research and ranking performance

• Tata Motors share price
• 953.75 0.85%
• Power Grid Corporation Of India share price
• 316.10 0.88%
• ITC share price
• 436.50 -0.02%
• Tata Steel share price
• 167.90 0.39%
• State Bank Of India share price
• 820.35 0.31%

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

Open Demat Account and Get Best Offers

Start Investing in Stocks, Mutual Funds, IPOs, and more

• Please enter valid name
• Please enter valid mobile number
• Please enter valid email
• Select Location

I'm interested in opening a Trading and Demat Account and am comfortable with the online account opening process. I'm open to receiving promotional messages through various channels, including calls, emails & SMS.

The team will get in touch with you shortly

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• NATURE INDEX
• 29 April 2020

Leading research institutions 2020

• Bec Crew 0 &

Senior editor, Nature Index

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

A researcher at the University of California, San Diego, prepares to launch a 3D-printed rocket. Credit: Erik Jepsen/UC San Diego

The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) in Beijing has topped the Nature Index 2020 Annual Tables list as the most prolific producer of research published in the 82 selected journals tracked by the Index (see Graphic).

CAS’s Share of 1805.22 in 2019 was almost twice that of Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, which came in second. Research institutions from China, the United States, France, Germany and the United Kingdom feature among the ten most prolific institutions in the Index. See the 2020 Annual Tables Top 100 research institutions for 2019 .

(Share, formerly referred to in the Nature Index as Fractional Count (FC), is a measure of an entity’s contribution to articles in the 82 journals tracked by the index, calculated according to the proportion of its affiliated authors on an article relative to all authors on the article. When comparing data over time, Share values are adjusted to 2019 levels to account for the small annual variation in the total number of articles in the Nature Index journals. The Nature Index is one indicator of institutional research performance. See Editor’s note below.)

Source: Nature Index

Here is a selection of institutions from the top 25 of the Nature Index 2020 Annual Tables .

University of Science and Technology of China

Share: 455.82; Count: 1,231; Change in adjusted Share (2018–19): +25.6%; Place: 8th

Established by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) in 1958 in Beijing (then known as Peking), the University of Science and Technology of China (USTC) moved to its current location in Hefei, the capital of the eastern Chinese province of Anhui, in 1970.

Today, it employs about 16,000 students, including 1,900 PhD students, as well as 1,812 faculty members, 547 of which are professors.

Nature Index 2020 Annual Tables

The institution’s strongest subjects in the Nature Index are chemistry and physical sciences. USTC is a global collaborator, counting the Max Planck Society in Munich, Germany, the University of Oxford, UK, and Stanford University in California among its close partners.

In 2019, USTC researchers were part of an international team that discovered a stellar black hole with a mass 70 times greater than that of the Sun. The findings, published in Nature , were mentioned in more than 300 tweets and nearly 200 news stories, according to Altmetric.

University of Michigan, United States

Share: 343.45; Count: 939; Change in adjusted Share (2018–19): − 3.3%; Place: 19th

Placed first among public universities in the United States for research volume, according to the US National Science Foundation, the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor encompasses 260,000 square metres of lab space, which is accessed by students and staff in 227 centres and institutes across its campus.

With US$1.62 billion in research expenditure and more than 500 new invention reports in the fiscal year 2019, the University of Michigan is focused on innovative areas in research, including data science, precision health and bioscience. Its Global CO 2 Initiative, launched in 2018, aims to identify and pursue commercially sustainable approaches that reduce atmospheric CO 2 levels by 4 gigatons per year.

A 2019 study published in Science on honesty and selfishness across cultures, led by behavioural economist Alain Cohn, was covered by almost 300 online news outlets and reached more than 22 million people on Twitter, according to Altmetric. The study, which tested people’s willingness to return a dummy lost wallet, revealed a ‘high level’ of civic honesty.

University of California, San Diego, United States

Share: 340.85; Count: 1,048; Change in adjusted Share (2018–19): − 1.2%; Place: 20th

With US$1.35 billion in annual research funding, the University of California, San Diego, is a force in natural-sciences research, particularly in oceanography and the life sciences.

Its health-sciences group, which includes the School of Medicine and Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, brought in US$761 million in research funding in the fiscal year 2019, and Scripps Oceanography, one of the world’s oldest and largest centres for research in ocean and Earth science, won $180 million in funding.

The university also has a focus on innovation, with more than 2,500 active inventions, 1,870 US and foreign patents, and 31 start-ups launched in 2018 by faculty members, students and staff. One such start-up was CavoGene LifeSciences, which aims to develop gene therapies to treat neurodegenerative disease.

Zhejiang University, China

Share: 329.82; Count: 815; Change in adjusted Share (2018–19): +10.5%; Place: 23rd

Zhejiang University in Hangzhou, China, is part of the Chinese government’s Double First Class Plan, which aims to develop several world-class universities by 2050. It employs 3,741 full-time faculty members and partners with nearly 200 institutions around the world.

Zhejiang’s total research funding reached 4.56 billion yuan (US$644 million) in 2018, with 926 projects supported by the Chinese National Natural Science Fund and 1,838 Chinese invention patents issued. The university is home to materials scientist Dawei Di, who was listed as a top innovator under 35 by MIT Technology Review in 2019 for his work on organic light-emitting diodes and perovskite light-emitting diodes.

In 2019, Zheijiang researchers published a Science paper with an international team that proposed a method for boosting plant growth while reducing water use, which could contribute to more sustainable agriculture practices.

Northwestern University, United States

Share: 317.12; Count: 762; Change in adjusted Share (2018–19): − 7.6%; Place: 25th

Founded as a private research university in 1851, Northwestern University, based in Evanston, Illinois, now also has campuses in Chicago and Doha, Qatar, and employs 3,300 full-time research staff. It has an annual budget of US$2 billion and attracts more than US$700 million for sponsored research each year.

The fastest-rising institution in the United States in high-quality life-sciences research output, Northwestern University was also 14th in the world in chemistry in the Nature Index 2020 Annual Tables .

Its star researchers include mathematician Emmy Murphy, one of six recipients of the 2020 New Horizons Prize for her work in the field of topology — the study of geometric properties and relationships — and physicist John Joseph Carrasco and neuroscientist Andrew Miri, who in February were awarded prestigious Sloan Research Fellowships.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01230-x

This article is part of Nature Index 2020 Annual Tables , an editorially independent supplement. Advertisers have no influence over the content.

Editor’s note: The Nature Index is one indicator of institutional research performance. The metrics of Count and Share used to order Nature Index listings are based on an institution’s or country’s publication output in 82 natural-science journals, selected on reputation by an independent panel of leading scientists in their fields. Nature Index recognizes that many other factors must be taken into account when considering research quality and institutional performance; Nature Index metrics alone should not be used to assess institutions or individuals. Nature Index data and methods are transparent and available under a creative commons licence at natureindex.com .

Related Articles

Partner content: The right environment for achievement

• Institutions

Dozens of Brazilian universities hit by strikes over academic wages

News 08 MAY 24

France’s research mega-campus faces leadership crisis

News 03 MAY 24

US National Academies report outlines barriers and solutions for scientist carers

Career News 02 MAY 24

Standardized metadata for biological samples could unlock the potential of collections

Correspondence 14 MAY 24

A guide to the Nature Index

Nature Index 13 MAR 24

Decoding chromatin states by proteomic profiling of nucleosome readers

Article 06 MAR 24

I’m worried I’ve been contacted by a predatory publisher — how do I find out?

Career Feature 15 MAY 24

Illuminating ‘the ugly side of science’: fresh incentives for reporting negative results

Career Feature 08 MAY 24

Mount Etna’s spectacular smoke rings and more — April’s best science images

Postdoc in CRISPR Meta-Analytics and AI for Therapeutic Target Discovery and Priotisation (OT Grant)

APPLICATION CLOSING DATE: 14/06/2024 Human Technopole (HT) is a new interdisciplinary life science research institute created and supported by the...

