Some Measures to Boost Research in India

Posted on by Moderator

Naveen Kumar Sharma & Arati Upadhyay

Incidents such as false ownership (e.g., Galgotias University claiming a Chinese robot as its own), fake authorship, unsolicited use of AI, and data manipulation are damaging the reputation of Indian science. Scientific progress is one of the basic pillars on which a country’s overall progress depends. Scientific progress, technological prowess, and economic growth are mutually inclusive. The Indian economy is doing well, driven by strong growth in the science and technology sectors. India ranks in the top five in research across 50 of 74 critical technologies. It currently stands 38th in the Global Innovation Index. Though no valid data are available, the total number of Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) researchers in the country is approximately 342,000 (as of August 2021). During the 2010–2020 period, the total output of research papers roughly doubled over the preceding decade. In the Nature Index Ranking 2025, a proxy for high-quality publications, India ranks 9th across all categories, with rankings varying by subject. There has been a substantial increase in the number of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) during 2014–24. State universities have the highest average publications per researcher (17.23%), followed by central universities (14.66%), while colleges have lower publication rates.

The above facts portray a rosy, progressive picture of Indian science, which is, in fact, only partially true. The increase in research output is praiseworthy, but it overshadows a more foundational issue: creating an enabling environment (see the cartoon below). Here, the major bottlenecks include a limited increase in R&D funding and industry-academia collaboration, and a much-needed shift from high-volume research publication output to high-impact, quality-driven research. By nominal GDP, India is currently the 4th-largest economy. It spends approximately 0.7% of its GDP on research and development. It currently ranks 3rd worldwide in total research output, only behind China and the USA. The realization of the government’s much-publicized Viksit Bharat@2047 initiative (i.e., making India a developed nation by 2047) rests heavily on its achievements in research and innovation. In its attempt to streamline the research funding in the country, the current government has instituted the Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF), an apex body, with the Prime Minister as its chairperson. ANRF aims to provide high-level strategic direction for scientific research and to promote a culture of research, innovation, and entrepreneurship across the HEIs and other research and development (R&D) institutions in the country by facilitating collaborative research among industry, academia, research institutions, and government departments. The ANRF is hoped to align with Viksit Bharat@2047’s goals and adhere to the best practices adopted by global research and development agencies. The agency has an estimated budget of ₹50,000 crore for the period 2023–28, of which approximately two-fourths is to be mobilized from non-governmental sources, industry, and philanthropic organizations. Undeniably, the availability of funds is a major issue, but it is only partially true and not the only stumbling block to good research. There are some deep-rooted problems, often overlooked, that are critical in limiting the growth, development, and outcomes of research and innovation in the country.

Courtesy: Katalin Solymosi’s LinkedIn post

Diversification in fund distribution: The Indian Government is providing stable, need-based funding to the space, defense, and energy sectors (i.e., priority sector funding). Besides, a fair amount of research funding goes to academics (i.e., academic funding). However, if carefully analyzed, it reveals that a bulk of academic funding goes to select premier institutions (e.g., some central universities, the Indian Institute of Science, IITs, IISERs, etc.) and laboratories. In recent times, attempts are being made to plug this lacuna. Approximately 43% of universities and 62% of colleges are in rural areas, which lag far behind their urban counterparts in facilities and funding. Poor administration, which often creates multiple hindrances, compounds their problems. State-level funding is almost negligible. The central government does have schemes to support infrastructure development, which are hard to come by for these institutions. Even when obtained, such funds are poorly utilized and are often misappropriated. A high number of researchers working in universities and colleges lack research interest. Their commitment to research lasts only up to their promotion. This was a reason why the very attempt to set a specific Academic Performance Indicator (API) score for promotion has backfired, leading to substandard publications and the emergence of a wide range of predatory journals. The resulting low-quality, dubious research contributes to the overall high output of research publications. Many HEIs lack well-planned and tightly regulated doctoral programs. Many HEIs have become PhD-awarding mills, granting PhD degrees as a decorative item; on the other hand, many public-funded affiliating universities are reluctant to offer doctoral programs, wasting available human resources and compromising their progress.

A large proportion of master’s and doctoral research theses and research papers are published with little or no financial support, which is surprising. If we want to broaden our research base and improve the quality of our research output, we must diversify the funding available. Governments need to roll out research funding in two ways. Firstly, provide a proportionate consolidated research fund (based on the existing number of researchers) to each HEI, to be distributed among the researchers. An annual stipend for every willing researcher (i.e., intra-mural support) should be made available, allowing them to continue their research. Some HEIs offer a ‘Research Seed Grant’, but for most, it is a one-time measure provided when a faculty member joins or when funds are available. Most HEIs either have no money or are reluctant to make such an investment. Secondly, extramural funding is to be provided by ANRF or other funding agencies, based on well-defined deliverables and merit of the proposal, to conduct mandated research. India has a well-established funding mechanism for this category. In recent years, this fund has dried up considerably. Moreover, there are serious concerns about the existing evaluation methods and the distribution of research funding, including questions such as whether the best projects are being funded, whether all applicants are treated fairly, and whether diversity in research funding is adequately addressed. And, most importantly, whether the availability of funds is encouraging new scientists to apply for the projects, and whether society gets value for the money it spends on research funding.

A significant portion of routine research is conducted in total disconnect from societal aspirations. As a solution, researchers are required to draft a dedicated statement on the societal impact of their work when submitting project proposals or research nomination documents (Articulating Societal Impact).

Increase in private sector funding: In India, the Government is a major contributor (around 64%) to the Gross Expenditure on Research and Development (GERD), with the private sector accounting for about 36%, which is steadily increasing. Private funding is a necessary evil. It is essential that successful businesses invest in and establish their own research laboratories. However, a thorough regulatory provision must be in place. Unlike government spending, which is welfare-driven, long-term, and aimed at fulfilling societal needs, corporate spending is individualistic, narrow-visioned, short-term, and profit-driven. For example, they may not be interested in fundamental research (for which they look up to government agencies), focusing exclusively on profit-oriented applied and developmental research.

Broadening the research workforce and continuing medium- and low-budget projects: It is erroneous to think that only those serving in premier institutions can do good research. It has been observed that a bulk of such researchers are doing average research or researching for the sake of it, while a good number serving at other places are being denied the opportunity to realize their full potential.The ANRF has begun rolling out multi-institutional projects in a hub-and-spoke model. In a hub-and-spoke model, the established HEIs (among the top 20 in the NIRF ranking) act as a ‘hub’, coordinating, mentoring, managing, and distributing resources to various peripheral ‘spokes’, made up of promising but underdeveloped HEIs. The model aims to boost collaborative research by sharing expertise and overcoming geographic and infrastructural barriers, with the gradual increment of facilities at spoke institutions. For instance, the Partnerships for Accelerated Innovation and Research (PAIR) program is designed to boost the research capabilities of state universities and colleges. It offers up to Rs 100 crore over 5 years (with 30% allocated to the hub and 70% to spokes). This is a welcome and progressive step, since collaborative research is not a luxury but a need of the time. However, unlike Japan or other developed nations, India rarely has a thriving culture of collaborative research. However, it is imperative that the hub institutions develop forward-looking projects, not just continue old ideas. This would effectively lead to the development of high-value, modern research hubs the country needs. Up to now, most works have been either limited to a particular lab or institution or featured a limited number of authors. Such collaborative research often suffers from bossism or from senior scientists’ desire to patronize. While promoting such schemes, the country must expand its research workforce by continuing or increasing individual-specific, low- to medium-budget projects, with well-planned steps to diversify their reach.

