Is Indian research credibility at risk because of self-citation? Phil Baty of Times Higher Education recently defended it, and they’re right - https://lnkd.in/eEKjUEh8 Giants like Einstein, Curie, and Hawking built on their own work. But in India, self-citation is sliding down a risky path. Some institutions, in the race for higher rankings, are using it to artificially inflate impact metrics. This may seem harmless, but, it’s eroding trust in our research community. Let’s talk about where it goes wrong... In India, we’re seeing self-citation patterns that aren’t always ethical. Some institutions and Professors use it to artificially boost impact metrics, Professors are gaming the system for a “better” ranking. Now it harms the credibility of our research community. When credibility is questioned, even deserving researchers lose trust. Self-citations aren’t the enemy. Misuse is. As Indian institutions, let’s set the right standards. Let’s make sure our research is about true discovery – not just climbing the ranks. Why? Because overuse of self-citations can distort genuine research impact, and this manipulation affects how the world sees Indian academia. Image Credit: Phil Baty
Dr. Deepessh Divaakaran’s Post
More Relevant Posts
-
India is not a scientific country? A few months back there were some loose comments made on the back of anecdotes and personal experiences by some prominent voices in the intellectual and industry ecosystems. India they said was no longer a scientific nation. It had gone back in time etc. etc. If one actually looks at hard data, the reality is very very different from the narrative. We are doing better than we have ever done on a number of things - IP, publications, number of researchers, funding, R&D expenditure, ventures, platforms etc. Yes, a lot of room for improvement exists (we sit still around 40 in the global innovation rankings when we really should be in the Top 10). But the fact is that we are an out performer in terms of input vs. output on innovation - doing much better than expected at our level of development. Innovation cannot be happening in isolation from science. Should we now be discussing what constitutes science? The Nobel prizes this year in physics and chemistry have gone to AI scientists. The lines are as blurred as it gets. Coming back to the point on narrative, there are perhaps some new challenges for sectors that had a free hand for many years. The kind of challenges that almost every other sector has had to face through the years. But one sector and a few experiences do not a country make at any point in time. Innovation is a lot more distributed today than it has been in the past in India. Its happening across sectors and across geographies. It's looking past the big cities, beyond the old institutions, beyond the old actors. Also tradition, myth, faith, culture etc. go hand in hand with science in India. There is often no friction between the two. The ISRO rocket men and women can be total believers in God's will and absolutely unwavering scientists at the same time. Our rockets and satellites may be powered by the latest in tech and garnished with Tilaks and Genda flowers and work just fine. Prayer is just another layer in the scientific stack of India. The man who knew infinity - Srinivasa Ramanujan - is the archetype. We don't know better than him. Who is more or less scientific should be judged by results and outcomes. One has to separate the signal from the noise. The system from the personal. Reality from narrative. The Global Innovation Index report may help build some understanding of key trends and challenges. https://lnkd.in/gnyuFAw4
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Story of a headless chicken, i.e. Indian academia. Credential mill without any focus on disruptive innovation :( Saw this viral post from a PhD student undergoing research at a CSIR laboratory. Most of my conversations with Indian PhD candidates, Postdocs, and even permanent faculty have been about bean counting publications, awards, or ranks (assistant vs full professor). IMO, this is exactly why Indian academia has no significant impact on the global innovation space. The prevalent culture is about publishing papers and not solving impactful problems or coming up with disruptive innovation. We are setting a terrible example for our bright young students and disabling them for life. Young friends: If your potential mentor cannot discuss big ideas with a clear vision for disruption, then stay away from that lab. No one cares about your PhD degree, 100+ publications, and even the full professor or dean designation. Real world is extremely outcome oriented. Do not let the degree certificate or fake celebratory balle balle let you fool into destroying your prime learning/earning years. PS: The rot starts much earlier. After 12th standard the kids must aspire to make money, learn valuable skills, build tangible products, and/or embark on an intellectual journey. Focus must not be on attending a prestigious college. No one cares about your IIT/Princeton diploma. You will be solely judged on the VALUE you CREATE.
