[GOAL] "Why are Indian Research Journals Not Making a Mark? – The Enemy is Within" | S. C. Lakhotia, Current Science

[anup kumar das]

*Why are Indian Research Journals Not Making a Mark? – The Enemy is
Within  *
*Current Science* Editorial | by S.C. Lakhotia | 25 December 2018, 115
(12): 2187-88.

Publication of research results in scholarly peer-reviewed journals is the
near-universal practice for dissemination of new research output and for
assessment of research contributions by individuals/institutions. With the
advent of ‘modern science’ in India during the British period, newly
established scholarly societies and academic institutions started
publication of research journals. Thus many of the current research
journals published in India have a fairly long history. During recent
decades, commercial publishers have become major collaborators of research
journals and made it a worldwide industry. Following suit, a large number
of research journals published in India are also now co-associated with
commercial publishers.
The total number of serial titles registered with the ISSN International
Centre, India was 21,895 in 2017, while in 2009 this number was 7,425 (Link
<https://www.issn.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Records-for-countries-with-NC.pdf>),
reflecting a near three-fold increase in nine years. Although this list
includes all kinds of serial publications, the number of typical research
journals would also be substantial. This increase in the number of research
journals published in India, instead of reflecting a desired increase, is
actually a matter of serious concern as a large proportion of them are
‘predatory’ or bogus journals (Lakhotia, Curr. Sci., 2015, 108, 1407–1408).
Although such journals have sprouted all over the world, India
unfortunately contributes nearly 27%, highest for any single country
(Béquet, Questionable practices in scholarly publishing: the stance of the
ISSN network, 2016; http://library.ifla.org/1462/). Besides the worry about
predatory/bogus journals that were catalysed by faulty policies/practices
(Lakhotia, Proc. INSA, 2017, 83, 513–515), it is a matter of concern that
even the journals of long-standing do not attract high-quality research
output even from within the country.
Why have we come to such a sad state of affairs in the context of our
research journals? This question has been discussed many a times, including
in the pages of Current Science. Yet it is important to re-examine this
issue to sensitize the research fraternity. The older and established
journals were started by well-known scientists and academies/learned
societies with a clear conviction that India needs to have its own good
research journals to support growth of competitive and quality research in
the country. Despite these early efforts, the general tendency to publish
in journals outside India is not of recent origin since an editorial in the
first volume of Current Science (Editorial, Curr. Sci., 1933, 1, 335–337)
lamented ‘the tendency of many scientific men to export their more
important contributions for publication in foreign journals, with a
proportionate impoverishment of Indian archives. Continuance of this
practice will retard the process of building up a scientific tradition for
India and keep her in a position of semi-dependence in the world of
science’. Unfortunately, even after eight decades we remain ‘in a position
of semi-dependence in the world of science’. Several commentaries written
by Ramaseshan in Current Science between 1970s and 1990s, provide pithy and
detailed analysis of the issues faced by scientific research and
publication in India. He (Ramaseshan, Curr. Sci., 1992, 63, 529–534) echoed
the above feelings expressed nearly 60 years ago when he quoted an eminent
scientist in the country: ‘Two classes of scientists have to patronize
Indian journals – those who are working in the forefront of science and
hence are fighting for priority and those who cannot get their papers
published anywhere else.’ Unfortunately, most of our ‘forefront’
researchers now do not like to publish in Indian journals even for the sake
of priority (Lakhotia, Curr. Sci., 2003, 85, 20–22; 2010, 99, 411; 2013
105, 287–288; Proc. INSA, 2014, 80, 511–512). Only a small proportion of
Fellows of the various academies in the country have contributed in
journals published by these academies. Consequently the Indian journals
rarely get an opportunity to consider manuscripts from established and
reputed Indian scientists.
Since the general trend in the elite institutions in India is to hire as
faculty only those who have had at least some part of their training abroad
and only those who have published their research in the so-called
‘international’ journals with high ‘impact factor’ (IF), the scientific
establishment in the country does not seem to have strong faith in the
quality of research output from majority of laboratories in India and in
journals published within the country. As none of the Indian research
journals has significant IF tag, publications in these journals are
considered, by default, to be poor. Such unfounded beliefs led to the
insulting distinction between ‘national’ and ‘international’ journals
(Lakhotia, Curr. Sci., 2013, 105, 287–288). Although many journals in
India, especially those published by learned bodies for a long time, follow
good publication ethics and practices, they suffer the vicious circle of
poor submissions and, therefore, poor output (Lakhotia, Curr. Sci., 2003,
85, 20–22). Good editorial practices are essential components for a journal
to become attractive, but the contents primarily determine its recognition.
In recent years, the commercial publication houses have, using aggressive
marketing strategies, annexed a large number of research journals,
