Espeland & Sauder (2007) have shown that rankings recreate social worlds, as facultys and universities change their behaviour as they are being evaluated, observed or measured. But some of these changes are pushed by the promoters of rankings and universities themselves, while others are considered pernicious effects.
Based on public denunciations that have targeted universities in different countries (USA, Australia, Middle East...), this presentation first describes the range of dubious practices, from "buying" part-time star faculties to building citation rings or manipulating self-declared ratios. It will then analyze how some of these practices are eventually considered as standard gaming, while others are condemned as cheating. It finally deals with the ways rankings manufacturers seek to fight against them, from proposing meta-standards for rankings to implementing coercives measures.
