Dr. Syed Arshad Hussain Wellcomes You


Indian education needs proper policy
June 8, 2011, 8:28 pm
Filed under: Philosophy of Science, Politics, Public issues

The undergraduate education in India is booming (Nature, vol 472, 24 – 26, 2011) and government is increasing investment towards research and higher education. However, lack of quality education as well as proper policy remains the major concern till today. Accordingly, Indian science is lagging behind not just developed nations, but also newly industrialized countries such as China.

According to a recent scientometric analysis (Curr. Sci. vol 99 no 5 577 – 587, 2010) number of publications from Indian institutions in higher impact journals like Nature, Science, Cell etc is very poor. Almost all top Asian universities published more than the Indian institutions. Although publication in high quality journal always reflects the quality of research in science & technology of a country.

University Grants Commission, the controlling body of Indian universities recently launches academic performance indicator (API) based system for recruiting and promoting professors in college and universities [http://www.ugc.ac.in/policy/englishgazette.pdf]. The API score for paper in referred journal would be augmented as follows: (i) indexed journals – 5 points (ii) paper with impact factor (IF) between 1 & 2 by 10 points (iii) paper with IF between 2 & 5 by 15 points (iii) paper with IF between 5 & 10 by 25 points (iv) for a paper in non referred journal API score is 10. The API for joint publications will have to be divided. One can earn 10 API score presenting a paper in a seminar. This in turn will discourage collaborative research, as it will cause division of API score. Also the corresponding author and first author will share maximum points. eg. Suppose there are 4 author publish a paper in a journal with IF 9. Then total API score = 25. Out of which first author and corresponding author will share 60% = 15. The remaining two author will have 5 API score each. So publishing a paper in high impact (IF=9) journal 3 rd and 4th author get API 5 points. Where publishing a paper in a nonreferred journal (only with ISSN/ISBN) a single author can have 10 points. Even attending a national conference one can have API score 7.5 points. Now a days seminar is almost like a picnic, lots of seminars are being organized and there is hardly any quality control except top 1-2% of total seminar/conference held.  Eventually people are trying to attend more seminars and to publish more paper in non referred journals to earn maximum score.

Therefore in order to fulfill the dream to be a developed nation India should frame proper policy to boost up the quality research and higher education in university and institutions. Otherwise quantity will reign over quality. In this regard, India may adopt proper research policies that have proved successful in other countries.

References:

1. A. Nayar, Nature, vol 472, 24 – 26, 2011

2. K. P. Raghuraman, R. Chander, G. Madras, Curr. Sci. vol 99 no 5 577 – 587, 2010

3. “The Gazette of India, September 18, 2010 (Bhadra 27, 1932) [Part III – Sec. 4] http://www.ugc.ac.in/policy/englishgazette.pdf

Advertisements

6 Comments so far
Leave a comment

Sir you can include your experience of the education system of other countries.To improve our education system and people can actually concerntrte on educating students rather than publishing papers.

Comment by Dhde

As you mentioned the API calculation for category III is confusing, as UGC didn’t give any specific examples. But the API you mentioned for journals with different impact factors is not correct. Its written the API should be ‘augmented’ according to the impact factor which give a journal with IF between 5 and 10 an API of 40 (15 basic API+ 25 augmented ). And in the example having a journal paper with 4 authors and impact factor 9, if you are a principle author you will get an API equals 60% of of 40 (24 points). If you are a second author you will get 40% of 40 (16 points). In UGC norms the word ‘shared equally’ is used which is not defined properly. I think it just mean that all other authors are considered equal and get 40% of the API. I got this calculation from a presentation available in the internet (http://www.pratapcollegeamalner.com/pdf/APIWorkshop.pdf ). I don’t know whether it is true !

Comment by Je Je

Thanks for your comment on this topic. UGC guideline is confusing. and people are using and interpreting this different ways. I am also bit confused. I explained what my university is adopting. It needs more discussion and clarifications.

Comment by Syed Arshad Hussain

Respected sir,
Its nice to read good discussion on UGC API on your web. I think the correct calculation of API score (giving correct weightage to Impact factor is possible).First let me clear that in UGC guidlines they have mentioned two things. One is “Maximum Points” for a publication and second thing is “API score”. The guidelines is clear that “API score” should be augmented (means increased) and not the “Max. points” for a publication. Many peoples are fool and they are increasing the “Max. Points” for publication, in actual, we need to increase “API Score”.
To clear this let’s consider one example. If we publish one paper in journal with impact factor 2.5 and there are four authors then diviosn is clear. Corresponding author- 9 points (= 60%), Other three authors- 2 each (= 40%). Now augment, the API score, then corresponding author will get 9+ 15 = 24 points (for doing good work and publication good journal), other 3 author will get 2+15= 17 points. In this way, good importance can be given to collaborative work and publication in impact factor journal. These points for augmentation are like incentive points ( we give some incentive marks to students if they do good in sports etc. and we add these to student’s score and not in max. marks). I hope you agree with me.
From
Vijay H. Masand
Department of Cheistry, Vidya Bhararti College,
Amravati, Maharashtra, India- 444 602
contact: 09403312628

Comment by Vijay Masand

Respected sir,
Its nice to read good discussion on UGC API on your web. I think the correct calculation of API score (giving correct weightage to Impact factor is possible).First let me clear that in UGC guidlines they have mentioned two things. One is “Maximum Points” for a publication and second thing is “API score”. The guidelines is clear that “API score” should be augmented (means increased) and not the “Max. points” for a publication. Many people are confused and they are increasing the “Max. Points” for publication, in actual, we need to increase “API Score”.
To clear this let’s consider one example. If we publish one paper in journal with impact factor 2.5 and there are four authors then division is clear. Corresponding author- 9 points (= 60%), other three authors- 2 each (= 40%). Now augment, the API score, then corresponding author will get 9+ 15 = 24 points (for doing good work and publication good journal), other 3 author will get 2+15= 17 points. In this way, good importance can be given to collaborative work and publication in impact factor journal. These points for augmentation are like incentive points (we give some incentive marks to students if they do good in sports etc. and we add these to student’s score and not in max. marks). I hope you agree with me.

Comment by Vijay Masand

It is true that API calculation is having all lots of confusion and each university is following its own calculation method..why UGC is not issuing guideline in this reagrds. I would like to know whether single author will get 50 points for his/her publication in a journal more than 5 impact factor

Comment by Rakesh kumar




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s



%d bloggers like this: