A. Overall statement

The topic is relevant and much-needed in the context of the on-going debate of the importance of the university ranking. Although the introduction thoroughly explains the scope and objectives of this article, the statistical model (assuming a locked-in relation between world university rankings and 4 country-specific variables), does not seem to be backed up with enough data or evidences to the extent of suggesting this “locked-in” status.

B. Strengths:

1. The article addresses a fairly contemporary argument among the members of the academic community.
2. Trying to link a relation between country indicators and position of the universities in three ranking systems is in itself an instructive idea.
3. The language is adequate and rich with relevant terminology

C. Weaknesses:

Major points

1. There is no explanation of the statistical terminology. It is hard for a reader who does not have a statistic background to grasp the idea and understand. This is a major issue as it extremely narrows down the potential audience of the article
2. Statistically speaking also, the does not include interpretation of the data in the table. He jumps directly from the numbers to the broad and end-result conclusion and he does not include a step-by-step analysis of the various statistical figures appearing in the table
3. The author does not include analysis on the relative performance of the three chosen ranking systems compared to each other’s concerning their ability to be predicted by the proposed country variables (indicators).

Minor points

1. In the abstract, the author says “the three most influential world university rankings”; this needs a reference as there are also another influential ranking systems: US. News, Leiden, etc. In addition to this, maybe he shouldn’t use the word “most influential” and use instead just “influential”
2. In the abstract, the author says “the position of universities from a country in the ranking is determined by the following country-specific variables ”, maybe better use the world “highly determined” as this is more reflecting the true relation between the ranking and country variables
3. Keywords, I would suggest adding: ARWU, QS, and THE as keywords
4. In the Introduction, the author says, “World university rankings (WUR) have become very popular” I suggest that the author adds a reference here
5. In the Methods and data, the author says, “Some of the determinants have been examined in previous research (e.g. language)” I suggest that the author adds a reference here
6. In the Methods and data, the author says, “while universities that came between 401 and 500 were granted 100 points” There is no explanation on why giving these universities such value?
7. In the section: The level of economic development, the author should clarify what indicators/set of indicators determine(s) this status of a country?
8. In the section: Long-term political stability and the longevity of the state structure, the author says, “polity scale that ranges from + 10 (strongly democratic) to - 10 (strongly autocratic)”. What is the logic behind this allocation of scale? does autocratic means instability? what about the Chinese model? The author should clarify this point as democracy does not mean stability all the time