Enforcing transparency in the evaluation process: A transparent evaluation protocol for the submitted projects is needed. Rather than rejecting the submitted projects at once. Proposals with value and promise, but lacking in language and orientation, a second chance must be given to the principal investigator, providing him with reviewers’ comments for improvement and resubmission. Though it may seem inappropriate to mention, groupism is a characteristic feature of Indian academia. Many are sitting on various task forces and either award projects to themselves or to people around them. As a measure to replace this practice, members of various task forces must be changed every year. The grant evaluation must involve a systematic analysis of the investigator’s expertise and publication history to ensure the proposed team is genuinely equipped to execute the project. Serial defaulters with a history of failing to deliver must be prevented from receiving funds. An outcome-based award system must be established. There are many scientists/researchers with multiple extramurally funded projects who make no significant contribution. If and where needed, use AI from project evaluation (remit checking, proposal matching, success probability analysis, etc.) to outcome analysis, alongside expert-based and distributed peer-review systems.

Incentivize research: Universities and colleges in India perform a dual function of teaching and research, while the promotion of academic staff is based solely on research outputs. There is no denying that research and teaching mutually promote one another. However, quality research cannot be forced. Exclusive focus on research for getting promoted academically is problematic. Teaching and research are two distinct domains that require specialized knowledge and skill sets. A good teacher may not necessarily be a good researcher, and vice versa. India produces over 30,000 PhDs annually; thus, there is no dearth of willing researchers. Rather than forcing someone to do research that s/he is not interested in or competent to do, a better approach would be to incentivize research. If a person does good research, s/he may have an early promotion. Likewise, for extramural funds, allocate a share of the budget to the researcher as an honorarium. A few schemes have adopted this model. Much of the research force in the country is happy to operate in its comfort zone. They simply love to continue their routine research, which is often in total disconnect from societal aspirations, unassuming of taking up challenging projects in critical/emerging areas.

Patents: The number of patents filed by Indian HEIs during 2014–2024 increased by 115%, largely driven by demand for higher accreditation scores and national and global rankings, as well as fee concessions. However, the ratio of patents filed to granted is low, particularly for private institutions. Moreover, many patents filed lack commercial use and are filed to achieve personal academic goals. This further diminishes the chances of collaboration between HEIs and industry.

Emergence of open-access journals and need for Indian journals: Publishing a research paper is an arduous task, specifically when journals are rapidly adopting open-access (OA) models under the pretext of ensuring free access to the public (free-to-read journals). Most of the new journals are open access, while older ones are eager to join the bandwagon. To publish in such journals, authors have to pay a hefty article processing charge (APC). Publishing houses that own these journals offer APC waivers to corresponding authors based in low- and lower-middle-income countries with GDPs below $200 billion, or rarely upon request. Since these journals’ articles are available online for free, they receive more citations than those in paywalled journals. As a result, they garner a high impact factor, a highly lucrative metric among researchers. When a new journal is launched, it offers a full APC waiver for a year or so to attract submissions. Once they start getting good citations, they decline waivers, even if they were promised beforehand. This is a smart, simple way to build a brand. Subsequent publication in these journals depends strictly on the payment of APC. There are instances in which papers fail to find a volume despite being thoroughly reviewed and accepted for publication. Making publication economically sustainable is a good thing. However, the quality of work, not money, should be the criterion for acceptance and publication. It must be remembered that a team of researchers conducts the study, writes papers, and their colleagues review them for free. Journals provide only language correction and content hosting, for which they charge authors an exorbitant fee for their own work. Globally, the average APC stands around $2000, which is a handsome amount. Even in economies like India, only a limited number of laboratories can pay this. Recently, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), the world’s largest research institution, has instructed its researchers to stop publishing in many high-cost open-access journals. This has led to the unethical practice of borrowed authorship by economically well-off researchers and institutions, without any contribution to the study. Incidents of excessive publication (paper mills) have also increased. Another significant trend is desk rejection by editors. Journals like to boast about this very high rejection rate for submitted manuscripts. The eligibility and expertise of the editorial board of such a journal are questionable, and recent studies suggest a dubious link among editors, reviewers, and researchers.

Further, it has been observed that the OA model has led to the publication of substandard research articles. Consequently, many institutions worldwide have released lists of journals they consider facilitating research misconduct. Many reputed institutions, while hiring post-doctoral candidates and faculty, mention that articles published in many OA journals shall not be considered. Unfortunately, the Indian science community has never bothered to promote its own quality journals. In fact, in their insatiable urge to control everything, they have downgraded the many old journals run by various academies, associations, and societies. Editorial boards are filled with their friends and students. It’s time to rethink. We must promote our own journals. To ensure access to leading journals for its scientific communities, the Indian government struck a multi-million-dollar deal with leading publishers. The scheme, named the One Nation One Subscription (ONOS), also provides APC waivers for researchers from participating institutions to publish in 431 open-access journals, which are very limited. Moreover, the process to claim a waiver is time-consuming and cumbersome. DBT/Wellcome Trust India Alliance (India Alliance), an independent public charity, provides APCs only for health and biomedical sciences research. Rest, almost no private-sector entity pays the APC. Conclusively, India’s desire to become a research and innovation powerhouse rests on a robust policy framework, visionary and enthusiastic academic leadership, broad-based funding, academic-industry collaboration, and the development of its own research journal. Privatization, including the setting up of foreign universities, is fine. Research is a competitive ecosystem operating at a global scale. However, in an innovation and technology-driven world, strategically important research can only be conducted in government-funded public institutions. Hence, maintaining the quality of research in public-funded HEIs is crucial and requires careful planning, appropriate policy support, and due recognition for those involved in capacity-building initiatives.

Naveen K. Sharma is currently a professor in the Department of Botany at the Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, Amarkantak, M.P., India. Email: naveen.sharma@igntu.ac.in

Arati Upadhyay is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Education, Government Girls Degree College, Phulpur, Prayagraj, U.P., India. Her area of interest is academic leadership. Email: arati.upadhyay10@bhu.ac.in

Views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Confluence, its editorial board or the Academy.

An endorsement that would upset Sushruta

Posted on , updated on by Moderator

G L Krishna

Kewal Krishna Thakral, a senior ayurvedic doctor from Uttar Pradesh, was awarded the Padma Shri by the President of India last week. He was given the award for his contributions to Shalya Tantra (ayurvedic surgery). Official communications from the Ministry of Ayush and Rashtrapati Bhavan have highlighted his work on karna vyadhana (ear-piercing) in the management of bronchial asthma.