Human Technopole

Research Associate - Metabolism

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Postdoc Fellowships

Train with world-renowned cancer researchers at NIH? Consider joining the Center for Cancer Research (CCR) at the National Cancer Institute

Bethesda, Maryland

NIH National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Faculty Recruitment, Westlake University School of Medicine

Faculty positions are open at four distinct ranks: Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Full Professor, and Chair Professor.

Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

Westlake University

PhD/master's Candidate

PhD/master's Candidate    Graduate School of Frontier Science Initiative, Kanazawa University is seeking candidates for PhD and master's students i...

Kanazawa University

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Are university rankings useful to improve research? A systematic review

Marlo m. vernon.

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

E. Andrew Balas

Shaher momani.

2 Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan

3 Nonlinear Analysis and Applied Mathematics (NAAM) Research Group, Faculty of Science, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Associated Data

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ​ Tables3 3 and ​ and4 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

* There is no overall rank.

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

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.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Data Availability

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Research: How Ranking Performance Can Hurt Women

• Klarita Gërxhani

A study found that women’s performance suffered when they knew they were being evaluated against their peers.

When it comes to gender equity in the workplace, many organizations focus largely on hiring more women. But to achieve more equitable representation, it’s also critical to examine disparities in how employees are evaluated and promoted once they’re on board. In this piece, the authors discuss their recent research on this topic, which found that competitive evaluation systems in which employees are ranked against one another can cause men to perform better and women to perform worse (on a task for which their performance would otherwise be roughly the same). They suggest that this likely stems from deeply-ingrained stereotypes that lead men to believe they are better than women in competitive environments, and that lead women to prioritize avoiding harming others. Based on these findings, the authors argue that organizations should build awareness of the potential harms of ranking employees, and that they should consider either adapting or totally overhauling existing performance evaluation systems to focus more on individual progress, and less on social comparisons.

Much effort has been spent on improving gender equity in hiring. Unfortunately, while these initiatives can help organizations get more female candidates in the door, they often fall short when it comes to retention and development . Of course, there are many reasons for this — but one of the key, systemic factors driving this ongoing challenge lies in how companies approach performance assessments and promotions.

• KG Klarita Gërxhani is professor of economic sociology at the European University Institute, Florence, Italy. Her main research interests relate to the micro-foundations of economic sociology, institutional theory, social status and gender inequalities, and tax evasion. She is the author of many articles published in internationally peer-reviewed journals in economics and sociology, including the Journal of Political Economy, the Annual Review of Sociology, Social Networks, the European Sociological Review, and Experimental Economics.

Partner Center

Subscribe Now! Get features like

• Latest News
• Entertainment
• Real Estate
• RCB vs CSK Live Score
• Lok Sabha Election 2024
• My First Vote
• IPL 2024 Schedule
• IPL Points Table
• RCB vs CSK IPL Live
• IPL Purple Cap
• IPL Orange Cap
• The Interview
• Web Stories
• Virat Kohli
• Mumbai News
• Bengaluru News
• Daily Digest
• Election Schedule 2024

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.

IPL 2024 Coverage

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

• IPL Live Score
• T20 World Cup Schedule
• IPL 2024 Auctions
• T20 World Cup 2024
• Cricket Teams
• Cricket Players
• ICC Rankings
• Cricket Schedule
• T20 World Cup Points Table
• 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
• 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

Welcome to Equentis Research and Ranking.

We make equity investments easy for you 

Sign in to Your Customized Portfolio

Not an existing subscriber? Start Now!

OTP Verification

Did’t get OTP ? Resend OTP

Login with your Password

Login with Password

Forgot Password?

Login with OTP

Forgot Your Password

Back to login

Having trouble verifying your email id? Support

SEBI Registered Investment Adviser Details: Registered name: Equentis Wealth Advisory Services Private Limited , Type of registration: Non-Individual , Registration No.: INA000003874. , Validity: Dec 08, 2015 – Perpetual

Copyright © 2023 Equentis Wealth Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

Account Blocked

Your account has been blocked due to excess invalid attempts. You have entered wrong password more than 4 times.

For further assistance please contact [email protected]

An OTP Is Sent to Your Registered Email Address. .

An OTP Is Sent to Your Registered Mobile Number & Email Address. -->

Reset Your Password

Your password must.

Be at least 8 characters Include an Uppercase letter Include a number or a special character Not start or end with a space

Confirm Password

Your password must be the same as the new password.

• 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

GSM Foils IPO GMP, Review, Price, Allotment

Resourceful Automobile IPO GMP, Review, Price, Allotment

Awfis Space IPO GMP, Price, Date, Allotment

Vilas Transcore IPO GMP, Review, Price, Allotment

HOAC Foods IPO GMP, Review, Price, Allotment

Awfis Space Solutions IPO: 10 Key Points Investors Should Know

Go Digit IPO: 10 Points Investors Should Know

TBO Tek IPO GMP, Price, Date, Allotment

Indegene IPO: 10 Points Investors Should Know

Rulka Electricals IPO GMP, Review, Price, Allotment

9.86% 360 ONE Prime NCD May 2024

eClerx Services Buyback Record Date 2024, Price, Entitlement Ratio

VSF Projects Rights Issue Date, Price, Allotment, Entitlement

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

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

Bajaj Consumer Buyback Record Date 2024, Price, Entitlement Ratio

Ajanta Pharma Buyback Record Date 2024, Price, Entitlement Ratio

Sharda Motor Buyback Record Date 2024, Price, Entitlement Ratio

Anand Rathi Wealth 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

Last updated on December 27, 2023

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

Research Impact Metrics & Visibility

• Introduction
• Author metrics
• Document metrics
• Journal metrics
• Novel metrics
• Managing researcher identity This link opens in a new window
• University rankings
• How can the library help?
• Additional links
• Help us improve, take this survey

AUB research and rankings

Facts and figures, presents an overview of aub faculty members and their publications between the years 2009 and 2018. data provided by the university librarian, dr. lokman meho., aub rankings, gives information about aub's rankings according to qs, the, and u.s. news since 2016. data provided by the university librarian, dr. lokman meho..

• Prestigious global rankings
• Regional rankings
• Other global rankings

Based on SCOPUS data. Compiled using six simple metrics that capture university performance: Academic reputation; Employer reputation; Faculty/Student ratio; Citations per faculty; International faculty ratio; International student ratio. Methodology

Based on CLARIVATE data. Uses six objective indicators to rank world universities, including the number of alumni and staff winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals, number of highly cited researchers selected by Clarivate Analytics, number of articles published in journals of Nature and Science, number of articles indexed in Science Citation Index - Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index, and per capita performance of a university.

Based on SCOPUS data. These rankings are the only global performance tables that assess universities against the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. They use calibrated indicators to provide comprehensive and balanced comparisons across three broad areas: research, outreach, and stewardship. Methodology

Based on SCOPUS data. This ranking is based on the world’s largest invitation-only opinion survey of senior, published academics. It asks scholars to name no more than 15 universities that they believe are the best for research and teaching in their field, based on their own experience. Methodology

Based on SCOPUS data. Judges research-intensive universities across each one of their core missions: teaching (the learning environment); research (volume, income and reputation), international outlook (staff, students and research); citations (research influence); industry income (knowledge transfer). Methodology

Based on CLARIVATE data. Stands for a multidimensional perspective on university performance and provides indicators of scientific impact, collaboration, open access publishing, and gender diversity. It also provides information exclusively about the research done at universities. Research is represented in publications, and carefully collected data about these publications forms the basis for the Leiden Ranking.

