As institutions chase rankings, the very foundation of scientific inquiry is at risk, calling for urgent reforms in how research quality is assessed and rewarded

The mushrooming of predatory journals, fake research publications, and manipulated citations compromises the integrity of academic research. In the latest NIRF 2024 rankings, serious concerns were raised regarding the dropping ranking of many prestigious national institutions. Many mediocre institutions climbed to a higher level than institutions of national repute. Though the purpose of accreditations and rankings is to improve the quality of each institution through a competitive spirit, one major point of concern is that many institutions climbed the ladder through a single parameter, the publication metrics.

The over-emphasis on publication spoils our country's academic and research environment.

Even people who don't know how to write a paper properly publish one paper per month. There was a time when a researcher used to publish one or two papers per year. Even at the international level, people have expressed reservations about citation metrics. In a recent issue of Nature (published on  20th August), a team of researchers led by Yasir Zaki explicitly shows that a citation black market is operating in our society. The citation black market is the unscrupulous act of exchanging citations to enhance research articles' perceived influence unduly. The citation black market functions through  the following mechanisms,

1. Citation Cartels: Citation cartels are groups of researchers who agree to quote each other's work a lot, even if it has nothing to do with the current topic. These cartels can change citation metrics in a big way, giving the wrong impression of how important and influential the study is.

2. Paid Citations: Citations may sometimes be available for purchase by researchers or publications. This phenomenon is especially widespread in predatory publications, which frequently give primacy to financial gain above academic honesty.

To enhance their citation counts, researchers may compensate these journals to incorporate their work into other publications, therefore artificially inflating their citation metrics. The study published in the journal Nature found that the companies were charging $300 for 50 citations and  & 500 for 100 citations.

3. Coercive Citation: Journal editors or reviewers can also manipulate citations by pushing writers to include certain papers, usually their own, to boost the number of citations for specific journals or articles. This can make the peer review process less reliable and tilt the research towards certain people or groups. Many people have been practising this to boost their scientometrics level. The intense pressure on academics to publish frequently and in high-impact journals drives this booming citation black market.

The obsession with the impact factor as a factor of academic or scientific excellence has incentivized citation manipulation.

The study showed that Google Scholar (and ResearchGate), is manipulatable. Despite the conspicuous vulnerabilities, these are used to judge the quality of a researcher. The ‘citation black market’ has several detrimental effects on the scientific community and society. The government should reconsider its reliance on citation-based metrics, such as the impact factor, as the primary indicators of research quality.

Alternative metrics, such as article-level, open peer reviews, and qualitative research impact assessments, should be explored and adopted. Metrics evaluating the social impact of research—that of policy, industry, or public understanding—should also be considered. This strategy can inspire effort in addressing practical problems and acknowledges the broader benefits of research to society.

(The writer is an adjunct faculty at the National Institute of Advanced Studies; views are personal)