QS World University Rankings

editor	Ben Sowter (Academic Supervisor)
Authors Staff	Craig O Callaghan
categories	Higher education
frequency	annual
publisher	Quacquarelli Symonds Limited
The first problem	2004 (in partnership with) 2010 (on its own)
Country	United Kingdom
language	English
Web site	WWW .topuniversities .com

QS World University Rankings is the annual publication of Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) university rankings. Formerly known as Times Higher Education-QS World University Rankings, the publisher collaborated with Times Higher Education(THE) printed their international league tables from 2004 to 2009 before they began announcing their own versions. QS then decided to continue using the existing methodology for now. Times Higher Education adopted a new methodology for creating their rankings.

The QS system currently includes a global general and subject rankings (named the world's top universities for 48 different subjects and five compound faculty areas), along with five independent regional tables (Asia, Latin America, Emerging Europe and Central Asia, Arabic region and BRICS).

As the only international ranking to have received the International Ranking of an Expert Group (IREG) approval, the QS rankings are regarded as one of the three most read university rankings in the world, along with academic ranking of world universities and Times Higher Education World University Rankings... However, it has been criticized for its over-reliance on subjective metrics and reputation surveys, which tend to fluctuate over the years. The concern also exists with regard to the global consistency and integrity of the data used to derive QS ranking results.

history

The perceived need for an international ranking of UK universities goals was highlighted in December 2003 in Richard Lambert's Review of Universities and Industry Cooperation in the UK for the Treasury, the UK Treasury. Among his recommendations were world university rankings, which Lambert said would help the UK assess the global position of its universities.

The idea of ​​the rating was credited in the book by Ben Wildavsky, in Big Brain Race: How Global Universities Are Rebuilding the World, to the then editor Times Higher Education(), John O "Leary ... Decided to cooperate with the training and career advice of the company Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) to supply data, appointing Martin Ince, former deputy editor-in-chief and later contractor on, to manage the project.

Between 2004 and 2009, QS made a ranking in partnership with. In 2009, they announced that they would be producing their own ratings, in Times Higher Education World University Rankings , in partnership with Thomson reuters ... The cited argued weakness of the original rankings methodology, as well as perceived favoritism in the existing science-over-humanities methodology, as two of the main reasons for the decision to split with QS.

QS has retained the intellectual property in the previous rankings and the methodology used to compile them, and continues to produce rankings based on this methodology, which are now called the QS World University Rankings.

Created a new methodology with Thomson Reuters and published the first Times Higher Education World University Rankings in September 2010.

Global rankings

Overall

methodology

QS World University Rankings Methodology

Indicator	weighting	development
Academic peer review		Based on internal global academic survey
Faculty / student ratio		Measuring teaching commitment
Citations at faculty		Measuring Impact Studies
employer reputation		Based on a survey of graduate employers
International student attitude		Measuring the diversity of the student community
International staff attitude		Measuring the diversity of teaching staff

QS publishes the results of the ranking in the global media and has entered into partnerships with a number of outlets, including The Guardian in the United Kingdom, and Joseon Ilbo in Korea. The first ratings obtained by QS independently of and using QS's consistent and original methodology were released on September 8, 2010, with the second appearing on September 6, 2011.

Academic peer review

This is the most controversial part of the methodology. Using a combination of purchased mailing lists and attachments and offers, this survey asks active academics around the world for the best universities in their specialized fields. QS published the title of the work and the geographical distribution of the participants.

The 2017/18 rankings have enjoyed responses from 75,015 people from over 140 countries, for its academic reputation score, including votes from the previous five years rolled forward, provided there was no more recent information available from the same person. Members can nominate up to 30 universities, but cannot vote for their own. They tend to assign a median of around 20, which means that this study includes over 500,000 data points. The average respondent has 20.4 years of academic experience, while 81% of respondents have more than a decade of experience in the academic world.

In 2004, when rankings first appeared, academic peer review accounted for half of the university's possible score. In 2005, its share was reduced to 40 percent due to the introduction of the employer reputation survey.

Faculty ratio

This figure is 20 percent of the university's possible ranking score. This is a classic measure used in various rating systems as a proxy for teaching commitments, but QS admitted to be less than satisfactory.

