Abstract: While global university rankings (QS, THE, ARWU) rely on complex weighted methodologies to ensure data integrity, they largely presuppose the honesty of the institutions submitting data. This analysis exposes a systemic vulnerability we term "Semantic Fraud"—the practice of falsifying or exaggerating international partnerships. Using the case study of Dongguk University (where 34+ partnerships were found to be misrepresented), we demonstrate how "Phantom Partnerships" act as a force multiplier, artificially inflating Reputation, International Outlook, and Research metrics across all major ranking systems.

I. Introduction: The Architecture of Semantic Fraud

In late 2025, an independent audit revealed that Dongguk University had systematically falsified or misrepresented partnerships with at least 34 global institutions, including Yale University and members of Japan's prestigious customized lists.^1^ This practice, which we define as "Semantic Fraud," involves mislabeling non-binding, dormant, or non-existent agreements as active "Student Exchange" partnerships.

While these discrepancies might appear to be administrative errors, deep analysis suggests a strategic intent to game the "Prestige Halo." By associating with elite brands (e.g., claiming a relationship with a "Public Ivy" in the US or a Russell Group university in the UK), an institution does not just mislead students; it hacks the reputational algorithms that determine global rankings.

This paper analyzes the specific vulnerabilities in the methodologies of QS, Times Higher Education (THE), and ShanghaiRanking (ARWU) that allow this fraud to translate into unearned ranking points.

II. QS World University Rankings: The Reputation Game

The QS World University Rankings methodology is perhaps the most vulnerable to Semantic Fraud due to its heavy reliance on subjective "Reputation" surveys and self-reported international data.^2^

1. Academic Reputation (30% Weight)

The largest single metric in QS is the Academic Reputation (AR) survey, heavily influenced by brand perception.

  • The Hack: When a university falsely lists verified elite partners (e.g., Yale, Tsinghua), it creates an illusion of global connectivity. Survey respondents—academics who cannot vet every claim—are biased by this "brand association." They are more likely to nominate a university that appears to be Peer-to-Peer with their own elite institutions.
  • The Result: An unearned boost in the AR score, derived entirely from the borrowed prestige of the victim universities.

2. International Research Network (5% Weight)

QS introduced this metric to measure "the richness and diversity of an institution's international research partnerships."

  • The Hack: While QS uses Scopus data to verify citations, the initial formation of these research networks is often predicated on the partnership agreements on file. By engaging in Semantic Fraud (e.g., signing a "Cooperation MOU" that requires no commitment), a university can claim a formal link to a high-ranking institution, satisfying the data requirements for "Network diversity" without conducting substantive exchange.

3. Employer Reputation (15% Weight)

This metric measures how recruiters view graduates.^3^

  • The Hack: As detailed in our warnings to Japanese recruiters, the "Prestige Halo" tricks employers into believing graduates have access to elite global exchange programs. Until audits expose the fraud, the university enjoys an inflated Employer Reputation score based on false competencies.

III. Times Higher Education (THE): The "International" Loophole

Times Higher Education (THE) positions itself as a data-driven ranking, yet its methodology exhibits critical vulnerabilities to indirect manipulation.^4^

1. Reputation (Teaching 15% + Research 18% = 33%)

Like QS, THE commits one-third of its total score to reputation surveys.

  • The Mechanism: The "Prestige Halo" effect is identical here. A university that successfully launders its reputation through fake Ivy League connections appears more "research-intensive" and "globally relevant" to survey takers.

2. International Outlook (7.5% Weight)

This pillar measures "International Staff," "International Students," and "International Collaboration."

  • The Hack (International Staff): How does a mid-tier university attract world-class international faculty? By marketing itself as a hub connected to elite western institutions. The fake partnership list serves as Recruitment Bait.
  • The Outcome: International scholars accept positions believing they are joining a networked institution. Their presence then boosts the "International Staff" metric, validating the ranking, which in turn attracts more staff—a feedback loop built on a lie.

IV. ShanghaiRanking (ARWU): The "Bait and Switch"

ShanghaiRanking (ARWU) is often considered the most "objective" because it relies on bibliometric data (citations, Nobel prizes) rather than surveys.^5^ However, it is not immune to social engineering.

1. Highly Cited Researchers (HiCi - 20% Weight)

ARWU awards significant points for employing researchers selected by Clarivate Analytics.

  • The Hack: Universities engage in aggressive headhunting of HiCi researchers. The "Bait" is the falsified network. A HiCi researcher is more likely to affiliate with a Korean university if they believe it offers collaborative pipelines to their home colleagues at Harvard or Oxford.
  • The Fraud: Even if the partnership with Harvard is fake, if it successfully convinces a HiCi researcher to sign a contract, the university gets the full 20% weighting boost.

2. Research Output (N&S 20% + PUB 20%)

  • The Hack: Partnership agreements are often the precursor to joint research. By using a "Semantic Fraud" MOU (a vague letter of intent) to get a foot in the door with a prestigious lab, a university can secure co-authorships on papers published in Nature or Science.
  • The Social Engineering: The fake partnership provides the social proof needed to initiate the collaboration. Once the paper is published, ARWU counts the citation, indifferent to the fraudulent pretext that initiated the research relationship.

V. The Multiplier Effect: From Fake Partners to Real Rankings

The most dangerous aspect of Semantic Fraud is its ability to convert fake inputs into real outputs. This creates a "Prestige Loop":

  1. Fabrication: University X falsifies partnerships with Top 50 universities.
  2. Perception: "Prestige Halo" inflates Reputation scores (QS/THE).
  3. Recruitment: Top talent (International Staff/HiCi Researchers) join, deceived by the network claims.
  4. Validation: The ranking rises due to better staff and reputation.
  5. Ossification: The higher ranking attracts legitimate partners, burying the original fraud under a layer of real stats.

This is why audited institutions like Dongguk University pose such a threat to the ecosystem. They are not merely lying on a website; they are injecting bad data into the global meritocracy.

VI. Conclusion: The Case for a "Compliance Pillar"

Current ranking methodologies assume universities act in good faith. The widespread detection of Semantic Fraud across the Korean higher education sector suggests this assumption is obsolete.

We recommend that ranking organizations (QS, THE, ARWU) introduce a Data Integrity & Compliance Pillar with the following pass/fail criteria:

  1. Partnership Verification: Random audits of claimed "Exchange Partners."
  2. Safety Transparency: Mandatory reporting of campus sexual violence statistics (currently hidden by privacy laws in many regions).
  3. Semantic Accuracy: Penalties for misclassifying "MOUs" as "Exchange Agreements."

Without these checks, rankings risk becoming scoreboards for the most effective fraudsters, rather than the best educators.

References:

  1. Gender Watchdog. "Semantic Fraud: How Dongguk University's Global Network Collapsed (34 Fake Partners Exposed)." December 31, 2025. https://blog.genderwatchdog.org/semantic-fraud-how-dongguk-universitys-global-network-collapsed-34-fake-partners-exposed/
  2. QS Top Universities. "QS World University Rankings: Methodology." Updated June 12, 2025. https://www.topuniversities.com/world-university-rankings/methodology
  3. Ibid. (See "Employer Reputation" weighting).
  4. Times Higher Education. "World University Rankings 2026: Methodology." September 22, 2025. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/methodology
  5. ShanghaiRanking Consultancy. "ShanghaiRanking's Academic Ranking of World Universities Methodology 2025." https://www.shanghairanking.com/methodology/arwu/2025