Does Research Quality Matter More Than Research Quantity in University Rankings?

Is It Better for a University to Publish More Research or Better Research?

University research strategies often confront an apparently simple choice. Should the institution increase the number of publications, or concentrate resources on producing fewer studies with greater quality and influence?

Global rankings seem to make the question even more urgent. Publications contribute to bibliometric datasets. Citations influence major ranking indicators. Research reputation matters. Times Higher Education directly measures research productivity, while QS describes its Research and Discovery lens as reflecting research quality, volume, and reputation.

The temptation is to choose one side: quantity or quality.

Ranking methodologies do not make the distinction that cleanly. Research quantity can affect eligibility, productivity, citation opportunities, and the scale of an institution's scholarly presence. Measures intended to capture research quality or influence can simultaneously reward citation performance, highly cited research, and reputation. The practical relationship is therefore one of interaction rather than simple substitution.

Both Matter, but Not in the Same Way

Rankings Reward Research Portfolios, Not an Abstract Choice Between Quality and Quantity

First Define What You Mean by Research Quantity

Research quantity usually refers to the volume of research output produced during a defined period. In bibliometric ranking contexts, this often means publications that satisfy the ranking's database coverage and document-type rules.

Quantity can be expressed as total publications, publications per researcher, publications within a subject, or another normalized measure.

These distinctions matter. A large university may produce more total papers simply because it employs more researchers. A productivity indicator attempts to account for some of that difference by relating output to institutional size.

Research Quality Is Harder to Define and Measure

Research quality can involve rigor, transparency, originality, significance, methodological appropriateness, credibility, reproducibility where applicable, or contribution to knowledge. These characteristics cannot be observed directly from publication count.

Rankings therefore use proxies. Citation impact, highly cited research, research reputation, and related bibliometric indicators may provide evidence about scholarly visibility or influence, but they are not complete measurements of the intrinsic quality of every study.

DORA's guidance on quantitative indicators makes this point explicitly: no single indicator can capture the complexity of research quality. Quantitative measures need contextual interpretation rather than being treated as self-explanatory judgments.

QS Rewards Research Through Reputation and Citations Rather Than a Standalone Productivity Indicator

In the current QS World University Rankings methodology, the Research and Discovery lens contributes 50% of the overall score. Academic Reputation carries 30% and Citations per Faculty 20%.

QS does not currently include a standalone research-productivity indicator equivalent to THE's measure. That does not make publication quantity irrelevant.

Publications generate the research corpus from which citations arise, and QS describes its Research and Discovery lens as measuring research quality, volume, and reputation. However, simply increasing the number of papers does not translate mechanically into a higher QS score because citation performance is calculated relative to faculty size and processed according to QS's methodology.

THE Explicitly Rewards Both Productivity and Several Forms of Research Quality

THE makes the quantity-quality distinction more visible in its indicator structure.

Research Productivity contributes 5.5% within the 29% Research Environment pillar. THE calculates productivity using Scopus-indexed journal publications per scholar, scaled for institutional size and normalized for subject.

Research Quality contributes 30% through Citation Impact at 15%, Research Strength at 5%, Research Excellence at 5%, and Research Influence at 5%.

THE therefore explicitly assigns much more weight to its Research Quality pillar than to Research Productivity alone. Yet productivity remains relevant, and research output also affects eligibility and provides the publication base from which quality measures are calculated.

Quantity Can Matter Before Quality Indicators Are Even Calculated

THE's World University Rankings 2026 requires an institution to have at least 1,000 relevant publications over the five-year period from 2020 through 2024, with at least 100 in each year, among its eligibility requirements.

An institution below that threshold can be excluded from receiving a rank regardless of how strong a small number of its publications might be.

This demonstrates an important point: research quantity can sometimes function as a threshold rather than merely a weighted score.

Subject Rankings Complicate the Relationship Further

Publication and citation cultures differ across disciplines, so ranking organizations adjust subject methodologies.

THE's 2026 subject rankings recalibrate research indicators according to disciplinary research cultures. Citation Impact carries 7.5% in Arts and Humanities but 17.5% in several science-oriented subject rankings. Research Productivity is likewise weighted differently among subject areas.

THE also uses subject-specific publication thresholds because research output varies substantially across disciplines.

Consequently, a quantity-versus-quality strategy that appears sensible for one field may be inappropriate for another.

More Publications Create More Opportunities for Influence

At the institutional level, a sufficiently large research portfolio creates more opportunities for individual studies to become influential. If a university produces only a very small volume of research, even excellent individual papers may have limited effect on institution-level metrics.

This is one reason quantity cannot simply be dismissed. Research-intensive universities combine scale with quality rather than treating them as mutually exclusive.

However, the relationship has diminishing strategic value if additional publications contribute little scholarly use, stretch research systems beyond their capacity, or arise mainly because researchers are being pushed to satisfy numerical targets.