Ear-piercing as a treatment modality for bronchial asthma has no basis in the ayurveda classics. Sushruta-Samhita, on which ayurvedic surgery is based, devotes a full chapter to ear-piercing but does not link it to the treatment for bronchial asthma. Not a single trial that tested this treatment rigorously has been published in any peer-reviewed journal either. Dr. Thakral himself appears to have written a note on the subject in Sachitr Ayurved in 1991.

The central premise behind recognising ayurveda as a medical system in its own right is that the ayurvedic classics, when approached scientifically, can serve as a  repertoire of researchable, if not usable, information related to both health promotion and illness management. But here is a treatment – backed neither by the ayurvedic classics nor by current research – being implicitly endorsed by the government at the national level. Had the treatment appeared really promising, the Ayush Ministry should have instituted a proper study under the guidance of ayurvedic doctors, paediatricians, and surgeons. After all, the budgetary allocation for Ayush has been rising in recent years. The government has instead chosen to nationally tom-tom a treatment that is strange and utterly unproven. Dr. Thakral might well be deserving of the award for his broader contributions, but his ‘innovation’ needs pariksha (investigation) before getting endorsed as a siddha–upakrama (proven treatment).

Both Charaka Samhita and Sushruta Samhita, the foundational texts of ayurveda that date back the first millennium BCE, stress that a conclusion can be deemed final (siddhanta) only if it rests on a rational analysis of verified experience. Sushruta explains that the treatments he recommends are reliable not merely because they have proven effective in his own observation (pratyaksha phala-darshana), but because they carry the endorsement of the collective wisdom and consensus of the learned community (aagama-siddhatva). This represents perhaps the earliest explicit recognition of peer review as an essential mechanism for generating and validating medical knowledge. Those who claim to work for the cause of traditional knowledge systems must pay heed to Sushruta’s wise approach.

G L Krishna is an ayurvedic physician and researcher. He is currently associated with the National Centre for Biological Sciences, Bengaluru. Email: krishnagl@ncbs.res.in

Views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Confluence, its editorial board or the Academy.

The Real Deal: Lessons, Learnings, and Laughter for Girl Scientists

Posted on , updated on by Moderator

Dr. Karishma S. Kaushik, MBBS, MD, PhD

Why STEM needs ‘real’ stories of women scientists

Girls and women represent half of the population of India. Yet, their participation in scientific education and the workforce is insufficient and beset with challenges.

India produces over 25 lakh graduates in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) each year, a number that, despite being among the highest in the world, is insufficient for the country’s science and technology-related aspirations. Building a large scientific workforce and scientifically literate population is critical for India to harness its full potential. In line with this, the recent National Education Policy (2020) and Anusandhan National Research Foundation Act (2023) aim to transform science education and research in the country. Unleashing the intellectual and innovative potential of our entire population is of national relevance.

In this background of reality and aspirations, informing and igniting the next generation of citizens, including girls and women, about the scope, potential, and value of science—while inspiring them to consider it as an education and career—assumes significance.

As a physician, clinical microbiologist, scientist, wife, and mother, I have worn multiple hats across my life and career. After my MBBS, I pursued an MD in microbiology. A research project during this period led me to my quest for a PhD and becoming a ‘physician-scientist’. Around this time, I also got married and moved, aspirations and all, to the United States. It was difficult breaking into a new academic system but ultimately, I did a PhD from an interdisciplinary biophysics group in a US university. In one of the most rewarding yet challenging phases of my life, I also became a mother. A few years after my PhD, donning the hat of the homeland-bound, I chose to return to India on a Government of India fellowship. It was a decision driven by a deep commitment to plough my experience and education back into my country. Several career trajectories later, some of which found me storing laboratory materials in the back of my car, and some, on the cover of a UNESCO book, I was leading a national science programme in the life-science ecosystem in the country.

All in all, my career has spanned medicine and science(s!) with experiences across more than two decades, many countries, and contributions to scientific research, education, innovation, policy, and outreach. There have been many lessons and stories on the journey. My ambitions brought forth accomplishments, as much as they did realities about doing science in different parts of the world. It made me reflect on what being a woman in science meant for me, and what it means for other women in the world. Several of these learnings are those that one would expect as one navigates a career in science. Many of them were unexpected, disappointing, and even unfair. All of them are shared in this book.

Part memoir and part reportage, The Real Deal provides aspiring girl scientists an insider’s view into the experiences of a contemporary woman scientist in India.

The memoir consists of real-life stories from a life and career in science with anecdotes from student life to leadership, all with a generous dose of humour and hindsight. The reportage is intended to provide aspiring scientists a closer look into the broader aspects of a scientific career. Using research-backed information and case-in-point scenarios from different STEM fields, the chapters cover general information topics such as education and careers in science, as well as less discussed topics, such as the role of mentors and allies, stereotypes and imposter phenomenon, and work–life balance and mental health—essentially, other factors which influence science careers! A significant part of the book delves into what it means to be a woman in science, with a clear and critical view of how gender, marriage, motherhood, the leaky pipeline, and position-gap impact the careers of women in STEM. It also discusses the realities of bias and discrimination in the scientific ecosystem, including what that means for women and other marginalized groups. Across different points, the book includes solutions to some of these challenges, with evidence-based and real-life examples of ways in which these can and have been navigated. Finally, at the end of the book, aspiring scientists get an insight into how broader societal discourse shapes science. Through themes such as open science and scientific reproducibility, as well as how science intersects with beliefs, ethics and the state, this book will prime future scientists on what they can and should expect as they forge their careers amid ongoing conversations.

This book is intended for a wide range of readers, and particularly for girls and boys who are twelve years and older, including those studying science at undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral levels. The book is also aimed to be a suitable guide for parents and teachers, who can support young people aspiring to study science as well as spark conversations with them around a life and career in STEM. Given the unique challenges around girls’ education and professional advancement in our country, this book, written from the lens of an Indian woman scientist, will also serve as an advocate for better institutional and social systems to support women in science.

While there are notable books that chronicle the stories of women in science from India and across the world, a large segment of them are biographical sketches of women scientists from previous generations. As a result, very few of these accounts profile current women scientists, living and working in our midst, and even fewer are first-person narratives. Biographical accounts also risk falling prey to ‘survivorship bias’, a type of selection bias that results from profiling women scientists who have the privilege of looking back on a successful career (aka ‘those who made it’), as opposed to those currently navigating the opportunities and challenges of a modern-day scientific career, and doing so while balancing and enjoying multiple roles in their lives (aka ‘someone who is making it happen’).

Think of this book as a conversation between a grown-up girl scientist (me) and the many aspiring girl scientists across India and the globe; an authentic account of the ‘real deal’ of a life and career in science, filled with failed experiments, difficult decisions, and the realities of being a woman in science, as well as the thrills of scientific discovery, the joys of work–life balance as a scientist-mother, and the fulfilment of being a part of work that could change the lives of millions.

