INTRODUCTION:

Research is a systematic and organized process of inquiry aimed at generating new horizons of knowledge, expanding existing knowledge or solving problems. It involves the systematic collection, analysis, and interpretation of data or information to answer research questions, test hypotheses, or explore new areas of study. Research is driven by curiosity, the desire to understand phenomena and the pursuit of evidence-based knowledge. Research needs to view from qualitative aspects to particularly dialectics in proving/disproving hypothesis, such dialectics should come close to the finesse of scientific methods based on quantitative research. In business ultimately decision making starts where formulae end and the intangibles have to be assessed and impoundable evaluated.

According to Kerlinger and Lee (2000), research is "a systematic, controlled, empirical, and critical investigation of hypothetical propositions about the presumed relations among natural phenomena."¹

Leedy and Ormrod (2015) define research as "a systematic process of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting information (data) to answer questions or solve problems."²

In the words of Creswell (2014), research is "an inquiry process of understanding based on the interpretivist paradigm, exploring, and understanding the meanings that individuals or groups ascribe to a social or human problem."³

The research ecosystem in HEIs is undergoing significant transformation, necessitating a comprehensive review of research evaluation policies across institutions. With changes in accreditation processes, the removal of UGC CARE from recognized publication platforms and increasing challenges in publishing in reputed journals, it is crucial to establish new metrics for evaluating research productivity. HEIs need to align their research quality parameters with emerging changing academic and institutional global expectations, ensuring that research quality, impact and ethical standards are prioritized over mere publication counts. There is a need to redefine research evaluation frameworks to enhance institutional research standing and contribute effectively to the global academic landscape à la dictates of the National Education Policy (2020). ⁴

Current Challenges in Research:

· The National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) accreditation processes and metrics are in flux, disrupting traditional evaluation methods. ⁵

· UGC CARE-listed journals have been removed due to quality concerns making publication difficult. ⁶

· Lengthy gestation periods for research papers in SCOPUS, ABDC, and Web of Science journals. ⁷

· Unethical publishing practices affecting academic credibility. ⁸

· Need for a broader set of rigorous multiple metrics beyond the mere number of published papers.⁹

· NIRF rankings emphasizing per capita research productivity as a key quality indicator.¹⁰

NAAC Accreditation Processes and Metrics:

NAAC has traditionally been a key authority in assessing the quality of higher education institutions in India. However, recent shifts in accreditation processes, including changes in evaluation metrics and assessment methodologies, have created uncertainty. HEIs are now required to align with evolving benchmarks, making it difficult to maintain consistency in research evaluation and institutional ranking. In the same vein researchers have to seek, and authorities shall provide, alternative suitable quality journals to meet research aspirations of teachers and HEIs.¹¹

UGC CARE-Listed Journals Removal:

The University Grants Commission (UGC) has delisted many CARE-listed journals due to concerns over prevailing practices and want of increasingly rigorous peer-review standards. This move has significantly impacted faculty members who relied on these journals for academic recognition, forcing researchers to seek alternative publishing platforms that often have higher barriers to entry.⁶

Lengthy Gestation Periods in High-Impact Journals:

Publishing in reputed journals such as SCOPUS, ABDC, and Web of Science involves a lengthy review and approval process. The time between manuscript submission and final publication can extend to several months or even years, causing delays in research dissemination apart from research obsolescence. This protracted timeline affects faculty evaluations and institutional research output metrics, creating a bottleneck for timely academic contributions. Thus, inordinate delays in the acceptance of research papers for publication act as a drag on the research ecosystem of HEIs. The authorities need to provide a wide range of quality peer reviewed journals with bonafide records bereft of unethical practices, to say the least.⁷

Unethical Publishing Practices:

The increasing pressure to publish has led to the proliferation of unethical publishing practices, including paper mills, mediocre research and questionable peer-review processes. Some researchers resort to predatory journals that lack credibility, thereby compromising academic integrity and the reputation of institutions. Ensuring strict adherence to ethical publishing guidelines is necessary to maintain research credibility. This will act as a quality assurance model for upholding the integrity, quality and credibility of research.⁸

Need for a Broader Set of Research Metrics:

Traditionally, research evaluation has focused on sheer number of published papers, often neglecting impact and quality. A broader set of metrics, such as citation metrics (viz Number of citations, H-index, g-index et.al) journal quality, interdisciplinary collaboration, and real-world application of research, should be integrated into institutional assessment frameworks to provide a more comprehensive measure of research productivity.⁹

NIRF Rankings and Per Capita Research Productivity:

