research ranks in

• All subject areas
• Agricultural and Biological Sciences
• >> Animal Science and Zoology
• >> Aquatic Science
• >> Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
• >> Food Science
• >> Forestry
• >> Plant Science
• >> Soil Science
• Arts and Humanities
• >> Classics
• >> History
• >> Literature and Literary Theory
• >> Philosophy
• >> Religious Studies
• Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
• Business, Management and Accounting
• Computer Science
• Earth and Planetary Sciences
• >> Atmospheric Science
• >> Geology
• >> Oceanography
• >> Paleontology
• >> Space and Planetary Science
• Economics, Econometrics and Finance
• Engineering
• >> Aerospace Engineering
• >> Architecture
• >> Automotive Engineering
• >> Biomedical Engineering
• >> Building and Construction
• >> Civil and Structural Engineering
• >> Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering
• >> Mechanical Engineering
• >> Ocean Engineering
• Environmental Science
• Mathematics
• >> Anatomy
• >> Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine
• >> Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
• >> Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
• >> Dermatology
• >> Epidemiology
• >> Gastroenterology
• >> Geriatrics and Gerontology
• >> Infectious Diseases
• >> Nephrology
• >> Obstetrics and Gynecology
• >> Oncology
• >> Ophthalmology
• >> Otorhinolaryngology
• >> Pathology and Forensic Medicine
• >> Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health
• >> Psychiatry and Mental Health
• >> Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
• >> Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
• >> Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
• >> Rheumatology
• >> Surgery
• >> Urology
• Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
• Physics and Astronomy
• Social Sciences
• >> Anthropology
• >> Communication
• >> Demography
• >> Education
• >> Gender Studies
• >> Geography, Planning and Development
• >> Law
• >> Library and Information Sciences
• >> Sociology and Political Science
• Overall Rank
• Research Rank
• Innovation Rank
• Societal Rank
• All sectors
• Universities
• All regions and countries
• Asiatic Region
• Eastern Europe
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Northern America
• Pacific Region
• Western Europe
• ARAB COUNTRIES
• IBEROAMERICA
• NORDIC COUNTRIES
• Afghanistan
• Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Brunei Darussalam
• Burkina Faso
• Côte d’Ivoire
• Czech Republic
• Democratic Republic Congo
• French Guiana
• Kosovo (UNMIK)
• Multinational
• Netherlands
• New Zealand
• North Korea
• Philippines
• Puerto Rico
• Russian Federation
• Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Saudi Arabia
• South Africa
• South Korea
• Switzerland
• Syrian Arab Republic
• Trinidad and Tobago
• United Arab Emirates
• United Kingdom
• United States
• Vatican City State

• Infographics
• Methodology
• Edit Cookie Consent
• Legal Notice
• Privacy Policy
• Overall Ranking
• University Rankings
• Government Rankings
• Health Rankings
• Private Rankings
• Other Rankings
• Research Rankings
• Innovation Rankings
• Societal Rankings

Search form

• United States of America
• Antigua and Barbuda
• Cayman Islands
• Dominican Republic
• El Salvador
• Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
• French Guiana
• Netherlands Antilles
• Puerto Rico
• Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Saint Lucia
• Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
• South Georgia & South Sandwich Islands
• The Bahamas
• Trinidad and Tobago
• Turks and Caicos Islands
• Virgin Islands (British)
• Virgin Islands (U.S.)
• Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Croatia (local name: Hrvatska)
• Czech Republic
• European Union
• Faroe Islands
• Liechtenstein
• Man, Isle of
• Moldova, Republic of
• Netherlands
• Russian Federation
• Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands
• Switzerland
• United Kingdom
• Afghanistan
• Brunei Darussalam
• Burma / Myanmar
• Iran (Islamic Republic of)
• Palestinian Territories
• Philippines
• Republic Of Korea
• Saudi Arabia
• Syrian Arab Republic
• Turkmenistan
• United Arab Emirates
• Burkina Faso
• Central African Republic
• Côte D'Ivoire
• Dem. Republic of the Congo
• Equatorial Guinea
• Guinea-Bissau
• Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
• Sao Tome and Principe
• Sierra Leone
• South Africa
• Tanzania, United Republic of
• The Republic of Gambia
• American Samoa
• Cook Islands
• Federated States of Micronesia
• French Polynesia
• Marshall Islands
• New Caledonia
• New Zealand
• Norfolk Island
• Northern Mariana Islands
• Papua New Guinea
• Solomon Islands
• Wallis And Futuna Islands
• VETERAN AFFAIRS (VA)
• North America
• Latin America
• Asia (incl ME)
• Asia (excl ME)
• Middle East
• South East Asia
• Central Eastern Europe
• North Africa
• Sub-Saharan Africa

description

You are here

Current Edition

Annual 2019 Edition Data collected during July 2019

About the Ranking

• Methodology
• Best Practices
• Central America & Caribbe
• Central & Eastern Europe
• East Asia (without Middle East)
• Asia/Pacific

You will be redirected to www.worldscientific.com to purchase/view the product.

• XL = More than 30,000
• L = Between 12,000 and 30,000
• M = Between 5,000 and 12,000
• S = Less than 5,000
• V = More than 100 years old
• IV = 50 – 100 years old
• III = 25 – 50 years old
• II = 10 – 25 years old
• I = Less than 10 years old

• Share on twitter
• Share on facebook

World University Rankings 2023

The Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2023 include 1,799 universities across 104 countries and regions, making them the largest and most diverse university rankings to date.

The table is based on 13 carefully calibrated performance indicators that measure an institution’s performance across four areas: teaching, research, knowledge transfer and international outlook.

This year’s ranking analysed over 121 million citations across more than 15.5 million research publications and included survey responses from 40,000 scholars globally. Overall, we collected over 680,000 datapoints from more than 2,500 institutions that submitted data.

Trusted worldwide by students, teachers, governments and industry experts, this year’s league table reveals how the global higher education landscape is shifting.

View the World University Rankings 2023 methodology

The University of Oxford tops the ranking for the seventh consecutive year. Harvard University remains in second place, but the University of Cambridge jumps from joint fifth last year to joint third.

The highest new entry is Italy’s Humanitas University, ranked in the 201-250 bracket.

The US is the most-represented country overall, with 177 institutions, and also the most represented in the top 200 (58).

Mainland China now has the fourth-highest number of institutions in the top 200 (11, compared with 10 last year), having overtaken Australia, which has dropped to fifth (joint with the Netherlands).

Five countries enter the ranking for the first time – all of them in Africa (Zambia, Namibia, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Mauritius).

Harvard tops the teaching pillar, while Oxford leads the research pillar. Atop the international pillar is the Macau University of Science and Technology.

Overall, 1,799 universities are ranked. A further 546 universities are listed with “reporter” status, meaning that they provided data but did not meet our eligibility criteria to receive a rank, and agreed to be displayed as a reporter in the final table.

Read our analysis of the World University Rankings 2023 results

Download a copy of the World University Rankings 2023 digital report

To raise your university’s global profile with Times Higher Education , contact [email protected]

To unlock the data behind THE ’s rankings and access a range of analytical and benchmarking tools, click here

• Share on linkedin
• Share on mail

Read more about the World University Rankings 2023

Student insights.

• Best universities in the world
• Best universities in the UK
• Best universities in the United States
• Best universities in Canada
• Best universities in Australia
• Best universities in Europe
• Best universities in the Netherlands
• Best universities in France
• Best universities in Germany
• Best universities in Malaysia
• Best universities in South Korea

Academic Insights

• World University Rankings 2023: results announced
• World University Rankings 2023: African sector improving rapidly
• World University Rankings 2023: US stagnating, Oceania rising, and a weak point for China
• World University Rankings 2023: the opportunities and threats ahead
• World University Rankings 2023: top marks for Australian sector
• Underfunding basic research is a recipe for disaster
• Society benefits from industry partnerships – but there are provisos
• Universities must innovate new kinds of learning for students of all ages
• The future of global research collaboration is rocky
• Talking Leadership 44: Alice Gast on championing ‘risk-taking’ foreign students
• The half-life of knowledge
• How can universities leverage their pandemic reputation boost?
• Our task for the future: global education for all
• World University Rankings 2023: trends in research
• World University Rankings 2023: trends in teaching
• World University Rankings 2023: trends in international outlook
• World University Rankings 2023: trends in working with industry
• Talking Leadership 45: Andrew Hamilton on the trajectory of higher education
• European universities tentatively embrace working with industry
• Talking leadership 46: Louise Richardson on academic precarity and elitism
• Rankings are changing: WUR 3.0 will be more robust and insightful
• Talking leadership 47: Stephen Toope on culture wars and collaboration

Methodology:

Featured jobs

Featured universities.

Indiana University Bloomington Indiana University Bloomington IU Bloomington

• Mary Burgan Distinguished Service Award
• Outstanding Junior Faculty Award
• Provost Professorship
• Tracy M. Sonneborn Award
• Sustainability Course Development Fellowship
• Trustees Teaching Award
• Venkat Distinguished Service Award
• Herman B Wells Professorship
• Sabbatical Leave Application Form
• Committee on Sabbatical Leaves of Absence
• Tenure-Track Faculty
• Non-Tenure-Track Faculty
• Campus Tenure & Promotion Advisory Committees
• Leaves & the Tenure Clock
• Recruitment & Hiring
• Employment Accommodation Requests
• Graduate Student Academic Appointees
• Preparing for Retirement
• Emeriti Faculty
• Indirect Cost Recovery Sharing
• Salary Savings Award
• Incentive for Extramurally Funded Graduate Research Assistantships
• Prestigious Award Leave Program
• Hoosiers Connect
• Scholarly Writing Program
• Bloomington Leadership Fellows
• Academic Leadership Program
• Department Executive Officers Program
• Faculty Mentoring
• Advocates and Allies for Equity
• Women in Leadership Series
• Women & Technology Series
• Horizons of Knowledge Lecture Series
• Resource Directory
• Start of Semester Guide
• COACHE Faculty Satisfaction Survey
• Religious Accommodation Requests
• Teaching Resources
• Emeriti House
• Workshops & Events

Office of the Vice Provost for Faculty & Academic Affairs

Research ranks at indiana university, policy statement.

