Are joint faculty appointments fostering innovation or merely boosting prestige?

gettyimagesbank

LONDON — Joint appointments of internationally renowned scholars are emerging as a key strategy for Korean universities seeking greater global competitiveness.

However, international university ranking organizations warn that the model risks becoming counterproductive if it prioritizes prestige over meaningful research collaboration, while also acknowledging that distinguishing genuine partnerships from nominal appointments remains a challenge.

As international research networks become increasingly central to higher education, universities around the world are turning to joint appointments, which refer to a faculty member has a secondary appointment in one or more institutions besides his or her primary one.

The trend is also reflected in global rankings, with QS and Times Higher Education (THE) placing growing emphasis on international research collaboration and cross-border academic engagement.

QS emphasized that international collaboration lies at the heart of its philosophy, arguing that universities can achieve greater global impact by bringing together leading researchers from different institutions to tackle shared challenges.

THE also underscored the importance of preserving international academic exchange, arguing that universities, researchers and students all benefit from cross-border collaboration.

"We need to keep borders open, as universities thrive on international collaboration," said Phil Baty, chief global affairs officer at THE.

Recruiting internationally renowned scholars through joint appointments is widely seen as a way to enhance research quality and citation impact — factors that can also improve universities' performance in global rankings.

Critics, however, warn that the strategy has a potential downside, questioning whether some appointments represent meaningful academic partnerships or are primarily designed to inflate research metrics and game university ranking systems.

Related issue came under scrutiny in Korea in April amid allegations of so-called "academic mercenaries" — claims that some Korean universities had recruited overseas scholars through joint appointments primarily to boost their standing in global university rankings rather than to pursue meaningful research collaboration.

The controversy, which centered on Yonsei University and Korea University, prompted the Ministry of Education to announce plans to investigate 11 Korean universities ranked within the top 400 of the QS World University Rankings.

The universities have denied any wrongdoing, maintaining that the joint appointments were designed to expand international collaboration. The ministry's investigation is still underway.

The Ministry of Education building in Sejong / Korea Times file

Regarding this issue, both QS and THE acknowledged that while the misuse of joint appointments poses a genuine risk, identifying problematic cases remains challenging in practice.

"It is difficult to determine whether a joint appointment is genuine or whether academics are simply lending their names to another institution for publication purposes," said Ben Sowter, senior vice president at QS.

THE echoed that assessment, saying it remains difficult to detect questionable appointments at a macro level through existing evaluation metrics.

At the same time, both organizations stressed that they take evidence of manipulation seriously and are prepared to act when clear cases emerge.

Baty cited a case involving a Saudi Arabian university that was removed from the rankings after THE found compelling evidence that it had paid international academics to list the institution as an affiliation on research papers without meaningful academic engagement.

"We removed the university from the rankings as a disincentive and as recognition of manipulation," he said.

As concerns over superficial joint appointments and research metric manipulation have grown internationally, global university ranking organizations say they are continuously refining their methodologies to better identify genuine academic collaboration.

THE said it has introduced statistical screening methods to detect potential irregularities, including outlier reviews and analyses of unusually prolific authors and publication patterns that may warrant closer examination.

"We've got some statistical methods to try and identify problems," Baty said.

QS also said its ranking methodology is subject to ongoing refinement to strengthen the integrity of its assessments.

"We have been on a journey of continuous refinement," Sowter said.