Turning research output into QS ranking momentum

College of Health Sciences · VinUniversity — the AY 2025–2026 evidence base, read through the QS World University Rankings methodology.

223 QS-eligible publications · 197 QS-counted citations · 62%% Q1 · 58%% international

223
QS-eligible publications
the QS100 count · 283 total CHS output
197
QS-counted citations
feed Citations per Faculty
62%
Q1 share (eligible)
139 of 223 eligible papers
247
Active CHS authors
with a 2025-26 output
58%
International
eligible, co-authored ≥2 countries
5.6
Institutions / paper
eligible, collaboration breadth

What this report is. A single-year (AY 2025–2026) read of CHS research performance, organised around the QS World University Rankings framework. It focuses on the part of the ranking that scholarly output actually drives — the Research & Discovery lens (50% of the QS score) — and translates our publication database into QS-style indicators. Reputation surveys and headcount ratios are shown for context but sit outside this dataset.

The QS scorecard: where CHS can move the needle

QS ranks universities on nine indicators across four lenses. Half of the total score comes from research — exactly what a strong publication pipeline influences.

The Research & Discovery lens is 50% of the QS score: Academic Reputation (30%) + Citations per Faculty (20%). Our papers feed both — directly into Citations per Faculty, and indirectly into Academic Reputation as our work becomes visible and cited.

Lens Indicator Weight Does CHS output move it?
Research & Discovery (50%) Academic Reputation 30% Indirectly — visibility & citation of CHS work
Citations per Faculty 20% Directly — this report’s core
Employability & Outcomes (20%) Employer Reputation 15% No (survey)
Employment Outcomes 5% No (graduate data)
Global Engagement (15%) International Research Network 5% Yes — international co-authorship
International Faculty 5% No (HR data)
International Students 5% No (admissions data)
Learning Experience (15%) Faculty–Student Ratio 10% No (headcount)
Sustainability (5%) Sustainability 5% Partly — SDG-aligned research
How QS counts Citations per Faculty. QS uses Scopus data: citations are counted over a six-year window for papers published in a five-year window, then divided by faculty headcount. Three rules shape what “counts”:
  • Document type — primarily articles, reviews and conference papers.
  • Faculty-area normalisation — each of QS’s five faculty areas contributes 20% (ASJC-coded), so a med-heavy college isn’t automatically advantaged.
  • Affiliation cap & self-citations — mega-collaboration papers are capped, and author-level self-citations are removed.

Where this report says “QS-eligible”, it applies the document-type rule as a transparent proxy; full normalisation requires QS/Elsevier’s institutional faculty counts.

Growth trajectory: a college scaling fast

Total CHS output has compounded from a near-standing start to 283 publications in AY25-26 (the chart above shows full output by year). After applying the QS filters, 223 of these are QS-eligible — the count that actually feeds the ranking. Growth in both volume and quality is what the Citations-per-Faculty indicator rewards.

Citations per Faculty: research output & impact

223
QS-eligible publications
ar/re/cp, ≤45 authors, count known
197
Citations from eligible work
QS-counted output
62%
Q1 share (eligible)
139 of 223 eligible papers

After applying all QS filters — only articles / reviews / conference papers, excluding papers with more than 45 authors, and excluding papers whose author count is unavailable (mega-author papers such as Lancet consortia, where Scopus does not return a count) — 223 of 283 AY25-26 publications are QS-eligible. The waterfall below shows exactly what each rule removes.

QS-eligibility status Publications Citations
Included — QS-eligible 223 197
Excluded — document type 30 3
Excluded — >45 authors 20 1,531
Excluded — author count unavailable (too many authors) 10 61
Reality check. The 20 mega-collaboration papers (>45 authors) carry 1,531 citations — 85%% of all CHS citations — yet QS caps exactly these so they do not confer outsized credit. Under strict QS rules, citation credit therefore rests on the 223 standard-sized, QS-eligible papers (197 citations). This pattern is normal for health research (large multi-country consortia) and is precisely why the volume and Q1 quality of standard papers — not a handful of consortium hits — is what moves Citations per Faculty.

Quality: journal-quartile profile

The sections below profile the 223 QS-eligible publications only.

A 62% Q1 share among QS-eligible work is well above typical national benchmarks and is the single most persuasive quality signal for the Academic-Reputation half of the research lens: high-quartile work is what peer reviewers recognise and cite.

Faculty-area normalisation view

QS weights its five faculty areas equally (20% each). CHS output concentrates in Life Sciences & Medicine — a strength, but also a reminder that QS normalisation rewards breadth.

International Research Network

International co-authorship feeds the QS International Research Network indicator (5%) and amplifies citations.

58%
International papers
QS-eligible, ≥2 countries
5.6
Institutions / paper
mean collaboration breadth
130
Cross-border papers
QS-eligible, AY25-26

Highlights

Most-cited publications, AY25-26 (QS-eligible)

Leading journals

Full publication list — QS-eligible, AY25-26

Searchable and sortable. This shows the 223 QS-eligible publications. The companion Excel file additionally includes every AY25-26 record with its QS-eligibility status (including the excluded papers).


Methodology & caveats. Source: VinUni_Publication_DB.xlsx (sheets chs_author_works, vinuni_work), records with CHS_flag == 1 and AY == “AY25-26”, de-duplicated to paper level by Scopus EID. Quartiles are SJR best-quartile. “QS-eligible” applies QS’s document-type rule (article / review / conference paper) as a transparent proxy; it does not reproduce QS’s full faculty-area normalisation, affiliation cap, or self-citation removal, which require QS/Elsevier institutional inputs. Citation counts are point-in-time and will rise. International share is derived from Scopus affiliation countries.

Prepared by the CHS Research Office · Data engineering: Nguyen Viet Hoang (CHS-3DLAB).
QS methodology references: QS World University Rankings · Citations per Faculty · QS WUR (overview).