• Related Information

About This Policy

All research ranks on the Bloomington campus.

Back to top

A. Justification of Research Faculty Appointments

Indiana University’s capacity for serving the scientific community and other clienteles (e.g., industry, education, government agencies) depends in part on its ability to attract, retain, and support active, innovative, and successful research faculty. Research faculty play a crucial role in the campus’s ability to produce new knowledge, train its students, and attract extramural funding. Academic units that have major research projects requiring highly qualified research specialists on a full-time basis may justify research appointments as essential to a unit’s research/creative activity, teaching, and service missions. 

Care should be taken to make appointments in the appropriate classification. Such appointments require written justification that will be reviewed prior to approval at the campus level. The Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs shall have the final decision on whether a particular appointment is appropriate.

B. Qualifications for Rank

Research ranks constitute the five sets of titles articulated below. Sets II.B.1-3 are considered research faculty. The qualifications for the research faculty ranks should be roughly equivalent to those set forth in the areas of research for tenure-track faculty.

1. Assistant Research Scientist, Assistant Research Scholar, or Assistant Research Professor

A candidate for the rank of Assistant Research Scientist/Assistant Research Scholar/Assistant Resarch Professor  would have completed the terminal degree in their discipline and, in some fields, typically have at least one year of successful postdoctoral research experience. A person at the rank of Assistant Rsearch Professor would conduct original, independent research and/or creative activity but may initially work under the direction of a senior faculty member. A person at the rank of Assistant Research Scientist/Scholar will primarily support the research/creative activity of other faculty members.

2. Associate Research Scientist, Associate Research Scholar, or Associate Research Professor

A person at the rank of Associate Research Scientist/Associate Research Scholar/Associate Reseach Professor  would have begun to establish a national or international reputation of scholarship. Associate Research Professors should have a growing body of original, independent research/creative activity. Associate Research Scientists/Scholars will typically have a reputation based primarily on collaboration with others and/or furthering the work of a campus research unit.

3. Senior Scientist, Senior Scholar, or Research Professor

A Senior Research Scientist/Senior Research Scholar/Research Professor   would have shown a career of continued growth in scholarship which has brought a national or international reputation as a researcher who has made substantial contributions to their discipline and/or research unit. The expectation is that Research Professors are capable of sustained extramural support.

C. Appointment and Promotion

For Assistant, Associate, and Senior research faculty (sets of titles 1-3 above), appointment will follow the same procedures as for tenure-track faculty. Promotion in rank involves a campus-level procedure. Promotion, criteria, and dossiers are prepared by the research faculty's department or project unit and reviewed by the same review bodies, administrators, and advisory committees at the school and campus levels as those used for other faculty. See B16-2024. 

When considering promotion recommendations for research faculty,  the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs should ensure that the Campus Research Promotion Advisory Committee has members holding the rank of Senior Scientist/ Senior Scholar.

Postdoctoral Scholars are not eligible for campus-level promotion but may be appointed to the promotable research ranks through a school-internal process and VPFAA approval. Because Research Associates have a single rank, they are not eligible for campus-level promotion within the research ranks. Nevertheless, their unit heads should ensure that Research Associates have sufficient opportunity to advance their careers through, for example, changes/expansions in duties and responsibilities and appropriate compensation. 

D. Personnel Policies

1. Persons holding research ranks may have funded projects in multiple units. Nevertheless, one unit should be designated as the faculty member’s primary unit, similar to a “tenure home” for tenure-track faculty. The head of that primary unit (e.g., a department chair or an institute director) initiates recommendations for the establishment of new positions, advertising plans, appointment, renewals of appointment, and recommendations for promotion. These recommendations are reviewed and acted upon by the dean of the appropriate academic unit and by the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs. 

Associate Scientists/Associate Scholars/Associate Research Professors and Senior Scientists/Senior Scholars/Research Professors should normally be appointed for periods of more than one year, depending upon the nature of their research/creative activity trajectories, their

2. responsibilities, and funding prospects. It should be the practice of the University to provide optimal conditions of job security to research faculty, including the use of extended and open contracts, as funding permits. 

3. Except for those persons holding research ranks who have been granted “research tenure”*** (see II.D below), which carries a one-year termination period, the minimum notice of termination shall be the normal pay period. The University should make efforts to provide more advance notice whenever possible. 

4. Persons holding research ranks do not teach, except on a released-time basis and on an appointment to an appropriate limited-term faculty rank approved by the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs. While research faculty are not evaluated on teaching, teaching assignments in support of research and creative activity should be included in annual evaluations. 

5. Persons holding research ranks would not be eligible for consideration for tenure-line faculty rank, except as successful applicants responding to a normal, advertised search along with other candidates under established procedures. Persons holding tenure-line faculty ranks are similarly not eligible for consideration for research faculty ranks, except as successful applicants responding to a normal, advertised search along with other candidates under established procedures. 

E. Research Tenure

In view of the number of research projects in effect in the whole University program, and to afford some employment security to the many individuals concerned in carrying out those projects, the following policy, designated as “Research Tenure,” has been adopted. It is recommended:

• That it be recognized that, because of their expectations of long continuance, certain research projects or units/institutes with continuing sources of funding shall be designated as projects or units/institutes in which “research tenure” can be achieved.

That the directors of such projects and/or the head(s) of the units/institutes be permitted to recommend, when they deem it proper—but not before the person to be recommended has served on the project or in the institute for at least a year— research faculty for "research tenure.” Such recommendation constitutes testimony that the persons recommended for “research tenure” are so important to the project or unit/institute that their employment should be continued indefinitely if the persons wish to continue being so employed.

2. In recommending research tenure, the project director or unit head must provide satisfactory evidence that funding for the possible one-year termination period is assured within the budget of the recommending units or from some extramural funding source.

3. That, a recommendation be made by an appropriate academic administrator (e.g., Dean or, in the case of University-level institutions, a responsible administrator in IU Research) and the Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs, who may appoint appropriate advisory committees of faculty to assist them in reviewing such recommendations. Upon a favorable recommendation, the research faculty shall be notified that they have been granted “research tenure.” Such designation shall further assure each person so approved that they will be retained in the employ of Indiana University (save for termination for adequate cause), at their customary salary rate, for a minimum of one year from the time it is decided—and they have been notified formally—that their employment will be discontinued.  

Approved: BFC 3/18/80, 12/1/09, 04/02/24 ; Trustees 2/7/81.

2023 Best National Research Uni­ver­si­ties Top 50 Consensus Ranked National Research Uni­ver­si­ties for 2023

Ready to start your journey.

Get a personalized list of degree programs that fit your needs.

Students who want a place at one of the best research universities are in the right place with College Consensus. With the Top Consensus Ranked National Research Universities for 2023, College Consensus brings prospective college students all they need to know about the best research universities nationwide. For future professionals, researchers, scientists, and scholars, College Consensus gathers data from national and international ranking agencies and verified student reviews for a complete view of their educational options.

How Did We Rank the Best Research Universities?

College Consensus rankings combine the results of the most respected college ranking systems with the averaged ratings of thousands of real student reviews from around the web to create a unique college meta-ranking. This approach offers a comprehensive and holistic perspective missing from other college rankings. Visit our about page for information on which rankings and review sites were included in this year’s consensus rankings.

The National Research Universities category is limited to schools with a national or international reach offering a broad range of undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral-level programs and a demonstrated commitment to research. These are schools designated Doctoral Universities by the Carnegie Classification.

The top research universities include some of the most prestigious and world-renowned names in higher education. We define national research universities as institutions that draw a student body from across the US and world, rather than a primarily regional population. These are universities that are classified by the Carnegie Foundation as research universities: R1 (Highest Research Activity), R2 (Higher Research Activity), or R3 (Moderate Research Activity). These designations include well over 300 universities nationwide. National research universities are dedicated not only to teaching, but on creating new knowledge through scientific, social scientific, and humanities research.

Recommended Online Colleges & Universities

Explore our featured online programs to find the right match for you today.

What’s Different About the College Consensus Ranking?

The difference between College Consensus and other ranking sites is the difference between Rotten Tomatoes and your favorite movie reviewer. College Consensus is comprehensive. It’s not just one voice stating an opinion – it’s many, many voices, computed objectively and equally. Students who are actually there day to day have as much say about their college as experts who have never visited. And all of those perspectives mean an even playing field for every college and university, from the richest and best-known university to the smallest and hardest-working regional college.

This ranking focuses on the best nationally-recognized, major research universities. For students who are interested in the more traditional atmosphere of a small college, College Consensus has also ranked the Best National Liberal Arts Colleges . For the full, comprehensive ranking of all American colleges and universities, regardless of size or class, see the Best Colleges and Universities . For online schools, see the Best Online Colleges & Universities .

The Top Consensus Ranked National Research Universities are listed in descending order by their Consensus score. In the event of ties, schools are ranked in alphabetical order with the same rank number.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA

Stanford university stanford, ca, yale university new haven, ct, princeton university princeton, nj, harvard university cambridge, ma, vanderbilt university nashville, tn, cornell university ithaca, ny, dartmouth college hanover, nh, brown university providence, ri, university of notre dame notre dame, in, recommended online colleges & universities.

Visit sites to learn more about enrollment, tuition, and aid

Duke University Durham, NC

Rice university houston, tx, university of pennsylvania philadelphia, pa, university of california-los angeles los angeles, ca, california institute of technology pasadena, ca, columbia university in the city of new york new york, ny, washington university in st louis saint louis, mo, university of california-berkeley berkeley, ca, university of chicago chicago, il, university of michigan-ann arbor ann arbor, mi, northwestern university evanston, il, university of north carolina at chapel hill chapel hill, nc, university of southern california los angeles, ca, university of california-davis davis, ca, georgetown university washington, dc, university of virginia-main campus charlottesville, va, university of florida gainesville, fl, johns hopkins university baltimore, md, carnegie mellon university pittsburgh, pa, emory university atlanta, ga, university of wisconsin-madison madison, wi, university of illinois urbana-champaign champaign, il, georgia institute of technology-main campus atlanta, ga, university of california-san diego la jolla, ca, wake forest university winston-salem, nc, university of california-irvine irvine, ca, university of washington-seattle campus seattle, wa, university of california-santa barbara santa barbara, ca, boston college chestnut hill, ma, the university of texas at austin austin, tx, tufts university medford, ma, virginia polytechnic institute and state university blacksburg, va, lehigh university bethlehem, pa, new york university new york, ny, purdue university-main campus west lafayette, in, brigham young university provo, ut, william & mary williamsburg, va, texas a & m university-college station college station, tx, tulane university of louisiana new orleans, la, university of maryland-college park college park, md.