Citations at faculty

Published research citations are one of the most widely used materials for national and global university rankings. The QS World University Rankings used quotes from Thomson (now Thomson Reuters) data from 2004 to 2007, and has since used data from Scopus, part of Elsevier. Total number citations for a period of five years is divided by the number of academics at the university to obtain the score for this measure, which accounts for 20 percent of the university's possible ranking score.

QS explained that it uses this approach rather than paper citations preferred to other systems, as it diminishes the effect of biomedical science on the big picture - bio-medicine has a ferocious "publish or perish" culture. Instead, QS tries to measure the research density of active employees in each institution. But questions still remain about the use of citations in ranking systems, especially the fact that the arts and humanities generate relatively few links.

However, since 2015, QS has made methodological improvements designed to remove the advantage of institutions specialized in the field of natural sciences and medicine previously obtained. This improvement is called faculty area normalization, and it also ensures that the institution's citations count in each of the five key faculty QS areas is weighted by 20% of the final citations score.

QS conceded some data collection errors regarding faculty references in rankings in previous years.

One interesting question is the difference between Scopus and Thomson Reuters databases. For large universities in the world, the two capture systems are more or less the same publications and citations. For less mainstream institutions, Scopus has more non-English language and smaller circulating journals in its database. But since the documents are not as heavily cited there, it can also mean less citation on paper for the universities that publish there. This area has been criticized for undermining universities that do not use English as their primary language. Quoting and publishing in a language other than English is more difficult to come across. English is the most internationalized language and therefore also the most cited.

employer review

This portion of the ranking is obtained in a similar manner to the Academic Peer Review, except that it samples recruiters who hire alumni globally or on a large country scale. The numbers are fewer - 40,455 responses from over 130 countries in the 2016 Rankings - and are used to produce 10 percent of any university's possible scores. This survey was presented in 2005 in the hope that employers keep track of diploma quality, making it a barometer of learning quality, a famously problematic thing to measure. The university stood here of particular interest for potential students, and recognizing this was the impetus for the inaugural QS Graduate Employment Ranking published in November 2015.

International orientation

The final ten percent of the university's possible score is derived from measures aimed at capturing their internationalism: five percent of their share international students, and another five percent of their international staff percentage. This is interesting in part because it shows whether a university is making an effort to be global, but also because it tells us whether it is taken seriously enough by students and academics around the world that they want to be there.

reception

In September 2015, both The Guardian and The Daily Mail referred to the QS World University Rankings as "the most authoritative of its kind." In 2016, Ben Sowter, Head of Research at the QS Intelligence Unit, was ranked 40th in Wonkhe's 2016 Education Graduate Nutrition List. A listed list that the organization is considered to be the 50 most influential figures in the UK higher education.

Several universities in the UK and Asia Pacific commented positively on the rankings. The Vice Chancellor of New Zealand at Massey University, Professor Judith Kinnear, says the Times Higher Education-QS ranking is “a wonderful external confirmation of several university attributes, including the quality of its scientific research, preparation scientific personnel, training and employment. " She said the rankings are a true measure of a university's ability to fly high internationally: “The Times Higher Education rankings provide a much more and more sophisticated, reliable and well-crafted measure of international and national rankings than any New Zealand Performance Based Research Foundation (PBRF a) measure or ratings of Shanghai ". September 2012 British newspaper The independent described the QS World University Rankings as "widely recognized in the higher education system as the most reliable international rankings."

Angel Calderon, Senior Planning and Research Advisor at RMIT University and Member of the QS Advisory Board, praised the QS University Rankings for Latin America, stating that "QS Latin America University Rankings have become the annual international reference universities used to determine their relative position in the region." ... He also stated that the 2016/17 edition of this ranking showed improved stability.

Criticisms

Some commentators have raised concerns about the use or misuse of survey data. However, the QS Intelligence Unit and was responsible for compiling the rating, state, degree of sample size used for their research means that now they are "almost impossible to manipulate, and very difficult for institutions to 'play'." They also claim that “over 62,000 academic respondents contributed to our 2013 academic results, four times the 2010 independent scientific reviews confirmed these results to be more than 99% reliable. " In addition, since 2013, the number of respondents to the QS Academic Reputation Survey has increased once again. Their research currently uses about 75,000 scientific peer-reviewed reviews, making it "by far the world's largest aggregation of feeling in this [global academic] community."

