Fears raised about research integrity in HE institutions

The delay in the 2026 National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) rankings has brought out a worrying issue: the quality and integrity of research being done in India’s higher education institutions.

The National Board of Accreditation (NBA), which is responsible for evaluating, has seen a large number of withdrawn research papers in the data submitted by the institutions.

It is now reviewing the submitted data, reconsidering the penalties and deliberating if it will take harsh action against some of the institutions. This scrutiny has caused a delay in the rankings, which are typically announced in August or September.

There are many reasons why research papers can be retracted, including plagiarism, manipulation of data, duplicate publication or fabricated peer reviews.

But a retraction doesn't necessarily mean the author committed research misconduct. Sometimes papers are retracted due to honest errors or methodological problems.

The cause for concern lies in the scale of the problem and what it reveals about research practices.

According to ‘Retraction Watch’, 887 research papers from India were retracted in 2025 – the second-highest figure globally, with India trailing only China (1,701). These figures have raised questions about whether the pressure to produce a large volume of papers comes at the expense of quality.

Commenting on this trend, Achal Agarwal, founder of India Research Watch, an independent watchdog, said that the number of retractions from India has remained largely stable.

This suggests that despite the high volume of retractions, there has been no improvement in the systems designed to detect misconduct.

He told University World News: “There is no evidence that research practices in India are deteriorating, but there is enough evidence that things are not fine and steps need to be taken.”

Pressure to publish

The NIRF was launched in 2015 to foster competition among Indian higher education institutes and provide students with a comprehensive metric to assess institutional performance. Its evaluation criteria include teaching and learning, research, graduation outcomes, outreach and inclusivity, and peer perception.

Participation has grown rapidly. The number of applications rose from 6,272 in 2021 to 14,163 in 2025, while the number of participating institutions increased from 4,030 to 7,692 during the same period.

This expansion has also heightened the importance of research publications and citations. Institutions aspiring for better rankings have strong incentives to enhance their research output.

However, when the volume of publications becomes the primary measure of an institution's success, it risks fostering a ‘publish or perish’ culture.

This issue is not limited to individual researchers because poor-quality research – stemming from weak internal scrutiny, inadequate pre-publication checks, or reliance on dubious journals and ‘paper mills’ – can also find its way into institutional records.

According to Agrawal, rankings are the root driver of this output pressure.

“It is clear from the incentive documents of many universities or recruitment advertisements how much a publication matters for all decisions. Those incentives exist to directly help improve rankings, which give a lot of weightage to research,” he said.

A strong message on accountability

The NIRF has introduced negative marking in its assessment process for retracted papers and their associated citations. Recent reports indicate that officials plan to take further action; institutions found repeatedly submitting problematic research data could be excluded from future ranking processes.

While this sends a strong message, penalising institutions alone cannot resolve the issue. Agrawal emphasises that in their current form, penalties act as a mild deterrent at best.

“Penalties only treat the symptoms of misconduct but do not address the root cause: flawed metrics and incentives,” he pointed out.

“In addition to punishing misconduct, incentives that encourage misconduct should be removed.
“We need to stop incentivising numbers and value quality instead—such as publications in reputed journals.”
He said at both the university and funding levels, relevant works should be read and evaluated by experts rather than relying purely on metrics.

He added that relying on institutional self-regulation is often ineffective: “Universities rarely cooperate in investigations, and that will not change whether penalties exist or not. If a retraction happens, they cannot hide it because it becomes part of the scientific record and can be easily traced through databases.”

Systemic reform needed

Academics state that transparency is equally crucial. In its 2025 rankings, the NIRF did not disclose detailed information regarding the institutions penalised for retracted research papers.

Providing more information would help universities understand the expected standards and demonstrate the system's impartiality.

Furthermore, Indian universities generally lack the necessary internal infrastructure to investigate research-related misconduct. Agrawal pointed out that although UGC guidelines recommend that all institutions establish a ‘Research Integrity Office’, most universities still do not have such an office.

“Even when a retraction happens, the university is usually unaware of it. In the rare cases where an investigation does occur, the report is kept confidential,” he said, stressing the need for a central research integrity office to ensure institutional oversight.

The delay in the 2026 rankings is not merely an administrative hurdle; it is an opportunity to rethink how Indian higher education institutions measure research success. Undoubtedly, India needs more research – but research that is robust and reliable.

To ensure genuine accountability, Agrawal emphasises that there must be real penalties for recurring irregularities. “Every applicant for any government post or funding needs to have their research history and integrity signals closely scrutinised.

“There need to be reforms at various levels. No single measure can solve the issue by itself,” he said.