Why choose a research university? The best research universities offer opportunities for students to engage with faculty who are expanding their fields. Because professors are making new breakthroughs all the time, the learning environment is charged with excitement and students are able to learn about the latest studies before the results make it into their textbooks.

In addition, attending a research university often affords students opportunities they would not have at other schools. For example, they may have access to internships and have opportunities to do research with experts in their fields. They may even be invited to networking events with well-known professors, which could introduce them to valuable contacts and mentors.

What Makes a University a Research University?

So what is the difference between a research university vs. a teaching university? A focus on research is what makes a university a research university. The definition of a research university is a university that is committed to furthering our collective body of knowledge through research. 

Unlike teaching universities, which put teaching above everything else, research universities place a higher importance on research. This does not mean that the teaching at a research university is sub-par, however. At the best research universities, professors who are excited about their research often carry their enthusiasm into the classroom. They ignite passion in their students by sharing the results of their research with their classes.

If you’re looking for the best research universities, look through our research university rankings. We have carefully considered each school’s strengths and weaknesses and compiled a list of the top research universities in the country. Our research university rankings will help you choose the right university for you.

What is the Relationship Between Government Funding and Research Universities?

Government funding to universities is currently around 60% of the total R&D budget. This is down from a high of 73% in the late 1960s. However, in inflation-adjusted dollars, the amount has actually increased from around $8 billion per year to over $30 billion in spite of the lower percentage. This indicates that, adjusted for inflation, R&D budgets at research universities have grown over the past few decades.

Still, federal research grants to universities account for over half of the R&D funding for these schools. However, since federal funding covers less of the costs than it has in the past, schools have had to cover a larger share of their R&D budgets themselves. The percentage paid by the schools was less than 10% in the late 60s, but has risen to more than 20% today.

Since government funding to universities now covers a smaller percentage of research costs, many universities have responded by charging higher tuition and fees to make up the difference. However, public outcry against the burgeoning student debt crisis is forcing research universities to come up with an alternative way to make up for the reduced federal research grants to universities.

Many research universities have come up with new ways to gain additional funding or reduce expenses. These include partnerships with corporations and cooperative agreements with other schools that allow for expanded research efforts at all of the partner schools. Some schools are also engaging in their own development projects in order to raise additional funding.

Top Research Universities by Funding

Looking at the top research universities by funding, Johns Hopkins University receives more than twice as much federal funding as the #2 school. Around $2 billion of Johns Hopkins’s $2.3 billion R&D budget comes from the federal government. The school is followed by the University of Washington in 2nd place ($960.6 million), the University of Michigan in 3rd ($756.1 million), Stanford University in 4th ($679.6 million), and the University of California, San Diego in 5th ($643.0 million).

Are Research Universities Only for STEM Majors?

Although the best undergraduate research universities include the best science colleges in the world, research universities are not just for STEM majors . In fact, a recent study by Drexel University found that non-STEM students are just as likely to benefit from undergrad research experiences as STEM students.

The results were based on a survey of students who participated in the STAR (Students Tackling Advanced Research) program at Drexel University, one of the best science colleges in the world. Students indicated that they felt that the research benefited them in all areas of study, not just in STEM subject areas.

Some of the benefits students reported included improvements in their ability to work independently, feeling more comfortable discussing concepts or explaining projects to people outside of their fields, and gaining hands-on experience that they feel will help enhance their resumes.

At the best research universities, students have plenty of opportunities to participate in research. Regardless of major, being involved in a research project increases the chances that the student will remain in the program and eventually graduate. This effect is stronger when the research is conducted earlier in the program.

• History, Facts & Figures
• YSM Dean & Deputy Deans
• YSM Administration
• Department Chairs
• YSM Executive Group
• YSM Board of Permanent Officers
• FAC Documents
• Current FAC Members
• Appointments & Promotions Committees
• Ad Hoc Committees and Working Groups
• Chair Searches
• Leadership Searches
• Organization Charts
• Faculty Demographic Data
• Professionalism Reporting Data
• 2022 Diversity Engagement Survey
• State of the School Archive
• Faculty Climate Survey: YSM Results
• Strategic Planning
• Mission Statement & Process
• Beyond Sterling Hall
• COVID-19 Series Workshops
• Previous Workshops
• Departments & Centers
• Find People
• Biomedical Data Science
• Health Equity
• Inflammation
• Neuroscience
• Global Health
• Diabetes and Metabolism
• Policies & Procedures
• Media Relations
• A to Z YSM Lab Websites
• A-Z Faculty List
• A-Z Staff List
• A to Z Abbreviations
• Dept. Diversity Vice Chairs & Champions
• Dean’s Advisory Council on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Intersex Affairs Website
• Minority Organization for Retention and Expansion Website
• Office for Women in Medicine and Science
• Committee on the Status of Women in Medicine Website
• Director of Scientist Diversity and Inclusion
• Diversity Supplements
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Recruitment
• By Department & Program
• News & Events
• Executive Committee
• Aperture: Women in Medicine
• Self-Reflection
• Portraits of Strength
• Mindful: Mental Health Through Art
• Event Photo Galleries
• Additional Support
• MD-PhD Program
• PA Online Program
• Joint MD Programs
• How to Apply
• Advanced Health Sciences Research
• Clinical Informatics & Data Science
• Clinical Investigation
• Medical Education
• Visiting Student Programs
• Special Programs & Student Opportunities
• Residency & Fellowship Programs
• Center for Med Ed
• Organizational Chart
• Leadership & Staff
• Committee Procedural Info (Login Required)
• Faculty Affairs Department Teams
• Recent Appointments & Promotions

Academic Clinician Track

Clinician educator-scholar track.

• Clinican-Scientist Track

Investigator Track

Traditional track, research ranks.

• Instructor/Lecturer

Social Work Ranks

Voluntary ranks, adjunct ranks.

• Other Appt Types
• Appointments
• Reappointments
• Transfer of Track
• Term Extensions
• Timeline for A&P Processes
• Interfolio Faculty Search
• Interfolio A&P Processes
• Yale CV Part 1 (CV1)
• Yale CV Part 2 (CV2)
• Samples of Scholarship
• Teaching Evaluations
• Letters of Evaluation
• Dept A&P Narrative
• A&P Voting
• Faculty Affairs Staff Pages
• OAPD Faculty Workshops
• Leadership & Development Seminars
• List of Faculty Mentors
• Incoming Faculty Orientation
• Faculty Onboarding
• Past YSM Award Recipients
• Past PA Award Recipients
• Past YM Award Recipients
• International Award Recipients
• Nominations Calendar
• OAPD Newsletter
• Fostering a Shared Vision of Professionalism
• Academic Integrity
• Addressing Professionalism Concerns
• Consultation Support for Chairs & Section Chiefs
• Policies & Codes of Conduct
• First Fridays
• Faculty Facing Caregiving Need
• Fund for Physician-Scientist Mentorship
• Grant Library
• Grant Writing Course
• Mock Study Section
• Research Paper Writing
• Establishing a Thriving Research Program
• Funding Opportunities
• Join Our Voluntary Faculty
• Child Mental Health: Fostering Wellness in Children
• Faculty Resources
• Research by Keyword
• Research by Department
• Research by Global Location
• Translational Research
• Research Cores & Services
• Program for the Promotion of Interdisciplinary Team Science (POINTS)
• CEnR Steering Committee
• Experiential Learning Subcommittee
• Goals & Objectives
• Faculty & Staff
• Issues List
• Print Magazine PDFs
• Print Newsletter PDFs
• YSM Events Newsletter
• Social Media
• Patient Care

INFORMATION FOR

• Residents & Fellows
• Researchers

Faculty Tracks, Ranks, & Positions

The faculty of the School of Medicine together are responsible for advancing the clinical, educational, and research missions of the School. The faculty tracks and ranks recognize the different levels of experience, expertise, and accomplishments in each of these domains. For each of the tracks, ranks, and positions, please consult the Yale University Faculty Handbook for details and official policies. RANKS AND TRACKS OVERVIEW VIDEO

Ladder Tracks and Ranks

The professoriate of YSM hold appointments in one of five ladder tracks that have varying emphasis on clinical, educational, and research activities. A summary that represents key YSM Ladder Faculty Track Metrics (Version updated for academic year starting 7/2023) has been developed for reference. This information is reflected in the sections below. TRACK AND RANK EXPECTATION VIDEO

In general, appointment to or advancement on these tracks beyond the rank of assistant professor requires excellence in one or more domains. Regional/emerging national and eventually national/international recognition for contributions and impact on the field are associated with advancement.

Clinician-Scientist Track

Non-ladder ranks and positions.

Non-track appointments may be made for the following positions. These ranks / positions are comprised of key members of the Yale School of Medicine community.

Instructor / Lecturer

Other appointment types.

Nothing on this website supersedes what is delineated in the Yale University Faculty Handbook.

• [email protected]

Unfortunately we don't fully support your browser. If you have the option to, please upgrade to a newer version or use Mozilla Firefox , Microsoft Edge , Google Chrome , or Safari 14 or newer. If you are unable to, and need support, please send us your feedback .

We'd appreciate your feedback. Tell us what you think! opens in new tab/window

Understanding Scopus & SciVal & the THE World University Rankings

A closer look for university leaders

Request a consultation

Updated: 3 June 2024

What data do university rankings use?

There are many global rankings organizations. These include magazines, newspapers, websites, higher education institutions and governments. Some rankings organizations specialize in international rankings, others in national or regional rankings, and a few do both. For an overview of seven major rankings organizations,  download the quick guide opens in new tab/window .

