10 Strategies to Help Universities Improve Their Position in International Rankings

Universities seeking to improve their position in international rankings need more than an annual submission exercise. They need a coherent academic strategy, dependable evidence and a realistic understanding of what each ranking measures. A stronger institution may not immediately rise: positions also depend on competitors, participation and methodological changes.

The following ten strategies connect ranking awareness with work that benefits students, researchers and partners. They are management recommendations, not a ranking formula, and none guarantees a particular score or position.

1. Choose relevant rankings before setting targets

Start with institutional mission, disciplinary profile and development stage. Review the publisher's eligibility requirements rather than assuming every university belongs in every table. The QS methodology distinguishes eligibility from inclusion and explains its indicators.

Produce a short selection paper identifying which rankings are useful, which are unsuitable and why. A specialist institution may gain more decision value from a relevant subject comparison than from a broad institutional league table.

2. Establish a controlled institutional data system

Assign owners for student, staff, finance, research and graduate data. Agree definitions, reporting periods and approval responsibilities before collecting figures. Preserve source records and maintain a change log so a reviewer can reproduce each submitted value.

Check full-time-equivalent calculations, organisational boundaries and duplicate records. Distinguish unavailable information from zero. Reliable reporting prevents avoidable errors; it should never be presented as permission to select whichever interpretation yields the most favourable score.

3. Diagnose performance at indicator level

Break the overall result into measures that leaders can understand. The THE methodology distinguishes teaching, research environment, research quality, international outlook and industry. These categories contain different forms of evidence and should not be treated as interchangeable.

Compare against institutions with similar missions and subject mixes. Record whether a change reflects institutional activity, revised data, methodology or the comparison group. Treat an unexplained movement as a question for analysis, not an immediate verdict on leadership.

4. Invest in research quality and enabling infrastructure

Identify areas where credible academic strengths meet important research questions. Support methodological advice, ethical review, research administration and appropriate infrastructure. Protect time for rigorous work rather than simply increasing publication targets.

Use expert review to assess contributions alongside suitable quantitative evidence. The CoARA Agreement supports assessment based primarily on qualitative judgement, with responsible use of indicators. This helps guard against rewarding volume while overlooking originality, integrity or relevance.

5. Improve the discoverability of legitimate research

Audit institutional naming conventions, researcher identifiers and repository metadata. Help academics correct attribution errors through the appropriate publisher or database processes. Where lawful and consistent with agreements, support accessible versions of research outputs.

Discoverability is not citation manipulation. Do not impose reciprocal citation arrangements or reward unnecessary self-citation. Monitor whether records accurately represent the university's work, and document corrections without claiming that better metadata will inevitably change its position.

6. Turn faculty development into changed practice

Prioritise development linked to demonstrated needs, such as research supervision, inclusive assessment or grant design. Require practical follow-through: revised course materials, reviewed protocols or supported mentoring relationships.

The ESG quality-assurance framework addresses professional development for teaching staff. However, CPD attendance is not a direct indicator in the QS or THE methodologies cited here. Evaluate academic improvements first, with possible ranking effects treated as indirect and uncertain.

7. Build international partnerships with substance

Choose partners around shared academic questions and complementary capabilities. Before signing an agreement, specify resources, decision rights, intended activity and review dates. Check whether both sides can sustain the proposed work.

An illustrative partnership might begin with a jointly taught research methods module and a small collaborative project. Leaders would review completed activity and participant experience before expanding it. This is more useful than counting agreements that never become operational.

8. Strengthen graduate pathways and employer engagement

Bring employers and professional communities into structured curriculum discussions without surrendering academic independence. Improve access to placements, careers guidance and opportunities to demonstrate learning through authentic projects.

Develop graduate tracking with clear consent, defined cohorts and transparent response rates. Separate evidence of employment outcomes from employer opinion. Both can inform strategy, but neither should be inferred from a handful of testimonials or an unrepresentative survey.

9. Communicate achievements with verifiable context

Make programme information, research expertise and partnership opportunities easy to find. Explain significant contributions in clear language and link to supporting evidence. Academic visibility should emerge from useful engagement, not exaggerated claims.

Observe publishers' survey rules and avoid attempting to purchase or coordinate favourable responses. State the exact ranking, edition and category when discussing results. EUCPD membership does not affect ranking eligibility or scores and must not be marketed as a route to either.

10. Govern the strategy over several academic cycles

Create a modest portfolio of improvements with named owners, budgets and review dates. Separate leading signals, such as adoption of a new research workflow, from lagging measures, such as external recognition. Review unintended consequences alongside progress.

Do not use a global ranking position as an individual staff performance target. Preserve investment in locally important disciplines and student services even where their value is poorly captured by international indicators.

Frequently asked questions

Which strategy should a university start with?

Begin with methodology fit and data quality. Without those foundations, leaders may diagnose the wrong problem or invest in activities that do not address their institution's priorities.

Can a university promise a ranking improvement?

No responsible plan can guarantee movement. Better performance may coincide with a stable or lower position if other institutions improve faster or the methodology changes.

Translate the list into an accountable plan

Choose three priorities for the next academic year rather than launching ten disconnected projects. For each, define the academic benefit, baseline, accountable owner and evidence of progress. Report ranking results alongside these measures, so the governing body can distinguish genuine institutional improvement from movement in a competitive table.