Analytics, Impact and Strategy By SIMON PRATT

While general university rankings get the headlines, deans and department chairs are often more focused on specific subject rankings. These rankings are a significant point of pride and possess genuine influence over faculty recruitment, donor interest, student enrollment, and the development of new research partnerships.

However, a common misconception exists: many believe ranking publishers evaluate specific departments or the individuals within them. In reality, publishers look at the entire university and then limit the scope to a specific subject by analyzing research papers, citations, and reputation surveys. This means the data used for a subject ranking doesn’t necessarily reflect the department sharing its name.

A Guide to the Major Publishers

Most major ranking publishers provide subject-specific lists to complement their overall institutional rankings. Here is how the big three break down their coverage:

Publisher	Subject Scope	Focus Areas
Times Higher Education (THE) subject rankings	11 subjects, ranging from broad (Engineering) to narrow (Law).	Uses the same 17 indicators as their overall rankings with slight weighting shifts.
QS subject ranking	5 broad “fields” and 55 narrow subjects.	Focuses on reputation (Academic/Employer) and publication metrics like the H-index.
ShanghaiRanking (GRAS)	57 narrow subjects.	Uses faculty awards and honours and publications. Detailed engineering subjects but excludes arts and humanities.

The Data Gap: Journals vs. Departments

Understanding how subject areas are determined is critical. For scholarly papers, the subject is determined by third-party classifications of the journal, not the content of the article or the author’s department. This can lead to “unexpected” assignments, such as bioinformatics research being categorized as computer science.

There is a varying “intersection” between a university division and a ranking subject:

• Law: Faculty from the law school might only author 30% of the papers used for the law ranking, with the rest coming from other divisions of the university such as criminology, psychology, medicine, or education.
• Chemistry: Has a much higher alignment, with roughly 85% of papers originating from the actual chemistry department.

---

Actionable Strategies for Success

Improving your institution’s standing requires a multi-level approach tailored to different roles:

• For Professors: Identify which journals are assigned to specific ranking subjects. Develop a communication strategy to ensure other scholars are aware of your work to maximize citations and reputation.
• For Department Heads: Educate faculty on how rankings work. Collaborate with communication staff to promote breakthroughs. Engage with alumni and academic partners to bolster reputation survey results.
• For Senior Administrators: Focus on communicating “success stories”. Outstanding performance in one subject creates a halo effect, enhancing the reputation of the entire university. Furthermore, improved subject rankings directly benefit the university’s overall ranking through better bibliometric and reputation indicators.

Next steps

The strategies shared here are just the beginning of how you can navigate the complexities of global subject rankings. Does your institution struggle with the ‘mismatch’ between departments and journal classifications? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.

If you are ready to move beyond the surface and explore a detailed, data-driven strategic approach for your specific institution, please get in touch I would love to help you map out your next move.