comprehensiveness, Transparency and Replicability criteria described in Table 5 . Current approaches rely on easily accessible output data sources; reliance on these measures perpetuates the perspective that a few approaches adequately represent scientific value, quality improvement and innovation performance. While we believe this represents a comprehensive analysis of appropriate ranking systems, other institutions may rely on different systems. Consultation with ranking system developers and research administrators has provided support for the included list.

Conclusions

There is a need for a credible quality improvement movement in research that develops new measures, and is useful for institutions to evaluate and improve performance and societal value. Quality over quantity should be emphasized to affirm research performance improvement initiatives and outcomes, which benefit society through scientific discovery, economic outcomes, and public health impact. Current indicators are inadequate to accurately evaluate research outcomes and should be supplemented and expanded to meet standardized criteria. We suggest that future research evaluate three dimensions of research outcomes: scientific impact, economic outcomes, and public health impact for evaluating research performance within an academic institutional environment.

Supporting information

S1 table. prisma checklist..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193762.s001

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Chris Brown and Jill Pipher for their reviews and advice on this manuscript, and Nadine Mansour for her assistance with data collection.

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• PubMed/NCBI
• 16. Carmines EG, Zeller RA (1979) Reliability and validity assessment: Sage publications.
• 18. NIH (2017) NIH and Other PHS Agency Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) Instruction Guide. Bethesda, MD.

Subscribe Now! Get features like

• Latest News
• Entertainment
• Real Estate
• Delhi Schools Bomb News Live
• Lok Sabha Election 2024 Live
• WBBSE Result 2024
• Crick-it: Catch The Game
• Lok Sabha Election 2024
• Election Schedule 2024
• IPL 2024 Schedule
• IPL Points Table
• IPL Purple Cap
• IPL Orange Cap
• The Interview
• Web Stories
• Virat Kohli
• Mumbai News
• Bengaluru News
• Daily Digest

Research & Ranking’s unique strategy creates phenomenal wealth for investors

Creating wealth from the stock market is both a science and an art which requires detailed research and a little patience..

With whopping 480% Gains in 6 Years, India’s leading equity advisory Research & Ranking has proved this right and helped over 15000 investors and 1500 lifetime investors fulfil their financial goals effortlessly. The advisory strongly believes in educating and empowering investors, and their registered users include over 3,50,000 investors who are only growing by the day.

Research & Ranking's main product offering, the 5 in 5 Wealth Creation Strategy is designed to help investors to invest in a personalized and adequately diversified portfolio of 20-25 stocks with the potential to generate 4-5 times returns in 5-6 years. The company's second offering, known as the Mispriced Opportunities strategy helps investors to encash on the market fluctuations by investing in stocks trading below their intrinsic value, thereby having the potential to generate 25-50% returns in 6-12 months.

Research & Ranking also offers two premium advisory services named Dhanwaan and EWA Exclusive for HNI and Ultra-HNI clients which aims to create massive wealth by investing in high growth businesses with the potential to grow at a rapid rate with India's growth trajectory, thus compounding investor wealth at a CAGR rate of 25-35%.

With a dedicated team of over 200 professionals across Mumbai, Thane, Delhi and Bengaluru, Research & Ranking considers customer satisfaction one of its top priorities. Having achieved many milestones in a short span of few years, Research & Ranking has set its sight on new achievements for 2021. This includes becoming a True Fintech company which delivers best returns to their customers.

In line with their firm belief that ‘Knowledge is the key to success in investing' the team at Research & Ranking plans to launch an Ed-Tech platform soon to facilitate easy and quick learning for investors.

In the current calendar year, the company is also planning to launch a new product offering named Multiplierr.

“Our revolutionary new product offering is targeted at those investors who wish to invest a small amount in the stock market. We’re excited about this upcoming product launch as it is designed keeping in mind the limitations of a retail investor. At the same time, this new product demonstrates how real wealth can be made through smart investing. We are sure that this strategic decision will pave the way towards enhancing our reach towards investors across the country,” stated Research & Ranking’s Founder-Director, Manish Goel.

Over the next 2-3 years, Research & Ranking intends get listed as well as go global and cater to international investors by replicating their technology-based investment advisory model's success in developed markets including the USA, UK and the Middle-east.

Established in the year 2016, Research & Ranking is a SEBI registered equity advisory which aims to help equity investors create wealth through long-term investing. The advisory offers a robust technology-enabled platform backed by detailed research that guides investors in their wealth creation journey by creating personalized portfolios as per their financial goals.

Research & Ranking is a part of Equentis Group, incorporated in the year 2009 and offers complete support to investors in their journey of wealth creation right from onboarding.

To learn more about the different types of wealth creation strategies offered by Research & Ranking, visit www.researchandranking.com.

Disclaimer: This content is distributed by Digpu News Network. No HT journalist is involved in creation of this content.

Join Hindustan Times

Create free account and unlock exciting features like.

• Terms of use
• Privacy policy
• Weather Today
• HT Newsletters
• Subscription
• Print Ad Rates
• Code of Ethics

• LSG vs MI Live Score
• IPL Match Today
• T20 World Cup 2024 Schedule
• IPL Live Score
• IPL 2024 Auctions
• T20 World Cup 2024
• Cricket Teams
• Cricket Players
• ICC Rankings
• Cricket Schedule
• Other Cities
• Income Tax Calculator
• Budget 2024
• Petrol Prices
• Diesel Prices
• Silver Rate
• Relationships
• Art and Culture
• Taylor Swift: A Primer
• Telugu Cinema
• Tamil Cinema
• Board Exams
• Exam Results
• Competitive Exams
• BBA Colleges
• Engineering Colleges
• Medical Colleges
• BCA Colleges
• Medical Exams
• Engineering Exams
• Horoscope 2024
• Festive Calendar 2024
• Compatibility Calculator
• The Economist Articles
• Lok Sabha States
• Lok Sabha Parties
• Lok Sabha Candidates
• Explainer Video
• On The Record
• Vikram Chandra Daily Wrap
• DC vs SRH Live Score
• KKR vs SRH Live Score
• EPL 2023-24
• ISL 2023-24
• Asian Games 2023
• Public Health
• Economic Policy
• International Affairs
• Climate Change
• Gender Equality
• future tech
• Daily Sudoku
• Daily Crossword
• Daily Word Jumble
• HT Friday Finance
• Explore Hindustan Times
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Subscription - Terms of Use

• Tata Steel share price
• 164.95 -1.46%
• Power Grid Corporation Of India share price
• 301.65 2.71%
• State Bank Of India share price
• 825.70 -0.05%
• NTPC share price
• 363.10 0.00%
• Tata Motors share price
• 1,009.35 0.89%

Research & Ranking's Model Portfolio clocks 79% gains

The portfolio stands among the top five multicap pms performers basis one year returns for the period ending september 2021..

