ABSTRACT
This chapter begins a three-chapter overview of general and fundamental criticisms regarding the nature and validity of the various HERS and their methodologies. The criticisms include philosophical and practical issues. A core criticism relates to the ability to verify submitted data. This chapter focuses on the Shanghai Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU). The QS World University Rankings is addressed in Chapter 5 and the THE World University Rankings in Chapter 6. The ARWU is critically analysed in relation to its methodology, transparency in terms of results, Nobel Prizes and Field Medals as indicators of quality in education and staff, highly cited researchers as an indicator of staff quality, citation databases as indicators of research output, and the per-capita performance indicator. In particular, the ARWU’s use of Nobel or Fields prizes, highly cited researchers, citation databases and per capita performance indicators pose problems in practice which are difficult to reconcile satisfactorily.