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
INDIAN #SCIENCE SEEMS TO BE REDUCED TO PUSHPAK VIMANA, SARASWATI RIVER, COW-DUNG MEDICINE, ETC—Observation/Analysis/Corroboration/Correlation/Inference Aren't Involved ―――― LET US MAKE INDIA A TOP NATION, TOGETHER, IN UNISON—PVH—Motto ―――― #IndianScience #SixLevelScienceProcess #IndianDevelopmentChallenge #Governance #ScientificTemper #LinkedInMemberPVH #LetUsCombineforChange #ConversationsForChange #LinkedInForCreators SCIENCE is not based on belief/conjecture/mythology/tradition/religion/isms/anthropomorphism etc Here is a brief, and comprehensive basic Definition: ―――― SCIENCE is a confinement of human thought and action, wherein more of the hidden phenomena and potentials of Nature are unraveled, through their effects on all our senses, and through the resultant and creative/imaginative extrapolative values of the sense of perception. The results in science cannot be achieved without a systematic thought-action-plan process that is triggered by Observation, Analysis, Corroboration, Correlation, Repeating universally, and final Inference—the SIX-LEVEL SCIENCE/SCIENTIFIC PROCESS ―――― WHAT AILS INDIAN SCIENCE? The following negatives control/influence Indian Science: 1. Political maneuvering 2. Mythological beliefs 3. Low-quality science education 4. Society’s disinterest in Science, due to the above three negatives These negatives end up in low value for science, and almost a total disregard for SCIENTIFIC TEMPER. The ultimate example of this low level of scientific temper is the bizarre proclamation of our PM, in 2015 at the Indian Science Congress, that Indian Scientists/Engineers had perfected the Technology of Transplanting an elephant’s head onto the human body, some 8,500 years back. Some Govt ministers proclaimed that Peacocks get pregnant when the male species shed tears. There are many more such bizarre and unscientific shouts and proclamations that spring up from people who have neither any grounding in science nor any knowledge of science. Even top Professors (PhDs) in IIT, IIM, etc. proclaim such bizarre things🤔🤭🤫 HOW DO WE CHANGE? 1. Science should be completely removed from Religion/Ideologies/Mythology, etc 2. The best personnel in science (even if we need to appoint international teachers) must be entrusted with the teaching of Science, starting from the kindergarten level, through PhD levels 3. Politicians, who have no grounding in Science, should STOP talking about science and scientific subjects 4. Gurus/God-men/Goddess-women must be stopped from managing the Education function 5. India must stop a sort of competition with the Islamic world, where Religion and Mythical systems rule. Unlike most of them, India does not have Oil wealth, and we have to work overtime to compete at the International level Only serious and scientific discussions, please. Gossip/Gossipers will be BLOCKED
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
With several domains of science and technology reaching to different peak and bringing forth some interesting aspects that could have never been known to mankind , Biotechnology one such domain, an interdisciplinary branch of biology, physics, chemistry, mathematics and computer science, working on to unravel some unknown combinations of nature and life sciences on pillars of biology and computer science. Yet it has failed to receive enough attention in past. Recently with the emergence of AI editing tools in CRISPR genome and Machine learning, helping for a cutting edge research in this field amazingly in all topics , it has been a successful attempt to bring this into a recent trend. Yet a big gap lies in the Indian society as it fails to realize the recent legislative measures brought into to promote the subject by issuing several bills as BIO-E3 and BIO-RIDE, ultimately leading to a conflict of core subjects and research oriented subjects, both of which are incomparable. What's your review on this matter that what is still haltering India's development in this field despite several initiatives and whether it shall be foreseen as an increment in near future if society turns out to be supportive enough without making a parity between biotechnology and other streams as I have seen many who refrain to choose this subject although their interest aligns with this stream only because they are misguided by saying "THIS SUBJECT HAS NO SCOPE " ?
