Introduction
International university rankings, such as the Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University
Rankings, Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings, Academic Ranking
of World Universities (ARWU), and Webometrics Ranking of World Universities, play
a crucial role in shaping global perceptions of higher education institutions ([Table 1]). These rankings assess universities based on various criteria, including research
output, teaching quality, internationalization, industry collaboration, and web presence.[1]
[2]
[3] However, Libyan universities are either absent or ranked very low in these global
indices.
Table 1
Top 10 universities according to four international university rankings
|
THE[4]
|
ARWU[5]
|
Qs[6]
|
Webometrics 2025[7]
|
|
1
|
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
|
University of Oxford
|
Harvard University
|
Harvard University
|
|
2
|
Imperial College London
|
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
|
Stanford University
|
Stanford University
|
|
3
|
Stanford University
|
Harvard University
|
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
|
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
|
|
4
|
University of Oxford
|
Princeton University
|
University of Cambridge
|
University of Oxford
|
|
5
|
Harvard University
|
University of Cambridge
|
University of California Berkeley
|
University of California Berkeley
|
|
6
|
University of Cambridge
|
Stanford University
|
University of Oxford
|
Cornell University
|
|
7
|
ETH Zurich
|
California Institute of Technology (Caltech)
|
Princeton University
|
University of Washington
|
|
8
|
National University of Singapore (NUS)
|
University of California Berkeley
|
California Institute of Technology (Caltech)
|
Columbia University New York
|
|
9
|
UCL
|
Imperial College London
|
Columbia University
|
University of Pennsylvania
|
|
10
|
California Institute of Technology (Caltech)
|
Yale University
|
University of Chicago
|
University of Cambridge
|
Based on the latest published editions of the major international university rankings,
no Libyan universities appear in the ranked lists of THE (ranking >2,000 institutions),
or ARWU (ranking 500 institutions), and only one Libyan university (University of
Tripoli) appears in the ranked lists of QS (ranking >1,500 institutions).[4]
[5]
[6] Only Webometrics (ranking >31,000 institutions) includes Libyan institutions, reflecting
their focus on web presence rather than traditional research/output metrics, but they
still rank in the bottom tiers globally ([Table 2]).
Table 2
Libyan universities' rankings in Webometrics as of January 2025[7]
|
University
|
Global rank
|
|
University of Tripoli
|
3,827
|
|
University of Benghazi
|
4,005
|
|
Misurata University
|
4,704
|
|
Omar Al Mukhtar University
|
4,818
|
|
Sebha University
|
5,329
|
|
University of Zawia
|
5,520
|
|
Libyan International Medical University (LIMU)
|
5,944
|
|
Sirte University
|
7,507
|
|
Tobruk University
|
8,658
|
|
Libyan Academy for Postgraduate Studies
|
14,446
|
|
University of Zintan
|
20,970
|
|
University of Derna
|
26,690
|
|
Open University Libya
|
26,899
|
Literature Search Strategy
This review adopted a narrative synthesis approach to explore the dual challenges
facing Libyan universities in global rankings. The literature search was conducted
across multiple academic databases, including Scopus, Web of Science (WoS), Google
Scholar, and institutional repositories, focusing on publications from 2003 (the inception
of ARWU) to 2025. Key search terms included combinations of: “university rankings,”
“Libyan higher education,” “Arab universities,” “ranking biases,” “Scopus indexing,”
“Webometrics,” “academic quality assurance Libya,” “impact of instability on research,”
and “sanctions higher education.” The search prioritized peer-reviewed articles, scholarly
reports, and official documentation from ranking agencies (QS, THE, ARWU, Webometrics).
Inclusion criteria focused on (1) publications directly analyzing international university
ranking methodologies or biases; (2) articles discussing challenges specific to higher
education in the Middle East and North Africa region or fragile states; and (3) official
ranking data or analysis reports for 2024–2026 editions. Exclusion criteria involved
opinion pieces without empirical support and publications not directly relevant to
the themes of ranking performance or systemic bias. The analysis primarily relied
on synthesis and critique of established academic literature and publicly available
ranking data.
Nevertheless, understanding the factors that caused this poor performance of Libyan
universities in global rankings is essential for policymakers and university administrators
to implement strategic improvements. Broadly, these factors can be divided into two
major categories. The first includes issues that are internal to the global ranking
systems themselves, which tend to have indicators and specific methodologies that
disfavor institutions in developing countries. Second, there are actual shortcomings
as well as systemic problems in the Libyan higher education system, which hinder its
performance and international competitiveness. Addressing these two external biases
and internal deficiencies would be quite important for any significant development.