Mumbai, November 29, 2021: Research and Ranking announced the portfolio clocking 79% gains in the one year ending 30th September 2021. This milestone is a major achievement for Equentis Wealth Advisory on its mission to make wealth through long-term investment. The returns not only beat the Nifty returns of 57% hands down but also stood amongst the top five multi-cap PMS in the country.

“Our performance is a result of focus on outperforming sectors such as consumer discretionary, building materials, and chemicals amongst others," says Jaspreet Singh Arora, Chief Investment Officer, at Research & Ranking. With a 60-40 mix between Large Cap and Mid/Small cap and beta of less than 1, the concentrated 20 stock portfolio has been designed to withstand volatility, provide moderate risk, and high reward for our retail and HNI investors.

The outperformance v/s Nifty and superior standing amongst the best multi-cap PMS in the country continues quarter after quarter. "Research & Ranking continues to improve its services and also add more offerings to diversify and expand the business and offer enhanced solutions to investors across the country," said Manish Goel, Founder-Director at Research & Ranking.

This news comes in the wake of the recent initiatives of the company. The company launched Informed InvestoRR, a product that will help investors discern facts and data from the noise around. To learn more about Informed InvestoRR, click here.

Most portfolio management services focus on ‘Wealth Management, while Research & Ranking focuses solely on long-term wealth creation. What makes Research & Ranking’s approach novel is the company’s philosophy of building a fortune through deploying patient long-term capital on predominantly high-growth stocks. The team at Research & Ranking strongly believes creating wealth overnight is not possible. So, they undertake thorough due diligence to create a mini-universe of attractive opportunities followed by the creation of a personalized portfolio tailored to the customer’s risk appetite and financial goals.

Stock markets are complex, where wealth creation from equity is not easy. However, with some patience, disciplined investing, and detailed research, anybody can create wealth. While persistence and restraint are traits investors must develop themselves, investors can have an edge if they avail the services of financial advisory services like Research & Ranking.

About Research & Ranking

Research & Ranking is a leading technology-enabled equity advisory service in India. With a team strength of 200+ professionals spread across Mumbai, Thane, Noida, Bangalore, and Chennai in India, Research & Ranking focuses on making stock market investing hassle-free, rewarding, and easy process for investors pan-India. Since its inception in 2014, Research & Ranking has helped over 23000 investors to fulfill their financial goals.

Disclaimer: This content is distributed by Digpu News Network. No HT journalist is involved in the creation of this content.

Milestone Alert! Livemint tops charts as the fastest growing news website in the world 🌏 Click here to know more.

Unlock a world of Benefits! From insightful newsletters to real-time stock tracking, breaking news and a personalized newsfeed – it's all here, just a click away! Login Now!

Wait for it…

Log in to our website to save your bookmarks. It'll just take a moment.

You are just one step away from creating your watchlist!

Oops! Looks like you have exceeded the limit to bookmark the image. Remove some to bookmark this image.

Your session has expired, please login again.

Congratulations!

You are now subscribed to our newsletters. In case you can’t find any email from our side, please check the spam folder.

Subscribe to continue

This is a subscriber only feature Subscribe Now to get daily updates on WhatsApp

• Show more sharing options
• Copy Link URL Copied!

• Data We produce actionable data, based on performance and market penetration appraisals across the global markets. The comprehensive and independent data assists with strategic decision making. View our data   ❭ January 23, 2024
• Insights Through our proprietary dashboard and broad range of data-driven reports and services, II Research delivers unique insights, including detailed peer-to-peer comparative analyses and a spectrum of qualitative measures to assist with resource allocation. View our insights   ❭ March 12, 2024

Buy-side Voters

Sell-side voters, corporate voters.

Research Providers

Annual rankings of the best sell-side researchers in a dozen countries and regions

Local Brokers

Local/regional brokers are assessed by the buy-side and ranked

Sales Teams

Annual ranking of brokerages that provide the best sales support

Trading Teams

We poll buy-side traders and investment professionals to discover the best equities brokers for Trading & Execution

Global Research

Sell-side research providers ranked by the combined total number of positions earned across our regional research team surveys

Corporate Access

Buy-side investors give feedback on the firms providing the gold-standard in corporate access

Executive Teams

Portfolio managers and sell-side researchers name the best corporate leaders and investor-relations professionals

Asset Management

Best of the buy-side. We ask publicly traded firms which asset managers are their best shareholders

Hall of Fame

The Hall of Fame awards research analysts who've received 10+ first-place positions in their sectors or corporate executives with 5+ places

Latest Survey Results and Editorial

• "II Research is a unique industry benchmark which is a critical tool for our business. With high investor participation, good quality data and a comprehensive results package, II Research is a tool we rely on 12 months a year." Aurelie Moyse, Head of Research Client Strategy, Exane BNP Paribas
• "The feedback we receive from the I.I. poll is valuable to us as it represents the views of our institutional clients and crystalizes their assessment of our thought leadership as a firm overall and in individual sectors." Nick Rosato, Head of North American Research, J.P. Morgan
• "There’s a saying in the consumer and retail world that what’s said about you when you’re not in the room is the best validation of how good you are." JP O'Meara, SVP Investor Relations, Royal Ahold Delhaize
• "Achieving a ranking(s) in the Institutional Investor survey is a way of crystallizing the importance and relevance of aspects of our franchise to our clients." David May, Global Head of Research, HSBC

RESEARCH & RANKING

Research is what we Promise, Performance is what we deliver.