Highlights 120 leading universities in the Arab world, based on the assessment of 10 different indicators including academic and employer reputation and the research impact of each university. Methodology

Uses the same 13 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. Methodology

Ranks 120 Arab region schools from 18 countries based on 11 indicators that measure academic research performance and reputation.  Methodology

An academic ranking of global universities that assesses the quality of education, alumni employment, research output, and citations without relying on surveys and university data submissions. Methodology

Aims to promote the performance of universities from all over the world based on their web presence and impact. Methodology

An international world university rankings system which measures performance of 850 leading world universities from 80 countries by 20 unique indicators and 4 key areas of university activities: teaching, research, international diversity, financial sustainability. Methodology

Academic and research-related institutions are ranked by a composite indicator that combines three different sets of indicators based on research performance, innovation outputs, and societal impact. Methodology

Assesses higher education institutions according to the three traditional missions of universities: education, scientific research, and the relation between the university and the local community. This is based on the consistently measured quantitative indicators and rules out the use of the data based on reputational surveys, which significantly increases the level of objectivity. Methodology

A ranking system for the world universities based on academic performance indicators that reflect the quality and the quantity of their scholarly publications. Methodology

Based on 13 indicators including schools' academic research and reputation, this ranking allows students to compare universities around the world. Methodology

U-Multirank is a multidimensional, user-driven approach to international ranking of higher education institutions. It compares the performances of higher education institutions – in short: universities – in the five dimensions of university activity: (1) teaching and learning, (2) research, (3) knowledge transfer, (4) international orientation and (5) regional engagement.

• << Previous: Managing researcher identity
• Next: How can the library help? >>
• Last Updated: Jul 24, 2023 2:33 PM
• URL: https://aub.edu.lb.libguides.com/researchimpact

The Undesired Effects of Performance Rankings

• Unternehmenssteuerung
• Published: 06 September 2022
• Volume 66 , pages 44–47, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Frank Hartmann 1 &
• Philipp Schreck 2  

298 Accesses

Explore all metrics

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Frank Hartmann

Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany

Philipp Schreck

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Hartmann, F., Schreck, P. The Undesired Effects of Performance Rankings. Control Manag Rev 66 , 44–47 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12176-022-0489-7

Download citation

Published : 06 September 2022

Issue Date : September 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12176-022-0489-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Share on twitter
• Share on facebook

World University Rankings 2024

The Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2024 include 1,906 universities across 108 countries and regions.

The table is based on our new WUR 3.0 methodology , which includes 18 carefully calibrated performance indicators that measure an institution’s performance across five areas: teaching, research environment, research quality, industry, and international outlook.

This year’s ranking analysed more than 134 million citations across 16.5 million research publications and included survey responses from 68,402 scholars globally. Overall, we collected 411,789 datapoints from more than 2,673 institutions that submitted data.

Trusted worldwide by students, teachers, governments and industry experts, the 2024 league table reveals how the global higher education landscape is shifting.

View the World University Rankings 2024 methodology

The University of Oxford tops the ranking for the eighth year in a row, but others in the top five have seen shifts in their ranks. Stanford University moves up to second place, pushing Harvard University down to fourth.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) climbs up two places to third this year. The University of Cambridge slips to fifth place, after being in joint third place last year.

The highest new entry is Italy’s Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, ranked in the 301-350 bracket. However, the majority of the institutions joining the ranking for the first time this year are in Asia.

The US is the most-represented country overall, with 169 institutions, and also the most-represented in the top 200 (56). With 91 institutions, India is now the fourth most-represented nation, overtaking China (86).

Four countries enter the ranking for the first time – all of them in Europe. The addition of Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia and Armenia is in contrast to last year’s trend when all the new entrants were from Africa.

Stanford University leads the teaching pillar, while the universities of Oxford and Cambridge come top for research environment. The research quality pillar, which is the newly renamed citations pillar, sees MIT in first place.

The University of Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates scores highest in international outlook, while 28 institutions receive a top score of 100 for the industry pillar.

In addition to the 1,904 ranked institutions, a further 769 universities are listed with “reporter” status, meaning that they provided data but did not meet our eligibility criteria to receive a rank, and agreed to be displayed as a reporter in the final table.

Read our analysis of the World University Rankings 2024 results

Download a copy of the World University Rankings 2024 digital report

To raise your university’s global profile with Times Higher Education , contact [email protected]

To unlock the data behind THE’s rankings and access a range of analytical and benchmarking tools, click here

• Share on linkedin
• Share on mail

Read more about the World University Rankings 2024

Student insights.

• Best universities in the world
• Best universities in the UK
• Best universities in the United States
• Best universities in Canada
• Best universities in Australia
• Best universities in Germany
• Best universities in Europe

Academic Insights

• World University Rankings 2024: results announced
• World University Rankings 2024: the 20th edition
• World University Rankings 2024: China creeps closer to top 10
• World University Rankings 2024: warning on UK’s China reliance
• World University Rankings 2024: Australian elite falters
• World University Rankings 2024: a broader look at research quality
• World University Rankings 2024: Australia over-achieves in research
• World University Rankings 2024: Indonesia top for student-staff ratio
• World University Rankings 2024: trends in industry
• World University Rankings 2024: UK doubles down on global links
• The shape of rankings to come
• World University Rankings 2024: 20 years tracking global higher education
• Talking leadership: David Garza on enticing top scholars to Mexico
• HKUST head: universities must ignite the sparks of innovation
• Talking leadership: Erik Renström on industry partnerships
• NYU president: global engagement is a form of alchemy
• World University Rankings 2024: changes to our methodology
• Lagos v-c: Nigerian universities must hustle for funding
• Enticing students back to campus is not a simple endeavour
• Talking leadership: Daniel Diermeier on institutional neutrality
• Talking leadership: Cheryl de la Rey on tragedy and resilience
• Talking leadership: Gary May on attracting minority students
• World University Rankings 2024 digital edition

Methodology:

Featured jobs

Featured universities.

McKinsey Global Private Markets Review 2024: Private markets: A slower era

If 2022 was a tale of two halves, with robust fundraising and deal activity in the first six months followed by a slowdown in the second half, then 2023 might be considered a tale of one whole. Macroeconomic headwinds persisted throughout the year, with rising financing costs, and an uncertain growth outlook taking a toll on private markets. Full-year fundraising continued to decline from 2021’s lofty peak, weighed down by the “denominator effect” that persisted in part due to a less active deal market. Managers largely held onto assets to avoid selling in a lower-multiple environment, fueling an activity-dampening cycle in which distribution-starved limited partners (LPs) reined in new commitments.

About the authors

This article is a summary of a larger report, available as a PDF, that is a collaborative effort by Fredrik Dahlqvist , Alastair Green , Paul Maia, Alexandra Nee , David Quigley , Aditya Sanghvi , Connor Mangan, John Spivey, Rahel Schneider, and Brian Vickery , representing views from McKinsey’s Private Equity & Principal Investors Practice.

Performance in most private asset classes remained below historical averages for a second consecutive year. Decade-long tailwinds from low and falling interest rates and consistently expanding multiples seem to be things of the past. As private market managers look to boost performance in this new era of investing, a deeper focus on revenue growth and margin expansion will be needed now more than ever.

Perspectives on a slower era in private markets

Global fundraising contracted.

Fundraising fell 22 percent across private market asset classes globally to just over $1 trillion, as of year-end reported data—the lowest total since 2017. Fundraising in North America, a rare bright spot in 2022, declined in line with global totals, while in Europe, fundraising proved most resilient, falling just 3 percent. In Asia, fundraising fell precipitously and now sits 72 percent below the region’s 2018 peak.

Despite difficult fundraising conditions, headwinds did not affect all strategies or managers equally. Private equity (PE) buyout strategies posted their best fundraising year ever, and larger managers and vehicles also fared well, continuing the prior year’s trend toward greater fundraising concentration.

The numerator effect persisted

Despite a marked recovery in the denominator—the 1,000 largest US retirement funds grew 7 percent in the year ending September 2023, after falling 14 percent the prior year, for example 1 “U.S. retirement plans recover half of 2022 losses amid no-show recession,” Pensions and Investments , February 12, 2024. —many LPs remain overexposed to private markets relative to their target allocations. LPs started 2023 overweight: according to analysis from CEM Benchmarking, average allocations across PE, infrastructure, and real estate were at or above target allocations as of the beginning of the year. And the numerator grew throughout the year, as a lack of exits and rebounding valuations drove net asset values (NAVs) higher. While not all LPs strictly follow asset allocation targets, our analysis in partnership with global private markets firm StepStone Group suggests that an overallocation of just one percentage point can reduce planned commitments by as much as 10 to 12 percent per year for five years or more.