I am lucky because writing this book could not have come at a better time in my life and career. I hope reading it leaves you with the same feeling.

This article is an excerpt from the recent book The Real Deal: Lessons, Learnings, and Laughter for Girl Scientists (ISBN-13: 978-0143480501), and has been published with the permission of the publisher Penguin Random House.

More about the book (including buying options): https://www.therealdealinstem.com/. You can contact the author at karishmaskaushik@gmail.com.

Views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Confluence, its editorial board or the Academy.

Why science must engage with politics

Posted on , updated on by Gautam R. Desiraju

Gautam R. Desiraju

Science represents a rigorous and systematic pursuit of knowledge that encompasses the observation, analysis, and comprehension of the natural world. Its ultimate goal is to apply the insights gained through this process to exert some control over the physical universe, enhancing our understanding and improving our daily lives. Unlike many disciplines, in which personal biases or societal pressures may be present, science operates independently of social and economic factors that often shape the experiences of researchers and practitioners.

Through its methodical approach, science works to unveil the layers of hypocrisy, cant, and prejudice that can cloud human judgment and decision-making. It seeks to eliminate obscurantism—the deliberate withholding of knowledge or facts—and emotion-driven responses, and to promote a framework built on logical reasoning and objective analysis. This emphasis on rationality enables us to navigate complex questions and challenges by prioritising evidence and peer-reviewed findings over personal beliefs or societal constructs.

Moreover, the impact of science extends far beyond the laboratory and academic institutions; it fundamentally transforms the world as we know it. Advancements in medicine, technology, environmental science, and countless other domains are directly linked to scientific inquiry. As a cornerstone of organised, civilised society, the scientific method has paved the way for innovations that improve health, promote sustainability, and foster human understanding. In fact, without the foundational principles of science guiding our progress, the intricate world we inhabit today would be radically different and far less recognisable.

Politics, fundamentally, is the intricate process through which groups of individuals come together to make collective decisions and establish governing rules that shape their communities. This process is deeply rooted in the exercise of power—defined as the capacity to influence others’ behaviour and beliefs. At its heart, politics seeks to resolve conflicts that arise over the distribution of essential resources, social status, and authority within a society.

Politics is a universal human activity that grapples with pivotal questions about equity and access: who gets what resources, when they receive them, and how these distributions are made. These dynamics manifest through various institutions—such as governments, legal systems, and other formal organisations—as well as through informal mechanisms such as negotiation and contestation.

Politics is not a static phenomenon; the historical and cultural contexts of different eras and regimes shape it. Whether in democracies, autocracies, or any other form of governance, the essence of political activity remains consistent: it is a collective endeavour that reflects the complexities of human interactions and social organisation. As societies evolve, so too do the methods and frameworks of political engagement, but the underlying principles of power and resource allocation persist as core elements of the political landscape.

The intersection of science and politics is essential, as political structures serve as the primary engine for power distribution and resource allocation, fundamentally shaping modern societal activities and determining global standing. In today’s world, scientific and technological supremacy—especially in transformative fields such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and quantum computing—has emerged as a critical instrument of national power. This evolution means that advancements in these areas have significant implications for a nation’s economic dominance and military advantage, positioning them as pivotal factors in the contemporary geopolitical landscape where major nations vie for influence and supremacy.

Throughout history, it has become evident that a nation’s scientific prowess plays a crucial role in shaping its quest for hegemonic status on the global stage. Take, for example, Germany’s groundbreaking synthesis of indigo, which not only revolutionised the dye industry but also paved the way for a burgeoning chemical sector. Similarly, the United States made strides with the invention of saccharin, a synthetic sweetener that gained immense popularity and transformed food production. Meanwhile, Britain’s pioneering development of mauve, the first synthetic dye, laid the groundwork for significant advancements in color chemistry and textile manufacturing. Equally noteworthy is Britain’s serendipitous discovery of penicillin, which marked the dawn of modern medicine by offering a powerful weapon against bacterial infections. In the United States, the creation of innovative polymers such as Nylon and Teflon liberated industries from traditional materials, leading to new products that changed everyday life.

This era also heralded the silicon revolution, ignited by the invention of the silicon chip. This tiny piece of technology became the backbone of the semiconductor industry, leading to the proliferation of electronic devices that transformed communication and computation. Around this time, IBM emerged as a key player by introducing some of the first digital computers, forever altering the landscape of information technology. Furthermore, the discovery of nuclear fission had monumental consequences, giving rise to both the fearsome potential of atomic weaponry and the promise of nuclear energy for peaceful applications, such as powering homes and businesses.

In more recent times, China’s dominance in the rare earth elements (REE) sector has changed geopolitics at least in the medium term. Undoubtedly, the remarkable scientific advancements achieved in these nations—characterised by pivotal discoveries and inventions—have had a profound and lasting impact on how they exert their political influence and power worldwide.

Politics serves as the mechanism for determining “who gets what,” thereby placing increasing importance on evidence-based decision-making guided by scientific insights and data. The multifaceted challenges of our time—including climate change, public health crises, and pandemics—demand that political actions are rooted in the logical consistency of scientific consensus. By doing so, policymakers can ensure that limited resources are allocated toward viable and practical solutions rather than being diverted by preconceived notions, biases, or dogmatic beliefs.

Moreover, the allocation of public funding for research and development is fundamentally a political choice, with direct repercussions on a nation’s capacity to innovate and maintain competitiveness on the global stage. When governments prioritise investment in scientific research, they not only foster an environment conducive to discovery and invention but also secure their position in the global marketplace of ideas and technologies.

Finally, science plays a crucial role in diplomacy, helping countries collaboratively manage shared resources, such as global supply chains, and address collective risks. In this context, international scientific collaborations can serve as invaluable tools for soft power and trust-building among nations. By fostering scientific partnerships, countries can transcend political tensions and work together toward common goals. This collaborative spirit becomes increasingly vital in navigating the complexities of an interconnected and contested world order, where the interdependence between nations makes scientific cooperation a cornerstone of diplomatic relations.

Gautam R. Desiraju is an eminent structural chemist and an emeritus professor at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India. He is known for his pioneering work on crystal engineering and weak hydrogen bonds.

Views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Confluence, its editorial board or the Academy.

Pandit Nehru’s approach to Ayurveda

Posted on by Moderator

G L Krishna

The second WHO Global Summit on Traditional Medicine was held in New Delhi a few days back. It is timely to remind stakeholders of how Pandit Nehru – India’s first Prime Minister, known for his spirited advocacy of scientific temper – approached policymaking vis-a-vis Ayurveda. The Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, now available online, have some interesting material on this topic.