Sign In to Account

Having trouble verifying your email id? Support

Back to login

© Research & Ranking

Equentis Wealth Advisory Services Private Limited (“Equentis”) is a SEBI Registered Investment Advisor – SEBI registration No: INA000003874. “Research & Ranking” is the brand under which the Investment Advisory Services are rendered.

Inclusion and Diversity Action Council

Be You in Tech

• Faculty and Staff Resolution

IST Identity Talks

Alumni News

Career News

Inclusion and Diversity News

• Undergraduate Student News
• Graduate Student News

Research News

• IST Associate Dean Jeff Bardzell Named Dean of UNC iSchool

At a Glance

Visitor Information

• Office of the Dean
• Faculty Affairs
• Inclusion and Diversity Engagement
• Undergraduate and Graduate Studies
• Academic Services
• Information Technology
• Marketing and Communications
• Development and Alumni Relations
• College Events
• Finance and Business Services
• Human Resources
• Career Solutions and Corporate Engagement
• Teaching, Learning, and Assessment
• Graduate Programs
• Undergraduate Academic Advising
• Undergraduate Recruiting
• Learning Design
• Academic Services Operations
• Office of Enrollment, Engagement, and Belonging
• Office of Student Engagement

Emergency Information

• Dean's Message

Mission, Vision, and Strategic Plan

Meet Our People

• IST Distinguished Lecture Series

McMurtry Excellence Award

• IST Honor Code
• IST Leadership
• Dean's Advisory Board

Visits and Appointments

Academic Programs

Cost and Aid

Laptop Requirement

Parents and Families

Teachers and Counselors

Frequently Asked Questions

• M.S. in Cybersecurity Analytics and Operations
• M.S. in Informatics
• Ph.D. in Informatics
• M.S. Frequently Asked Questions
• Ph.D. Frequently Asked Questions

Degree Programs

• Appointments

Academic Advising

Student Engagement

Major Requirements

Learning Resources

• IUG Degrees
• Certificates
• Scholarships

Roadmaps and Degree Audits

• Exam Scheduling

Course and Thesis Scheduling

Forms and Resources

Independent Study

Graduating Students

• Master's Culminating Experience

Ph.D. Exam Scheduling

• Research Assistant Opportunities
• Online Graduate Student Resources

Career Development Resources

• Internship Program

Nittany Lion Careers

Career Fairs

Career Events

Career Snapshot

Career Video Library

• Coal Miners to Grid Operators
• Data Sciences and Artificial Intelligence

Human-Computer Interaction

Privacy and Security

• Social and Organizational Informatics

Centers and Labs

• AI-Engine for Optimizing Integrated Service in Mixed Fleet Transit Operations
• Middleware for Interactive XAI with Tree-based AI Performance Evaluation
• Towards Robust, Explainable and Fair Machine Learning Models with Causal Learning

Selected Publications

Undergraduate

• Award Closeout
• Award Management
• Find Funding
• Proposal Process
• Partnerships and Collaborations
• Update Your Infomation

Annual Giving

Planned Giving

Get Involved

• Mentoring Program

Alumni Events

Alumni Society Board

Alumni Awards

Alumni Career Resources

• Career Fairs - Employer Information
• Corporate Associates
• Major Spotlight Event Series
• Sponsorship Opportunities

Through interdisciplinary and collaborative innovation, we are driving the future of the Information Age.

Administrative Offices

Dean's Message

Dean's Advisory Board

History of the College

Distinguished Lecture Series

Faculty and Staff Awards

Inclusion and Diversity

Experiential Programs

Diversity Resolution

Prospective Students

Explore our interdisciplinary programs that prepare versatile leaders for the global economy.

Request Information

Integrated Undergraduate/ Graduate Degrees

Student News

M.S., Cybersecurity Analytics and Operations

M.S., Informatics

Ph.D., Informatics

M.S. Student FAQs

Ph.D. Student FAQs

Current Students

Access the resources and services you need to succeed in and out of the classroom.

Academic Services Appointments

Student Appointments

Master's Culminating Experience

Career Solutions

Required Internship Program

Learn how we are advancing discovery at the intersection of information, technology, and society.

IST Research Talks

Current Projects

Research Partnerships

Research Administration

Research Areas

Data Sciences & Artificial Intelligence

Social & Organizational Informatics

Student Research

Undergraduate Research

Graduate Research

Alumni & Donors

Discover how you can connect and engage with our community to drive the college forward.

Update Your Information

Alumni-Student Mentoring

iConnect Magazine

Make a Gift

IST Alumni Society

Lee Giles, Jack Carroll among Research.com best computer scientists

Lee Giles , David Reese Professor of Information Sciences and Technology, and Jack Carroll , distinguished professor, were included in the Research.com 2023 Ranking of Best Scientists in Computer Science , published earlier this month. 

The best scholars ranking is a trustworthy list of leading researchers from the area of computer science based on the examination of 27,337 scholars, according to the organization’s website. 

Giles was ranked 183 in the world and 111 in the U.S . In recent years, he has been most often published in the fields of information retrieval, artificial intelligence and machine learning. The metrics for his ranking included 626 publications and 49, 292 citations. 

Carroll was ranked 199 in the world and 119 in the U.S . The highlights of his work over the past 10 years include library science, data science and engineering ethics. His metrics included 842 publications and 55,474 citations. 

View Research.com rankings of more Penn State researchers in the field of computer science .

News and Press

The latest news, updates, and resources from Equentis - Research & Ranking .

Get Wealth Advisory Now!

Equentis - research & ranking in the news.

