Would anyone notice if a small, old but awfully clever dog filled in a university ranking survey, and would it make a difference?

The Australian newspaper The Age has a piece by Erica Cervini on how she allowed her dog to complete the QS academic reputation survey on the quality of veterinary schools.

She doesn't elaborate on how the dog chose the schools. Was it by barking or tail wagging when shown pictures of the buildings?

Seriously though, she does have a point. Can QS stop people signing up just to support their employer or outvote their rivals?

To be fair, QS are aware that their surveys might be manipulated and have taken steps over the years to prevent this by such means as forbidding respondents from voting for their declared employer or repeat voting from the same computer. Even so, it seems that some universities, especially in Latin America, are getting scores in the reputation surveys that appear too high,especially when compared with their overall scores. In the employer survey the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile is 56th (overall 167) and the University of Buenos Aires 49th (overall 198). In the academic survey the University of Sao Paulo is 54th (overall 132 and the National Autonomous University of Mexico 55th (overall 175).

QS are apparently considering reforming their citations per faculty indicator and allowing unchanged responses to the surveys to be recycled for five instead of three years. This is welcome but a more rigorous overhaul of the reputation indicators is sorely needed.