The QS World University Rankings have been criticized by many for having too much emphasis on peer review, which gets 40 percent of the overall score. Some people have expressed concern about the way in which peer review is carried out. In a report, Peter Wills of the University of Auckland wrote about Times Higher Education-QS World University Rankings:

But we also note that this study sets its rankings by reaching out to university staff, even offering financial incentives to participate (Appendix II). Staff probably feel it is in their best interest to rank their own institution higher than others. This means that the survey results and any visible changes in the ranking are highly questionable, and that a high ranking has no real intrinsic value in any way. We are categorically against the evaluation of the university based on the results of such PR competitions.

However, QS argue that no survey participant, academic or employer, is offered a financial incentive to respond, while a non-academic will not be able to vote for their own institution. This makes this criticism especially invalid, as it is based on two incorrect premises: (1) that scientists are currently financially incentivized to participate, and (2) that conflicts of interest are created by scientists being able to vote for their own institution. ...

Academics have previously criticized the use of the citation database, arguing that it underestimates the institutions that excel in social sciences Oh. Ian Diamond, former executive director of the Economic and Social Research Council and now Vice Chancellor of the University of Aberdeen and a member of the editorial board, writes Times Higher Education in 2007, saying:

The use of a citation database should have an impact, because such databases do not have as broad coverage of the social sciences (or arts and humanities) as natural sciences. Thus, the low position in the London School of Economics, caused in the first place by its quotation of assessment, is the result not of the output of an outstanding institution, but of the database, and the fact that the LSE does not have the counterbalance of a large natural science base.

However, in 2015, the introduction of QS in the faculty area of ​​normalization did not ensure that the QS rating no longer assigned an undue advantage or disadvantage to any institution based on their specific subject areas. Accordingly, the London School of Economics grew from 71st in 2014 to 35th in 2015 and 37th in 2016.

These rankings use some of the same criteria as the world rankings, but there are revised Weights and new criteria. One addition is the criterion for incoming and outgoing exchange students. Accordingly, the performance of Asian institutions in QS World University Rankings and QS Asian University Rankings released in the same academic year are different from each other.

QS University Rankings: Asia - Top 10

institution	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2018	2019
National University of Singapore	10	3	3	2	2	1	1	1	2	1
University of Hong Kong	1	1	2	3	2	3	2	2	5	2
Nanyang University of Technology	14	18	17	17	10	7	4	3	1	3
Tsinghua University	15	16	16	15	14	14	11	5	6	3
Peking University	10	12	13	6	5	8	7	9	9	5
Fudan University	26	24	21	19	23	22	16	11	7	6
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology	4	2	1	1	1	5	5	4	3	7
KAIST	7	13	11	7	6	2	3	6	4	8
Chinese University of Hong Kong	2	4	5	5	7	6	6	8	10	9
Seoul National University	8	6	6	4	4	4	8	10	11	10

Latin America

V QS Latin American University Rankings or QS University Rankings: Latin America were started in 2011 they use academic opinion (30%), employer opinion (20%), publications per faculty member, citations to paper, researcher to PhD, faculty / student ratio, and web visibility (10 percent each) as measures ...

2016/17 edition of QS World University Rankings: Latin America is ranked in the top 300 universities in the region. The Universidade of São Paulo has retained its status top universities region.

QS University Rankings: Latin America - Top 10

institution	2013	2014	2015	2016	2018
Pontifical Catholic University of Chile	2	1	3	3	1
Universidade Estadual de Campinas	3	3	2	2	2
Universidade de Sao Paulo	1	2	1	1	3
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico City	6	8	6	4	4
Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey	7	7	9	7	5
Universidad de Chile	5	6	4	6	6
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro	8	4	5	5	7
Universidad de los Andes	4	5	7	8	8
Universidad de Buenos Aires	12	19	15	11	9
Universidade Estadual de Sao Paulo	11	9	8	12	10

Africa

The number of universities in Africa increased 115 percent from 2000 to 2010, and enrollment more than doubled from 2.3 million to 5.2 million students, according to UNESCO. However, only one African university was one of the top 100 worlds to be judged by the 2016 world universities ranking.

BRICS

This ranking set adopts 8 indicators to select the top 100 top educational institutions in the BRICS countries. Institutions in, Macau and Taiwan did not get here.