In 1962, Sirimavo Bandaranaike, the then Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, conceived an Ayurvedic research institute as a memorial to her late husband. Pandit Nehru, who was invited to inaugurate it, gladly accepted and opened the Bandaranaike Memorial Ayurvedic Research Institute at Maharagama, Sri Lanka, on 14 October 1962. The letters exchanged between the two Prime Ministers in 1961–62 reveal Nehru’s considered approach to Ayurveda.

On 17 May 1961, Nehru wrote to Bandaranaike: “Our broad approach has been that the Ayurvedic and like systems of medicine made great progress in the past, more especially in the treatment of some diseases, but, for some reason which is difficult to explain, this progress came to a standstill many hundred years ago.

“And so, while they have very valuable material with them which we should study and profit by, their broad approach is out of date. We can only profit by  what Ayurveda can teach us if we examine it in the light of modern scientific developments. This is an age of science and we can hardly go back to the pre-scientific age in considering any matter. But, I repeat, we believe that there is much in Ayurveda which is of importance to us and, therefore, should be studied.”

This is, in fact, a reiteration of the view he had stated in a note dated 22 July 1950: “There is no doubt that there are very effective remedies in Ayurvedic and the Unani systems, and, scientifically utilised, they can be of the greatest use. But it is important that the method of science be applied to them. In surgery, which is so important, there is no alternative to modern methods.”

These excerpts clearly reflect Nehru’s philosophy of critical conservatism toward India’s traditional medical systems. Traditional medicine is valuable, but only when refined by evidence-based scrutiny.

Nehru consistently warned against blind conservatism. When traditional astrologers predicted widespread natural calamities due to the rare planetary alignment known as Ashtagraha in early February 1962, he openly ridiculed the forecast. In a speech he declared: “When I speak of dangerous events, I do not want you to be under any illusion that I am talking about the Ashtagraha. I have no belief in all that.” Incidentally, the speech was delivered in Varanasi on 12 January 1962 – the birth anniversary of Swami Vivekananda, another great figure who had cautioned Indians against superstition and astrology.

Despite Nehru’s balanced and reasonable approach to Ayurveda, the fact remains that this traditional medical system has stayed stagnant. Its theoretical framework – a significant portion of which is clearly outdated – has undergone no serious revision. Ayurvedic colleges even today teach students ancient physiological and pathological conjectures that became obsolete centuries ago, while confusingly treating modern scientific facts and these antiquated ideas as possessing equal veracity.

What accounts for this persistent intellectual ineptitude on the part of the Ayurvedic academia? Nehru himself noted in another context, writing to Bertrand Russell: “Logic and common sense do not take one very far when people’s fears and passions are aroused.” The Ayurvedic academia, by and large, passionately clings to the belief that its knowledge base is a perfected product divined in deep yogic states by ancient sages. It fears that revising ancient texts would lead to the loss of wisdom derived from higher epistemic realms! When an ancient reason-based discipline (yukti-vyāpāśraya) is thus misconstrued as an esoteric and authority-based one, it is only natural that logic and common sense can play little or no role.

The Global Traditional Medicine Strategy 2025-2034, adopted by the 78th World Health Assembly, sets guiding principles and four objectives: strengthen evidence, ensure safety and regulation, integrate traditional medicine into health systems, and optimize its cross-sectoral value. At least in the Ayurvedic context, it must be clearly realised that the foremost objective of strengthening evidence cannot be accomplished until its ancient classics – especially their portions containing biological information – first undergo evidence-informed revisions. Valuable insights must be retained, but the overall biology explicated in ancient treatises must be plainly acknowledged to be obsolete. The mansion of evidence-based Ayurveda cannot be built on the dilapidated foundations of its primitive, unevidenced biology.

G L Krishna is an Ayurvedic physician and researcher. He is currently associated with the National Centre for Biological Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bengaluru, India.

Views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Confluence, its editorial board or the Academy.

Scientific Temper : A Panel Discussion

Posted on by Moderator

Panel Discussion: YouTube Link

To observe the National Scientific Temper day on August 20, 2025, Confluence, the online discussion forum supported by the Indian Academy of Sciences, hosted a panel discussion on the origins, the background and the debates around the idea of the scientific temper. Conceptualised by Shubashree Desikan and Gita Chadha, the panel discussion contextualises the idea of the Scientific Temper in history and as it shaped the modern Indian nation state, it critically examines the role of scientific communities and cultures in promoting (or not)  the idea of scientific temper, it makes an attempt to retrieve and reimagine principles of scientific temper itself to make science more inclusive and to bring it closer to the moral project of building a just society.

In the discussion, Ram Ramasway draws upon Kosambi’s vision of science as does Archishman Raju. Raju further integrates this vision with the Nehruvian-Gandhian perspective on modern science. Prajval Shastri brings in perspectives from the people’s science movement and draws upon her experience of scientific institutions and their apolitical cultures to strongly urge for a scientific worldview. Gita Chadha frames the debate within the discipline of sociology and speaks of a need to integrate liberal, socialist and post-colonial perspectives to science. The discussion ends with the need to integrate philosophy, science and politics in the process of reimagining scientific temper.

Video edited by: G. V. Pavan Kumar

Views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Confluence, its editorial board or the Academy.

Trust, respect, hierarchy and bullying: We need to change!

Posted on , updated on by Moderator

E. Arunan

A society that does not have trust and respect as two-way streets is inherently unjust. It would also be unstable, if it becomes institutionalized and people on the wrong side accept it for fear or favor. While it is difficult to know how our nation, society and families were in ancient times, the time in which I grew up, both trust and respect were one-way streets. One can see the fallout of this all around us today. I decided to write about this, more for everyone to think and discuss than for pointing fingers at anyone or a group.

Hierarchy is important and perhaps essential for an institution to be functional. By nature, it must be a one-way street. We do need leaders at every level, from a Family to an Institution to a State and Nation! They are needed to make the final decision, when there are diverse views. If not, there will be anarchy! An ideal leader would discuss with all concerned and make a decision that is good for the system, without any personal bias. Listening to all and ensuring that everyone is allowed to have a say are both important. I am doubtful about leaders who believe they know what is good for everyone. I do realise that there could be times when the leader needs to decide based on his/her conviction, that a majority does not like. In a democracy, such decisions are validated in the next election and the people would approve if they saw the benefits of such a decision. Leaders do need some privilege and protection to avoid frivolous complaints which could hamper their functioning. However, such privileges and protection should not be misused to bully any individual or group being led.

Our tradition encourages students to fall at the feet of their teachers. Addressing teachers as ‘Sir’ or ‘Madam’ continues everywhere. I remember reading somewhere that ‘Sir’ stands for ‘Slave I remain’. Our society trains everyone to be either a master or a slave. Standing as equals and talking to each other seems alien. As fellow humans today, I do not see any reason for anyone to fall on another person’s feet. On 29th September 2010 our past Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was handing out the first Adhaar card to a person from a tribal area. On live TV, the tribal person fell on the PM’s feet. The Prime Minister was not doing a favour by giving the Aadhaar to a citizen. This should not have been allowed and yet it was happening live.