•   Research & Ranking launches 'Papa Kehte Hein' campaign
•   Research & Ranking launches #YehHoliSapnoWali Campaign
•   Research & Ranking Launches Multi-lingual Campaign #KhudKiPehchaan
•   4 Commandments For Investing During Times Of Crisis
•   How Market Volatility Mutates Investors Into Gamblers?
•   Equentis Collaborates With Atypical Advantage For Hiring People With Disabilities
•   Startup Street: Cyrus Mistry Wants To Nurture Startups
•   'Stocks of new-age businesses could prove to be the dark horses in H2-FY24'
•   ' New-age businesses could prove to be the dark horses in H2-FY24'
•   Here's why the Indian stock market will remain buoyant in the second-half of 2023
•   Nifty to report healthy earnings in Q1; these 5 sectors may surprise D-Street
•   Is there a silver lining to the falling equity market? Jaspreet Singh Arora weighs in
•   Research & Ranking Unveils New Product That Enables Investors Create Wealth by Leveraging on Short-Term Stumbling Blocks
•   Where are the Global Markets Headed?
•   Jaspreet Singh Arora's Outlook On Markets 2024 with CNBC Awaaz
•   Key mistakes you should avoid when investing in equity markets
•   7 habits that you need to become financially self sufficient
•   Research and Ranking ad toasts the investors for life
•   Research & Ranking appoints Alok Arya as CMO
•   Goal Based Investing Can Be Achieved Through Equity
•   Research & Ranking launches campaign #HarGharLakshmi
•   Research & Ranking launches AI-driven financial mentors Vasu and Vidya
•   FUND OF FUNDS: Where is your FoF investing?
•   Wealth creation: Four key steps in the long journey
•   5 critical insights to know on consumer semi-discretionary space
•   Research & Ranking partners with Dailyhunt to offer financial content
•   Economic Moats: Why one must consider them when picking stocks
•   Fight against inflation and interest rates: India v/s US
•   Your Money: Make your investments work for the long term
•   Growth in banking system credit going strong, but how long will the good times last?
•   Research & Ranking’s unique strategy creates phenomenal wealth for investors
•   IPO boom to Dalal Street's dream run: Events that shaped India's economy in 2023
•   RESEARCH & RANKING: The Paragon of Stock Advisors
•   Research & Ranking launches Equentis Private Wealth to strengthen wealth creation offerings
•   Research & Ranking launches Equentis Private Wealth; appoints Susmit Misra as CBO
•   The office needs smart workers, not workaholics
•   Sensex, Nifty hit record highs: What should be your investment strategy now?
•   Scared to buy at all-time highs? Data suggests you have no reason to fear
•   For long term, equities are a better bet over fixed income: Manish Goel of Research & Ranking
•   Nifty could reach 21,000-22,000 within a year, says Manish Goel of Research & Ranking
•   Falling inflation, global tailwinds boost markets
•   Pharma and Healthcare Sector - Emerging trends for 2023
•   What retirees should keep in mind while investing in the stock markets
•   India's cement sector is in the thick of action, operating profitability set to recover
•   India Energy Crises: Feeling powerless, yet again
•   Research and Ranking: Create wealth by capitalising on market volatility
•   Invest in equities for your near-term goals the Research & Ranking way
•   Losses, gains and losses again! Mistakes you can learn from in the investment rollercoaster
•   Retail credit growth remains strong despite a spike in interest rates
•   6 key new IPO rules that you must know about
•   Per capita income growth, lagging Sensex rally, poised to improve and boost consumption
•   Can bank stocks repeat the massive outperformance of last year?
•   Lupin gets another FDA warning, GR Infraprojects & new-age tech stock in focus| Market Minutes
•   Hotel stocks set to simmer as room rates shoot up on surging demand
•   Nifty At A 4-Month High: Know Market Outlook Ahead
•   Daily Voice | Budget 2023 will be a market event only if there is change in capital gains tax, says this CIO
•   Midcaps vs largecaps: What should investors prefer in 2023?
•   Check these 5 investment themes for long-term wealth creation
•   Recession, if it happens, likely to be shallow and short-lived, says Jaspreet Singh Arora of Research & Ranking
•   How to protect your investments in a currency war
•   Trivializing the role of corporate governance can be hazardous to your investments
•   Create Wealth: Make your money work while you are asleep
•   Valuation Conundrum: Why Nifty Is Still At A Reasonable Level
•   Despite high valuations India Market is Attractive, All indicators Positive
•   Research & Ranking Appoints Nandkishore Purohit as Chief Business Officer to Drive the Next Level of Growth
•   Upskilling, personalization & adaptability: AI trends to expect in 2024
•   Can Sensex give 60% returns again in 2024?
•   Can Sensex give 60% returns again in 2024? How to manage your stocks in election year
•   ETMarkets Smart Talk: No bubble in market! Realty and capital goods sector likely to do well in 2024: Manish Goel
•   Sanjeev Jha Joins Research & Ranking as HR Head
•   ETMarkets Smart Talk- Market at record highs! Use dips to buy as earnings growth looks promising: Manish Goel
•   More than half of Indian equity investors come from non-metro cities: Study
•   Lessons to learn from Silicon Valley Bank Collapse
•   It is time to be Greedy!
•   Budget Expectations: What should retail investors watch out for?
•   ETMarkets Smart Talk | New-age platform businesses could turn out to be dark horses in 2023: Jaspreet Singh Arora
•   Drawing parallels: 9 lessons from FIFA World cup for stock market investors
•   Path to Wealth Creation for Samvat 2079: Sustainable, Responsible and Impactful investing
•   Top 5 ways retail investors can avoid value traps
•   Dreaming of becoming a crorepati at 25? With right portfolio mix, you require Rs 10,000 monthly for 15 years
•   Road to wealth creation: 5 effective strategies to become a successful investor
•   4 reasons why investors should adopt a staggered approach for a long period while investing
•   6 common mistakes to avoid in a rising stock market.
•   Top Strategies To Become A Successful Investor
•   Volatility is reality- Top 5 strategies to deal with it
•   How to manage your money with least stress? Here are top 4 focus areas to become a successful equity investor
•   Jaspreet Singh Arora’s 4 top bets in new economy & old economy stocks
•   Research & Ranking unveils TTO for HNIs, UHNIs
•   Strategic dividend investing: A path to reliable income and wealth building
•   Statistalk. Who, how and when: Decoding Indian stock investors
•   Substantial changes made in personal income tax in Budget, new tax regime now more attractive, says FM
•   Research & Ranking launches Ten Trillion Opportunity for HNIs & UHNIs to invest in India
•   Long term investing helps create life-changing wealth
•   Creation of long-term sustainable wealth is easy and is within everyone’s grasp.
•   The way ahead – how to enable intelligent investments through smart technology
•   Wealth Creators or Wealth Managers? Making the right choice
•   What the 7 vows of marriage can teach you about investing
•   Mumbai-based Research & Ranking aims to help investors create wealth rather than manage it

Build your Potential High Growth Portfolio!