International University Rankings: Framework and Critiques
Evolution and Significance
Historical Background
International university rankings emerged in the early 2000s as tools to quantify
institutional prestige amid globalization, student mobility, and heightened competition
in higher education. The ARWU, launched by Shanghai Jiao Tong University in 2003,
pioneered this movement by exclusively emphasizing research excellence through Nobel
Prizes, high-impact publications, and citation counts. This spurred rapid methodological
diversification: Spain's Webometrics Ranking (2004) introduced digital footprint as
a core metric (web size, visibility, scholarly output), THE and QS jointly published
the “THE–QS World University Rankings” starting in 2004 (first edition) until 2009.
The THE–QS World University Rankings (2005) incorporated subjective academic surveys
(40%), teaching ratios, and internationalization metrics.[1] In 2009, the two organizations parted ways to produce independent university rankings,
the QS World University Rankings and THE World University Rankings. THE cited an asserted weakness in the methodology of the original rankings,[8] along with a sensed bias in the current approach that favors science over the humanities,[8] as two of the key reasons for the decision to split with QS. THE created a new methodology
with Thomson Reuters, and published the first THE World University Rankings in September
2010.
The SCImago Institutions Ranking, launched in late 2009, later supplemented these
using Scopus data. Collectively, by 2010, these systems—spanning research (ARWU),
reputation (THE–QS), and digital engagement (Webometrics)—had evolved into influential
global benchmarks, driving institutional strategies and policy decisions through their
contested yet standardized definitions of excellence.[1]
[2]
[7]
[9]
[10]
Significance
International university rankings have become dominant mediators of global higher
education prestige, profoundly influencing institutional strategies, student mobility,
and national policy.[2]
[7]
[9]
[10]
[11] Their perceived objectivity—despite methodological flaws—makes them powerful arbiters
of institutional reputation[2]
[9]
[10]
[14] ([Table 3]). Rankings exert unprecedented influence across stakeholders:
Table 3
Impacts on universities: a double-edged sword
|
Positive impacts
|
Negative impacts
|
|
Fosters competition and improvement:
Drives institutions to enhance research output, faculty qualifications, and infrastructure.[2]
[13]
|
Methodological biases:
Eurocentric metrics (e.g., Nobel Prizes in ARWU, English publications in THE/QS) marginalize
Global South universities.[2]
[7]
[10]
[11]
|
|
Promotes transparency:
Publicly available data enable benchmarking and accountability.[2]
[7]
|
Homogenization:
Universities prioritize ranking-aligned activities (e.g., STEM research) over local
missions like social sciences or humanities.[2]
[9]
|
|
Enhances internationalization:
Incentivizes recruitment of global talent and cross-border collaborations (QS/THE
“international outlook” metrics).[2]
[3]
|
Resource Distortion:
Heavy investment in ranking metrics (e.g., citation databases) diverts funds from
teaching or regional needs.[14]
|
|
Digital engagement (Webometrics):
Encourages open-access publishing and digital infrastructure.[2]
|
Structural inequity:
Institutions in unstable regions (e.g., Libya) face compounded disadvantages: sanctions
limit collaborations, while internet outages cripple Webometrics scores.
|
Abbreviations: ARWU, Academic Ranking of World Universities; QS, Quacquarelli Symonds;
THE, Times Higher Education.
-
Students: guide international enrollment choices.
-
Universities: shape strategic investments and branding.
-
Governments: inform funding allocations and policy reforms.
-
Employers: signal graduate quality.
Methodology and Systemic Biases
International university rankings utilize different and often disputed methodologies
that convert complex institutional qualities into easily quantifiable metrics, which,
in turn, significantly affect the worldview of academic excellence.[9] Ranking systems such as QS, THE, ARWU, and Webometrics differ in their prioritization
of dimensions—some of which are: research citations (THE, ARWU), reputation surveys
(QS), or digital visibility (Webometrics)—all of which have biases that engage in
systematic favoritism toward resource-rich, English-oriented institutions and adverse
toward universities in contexts like Libya.[9]
[15] These methodological choices are, unfortunately, not only technical or objective
decisions but also cultural and geopolitical impositions, as could be seen from ARWU
perspectives toward the Nobel Prize, which disregard economic constraints,[10]
[11] and Webometrics penalizing regions with limited digital infrastructure.[16] Knowledge of these systems is a key to diagnosing the reasons these institutions,
such as Libyan universities, are rendered invisible in global hierarchies—not because
they were not meritorious in any sense, but also for the reason that the rules of
measuring them are structurally misaligned with their realities. The next section
dissects these methodologies to reveal how their design quietly reinforces inequity.