Ranking methodologies rely on data inputs from a range of external resources. These resources often include university and researcher data, relevant data on human resources, student administration, finances, and data from reputation surveys — each varying based on a rankings' niche and focus. In this guide, we focus on the bibliometrics used by Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings (WUR). For a broader look at university rankings, please visit our  Guide to University Rankings .

Bibliometric datasets

One dataset most rankers use as part of their methodologies is bibliometric data. This data is associated with the documents or publications that researchers publish to share their findings. You can glean several data points and insights from bibliometric datasets, some of which are detailed below:

Number of citations received by publications from researchers at an institution.

Number of publications produced by researchers at an institution.

Research collaboration profiles, particularly international collaboration, of researchers and institutions.

Researchers’ institutional affiliation.

By using bibliometric datasets from a curated and authoritative source, rankers get a quantitative, consistent and comparable look at each university's research output to make it easier to compare them.

What challenges do universities face related to the bibliometric datasets used in rankings?

Understanding and obtaining the actual bibliometric data used to calculate the rankings is difficult. Because of this, if you are planning a rankings strategy for your institution, you may find yourself creating proxies based on your best estimates, limiting the strategic value.

Two ways to help address this challenge are:

Understand the methodology behind the ranking and pay attention to changes annually.

Remove the need for manual curation and development of proxy indicators.

In this guide, we first discuss the THE WUR methodology and further explain and bring transparency to the bibliometrics underpinning the THE World University Rankings. Then, we will discuss ways to overcome the need for proxies and manual curation.

How are the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings (WUR) calculated?

THE introduced a new methodology — WUR 3.0 — with the 2024 Rankings released on September 27, 2023. Included in the updates was the introduction of a wider range of bibliometric measures, improved international metrics and an expanded role for knowledge transfer.

THE’s methodology groups 18 performance indicators into five major areas:

Teaching (the learning environment) 29.5%

Research Environment (volume, income and reputation) 29%

Research quality (citation impact, research strength, research excellence and research influence) 30%

International outlook (staff, students and research) 7.5 %

Industry (income and patents) 4.0 %

Data accessed from the THE website opens in new tab/window on September 28, 2023.

The weight distribution applied across the 18 performance indicators that THE uses in its WUR methodology (note: the study abroad indicator will be added in the future as the 18th).   Adapted from THE website opens in new tab/window . Find more details below.

How does Elsevier data contribute to the THE WUR?

Elsevier supports the ranking process by providing bibliometric datasets on an institution’s research. The methodology ultimately used in the WUR is determined by Times Higher Education. Elsevier partners with ranking organizations and research institutions to provide objective and authoritative bibliometric datasets in addition to bibliometric and data science expertise.

Elsevier bibliometric datasets and metrics contribute to 40% of THE WUR methodology and overall ranking score. This includes new metrics introduced with the WUR 2024: Research Strength, Research Excellence, Research Influence and the Cited by Patents metrics.

As stated by THE,

Elsevier’s bibliometrics help to measure how well each university is contributing to the sum of human knowledge: they tell us whose research has stood out, has been picked up and built on by other scholars and, most importantly, has been shared around the global scholarly community to expand the boundaries of human understanding, irrespective of discipline. ( THE rankings methodology guide opens in new tab/window , accessed September 28, 2023)

Why does Times Higher Education use Scopus® Data?

Scopus®  is a source of research publication and bibliometric data that several rankers rely on. In 2014, THE adopted Scopus as its source for research publication and bibliometric data. At that time, Trevor Barratt, former managing director of THE, said:

Research publication data for the rankings will in the future be drawn from Elsevier’s Scopus database. The new data source will allow us to analyze a deeper range of research activity from a wider range of institutions than at present, including those institutions from emerging economies that account for a growing portion of the world’s research output and which have shown a great hunger for THE’s trusted global performance metrics.

Times Higher Education (THE) uses Scopus Data in several rankings, including their World University Rankings, Impact Rankings and the Young Universities Rankings.

A snapshot of the depth and breadth of Elsevier's bibliometric data:

For the WUR 2024, Elsevier examined more than 134 million citations to 16.5 million journal articles, article reviews, conference proceedings, books and book chapters over a five-year period. The data includes over 27,950 active peer-reviewed journals indexed by Scopus and all indexed publications between 2018 and 2022. Citations to these publications made in the six years from 2018 to 2023 are also collected.

A closer look to understand where Elsevier bibliometrics contribute.

Citation impact (15% of total score).

Elsevier has calculated the Citation Impact score per institution for Times Higher Education since 2015. The score is derived from the Field Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) metric.

FWCI is a normalized citation metric that considers different citation practices across disciplines and publication types. It is a mean and is calculated by taking the actual number of citations received by each publication produced by an entity, which, in the case of rankings, is a university compared with the average number of citations received by all other similar publications. ‘Similar publications’ are publications in the Scopus database that have the same publication year, type and discipline as defined by the Scopus journal classification system (ASJC).

FWCI, therefore, normalizes for the subject area or discipline, year of publication and publication type (see Glossary ). Within the THE WUR, publications with more than 1,000 authors have a fractional counting approach. An FWCI score of 1.00 indicates the publications produced by the entity of interest, in this case, a university, have been cited on par with the global average for similar publications.

It is important to note that the THE WUR applies a 5-year citation window to the FWCI calculation for their methodology, whereas the standard FWCI methodology, used in products such as SciVal and Scopus, uses a 4-year citation window. Additionally, for territories or regions that cannot be country-normalized, THE's data science team applies a series of further normalizations to determine the final Citation Impact score.

Research Strength (5% of total score)

New to the WUR 2024, the Research Strength measurements adds an additional view of research quality that reduces the effect of extremely highly cited publications. It is based on the 75th percentile of the 5-year FWCI and contributes 5.0% of the final rankings score.

Research Excellence (5% of total score)

Another new addition to THE’s 3.0 methodology, Research Excellence aims to recognize the institution’s contribution to the best research per subject. The calculation is derived from the number of publications a ranked university has in the top 10% of all publications by FWCI (5 year) and contributes to 5.0% of the final rankings score. It is normalized by year, subject and staff numbers at the university.

Research Influence (5% of total score)

A third new indicator added to the Research Quality category is Research Influence, making up 5% of the total score. It suggests “a broader look at excellence” — the influence a publication is having by being recognized, through citation, in other influential publications ( see THE website opens in new tab/window , accessed on September 28, 2023). The indicator looks at the network of citations around publications to understand the impact or “importance” they have more broadly through being cited by other ‘important’ publications, for example, which are also highly cited. It uses an iterative method, taking into account the citation patterns to determine the “importance” of publications while also considering citation pattern differences across subject areas.

For both the Research Excellence and the Research Influence indicators, Elsevier provides the raw data for THE to use in their calculations.

Research Productivity (5.5% of total score)

THE's Research Productivity indicator provides insight into researchers’ publishing activity through their ability to publish in quality peer-reviewed titles indexed in Elsevier’s Scopus database. The indicator is scaled to account for institution size and normalized for subject/discipline.

International Co-authorship (2.5% of total score)

International Co-authorship measures the proportion of a university's publications with at least one international co-author. This metric is based on Elsevier’s Scopus Data .

Patents (2.0% of total score)

Patents, another new indicator introduced with the WUR 2024, recognizes how an institution supports its national economy through technology transfer. It is calculated based on the count of patents citing an entity’s published research. The data is provided by Elsevier and relates to patents sourced from the World Intellectual Property Organisation, the European Patent Office, and the patent offices of the US, the UK and Japan, published between 2018 and 2022 for THE WUR 2024.

For a more in-depth understanding of THE’s methodology and calculations, please refer to their website and methodology guide here opens in new tab/window .

How can I be included in the Times Higher Education world rankings?

Times Higher Education does not rank all universities in their World University Rankings. They use three key criteria to determine which universities to rank:

Publish . You are required to publish a sufficient number of academic papers over a five-year period. Currently, the threshold is more than 1,000.

Teach undergraduates .

Wide Focus . Work across a range of subjects.

Other types of rankings have different inclusion criteria.

How do Scopus & SciVal work together to contribute to THE WUR?

Elsevier offers research information and analytics solutions like Scopus and SciVal to assist universities in evaluating their research performance — both in general and as it relates to their performance in university rankings. You can use these solutions to analyze the actual bibliometric datasets used by, for example THE and QS in their World University Rankings methodology, or to help analyze your publication output, citation impact, collaboration patterns, and other factors that can influence your ranking outcomes.

How are the two related? Scopus is the authoritative and trusted bibliometric database the major rankers choose to provide the bibliometric datasets they use in their methodologies. SciVal adds analytical power and flexibility to the same bibliometric data, offering a range of metrics, such as the 5-year FWCI, analyses and reports to investigate and understand the drivers behind the bibliometrics used in rankings.

What is Scopus Data?

It is crucial to understand Scopus’s role in the rankings to ensure that rankers such as THE accurately reflect your institution.

Scopus is an authoritative, source-neutral abstract and citation database  curated by independent subject matter experts .

There are three things you need to know about Scopus:

What is in the database, and which parts inform THE World University Rankings?

What is an institution or organization profile, and how can I view mine?

What are author profiles?

The Scopus Database

Scopus uniquely combines a comprehensive, curated abstract and citation database with enriched data and linked scholarly content. It is a structured source of publication items. The structure includes organizing the data generated in relationships, e.g., authors, citations, institutions, etc.

Scopus contains millions of data points, 7000+ publishers, platforms, and sources. In addition to all this data, Scopus uses artificial intelligence to connect the data to the correct authors and institutions.

Scopus is organized in a structured way so you (and Times Higher Education) can use it to find insights about your research. Further, by using the API, data can be extracted and used in other institutional systems.

Author Profiles, Institution Profiles and Affiliation Hierarchy

When discussing rankings, it is important to discuss Scopus Author and Institution Profiles and the affiliation hierarchy. When calculating their ranking reports, THE uses these to attribute the correct research to your institution.