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
i read a recent article by Prof. V Ramgopal Rao, where he emphasized the importance of increasing investment and building world-class research institutions. However, it’s essential that these institutions don't merely focus on producing research publications. The current culture of prioritizing publications and percentile rankings should be rethought. Many institutions, despite having the potential for excellence, often fall into the trap of focusing on the volume of research rather than the quality or impact. Researchers and professors find themselves caught in a cycle of publishing papers for career advancement, which can limit creativity and meaningful scientific breakthroughs. A telling example is John Jumper (ceo deep mind) the 37-year-old computer scientist who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry has even less research papers than an average indian university scholar . His success was based on groundbreaking work, not on the number of publications. In contrast, Indian universities place too much emphasis on publication counts, which often stifles innovation and risk-taking. The difference in risk-taking between India and the Western world is also significant. In the West, abundant resources and a lower population pressure create a stable environment conducive to innovation. In India and other parts of the Asian subcontinent, the limited resources in comparison to the large population make it harder to take risks. Nevertheless, India has achieved significant successes in other areas. For example, ISRO has successfully launched satellites for several well-developed European countries, showcasing the nation's growing technological prowess. the Make in India program is gaining momentum, and while there is still a gap in scientific startups, the rise of new ventures shows a promising future for the country. With the right focus on research, innovation, and entrepreneurship, India has great potential to make significant strides in the global scientific and technological landscape, may be not for nobel prize but some good scientific reputation. There is a lot of hope for the future of the nation. a nice article to go through credits - Prof. V Ramgopal Rao (director BITS Pilani)
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
India needs to break the cycle and focus more on cutting edge research and an atmosphere suitable for risk taking has to be created. Well thought out writing by Prof. Mayank Shrivastava . "Breaking the mould" written by Raghuram Rajan also talks in detail about this. Having a proper ecosystem for research and development is the only way India can move up the value chain. "India had a period before Independence when they produced world-class scientists, like C.V. Raman, J.C. Bose, Meghnad Saha, S.N. Bose and Homi Bhabha, and their work was of a certain order of excellence. After Independence, it persisted for a while, mainly because Jawaharlal Nehru (the first Prime Minister) was interested in science and funded and created institutions. But after that it stagnated for a while and thanks to people like C.N.R. Rao, they have tried to improve it,” : Venkataraman Ramakrishnan , Nobel laureate of Indian origin https://lnkd.in/gsEq9P-i I met Venki Ramakrishnan once at the University of Auckland in New Zealand. Met Amartya Sen in the Bay Area in the USA, Abhijit Banerjee and Kailash Satyarthi at Kerala Literature Festival in Kozhikode Kerala. One factor which is common amongst Indian Nobel laureates in science or economics is that they were all doing research in the USA and the research atmosphere and funding really helped them to focus on their individual areas of research. #india #innovationecosystem #research #risk #researchecosystem #highereducation #nobelprize The Nobel Prize
Full Professor at Indian Institute of Science (IISc) || Co-founder at AGNIT Semiconductors Pvt. Ltd. || Investigator, GEECI a.k.a. GaN Fab || Ex-Intel || Ex-IBM || Ex-Infineon || Ex-IIT Bombay || MIT TR-35 Awardee
𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚 𝐂𝐚𝐧'𝐭 𝐆𝐞𝐭 𝐚 𝐍𝐨𝐛𝐞𝐥 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐳𝐞 (2/𝐍) This is my second post in this series. While it's a difficult question, I thought of writing about another major gap in our ecosystem, which I hope the stakeholders address soon. Many of the world's most significant inventions have emerged from scientific communities actively seeking to address complex challenges, thereby extending the frontiers of knowledge and technology. Their continual advancement is largely attributed to the proactive support from their governments and industries in aspiring to be innovation leaders. In contrast, Indian industries and several government agencies/committees have shown a tendency towards caution, primarily investing in established technologies rather than exploring the uncharted territories of futuristic research. This conservative approach keeps us far from being at the forefront. Furthermore, attempting to address scientific problems initially identified and tackled by communities in more technologically advanced countries, places Indian researchers at a significant disadvantage. By the time these problem statements become apparent to Indian policymakers, academics in these advanced nations have often already made considerable progress in addressing them. This dynamic results in a perpetual state of playing catch-up, making it challenging for India to lead in pioneering new and groundbreaking innovations. Being in a constant race scenario restricts Indian researchers' ability to