Despite these headwinds, recent surveys indicate that LPs remain broadly committed to private markets. In fact, the majority plan to maintain or increase allocations over the medium to long term.

Investors fled to known names and larger funds

Fundraising concentration reached its highest level in over a decade, as investors continued to shift new commitments in favor of the largest fund managers. The 25 most successful fundraisers collected 41 percent of aggregate commitments to closed-end funds (with the top five managers accounting for nearly half that total). Closed-end fundraising totals may understate the extent of concentration in the industry overall, as the largest managers also tend to be more successful in raising non-institutional capital.

While the largest funds grew even larger—the largest vehicles on record were raised in buyout, real estate, infrastructure, and private debt in 2023—smaller and newer funds struggled. Fewer than 1,700 funds of less than $1 billion were closed during the year, half as many as closed in 2022 and the fewest of any year since 2012. New manager formation also fell to the lowest level since 2012, with just 651 new firms launched in 2023.

Whether recent fundraising concentration and a spate of M&A activity signals the beginning of oft-rumored consolidation in the private markets remains uncertain, as a similar pattern developed in each of the last two fundraising downturns before giving way to renewed entrepreneurialism among general partners (GPs) and commitment diversification among LPs. Compared with how things played out in the last two downturns, perhaps this movie really is different, or perhaps we’re watching a trilogy reusing a familiar plotline.

Dry powder inventory spiked (again)

Private markets assets under management totaled $13.1 trillion as of June 30, 2023, and have grown nearly 20 percent per annum since 2018. Dry powder reserves—the amount of capital committed but not yet deployed—increased to $3.7 trillion, marking the ninth consecutive year of growth. Dry powder inventory—the amount of capital available to GPs expressed as a multiple of annual deployment—increased for the second consecutive year in PE, as new commitments continued to outpace deal activity. Inventory sat at 1.6 years in 2023, up markedly from the 0.9 years recorded at the end of 2021 but still within the historical range. NAV grew as well, largely driven by the reluctance of managers to exit positions and crystallize returns in a depressed multiple environment.

Private equity strategies diverged

Buyout and venture capital, the two largest PE sub-asset classes, charted wildly different courses over the past 18 months. Buyout notched its highest fundraising year ever in 2023, and its performance improved, with funds posting a (still paltry) 5 percent net internal rate of return through September 30. And although buyout deal volumes declined by 19 percent, 2023 was still the third-most-active year on record. In contrast, venture capital (VC) fundraising declined by nearly 60 percent, equaling its lowest total since 2015, and deal volume fell by 36 percent to the lowest level since 2019. VC funds returned –3 percent through September, posting negative returns for seven consecutive quarters. VC was the fastest-growing—as well as the highest-performing—PE strategy by a significant margin from 2010 to 2022, but investors appear to be reevaluating their approach in the current environment.

Private equity entry multiples contracted

PE buyout entry multiples declined by roughly one turn from 11.9 to 11.0 times EBITDA, slightly outpacing the decline in public market multiples (down from 12.1 to 11.3 times EBITDA), through the first nine months of 2023. For nearly a decade leading up to 2022, managers consistently sold assets into a higher-multiple environment than that in which they had bought those assets, providing a substantial performance tailwind for the industry. Nowhere has this been truer than in technology. After experiencing more than eight turns of multiple expansion from 2009 to 2021 (the most of any sector), technology multiples have declined by nearly three turns in the past two years, 50 percent more than in any other sector. Overall, roughly two-thirds of the total return for buyout deals that were entered in 2010 or later and exited in 2021 or before can be attributed to market multiple expansion and leverage. Now, with falling multiples and higher financing costs, revenue growth and margin expansion are taking center stage for GPs.

Real estate receded

Demand uncertainty, slowing rent growth, and elevated financing costs drove cap rates higher and made price discovery challenging, all of which weighed on deal volume, fundraising, and investment performance. Global closed-end fundraising declined 34 percent year over year, and funds returned −4 percent in the first nine months of the year, losing money for the first time since the 2007–08 global financial crisis. Capital shifted away from core and core-plus strategies as investors sought liquidity via redemptions in open-end vehicles, from which net outflows reached their highest level in at least two decades. Opportunistic strategies benefited from this shift, with investors focusing on capital appreciation over income generation in a market where alternative sources of yield have grown more attractive. Rising interest rates widened bid–ask spreads and impaired deal volume across food groups, including in what were formerly hot sectors: multifamily and industrial.

Private debt pays dividends

Debt again proved to be the most resilient private asset class against a turbulent market backdrop. Fundraising declined just 13 percent, largely driven by lower commitments to direct lending strategies, for which a slower PE deal environment has made capital deployment challenging. The asset class also posted the highest returns among all private asset classes through September 30. Many private debt securities are tied to floating rates, which enhance returns in a rising-rate environment. Thus far, managers appear to have successfully navigated the rising incidence of default and distress exhibited across the broader leveraged-lending market. Although direct lending deal volume declined from 2022, private lenders financed an all-time high 59 percent of leveraged buyout transactions last year and are now expanding into additional strategies to drive the next era of growth.

Infrastructure took a detour

After several years of robust growth and strong performance, infrastructure and natural resources fundraising declined by 53 percent to the lowest total since 2013. Supply-side timing is partially to blame: five of the seven largest infrastructure managers closed a flagship vehicle in 2021 or 2022, and none of those five held a final close last year. As in real estate, investors shied away from core and core-plus investments in a higher-yield environment. Yet there are reasons to believe infrastructure’s growth will bounce back. Limited partners (LPs) surveyed by McKinsey remain bullish on their deployment to the asset class, and at least a dozen vehicles targeting more than $10 billion were actively fundraising as of the end of 2023. Multiple recent acquisitions of large infrastructure GPs by global multi-asset-class managers also indicate marketwide conviction in the asset class’s potential.

Private markets still have work to do on diversity

Private markets firms are slowly improving their representation of females (up two percentage points over the prior year) and ethnic and racial minorities (up one percentage point). On some diversity metrics, including entry-level representation of women, private markets now compare favorably with corporate America. Yet broad-based parity remains elusive and too slow in the making. Ethnic, racial, and gender imbalances are particularly stark across more influential investing roles and senior positions. In fact, McKinsey’s research  reveals that at the current pace, it would take several decades for private markets firms to reach gender parity at senior levels. Increasing representation across all levels will require managers to take fresh approaches to hiring, retention, and promotion.

Artificial intelligence generating excitement

The transformative potential of generative AI was perhaps 2023’s hottest topic (beyond Taylor Swift). Private markets players are excited about the potential for the technology to optimize their approach to thesis generation, deal sourcing, investment due diligence, and portfolio performance, among other areas. While the technology is still nascent and few GPs can boast scaled implementations, pilot programs are already in flight across the industry, particularly within portfolio companies. Adoption seems nearly certain to accelerate throughout 2024.

Private markets in a slower era

If private markets investors entered 2023 hoping for a return to the heady days of 2021, they likely left the year disappointed. Many of the headwinds that emerged in the latter half of 2022 persisted throughout the year, pressuring fundraising, dealmaking, and performance. Inflation moderated somewhat over the course of the year but remained stubbornly elevated by recent historical standards. Interest rates started high and rose higher, increasing the cost of financing. A reinvigorated public equity market recovered most of 2022’s losses but did little to resolve the valuation uncertainty private market investors have faced for the past 18 months.

