NIRF to Add Negative Marking for Poor, Retracted Research

• NIRF to penalize retracted and tainted research papers
• Addresses inflated rankings despite high retractions
• Follows PIL; government ensures scientific methodology

According to officials, the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) is going to implement negative marking based on some parameters, including retraction of research papers and citations related to dubious publications.

Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, at a recent announcement of the tenth edition of the NIRF, explained that, since the NIRF's inception, none of the rankings have received a negative weighting.

The NIRF negative marking system will penalize NIRF research quality issues, including **NIRF retracted papers. This poor research penalty NIRF aims to enhance NIRF university rankings and reinforce academic quality standards India.

Anil Sahashrabudhe, the chairman of the National Board of Accreditation (NBA), which governs the NIRF, explained that, in the future, institutions will be penalized when journals retract research papers.

He added, "For the first time, penalties are being formally stitched into the ranking methodology to act against research malpractice and misrepresentation of data. The negative marking system will soon be declared and draft norms are being readied".

Also Read: ACCA, IIM Visakhapatnam Collaborate on Finance Initiatives

The rankings cover universities and colleges based on five major parameters, including teaching and learning, graduation outcomes, research, outreach and perception. There were more than 8,700 individual institutions ranked for the 2024 cycle, which reflects the relevance of NIRF rankings for students, recruiter and policymakers.

This action was prompted by increasing anxiety about the authenticity of research output. A number of institutes have seen innumerable research papers retracted in two to three years. Nonetheless, ranking agencies have not penalized those issues and allowed the institutes to climb upward annually, even with the high retraction issues.

This issue was also part of a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Madras High Court in April, questioning the transparency of the ranking system. It observed that the NIRF was dependent entirely on self-reported data for ranking institutes without independent vetting.

 The court initially placed an interim stay on the rankings only to later lift the stay upon the Centre's assurance that a scientific methodology prescribed by an expert body had been followed for the publication of the NIRF.