Academic bullying is real and is discussed regularly. A sponsored feature article in Science says 8 out of 10 scientists face hostile behaviour during their careers (source link). Prof. Sherry Moss, co-author from Wake Forest University is quoted as saying “those who had been bullied or abused were unlikely to report the abuse due to fear of retaliation”. This article mentions about the foundation of ‘Academic Parity Movement’ founded by nanotechnologist Morteza Mahmoudi and activist Saya Ameli Hajebi, to help end “academic discrimination, violence, and bullying”. Moss and Mahmoudi have published an article titled “STEM the bullying: An empirical investigation of abusive supervision in academic science” in 2021. (source link) American Society for Cell Biology hosts an article by M. Perillo titled “Bullying in Science: Let us face the problem” (source link). It appears that Springer has introduced a Journal to discuss this: “International Journal of Bullying Prevention”. Publishers would not lose an opportunity to start one more Journal.

Several Academic Institutions in India, including the Indian Institute of Science have recognized this and have formed Committees to investigate this. They organize talks, workshops and interactive sessions to address and reduce academic bullying. In addition to sexual harassment, a general workplace harassment is being discussed. We had a talk by Sasha group organized on 19th March 2025 at the Inorganic and Physical Chemistry Department. I learned about a comprehensive study carried out by Indian National Bar Association resulting in a report titled “Sexual Harassment at Work Place” written by Garima (Prabhat Books, 2017). The report has 47 pages. Let me quote two alarming statistics. Nearly 88 % of the respondents have said sexual harassment happens and about 69 % did not raise a complaint to the internal committee. In the informal survey conducted by the speaker in our Department, 30 respondents mentioned that they are either victims or aware of sexual harassment to someone else. I do hope our Institute and every organization finds a way to reduce and eliminate this. Beyond rules and regulations, raising awareness and preventive measures would yield better results.

A faculty-student relation has a hierarchy that is needed. Typically, the teacher has experience in a field and the student is a beginner. A student needs to follow the suggestions in carrying out research. A faculty member can only decide when some work can be written for publication and which Journal is more appropriate or when a student could submit his/her Thesis. I have heard from some students disagreeing with such decisions by their mentors and my response has always been, faculty members know better to make these decisions. This hierarchy is indeed needed. However, it should not lead to bullying for personal benefits. Some years ago, a faculty member of Indian origin at the University of Missouri, Kansas City was accused of exploiting his students. The news report mentions the following: “the professor compelled his students to act as his personal servants. They hauled equipment and bused tables at his social events. They were expected to tend his lawn, look after his dog and water the house plants, sometimes for weeks at a time when he and his wife were away.” (source link) I suspect such bullying happening in our midst goes unreported largely.

Let me focus now on bullying by some members who sit in the committee to decide funding, promotion, appointment and so on. As a new investigator submitting a project to DST, my presentation was stopped after a few minutes and irrelevant comments were made which silenced me. When I was presenting my first research project for funding, Chair of the committee stopped and asked me: “How many papers have you published after returning to India?”. After an energetic and enthusiastic presentation for the first 10 minutes, I became dumb staring at the committee, listening to comments that had no relevance to the project for another 10 minutes. Thankfully, some members who remained silent during the presentation understood the significance of the project. I was asked to submit again adding a co-investigator with Engineering background. I eventually got the funds to build the pulsed nozzle Fourier transform microwave spectrometer. We built the first one in India, which remains the only one as of today.

I became a member of the Programme Advisory Committee of the Department of Science and Technology for Physical Chemistry and had the opportunity to see the other side. In the very first meeting we had, a senior member in my committee was treating a principal investigator in a patronizing and condescending way. I did not like this. As a new and young member of the committee, I kept quiet during this first interaction. When it was over and the principal investigator left the room, I complained to the Chair of the committee about the behaviour of the senior member. Thankfully again, all other members of the committee agreed with my observation and the senior member was asked not to talk like this to any investigator seeking funds. Approving or rejecting a proposal is the prerogative of the committee. However, no member of the committee has any right to talk rudely to an investigator.

I have heard horror stories from young faculty about bullying by a senior colleague / committee member / chair / anyone who considers him/her superior. Several such comments are difficult to believe. Why do some experts behave this way? It is clear that no one had told them it is inappropriate. A young assistant professor, incidentally an accomplished woman, was making a presentation about her progress. One old expert stops her and shouts: Your advisor never did anything, and you will not do anything either! The young faculty had tears in her eyes. The Director should have stopped this abuse, and it did not happen. This same expert was invited to give an Institute Colloquium in an IISER. He finds a young faculty member doing research in an area which he thought was useless. We do have experts with very little breadth in science coming to such illogical conclusions. At the beginning of this Institute colloquium, with all students and faculty members from all disciplines attending, the expert starts by saying: “I cannot believe you guys hired this guy!” This was not only insulting the young faculty member, but also the collective wisdom of the Institute. A proverb in Tamil says the following: Any speaker should be mindful of what to speak based on the place, circumstance, context, and audience. Several of our leaders in Science have not been mindful of this. When I started my career about 30 years ago, I was hoping such inappropriate comments by senior faculty would stop with that generation. My own experience and experience from several young colleagues indicate that it is worsening, if anything.

Academic researchers who make it to any committee that can decide the fate of a young researcher should treat this as an important and enabling duty. It is not for wielding power to put down people and stop research by some youngsters who may appear to be a threat. While this is expected of anyone joining a committee, it is important that funding agencies ensure that no expert resorts to such bullying. It is also important for the Chairs of committees to stop an erring member and assure the presenters. Presenters should be given opportunities to bring any such act by a member in a confidential manner to higher authorities. I do hope people coming to the highest level do not resort to such activities. It is not easy for any system to handle a king who does wrong. I am aware of a Latin legal maxim, which means ‘king can do no wrong’. This is taken care of in a democracy by ensuring that no one is given indefinite power. Let us find a way to stop bullying at home, workplace, our streets, city and country.

Prof. E. Arunan is a renowned experimental physical chemist focusing on spectroscopy and dynamics of molecules and clusters. He is a Professor in the Department of Inorganic and Physical Chemistry, Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore, India.

Views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Confluence, its editorial board or the Academy.

An ecologist in a design school?

Posted on , updated on by Moderator

Chandrima Home

“So, what do you teach in Srishti?” This has been the most commonly asked question in the last two and half years of my association as a teaching faculty member at the Srishti Manipal Institute of Art, Design and Technology (henceforth SMI). As a person trained in ecological sciences, ending up as an art and design school facilitator was perhaps beyond my intellectual prospect.

My academic journey began with a postgraduate degree in Wildlife Sciences at the Wildlife Institute of India followed by a PhD at ATREE (Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment). Both these spaces and the interspersed work stints prior to joining SMI, involved field ecology, a rigour of research-based methods and a three years’ experience in research administration. The closest I approached art and creativity was through my personal interest in creating art from trash or the occasional doodles I did to unwind. Needless to say, the course of my professional engagements and personal interests allowed me to embrace this space with excitement and trepidation.