Global Influence and Systemic Biases
Rankings incentivize universities to prioritize ranking-aligned activities, often
at the expense of local relevance.[9]
[12] However, they exhibit structural biases:
-
Linguistic exclusion: most of indexed research relies on English, erasing scholarship in other languages.
For example, while Ulrichs's repository lists 9,857 scholarly journals in Chinese,
only 42 of which are in WoS. This illustrates how non-English scholarship (including
Arabic) is systematically excluded.[17]
-
Reputation inequity: only 10% of QS Global Employer Survey respondents were from “Africa and Middle East.[18]
-
Resource disparity: metrics like “industry income” ignore Libya's sanctions-limited economy.
-
Contextual blindness: rankings undervalue community-focused missions.[9]
Global Ranking Biases Against Arab Universities
Global university ranking systems systematically disadvantage Arab universities due
to deeply embedded methodological Eurocentrism,[9]
[10]
[11] pervasive linguistic barriers,[11] and profound resource inequity.[19] These structural disadvantages manifest in several key ways, with the ranking metrics
often reflecting systemic inequities in the global higher education landscape rather
than a simple lack of institutional quality or effort.
The methodology of global rankings creates inherent biases that are challenging for
Arab institutions to overcome.[9] Methodological Eurocentrism is evident in several metrics, for example:
-
Reputation surveys[9]
[10]
[11]
[18] are often Western-centric, leading to low visibility and undervaluation of Arab
universities in academic opinion polls ([Table 4]).
-
Metrics like the Nobel/high-impact focus in rankings such as ARWU[6] inherently favor historically wealthy Western institutions with established research
traditions over Arab universities.[19]
-
An industry income bias often penalizes universities in regions with less developed
private R&D sectors.[9]
[11]
Table 4
Global ranking biases against Arab universities
|
Bias factor
|
Impact on Arab universities
|
Supporting evidence
|
|
English-language dominance
|
Non-English research rarely indexed in Scopus/WoS, reducing citation counts
|
Most of QS/THE criteria rely on English publications[11]
|
|
Reputation surveys
|
Arab universities receive low visibility in Western-dominated academic opinion polls
|
Only 10% of QS survey respondents are from Africa and Middle East and North Africa[18]
|
|
Web presence metrics
|
Limited digital infrastructure impacts visibility in Webometrics rankings
|
Most Arab universities rank lower in Webometrics than peer institutions[16]
|
|
Faculty/student internationalization
|
Visa restrictions, political instability, and lower salaries limit inbound mobility
|
United States hosted 21% of all international students in OECD countries in 2023.[20]
|
|
Funding and Nobel metrics
|
Heavy weightings on Nobel Prizes (ARWU) and industry income ignore regional economic
constraints
|
Universities in developing countries often operate with significantly lower funding,
less access to state-of-the-art equipment, and fewer opportunities for their researchers
to compete on a global scale for Nobel-level achievements or large-scale industry
partnerships.[9]
|
Abbreviations: ARWU, Academic Ranking of World Universities; MENA, Middle East and
North Africa; OECD, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; QS, Quacquarelli
Symonds; THE, Times Higher Education.
Linguistic barriers are a major structural issue.[11] The dominance of English in bibliometric databases like Scopus and WoS severely
underrepresents research published in Arabic or other regional languages, drastically
reducing measured research output and citation impact.[11] Additionally, a publication culture that prioritizes English-language journals further
sidelines regionally relevant research.[11]
Resource inequity is another critical factor.[19] Chronic underfunding limits investment in infrastructure and support, favoring historically
wealthy institutions.[19] Furthermore, the digital divide disadvantages institutions in regions with unreliable
internet and limited digital resources.[16] Finally, political and economic constraints directly impact universities:
-
Restricted mobility due to instability, visa issues, or uncompetitive salaries hinders
universities from attracting global talent, affecting “international outlook” metrics.[19]
-
Sanctions and instability, such as those in post-2011 Libya, severely disrupt research,
funding, and academic continuity, making it exceptionally difficult to meet ranking
criteria.[21]
Consequently, this combination of methodological bias, linguistic exclusion, and resource
disparity means Arab universities, despite potentially excelling in locally relevant
teaching, research, and community engagement, are structurally positioned at a severe
disadvantage within the dominant global ranking frameworks. Their absence or low rank
often reflects systemic inequities in the global higher education landscape rather
than a simple lack of institutional quality or effort.