Within private markets, the denominator effect remained in play, despite the public market recovery, as the numerator continued to expand. An activity-dampening cycle emerged: higher cost of capital and lower multiples limited the ability or willingness of general partners (GPs) to exit positions; fewer exits, coupled with continuing capital calls, pushed LP allocations higher, thereby limiting their ability or willingness to make new commitments. These conditions weighed on managers’ ability to fundraise. Based on data reported as of year-end 2023, private markets fundraising fell 22 percent from the prior year to just over $1 trillion, the largest such drop since 2009 (Exhibit 1).

The impact of the fundraising environment was not felt equally among GPs. Continuing a trend that emerged in 2022, and consistent with prior downturns in fundraising, LPs favored larger vehicles and the scaled GPs that typically manage them. Smaller and newer managers struggled, and the number of sub–$1 billion vehicles and new firm launches each declined to its lowest level in more than a decade.

Despite the decline in fundraising, private markets assets under management (AUM) continued to grow, increasing 12 percent to $13.1 trillion as of June 30, 2023. 2023 fundraising was still the sixth-highest annual haul on record, pushing dry powder higher, while the slowdown in deal making limited distributions.

Investment performance across private market asset classes fell short of historical averages. Private equity (PE) got back in the black but generated the lowest annual performance in the past 15 years, excluding 2022. Closed-end real estate produced negative returns for the first time since 2009, as capitalization (cap) rates expanded across sectors and rent growth dissipated in formerly hot sectors, including multifamily and industrial. The performance of infrastructure funds was less than half of its long-term average and even further below the double-digit returns generated in 2021 and 2022. Private debt was the standout performer (if there was one), outperforming all other private asset classes and illustrating the asset class’s countercyclical appeal.

Private equity down but not out

Higher financing costs, lower multiples, and an uncertain macroeconomic environment created a challenging backdrop for private equity managers in 2023. Fundraising declined for the second year in a row, falling 15 percent to $649 billion, as LPs grappled with the denominator effect and a slowdown in distributions. Managers were on the fundraising trail longer to raise this capital: funds that closed in 2023 were open for a record-high average of 20.1 months, notably longer than 18.7 months in 2022 and 14.1 months in 2018. VC and growth equity strategies led the decline, dropping to their lowest level of cumulative capital raised since 2015. Fundraising in Asia fell for the fourth year of the last five, with the greatest decline in China.

Despite the difficult fundraising context, a subset of strategies and managers prevailed. Buyout managers collectively had their best fundraising year on record, raising more than $400 billion. Fundraising in Europe surged by more than 50 percent, resulting in the region’s biggest haul ever. The largest managers raised an outsized share of the total for a second consecutive year, making 2023 the most concentrated fundraising year of the last decade (Exhibit 2).

Despite the drop in aggregate fundraising, PE assets under management increased 8 percent to $8.2 trillion. Only a small part of this growth was performance driven: PE funds produced a net IRR of just 2.5 percent through September 30, 2023. Buyouts and growth equity generated positive returns, while VC lost money. PE performance, dating back to the beginning of 2022, remains negative, highlighting the difficulty of generating attractive investment returns in a higher interest rate and lower multiple environment. As PE managers devise value creation strategies to improve performance, their focus includes ensuring operating efficiency and profitability of their portfolio companies.

Deal activity volume and count fell sharply, by 21 percent and 24 percent, respectively, which continued the slower pace set in the second half of 2022. Sponsors largely opted to hold assets longer rather than lock in underwhelming returns. While higher financing costs and valuation mismatches weighed on overall deal activity, certain types of M&A gained share. Add-on deals, for example, accounted for a record 46 percent of total buyout deal volume last year.

Real estate recedes

For real estate, 2023 was a year of transition, characterized by a litany of new and familiar challenges. Pandemic-driven demand issues continued, while elevated financing costs, expanding cap rates, and valuation uncertainty weighed on commercial real estate deal volumes, fundraising, and investment performance.

Managers faced one of the toughest fundraising environments in many years. Global closed-end fundraising declined 34 percent to $125 billion. While fundraising challenges were widespread, they were not ubiquitous across strategies. Dollars continued to shift to large, multi-asset class platforms, with the top five managers accounting for 37 percent of aggregate closed-end real estate fundraising. In April, the largest real estate fund ever raised closed on a record $30 billion.

Capital shifted away from core and core-plus strategies as investors sought liquidity through redemptions in open-end vehicles and reduced gross contributions to the lowest level since 2009. Opportunistic strategies benefited from this shift, as investors turned their attention toward capital appreciation over income generation in a market where alternative sources of yield have grown more attractive.

In the United States, for instance, open-end funds, as represented by the National Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries Fund Index—Open-End Equity (NFI-OE), recorded $13 billion in net outflows in 2023, reversing the trend of positive net inflows throughout the 2010s. The negative flows mainly reflected $9 billion in core outflows, with core-plus funds accounting for the remaining outflows, which reversed a 20-year run of net inflows.

As a result, the NAV in US open-end funds fell roughly 16 percent year over year. Meanwhile, global assets under management in closed-end funds reached a new peak of $1.7 trillion as of June 2023, growing 14 percent between June 2022 and June 2023.

Real estate underperformed historical averages in 2023, as previously high-performing multifamily and industrial sectors joined office in producing negative returns caused by slowing demand growth and cap rate expansion. Closed-end funds generated a pooled net IRR of −3.5 percent in the first nine months of 2023, losing money for the first time since the global financial crisis. The lone bright spot among major sectors was hospitality, which—thanks to a rush of postpandemic travel—returned 10.3 percent in 2023. 2 Based on NCREIFs NPI index. Hotels represent 1 percent of total properties in the index. As a whole, the average pooled lifetime net IRRs for closed-end real estate funds from 2011–20 vintages remained around historical levels (9.8 percent).

Global deal volume declined 47 percent in 2023 to reach a ten-year low of $650 billion, driven by widening bid–ask spreads amid valuation uncertainty and higher costs of financing (Exhibit 3). 3 CBRE, Real Capital Analytics Deal flow in the office sector remained depressed, partly as a result of continued uncertainty in the demand for space in a hybrid working world.

During a turbulent year for private markets, private debt was a relative bright spot, topping private markets asset classes in terms of fundraising growth, AUM growth, and performance.

Fundraising for private debt declined just 13 percent year over year, nearly ten percentage points less than the private markets overall. Despite the decline in fundraising, AUM surged 27 percent to $1.7 trillion. And private debt posted the highest investment returns of any private asset class through the first three quarters of 2023.

Private debt’s risk/return characteristics are well suited to the current environment. With interest rates at their highest in more than a decade, current yields in the asset class have grown more attractive on both an absolute and relative basis, particularly if higher rates sustain and put downward pressure on equity returns (Exhibit 4). The built-in security derived from debt’s privileged position in the capital structure, moreover, appeals to investors that are wary of market volatility and valuation uncertainty.

Direct lending continued to be the largest strategy in 2023, with fundraising for the mostly-senior-debt strategy accounting for almost half of the asset class’s total haul (despite declining from the previous year). Separately, mezzanine debt fundraising hit a new high, thanks to the closings of three of the largest funds ever raised in the strategy.

Over the longer term, growth in private debt has largely been driven by institutional investors rotating out of traditional fixed income in favor of private alternatives. Despite this growth in commitments, LPs remain underweight in this asset class relative to their targets. In fact, the allocation gap has only grown wider in recent years, a sharp contrast to other private asset classes, for which LPs’ current allocations exceed their targets on average. According to data from CEM Benchmarking, the private debt allocation gap now stands at 1.4 percent, which means that, in aggregate, investors must commit hundreds of billions in net new capital to the asset class just to reach current targets.

Private debt was not completely immune to the macroeconomic conditions last year, however. Fundraising declined for the second consecutive year and now sits 23 percent below 2021’s peak. Furthermore, though private lenders took share in 2023 from other capital sources, overall deal volumes also declined for the second year in a row. The drop was largely driven by a less active PE deal environment: private debt is predominantly used to finance PE-backed companies, though managers are increasingly diversifying their origination capabilities to include a broad new range of companies and asset types.