including those published by established academies and other learned
societies in India and abroad. A common argument advanced for associating
with international publishers is that this improves ‘visibility’. In my
view this argument is as fallacious as the belief that the ‘IF’ of a
journal reflects the quality of an individual researcher’s competence and
contributions. During the 50 years of my research career, I have published
nearly equal number of research papers in journals published in India and
abroad. I have not experienced any significant differences in their
citation frequencies, even for the papers that were published before the
internet era. In the current internet era, ‘visibility’ of a journal is
really not an issue but likeability of a journal would depend upon what is
printed in its pages, rather than upon the commercial publisher’s name on
the cover. One should ask if the academic content of research journals
published by the learned bodies in India, who have co-associated with
‘reputed’ international commercial publishers, has significantly improved
and whether they are attracting high-quality manuscripts. In my perception
not much change has occurred in the quality of what is published in their
pages, and this is also reflected in the fact that few of the ‘forefront’
scientists in the country publish in these journals. The establishment
continues to look down upon papers and researchers who publish in Indian
journals, notwithstanding their co-association with a ‘foreign’ brand name.
The only advantage of the co-association with a commercial publisher is
that the learned societies earn more money than they would do on their own.
While our science academies maintain that their journals are fully open
access, the associated commercial houses charge substantial amounts for the
same pdf files when down-loaded from their sites. Out of this profit, some
amount is shared with the Indian publisher. Are they justified in claiming
a complete free open access? Although the academic component of these
journals supposedly remains under control of the original Indian publisher,
there are indirect and direct pressures from the associated commercial
publishers for changes preferred by them. In my perception such acts
impinge on the academic autonomy of the academies/learned societies that
publish these journals. In any case, the crutches provided by commercial
publishers have not conferred any academic advantage.
During more than two decades of my association with several journals
published in India, I experienced, as others do, that a major problem is to
get timely reviewers’ comments. Many colleagues who are requested to review
do not respond even to express their inability or unwillingness. Many a
times, reviewers provide perfunctory remarks which do not help the editor,
but may be damaging for authors. I have often wondered if these experts
would do the same when invited to review a manuscript by a journal
published outside the country? Perhaps not! It may sound harsh, but these
researchers appear to think it below their ‘level’ to review a manuscript
for a journal published in India! The non-responding reviewers enhance the
workload of the editorial office and delay the decision process, which
hurts the author and places the journal in poor light for no fault of the
editorial process.
While talking with many young researchers around the country, it was
encouraging to learn that they are willing to publish their research
results in journals from India also, especially since this would not entail
any charges and at the same time would make them feel happy about
contributing to national recognition. However, the single major inhibiting
factor is the fear that they would receive low or no scores for
publications in Indian journals when their seniors evaluate them.
If established scientists in the country do not wish to publish even some
of their research output in Indian journals, do not wish to seriously
review manuscripts for these journals and, more importantly, directly or
indirectly penalize, irrespective of the quality of work, those who publish
in them, these journals would continue to struggle and fail to become
internationally competitive. Thus we are the enemy of established research
journals published in India.
Our established researchers should also publish some of their original
research output in Indian journals that follow good policies, participate
in critical review of manuscripts when invited by an editor, and, more
importantly, must not look down upon researchers just because they have
published in Indian journals. Obviously, if the community within the
country is hesitant to publish ‘good’ research in journals published in
India, expecting the international community to patronize them is
unjustified.
As a community, we need to strive hard to be proud of our journals rather
than be apologetic. Individuals/ institutions must be assessed on the basis
of what they publish rather than where they publish (Chaddah and Lakhotia,
Proc. INSA, 2018, 84, 319–329).

*S. C. Lakhotia *
[Cytogenetics Laboratory, Department of Zoology, Banaras Hindu University,
Varanasi 221 005, India;
e-mail: lakhotia at bhu.ac.in, ORCID ID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1842-8411]

*Download Full-text PDF
<https://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/115/12/2187.pdf>*

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Anup Kumar Das
Centre for Studies in Science Policy
School of Social Sciences
Jawaharlal Nehru University
New Delhi - 110067, India
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9490-7938
Web: www.anupkumardas.blogspot.com
Twitter: @AannuuppK | @IndiaSTS
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20181228/5f21828d/attachment.html