Fill the Form to Speak to Our Team

Want Investment Advice? Register Now

expand_more contact_support Want Investment Advice? Register Now

• Data library

The Spring 2024 Wall Street Journal/Realtor.com Housing Market Ranking

Introduction

Each year as the weather turns warm, the housing market starts to pick up and buyer and seller activity climb. This year kicked off with mortgage rates in the 6.6% range, but rates crept higher towards 7% through the next few months. Still-high mortgage rates kept buyer demand relatively stifled, but sellers were more active. An uptick in for-sale inventory, especially affordable inventory, allowed existing home sales to climb in both January and February , though sales remained below year-ago levels and continued to do so in March . 

This year is expected to usher in more balance in the housing market, but with both inflation and employment running hotter than desired, the Fed is likely to push interest rate cuts deeper into the second half of the year. Though mortgage rates do not directly track with the Federal Funds rate, lower inflation will be key in seeing both the Fed rate and mortgage rates move lower. In the meantime, many buyers and sellers are waiting out today’s elevated rates in hopes of lower rates later in the year. Despite stifled housing activity, for-sale inventory has climbed year-over-year for the last five months . We also expect to see the typical seasonal uptick in homes for sale as the Best Time to Sell brings more listings to the market. 

Spring 2024 Housing Market Ranking

Today’s home shoppers are faced with still-scarce, though improving, home inventory, and elevated home prices. The housing market has not changed substantially over the last year, which means it is still relatively challenging to purchase a home. The Wall Street Journal/Realtor.com Housing Market Ranking highlights housing markets that offer shoppers a lower cost of living, including for homes, and thriving local economies that are attractive, but not too crowded. This quarter’s top market is affordable, priced almost $200,000 lower than the national median in March. The ranking identifies markets that those considering a home purchase should add to their shortlist–whether the goal is to live in it or rent it as a home to others.

We reviewed data for the largest 200 metropolitan areas in the United States. The Spring 2024 ranking surfaced the following top areas:

Climate-Resilient Housing Markets

More than half of the top 20 markets are in the Midwest. These markets were almost all more affordable than the US median in March and also boast considerable climate resilience. In this quarter’s ranking, we introduced climate data to the ranking parameters, leveraging data provided by First Street that is currently part of the Realtor.com experience . This data captures the share of properties in a given metro that are affected by severe or extreme exposure to any combination of 5 climate risks– extreme heat, wind, air quality, flood and wildfire– over the next 30 years. Nationwide, more than 2 in 5 homes confront at least severe or extreme exposure to at least one of these climate risks. 

A recent survey revealed that roughly two-thirds of homeowners are concerned about the threat of natural disasters to homeownership. Areas in the Midwest tend to be less impacted by these risks, giving buyers some peace of mind when taking on a home purchase. In the top ranked market, Rockford, Illinois , just 4.2% of properties are at severe or extreme risk of experiencing one of the 5 risks considered, over the next 30 years. Akron, OH and Appleton, WI boast the most favorable risk share (1.8% of properties) among the top 20 markets, while Kingsport-Bristol, TN has the least favorable risk share (13.9% of properties). On average, 4.4% of properties in the top markets face severe or extreme  risk of one or more of the climate factors considered.

Low-Priced Locales Remain Popular

Just 5 of the top 20 markets were priced higher than the U.S. median home for sale in March . Low-priced metros have dominated the list of Hottest Housing Markets over the last couple of years as buyers sought out affordable areas that offered appealing lifestyle amenities. The national median listing price has hovered near the previous year’s level for about a year. Although homebuyer budgets remain stretched, home prices have not fallen on an annual basis since last summer, emphasizing the tension between limited home inventory and sustained buyer demand. 

The top markets, however, have seen rapid price growth and inventory depletion due to their popularity, which in turn drives buyer demand higher and quickens the market pace. Despite this price growth, the average listing price among the top 20 markets was more than $60,000 lower than the national median in March. The lowest priced market on the list is Akron, Ohio , where the median listing price was just $210,000 in March, less than half the national median.

Though these areas are largely lower-priced, they boast more amenities than the 200 largest metro average. Amenities are measured as the average number of stores per specific “everyday splurge” category (coffee, upscale/specialty grocery, home improvement, fitness) per capita in an area. Buyers are looking to save without compromising on comforts, and this quarter’s housing markets deliver. 

Prices Soar and Inventory Dwindles Relative to Pre-Pandemic

Many of the top-ranked markets have gained significant attention because they offer buyers bang for their buck. That is, these markets have the amenities many buyers are looking for, but at a relatively low price. However, for many of these metros, their popularity picked up enough that home inventory couldn’t keep up. As a result, the number of homes on the market fell and prices rose quickly. 

On an annual basis, inventory grew in 15 of the top 20 markets in March. Nationally, there were 23.5% more homes for sale in March 2024 compared to one year earlier. Just 6 of the top 20 markets saw inventory climb faster than the national rate. Though some markets have seen substantial inventory gains on an annual basis, all 20 markets have significantly fewer homes for sale than pre-pandemic. On average, for-sale inventory was 58.1% lower than pre-pandemic in the top-ranked markets, while inventory was roughly 40% lower nationally. 

