.png)
Improving University Ranking Robustness Using Rank Geometric Weight Integration with CoCoSo Method for Reducing Ordinal Weighting Instability
Abstract
This study lies in the field of decision support systems, focusing on the application of Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) for ranking alternatives based on predefined organizational criteria. A persistent challenge in this domain is the instability and subjectivity of ordinal weighting methods - such as Rank Order Centroid (ROC), Rank Sum (RS), Rank Reciprocal (RR), and Rank Order Distribution (ROD), which derive weights solely from rank positions, often leading to inconsistent and unreliable outcomes. To address this, this study introduces Rank Geometric (RG) weights, a geometric mean aggregation of ROC, RS, RR, and ROD designed to reduce subjectivity, stabilize weight distribution, and enhance robustness. By using the Combined Compromise Solution (CoCoSo) method, the RG against Times Higher Education’s (THE) official weights were evaluated, and the four individual ordinal methods, applied to the top 10 Indonesian universities across five THE 2025 ranking criteria. Empirical results show that RG-CoCoSo produces stronger and more consistent correlations with THE’s rankings than THE-CoCoSo, as validated by Spearman and Pearson correlation tests, with a p-value of 0.0251. This study contributes a practical, data-driven weighting framework that strengthens the reliability of MCDM-based institutional performance evaluation and can be generalized to other ranking contexts.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
R. Roberts and P. Goodwin, “Weight Approximations in Multi-Attribute Decision Models,” Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 291–303, 2002, doi: 10.1002/mcda.320.
Z. Chergui and A. Jiménez-Martín, “On Ordinal Information-Based Weighting Methods and Comparison Analyses,” Information (Switzerland), vol. 15, no. 9, pp. 527, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.3390/info15090527.
T. Ando, C. K. Li, and R. Mathias, “Geometric Means,” Linear Algebra Appl, vol. 385, no. 1–3, pp. 305–334, Jul. 2004, doi: 10.1016/j.laa.2003.11.019.
R. M. Vogel, “The Geometric Mean?,” Commun Stat Theory Methods, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 82–94, 2022, doi: 10.1080/03610926.2020.1743313.
S. Andryana, M. I. Wahyuddin, B. Rahman, A. Rahman, W. Putra, and T. Mantoro, “Enhancing Coffee Marketing Strategies through Multi-Criteria Decision-Making,” JOIV: International Journal on Informatics Visualization, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1374-1380, Jul. 2025. doi: 10.62527/joiv.9.4.3282.
K. Ponhan and P. Sureeyatanapas, “A Comparison Between Subjective and Objective Weighting Approaches for Multi-Criteria Decision Making: A Case of Industrial Location Selection,” Engineering and Applied Science Research, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 763–771, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.14456/easr.2022.74.
M. El Abassi et al., “The Combination of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) and Morphometric Parameters for Prioritizing the Erodibility of Sub-Watersheds in the Ouljet Es Soltane Basin (North of Morocco),” Heliyon, vol. 10, no. 19, pp. 1–27, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e38228.
A. Siva Bhaskar and A. Khan, “Comparative Analysis of Hybrid MCDM Methods in Material Selection for Dental Qpplications,” Expert Syst Appl, vol. 209, pp. 118268, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2022.118268.
S. Andryana, T. Mantoro, A. Gunaryati, and A. E. Raffliansyah, “Improving MCDM University Rankings through Statistical Validation Using Spearman’s Correlation and THE Benchmark,” Journal of Applied Data Sciences, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1876–1888, Sep. 2025, doi: 10.47738/jads.v6i3.796.
R. Gabriel Rasoanaivo, M. Yazdani, P. Zaraté, and A. Fateh, “Combined Compromise for Ideal Solution (CoCoFISo): A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Based on the CoCoSo Method Algorithm,” Expert Syst Appl, vol. 251, no. 10, pp. 124079, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124079.
S. S. Goswami et al., “Multi-Model MCDM Framework for Sustainable Renewable Energy Selection in India: Integrating CRITIC-EDAS-CODAS-CoCoSo,” Discover Sustainability, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 500, Dec. 2025, doi: 10.1007/s43621-025-01069-0.
D. , M. B. R. , M. G. S. , & M. B. S. Ghosh, “Integrated MEREC-CoCoSo Approach Using Score Function of Neutrosophic for Location Selection of Special Economic Zone,” Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 55, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.59313/jsr-a.1420728.
V. Kumar, K. Kalita, P. Chatterjee, E. K. Zavadskas, and S. Chakraborty, “A SWARA-CoCoSo-Based Approach for Spray Painting Robot Selection,” Informatica (Netherlands), vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 35–54, 2022, doi: 10.15388/21-INFOR466.
A. A. Nasser, Y. A. Al-Samawi, A. S. A. Alghawli, and A. A. K. Essayed, “Unveiling Health Security Patterns in the European Union through a Hybrid Entropy-CoCoSo and K-Means Clustering Framework,” F1000Res, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 600, Jun. 2025, doi: 10.12688/f1000research.166187.1.
Y. Zhu, S. Zeng, Z. Lin, and K. Ullah, “Comprehensive Evaluation and Spatial-Temporal Differences Analysis of China’s Inter-Provincial Doing Business Environment Based on Entropy-CoCoSo Method,” Front Environ Sci, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 1088064, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2022.1088064.
