In a new research paper to be released today the Group of Eight also highlights the limitations of world rankings, noting the current range of league tables covers only parts of university activity, and questioning the uses to which rankings are sometimes put - including as a launch pad for public policy.

While universities largely welcomed the broad direction of the Asia white paper yesterday - with its focus of greater investment in university research and Asian languages throughout the school years - the Go8's paper World University Rankings: ambiguous signals paints a bleak picture of Australia's chances of gaining 10 top-100 international institutions by the 2025 deadline.

While this year has seen many of the top Go8 institutions improve their performance in the five major global rankings, the report shows that on the most rigorous, research-based Webometrics and Leiden rankings, Australia barely got into the top 100 - with the ANU Australia's top performer at 84th and 114th place respectively.

On the Academic Ranking of World Universities, and the Times Higher Education-Thomson Reuters, Australia had about five universities in the top 100 (University of Melbourne, ANU, University of Sydney, University of Queensland and University of Western Australia).

Australia's best performance was in the QS ranking, where ANU came top-ranked at 24, but this is widely considered the least credible ranking.

On the five main world rankings of universities Australia has variously 5, 6, 7, 0 and 2 in the top 100.

''It is hard to see Australia getting 10 universities into the top 100 under current policy settings,'' said Mike Teece, Go8 policy director.

While the government's white paper is uncosted, the Go8 said the biggest threats to future performance was under-investment in research, further dilution of research funding and a focus on applied research to the detriment of basic research.

''Australian government funding for research, research infrastructure and research training has plateaued and started to decline in recent years. There is currently no forward provision for real growth in any of the research funding programs. Without adequate resource inputs, Australia's best will not be able to stay with the pace of the world's best,'' the paper said.

Australia may have gained ground due to the declining dominance of North America, Britain and Europe but would soon be leapfrogged by emerging Asian institutions.

More broadly, the Go8 report calls for a rethink on how rankings are devised and how much value is placed on them.

World university rankings had given rise to a number of governments ''aspiring to have a number of their universities highly ranked or otherwise designated 'world class' institutions through concentrated investments or structured collaborative arrangements.''

But as they are currently structured, rankings did not relate well to the broader teaching and learning mission of universities.

''There are important roles for universities that focus on producing quality graduates for Australian labour markets and providing services, including research translation, testing, survey and other services for businesses and community groups,'' the report said.

''In this regard, institutional positioning strategies pulled by the current suite of world university rankings which privilege academic research can limit institutional vision and distort mission, and reinforce sameness in aspiration and benchmarks of success.''

While universities seem obsessed with their place on the international rankings, the report also acknowledged widespread methodological concerns within the sector.

''Universities tend to have love-hate relationships with rankings; not only do they hate them when they don't look good on them but love them when they do, they also are ambivalent towards them, sceptical of their validity but intimidated by their potential to do harm.''

Rankings were ''largely shaped by the limited availability of comparable data'' and generally failed to account for teaching and learning quality - a problem for students choosing their university based on its reputation defined through its league-table standing.

''There is not always a good alignment between the purposes for which rankings are designed and the ways they are used … Considerable work needs to be done to overcome the major deficiencies in ranker methods, especially those reliant on reputational surveys and proxy indicators, to give them greater statistical validity and reliability,'' the report said.