contribute to futuristic problems. Another pivotal aspect is the risk-taking behavior of Indian industries (and to an extent funding agencies). Industries and governments in advanced nations have a history of betting on unproven technologies and future science, a gamble that has often paid off. Indian industries and govt. agencies, on the other hand, tend to play it safe, focusing on mature, established technologies. Also, to align with the socialist principles that emphasize benefits for a broader section of society, our agencies have often prioritized the distribution of funds across a wide array of projects over a few high-risk high-reward projects. This approach may inadvertently dilute the focus on the quality and potential impact of the research being funded. High-quality, impactful research necessitates not only adequate funding but also stringent quality control. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝: These problems are not insurmountable. To break this cycle, India (both the govt. and Industries) must foster a more risk-taking culture, increase investment in futuristic research, and encourage to fund academic research of futuristic nature. Additionally, building an infrastructure that supports high-level research and nurturing a policy environment conducive to innovation are crucial. Besides, a shift towards a quality-centric funding model is essential for fostering an environment where cutting-edge, impactful research can thrive and not the mediocre ones.
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Scientists in India, never aspire for the Nobel prize because of their "mindset" and "govt. policies". Mindset: For example, Recruiters (premier institutes) never appreciate the research work of India over research someone did in foreign institutes. So, he/she always follows and continues the existing work in foreign countries (rather own creativity). So, Indians become contributors but not creators in research. The best example of a lack of mindset is the " Nobel Prize on the discovery of graphene and quantum dots" Govt policies: Govt. never trusts early career researchers as you mentioned not risk-taking. When GoI (unlike foreign universities) tries to be with all ( chosen caste over science in asst. professor recruitment), the Nobel prize becomes a daydream in India..
Full Professor at Indian Institute of Science (IISc) || Co-founder at AGNIT Semiconductors Pvt. Ltd. || Investigator, GEECI a.k.a. GaN Fab || Ex-Intel || Ex-IBM || Ex-Infineon || Ex-IIT Bombay || MIT TR-35 Awardee
𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚 𝐂𝐚𝐧'𝐭 𝐆𝐞𝐭 𝐚 𝐍𝐨𝐛𝐞𝐥 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐳𝐞 (2/𝐍) This is my second post in this series. While it's a difficult question, I thought of writing about another major gap in our ecosystem, which I hope the stakeholders address soon. Many of the world's most significant inventions have emerged from scientific communities actively seeking to address complex challenges, thereby extending the frontiers of knowledge and technology. Their continual advancement is largely attributed to the proactive support from their governments and industries in aspiring to be innovation leaders. In contrast, Indian industries and several government agencies/committees have shown a tendency towards caution, primarily investing in established technologies rather than exploring the uncharted territories of futuristic research. This conservative approach keeps us far from being at the forefront. Furthermore, attempting to address scientific problems initially identified and tackled by communities in more technologically advanced countries, places Indian researchers at a significant disadvantage. By the time these problem statements become apparent to Indian policymakers, academics in these advanced nations have often already made considerable progress in addressing them. This dynamic results in a perpetual state of playing catch-up, making it challenging for India to lead in pioneering new and groundbreaking innovations. Being in a constant race scenario restricts Indian researchers' ability to contribute to futuristic problems. Another pivotal aspect is the risk-taking behavior of Indian industries (and to an extent funding agencies). Industries and governments in advanced nations have a history of betting on unproven technologies and future science, a gamble that has often paid off. Indian industries and govt. agencies, on the other hand, tend to play it safe, focusing on mature, established technologies. Also, to align with the socialist principles that emphasize benefits for a broader section of society, our agencies have often prioritized the distribution of funds across a wide array of projects over a few high-risk high-reward projects. This approach may inadvertently dilute the focus on the quality and potential impact of the research being funded. High-quality, impactful research necessitates not only adequate funding but also stringent quality control. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝: These problems are not insurmountable. To break this cycle, India (both the govt. and Industries) must foster a more risk-taking culture, increase investment in futuristic research, and encourage to fund academic research of futuristic nature. Additionally, building an infrastructure that supports high-level research and nurturing a policy environment conducive to innovation are crucial. Besides, a shift towards a quality-centric funding model is essential for fostering an environment where cutting-edge, impactful research can thrive and not the mediocre ones.
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚 𝐂𝐚𝐧'𝐭 𝐆𝐞𝐭 𝐚 𝐍𝐨𝐛𝐞𝐥 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐳𝐞 (2/𝐍) This is my second post in this series. While it's a difficult question, I thought of writing about another major gap in our ecosystem, which I hope the stakeholders address soon. Many of the world's most significant inventions have emerged from scientific communities actively seeking to address complex challenges, thereby extending the frontiers of knowledge and technology. Their continual advancement is largely attributed to the proactive support from their governments and industries in aspiring to be innovation leaders. In contrast, Indian industries and several government agencies/committees have shown a tendency towards caution, primarily investing in established technologies rather than exploring the uncharted territories of futuristic research. This conservative approach keeps us far from being at the forefront. Furthermore, attempting to address scientific problems initially identified and tackled by communities in more technologically advanced countries, places Indian researchers at a significant disadvantage. By the time these problem statements become apparent to Indian policymakers, academics in these advanced nations have often already made considerable progress in addressing them. This dynamic results in a perpetual state of playing catch-up, making it challenging for India to lead in pioneering new and groundbreaking innovations. Being in a constant race scenario restricts Indian researchers' ability to contribute to futuristic problems. Another pivotal aspect is the risk-taking behavior of Indian industries (and to an extent funding agencies). Industries and governments in advanced nations have a history of betting on unproven technologies and future science, a gamble that has often paid off. Indian industries and govt. agencies, on the other hand, tend to play it safe, focusing on mature, established technologies. Also, to align with the socialist principles that emphasize benefits for a broader section of society, our agencies have often prioritized the distribution of funds across a wide array of projects over a few high-risk high-reward projects. This approach may inadvertently dilute the focus on the quality and potential impact of the research being funded. High-quality, impactful research necessitates not only adequate funding but also stringent quality control. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝: These problems are not insurmountable. To break this cycle, India (both the govt. and Industries) must foster a more risk-taking culture, increase investment in futuristic research, and encourage to fund academic research of futuristic nature. Additionally, building an infrastructure that supports high-level research and nurturing a policy environment conducive to innovation are crucial. Besides, a shift towards a quality-centric funding model is essential for fostering an environment where cutting-edge, impactful research can thrive and not the mediocre ones.
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
Post asked - " Why India can't get a Nobel prize "? My remark 👇 " behavioral anthropology and behavioral geography. Ask questions like - why do Jewish people get disproportionate amount of Nobel. Why colder weather people, who got their white complexion because of the colder weather and thus you have a strong hypothesis that weather does effectate physiological and systemsbiology and behavioral anthropological changes like the need to evolve to combat hypothermia, find energy sources to create heat and hasten mechinary to produce clothes and food too, cover distances for trade and keep aggressively inventing and creating wealth. These reasons instigate behavioral economics oriented and entrepreneurial engineering paradigm. Why do they create institutions first and laws for justice? Again for economics- where does the strength of character comes from? Hardship and struggle. Our region creates a weather,climate,landscape, comfort oriented linguistics and customs, fertile land, sweet water fish all around! We produce food and create philosophies that may not encourage behavioralecomics oriented risk taking. Our region produced philosophies for the heart and spirit but not for the stomach! "
Full Professor at Indian Institute of Science (IISc) || Co-founder at AGNIT Semiconductors Pvt. Ltd. || Investigator, GEECI a.k.a. GaN Fab || Ex-Intel || Ex-IBM || Ex-Infineon || Ex-IIT Bombay || MIT TR-35 Awardee
𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚 𝐂𝐚𝐧'𝐭 𝐆𝐞𝐭 𝐚 𝐍𝐨𝐛𝐞𝐥 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐳𝐞 (2/𝐍) This is my second post in this series. While it's a difficult question, I thought of writing about another major gap in our ecosystem, which I hope the stakeholders address soon. Many of the world's most significant inventions have emerged from scientific communities actively seeking to address complex challenges, thereby extending the frontiers of knowledge and technology. Their continual advancement is largely attributed to the proactive support from their governments and industries in aspiring to be innovation leaders. In contrast, Indian industries and several government agencies/committees have shown a tendency towards caution, primarily investing in established technologies rather than exploring the uncharted territories of futuristic research. This conservative approach keeps us far from being at the forefront. Furthermore, attempting to address scientific problems initially identified and tackled by communities in more technologically advanced countries, places Indian researchers at a significant disadvantage. By the time these problem statements become apparent to Indian policymakers, academics in these advanced nations have often already made considerable progress in addressing them. This dynamic results in a perpetual state of playing catch-up, making it challenging for India to lead in pioneering new and groundbreaking innovations. Being in a constant race scenario restricts Indian researchers' ability to contribute to futuristic problems. Another pivotal aspect is the risk-taking behavior of Indian industries (and to an extent funding agencies). Industries and governments in advanced nations have a history of betting on unproven technologies and future science, a gamble that has often paid off. Indian industries and govt. agencies, on the other hand, tend to play it safe, focusing on mature, established technologies. Also, to align with the socialist principles that emphasize benefits for a broader section of society, our agencies have often prioritized the distribution of funds across a wide array of projects over a few high-risk high-reward projects. This approach may inadvertently dilute the focus on the quality and potential impact of the research being funded. High-quality, impactful research necessitates not only adequate funding but also stringent quality control. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝: These problems are not insurmountable. To break this cycle, India (both the govt. and Industries) must foster a more risk-taking culture, increase investment in futuristic research, and encourage to fund academic research of futuristic nature. Additionally, building an infrastructure that supports high-level research and nurturing a policy environment conducive to innovation are crucial. Besides, a shift towards a quality-centric funding model is essential for fostering an environment where cutting-edge, impactful research can thrive and not the mediocre ones.
To view or add a comment, sign in
-
UAAT/U of I Joint Research Project The University Academic Alliance in Taiwan (#UAAT) and the University of Illinois System (#UI System) have launched the #Joint Research Project for institutional research scientists. This program of UAAT and the U of I aims to facilitate both research and development collaboration and the delivery of talent, innovations, and resources from universities/institutions to impactful contributions, building foundations for future #Grand #Challenge Project collaborations. The goal is to promote #economic and #societal development through the research and development of innovative technologies, while facilitating collaboration between the two entities. Priority Areas: Priority focus areas for the program include next-generation #semiconductors (+quantum), #AI & data for human well-being, and #sustainability (see printable version for key topics in each area). All proposals must be #jointly submitted by both UAAT faculty member(s) and U of I faculty member(s). Proposals should be submitted to the online application system by #September 20, 2024. For details, please connect to the following site: ttps://https://lnkd.in/gkrQS-De
To view or add a comment, sign in
More from this author
-
Exposing the ₹100,000 Crore Scam: How Colleges Exploit Students in the Name of Placements
Dr. Deepessh Divaakaran 2d -
One Nation One Subscription (ONOS): India’s Research Revolution or Just Another Expensive Patchwork?
Dr. Deepessh Divaakaran 1w -
How UGC, AICTE, NIRF, NAAC, and NBA Need to Interpret Faculty Qualifications Post Supreme Court Clarifications
Dr. Deepessh Divaakaran 2w
Business Transformation Consultant: Ex Program Director, TCS
1moWell said Dr. Deepessh Divaakaran . Your posts are eye openers. I may like to suggest that you consolidate your ideas and put up to PMO for Man ki Baat (मन की बात).