Limited inventory drove competition higher, which put upward pressure on prices across the country. In-demand, affordable markets, such as those on the Wall Street Journal/Realtor.com Housing Market Ranking list, have seen prices climb especially high relative to pre-pandemic prices. On average, home prices in the top 20 markets were 58.8% higher than pre-pandemic (2019) in March. 

High demand for these affordable locales meant that homes did not spend very long on the market. In March, homes spent an average 50 days on the market at the national level. The top 20 markets saw homes spend roughly two weeks less time on the market than the typical U.S. home as the pace of sale remained quick despite climbing prices. Homes in the top-ranked markets also sold faster than pre-pandemic, spending roughly a month less time on market in March 2024 compared to March 2019.

Strong Mid-sized Economies Support Growth

This year’s winners appeal to buyers due not only to their price levels, but also their access to amenities, short commute times, manageable metro sizes and favorable job markets. 

The 200 largest US metros have an average unemployment rate of 4.0%. However, the best-ranked 20 markets boast stronger-than-average labor markets, with an average unemployment rate of 3.4%. These markets also out-perform the national labor market, which saw an unemployment rate of 3.8%. The national housing market added an impressive 303,000 more jobs in March , remaining strong despite the Feds’ efforts to cool the economy sufficiently enough to rein in inflation. All but 2 of the top-ranked markets had an equal or lower unemployment rate than the national rate, including Manchester-Nashua, N.H. (2.4%) and Portland-South Portland, Maine (2.7%), areas that saw the best employment conditions. 

Though the best-ranked 20 markets saw wages 4.5% lower than the 200 metro average, in exchange, residents in these areas saw shorter commute times and a lower cost of living than the large metro average. Commutes were 5.3% lower, on average, in the top markets compared to the 200 largest markets. Appleton, WI and Fort Wayne, IN boast the snappiest commutes, with residents spending just 20 and 21 minutes on average, respectively, commuting to work.  

Twelve of the top 20 markets out-perform the top 200 metros in terms of amenities, which are defined as the number of ‘everyday-splurge’ establishments (for example, specialty grocery stores and coffee shops). Buyers in these mid-sized markets can enjoy the upside of abundant options commonly found in larger areas, without sacrificing a smaller-town feel. Half of the top 20 markets have a population lower than 500,000 people. Furthermore, these best-ranked metros are 52.1% smaller, on average, than the largest 200 U.S. metro average. 

Top Markets Bring In Viewers from Out-of-Market 

Out of metro viewership picked up in the first quarter, growing an average 1.3 percentage points year-over-year to 71.8% of all incoming viewership in the top 20 metros. The 200 largest markets saw just 70.7% of viewership from out-of-market shoppers, 1.1 percentage points lower than the top 20 metros. 

All but three of the foremost 20 markets saw out-of-metro viewership increase annually in the first quarter. Springfield, MA saw the largest increase, with out-of-metro views increasing from 67.0% to 73.0% between Q1 2023 and Q1 2024. Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, Tenn.-Va. saw the largest share of out-of-metro viewers (80.6%) in the first quarter of 2024, attracting the highest share of viewers from New York City, Johnson City, TN and Atlanta, GA. On the other end of the spectrum is Columbus, OH, which had the highest share of in-metro viewers (45.2%) among the 20 best-ranked markets in the first quarter.

City Spotlight: Rockford, IL

This month’s highest-ranked market is Rockford, IL . Located roughly 90 miles from both Milwaukee and Chicago, and roughly 75 miles from Madison, Rockford puts buyers within occasional commuting distance of multiple metro hubs. Home shoppers in this area can access the amenities of nearby big cities while taking advantage of the area’s low home prices.

The median listing price in Rockford was $235,000 in March, 51.7% higher than one year prior, but still nearly $200,000 lower than the 200-metro average median. Though home prices have climbed significantly, this is in part due to an increase in for-sale home size. The median listing price per square foot, which controls for home size, climbed 13.5% annually in March. Homes spent 37 days on the market in Rockford in March, roughly 2 weeks less than the national median, and 9 days fewer than one year prior. 

Demand, as measured by views per property, was 90% higher in March 2024 compared to the pre-pandemic average in the area. As a result, the median listing price in Rockford was 71.8% higher in March 2024 than 5 years prior, and inventory was 72.3% lower than the March 2017-2019 average.

Almost three-quarters (72.7%) of views to properties in Rockford came from outside of the metro in the first quarter, with particularly sizable out-of-metro attention from the Chicago (56.2%) area. This share increased by 2.3 percentage points in Q1 of 2024 compared to the previous year, indicating a pick up in demand from non-locals. 

Rockford, IL Housing Highlights

Home Shoppers From Chicago Drive Rockford Demand

Who’s In, Who’s Out?

The revamped wall street journal/realtor.com housing market ranking   utilizes new metrics, such as climate risk data, and a reconfigured weighting system. to account for these changes, we ran the numbers from one year ago with the updated methodology to understand how the market is shifting.  , returning markets.

There are familiar places on the list of the top 20 markets: 13 members of this spring’s list would have been on the list one year ago. Among the markets that have remained on our list is the ever-popular Southern locale of Kingsport-Bristol, Tenn. , as well as the Midwestern hotspot of Columbus, Ohio , and various small- to mid-sized Midwestern cities that offer affordable housing and low cost of living. Notably, the popular and fast-moving Northeastern metro of Manchester-Nashua, N.H. also remained on the list, continuing the reign of Boston-adjacent locales.

Markets Falling Out of the Top 20

Seven markets fell off of the list between the last year and this year, but all remained within the top 60 markets. The biggest mover was last year’s 15th-ranked market, Evansville, Ind.-Ky. , which fell 41 spots to rank 56th this spring. Relatively high-price Boulder, CO also fell off the list this spring as no West region markets ranked in the top 20.

New Markets

Taking the places of the 7 descended markets are five affordable Midwestern locales, and two relatively affordable Northeast metros. All of the markets ascended from within the top 40. Much like the markets that stayed in the top 20, most of the Midwest new markets, as well as one of the two Northeast new markets were more affordable than the national market. Ann Arbor, Mich , and Burlington-South Burlington, Vt. were all higher priced than the national median in March.