The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) has emphasized per capita research productivity as a key metric for institutional ranking. The institutions must not only increase research output but also ensure that faculty members are contributing high-quality research that aligns with global standards. HEI's need to encourage interdisciplinary collaborations, industry partnerships and innovation-driven research to enhance their standing in national rankings.¹⁰

Proposed Metrics for Evaluating Research Productivity:

Based on industry best practices and recent discussions within institutions, the following activities are recommended:

Journals to be Prescribed in Future:

· SCOPUS, Web of Science, and ABDC journals should remain the primary targets, however the list has to be expanded- to illustrate- Sage publications, Ivy business journal, Emerald publications, Taylor and Fransis Publications, Cambridge university press and possibly many others.¹²

· Collaboration with reputed open-access journals with high impact factors.

· Encouraging publications in high-impact interdisciplinary journals.¹³

· Establishing partnerships with leading research databases for faculty access to quality journals.¹³

· Developing an internal repository to archive and promote faculty publications.

Number of Papers/Cases to be Published Per Year Per Faculty:

· Faculty should aim for at least two SCOPUS/ Web of Science/ABDC publications per year.

· Case studies, book chapters, and policy papers should be considered as additional research contributions subject to quality assurance again.¹⁴

· Faculty should engage in collaborative research projects to improve output.¹⁴

· A system of progressive targets should be introduced for faculty based on quality and experience levels with proactive positive outcomes.

· Encouragement of co-authored publications with students can enhance research culture and also develop posterity thus improving social impact of HEI's. ¹⁵

Specific Metrics for Evaluating Individual Contributions:

To ensure fair assessment of research productivity, the following indicators are suggested:

Citation-Based Metrics:

· h-index and g-index for measuring research impact.¹⁶

· Average number of citations per publication per year.¹⁷

· Citation Per Capita (CPC) metric for institutional research benchmarking.¹⁸

· Emphasis on increasing research visibility through academic networking platforms, thus making respective HEI’s as ‘Thought Leaders’ with powerful social impact.

Following are the citation-based Metrics:

Citation: A citation refers to acknowledgment of a research paper or academic work in other scholarly works. It serves as an indicator of the impact and relevance of a particular research contribution.

H-Index: The h-index measures both productivity and citation impact. A researcher has an h-index of 'h' if they have 'h' papers, each of which has been cited at least 'h' times. This metric helps in evaluating the significance of a researcher’s work over time.

G-Index: The g-index is an alternative to the h-index that gives more weight to highly cited papers. It is defined as the largest number 'g' such that the top 'g' articles received at least 'g^2' total citations. It ensures that a few highly cited papers contribute more significantly to the overall score.

Metrics for quantitative and qualitative research suggested by NIRF ¹⁹:

A] Metric for Quantitative Research (QNR): 100 marks

Overall Assessment Metric:

QNR = PU (50) + CI (25) + FPPP (25) ……..Formula 1

Component metrics based on three components:

1. Combined metric for Publications: PU………Component 1 with 50% weightage

PU = 50 × f(P/FRQ)

Where FRQ is the maximum of nominal number of faculty members as calculated on the basis of a required FSR of 1:15 or the available faculty in the institution.

2. Combined metric for Citations Index: CI………Component 2 with 25% weightage

CI = 25 × f (CC/FRQ)

Here CC is Total Citation Count over previous three years

3. Footprint of Projects and Professional Practice: FPPP……Component 3 with 25% weightage

FPPP = FPR + FPC

FPR = 18.75 × f (RF) and FPC = 6.25 × f (CF)

RF is average annual research funding earnings (amount actually received in rupees) per faculty at institute level in previous three years.

CF is average annual consultancy amount (amount actually received in rupees) per faculty at institute level in previous three years.

B] NIRF Citation Per Capita Formula: The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) includes citation per capita as a key metric for research productivity assessment. The formula is:

Citation Per Capita = Total Citations of Institutional Publications / Total Number of Faculty Members

(Reference: NIRF India, Research and Professional Practice, Criterion 2, Sub-parameter 2b)

Link: https://www.nirfindia.org/nirfpdfcdn/2024/framework/Research.pdf

In fact institutional research product is sum of individual teacher’s productivity

Quality-Based Metrics: ¹²

· Journal impact factor of published papers.

· Conference presentations at reputed platforms (IITs, IIMs, international conferences of comparable quality).

· International research collaborations and co-authored publications.

· Adoption of peer review processes for internal research assessment.

Alternative Research Contributions:¹²

· Development of teaching cases published in reputed repositories particularly in the context of management education.