The Institution Profile Wizard (IPW) allows institutions to modify their institution profiles and correct their organizational hierarchies to ensure the set of institution profiles are grouped together and displayed on Scopus are accurate. This ensures ranking organizations see a clear picture of institutions' research activity.

Authors can also check and validate their Scopus Author Profiles through the free Author Profile Wizard (APW). Although Scopus has a high level of accuracy and recall for Author Profiles, enabling authors themselves to check and validate their profiles further improves both data accuracy and data confidence.

Although authors can check their profiles through the free APW, for institutions with high Scopus adoption, researchers are naturally more active in accessing and maintaining their author profile.

How can I better understand my university’s research & ranking with SciVal?

SciVal is built upon the foundation of trusted, globally sourced data from Scopus, bolstered by supplementary resources like policy and patent data. It employs advanced data science and artificial intelligence methodologies to empower you with analytical capabilities for gaining profound insights into global research activities.

In other words, SciVal brings to life insights into your institution’s research activities against peer benchmarks and emerging research trends to enhance strategy and decision-making. With uniquely adaptable analyses and meaningful insights, you can evaluate and showcase expertise and impact at the researcher, department, faculty and university-level and support future funding success.

How can SciVal help you with your rankings analyses and strategies, and remove the need for proxies?

Rather than relying on manual curation and the development of proxy indicators, SciVal’s rankings analysis enables you investigate, understand and generate insights based on the actual bibliometric datasets used in the THE World University Rankings (THE WUR), as well as the bibliometric datasets used in the QS World University Rankings (QS WUR) and the THE Impact Rankings.

For THE WUR, this means you can analyze, understand and gain insights from the actual bibliometric dataset contributing to 40% of the overall ranking score. In the image below, you see this in action.

Analyze, understand and generate insights based on the actual FWCI and citation scores

Here you see the Rankings analysis for a university, including a detailed view to their performance across each bibliometric indicator used in the THE WUR 2024. The THE WUR’s for 2021 to 2023 are also available, enabling you to analyze the drivers behind the scores, including the new metrics introduced in 2024. Extensive metric guidance also helps you learn about the previous and new ranking methodologies.

The insights you gather from the ranking analysis feature is designed to help you get a deeper understanding of your position, the drivers underlying the rankings, and to inform your ranking strategy.

Watch the video below for an example of how SciVal and Scopus help bring clarity to university rankings.

Demystify University Rankings: A closer look

How can i better understand our international and industry collaboration partners through the lens of rankings.

International and cross-sector collaboration are important elements, not only in ranking methodologies, but across your research strategy and department-level plans; therefore, evaluating your collaborations is invaluable. With SciVal, you can analyze your current and potential collaboration partners based on a wide array of metrics including their overall rank across four different Rankings: THE World University Rankings, THE Impact Rankings, QS Rankings and Shanghai Rankings.

How can I understand, monitor and benchmark our institution against our peers?

A key part of your Rankings analysis is also to understand the performance of other peer institutions. For example, you might be interested in analyzing how you compare to those universities positioned above and below you in international collaboration while also tracking the THE Citation Score. Here you may discover key insights that help inform plans moving forward. While it is easy to see in ranking tables which institutions are ranked similarly to you, having the flexibility to define the institutions you want to benchmark against, and then to investigate the bibliometric dataset driving key aspects of their rank, helps you develop a clearer picture.

This is why having the bibliometrics used by rankings providers in SciVal is additionally helpful. You can select THE World University Rankings and build your own heatmap, visualizing trends or creating charts to analyze a selected set of institutions across all the bibliometric drivers.

Although SciVal cannot predict where you will be placed on any future ranking, especially as there are many factors involved, it can help you better address questions related to the bibliometric datasets and indicators that inform current rankings. The insights gained can be fed back across your strategy and, or development plans.

Overall, no matter your position and role at a university, if you need to understand university rankings there are a variety ways SciVal can support you, such as:

Creating management-level reports based on deep-dives into the bibliometric-based data used in major rankings.

Creating benchmarking reports against peers across the bibliometrics used in rankings.

Use analyses to inform development of faculty and department-level strategic plans and publication strategies.

In conclusion, Scopus is an authoritative and comprehensive database, trusted by major ranking organizations, for accurate and connected bibliometric datasets. It is also at the core of SciVal. By combining the analytical power and flexibility of SciVal, together with the breadth and depth of connected bibliometric data from Scopus, you gain a digital consultant that not only helps you answer questions related to rankings, but also helps uncover insights you can apply across your research programs and strategic planning.

Do you want to learn even more about Scopus and SciVal?

loading slideshow...

Classification of Ranks and Titles

Faculty appointments are classified into ranks and groups by title. These classifications have significance in regard to benefits and rights that may or may not pertain to each category or classification. The granting of Tenure, discussed in “Tenure and Promotion on the Charles River Campus”, is a separate guarantee that is not implied by any of the titles discussed in this section. The original letter of appointment and each subsequent salary notification or reappointment letter shall indicate clearly the title, nature, duration, Tenure status, and salary of the appointment. Each School or College should have clear statements of the expectations for faculty of each rank and type of title.

Unless otherwise stated, the titles and associated criteria described below apply to the faculty of both the Charles River and Medical Campuses. All persons receiving faculty appointments should have engaged in significant scholarly work or have notable professional expertise and achievement. The standard academic ranks are Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor. The standard professorial titles (and where appropriate Instructor) are significantly altered by the addition of modifiers such as Emeritus, University, Clinical, Research, Adjunct, or Visiting. The standard lecturer ranks are Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, and Master Lecturer.

Appointments with the standard professorial titles of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor may be Non-Tenure-Track, Tenure-Track, or Tenured. All other faculty appointments are by definition Non-Tenure-Track and without tenure.

A distinction is also made between full-time and part-time appointments. Full-time appointees are expected to give full-time service and allegiance to the University. No right of Tenure accrues to any person holding a part-time position regardless of title, rank, or cumulative length of service. The duties of and terms and conditions for part-time faculty shall be articulated in each letter of appointment.

A. Description of Standard Academic Ranks

The basic qualifications and standards established to identify the degree and types of achievement expected in each rank vary among the University’s Schools and Colleges, and the various programs within them. The general descriptions are as follows:

Instructor : At the Charles River Campus, an Instructor normally holds a minimum of a Master’s degree or equivalent, has completed most or all of the requirements for the doctorate or equivalent, and is expected to demonstrate effectiveness primarily as a teacher. At the Medical Campus, Instructor is the entry level rank for those who have recently completed their post doctoral training, residency or fellowship training. This rank is appropriate for new faculty, generally with M.D., Ph.D. or equivalent degrees, who have the potential for academic advancement. Medical Campus individuals at the instructor level may be in positions of advanced training prior to leaving the institution or being promoted to the assistant professor rank.

All full-time Instructors are entitled under the by-laws of the University to attend and participate in the faculty meetings of their respective School or College. If authorized by the School or College faculty, they may have the right to vote.

Assistant Professor : Generally, an assistant professor has been awarded a doctoral or professional degree or equivalent, exhibits commitment to teaching and scholarly or professional work of high caliber, and participates in University affairs at least at the department level

Associate Professor : Generally, an associate professor meets the requirements for appointment as an assistant professor, enjoys a national reputation as a scholar or professional, shows a high degree of teaching proficiency and commitment, and demonstrates public, professional, or University service beyond the department

Professor : Generally, a professor meets the requirements for appointment as an associate professor, and, in addition, has a distinguished record of accomplishment that leads to an international or, as appropriate, national reputation in his or her field.

B. Definition of Prefixes and Suffixes that Modify Standard Academic Titles

The standard professorial titles above and the title Instructor may be significantly modified by the use of prefixes, as follows:

The title University Professor is given to distinguished and exceptional individuals who are internationally recognized experts in their field, have demonstrated excellence in more than one academic specialty, who are qualified to lecture and/or conduct research in a particular subject, and who are appointed specifically to teach in the University Professors Program.

The prefix Clinical identifies appointments that primarily provide practical instruction and application of practical knowledge. On the Medical Campus, the title describes faculty whose primary activity is limited to clinical or public health practice and associated teaching. The duties, terms of appointment, and salaries (if any) of such persons are specified in the letter of appointment. In general, the applicable rank and any subsequent promotions should be determined by the relevant academic achievements, professional accomplishments, and demonstrated effectiveness of the appointee. A variety of titles are used to designate such positions including:

• Clinical Instructor
• Clinical Assistant Professor
• Clinical Associate Professor
• Clinical Professor

Associate Professors of the Practice and Professors of the Practice are officers of instruction who are or have been distinguished practitioners in their respective professions and whose primary responsibilities lie in teaching, mentoring, and service to the University.*

The “ of the practice ” suffix applies to a distinguished practitioner who through teaching shares his or her knowledge and experience in the profession. The prefix “Clinical” is used for certain faculty engaged in clinical settings with students. The teaching, supervising, and mentoring provided by clinical faculty is directly related to the practicum of the students’ programs.

The prefix Research identifies faculty appointments that are offered to scientists and scholars who fulfill the research qualifications of the standard professorial or Instructor ranks and who work for the University on research supported by external grants and contracts. The principal criteria for these titles are scholarly productivity and recognition of original work. Several titles are used to designate such positions:

• Research Instructor
• Research Assistant Professor
• Research Associate Professor
• Research Professor

Research faculty are eligible to give seminars and teach occasional courses. Teaching is at the discretion of the department. These titles may be used for appointments of one year or longer. Research appointments are for the stated term of the appointment with no guarantee or expectation of renewal. The timetables for notice of non-reappointment set forth in the section, “Appointment and Reappointment of Faculty on the Charles River Campus” and “Appointment and Continuance of Appointments for Full-Time Faculty on the Medical Campus” are not applicable.

The prefix Adjunct identifies a scholar whose primary place of employment is not Boston University or whose primary employment within the University is not in a faculty capacity. An Adjunct Professor is an expert in a special field appointed to give instruction on a part-time or discontinuous basis. These part-time appointments may be in the ranks of:

• Adjunct Assistant Professor
• Adjunct Associate Professor
• Adjunct Professor

Duties usually include the teaching and advising of students but do not include service on departmental committees.