QS University Rankings: BRICS - Top 10

institution	2013	2014	2015	2016	2018	2019

The results of the QS World University Rankings, which represent the world's leading universities, have become known. Moscow State University again became the best in Russia, retaining its position last year - 108th in the world. A total of 3,800 universities participated in the ranking, of which 891 were included in the list.

According to Viktor Sadovnichy, Rector of Moscow State University, Moscow State University has once again confirmed its leading position in the face of increased competition, especially from universities in the Asian region.

"In 2016, we traditionally improved our positions in the categories of Academic Reputation and Employer reputation, which are the main indicators of the university's work. These criteria determine the quality of teaching at the university and the level of conducting scientific research. Also this year we have successfully carried out admissions campaign to attract foreign students, which is a good foundation for the future ", - commented the rector of Moscow State University Viktor Sadovnichy.

In recent years, our universities have been improving their positions in international rankings, which contributes to their promotion in the world market. educational services and attracts international students. In the latest QS subject ranking, eight of our universities are represented in the top 100. The leader was Moscow State University, which got into the top 100 in 12 regions. The most high place- 17th - he got in the field of "Linguistics". In second place is St. Petersburg State University, which is represented by two subjects. V full version subject ranking were 17 of our universities. Significant successes have been achieved by MEPhI, Novosibirsk State University, Russian State University of Oil and Gas named after V.I. Gubkin. For this QS subject ranking, 4,226 educational institutions of the world were assessed, and a total of 945 universities were included in it. More than 113 million citations were analyzed, the provision of about 15 530 educational programs was checked.

“Just 5 years ago, few people in our universities knew about the Hirsch index, the impact factor, Scopus and Web of Science databases, world university rankings QS, THE and ARWU.

As for another prestigious international ranking THE, which is prepared by the British magazine Times Higher Education, five of our universities were included in the list of the 200 best universities in Europe. This is Moscow State University (he has 79th place), St. Petersburg Poly Technical University Peter the Great (113), Tomsk Polytechnic University (136), Kazan federal university(152), MEPhI (164).

In the first positions in all international rankings Stanford, Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge universities, Massachusetts University of Technology.

Our universities in the QS Global University Rankings:

258 - SPbSU

291 - Novosibirsk State University

306 - Moscow State Technical University Bauman

350 - MGIMO (U) Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation

350 - MIPT

377 - Tomsk State University

400 - Tomsk Polytechnic University

401-410 - MEPhI

411-420 - HSE

411-420 - St. Petersburg Polytechnic

501-550 - Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University

551-600 - Far Eastern Federal University

551-600 - Saratov State University

551-600 - Southern Federal University

601-650 - NUST "MISIS"

601-650 - RUDN University

601-650 - Ural Federal University

701+ - Nizhny Novgorod University named after Lobachevsky

701+ - Novosibirsk Polytechnic

701+ - Plekhanov Russian University of Economics

701+ - Voronezh State University

The list of the 1000 best universities in the world includes universities involved in the projects of the National Technology Initiative

The British company Quacquarelli Symonds has published the QS World University Rankings. This year, 25 Russian universities are represented in the ranking, which includes 1000 educational institutions.

Moscow State University remains the leader of Russian higher education. Lomonosov, which rose six positions compared to last year and took 84th place. In second place among Russian universities is NSU (231st position), which participates in the program to improve the competitiveness of leading universities among the world's leading research and educational centers (Project 5-100).
As noted on the website of the 5-100 project, of the 25 Russian universities represented in the ranking this year, 16 are participants in the 5-100 project. The top 500 includes 16 universities from Russia, with 12 participating in the 5-100 project.

In addition to Novosibirsk State University, which moved up 13 positions and strengthened its position in the top 300, this rating range also included another university of the “5-100 project”, Tomsk State University (268th position).

Russian universities have shown positive dynamics in the top 400 as well. Compared to last year, their number increased from 10 to 13. MIPT (302nd position) managed to come close to the top 300, moving up 10 positions, followed by NRU HSE (322nd position) and NRNU MEPhI (329th position) i position).

