университетские рейтинги,
оценка научно-исследовательской деятельности,
библиометрические показатели,
науковедение,
научно-технологическая политика
Abstract
The proliferation of global university rankings as a tool for research assessment demands critical examination, given the growing volume of methodological criticism and their potentially detrimental impact on academic systems. The aim of this study is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the inherent problems of rankings and to evaluate current alternatives within the context of shaping science and technology policy. Based on a systematic review of English- and Russian- language academic and grey sources, persistent methodological shortcomings were identified: insufficient transparency of calculation algorithms, limited applicability of bibliometric data for assessing social sciences and humanities (SSH), subjectivity of weighting coefficients in composite indices, and an inability to adequately reflect the quality of the educational processes and managerial efficiency. It was established that rankings relying on a composite indices are fundamentally unsuitable for evaluating organizations due to inherent methodological limitations; rankings without such a composite indicator, based on transparent and reproducible methodology with open access to source data, can be used analytically provided there is strict consideration of the limitations inherent in quantitative metrics. The expediency of transitioning to mission-driven assessment models was substantiated. The significance of the study lies in developing a scientifically grounded position relevant to reforming research assessment systems in Russia and BRICS countries, and in providing arguments for integrating science of science approaches into the practice of science and technology forecasting and governance.