At the Medical Campus, standard professorial titles are given to faculty members teaching at Boston University affiliated hospitals. Adjunct appointments are appropriate if faculty have primary appointments at another university.

The prefix Adjunct Clinical is used for appointments of persons employed in a clinical setting where students receive clinical instruction. These appointments are usually without salary. The criteria for adjunct clinical faculty are the same as for regular faculty appointments of comparable rank.

• Adjunct Clinical Instructor
• Adjunct Clinical Assistant Professor
• Adjunct Clinical Associate Professor
• Adjunct Clinical Professor

The prefix Visiting identifies a faculty member who normally teaches at another institution or possesses other professorial qualifications and is appointed to give instruction for a stated term, ordinarily of one year or less on a full or part-time basis. The titles used to indicate such an instructional appointment are:

• Visiting Assistant Professor
• Visiting Associate Professor
• Visiting Professor

The prefix Visiting Research indicates that the purpose of the appointment is to facilitate collaboration with one or more members of the faculty on a specific research or scholarly project, for a stated period. The titles used are:

• Visiting Research Assistant Professor
• Visiting Research Associate Professor
• Visiting Research Professor

The qualifications of teaching and scholarship for Visiting and Visiting Research faculty are the same as expected for professorial appointments of comparable rank in the University. Persons receiving such appointments are expected to comply with all University policies pertaining to full-time positions unless otherwise clearly indicated in the letter of appointment.

Emeritus: The Emeritus designation is intended to recognize professors for lifetime contributions to the university, to their field, or to both, upon their retirement. “Emeritus” status is available to tenured and non-tenure track professorial faculty, including those who hold titles modified by “Clinical,” “Research” and “of the Practice.” Please see “Emeritus Status” in the Faculty Retirement section for more detail.

Affiliated/Secondary Appointment : An Affiliated or Secondary title is given to full-time faculty as a means of formalizing an association with a department other than that of the primary appointment. The affiliation must be recommended by the department and dean following the procedure specified by the School or College, as approved by the Provost. Termination of the primary appointment shall automatically terminate the affiliated/secondary appointment. Voting rights are outlined in the terms of the appointment.

C. Definition of Standard Lecturer Ranks

Lecturer : A Lecturer is a faculty member appointed primarily to provide instruction for a stated term of full-time or part-time service, as specified in the appointment letter. The basic qualifications and standards expected of the lecturer vary among the University’s Schools and Colleges but the title reflects strong teaching ability and a relevant basis of scholarly work or professional expertise and achievement.

Senior Lecturer or Master Lecturer : Generally, a Senior Lecturer or Master Lecturer meets the requirements for appointment as a Lecturer, and has demonstrated excellence in teaching for at least five or ten years, respectively.

Adopted April 18, 2007, by the University Council.

Last revised on March 23, 2021, by the University Council.

*Creation of the modified faculty title “of the Practice” approved by the University Council, April 8, 2009.

View the latest institution tables

View the latest country/territory tables

The top 10 research institutions for 2018

These institutions were the largest contributors to papers published in the past year in the 82 leading journals tracked by the Nature Index.

Nature Index

A CAS researcher atop the Yardang landform of Jili Lake in the Xinjiang region of northwestern China. Credit: Han Fang / Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography / Chinese Academy of Sciences

20 June 2019

Han Fang / Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography / Chinese Academy of Sciences

A CAS researcher atop the Yardang landform of Jili Lake in the Xinjiang region of northwestern China.

The Chinese Academy of Sciences has maintained its stronghold as the top contributor of articles tracked by the Index in 2018. As China’s national research body — and the world’s largest research organization — it also recorded the largest growth in publications among the leading 10 institutions.

China’s Peking University has risen up the ranks, making its debut among the leading global institutions in the Nature Index. The university jumped two places in a year, knocking the University of California, Berkeley out of the top 10.

View the 2019 Annual Tables Top 100 global institutions for 2018.

1. Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)

Fractional count: 1,698.14 (6.7%), Article count: 4,842

With an astonishing FC of 1,698.14, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) is the world’s highest ranked research institute by measure of high-quality research output, as tracked by the Nature Index. In 2018, it employed some 60,000 researchers, nearly twice the size of the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS), which employed 33,000 researchers last year.

According to its annual fiscal report, CAS spent 32.23 billion yuan (US$4.6 billion) in science and technology in 2018. It hosts a number of large research facilities, many of them the world's biggest, such as the 500-metre Aperture Spherical Telescope (FAST) in Guizhou Province.

In the Nature Index 2019 Annual Tables, CAS also topped the categories of physical sciences , chemistry , Earth and environmental sciences , and government institutions.

2. Harvard University

Fractional count: 874.68 (−7.3%), Article count: 2,371

Ranked second overall in the Nature Index Annual Tables 2019 and number 1 in the academic institutions , life sciences , and Nature and Science categories, Harvard University has a formidable track record for high-quality research output. It’s also ranked seventh in physical sciences .

One of the oldest universities in the United States , Harvard has produced many high-profile alumni, including 48 Nobel Laureates, 32 heads of state and 48 Pulitzer Prize winners. Its annual funding for research is US$887 million (2018-2019) and its full-time faculty number 2,280.

The university owes two-thirds of its research output to contributions made in the life sciences, partly attributable to the Harvard Medical School , which counts 15 Nobel Prize winners among its current staff and alumni.

“We have very strong professional schools and high-quality programmes here, arguably among the best in the country and in the world,” says vice-provost for research, Richard McCullough. “There is an attraction for some of the best and brightest students and faculty.”

3. Max Planck Society

Fractional count: 757.32 (−2.3%), Article count: 2,431

Headquartered in Munich, the Max Planck Society has 84 institutes and more than 23,000 staff, with scientists accounting for 33% of employees. For two consecutive years , the Max Planck Society has maintained its position as the third biggest producer of high-quality research in the Nature Index. The physical sciences and life sciences account for two-thirds of the 100-year-old institution’s output in journals tracked by the Nature Index.

In 2017, Max Planck Society’s annual budget reached US$1.9 billion, most of which was contributed by the federal government. In addition to basic research, it takes credit for more than 4,000 inventions and 120 company spin-offs, including ProteoPlex, which develops protein analysis techniques.

Last year, a Max Planck Society researcher was joint lead author of a paper revealing evidence that the world’s oldest cave paintings were created by Neanderthals, not humans. The Science paper was mentioned by more than 200 news outlets and in more than 1,000 tweets.

4. National Center for Scientific Research

Fractional count: 689.86 (−8.4%), Article count: 4,085

Led by computer scientist, Antoine Petit, the French National Center for Scientific Research (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, or CNRS) has recently been tasked with coordinating research to assist in the reconstruction of the Notre-Dame cathedral in Paris. That includes modelling, framework and materials assessment, and anthropological studies into how the local population experienced the recent fire and its fallout.

With more than 15,000 researchers, 14,000 engineers, and around 4,000 technicians, CNRS is the only French organization for multidisciplinary research.

Focussing on basic research, the CNRS aims to extend knowledge of natural and social phenomena across a broad spectrum, from cell biology and cognitive science to Roman law and gender stereotypes. It also ranks in the 2019 Nature Index top 10 lists for chemistry , physical sciences , Earth and environmental sciences , and government institutions.

5. Stanford University

Fractional count: 622.01 (−2.6%), Article count: 1,507

Established in 1885 by railroad magnate and former California governor, Leland Stanford, and his wife, Jane, and later bolstered by future US president, Herbert Hoover, Stanford University would go on to become one of the world’s most prestigious — and among the top research institutes overall in high-quality research output as tracked by the Nature Index.

The 33.1-km2 campus located on the San Francisco Peninsula is now one of the largest in the United States, where 2,240 faculty members and more than 16,000 students populate its 18 independent labs, centres and institutes.

Touted as a US$6.5 billion enterprise, Stanford is known for its close ties to Silicon Valley. It ranks as Nature Index’s fifth overall research institution and second academic institution for 2018, and is among the top 10 in the categories of chemistry , physical sciences , life sciences , and Nature and Science .

6. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

Fractional count: 560.28 (1.5%), Article count: 1,698

Founded in 1861 as industrialisation in the United States took hold, MIT now stands as one of the most prestigious higher-education institutions in the world, boasting 90 Nobel laureates, 15 Turing Award winners, and 41 astronauts among its alumni, faculty and researchers.

Its emphasis on interdisciplinary collaboration, applied science, and close ties with industry encourages a strong entrepreneurial culture. A recent MIT report estimated that 30,000 companies founded by its alumni were active as of 2014, employing 4.6 million people and producing annual revenues of $1.9 trillion — equivalent to the world’s tenth largest economy.

It ranks as the number three academic institution and number six institution overall in Nature Index’s 2019 annual tables.

“MIT aims to hire gifted and driven faculty and attract the best students, postdocs, and research staff,” says vice-president for research, Maria T. Zuber. “Then, we aim to give each faculty member the freedom to set their research agenda and pursue their passions.”

7. Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres

Fractional count: 483.23 (−7.6%), Article count: 2,078

With more than 40,000 employees and an annual budget of €4.7 billion, the Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres has become the largest scientific organisation in Germany since its founding in 1995. It’s also a powerhouse in the Nature Index, with the physical sciences accounting for more than one-third of its research output.

In addition to producing high-quality science within its 19 research centres, Helmholtz has formed strong global ties, with international partnerships accounting for around 70% of its collaborations. The institution has attracted roughly 10,000 visiting scientists and international staff from more than 30 countries.

Sören Wiesenfeldt, head of department research, says the institution’s large-scale facilities and infrastructure, from research vessels to particle accelerators, has created an environment where researchers can “shape, preserve and improve the long-term foundations of human life”.

8. The University of Cambridge

Fractional count: 437.83 (0.8%), Article count: 1,283

With more than 800 years of history, the University of Cambridge is one of the world’s oldest higher education institutions, and one of the most prestigious. It appears in Nature Index’s top 10 tables for academic institutions and life sciences for 2018, and ranks eighth overall.

