QS ranking profile
Durham University
This page presents clearly labeled QS ranking data for orientation. It does not verify programs, supervisors, funding, admission requirements, or the university's website.
- QS 2026 rank
- #94
- Down 5 places since 2025
- QS 2025 rank
- #89
- Overall score
- 70.1
Explore opportunities at Durham University
Browse active research positions, doctoral fellowships, and university funding calls indexed from official faculties and verified sources.
QS indicators
Reported ranking indicators
Each indicator is scored out of 100 in the same QS snapshot as the summary above.
#117 worldwide
#64 worldwide
#539 worldwide
#441 worldwide
#123 worldwide
#134 worldwide
#111 worldwide
#161 worldwide
#316 worldwide
#22 worldwide
Institution profile
How QS classifies this institution
QS groups institutions by size, subject range, and research output.
- Size
- Large
- About 12,000 to 30,000 students
- Subject range
- Focused
- Teaches a limited range of faculty areas
- Research intensity
- Very high
- Very high research output in the QS classification
- Region
- Europe
- QS regional grouping
University profile
About Durham University
Editorial background written for orientation. Verify programs, funding, and admission on the university's official pages.
Durham University's research-data repository shows how scholarly work is described and shared
The official material used for this Durham University profile is a Research Data Repository, not a broad catalogue of departments or subjects. That makes it useful for a specific reason: it shows how parts of a research record can be located, described, and assessed. The repository presents bibliographic metadata for work created by Durham researchers and makes full text visible where publisher rules permit it. It also distinguishes between pre-prints, which may not have been peer reviewed, and post-prints that have been accepted for publication and peer reviewed. Those labels matter. A title alone tells a reader very little about the stage of a piece of work, whereas a record with status information can clarify what has actually been made available and under what conditions.
The repository's visible listings range across distinct kinds of inquiry. Recent entries include work connected with programmable deformation and metamaterials, coupled molecular states, personality computing, and field monitoring using resistivity methods. These entries should be read as examples in a public research collection, not as a claim that each topic defines the whole university. Their value is that they reveal different research objects and different forms of material: a designed structure, a molecular interaction, a computational question, or measurements gathered in a landscape. Reading the records closely encourages a better habit than relying on a general subject label. Ask what is being studied, what evidence is being recorded, and what stage of dissemination the record identifies.
Repository policy makes metadata, access conditions, and preservation part of the research story
Durham's repository policy explains that the service is intended to improve access to research and that it holds descriptions of outputs as well as full text when that is allowed. It states that anyone can view the metadata, while the treatment of full text depends on rights and licensing conditions. The policy also notes that embargoes can delay release. This is an important distinction for readers who want to understand what a repository can and cannot demonstrate. A visible metadata record can establish that a work has been deposited and described. It does not show that every file is open, equally reviewed, or sufficient to reproduce a study.
The policy further says that deposit is limited to Durham University staff depositing their own work, that repository staff check proposed material for scope and metadata quality, and that records are retained with attention to long-term readability. These details make provenance more visible. They do not make a repository entry a substitute for reading a full paper, dataset documentation, or local research description. They instead give a reader a disciplined way to distinguish access, evidence type, and review status.
Durham repository records distinguish metadata, access, and review status
A useful Durham University note can begin with one repository record that is genuinely close to the question. Record the research object in plain terms, such as a material response, a computational behaviour, a molecular system, or a field measurement. Then record the evidence type named by the item: a dataset, code, a paper, a measurement series, a model, or another output. Finally, note the status shown by the repository and whether the record supplies a full file or only descriptive metadata. These three facts make a small but concrete research trail. They also prevent a reader from treating an institutional name, a topic keyword, and a peer-reviewed result as if they were the same level of evidence.
The next step is to seek the closest current academic context for that record, such as a researcher page, a project description, a laboratory, or an associated publication. If the public material does not establish that connection, leave it open rather than completing the story by guesswork. Durham's repository is especially helpful for this careful approach because it foregrounds the difference between discovery, access, review status, and preservation. It offers a route into research output, while a focused local source is still needed to explain the method, the present activity, or the people behind a particular line of inquiry.