Infrastructure and natural resources take a detour

For infrastructure and natural resources fundraising, 2023 was an exceptionally challenging year. Aggregate capital raised declined 53 percent year over year to $82 billion, the lowest annual total since 2013. The size of the drop is particularly surprising in light of infrastructure’s recent momentum. The asset class had set fundraising records in four of the previous five years, and infrastructure is often considered an attractive investment in uncertain markets.

While there is little doubt that the broader fundraising headwinds discussed elsewhere in this report affected infrastructure and natural resources fundraising last year, dynamics specific to the asset class were at play as well. One issue was supply-side timing: nine of the ten largest infrastructure GPs did not close a flagship fund in 2023. Second was the migration of investor dollars away from core and core-plus investments, which have historically accounted for the bulk of infrastructure fundraising, in a higher rate environment.

The asset class had some notable bright spots last year. Fundraising for higher-returning opportunistic strategies more than doubled the prior year’s total (Exhibit 5). AUM grew 18 percent, reaching a new high of $1.5 trillion. Infrastructure funds returned a net IRR of 3.4 percent in 2023; this was below historical averages but still the second-best return among private asset classes. And as was the case in other asset classes, investors concentrated commitments in larger funds and managers in 2023, including in the largest infrastructure fund ever raised.

The outlook for the asset class, moreover, remains positive. Funds targeting a record amount of capital were in the market at year-end, providing a robust foundation for fundraising in 2024 and 2025. A recent spate of infrastructure GP acquisitions signal multi-asset managers’ long-term conviction in the asset class, despite short-term headwinds. Global megatrends like decarbonization and digitization, as well as revolutions in energy and mobility, have spurred new infrastructure investment opportunities around the world, particularly for value-oriented investors that are willing to take on more risk.

Private markets make measured progress in DEI

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) has become an important part of the fundraising, talent, and investing landscape for private market participants. Encouragingly, incremental progress has been made in recent years, including more diverse talent being brought to entry-level positions, investing roles, and investment committees. The scope of DEI metrics provided to institutional investors during fundraising has also increased in recent years: more than half of PE firms now provide data across investing teams, portfolio company boards, and portfolio company management (versus investment team data only). 4 “ The state of diversity in global private markets: 2023 ,” McKinsey, August 22, 2023.

In 2023, McKinsey surveyed 66 global private markets firms that collectively employ more than 60,000 people for the second annual State of diversity in global private markets report. 5 “ The state of diversity in global private markets: 2023 ,” McKinsey, August 22, 2023. The research offers insight into the representation of women and ethnic and racial minorities in private investing as of year-end 2022. In this chapter, we discuss where the numbers stand and how firms can bring a more diverse set of perspectives to the table.

The statistics indicate signs of modest advancement. Overall representation of women in private markets increased two percentage points to 35 percent, and ethnic and racial minorities increased one percentage point to 30 percent (Exhibit 6). Entry-level positions have nearly reached gender parity, with female representation at 48 percent. The share of women holding C-suite roles globally increased 3 percentage points, while the share of people from ethnic and racial minorities in investment committees increased 9 percentage points. There is growing evidence that external hiring is gradually helping close the diversity gap, especially at senior levels. For example, 33 percent of external hires at the managing director level were ethnic or racial minorities, higher than their existing representation level (19 percent).

Yet, the scope of the challenge remains substantial. Women and minorities continue to be underrepresented in senior positions and investing roles. They also experience uneven rates of progress due to lower promotion and higher attrition rates, particularly at smaller firms. Firms are also navigating an increasingly polarized workplace today, with additional scrutiny and a growing number of lawsuits against corporate diversity and inclusion programs, particularly in the US, which threatens to impact the industry’s pace of progress.

Fredrik Dahlqvist is a senior partner in McKinsey’s Stockholm office; Alastair Green  is a senior partner in the Washington, DC, office, where Paul Maia and Alexandra Nee  are partners; David Quigley  is a senior partner in the New York office, where Connor Mangan is an associate partner and Aditya Sanghvi  is a senior partner; Rahel Schneider is an associate partner in the Bay Area office; John Spivey is a partner in the Charlotte office; and Brian Vickery  is a partner in the Boston office.

The authors wish to thank Jonathan Christy, Louis Dufau, Vaibhav Gujral, Graham Healy-Day, Laura Johnson, Ryan Luby, Tripp Norton, Alastair Rami, Henri Torbey, and Alex Wolkomir for their contributions

The authors would also like to thank CEM Benchmarking and the StepStone Group for their partnership in this year's report.

This article was edited by Arshiya Khullar, an editor in the Gurugram office.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

CEO alpha: A new approach to generating private equity outperformance

Private equity turns to resiliency strategies for software investments

The state of diversity in global private markets: 2022

We use cookies to understand how you use our site and to improve your experience. This includes personalizing content and advertising. To learn more, click here . By continuing to use our site, you accept our use of cookies, revised Privacy Policy and Terms of Service .

Member Sign In

Don't Know Your Password?

• Zacks #1 Rank
• Zacks Industry Rank
• Zacks Sector Rank
• Equity Research
• Mutual Funds
• Mutual Fund Screener
• ETF Screener
• Earnings Calendar
• Earnings Releases
• Earnings ESP
• Earnings ESP Filter
• Stock Screener
• Premium Screens
• Basic Screens
• Research Wizard
• Personal Finance
• Money Management
• Retirement Planning
• Tax Information
• My Portfolio
• Create Portfolio
• Style Scores
• Testimonials
• Zacks.com Tutorial

Services Overview

• Zacks Ultimate
• Zacks Investor Collection
• Zacks Premium

Investor Services

• ETF Investor
• Home Run Investor
• Income Investor
• Stocks Under $10
• Value Investor
• Top 10 Stocks

Other Services

• Method for Trading
• Zacks Confidential

Trading Services

• Black Box Trader
• Counterstrike
• Headline Trader
• Insider Trader
• Large-Cap Trader
• Options Trader
• Short Sell List
• Surprise Trader
• Alternative Energy

You are being directed to ZacksTrade, a division of LBMZ Securities and licensed broker-dealer. ZacksTrade and Zacks.com are separate companies. The web link between the two companies is not a solicitation or offer to invest in a particular security or type of security. ZacksTrade does not endorse or adopt any particular investment strategy, any analyst opinion/rating/report or any approach to evaluating individual securities.

If you wish to go to ZacksTrade, click OK . If you do not, click Cancel.

Wasatch U.s. Select Fund Institutional Class: (MF: WGUSX)

(nasdaq mutual funds) as of may 17, 2024 08:00 pm et.

Add to portfolio

$14.45 USD

-0.01 (-0.07%)

This is our Mutual Fund rating system that serves as a timeliness indicator for Mutual Fund's over the next 6 months:

Zacks Mutual Fund Rank FAQ - Learn more about the Zacks Mutual Fund Rank Zacks Mutual Fund Rank Home - All Zacks Rank resources in one place Zacks Premium - The only way to get access to the Zacks Rank

View All Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #1's

Latest Performance as of Apr 30, 2024

* Annual for three years and beyond.

Zacks Premium Research for WGUSX

Mutual funds research & tools, search similar mutual funds.

Research similar Mutual Funds with higher ranks and performance ratings.

Mutual Funds Comparison View (minimum of 2)

Mutual funds screener.

Narrow down the universe of 18,000+ funds we rank with our robust, yet easy-to-use mutual fund screeners. Select from up to 50 different data points to find the mutual funds that best Screen meet your unique criteria.

Portfolio Statistics

Sector / country weightings, portfolio holdings, stock holding % of net assets.

This file is used for Yahoo remarketing pixel add

Due to inactivity, you will be signed out in approximately:

Major Tire Brands Ranked Worst To Best

I t is often said that you should not compromise on any product that connects you with the earth. This applies to shoes, mattresses, and, of course, tires. Modern pneumatic tires, while utilitarian in their purpose, are marvels of engineering that have been evolving ever since John Boyd Dunlop first developed them in the late 1800s. Michelin went on to patent the radial tires we use today. The strength, efficacy, and variance of different tires are evidenced by their essential function in motorsports, such as NASCAR , Formula One, and MotoGP.

