[dsg42]

While I admire the idea of getting subjectivity and bias out of rankings, I think you're missing the point that there is an inherent issue of quality here that is being brushed aside.

For example, I decided to check out my own alma mater, Yale, to see how the rankings were calculated. One professor stood out to me: Dan Spielman. It happens that he won the Nevanlinna Prize in 2010, during the period that your rankings cover. Yet, his average comes out to a mere 4.5, which would mean he would actually bring down the average score at any of the top ten schools.

The issue here is that, until computers can reliably rank the quality and importance of papers in real-time, these types of rankings mean little. It's the quality, not the quantity, of papers published that matters.