Since its founding in 1209, more than 100 Cambridge affiliates have received a Nobel Prize. It also claims a role in the creation of some 1,500 tech companies, 14 of which have been valued at more than US$1 billion and two at US$10 billion-plus. It has the largest physics department in the UK and is the birthplace of such pioneering work as identification of the structure of DNA and the splitting of the atom.

More recently, its most highly cited researchers include Sir Chris Dobson, author or co-author of nearly 700 papers and review articles, including more than 30 in Nature and Science , which have been cited more than 50,000 times, and Clare Grey, who uses nuclear magnetic resonance to study lithium ion batteries.

9. The University of Tokyo

Fractional count: 430.86 (−12%), Article count: 1,100

The University of Tokyo is the oldest and largest of Japan’s national universities, and has produced many notable alumni, including 15 prime ministers, 10 Nobel laureates and 5 astronauts. Since its foundation in 1877, it has evolved into one of the world’s most prestigious universities, ranking ninth in the Nature Index’s overall top 10 research institutions for 2018.

The University of Tokyo encompasses three core campuses in Hongo, Komaba and Kashiwa, and accesses ¥258,819 million in funding (approximately US$2.3 billion). It garnered 358,373 paper citations between 2013 and 2017, and also ranks in Nature Index’s top 10 for academic institutions and physical sciences for 2018.

In recent years, the university has placed increasing emphasis on opening its doors to the outside world through international collaborations. Its researcher exchange programme involves more than 15,000 academics, the majority of which are from the United States, but close ties are also maintained with China, South Korea , and other countries in Asia.

10. Peking University

Fractional count: 411.85 (0.5%), Article count: 1,427

Peking University was China’s first public comprehensive university, set up in 1898. Since then, it’s been considered one of the country’s two best universities, alongside Tsinghua University .

Located in the Haidian District of Beijing, it stands near to the Yuanmingyuan Garden and the Summer Palace, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Its budgets are much more limited than Tsinghua’s: in 2018 and 2019, its overall budget was 12.55 billion yuan (US$1.82 billion) and 19 billion yuan (US$2.75 billion).

Recent widely discussed papers by Peking University researchers include an analysis of projected decreases in global beer supply due to extreme drought and heat ( Nature Plants , 2018), and the discovery that the Milky Way is far more warped than previously thought ( Nature Astronomy 2019).

Correction 12 August 2019: The original version of this article used incorrect fractional counts, percentage changes and article counts to derive the rankings, which meant that some institutions were ranked incorrectly. The data and rankings have now been corrected.

Sign up to the Nature Index newsletter

Get regular news, analysis and data insights from the editorial team delivered to your inbox.

• Sign up to receive the Nature Index newsletter. I agree my information will be processed in accordance with the Nature and Springer Nature Limited Privacy Policy .

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience and security.

UCLA performs well in all of the national and international rankings of public and private universities, including the most widely known list published by U.S. News & World Report . Below, you’ll find an overview of some of the more significant and well-known national and international rankings.

National Rankings

This year, UCLA joins UC Berkeley as the nation’s No. 1 public university, ranking 20th among all national universities in the U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges rankings. The U.S. News & World Report rankings, despite their popularity, tell only part of the story. They place more emphasis on factors that tend to favor private universities, such as endowment size, rate of alumni giving and student-faculty ratios. Nevertheless, they can be a useful tool that focuses largely on factors related to undergraduate education.

Global Rankings

UCLA ranked 9th out of 100 universities in the Times Higher Education World Reputation Rankings. Distinct from the annual World University Rankings, these rankings are derived solely from the opinions of senior, published academics from around the globe.

U.S. News introduced a new global ranking of universities in 2014. The methodology for this ranking is very different from the publication’s U.S. ranking system. It gives much more weight to academic research and reputation, as well as graduate and professional school quality.

More than 1,200 institutions are evaluated in this ranking, which is based heavily on faculty publications and citations, as well as the number of alumni and faculty who have won Nobel Prizes.

UCLA was 15th overall among the top 1,102 universities in the world in the respected Times Higher Education World University Rankings. The rankings rely on performance indicators such as the quality of teaching, research and the international mix of staff and students.

Other Rankings

In 2022 (the most recent ranking), Forbes evaluates colleges and universities based on alumni earnings, net price, net student debt, school quality, timely graduation and the number of Pell Grant recipients.

Forbes revised its methodology in 2018 to put more emphasis on the survey’s three financial factors — earnings, price and debt — and the publication switched to net price (which takes into account the impact of students’ financial aid and the costs of room and board) instead of list price.

In 2019 (the most recent ranking), the center placed UCLA among the nation’s top research universities — both public and private. This ranking focuses on nine key measures of university research performance, including competitively awarded research grants and contracts, faculty membership in the National Academies, faculty awards, the number of doctorates awarded and other factors. UCLA was ranked in the top 25 among all research universities in seven of these measures, including:

• 7th in the nation in total research expenditures
• 8th in the nation in faculty awards
• 14th in the nation in national academy memberships

• For the Media
• Open Records
• Division of Marketing & Communications

UGA ranks among best universities in the nation

Recent rankings from Forbes and The Princeton Review demonstrate continued excellence

The University of Georgia continues to solidify its position among the nation’s most prestigious institutions of higher education.

This is particularly evident in some of the most recent national rankings that give UGA top placements in a variety of important categories.

“The University of Georgia’s impressive rankings by a host of national publications reflect the tremendous talent and hard work of our exceptional faculty, staff and students,” said UGA President Jere W. Morehead. “While individual rankings can fluctuate from year to year, UGA’s consistently strong performance across a wide range of criteria speaks to our position among the nation’s leading universities.”

Forbes recently ranked UGA No. 19 nationally among public universities, up two spots from its previous ranking last year. Forbes also ranked UGA No. 13 among universities in the South, and the institution ranks highly on Forbes’ lists of best research universities, best employers and best value.

UGA also was named among the best universities in the nation in The Princeton Review’s 2025 best colleges ranking. UGA ranked No. 13 in the nation among best value public schools, No. 12 among best value public colleges without aid, No. 16 among all schools for internships, No. 11 for financial aid and No. 9 for best alumni networks.

In May, UGA’s Jere W. Morehead Honors College was ranked No. 1 in the nation by College Transitions, publishers of the best-selling guide Colleges Worth Your Money. College Transitions identified three general characteristics — selectivity, benefits offered and program rigor — for which each honors program or college was scored.

Campus Advisor also recently ranked Athens the best college town in America.

In addition, Niche ranked UGA No. 14 among public universities in the nation, noting strong academics and value in their calculations.

In September of last year, the university ranked in the top 20 among the nation’s best public universities for the eighth consecutive year, according to U.S. News & World Report.

The School of Law was named the nation’s best value in legal education by The National Jurist — the fourth time in the last six years the school has occupied the top spot.

Financial Times rated Terry’s full-time MBA program the No. 1 value for the money worldwide.

“The University of Georgia’s commitment to excellence in teaching, research and service is reflected in our institution’s consistently high rankings as one of the nation’s best universities,” said S. Jack Hu, senior vice president for academic affairs and provost. “Our university continues to make remarkable strides in providing a world-class learning environment for our students, advancing life-changing research and serving the people of Georgia, our nation and our world.”

You may also like

CAES releases 20 years of farm gate trends

College of Engineering, School of Public and…

2024 NSF Graduate Research Fellowship recipients…

Meet the team dedicated to supporting research data at…, influential journalist, poet, religion writer to join…, experts study mystery irises at the coastal georgia….

We use cookies to understand how you use our site and to improve your experience. This includes personalizing content and advertising. To learn more, click here . By continuing to use our site, you accept our use of cookies, revised Privacy Policy and Terms of Service .

New to Zacks? Get started here.

Member Sign In

Don't Know Your Password?

• Zacks #1 Rank
• Zacks Industry Rank
• Zacks Sector Rank
• Equity Research
• Mutual Funds
• Mutual Fund Screener
• ETF Screener
• Earnings Calendar
• Earnings Releases
• Earnings ESP
• Earnings ESP Filter
• Stock Screener
• Premium Screens
• Basic Screens
• Thematic Screens
• Research Wizard
• Personal Finance
• Money Management
• Retirement Planning
• Tax Information
• My Portfolio
• Create Portfolio
• Style Scores
• Testimonials
• Zacks.com Tutorial

Services Overview

• Zacks Ultimate
• Zacks Investor Collection
• Zacks Premium

Investor Services

• ETF Investor
• Home Run Investor
• Income Investor
• Stocks Under $10
• Value Investor
• Top 10 Stocks

Other Services

• Method for Trading
• Zacks Confidential

Trading Services

• Black Box Trader
• Counterstrike
• Headline Trader
• Insider Trader
• Large-Cap Trader
• Options Trader
• Short Sell List
• Surprise Trader
• Alternative Energy

You are being directed to ZacksTrade, a division of LBMZ Securities and licensed broker-dealer. ZacksTrade and Zacks.com are separate companies. The web link between the two companies is not a solicitation or offer to invest in a particular security or type of security. ZacksTrade does not endorse or adopt any particular investment strategy, any analyst opinion/rating/report or any approach to evaluating individual securities.

If you wish to go to ZacksTrade, click OK . If you do not, click Cancel.

Image: Bigstock

The Zacks Rank Explained: How to Find Strong Buy Retail and Wholesale Stocks

Building a successful investment portfolio takes skill and hard work, no matter if you're a growth, value, income, or momentum-focused investor.

But how do you find the right combination of stocks? Funding your retirement, your kids' college tuition, or your short- and long-term savings goals certainly requires significant returns.

Enter the Zacks Rank.

What is the Zacks Rank?

The Zacks Rank is a unique, proprietary stock-rating model that utilizes earnings estimate revisions to help investors build a winning portfolio.

There are four main factors behind the Zacks Rank: Agreement, Magnitude, Upside, and Surprise.

Agreement is the extent to which all brokerage analysts are revising their earnings estimates in the same direction. The greater the percentage of analysts revising their estimates higher, the better chance the stock will outperform.

Magnitude is the size of the recent change in the consensus estimate for the current and next fiscal years.

Upside is the difference between the most accurate estimate, which is calculated by Zacks, and the consensus estimate.