Libya-Specific Barriers
To contextualize Libya's severe underperformance, a brief comparison with regional
counterparts is essential. According to the Webometrics 2025 ranking, 19 Arab universities
across 6 countries rank within the world's top 1,000.[7] This group is led by institutions from resource-rich and politically stable nations
like Saudi Arabia (7 in the top 1,000), Egypt,[5] and the United Arab Emirates.[3] This demonstrates that Arab universities can achieve global visibility by leveraging
significant state investment and a stable research environment, as illustrated in
[Fig. 1].
Fig. 1 Global ranking according to Webometrics (2025), showing performance metrics for Middle
Eastern universities.
In stark contrast, no Libyan university ranks within the global top 3,000, with the
highest-ranked institution, the University of Tripoli, positioned at 3,827. This gap
is not solely due to the general biases facing all Arab institutions but is exacerbated
by Libya-specific barriers—chronic instability, sanctions, and resource devastation—which
are not faced by its top-performing regional peers.
This clearly demonstrates the severe underperformance of Libyan universities in global
rankings. While we acknowledge the well-documented biases favoring Western institutions
(wealthy, English-speaking, and historically established), internal factors within
Libya remain decisive in explaining this decline ([Fig. 1]).
Chronic Instability Disrupting Academic Foundations
Infrastructure and resource devastation: the protracted political and security crisis following the 2011 revolution led to
severe degradation of critical research infrastructure.[21] This directly cripples the capacity to produce high-impact research measured by
QS, THE, and ARWU.
Brain drain and faculty depletion: instability triggered a significant brain drain, leading to the migration of experienced
academics and researchers seeking safety and better resourced environments abroad.[21] While precise, unified statistics on academic migration rates are challenging to
obtain due to the conflict, the loss of high-caliber faculty directly cripples the
pool of researchers capable of producing high-impact, internationally indexed publications,
which is central to QS, THE, and ARWU scores.
Funding diversion and institutional paralysis: government resources were overwhelmingly diverted towards security and basic services,
leading to chronic underfunding of universities. Gross Domestic Expenditure on Research
and Development metrics are systemically unreported to international bodies, signifying
a fundamental governmental de-prioritization of the science, technology, and innovation
sector. Granular budgetary data confirm that education and research centers operate
predominantly as “payroll institutions,” where salary obligations consume 75% to over
90% of total spending, leaving negligible resources for core scientific activity.[22]
[23] Budgets for research grants, journal subscriptions, equipment, and even basic operational
costs were slashed.[19]
[21]
[24] Furthermore, frequent administrative changes and institutional paralysis hindered
long-term research planning and strategic development necessary for improving ranking
metrics.
This environment establishes an accumulative self-reinforcing cycle that sustains
the scene of academic disadvantage.
Digital Isolation and Web Presence Deficits
Infrastructure fragility: Libya suffers from frequent and prolonged internet outages
due to damaged infrastructure and power grid failures.[19]
[24] This infrastructure fragility is a fundamental barrier, directly resulting in the
low Webometrics scores for Libyan institutions (e.g., University of Tripoli Global
Rank: 3,827). The lack of continuous, reliable connectivity prevents the universities
from maintaining the up-to-date web presence, accessible scholarly outputs, and external
visibility necessary to improve in the ranking's “Visibility” and “Openness” pillars.[6]
Beyond Webometrics: digital isolation also hampers participation in online international
collaborations, access to cloud-based research tools and databases (like Scopus/WoS,
crucial for other rankings), and the capacity to attract international students and
faculty who rely on robust digital infrastructure. Furthermore, it restricts the ability
of Libyan researchers to disseminate their research findings globally or engage in
virtual conferences, further reducing visibility and impact.[24]
[25]
Sanctions: Strangling International Engagement
Collaboration chokehold: international sanctions, particularly financial and travel restrictions, severely
limit Libyan universities' ability to engage in international research collaborations.[26] Accordingly, securing joint grants, co-authoring publications with international
partners, organizing or attending international conferences, and participating in
global academic networks become immensely difficult or impossible.
Resource blockades: sanctions can restrict the importation of specialized scientific equipment, software,
and reagents essential for advanced research in fields like Medicine. They can also
block access to international funding streams and complicate financial transactions
for paying publication fees or subscription costs.[27]
Mobility restrictions: travel bans or severe visa restrictions prevent Libyan academics from visiting partner
institutions abroad for research or training and deter international scholars and
students from coming to Libya, directly impacting the “International Outlook” metrics
in THE and QS rankings (faculty/student ratios, collaboration).
Reputational damage: being under sanctions can create a stigma or perceived risk, making potential international
partners hesitant to collaborate, which further isolates Libyan institutions.
Excessive Centralization and Lack of Autonomy
Libyan universities are managed as governmental entities, subjecting them to uniform
policies. This restricts their ability to efficiently respond to market needs or adapt
innovative programs. The weak administrative and academic autonomy negatively correlates
with the quality of education and scientific research.
