The most recent Academic Reputation Survey (run annually, this year conducted by THE) that underpins this category was carried out between November 2023 and January 2024. It examined the perceived prestige of institutions in teaching. This metric is the total number of votes obtained from the reputation survey from the last two years. Each year is calculated as the number of global teaching votes from respondents of the reputation survey, weighted by subject and country to be representative of the distribution of academics globally. Only non-zero values will be standardised using a logarithmic function, and universities that received no votes are scored a zero for this metric.

The student staff ratio is defined as total full time equivalent (FTE) number of staff employed in an academic post divided by FTE number of students in all years and of all programmes that lead to a degree, certificate, university credit or other qualification. This variable is normalised after calculation.

This metric is generated by dividing the total number of doctorates awarded by the total number of undergraduate degrees awarded. This variable is normalised after calculation.

As well as giving a sense of how committed an institution is to nurturing the next generation of academics, a high proportion of postgraduate research students also suggests the provision of teaching at the highest level that is thus attractive to graduates and effective at developing them. This metric is generated by dividing the total subject weighted doctorates, by the total subject weighted number of academic staff. This metric takes into account an institution’s unique subject mix, reflecting that the volume of doctoral awards varies by discipline. This variable is normalised after calculation.

This measure of income indicates an institution’s general status and gives a broad sense of the infrastructure and facilities available to students and staff. This metric is generated by dividing the institutional income adjusted to PPP, by the total number of academic staff. This variable is normalised after calculation.

The most recent Academic Reputation Survey (run annually, this year conducted by THE) that underpins this category was carried out between November 2023 and January 2024. It examined the perceived prestige of institutions in research. This metric is the total number of votes obtained from the reputation survey from the last two years. Each year is calculated as the number of global research votes from respondents of the reputation survey, weighted by subject and country to be representative of the distribution of academics globally. Only non-zero values will be standardised using a logarithmic function, and universities that received no votes are scored a zero for this metric.

This metric is generated by dividing the total subject weighted research income adjusted for PPP, by the total subject weighted number of academic staff and is normalised after calculation. This is a somewhat controversial indicator because it can be influenced by national policy and economic circumstances. Income is crucial to the development of world-class research, and because much of it is subject to competition and judged by peer review, our experts suggested that it was a valid measure. This indicator takes account of each institution’s distinct subject profile, reflecting the fact that research grants in science subjects are often bigger than those awarded for the highest-quality social science, arts and humanities research.

This metric is generated by dividing the total subject weighted number of papers published in the academic journals indexed by Elsevier’s Scopus database per scholar, divided by the sum of the total subject weighted number of FTE research staff and FTE academic staff. This metric is normalised after calculation. The indicator gives a sense of the institution’s ability to get papers published in quality peer-reviewed journals. Introduced in the 2018 rankings, we devised a method to give credit for cross-subject research that results in papers being published in subjects where a university has no staff. For subjects where there are papers, but not staff, we will reassign the papers to subjects where there are staff. We will do this proportionally according to the number of staff in populated subjects, and according to the median publications per staff for populated subjects. We will have a maximum threshold of the proportion of papers that we are willing to reassign (10% of the total of papers).

Our research influence metric looks at universities’ role in spreading new knowledge and ideas. We examine research influence by capturing the average number of times a university’s published work is cited by scholars globally. We look at the academic journals indexed by Elsevier’s Scopus database and all indexed publications between 2019 and 2023. Citations to these publications made in the six years from 2019 to 2024 are also collected. The data is normalised to reflect variations in citation volume between different subject areas. This means that institutions with high levels of research activity in subjects with traditionally high citation counts do not gain an unfair advantage. We have blended equal measures of a country-adjusted and non-country-adjusted raw measure of citations scores.

Our research strength metric measures the representative research quality based on the FWCI, but without being skewed by papers with an exceptionally high FWCI. It captures the 75th percentile of the Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) of all papers published by a university. We look at all Scopusindexed publications between 2019 and 2023 and the corresponding citations to these publications made from 2019 to 2024 are also collected.

This metric recognises the institution’s contribution to the best research in each subject and overall. Excellence is measured by capturing the total number of publications by an institution that are among the top 10% of publications worldwide by FWCI. We adjust this number by year, subject, and the total number of academic and research staff.

This metric analyses the influence of an entity’s publications by analysing their corresponding citations. The importance of a publication is determined based on the importance of other papers citing it. We adjust this number by year, subject, and the total number of academic and research staff.

This metric captures the proportion of international students on campus. International students are those whose nationality differs from the country where the institution is based. The metric is calculated as the total FTE number of international students divided by the total FTE number of students. This variable is normalised to account for the country population’s size.

This metric captures the proportion of international academic staff on campus. International staff are those whose nationality differs from the country where the institution is based. The metric is calculated as the total FTE number of international academic staff divided by the total FTE number of academic staff. This variable is normalised to account for the country population’s size.

In the third international indicator, we calculate the proportion of an institution’s total research journal publications that have at least one international co-author. The metric is generated by dividing the total subject weighted number of publications with at least one international co-author by the total subjected weighted number of publications. This accounts for an institution’s subject mix. This variable is normalised to account for the country population’s size.

Based on the number of outbound exchange students, this metric assesses international student mobility. The headcount number of exchange students going abroad is divided by the total FTE number of students. This metric is subject-weighted and adjusted by the country’s population. It has a zero weight for the ranking calculation.

An institution’s ability to help industry with innovations, inventions and consultancy has become a core mission of the contemporary global academy. This category suggests the extent to which businesses are willing to pay for research and an institution’s ability to attract funding in the commercial marketplace – useful indicators of institutional quality. The indicator seeks to capture such knowledge-transfer activity by looking at how much research income an institution earns from industry (adjusted for PPP), divided by the total number of FTE academic staff it employs. This variable is normalised after calculation.

This metric recognises the extent to which universities are supporting their national economies through technology transfer. It measures the count of patents citing an entity’s published research. This measure is subject weighted to avoid penalising universities producing research in fields low in patents. We also normalise this by the sum of academic and research staff.