Demonetization of Scientific Journals – An Extended Perspective
Year: 2025
Type: article
Abstract: Dear Editor, The right chords of the malady of scientific publications today have been touched in your editorial “Are We Heading Toward Demonetization of Scientific Journals.”[1] The term “demonetization” became famous because of its shock effect in 2016. The impact of the sudden demonetization carried out by the government in November 2016 is still debatable. The proponents of this act said that it had served its purpose, whereas the opponents claim it turned out to be just a disaster for the economy. The question is will a demonetization of the “publication currency” achieve the desired goal or turn out to be a big blow to academic research? The dictum publish or perish was coined by Logan Wilson,[2] a sociologist, in his book The Academic Man, way back in 1942. Mandating publications as a QR for faculty promotion by University Grants Commission (UGC) and Medical Council of India did stimulate research orientation in faculties. However, as days went by, the effect of this mandate went haywire. The institutional mandate for publications was further extended for securing higher grades by accreditation bodies like NAAC and NIRF. This additional burden was further compounded by demand for publication in high impact journals and also linking it to the salary of faculty. Pressure of publication made many faculty members succumb to unethical practices like “salami-slicing,” fudging data, and plagiarism. The prevailing scenario was exploited by predatory publishers. They became the conduit for acceptance and printing of questionable research papers at the snap of a finger with hardly any worthwhile peer review. The median time interval from submission to publication of an article varies between 166 (in Q1 journal) and 137 days (Q4 journal).[3] However, this time interval could be brought down to a week in predatory journals, of course, for a price. The publication pressure has also started encompassing PG students in the form of eligibility criteria for appearing in the final examination. Such an academic environment has triggered genesis of ghost writers of publication and dissertation often with manufactured data. The remuneration charged by these writers depend on extent of services rendered. Publication of a large number of articles in high impact journals for higher ratings by accreditation bodies is often unrealistic and triggers unhealthy competition. Their benchmarks for grading should be more pragmatic. The faculty is caught in a pincer attack between demand of aspiring institutions for accreditation on the one hand and UGC mandated publications on the other hand. The net result has been mushrooming of predatory journals. The faculty is forced to toe the line to avoid loss of salary, promotion, or sometimes their job.[4] Such an oppressive environment is not conducive for authentic research activity. Hence, the moot question is whether to throw the baby out with the bath water by demonetizing the currency of research or to stringently monitor and regulate the entire spectrum of research publication? Data availability statement Not applicable. Author contribution Sukesh Kumar Kathpalia: Concept, Review of manuscript. Himadri Bal: Literature search, Preparation of manuscript. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.
Authors: Sukesh Kumar Kathpalia, Himadri Bal
Language: English
Subfield: History and Philosophy of Science
Field: Arts and Humanities
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: diamond
OpenAlex ID: W4408662472