Methodology

The ranking evaluates the 200 most populous core-based statistical areas, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, and defined by March 2020 delineation standards for eight indicators across two broad categories: real estate market (60%) and economic health and quality of life (40%). Each market is ranked on a scale of 0 to 100 according to the category indicators, and the overall index is based on the weighted sum of these rankings. The real estate market category indicators are: real estate demand (15%), based on average pageviews per property; real estate supply (15%), based on median days on market for real estate listings, median listing price trend (10%), based on annual price growth over the quarter, property taxes (10%) and climate risk to properties (10%). The economic and quality of life category indicators are: unemployment (5%); wages (5%); regional price parities (5%); the share of foreign born (5%); small businesses (5%); amenities (10%), measured as the average number of stores per specific “everyday splurge” category (coffee, upscale/specialty grocery, home improvement, fitness) per capita in an area; and commute time (5%).

Sign up for updates

Join our mailing list to receive the latest data and research.

• Share on twitter
• Share on facebook

Asia University Rankings 2024

The Times Higher Education Asia University Rankings 2024 use the same 18 performance indicators as the THE World University Rankings, but they are recalibrated to reflect the attributes of Asia’s institutions.

The universities are judged across all their core missions – teaching, research, knowledge transfer and international outlook – to provide the most comprehensive and balanced comparisons available. The 2024 edition of the rankings introduces significant updates to the original methodology.

View the Asia University Rankings 2024 methodology

Tsinghua University and Peking University in China take the first and second positions for the fifth year in a row. Five mainland Chinese universities feature in the top 10, compared with four last year. Zhejiang University enters this group, moving up from 12th to ninth.

With two universities each, Hong Kong and Singapore have the second-highest representation in the top 10. However, Hong Kong’s leading universities drop in rank while Singapore’s remain stable or gain ground.

The University of Tokyo, which is Japan’s top institution, rises from eighth to fifth, its highest position since 2015.

Meanwhile, South Korea’s top institution, Seoul National University, drifts further away from the top 10, dropping three places to 14th. 

In the top 100, mainland China dominates with 33 universities, followed by South Korea with 16.

The 2024 ranking includes 739 universities from 31 territories.

With 119 universities, Japan remains the most-represented nation this year. India follows with 91 institutions.

A total of 98 universities have joined the rankings since last year. This increase is led by India, Turkey, Iran and Pakistan.

Read our analysis of the Asia University Rankings 2024 results

Download a free copy of the Asia University Rankings 2024 report

To raise your university’s global profile with THE , contact [email protected]

To unlock the data behind THE ’s rankings and access a range of analytical and benchmarking tools, contact [email protected]

• Share on linkedin
• Share on mail

Read more about the Asia University Rankings 2024

Student insights.

• Best universities in Asia

Academic Insights

• Asia University Rankings 2024: results announced
• Asia University Rankings 2024: revelations of research strength
• Asia University Rankings 2024: in charts
• Talking leadership: SKKU’s Ji-Beom Yoo on allowing failure
• Talking leadership: Alexander Ping-kong Wai on future-proofing education
• Pakistan’s new government must wake up to the education emergency
• Sunway president: universities must focus on bridging frontiers
• Asia University Rankings 2024 digital edition

Methodology:

Featured jobs

Featured universities.

National Taiwan Normal University

About The University of Texas System

With 14 institutions that enroll over 256,000 students overall, the UT System is the largest university system in Texas and one of the largest public university systems in the United States. UT institutions produced over 63,000 graduates last year and awarded more than one-third of the undergraduate degrees in Texas, as well as 60% of the state's medical degrees. The combined efforts of UT-owned and affiliated hospitals and clinics resulted in over 10.6 million outpatient visits and more than 2 million hospital days in 2023. UT’s $4.3 billion research enterprise is one of the nation’s most innovative, ranking No. 1 in Texas and No. 2 in the U.S. for federal research expenditures. With an operating budget of $29.1 billion for fiscal year 2024, UT institutions collectively employ more than 122,000 faculty, health care professionals, support staff and students.

News Contact Information

Catherine Frazier: [email protected] • 512-499-4360 (direct)

Art History at Sydney now #1 in Australia in QS Subject Rankings

The QS World Subject Rankings released earlier this month have recognised the strengths of the discipline of Art History at the University of Sydney. Art History at Sydney was placed first in Australia and is in the top 30 globally. 

"The latest QS Subject Rankings reflect the evolution of the discipline of Art History at Sydney into a research and teaching powerhouse in recent years," says Professor Roger Benjamin , Acting Chair of Discipline. 

Across a number of projects its researchers are investigating the rich spectrum of Art History including Orientalism of the Eastern and Western Mediterranean, contemporary photography, modern Australian art, First Nations art and 18 th century French theatre and art.

Two of Art History's current research projects were awarded funding through the Australian Research Council’s (ARC) Discovery Projects scheme. The projects explore Art and Cultural Exchange at the Strait of Gibraltar and Art, migration, state-building: India in the Indian ocean world respectively. In addition, the ARC has shortlisted two further Discovery proposals by our researchers.

Student experience

To foster engagement between the classroom and industry, the discipline connects its students with museums, galleries, and exhibitions in Australia and worldwide through gallery visits, travel programs and internships. The discipline offers undergraduate programs in Art History , postgraduate courses in Art Curating  and Museum and Heritage Studies , as well as the nation’s leading higher degree program with more than 20 PhD students enrolled.

In their final year, undergraduate Art History and Visual Arts students can explore the world’s most significant cultural hubs, such as Paris or  Berlin , through the ‘ Art and the City ’ fieldwork unit. In this immersive experience, students engage with a city’s history of architecture and public space and its galleries, monuments, collections, and artworks – all while earning credit for their degree. 

Our postgraduate students in  Art Curating  and  Museum and Heritage Studies  can accelerate their career development through  internships  that serve as work-integrated learning experiences. The Discipline’s staff networks link postgraduate students to an array of  museums , galleries,  archives , libraries, and related organisations in Sydney and beyond.