· White papers and industry reports, teachers associated with high level policy report in industry/government for sharing expertise as third party or consultant.

· Patents, copyrights with reputed publishers and research grants.

· Encouragement of research linked to societal impact and corporate sustainability initiatives.

The depth of critical analysis, originality of ideas, and real-world applicability of research play a crucial role in determining its true impact. Additionally, the extent to which research influences policy-making, industry practices, and societal well-being should be considered. Peer recognition, engagement in interdisciplinary collaborations and contributions to thought leadership in a field further establish the credibility and value of academic research and concerned teacher at large. By integrating these qualitative aspects, institutions can ensure a more holistic and meaningful evaluation of research impact. In fact, qualitative dimensions of research are very important which is duly recognized by NIRF too, However, they are overshadowed by the overcrowded population of quantitative metrics. Solicitous chiefly for quantified credence but no means unconcerned for non-quantitative aspects of different socio-economic eco-systems. Further research has to keep in mind the role of dialectics and therefore transcend beyond the area of ornamentation by output and outcomes based on numbers.

Other research publications:²⁰

· Conference proceedings, book chapters, and edited volumes should be acknowledged.

· Research projects in collaboration with industry should be incentivized.

· Faculty should be encouraged to contribute policy papers influencing regulatory frameworks.

· Inclusion of media publications and opinion pieces in reputed business publications.

· Promotion of research blogs and thought leadership articles on institutional platforms.

However, all the above platforms shall be subject to quality assurance either ex ante or ex post.

Institutional Support for Research Enhancement

· Establishing a Research Support Cell to guide faculty on high-quality research.

· Organizing workshops on writing and publishing in top-tier journals.

· Financial support for conference participation and international collaborations.

· Setting up an internal review system for manuscript quality enhancement before submission.

· Creation of seed funding for faculty research and grant proposal writing assistance.

CONCLUSION:

In light of the shifting academic and research landscape, HEIs need to adopt a holistic approach to research evaluation. The existing reliance on publication quantity is inadequate in determining research quality and impact. HEIs should integrate citation-based metrics such as the h-index, g-index, and citation per capita, which offer a more comprehensive assessment of research contributions. Additionally, international collaborations, interdisciplinary studies, and alternative research outputs and more importantly outcomes, including policy papers, patents, copyrights with reputed publications and other industry reports, should be recognized. ²¹

To sustain and improve institutional research credibility, universities and HEIs should establish internal research support mechanisms, such as mentorship programs, structured faculty appraisals and financial incentives for high-impact publications. Faculty members should be encouraged to participate in reputed conferences and collaborate with international scholars to increase research visibility. Moreover, ethical publishing practices should be strictly complied to pre-empt academic malpractices. The proposed framework aligns institutional research productivity with NIRF rankings and global academic expectations, fostering a culture of quality research. Implementing these recommendations will significantly enhance institutional standing and academic excellence. The rigor of critical analysis, originality of thought, and real-world relevance of research are pivotal in determining its true impact. Furthermore, its influence on policy formulation, industry advancements and societal progress serves as a testament to its significance. Recognition from peers, active participation in interdisciplinary collaborations, and contributions to intellectual discourse further reinforce the credibility and value of academic research. By incorporating these qualitative dimensions, institutions can move beyond mere publication metrics to foster a more comprehensive, impactful, and globally relevant research ecosystem.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION:

1. Develop an annual research performance evaluation framework based on the above metrics.

2. Provide structured mentorship for early-career researchers.

3. Integrate research impact assessment into faculty appraisal processes.

4. Promote interdisciplinary research and corporate partnerships to expand research outreach.

5. Implement a dedicated research monitoring committee to track progress and suggest improvements.

6. Encourage faculty participation in editorial boards and peer review processes to enhance institutional research credibility.

7. Foster a culture of research excellence through dedicated recognition programs and awards.

By implementing these changes, Institutes can sustain and enhance its reputation as a centre for high-quality research and academic excellence provided research activity is vigorous and virile with quality assurance rather than ritual compliance.

Peter Drucker said around the 1960s, "The days of the intuitive managers are numbered." As noted by Samples (1976), quoting Albert Einstein, "Intuition is a sacred gift, while logical analysis is a faithful servant."²² This insight underscores the need for research in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and beyond to value intuitive and creative dimensions alongside rigorous analytical processes." Research in HEIs and elsewhere has to take serious note of the same. Thus, effectiveness and adequacy of research quality at HEIs will depend not on the promptitude and thoroughness with which the evils that cling to the present research system of HEIs in our country are removed but on the positive energy enterprise and enthusiasm of the teaching fraternity who alone can sustain the integrity and nobility of the teaching profession and prevent it from assuming the label of ignobility. Recent studies have emphasized the importance of integrating AI-driven processes²³ and data-driven analysis²⁴ to enhance academic and institutional performance metrics.

