In short: our assessors are volunteers with a doctorate and research experience. They score against a published rubric, using evidence only, without contact with the institutions they assess, and they step aside whenever they have a conflict.
Who this code applies to
This code applies to every assessor, senior assessor and adjudicator who scores or reviews institutions or programs for RankingLab. Assessors serve as volunteers. Acting as an assessor is a position of trust, and agreeing to this code is a condition of every assignment.
Qualifications
To serve as an assessor, a person must:
- Hold a PhD or an equivalent doctorate.
- Have research experience, demonstrated for example through peer-reviewed publications, supervised research or research leadership.
- Have expertise that matches the field being assessed, such as management, business administration, computer science, AI or the relevant engineering discipline.
- Complete RankingLab calibration training before their first assignment and at least once per edition after that.
Senior assessors, who adjudicate disagreements, are experienced assessors appointed by the editorial secretariat.
Independence and conflicts of interest
- Assessors file a conflict of interest declaration for every assignment, before seeing any evidence.
- Assessors must recuse themselves if, within the last five years, they worked for, studied at or were paid by the institution; if they have a pending application or offer there; if an immediate family member has ties to it; or if they have any other material interest.
- If a conflict arises during an assignment, the assessor stops at once and informs the secretariat.
Full rules are in the Independence & Conflict of Interest Policy.
How assessors score
- Evidence based. Scores rest only on the evidence pack and verifiable sources, judged against the published rubric. Reputation, personal impressions and hearsay are not evidence.
- Independent and blind. Each entry is scored by at least two assessors who do not see each other's scores.
- Reasoned. Assessors record a short justification for each pillar score, citing the evidence relied on.
- Honest about uncertainty. Where evidence is thin or conflicting, assessors record their confidence level rather than guessing.
- Adjudication. If two assessors differ by more than 15 points on the 100-point scale for any pillar, a third senior assessor reviews the evidence and decides.
Use of AI tools
- Assessors may use only the AI tools approved by RankingLab for the edition, and only for the permitted uses in the Responsible AI Use Policy.
- AI may help assessors find, translate or summarize evidence. AI may not decide or suggest a final score, and assessors remain fully responsible for every score they submit.
- Assessors must check AI-provided claims against original sources and reject any claim that cannot be verified.
- Assessors must never enter confidential material into tools that are not approved.
Contact with institutions
Assessors must not contact assessed institutions directly about an assessment, and must not respond to approaches from them. All communication goes through the RankingLab secretariat. If an institution or anyone acting for it contacts an assessor, the assessor declines to discuss the assessment and reports the contact to the secretariat.
Confidentiality
- Evidence packs, institutional submissions, draft scores and discussions are confidential.
- Assessors may not disclose or discuss scores, drafts or results before official publication.
- Individual assessors' scores for specific institutions are never published.
- Assessors must keep materials secure and delete working copies when the edition closes, unless asked to retain them for an open review request.
Confidentiality of assessors
To protect assessors, and the rankings, from outside pressure, assessors' identities are kept confidential. RankingLab describes its assessor pool only in aggregate, for example by qualification, field and region. Assessors may not disclose their role on a specific ranking.
Professional conduct
- Treat all institutions fairly, regardless of size, location, language or prestige.
- Be respectful in all internal discussions, including disagreements over scores.
- Do not use information obtained through RankingLab for personal, academic or commercial advantage.
- Do not present yourself as speaking for RankingLab unless authorized.
Breaches
A breach of this code may lead to the assessor's scores being discarded and replaced, suspension, or permanent removal from the assessor pool. If a breach may have affected a published result, we review the result and publish any correction under the Review Requests & Corrections Policy.