Dear Iftikhar Ahmad , behind many similar attempts, we have not reach the universal ranking model for Universities. I have remembered one attempt which was very interesting proposal -ResearchGate as Ranking Model.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/A-number-of-university-ranking-setups-exist-In-the-not-far-future-ResearchGate-could-be-accepted-as-another-legitimate-university-ranking-approach

What student vloggers teach us about university rankings

University rankings are designed to stand as objective indicators for students to make informed choices in a higher education marketplace...

"However, the way students engage with them is rarely examined. Drawing on a study of student vloggers, Jelena Brankovic, Astrid Van den Bossche and Morten Hansen argue student responses reveal a nuanced and critical approach to rankings, that runs against common assumptions of how prospective students use and perceive them...

As evaluators of universities, these student vloggers are saying the quiet part out loud: the relevance and power that rankings hold do not come from their supposed objectivity. Rather, they come from how they allow us to imagine and playact the perspectives of other observers of higher education, be that employers, students, or the vlogger’s audiences.

While rankings may play a role in how some students think about higher education, the way they actually judge universities against each other is a much more complex process than often assumed. We hope our study contributes to a better understanding of this phenomenon, and that it will inspire others to recognise the voice students do have and push this understanding forward."

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2025/02/26/what-student-vloggers-teach-us-about-university-rankings/

An excellent framework and proposal!

Don’t Rank Research Universities—Compare Them

"Collectively, US research universities are the envy of the world. But they do make an unusual collection—a complex mix of public and private institutions pursuing different missions supported by a range of financial models. Flagship state universities have funded mandates to educate state residents at low tuition, while elite private universities can supplement tuition revenues with endowment support. Comparing institutions with such different operating conditions is a major challenge; developing strategies and policies to address the health of the whole enterprise is an even greater one...

If the country is to continue leaning on research universities as the drivers of discovery, innovation, workforce development, and economic competitiveness, a national conversation about the future of these institutions is necessary. Unfortunately, the prevailing methods for comparing universities are insufficient for informing this discussion. Rankings that list universities like sports teams are arbitrarily weighted by the ranker, focused on branding the “best” for an arbitrary consumer and increasing traffic to the ranker’s website.

To catalyze a more data-driven conversation, I developed an analytical framework for understanding the similarities and differences across top US research universities. Using principal component analysis, a technique that combines possibly correlated features (variables) in large datasets into components to visualize the drivers of variance, makes it possible to map universities by the relative influence of over a dozen characteristics shaping them..."

https://issues.org/compare-research-universities-brown/

US still tops subject rankings but faces new challengers

The latest QS subject rankings show that the countries that have traditionally led international university rankings continue to dominate the top places but are beginning to be challenged by developing higher education markets, notably by those in Asia and the Middle East...

https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20250321045125869

Study raises doubts over classifications in subject rankings

A new study argues that inaccuracies in the mapping between journal subject classification by Elsevier and the narrow subject field used by two major global university rankings organisations in their subject rankings system have resulted in inaccuracies in institutional scoring in both rankings...

“However, these shortcomings point to a deeper problem: the rankings rely on artificial frameworks rather than the actual interdisciplinary nature of scientific research.

“Thus, this study supports the criticism that university rankings lack validity and should be avoided in favour of assessments that take into account the complexity and context of scientific research.”

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-025-05266-6

https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20250423125613845

Breaking ranks: China’s new journal publishing benchmarks to boost scientific soft power

Beijing aims to assert voice in global academic discourse by overhauling grading system that covers thousands of Chinese scientific journals...

"Recent changes to a ranking system that covers thousands of scientific journals in China suggest an attempt by Beijing to reshape the global scientific publishing landscape by showcasing the country’s growing scientific soft power, according to experts...

This ranking is now a critical component of China’s research evaluation system. Many universities and research institutions use it to assess researcher output, evaluate promotions, and even determine whether doctoral students can graduate..."

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3307078/breaking-ranks-chinas-new-journal-publishing-benchmarks-boost-scientific-soft-power

Gaming the Metrics? Bibliometric Anomalies and the Integrity Crisis in Global University Rankings

"Global university rankings have transformed how certain institutions define success, often elevating metrics over meaning. This study examines universities with rapid research growth that suggest metric-driven behaviors. Among the 1,000 most publishing institutions, 98 showed extreme output increases between 2018-2019 and 2023-2024. Of these, 18 were selected for exhibiting sharp declines in first and corresponding authorship. Compared to national, regional, and international norms, these universities (in India, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) display patterns consistent with strategic metric optimization. Key findings include publication growth of up to 965%, concentrated in STEM fields; surges in hyper-prolific authors and highly cited articles; and dense internal co-authorship and citation clusters. The group also exhibited elevated shares of publications in delisted journals and high retraction rates. These patterns illustrate vulnerabilities in global ranking systems, as metrics lose meaning when treated as targets (Goodhart’s Law) and institutions emulate high-performing peers under competitive pressure (institutional isomorphism). Without reform, rankings may continue incentivizing behaviors that distort scholarly contribution and compromise research integrity."

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.05.09.653229v1

How reliable are the rankings of India's top IITs and IIMs?

The NIRF rankings guide the decisions of millions of students each year. But confusion reigns over how data is categorised and calculated...

The NIRF rankings are a crucial resource for millions of students who have to decide what institutions and programmes to seek admission in each year.

But are the rankings based on a rigorous methodology and consistent data?

https://scroll.in/article/1083409/how-reliable-are-the-rankings-assigned-to-india-s-top-iits-and-iims

University impact rankings expand but remain volatile

The exponential growth of the Times Higher Education Impact Rankings shows that universities have an appetite for assessing their performance on the Sustainable Development Goals, but the results are volatile, and many research-intensive universities don’t take part. Would regional or national rankings be better?

https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=2025061812163067

What We Talk About When We Talk About Rankings

What do rankings really mean to you? We explore the meaning and impact behind these crucial metrics on institutions' decisions and perceptions...

"Originally developed to provide students with more insight and information to help them choose which university to study at, over its history, the conversations around the QS World University Rankings have evolved.

Now, many universities, governments and employers are looking at rankings to understand the global higher education market. When vice chancellors, ministers or CEOs talk about rankings, they could be talking about research impact, national and global benchmarking, employment outcomes, student recruitment or any selection of many other things...

The conversations that rankings spark range across a number of different areas. From student choice, to university performance, to concerns of their influence, they continue to mean many things to many different people.

Those talking about them share a desire to see the sector improve and meet the needs of students, researchers, the community and society as a whole..."

https://magazine.qs.com/qs-insights-magazine-30/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-rankings

Institutes, universities will face negative marks for retracted papers in NIRF rankings

Research institutes and universities in India will now be penalised for producing poor-quality research papers...

"NAAC executive committee chairperson Professor Anil Sahasrabudhe says credibility of institutes from where large number of research papers are getting retracted is an issue...

India is facing a research fraud “crisis”. According to the global research watchdog Retraction Watch, in 2023, India was behind only China and the US with 2,737 retractions. Data shows that retractions from India jumped 2.5 times between 2020 and 2022, compared to 2017 and 2019.

The reasons range from plagiarism to editorial conflicts to involvement in international research papermills. In February this year, an analysis published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature showed that retractions from certain Indian institutes had visibly increased in the last five years..."

https://theprint.in/science/institutes-universities-will-face-negative-marks-for-retracted-papers-in-nirf-rankings/2687273/