REFERENCES:

1. Kerlinger, F. N., and Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioural research (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publishers.

2. Leedy, P. D., and Ormrod, J. E. (2015). Practical research: Planning and design (11th ed.). Pearson.

3. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

4. Ministry of Education, Government of India. (2020). National Education Policy 2020. Government of India. Available at https://www.education.gov.in/national-education-policy-2020-1

5. National Assessment and Accreditation Council. (2024). Reforms for strengthening assessment and accreditation in higher education institutions (Final report accepted January 16, 2024). Ministry of Education, Government of India.

6. University Grants Commission. (2025, February 11). Public notice: Discontinuation of UGC‑CARE journal listing and introduction of suggestive parameters for peer‑reviewed journals. Ministry of Education, Government of India.

7. Schmitt, C. E. S., Tabuena, A. C., Lauber, O., and Tabuena, Y. M. H. (2024). Processing time of Scopus‑indexed journals from submission to publication. International Journal of Academic and Practical Research.

8. Vaishya, A., and Vaish, R. (2021). Predatory journals – Alarming danger to the society. Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Trauma, 21, Article 101507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2021.101507

9. Moed, H. F., and Halevi, G. (2014). The multidimensional assessment of scholarly research impact. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1406.5520

10. Ministry of Education, Government of India. (2024). National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) 2024: Research productivity, impact, and IPR methodology. Ministry of Education.

11. National Assessment and Accreditation Council. (2024). Reforms for strengthening assessment and accreditation in HEIs: Transition to binary and maturity‑based accreditation (Adopted January 2024). Ministry of Education, Government of India.

12. Mingers, J., and Yang, L. (2016). Evaluating journal quality: A review of journal citation indicators and ranking in business and management. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1604.06685

13. Xiang, S., Romero, D. M., and Teplitskiy, M. (2025, April 18). Evaluating interdisciplinary research: Disparate outcomes for topic and knowledge base. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 122(16), e2409752122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2409752122

14. Rons, N., and De Bruyn, A. (2013). Quality related publication categories in social sciences and humanities, based on a university’s peer review assessments. arXiv.

15. Cohen, R. (Year unavailable). Benefits of Co‑Authoring with Students. AEQweb. Retrieved from https://rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/6jan2954l5.htm

16. Akhtar, M. K. (2024). The H‑index is an unreliable research metric for evaluating the publication impact of experimental scientists. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 1, Article 1385080.

17. Moed, H. F., and Halevi, G. (2014). The multidimensional assessment of scholarly research impact.

18. Mingers, J., and Yang, L. (2016). Evaluating journal quality: A review of journal citation indicators and ranking in business and management

19. Ministry of Education, Government of India. (2023). India Rankings 2024: Research and Professional Practice Framework, Criterion 2, Sub-parameter 2b. National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF). Retrieved from https://www.nirfindia.org/nirfpdfcdn/2024/framework/Research.pdf

20. Rons, N., and De Bruyn, A. (2013). Quality related publication categories in social sciences and humanities, based on a university’s peer review assessments.

21. International Science Council. (2024). The future of research evaluation: A synthesis of current debates and developments. International Science Council.

22. Samples, B. (1976). The metaphoric mind: A celebration of creative consciousness.

23. Pasha, M. J., Gaurav, K., Bhanja, A. K., Shamout, M. D., Mupparaju, C. B., and Bhanushali, M. M. (2023, December). Advancing Data Science Using AI-Driven Processes. In 2023 International Conference on Power Energy, Environment and Intelligent Control (PEEIC) (pp. 1587-1593). IEEE.

24. Sindhura, K., Sabarirajan, A., Narang, P., Bhanushali, M. M., and Turai, A. K. (2022, April). Human resource management based economic analysis using data mining. In 2022 3rd International Conference on Intelligent Engineering and Management (ICIEM) (pp. 872-876). IEEE.

Received on 08.07.2025 Revised on 06.08.2025

Accepted on 30.08.2025 Published on 07.11.2025

Available online from November 17, 2025

Asian Journal of Management. 2025;16(4):293-298.

DOI: 10.52711/2321-5763.2025.00044

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Creative Commons License.