A Smaller Number of Highly Influential Papers Can Matter Disproportionately

Citation distributions are skewed. Some publications attract far more scholarly attention than others. Measures such as THE's Research Excellence explicitly reward the number of publications reaching the top 10% worldwide by field-weighted citation impact.

QS's Citations per Faculty can likewise be influenced substantially when an institution's research portfolio attracts strong citation attention relative to faculty size.

This is why simply comparing publication totals can be misleading. Two universities with similar output volumes may produce very different ranking outcomes if their citation profiles differ substantially.

But Highly Cited Does Not Automatically Mean High Quality

The language of “quality” needs caution. Rankings may label pillars or indicators in ways intended to represent research quality, but citations remain indirect evidence.

A paper can be highly cited because it introduces an influential method, addresses a rapidly expanding topic, is controversial, belongs to a very large collaboration, or becomes an important object of criticism. Citation performance does not directly inspect research design or verify findings.

This is why citations matter to university rankings without becoming interchangeable with research quality.

Research Reputation Introduces Another Dimension

QS Academic Reputation contributes 30% to the overall ranking, while THE Research Reputation contributes 18%.

Reputation is neither straightforward quantity nor straightforward quality. It reflects how institutions are perceived by academic peers and can be influenced by accumulated scholarly achievement, visibility, historical standing, influential researchers, networks, and disciplinary strength.

Reputation can also lag behind changes in current research performance. A university cannot reasonably expect one year of increased publication volume to produce an immediate transformation in global academic reputation.

Research Income Can Support Both Scale and Sophistication

THE assigns 5.5% to Research Income. Funding can support laboratories, research staff, data collection, equipment, infrastructure, and larger projects.

This can enable both more research and forms of research that would otherwise be impossible. Yet research income is still not proof of quality. It represents resources obtained within funding systems influenced by competition, national context, discipline, and policy.

The Quality-Quantity Trade-Off Is Often an Institutional Design Problem

Universities sometimes frame the issue as though individual researchers simply need to choose between publishing frequently and conducting excellent work. Institutional conditions shape that choice.

Researchers operating with adequate time, infrastructure, collaboration, research support, postgraduate researchers, and funding may be capable of producing both substantial volume and strong research. Researchers facing unrealistic publication quotas and limited support may respond differently.

This connects ranking strategy with institutional research capacity. Sustainable research volume depends on the system capable of producing it.

More Is Useful Only When the Additional Research Remains Credible

If an institution increases research quantity by strengthening teams, supporting researchers, completing worthwhile projects, and disseminating credible work that previously remained unpublished, greater volume can represent genuine improvement.

If the same increase is achieved by encouraging superficial projects, fragmenting studies unnecessarily, overloading faculty, or prioritizing whatever can be published most quickly, the numerical gain may not represent comparable improvement in the research system.

Ranking Position Is Relative, Not Absolute

Even if an institution improves both the quantity and citation performance of its research, its rank may remain unchanged or fall if competing institutions improve faster.

Rankings order institutions relative to one another after applying their methodology. Improvement in underlying research performance therefore does not guarantee movement in ordinal rank.

This is one reason institutional leaders should distinguish between improving indicator performance and improving ranking position.

The Better Long-Term Goal Is a Strong Research Portfolio

A mature research strategy does not ask researchers to choose mechanically between “more papers” and “better papers.” It develops an environment capable of producing a sufficient volume of rigorous, useful, visible research appropriate to the institution's mission and disciplines.

Such a strategy may improve ranking indicators, but its value does not disappear if the ranking methodology changes.

Three Publication Strategies Can Produce Very Different Research Profiles

Depending on the ranking, all three strategies could affect indicators differently. Strategy A may improve measures related to volume but generate weaker citation performance than expected. Strategy B may produce strong citation-based results in selected areas but leave limited breadth. Strategy C may take longer to mature but can strengthen both research capacity and several ranking dimensions.

The example does not imply that Strategy C guarantees a higher rank. Competitor performance and ranking methodology still matter. It illustrates why quality and quantity should be considered as properties of an institutional research portfolio rather than isolated targets.

Common Misunderstandings About Research Quality and Quantity in Rankings

Do Not Choose Between Quality and Quantity Before Understanding the Indicator

Universities should begin by identifying what constrains their research performance. An institution below an eligibility threshold faces a different problem from one producing large volumes of lightly cited work. A university with strong bibliometrics but weak research reputation faces another problem again.

This distinction prepares the ground for the broader question of whether universities should conduct research specifically to improve their rankings. A ranking may reward research, but that does not necessarily make the ranking the best reason for conducting it.

Before Choosing a Quality or Quantity Strategy, Diagnose the Research Portfolio

Questions About Research Quality, Quantity, and Rankings

Strong Ranking Performance Usually Requires More Than Simply Producing More

How to Cite This Guide

This guide is intended to be read, shared, and used in research, teaching, and academic work. If you draw on its ideas, explanations, or other content, please acknowledge the source by citing the guide. Doing so gives appropriate credit and helps your readers locate the original resource.