The impact of changing metrics in Shanghai Ranking’s Global Ranking of Academic Subjects on medical sciences subjects

Abstract This article examines the longitudinal stability, internal consistency, and stratifying effects of Shanghai Ranking’s Global Ranking of Academic Subjects (Shanghai GRAS) in six subjects of Medical Sciences (2017–2025). While Shanghai GRAS has gained prominence as a global higher education benchmark, little is known about the empirical consequences of its methodological changes. Using a quantitative approach combining descriptive statistics, indicator score and overall score change analysis, and K-means clustering, we evaluated the effects of indicator revisions, weight adjustments, and new data sources on institutional trajectories. Our findings show that global methodological alterations influencing all subjects generate substantial volatility, especially for institutions outside the top clusters. The 2019 Category Normalized Citation Impact revision corresponded with overall score increases, while the 2024 methodology restructuring led to significant score declines in general, but the rankings of leading institutions either improved or were not affected. Our findings challenge assumptions about the comparability of rankings and reveal their performative role in reinforcing institutional hierarchies, while also calling for more transparent, context-sensitive evaluation frameworks that reflect the epistemic diversity of global academia.