It appears that the rankings are not weighted by the size of faculty. Given similar faculty quality, larger departments will often rank higher in the scheme. It

It appears that the rankings are not weighted by the size of faculty. Given similar faculty quality, larger departments will often rank higher in the scheme. It is true that larger departments have certain advantages, but one would think that it levels off if there is a critical mass in a given area. A better way to rank would be interesting. (A simple division by the number of faculty is obviously wrong as well since counting interdisciplinary researchers would lower the average.) From my observations, citations are better metrics of quality than publication venues in the long run. Their rationale for not using citations is somewhat true but a measure like H-Score with a sufficiently high cutoff should mitigate the problem somewhat. A more sophisticated method is to weight citations by the number of citations used in a given paper so that the citations occurred in each paper only sum to 1.0, as well as detecting and discounting 'citation rings'. That said, it is a nice effort to bring objectivity to academic rankings and the site uses well-designed information architecture and data visualization. I appreciate it.