V. Choudhary and A. Mishra, “Analyzing the Critical Success Enablers of Industry 4.0 Using Hybrid Fuzzy AHP–CoCoSo Method,” Journal of Industrial Integration and Management, vol. 07, no. 04, pp. 493–514, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.1142/S2424862221500184.
E. Adar, E. K. Delice, and T. Adar, “Prioritizing of Industrial Wastewater Management Processes Using an Integrated AHP–CoCoSo Model: Comparative and Sensitivity analyses,” International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 4691–4712, 2022, doi: 10.1007/s13762-021-03511-y.
M. Yazdani, P. Zarate, E. K. Zavadskas, and Z. Turskis, “A Combined Compromise Solution (CoCoSo) Method for Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Problems,” Management Decision, vol. 57, no. 9, pp. 2501–2519, Oct. 2019, doi: 10.1108/MD-05-2017-0458.
Times Higher Education, “World University Rankings 2025: Methodology.” Accessed: Apr. 18, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/asia-university-rankings-2025-methodology
J. C. F. de Winter, S. D. Gosling, and J. Potter, “Comparing the Pearson and Spearman Correlation Coefficients across Distributions and Sample Sizes: A Tutorial Using Simulations and Empirical Data,” Psychol Methods, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 273–290, Sep. 2016, doi: 10.1037/met0000079.
R. C. Burk and R. M. Nehring, “An Empirical Comparison of Rank-Based Surrogate Weights in Additive Multiattribute Decision Analysis,” Decision Analysis, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 55–72, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.1287/deca.2022.0456.
D. T. Do and N. T. Nguyen, “Applying CoCoSo, MABAC, MAIRCA, EAMR, TOPSIS and Weight Determination Methods for Multi-Criteria Decision Making in Hole Turning Process,” Strojnicky Casopis, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 15–40, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.2478/scjme-2022-0014.
H. T. Dung, D. T. Do, and V. T. Nguyen, “Comparison of Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods Using the Same Data Standardization Method,” Strojnicky Casopis, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 57–72, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.2478/scjme-2022-0016.
S. Furtado and C. R. Johnson, “Efficiency of any Weighted Geometric Mean of the Columns of a Reciprocal Matrix,”. Linear Algebra and its Applications, vol. 680, no. 1, pp, 83-92, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.laa.2023.10.001.
L.-Y. Xu, M. Zhang, W. Zhu, and Y.-L. He, “Comparison of Geometric and Arithmetic Means for Bandwidth Selection in Nadaraya-Watson Kernel Regression Estimator,” in 2013 International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 2013, pp. 999–1004. doi: 10.1109/ICMLC.2013.6890742.
X. Cao and Y. Deng, “A New Geometric Mean FMEA Method Based on Information Quality,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 95547–95554, Aug. 2019, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2928581.
L. M. Restrepo-Tamayo, G. P. Gasca-Hurtado, L. Machuca-Villegas, and S. Morillo-Puente, “Relationship Between Gamification Elements and Social and Human Factors Using the Simple Additive Weighting Method,” PLoS One, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. e0320419, Apr. 2025, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0320419.
M. Soltani, B. Barekatain, F. Hendessi, and Z. Beheshti, “PSSN: A Novel Cache Placement Method Based on Adapted Shannon Entropy and Simple Additive Weighting Method in Named Data Networking,” Knowl Inf Syst, vol. 67, no. 2, pp. 1507–1540, 2025, doi: 10.1007/s10115-024-02266-5.
X. Ou and B. Chen, “A Modified WASPAS Method for the Evaluation of E-Commerce Websites Based on Pythagorean Fuzzy Information,” IEEE Access, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 9303–9312, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3527212.
C. Xu and X. Yuan, “A Novel Intuitionistic Fuzzy Decision Support System Based on Extended WASPAS Method: A Case Study for the Selection of Basketball Players and Basketball Fields for Maximum Performance,” IEEE Access, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 81606–81617, May 2025, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3563998.
P. Liu, A. Ali, and N. Rehman, “Analysis of Green Buildings Based on CODAS Method and WASPAS Method for Circular Linguistic T-Spherical Fuzzy Hamy Mean Aggregation Operators,” Ain Shams Engineering Journal, vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 2–41, Sep. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.asej.2025.103528.
Z. Ali, K. Hayat, and D. Pamucar, “Analysis of Coupling in Geographic Information Systems Based on WASPAS Method for Bipolar Complex Fuzzy Linguistic Aczel-Alsina Power Aggregation Operators,” PLoS One, vol. 19, no. 9, pp. e0309900, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0309900.
A. R. Abdul Ghaffar, M. R. Nadeem, and M. G. Hasan, “Cost-Benefit Analysis of Shale Development in India: A Best-Worst Method Based MCDM Approach,” J King Saud Univ Sci, vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 101591, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.jksus.2021.101591.
Y. Tan, S. Park, A. M. A. de Medeiros, and P. Wanke, “Cost-benefit Analysis in UK Hotels: A Hybrid SOCP-MCDM Approach,” Tour Manag, vol. 106, no. 2, pp. 105034, Feb. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2024.105034.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.47738/jads.v7i1.1024
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Journal of Applied Data Sciences
| ISSN | : | 2723-6471 (Online) |
| Publisher | : | Bright Publisher |
| Website | : | http://bright-journal.org/JADS |
| : | taqwa@amikompurwokerto.ac.id (principal contact) | |
| support@bright-journal.org (technical issues) |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0