MY immediate reaction to the Times Higher Education (THE) -- Quacquarelli Symonds World University Rankings 2008 is, if new variables are not introduced and the methodology has not been changed, then perhaps we can do a year-to-year comparison.

My belief is that it has not changed and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) has gone up by 59 steps in the ranking compared to last year.

Prior to 2007, changes were introduced to the methodology every year.

Further, according to Ben Souter, the data used for UKM prior to 2007, were also not verified. I believe my predecessor said that they were sourced from UKM website.

UKM has not done a detailed analysis of the results but early indication has shown that it is in the top 200 for Social Sciences and Life Sciences and Biomedicine.

Its ranking for Natural Sciences is just out of the range at 201.

So there is some progress but it is not enough. I am sure UKM staff will take the ranking of 250 as motivation to work even harder.

As with all ranking systems, we need to go beyond the superficiality of the unipolar measurement to unravel the complexity and fundamental elements that contribute to the ranking.

Without doubt the THE-QS ranking has much to do with the calibre and quality of research.

Peer review is about an assessment of research capability and ability to contribute to the progress of human knowledge, thought or understanding in the five disciplines (Engineering and Information Technology, Life Sciences and Biomedicine, Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities, and Natural Sciences).

Citations per faculty are again about the quality of publications. There are more citations when articles appear in high impact journals. Such articles can only originate from good research.

So, my philosophy is UKM should continue to do fundamental work as a research university.

The results will be reflected in the output of UKM research such as publications in high profile journals, consultancies and their socio-economic impacts, invitations to present papers at conferences, patents filed and products that are developed for commercialisation.

UKM's reputation will be gradually built through these activities and the outcomes will be evident from the grants, international partnerships, industry collaboration, top students and academic staff that it is able to attract to its research and educational programmes.

It will also be reflected in UKM graduates securing good starting or median salaries. There are no short-cuts. It's a long-term but satisfying process.

Souter has analysed the characteristics of the universities in the top 20 THE-QS ranking.

They are on the average 200 years old, have about 2,500 academic faculty, nearly 24,000 students, are able to attract and retain top personnel (high selectivity), have about US$1 billion (RM3.5 billion) endowment and US$2 billion annual budget.

We have a long way to go.

So we should reduce this annual "hype" bordering hysteria about THE-QS ranking that is seen mainly in this country.

I accept that it's a fairly acceptable reaction considering that we have been investing a lot in education since Merdeka and the new emphasis on quality - as in producing human capital with "first-class mentality".

THE-QS ranking can be seen as a yardstick perhaps to see how we measure up in the world community of higher education institutions.

It is a fair expectation so long as we don't go overboard and think that THE-QS ranking is the only measure of our universities' worth. That will be naivety to the extreme.

There are many ranking instruments in the world and they measure different things.

The THE-QS criteria have merit of course and the rationale behind their selection is also sound.

However we must always remember that not everything that is counted, counts and not everything that counts can be counted.

For example, in a country with many unmet demands, should we increase international students just for the sake of fulfilling the ranking criteria?

Should we open the doors to international faculty for the sake of numbers and yet not pay attention to merit?

While we use ranking to provide a global comparison we must remember that universities are multi-faceted organisations and the primary function is to serve the communities' needs.

How well they perform this function must be taken into account against the notional mission of remaining or becoming world-class.

Professor Datuk Sharifah Hapsah Syed Hasan Shahabuddin is the Vice Chancellor of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.