My quickest answer to the question posed above is “I bring in the ecological lens for students in this space” and while this statement may seem simple, it is layered with the challenges, anxiousness and a sense of feeling a misfit in a space like SMI. While the sense of being an oddball has not subsided; I have learnt to understand that the structure of SMI itself accepts each of us like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle to create a complete picture for the students who come to study.

Over the course of two and half years at SMI, I have facilitated curriculum spaces in the form of unit-based studios for both UG and PG students, electives and a pre-thesis project for the UG students. Each of these spaces has been challenging but rewarding in many ways. A lot of the time, I am surrounded by students across cohorts, who have had sparse experience in seeing the natural world around them. Thus, engaging them through observations, reflection and journaling comes with an even bigger challenge of having to sustain their patience in a world dominated by 15 sec reels! However, what is astonishing are the ways in which students make sense of the natural world through their creative mediums.

As a means of initial ice breaking, I usually engage the students in a nature walk/day field trip in the beginning of my course. Field immersions become an important space to observe, document the natural world and the linkages around us. Students are encouraged to journal and map these through visual tools (this could be both digital/a hand-made one!) helping them to understand how connected we are to the ecological realm. Documenting surroundings through nature journaling is a wonderful way to crystallize our observations and thoughts. It also becomes an important tool to remember and integrate new information alongside the existing knowledge.

Field visit to the nearby Gantiganahalli Lake as a part of an elective on urban ecology titled “Living Cities“
Nature journal of a first-year student after a campus walk as a part of an elective on urban ecology titled “Living Cities”
Personal excerpt of journaling during a field trip with students for the 7th Semester Project

As a facilitator each space has been a learning experience. As a person trained in ecological research, breaking the ecological components down for students who mostly do not come with a background in biology, can be both gruelling and thought provoking. For example, while introducing the socio-zoological scale (coined by Arluke and Sanders1) as a context within my Animals and Society elective course, I played a game where students were asked to ranked images of different animals that they liked based on a scale of 5 (1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest). At the end of the exercise, what stood out was the human perception of species and how the perceived cognitive ability matters in terms of our receptivity and how we feel for them.

Finding innovative mediums (such as films, images, animations, newspaper text reading analysis) have been a go-to resource for contextualizing a range of connections that we make with the environment (human-animal interactions, policy, dilemmas in conservation, ecological linkages etc). These mediums have also helped challenge the moral and ethical boundaries while delving into the narratives. Early 2024, I facilitated a five-week studio titled “Ethical Dilemmas, Engagement and Decision Making” through which I introduced human-animal interaction and understanding the various dilemmas and decision-making processes associated with the context. The final output of this studio was designing a game (as a group endeavour) that demonstrated the dilemmas in human-animal interactions, which also meant pushing my own boundaries as a facilitator. The students were instructed to build these games with recyclable material and not purchase any new stationery to build the game prototype.

The studio resulted in two games titled “Beeyond” and “Tidal Trails”. Beeyond was inspired by the human-rock bee interaction on campus to bring in an awareness about their role as ecosystem service providers while Tidal Trails was inspired by “Hungry Tide” bringing in the dilemmas of human tiger interaction in the Sundarbans. Both these games were able to bring out the interaction between people and animals through their game mechanics i.e. in the form of action or dilemma cards (Beeyond) or paths interacting between players (Tidal trails). This studio piqued my interest in exploring games to facilitate a greater awareness of environmental issues and mitigate the disconnect with the natural world.

The board game “Beeyond” explored human-bee conflict on campus as a part of a studio titled “Ethical Dilemmas, Engagement and Decision Making”
The board game “Tidal Trails” explored the dilemma of the tiger while navigating the Sundarbans as it encountered the researcher, the hunter and the forest guard. Note: All the game pawns were made as Origami forms by the student.

The studio gave me an impetus to facilitate a four month pre-thesis project space for the UG students in the discipline of Information Arts and Information Design Program. Perhaps, the sheer excitement of how students perceive an ecological brief through creative mediums spurred me to engage in this capacity. The project was titled “The Disentangled Bank” (inspired by Carl Zimmer’s famous evolutionary ecology book titled “Tangled Bank”2) to highlight the loss of ecological connections that we are increasingly seeing in the Anthropocene. In the larger context of the brief, the students were encouraged to pursue a specific enquiry resulting in an art and design output. The nature of the output was kept largely open-ended with a list of potential creatives that could be explored. These included educational aids, graphic novels/illustrations/comics, multimedia/digital art, film/documentary/animation or a research paper. Students immersed themselves in the project space through field immersions, reading resources, discussions on how to probe for questions, and masterclasses that helped them orient to the larger context of ecological loss. They were encouraged to come up with their own line of enquiry situated in India, justify their context and delve deeper for a meaningful design output.

A four-month long project space with three assessment criteria mandated the students to document their design process and iterations. Eighteen students over a course of four months consumed me and while the one-on-one mentorship seemed exhausting in the beginning, over time as they settled in with their ideas, it opened a window to how each of them interpreted the context of loss. At the end of four months, the project space culminated in an exhibition displaying various design outputs that brought out the context of ecological connections and subsequent loss. These included games, animations, tapestry, paintings, data exploration and a range of books and zines.

Some of the outputs of noteworthy mention included:

  1. A board game on ants where players navigated ant colonies focusing on ecological functions, survival and invasion by other colonies.
  2. An illustrated book of poems on vulture decline.
  3. An online interactive narrative game that uses the context of human-leopard interactions to talk about its representation in media.
  4. An illustrated book on the context of self, identity and community using waterbirds and wetlands which are diminishing habitats in urban ecosystems.
  5. Three oil-on-canvas paintings depicting the role of communication in forest ecosystems and the anthropogenic impacts on communication breakdown.
  6. Two animations; one on firefly decline and one questioning the role of decay and decaying matter supporting life in forests.
  7. The context of umwelt in Olive Ridley turtles and the role of sensory pollution and heat on their ecology depicted in a zine.
  8. Drawing narrative parallels to tigers and tiger widows in Sundarbans through an illustrated graphic zine.
  9. An activity book for children about gharials and their importance within riverine ecosystems.
  10. A coffee table book on the river Cauvery and the changes in landscapes.
The artistic impression of how trees are connected with mycorrhizal networks underground and crown shyness near canopies. Painting by Shreya Ann Mathew.
“The Wonder Bone”, an illustrated anthology of poems on vulture decline by Aditi Puttige
Illustrated Zine on Umwelt and Olive Ridleys by Parveen Ismail
Coffee table book on Cauvery as a shifting sacred landscape by Nayana HR

As I reminisce the last two and half years of teaching, it has been a blend of different mediums and methods to connect the students to the context. Needless to say, it has been a learning experience for me especially when trying to understand design processes and iterations. Specifically, teaching at SMI has challenged me to think in more ways than one to engage with students. In my courses, I engage with the students through a range of pedagogical tools that goes beyond classroom lectures. These include field visits, movies, artwork, mind maps and visual thinking tools, role plays, and project-based learning methods. Resources such as Project Zero, Nature Classroom, HHMI, Ted talks and DW Documentaries on YouTube have aided in making my classes more engaging and interactive. Simultaneously, it has also been a tussle to navigate the newly emerged AI landscape while devising curriculum assessments.