For the first time this year in the top 400 the best universities The world includes such universities - participants of the Project as UrFU (364th position), KFU (392nd position) and RUDN (392nd position). ITMO University made a significant leap towards higher rating ranges, taking 436th place in the rating table, moving up more than 70 points. The top 500 also includes Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, which includes the Competence Center of the National Technological Initiative in New Manufacturing Technologies (439th position) and NUST MISIS (451st position).

Positive dynamics in the top 300, top 400, top 500 speaks about the potential of Russian universities and their increasing competitiveness, since the higher the rating range, the more difficult it is to move up in it.

“From this year's data, it is clear that international students are responding warmly to the initiatives of the Russian Ministry of Science and Higher Education, and the further creation of a dynamic multinational community is an important factor highlighting the improvement in the situation in Russia this year. However, it should be noted that the low student-to-faculty ratio is another key success factor in Russia. Students value access to their professors, and a large faculty-to-student ratio makes the university attractive. Ensuring a high teacher-to-student ratio is critical to Russia's further progress, ”said Ben Souter, head of research at the QS Intelligence Unit.

The main purpose of the QS World University Rankings is to help students select leading universities around the world. When compiling the QS World University Rankings, six indicators are taken into account: credibility in the academic environment, faculty-to-student ratio, reputation among employers, citation index, and the proportion of foreign faculty and students.
Along with the Shanghai Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) and THE (Times Higher Education World University Rankings), QS is the rating that the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation is guided by when assessing the success of universities.

According to the indicator "Share of international students" in this year's ranking, 19 out of 25 Russian universities improved their results - in total, the number of foreign students in them increased by 40% from 2013 to 2018. In addition, seven of the top 50 universities in the world in terms of Teacher-to-Student Ratio are Russian.

84 a place in the overall QS World University Rankings was taken by the Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov, a partner of the Center for Quantum Technologies;
231 Novosibirsk State University;
234 St. Petersburg State University;
274 Tomsk State University;
284 Moscow State Technical University named after N.E. Bauman;
302 Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (MIPT);
322 National research university « graduate School economics ";
329 National Research Nuclear University MEPhI;
364 Ural Federal University;
366 Moskovsky state institute international relations- MGIMO University;
387 Tomsk Polytechnic University;
392 Kazan Federal University;
392 Peoples' Friendship University of Russia;
436 Saint Petersburg National Research University information technologies Mechanics and Optics - ITMO University;
439 Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, which includes the Competence Center of the National Technological Initiative in the direction of "New production technologies";
451 National Research Technological University "MISiS", which created the Center for Quantum Communications of the National Technology Initiative;
521-530 Saratov State University;
531-540 Far Eastern Federal University, which includes the NTI Center in the direction of "Neurotechnologies, technologies of virtual and augmented reality";
541-550 South Federal University;
601-650 Nizhny Novgorod State University;
651-700 Samara National Research University;
751-800 Russian the University of Economics named after G.V. Plekhanov;
801-1000 Novosibirsk State Technical University;
801-1000 South Ural State University;
801-1000 Voronezh State University.

Indicator.Ru figured out what Russian universities need to do to rise in this list and what has changed in the British expert counting system.

The international QS ranking has been published since 2004, and initially experts from the British publication Times Higher Education (THE) participated in the preparation of its methodology. Since 2010, the analytical company Quacquarelli Symonds Ltd. started publishing the rating independently. When compiling the rating, statistical information from the Scopus bibliometric database is taken into account.

A place*	University	Country
	Massachusetts Institute of Technology	USA
2	Stanford	USA
3		USA
4	California Institute of Technology	USA
5	Cambridge	United Kingdom
6		United Kingdom
7	University College London	United Kingdom
8	Imperial College London	United Kingdom
9	University of Chicago	USA
10	Swiss Federal Institute of Technology	Switzerland

Compared to the previous year, the position of universities remained practically unchanged: the California Institute of Technology moved up one position, while Cambridge, on the contrary, went down; Imperial College London and the University of Chicago were ranked 9th and 10th in last year's rankings, while the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology dropped two positions.

Among the 300 best universities there are also St. Petersburg State University (240th place), Novosibirsk State University (250th place) and Moscow State Technical University. Bauman (291st place). According to QS data, the citation index at NSU, in contrast to other domestic universities, has also increased.