International recognition and new projects

Australia’s only continuing Islamic art academic, Dr Peyvand Firouzeh , our DECRA winner, will present at Toronto's 'Arts of the Indian Ocean' conference. She examines how an independent Muslim state, comprised largely of Mughal migrants, fashioned its self-image. Her teaching presents Islamic architecture, miniature paintings and decorative arts in units of study such as ‘Arts of the Book’.

Earlier this month Professor Mary Roberts spoke at Yale University on the Polish artist Stanislas Chlebowski, painter to the Ottoman Sultan in the 1860s-70s. A leading expert on the orientalism of the Eastern Mediterranean, Professor Roberts’ forthcoming book is Four Thresholds: Orientalist Interiors, Islamic Art, the Aesthetics of Global Modernities . The ARC also shortlisted Professor Roberts' latest research proposal for a Discovery Grant. 

Associate Professor Donna Brett , Chair of Discipline, has just returned from the University of Oxford, where she lectured on “Modernist Photobooks: Propaganda and the Everyday” as Sloan Fellow at the Bodleian Library. Associate Professor Brett chairs the Photographic Cultures Research Group and has published extensively on state spy photography in the Eastern Bloc, theorising photography and trauma.

Our Museum and Heritage Studies experts Dr Chiara O’Reilly and Dr Anna Lawrenson currently study how regional museums can serve as societal bulwarks against the depredations of natural disasters produced by climate change. Their exciting new project has been shortlisted by the ARC.

The discipline recently farewelled the eminent Canadian Plains Cree curator Gerald McMaster, the inaugural First Nations Visiting Professor funded by the Terra Foundation. Professor McMaster convened a key symposium on Indigenous Visual Knowledges at the Chau Chak Wing Museum last month.

The  Power Institute , the endowed research and education affiliate of the program led by Professor  Mark Ledbury , contributes richly to the discipline through Power Publications,  Power Events  and new projects like the  Visual Understanding Initiative  which has received a six-year grant from an anonymous foundation.

The Power Institute's Schaeffer Fine Arts Library feeds into the research success of the discipline. The library boasts refined architect-designed spaces, and its unique non-circulating collection holds many of the books, journals, films and digital media essential for students in Art History, Film Studies and Visual Arts. Its new public art program will showcase  Matisse, Minotaure to Verve , by the disciplines's resident Matisse expert Professor Roger Benjamin. The program will kick off with a  curator’s talk  on Thursday, 2 May.

This news story has been based on an article by Professor Roger Benjamin for Art History's GLAM blog . Professor Benjamin's latest book  Growing up Modern: Canberra’s Round House and Alex Jelinek has been published by Halstead Press.

Banner photo: Matisse, 'Swimming-Pool' cutout, Verve 1958. Photo by Professor Roger Benjamin. 

Art History

Museum and heritage studies, related articles, communications students explore korea and its media industry, advocating for change: insights from global voices scholars, insights from a social policy placement with mission australia.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to footer

AgriLife Today

Texas A&M AgriLife's digital magazine and newsroom

Texas A&M Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering moves up in national program ranking

Ranks no. 3 in new u.s. news ‘best undergraduate program’ list.

September 19, 2023 - by Adam Russell

The  Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering  undergraduate program in the Texas A&M College of Agriculture and Life Sciences is up to No. 3 in the nation, according to the latest U.S. News and World Report’s annual rankings .

The department’s biological and agricultural engineering undergraduate program ranked third in the nation in the U.S. News & World Report’s 2024 Best Undergraduate Program after placing at No. 4 on the previous two lists. The department joined several other programs at the university mentioned in the 2023 ranking.

Patricia Smith, Ph.D., department head, said the ranking provides an opportunity for faculty, staff and students to reflect on the collective effort in making the program stand out among the best departments in the nation.

“The ranking reflects our consistent commitment to our students both while they are here at Texas A&M and after graduation,” she said. “We are problem solvers and having a healthy sense of pride in what our students accomplish and provide the state of Texas and beyond is warranted when there are so many problems out there needing engineering solutions.”

Collaboration, teaching and research excellence

Smith said the department’s faculty are committed to quality research programs, collaboration and providing a top-tier educational experience for students.

Engagement with faculty and support from the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and the College of Engineering has fostered an environment where cutting-edge research and innovation provide opportunities for scientists and students alike to excel.

Smith said engagement with state and federal agencies, commodity groups and professional organizations like the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers has also solidified its position as a solutions-driven department. 

“We’re embracing our past but also our future and big-picture concepts like sustainable agriculture and circular bioeconomy, which is everything we do from production agriculture, including AI-driven solutions for weed control and harvesting, water management and soil health, to post-harvest processing and food engineering,” she said. “This has created fertile ground for the department and the College to lead Texas, the nation and the world.”

Forward momentum

The department is working through a new strategic planning effort designed to ensure its direction aligns with its land-grant mission and priorities of Texas A&M AgriLife Research , the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service and the state of Texas.

Smith said the department’s foundation has been solid for decades. The new ranking supports that strong reputation in the biological and agricultural engineering and agricultural systems management fields.

“It’s nice to receive validation about what we are doing within this department,” she said. “But it also fuels that desire to be even better. Challenges present opportunities. That is engrained into what this department does. It’s exciting because it feeds that energy.”

About U.S. News & World Report rankings

According to the publication , the rankings are based on expert opinions about program excellence and statistical indicators that measure the quality of a school’s faculty, research and students.

Data for these rankings comes from statistical surveys of more than 1,500 institutions across the U.S. The ranking methodology now looks more at the return on investment, earnings, debt, Pell recipients and first-generation students, according to the U.S. News data team.

A member of Texas A&M AgriLife

Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service | Texas A&M AgriLife Research | Texas A&M Forest Service | Texas A&M AgriLife Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Lab | College of Agriculture & Life Sciences

Texas A&M AgriLife

Phone: (979) 803-1287 [email protected]

More Information

• Resources for Press and Media
• Story Suggestion

Find Us on Social Media

About texas a&m university.