Despite the challenges, the only thing that reinforces the sense of accomplishment is when I am able to pass on the euphoria of being captivated by our environment and understand the nuances of living with non-human lives around us. In an ever changing world where human innovation has been shaping processes, we often tend to ignore how nature is the greatest inspiration. As art and design students, understanding how nature moulds each element through eons of change and adaptation should perhaps be central to the concept of design. This perhaps provides me some solace and motivation to my existence in a design school!

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Dr. Soundarya Iyer and Dr. Alok Bang for their comments that helped improve the flow and content of the article.

References:

  1. Arluke, Arnold, and Clinton R. Sanders. Regarding Animals. Temple University Press, 1996. Link: http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt14bssx9
  2. Zimmer, Carl. The Tangled Bank: An Introduction to Evolution. Roberts and Company Publication, 2010.

The author, Dr. Chandrima Home, is an Assistant Professor at the Srishti Manipal Institute of Art, Design and Technology, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India.

Views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Confluence, its editorial board or the Academy.

Special Collection: National Science Day 2025

Posted on by Moderator

On the occasion of National Science Day 2025, we present a collection of articles which discuss major issues that are relevant to the community of scientists, as well as society. Our constitution highlights the need to develop scientific temper among the people of the nation, but how far have we come towards attaining that goal, 75 years since? Where do we stand in terms of scientific progress and promise? What ails scientific practice in the country? These are poignant questions that have been discussed in the articles in this collection.

The Battle against Predatory Publishing: Understanding the Threat and Taking Action

Posted on , updated on by Moderator

Sriparna Chatterjee

Predatory publishing is a growing crisis in academia, exploiting researchers and undermining the credibility of scholarly work. It involves unethical and deceptive practices by certain journals, publishers, and conferences that prioritize financial gain over academic quality and integrity. This issue poses a significant threat to academia, leading to a widespread loss of trust in scholarly publishing. By facilitating the dissemination of poor-quality research and misinformation, predatory journals weaken the credibility of genuine scientific advancements. Furthermore, they contribute to the loss of valuable funding and resources, diverting support away from legitimate research efforts. The proliferation of fraudulent scientific work, particularly evident during the COVID-19 pandemic, further highlights the dangers of predatory publishing and underscores the need for stricter regulations and increased awareness within the academic community.

Predatory publishing has witnessed an alarming surge over the past decade, with the number of predatory articles rising from 53,000 in 2010 to a staggering 787,000 in 2022. This exponential increase reflects the expanding influence of deceptive publishing practices, which not only compromise research integrity but also exploit unsuspecting authors. The financial scale of this issue is equally concerning, as predatory journals have amassed an estimated USD 393 million in revenue by preying on researchers eager to publish their work. Among the most affected nations, India stands out as both a major contributor and a significant host of predatory publishers, highlighting systemic challenges in academic publishing. Addressing this crisis requires urgent intervention through policy reforms, researcher awareness, and institutional accountability.

Despite growing awareness, many researchers—particularly early-career scholars—continue to fall victim to predatory publishing due to several key factors. A significant challenge is the lack of awareness, as many researchers struggle to differentiate between legitimate and predatory journals. Additionally, pressure to publish plays a crucial role, with institutions and funding agencies often valuing publication quantity over quality for career progression. High article processing charges (APCs) in reputable journals further push researchers toward predatory alternatives, which offer seemingly lower costs but lack proper peer review and credibility. Moreover, false indexing claims by predatory journals, including deceptive listings in reputable databases like Scopus, mislead authors into believing they are publishing in legitimate venues. These challenges underscore the necessity of enhanced awareness and training programs to equip researchers with the knowledge needed to make informed publishing decisions and safeguard the integrity of academic research.

Leading publication houses are actively combating unethical practices by implementing AI-driven fraud detection systems to identify and reject fraudulent submissions, reinforcing peer review processes to uphold high research standards, and providing free training resources—such as Nature Masterclasses—to educate researchers on ethical publishing. In an online panel discussion organized by the Indian National Young Academy of Science on March 22, 2024, Dr. Chris Graf, Director of Research Integrity at Springer Nature, revealed that in October 2023, Springer Nature rejected 11,000 manuscripts due to concerns over research integrity, underscoring their proactive stance against predatory publishing. On the same occasion, Sarah Jenkins, Director of Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics at Elsevier, emphasized that Elsevier has implemented several strategic measures, including the use of technology-driven solutions to detect unethical submissions before publication, regular updates to editorial policies and ethical guidelines to prevent manipulation, and the organization of training workshops and awareness programs to educate researchers and journal editors on maintaining integrity in scholarly publishing. Similarly, Dr. Deeksha Gupta, Director of Global Strategy for Society Programs at the American Chemical Society, highlighted several initiatives, including the ACS Author Lab, a free training platform that educates researchers on ethical publishing practices. Dr. Gupta also stressed the importance of institutional support in funding legitimate Open Access (OA) publishing, which can deter researchers from resorting to predatory journals. Another potential solution to address the issue of predatory publishing is the promotion of Open Access (OA), which aims to make research widely accessible. However, limited awareness among researchers restricts its practical usability.

The above discussion emphasizes the need for policy reforms, as academic evaluation systems should prioritize research quality over sheer publication volume, thereby alleviating the pressure that often drives researchers toward unethical publishing practices. Slow policy changes remain a major hurdle, as academic appraisal systems still prioritize the quantity of publications over their quality, incentivizing researchers to seek rapid and often questionable publication avenues. Additionally, the temptation of fast peer review lures authors toward predatory journals, which promise quick acceptance and publication without the rigorous scrutiny that legitimate journals require. The expanding market for fraudulent research, fueled by paper mills and fake journals, persists because many researchers, under immense pressure to publish, resort to these unethical avenues. Stronger collaboration between publishers and academia is essential, with universities integrating publisher-led training programs into their research curriculum to educate young researchers on ethical publishing practices. By fostering a culture of integrity and quality-driven publishing, the academic community can work toward eliminating predatory practices and ensuring a more reliable, ethical scholarly landscape.

Acknowledgement

Dr. Kutubuddin Molla, ICAR-CRRI, Cuttack and Dr. Moumita Koley, DST-CPR, Bengaluru and Dr. Rajendra Singh Dhaka, IIT Delhi

Dr. Sriparna Chatterjee is a Materials Chemist in the Materials Chemistry & Interfacial Engineering Department, CSIR-Institute of Minerals & Materials Technology, Bhubaneswar. She is a member of Indian National Young Academy of Science (INYAS), Indian National Science Academy (INSA).

Views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect those of Confluence, its editorial board or the Academy.