291 306=

MSTU. Bauman

323 377= 355 350= 373 350= 373 401-410

NRNU "MEPhI"

382 411-420 386 400= 401-410 411-420

Peter the Great SPbPU

441-450 501-550 491-500 601-650 501-550 601-650

NUST MISIS

501-550 601-650 551-600 551-600

NI SSU named after N.G. Chernyshevsky

551-600 551-600 601-650 551-600 601-650 701+

Saint Petersburg State University of Information Technologies, Mechanics and Optics

701-750 701+ 801-1000 701+

PRUE named after G.V. Plekhanov

801-1000 701+

SNIU named after S.P. Queen

801-1000 701+

The rating methodology has undergone minor changes this year. Zoya Zaitseva commented: “Firstly, the ratio of the weights of votes of domestic and international employers has changed. Previously it was 30/70, from this year the weight will be 50/50. This is a serious plus for Russian universities, which have finally begun to work much more intensively with their contacts in companies. "

In addition, the analysis of the Scopus database has changed. “Previously, we looked at a five-year window capturing quotes from the year the rating was published,” explains Zaitseva. “However, after lengthy discussions with our Academic Council, it was decided to expand the window to six years. So, this year we analyzed citations from 2011-2016 referring to articles published in the period from 2011 to 2015. It adds value last year in the analysis and gives us a little more accurate data. "

Quacquarelli Symonds experts argue that competent planning of the activities of Russian universities, aimed at improving their reputation, certainly helped them rise in the ranking. “The achievements of Russian universities this year indicate that careful, long-term strategic planning, targeted and consistent investments, as well as the desire for internationalization, will ultimately lead to tangible positive changes in the position of Russian universities in the ranking. Despite the fact that Russian universities are still hindered by the relatively low results of bibliometric indicators, behind the high results of this year are the desire of Russian universities to strengthen their positions in the international arena and the implementation of international strategy as an integral part of the university's development, ”said Ben Souter, Head of Department Research QS Intelligence Unit.

Sources of

Tomsk Polytechnic University (tpu.ru), 08/06/2017

Department of Education Novosibirsk region(minobr.nso.ru), 08/06/2017

REF RF (referatwork.ru), 08/06/2017

Russia for All (rus.rus4all.ru), 08/06/2017

Pulse of the Planet 24/7 (puls-planety247.ru), 08/06/2017

Lead. Economics (vestifinance.ru), 08/06/2017

National News Service (nsn.fm), 08/06/2017

Medical bulletin (medvestnik.ru), 08/06/2017

Novosibirsk Regional Studies Portal (kraeved.ngonb.ru), 06/13/2017

QS has been in the education sector since 1990. She organizes international events for students and ranks universities around the world. The QS World University Rankings are ranked as one of the three most influential university rankings in the world, along with the Times Higher Education and Academic Ranking of World Universities. However, the rankings have been criticized for relying on subjective metrics and polls, which tend to fluctuate from year to year.

The QS Graduate Employability Ranking 2020 published today is based on five indicators: reputation among employers, success of graduates, partnership with employers, interaction of employers with students and employment of graduates.

Russian higher education was represented by 13 universities, seven of which are among the participants in the 5-100 Project. The winner of the best indicator among them was the HSE, which divided the places from 201st to 250th. Six more universities of Project 5-100 - MIPT, NSU, NUST MISIS, NRNU MEPhI, RUDN and TPU - took places in the rating range 301-500. Most strengths universities of Project 5-100 - employment of graduates and interaction of employers with students.

The Russian leaders of the QS Graduate Employability Ranking were Moscow State University (group of places 101-110), St. Petersburg State University (position 181-190) and MGIMO (position 191-200). The overall first place in the ranking went to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the second to Stanford University, and the third to the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA).

The university	Position
Moscow State University M.V. Lomonosov	101-110
Saint Petersburg State University	181-190
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation	191-200
Moscow State Technical University named after N.E. Bauman National Research University	201-250
National Research University Higher School of Economics	201-250
Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology (National Research University)	301-500
National Research Technological University "MISiS"	301-500
National Research Tomsk Polytechnic University	301-500
National Research Nuclear University "MEPhI"	301-500
Novosibirsk State Technical University	301-500
Novosibirsk National Research State University	301-500
Peoples' Friendship University of Russia	301-500
Russian University of Economics. G.V. Plekhanov	301-500