Publishing papers has been an ordeal for faculty seeking to build their portfolio for career appraisal concerning promotion. Many Ph.D. scholars registering for their doctoral studies find it difficult to complete the same owing to their inability to publish papers in reputed journals, which is a qualification prescribed by the university, resulting in depressive disorders. Media reports suggest some 70% of Ph.D students experience some sort of depressive disorders.
Weak research culture
Scholars in social sciences and humanities in colleges and universities have the legacy of publishing their thesis predominantly as stereotypical books without benchmarking the same while those in Science by default publish in journals indexed by Web of Science. The former are more prone to depressive disorders than the latter, apparently due to the lack of education in publishing quality research articles in authentic peer reviewed journals indexed by Web of science and Scopus.
Where does the problem lie? The fact that a manuscript is not accepted for publication might be ascribed to lack of originality or novelty, weak hypothesis, inadequate literature review and the consequent ill-defined problem, methodological flaws, poor analysis and so on. Sometimes rejection can be ascribed partly to supervisors being not capable or not inclined to guide the students in identifying the problem, building the hypothesis, validating the hypothesis through research methods to generate data, interpretation, analysis and arriving at conclusions after their findings.
The research culture among Science faculty in Indian higher education is largely driven by theoretical frameworks and real-time problem-solving. In contrast, research contributions from social sciences and humanities faculty in India remain sparse in reputed academic journals. Even colleges ranked among the top 20 in the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) often struggle to publish in Scopus or Web of Science-indexed journals—benchmarks within the NIRF system.
Many of these institutions rely heavily on publications from science departments to improve their score under the “Research and Professional Practice” category, as visible in the NIRF database. A prevailing narrative suggests that college faculty, especially in teaching-centric institutions, should not be pressured to publish in reputed journals and should instead focus solely on teaching. However, this raises a critical question: How can faculty members inspire critical and creative thinking in classrooms, as required by outcome-based education models, without fostering a research-oriented institutional culture?
It is time to move beyond the outdated dichotomy of “teaching-intensive” versus “research-intensive” institutions. A more sustainable approach would be to promote research-integrated teaching, in alignment with Sustainable Development Goal 4 (Quality Education), as prescribed by UNESCO.
Predatory publications among reputed institutions
Another pressing issue is the growing prevalence of predatory and cloned journals, which offer an easy path to publication. This has led to complacency among both scholars and supervisors. In some universities, due to ignorance or incapacity, articles from such journals—some of which were once mistakenly listed by the UGC—continue to be accepted, damaging the credibility of academic output. In some universities and colleges, due to ignorance or lack of capacity, faculty and scholars publish in low quality journals indexed temporarily in UGC CARE list. This leads to frustration later as, often, these journals are retracted from the list after a few years.
The purpose of this article is to highlight systemic issues that have made India’s research ecosystem vulnerable and, in many ways, compromised the academic integrity of the country. Recently, the NIRF introduced negative scoring for retracted articles, particularly in cases of plagiarism. A 2023 study revealed that even faculty from top institutions such as the IITs were responsible for 58 retractions due to plagiarism or duplicate publications between 2006 and 2023. Between 2008 and 2012, India had the second-highest number of retractions globally—18 papers accounting for 36.7% of its total retracted publications during that period, behind only China.
While guidelines and policies issued by bodies like the UGC exist to address these concerns, they have not yet resolved the problem at its root. It is time to look beyond policy, and focus on empowering supervisors and scholars through foundational education in research design and problem identification.
The root cause of poor research
A major issue lies in how many research scholars review the literature prior to engaging in full-fledged research including data collection and analysis. Many do not engage in critical reading or review existing work to identify meaningful research gaps. Instead, their research often becomes a superficial compilation of facts, lacking originality and failing to synthesize new knowledge.
Critical reading can viewed as one that identifies the knowledge gap and inadequate or prejudiced interpretation of results, and reinterprets the results from the reader’s own perspective, placing a given perspective on another framework and arriving at the truth or figuring out the incomplete definition of the problem to rewrite the article from one’s own cognition.
Critically, scholars must learn to define the research problem by identifying tangible “pain points” — real-world issues emerging from their professional domain. Without such grounding, the research risks irrelevance. A well-defined problem, rooted in lived experience or observable challenges, is the cornerstone of meaningful research.
Albert Einstein once remarked, “If I had an hour to solve a problem, I’d spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and 5 minutes thinking about solutions.” This underscores the importance of clearly framing the problem before rushing to propose solutions. In research, this means viewing the issue from multiple perspectives, using structured frameworks for inquiry.
A helpful analogy is that of the six blind men describing an elephant — each forming an incomplete picture based on limited information. Similarly, research based on a narrow or poorly understood problem leads to partial insights. The greater the scope and depth with which a research problem is defined, the more robust and credible the research becomes.
There are several useful sources for identifying these “pain points.” Daily newspapers report on challenges from various sectors. High-quality journal articles often outline pressing issues in their introductions. Scholars can also draw from their own observations and prior knowledge of their field. Training scholars to decode and contextualize these sources will strengthen their ability to define meaningful problems.
Once the tangible symptoms of a problem are identified, researchers must ask the right open-ended questions to explore underlying causes — patterns, structures, or systemic flaws that give rise to these symptoms. Different inquiry frameworks can guide this process to define the problem in its entirety: Structured inquiry, where supervisors provide predefined templates; Controlled inquiry, involving specific research topics and materials; Guided inquiry, supported by prior research and leading questions; Open inquiry, where scholars explore problems independently, under supervision.
Depending on a scholar’s cognitive level, any of these frameworks can foster deeper understanding. Design thinking, intuition, and lateral thinking also play an important role in framing complex problems.
Only after clearly defining the problem can a scholar build a hypothesis that is pragmatic, unbiased, and scalable. A strong hypothesis then informs the entire research design — including methodology, variables, and scope — in a way that enhances reliability and academic value.
In this light, it is evident that identifying real-world problems and undertaking a critical review of literature is essential to produce credible research that resonates with the global academic community.
New researchers must also understand the role of AI tools in literature review. Used wisely, these tools can expedite and enhance the process of reviewing existing studies and identifying knowledge gaps. With a sound problem definition and a critical review in place, publishing in reputable journals becomes not only achievable — even if it takes six months or more — but also impactful.
Without such efforts, ill-defined problems often lead to “half-baked” opinions that are mistaken for facts, but have little scholarly merit. Many frustrated scholars end up blaming supervisors, institutions, or funding agencies for their failure to publish in Q1 to Q4 journals. Instead, a more constructive first step would be to publish a critical review article after completing the literature survey — a goal that can build both confidence and clarity early in the research journey.
Supervisors, too, must shoulder responsibility. If publishing a critical review were made mandatory before Ph.D. registration, much of the blame later directed at supervisors for delays or thesis rejection could be avoided. It would also help curb the mushrooming of predatory publishing in India — an academic malpractice that persists despite regulatory attempts through UGC CARE lists or the Office of Research Integrity.
Finally, beyond offering coursework in publication ethics, Ph.D. programmes must include training on problem identification and definition. This would allow research to begin with a strong foundation. Doctoral committees should thoroughly assess the relevance and clarity of the research problem before granting approval to proceed.
India’s research ecosystem stands at a crossroads. Strengthening it will not come from rankings or regulatory lists alone. It requires a systemic reorientation toward inquiry, ethics, and intellectual rigor — a shift that begins with asking the right questions.
(The author is currently serving as the Principal and Secretary of Madras Christian College, Chennai)