Surprise is made up of a company's last few quarters' earnings per share surprises; companies with a positive earnings surprise are more likely to beat expectations in the future.

Each one of these factors is given a raw score that's recalculated every night, and then compiled into the Zacks Rank. Using this data, stocks are classified into five groups, ranging from "Strong Buy" to "Strong Sell."

The Power of Institutional Investors

The Zacks Rank also allows individual investors, or retail investors, to benefit from the power of institutional investors.

Institutional investors are the professionals who manage the trillions of dollars invested in mutual funds, investment banks, and hedge funds. Studies have shown that these investors can and do move the market due to the large amounts of money they invest with. Because of this, the market tends to move in the same direction as institutional investors.

These investors are known for designing valuation models that focus on earnings and earnings expectations in order to figure out the fair value of a company and its shares. If earnings estimates are raised, it puts a higher value on a company.

With these changes, institutional investors will act, usually buying stocks with rising estimates and selling those with falling estimates. An increase in earnings expectations can potentially lead to higher stock prices and bigger gains for the investor.

Since it can often take weeks, if not months, for an institutional investor to build a position (given their size), retail investors who get in at the first sign of upward earnings estimate revisions have a distinct advantage over these larger investors, and can benefit from the expected institutional buying that will follow.

Not only can the Zacks Rank help you take advantage of trends in earnings estimate revisions, but it can also provide a way to get into stocks that are highly sought after by professionals.

How to Invest with the Zacks Rank

The Zacks Rank is known for transforming investment portfolios. In fact, a portfolio of Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) stocks has beaten the market in 26 of the last 32 years, with an average annual return of +25.41%.

Moreover, stocks with a new #1 (Strong Buy) ranking have some of the biggest profit potential, while those that fell to a #4 (Sell) or #5 (Strong Sell) have some of the worst.

Let's take a look at

Sprouts Farmers ( SFM Quick Quote SFM - Free Report )

Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., which operates in a highly fragmented grocery store industry, has a unique model that features fresh produce, foods section, and a vitamin department focused on overall wellness. Moreover, the company has been diversifying its offerings to meet changing preferences of consumers, who are looking for more health and wellness products. These products are generally plant-based, gluten-free, keto-friendly, and grass-fed. The company has been focusing on natural and organic food, which is one of the fastest growing segments in the industry.

For fiscal 2024, seven analysts revised their earnings estimate upwards in the last 60 days, and the Zacks Consensus Estimate has increased $0.25 to $3.37 per share. SFM boasts an average earnings surprise of 12%.

Earnings are expected to grow 18.7% for the current fiscal year, while revenue is projected to increase 9.6%.

Even more impressive, SFM has gained in value over the past four weeks, up 12.9% compared to the S&P 500's gain of 1.5%.

Bottom Line

With a #1 (Strong Buy) ranking, positive trend in earnings estimate revisions, and strong market momentum, Sprouts Farmers should be on investors' shortlist.

If you want even more information on the Zacks Ranks, or one of our many other investing strategies, check out the Zacks Education home page .

Discover Today's Top Stocks

Our private Zacks #1 Rank List, based on our quantitative Zacks Rank stock-rating system, has more than doubled the S&P 500 since 1988. Applying the Zacks Rank in your own trading can boost your investing returns on your very next trade. See Today's Zacks #1 Rank List >>

See More Zacks Research for These Tickers

Normally $25 each - click below to receive one report free:.

Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. (SFM) - free report >>

Published in

This file is used for Yahoo remarketing pixel add

Due to inactivity, you will be signed out in approximately:

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election results
• Google trends
• AP & Elections
• U.S. Open Tennis
• Paralympic Games
• College football
• Auto Racing
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Americans agree that the 2024 election will be pivotal for democracy, but for different reasons

In a politically polarized nation, both Republican and Democratic voters worry over the state of U.S. democracy and how the outcome of the presidential contest will affect its future; they just disagree over who poses the threat. (Dec. 15) (AP Video/Serkan Gurbuz)

FILE - The White House is seen reflected in a puddle, Saturday, Sept. 3, 2022, in Washington. In a politically polarized nation, Americans seem to agree on one issue underlying the 2024 elections — a worry over the state of democracy and how the outcome of the presidential contest will affect its future. A poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that 62% of adults say democracy in the U.S. could be at risk depending on who wins. That view is held by 72% of Democrats and 55% of Republicans, but for different reasons. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File)

• Copy Link copied

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a politically polarized nation, Americans seem to agree on one issue underlying the 2024 elections — a worry over the state of democracy and how the outcome of the presidential contest will affect its future.

They just disagree over who poses the threat.

A poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that 62% of adults say democracy in the U.S. could be at risk depending on who wins next fall. Majorities of Democrats (72%) and Republicans (55%) feel the same way, but for different reasons.

President Joe Biden has attempted to paint a dystopian future if GOP front-runner and former President Donald Trump returns to the White House after promising to seek retribution against opponents and declining to rule out that he would abuse the powers of the office . The former president has tried to flip the narrative lately, saying the election subversion and documents cases against him show Biden has weaponized the federal government to prosecute a political opponent. He has called Biden the “destroyer of American democracy.”

“I think from the side of the left, it’s pretty obvious that they’re concerned about electing a president who is avowedly authoritarian, someone who clearly wants to reduce checks and balances within the government to strengthen the presidency and to do so in ways that give the executive branch kind of an unprecedented reach across the population and sectors of the government,” said Michael Albertus, political science professor at the University of Chicago.

“From the right, the Republicans think about government overreach, big government, threats to freedom and mandates to act in a certain way or adopt certain policies,” he said.

Against that backdrop, the poll found that about half of U.S. adults, 51%, say democracy is working “not too well” or “not well at all.”

The poll asked about the importance of the coming presidential election for 12 issues and found that the percentage who said the outcome will be very or extremely important to the future of democracy in the U.S. (67%) ranked behind only the economy (75%). It was about equal to the percentage who said that about government spending (67%) and immigration (66%).

Tony Motes, a retired firefighter who lives in Monroe, Georgia, cited a number of reasons he believes “we’re not living in a complete democracy.” That includes what he sees as a deterioration of rights, including parental rights, thieves and other criminals not being held accountable, and a lack of secure borders.

The 59-year-old Republican also said the various criminal cases being brought against Trump undermine the country’s democratic traditions.

“They’re trying to keep him from running because they know he’s going to win,” he said.

The poll’s findings continue a trend of Americans’ lackluster views about how democracy is functioning. They also believe the country’s governing system is not working well to reflect their interests on issues ranging from immigration to abortion to the economy.

Robert Lieberman, a professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University, has studied the fall of democracies elsewhere and the common elements that feed their demise.

What to know about the 2024 Election

• Today’s news: Follow live updates from the campaign trail from the AP.
• We want to hear from you: Are you a nonwhite evangelical planning to vote for Harris? Tell us why you’re supporting her and if you’re campaigning for her.
• Ground Game: Sign up for AP’s weekly politics newsletter to get it in your inbox every Monday.
• AP’s Role: The Associated Press is the most trusted source of information on election night, with a history of accuracy dating to 1848. Learn more.

The factors include polarization, growing ethnic or racial antagonism, rising economic inequality and a concentration of power under a country’s executive officeholder.

“For a number of years now, the United States has had all four of these conditions, really for the first time in history,” he said. “So we’re in a period that’s ripe for challenges to democracy.”

Trump is not the cause of the pattern, Lieberman said, but “seems to have an unerring instinct to make things worse, and he certainly has authoritarian impulses and a lot of followers who seem to validate or applaud him.”

The AP-NORC poll found that 87% of Democrats and 54% of independents believe a second Trump term would negatively affect U.S. democracy. For Republicans, 82% believe democracy would be weakened by another Biden win, with 56% of independents agreeing.

About 2 in 10 U.S. adults (19%) say democracy in the U.S. is “already so seriously broken that it doesn’t matter who wins the 2024 presidential election.” Republicans (23%) are more likely than Democrats (10%) to say this, but relatively few in either party think U.S. democracy is resilient enough to withstand the outcome.

Social media platforms and news sites that reinforce biases accelerate the polarization that leads people from different political perspectives to believe the other side is the one representing the gravest threat to the nation’s democracy, said Lilliana Mason, an associate professor of political science at Johns Hopkins.

“I don’t think that people are exaggerating. I think it’s that they actually are living in information environments in which it is true for them that democracy is under threat,” she said.

Mason said one side fears what Trump has said he will do if he wins, while the other is responding to the fear created in a media ecosystem that says the Democrats want to destroy America and turn it into a socialist or communist society.

For some, the danger is more than Trump’s statements and concern over how he might turn toward authoritarianism. It also is what’s happening in the states and courts, where political gerrymandering and threats to voting rights are continuing, as are measures that limit people’s ability to vote easily, such as reducing drop box locations for mail-in ballots and tightening voter identification requirements.

“Look at all the roadblocks that have been put up to keep people, especially people of color, from being able to vote,” said Pamela Williams, 75, of New York City, who identifies as a Democrat. “That isn’t democracy.”

Douglas Kucmerowski, 67, an independent who lives in the Finger Lakes region of New York, is concerned over those state-level actions and the continued use of the Electoral College, which can allow someone to be president even if they lose the popular vote.

He also questions the state of the nation’s democracy when a large proportion of the country supports a candidate facing multiple criminal charges who has spoken about pursuing retribution and using the military domestically, among other things.

Trump also has lied about the outcome of the 2020 election , which has been affirmed by multiple reviews in the battleground states where he disputed his loss , and called his supporters to a Washington rally before they stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 , in a violent attempt to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s win .

“That candidate, in any other age, probably would have been ruled out. But for some reason, in this society, he’s one of the best choices,” Kucmerowski said. “If this country is that confused that they can’t tell the difference between right and wrong and ex-presidents making statements that on day one he will be a dictator, doesn’t anybody care about day two or three or four when he’s still a dictator?”

The poll of 1,074 adults was conducted Nov. 30 through Dec. 4, 2023, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 4.0 percentage points.

The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its explanatory coverage of elections and democracy. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here . The AP is solely responsible for all content.