A good set of tires provides a critical assurance between you and the road surface, and the best should be durable, adaptable, and readily available. However, when it comes to the best tire brands, the criteria are more general, as tires are produced for many different vehicles, applications, and road conditions. While not all tires are created equal, a new set of tires from any of the brands listed here will serve you well, and provided you look after them, they should go the distance. 

Here we look at the top global tire brands and rank them according to quality, variety, performance, value, safety statistics, and consumer satisfaction data.

Hankook Tire & Technology Co., Ltd. is a South Korean manufacturer that produces over 100 million tires a year and is renowned for its performance tires as used in motorsports. These include Formula Drift and various global rally and touring car championships, of which they are sponsors and providers of specialist tires. Its statistics are impressive, with over 20,000 employees, eight production facilities, and 160 international export locations.

The company adopts a refreshingly environmentally-conscious approach to tire production, with a long-term goal to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 50% in the next 25 years. It was awarded the Gold Class rating in Standard and Poor's Global Sustainability Annual Report and received a Platinum grade in the EcoVadis ESG evaluation. It has also been very active in the research and development department, opening Asia's largest tire testing track in 2022. In 2021, the year of its 80 th anniversary, Hankook was awarded the title of Tire Manufacturer of the Year by Auto Bild magazine as it became the sixth-largest global tire manufacturer and provider of tires for such well-respected marques as Porsche and Audi.

What does all this mean for the regular daily driver? Hankook tires give sportier drivers performance and grip with products like the Ventus V12 EVO2, but they also offer an excellent all-season tire in the Kinergy 4S2 model and durable truck tires in the Dynapro AT-M series. They provide good mileage across the board and, as such, are an affordable solution outside of the big US and European manufacturers. Still, in terms of global sales figures, Hankook remains one of the smaller companies in the big league, which is what lands it in last place on our list.

With its origins in Dublin, Ireland, Dunlop dates back as far as the late 1800s, when it pioneered the pneumatic tire that we still use today. Now owned by the Continental, Goodyear, and Sumitomo tire companies, it is still a brand known and trusted worldwide, especially for its motorcycle and motorsport products. While Goodyear now operates it in North America, Dunlop produces tires for all types of road conditions and offers such reputable models as the SP Sport Maxx line of sport performance tires and Grandtrek truck tires.

Dunlop has a racing heritage dating back to the earliest days of motorsports. This is reflected in its high-performance tires, which benefit from innovative technologies and decades of research and development. These have been used in Le Mans endurance racing, Touring Car championships, and Formula One and continue to be celebrated in motorcycle racing of all categories, including Supercross, motocross, and off-road competitions.

While Dunlop's car tires may not be as popular today as they were in the golden era of motorsports, it maintains a solid product line that is both comprehensive and high-quality. Should you favor two wheels over four, Dunlop's range of motorcycle tires is considered among the best in the world. However, as it's not such a major player in the automobile market these days, it ranks a bit lower than its competitors

The Japanese are known for their durable and reliable vehicles, and this extends to their tire products. Yokohama tires are like the Toyota of the tire industry, as they produce affordable, reliable, and heavy-duty tires that go the distance. This quality is evidenced by the fact that they are often used in motorsports and are the official tire manufacturer for the World Touring Car Championship. Outside of sport, Yokohama's consumer products include excellent SUV and truck tires, as well as performance and all-season options.

As evidenced by much of Yokohama's publicity material, the company is genuinely progressive and well-intentioned -- all while turning out a mean product. It also has a research and development center and three large manufacturing plants in the U.S., so Yokohama far exceeds its native borders, providing jobs and pushing for new solutions across continents. Like most top tire manufacturers, the company is committed to creating a sustainable and greener industry, even going so far as to plant 1.3 million trees in its manufacturing plants and sales locations.

Yokohama makes tires for most applications, including large-scale plant vehicles, motorsports, commercial trucks, and consumer automotive vehicles, with multiple models to choose from in each category. The company places lower in this list due to fewer global sales compared to its peers and a recent product recall of some of its Mississippi plant's tires, although it maintains a good reputation for quality and customer service overall.

[Featured image by Daniel Ahlgren via Wikimedia Commons | Cropped and scaled | CC BY 3.0 ]

To say that BFGoodrich has a long and distinguished history would be an understatement. The Ohio-based company traces its roots back to the 1800s, and it provided tires for the Model A Ford, one of the earliest production motorcars. It has since offered specialized synthetic rubber products for the sports industry and NASA. It is also the inventor of the tubeless tire that is now ubiquitous.

Fast forward to today, and BFGoodrich is one of the most prominent SUV, truck, and all-terrain tire makers. Its H/D Terrain and T/A Terrain tires are among the toughest for light trucks and SUVs, while the Trail Terrain and Mud Terrain models are designed for adventure vehicles. Additionally, the Advantage T/A and Advantage Control models offer year-round confidence for roadgoing vehicles, making this an ideal range for those who use their ride for more than simply getting from A to B.

Therefore, if you love going off the beaten track and have adventure in your soul, BFGoodrich tires would make a great pairing with any flat-bed, off-roader, or SUV, as they offer excellent traction, handling, and durability when you need it the most. This quality also extends to its street and highway-ready tires, but the fact that BFGoodrich products lean heavily towards the niche truck and SUV markets places it below the big hitters.

Like BFGoodrich (and LeBron James), Cooper Tires also hails from Akron, Ohio. Now acquired by Goodyear, Cooper continues to manufacture specialist tires for racing and outbound adventure vehicles in addition to its consumer product line. While this manufacturer is less well-known internationally than others in this ranking, it is among the most well-respected. Cooper Tires is a Fortune 500 company that has been an American institution for decades, having been founded during the outbreak of World War 1.

Those who use Cooper Tires will be well aware of their excellent handling, traction, and durability, which by extension renders them a cost-effective option. It is also an environmentally-conscious company that pushes for sustainability among rubber sources and recycles the vast majority of its waste products. It also strives to promote inclusivity among its workforce and prioritizes safety, education, and innovation, so hats off to them.

When it comes to innovation, Cooper has made its mark on the tire industry by introducing new technologies, such as Wear Square, which allows for easier tread monitoring at home, and Stabiledge, which keeps the tire tread open under pressure, improving traction during cornering and allowing for more stability overall. So, if you are looking for reliable and durable tires from a forward-thinking and conscientious company, Cooper should be high on your list of considerations.

[Featured image by Lutz H via Wikimedia Commons | Cropped and scaled | CC BY 2.0 DE ]

Pirelli is an Italian brand that has had a fire in its belly since being founded in the 19 th century. As well as being the tire of choice for iconic native marques, including Maserati, Lamborghini, and Ferrari, Pirelli is famous for its affiliation with Formula One. In fact, Pirelli has been the sole tire producer for F1 cars since 2011, and Pirelli's livery can be seen adorning race tracks worldwide. However, Pirelli is not all about high-performance tires, as the company also boasts an impressive line of quality consumer tires for many applications.

Tire models include the Pirelli P Zero, which excels on both wet and dry surfaces, and the Pirelli Cinturato , which is designed to improve ride comfort and reduce your car's fuel consumption. In addition to its specialty and super specialty tires, the Pirelli high-value range also produces tires for all seasons and weather conditions, plus its Elect EV range caters to electric vehicles. When it comes to innovation, Pirelli's technical Cyber Tyre, Seal Inside, and Run Flat tires show that this progressive brand is always at the forefront of tire research and development.

Whether you are buying tires for your prestige car or a regular commuter vehicle, Pirelli has something for everyone. It is a brand steeped in heritage and continues to build on its reputation as one of the most respected European tire manufacturers that is the choice of professionals the world over. However, its product line is more focused on performance tires, which keeps Pirelli from placing higher in this ranking.