Weak Quality Assurance Mechanisms
Unlike many other countries, Libya lacks an independent accreditation body, as the
National Center for Quality Assurance and Accreditation of Educational and Training
Institutes is an institution affiliated with the Ministry of Higher Education and
Research. This has led to the proliferation of universities operating below sufficient
standards. The transition to an independent quality assurance/accreditation body,
as proposed for the independent national accreditation council, has been a cornerstone
of successful higher education reform in several countries. For instance, following
the Bologna Process reforms, many European nations decentralized quality assurance,
granting greater autonomy to universities while mandating rigorous, independent national
accreditation and evaluation (e.g., the United Kingdom's Quality Assurance Agency
for Higher Education). This dual approach fostered competition and enhanced quality,
which indirectly supported global ranking performance. Implementing a similar independent
body in Libya will decouple academic quality from political flux, a necessary step
toward institutional excellence.[28]
[29]
Interconnected Impact
These barriers are not isolated; they reinforce each other. This synergistic effect
creates an exceptionally challenging environment for Libyan universities to meet the
standards set by global ranking systems, which often assume a baseline level of stability,
connectivity, and international openness.
In conclusion, the absence of Libyan universities from top global rankings like QS,
THE, and ARWU stems from a dual challenge: biases within the ranking systems themselves
and significant weaknesses in Libya's higher education sector. Ranking methodologies
disproportionately favor institutions with extensive English-language publications
in indexed databases and high internationalization scores, thereby inherently disadvantaging
universities from developing nations. Simultaneously, internal systemic issues—such
as limited English research output, the disruptive impact of chronic political and
administrative instability on academic productivity, and sanctions hindering international
collaboration—severely impact the capacity of Libyan universities to meet these global
standards. Even within the more accessible Webometrics ranking, Libyan institutions
remain low due to local challenges like frequent internet outages and scarce online
scholarly content. This persistent marginalization highlights how methodological biases
and profound contextual limitations together keep Libyan higher education largely
invisible on the global stage.
Recommendations
Given the resource limitations and political instability, the following recommendations
are prioritized into three phases to maximize impact for minimal initial investment.
Phase 1: Foundational, Low-Cost Reforms (Immediate Action)
These focus on governance, data transparency, and leveraging existing resources.
-
Establish a legally and functionally independent national accreditation council: this
is the most critical first step. Establishing an autonomous, statutory quality body
sets clear, internationally benchmarked standards and is a prerequisite for external
confidence and long-term funding reform.
-
Systematize data collection and transparency: create dedicated ranking task forces
to accurately track and submit institutional data to ranking agencies (QS, THE, Webometrics).
This is a low-cost, immediate-impact step to overcome “invisibility” in the rankings.
-
Target “visible” research output for Webometrics: mandate open-access deposit of all
faculty publications in institutional repositories and translate abstracts into English.
This directly improves Webometrics' “Openness” and “Visibility” metrics with minimal
monetary cost.
Phase 2: Strategic Investment and Capacity Building (Short- to Mid-Term)
These require moderate, focused funding.
-
Implement a phased university autonomy framework: gradually increase institutional
autonomy, linking it to demonstrable performance improvements.
-
Prioritize digital resilience: invest in backup power (solar generators) for campus
networks and develop cloud-hosted mirror sites for research outputs. This combats
the Webometrics penalty imposed by infrastructure fragility.
-
Strategic research initiatives: focus funding on rehabilitating one high-impact lab
per university and developing niche research strengths aligned with the THE Impact
Rankings (Sustainable Development Goals).
Phase 3: Large-Scale Structural Change (Long-Term)
-
Advocate for methodological fairness and regional lobbying: join consortia to lobby
ranking bodies for inclusion of Arabic-language journals and diversification of reputation
surveys.
-
Formalize regional and diaspora networks: establish robust partnerships with Arab
League universities for joint degrees and faculty exchange to boost “international
outlook” metrics.
Declaration of use of AI in the writing process
In preparing this manuscript, Gemini was utilized to enhance article structure, summarize
and synthesize existing literature, and improve the clarity, conciseness, and grammatical
correctness of the writing. Following the application of AI, the authors conducted
a thorough review and editing process, assuming full responsibility for the final
content. Recognizing the potential for AI to generate incorrect, incomplete, or biased
information, the manuscript underwent rigorous human revision and judgment. Consistent
with Elsevier's Authorship Policy, no AI or AI-assisted technologies have been designated
as authors or co-authors, as the inherent responsibilities of authorship are exclusively
human.