Continental

Continental is another company that dates over 150 years and is the first producer of the treaded grooves that have been an essential component of all tires since. The company continues to go from strength to strength and is one of today's most recognizable brands. However, it should be noted that Continental is a premium tire brand, and as such, you should expect to pay much more than you would for a comparable set of tires from Yokohama or Goodyear.

Yet, as with most things in life, you get what you pay for, and Continental tires shine above much of the competition as far as quality and durability are concerned, with product lines including the TerrainContact H/T for all-season highway driving, ExtremeContact Sport for performance driving, TrueContact Tour for all-season touring, and its VikingContact 7 for wintery conditions. Continental offers tread life warranties of up to 80,000 miles, so you can be confident that they will remain safe for longer, and it provides a total confidence plan, which includes flat tire coverage, roadside assistance, and emergency trip interruption coverage.

Continental's innovations include ContiSeal technology, which automatically seals tire punctures, and ConteSilent, which reduces road noise for more enjoyable travel. While Continental tires are among the highest-quality options in this ranking, they lose points as far as value for money is concerned. However, if you are willing to pay the price, Continental has some of the best products and customer service going, and this helps elevate its position in this ranking.

Goodyear manufactures tires for many different purposes and even supplies aviation and heavy machinery companies. As a prominent innovator and one of the top four tire producers globally, Goodyear has made its mark on the public conscience through shrewd marketing devices, such as the Goodyear Blimp. Almost everyone is familiar with the winged sandal logo that adorns race tracks and billboards worldwide.

Ever since 1907, when Goodyear supplied tires for Henry Ford's trailblazing Model T, the company has gone from strength to strength, having developed the first nylon tire in 1942, broken the land speed record in 1963, and put the first tire on the moon in 1971. It has also been an official sponsor of NASCAR and the NHRA and was voted America's Greenest Company in 2012. Goodyear's popular consumer product lines include the Assurance commuter tire, the Wrangler off-road tire, the Eagle sports performance tire, and the Endurance trailer tire, all of which are renowned for their quality and durability.

Goodyear continues to innovate with tire technologies such as RunOnFlat, which allows you to reach a nearby service center after experiencing a puncture, and SoundComfort, which reduces road noise within your vehicle. In all, Goodyear is one of the best options for those looking for a reliable tire that performs well, with its excellent customer service and mobile installation making life that much easier when it is time to switch tires. The company also ranks highly on this list due to its being highly regarded for its customer satisfaction record.

Bridgestone

In 1931, Shojiro Ishibashi, a Japanese businessman, founded the Bridgestone company, now the world's second-largest tire manufacturer. The name is derived from Ishibashi, which translates as "stone bridge." Having started life creating rubber work shoes and motorized bicycles, Ishibashi went on to provide the great Japanese motorcycle brands with tires and never looked back.

Bridgestone has since become one of the leading pioneers of tire design and is responsible for the invention of run-flat tires and its Ecopia technology, which improves fuel efficiency while reducing carbon emissions. The Bridgestone range provides for all types of consumer vehicles, with models like the Alenza AS Ultra (SUV), Turanza QuietTrack (grand touring), Dueler A/T Revo 3 (all terrain), and the Blizzak WS90 (wintery conditions).

Bridgestone tires offer exceptional value for money with tread life warranties that extend up to 80,000 miles. While the quality isn't entirely on par with brands like Michelin and Continental, as far as bang for your buck is concerned, Bridgestone tires are hard to beat, and this is reflected in their global sales figures, which are close to Michelin's.

The company operates on a strict set of philosophies gleaned from Japanese tradition. These principles provide a solid foundation upon which Bridgestone continues to balance a high-quality product with affordability. Bridgestone also prides itself on creative pioneering, integrity and teamwork, and observation-based decision-making. If you are putting your on-road safety in the hands of a tire company, it's good to know that they take their business this seriously.

Technically, Michelin isn't the largest tire manufacturer in the world. That honor goes to Lego, which produces tens of millions more tires for its toys than the French company does each year. However, as far as a serious ranking of consumer tires is concerned, Michelin is the brand that continues to dominate above all others.

Michelin is among the world's oldest tire brands, having been established in 1889. Its iconic Michelin Man logo represents the company's high-quality and impressive variety of products, making it one of the most successful tire companies in the U.S. and internationally. Its impressive research and development department is not only responsible for the tires on Bugatti's supercars but also those on the space shuttle.

Some high-end tire models include the Michelin CrossClimate2, which provides all-season performance in wet and dry conditions; the high-performance Pilot Sport 4S, which is commonly found on high-end sportscars; the Pilot Alpin PA4 for wintery conditions; and the Defender LTX M/S, which is for year-round highway driving. All these tires are reassuringly expensive but come with impressive tread life warranties of up to 80,000 miles.

As far as accolades are concerned, there are too many to mention, but it is J.D. Power's most rewarded brand for customer satisfaction, Tire Rack's highest overall rated brand, and Fortune's top tire manufacturer in its list of Most Admired Companies. Suffice it to say that Michelin has earned its rewards in its long and varied history. Just as the company awards stars to the best global food establishments, perhaps Michelin deserves a few gold stars of its own for services to road safety, tire innovation, and sheer overall excellence.

Read this next: The 12 Most Reliable SUVs Of All Time, Ranked

CWUR Report Highlights: Indian Higher Education Institutions Performance Analysis

The CWUR 2024 report highlights a mixed performance for Indian universities. While IIM Ahmedabad improved its global ranking, institutions like IISc witnessed a decline.

The Center for World University Rankings (CWUR) released its 2024 report, revealing a mixed bag for Indian higher education institutions. While the Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Ahmedabad improved its rank , many others, including the prestigious Indian Institute of Science, experienced a decline. The report indicates that despite advancements in research output, this success isn’t translating equally to higher education excellence. Furthermore, Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) witnessed varied performances, with IIT Bombay notably climbing in rankings.

Key Findings

Indian institutes’ performance.

• IIM Ahmedabad Leads: Securing the 410th position globally, IIM Ahmedabad emerges as India’s top-performing institution.
• Indian Institute of Science (IISc) Decline: Despite its historical prominence, IISc dropped seven places, now standing at 501st.
• IITs in Focus: IIT Bombay climbed 14 spots, reaching 568th rank, while IIT Delhi and IIT Kharagpur featured among the top 10 performers.

Top 10 Indian Higher Education Institutions

• Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad (410)
• Indian Institute of Science (501)
• Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (568)
• Indian Institute of Technology Madras (582)
• Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (606)
• Indian Institute of Technology Delhi (616)
• Delhi University (622)
• Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur (704)
• Academy of Scientific & Innovative Research (798)
• Punjab University (823)

Global Landscape

• Harvard Dominates: Harvard University continues its reign atop the global rankings for the 13th consecutive year.
• Chinese Advancements: Chinese institutions showcase significant progress, with 95% moving up the list, attributed to robust investments in research and development.

Methodology

The CWUR report analyzes 62 million outcome-based data points, assessing universities worldwide based on four parameters: quality of education, employability, faculty quality, and research. The list encompasses 20,966 universities from 94 countries, providing a comprehensive overview of global higher education performance.

Most Trending

• TS TET Hall Ticket Link
• Bihar B.Ed Entrance Exam
• IPL Winners List 2008 to 2024

Monthly Current Affairs

Recent posts, important exams.

• International
• Appointments
• Books and Authors
• Importants Days
• Ranks and Reports
• Science and Tech
• Miscellaneous

Our Other Websites

• Teachers Adda
• Current Affairs
• Defence Adda
• Engineers Adda
• Adda School

Welcome to the Current Affairs Section of Adda247. If you are preparing for Government Job Exams, then it is very important for you to read the Daily Current Affairs. All the important updates based on current affairs are included in this Daily Current Affairs 2024 article.

Download Adda247 App

Follow us on

• Responsible Disclosure Program
• Cancellation & Refunds
• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy Policy