The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), India's education ranking body, is set to implement negative marking for institutions found guilty of academic dishonesty, starting in 2025. This move aims to address the growing concerns around research integrity and ethical practices in higher education.
The NIRF ranking framework, launched in 2015 by the Ministry of Education, evaluates higher education institutions in India based on several parameters, including teaching, learning and resources, research and professional practice, graduation outcomes, outreach and inclusion, and perception. These parameters are grouped into five clusters, each with assigned weights depending on the type of institution. The annual ranking plays a vital role for students and parents in making informed decisions about higher education choices. It also motivates institutions to enhance their educational and research standards.
The decision to introduce negative marking comes in response to the increasing number of retracted research papers from Indian institutions. Retractions often occur due to data tampering, plagiarism, use of AI-generated content, image manipulation, or false claims. Intentional misconduct accounts for approximately 70% of retractions, which can severely damage an institution's reputation and erode trust in science.
Under the new rule, institutions will face penalties for retracted papers and citations of those papers. The penalties will be implemented in phases, starting with mild deductions in 2025, which will then escalate in subsequent years. This phased approach signals a zero-tolerance policy for academic fraud. The NIRF's message is clear: universities must take responsibility for fraudulent work if they want to take credit for groundbreaking research.
The "Research and Professional Practices" parameter is a key factor in NIRF rankings; therefore, this change will have a significant impact. Institutions with low rankings could see further decline, and repeat offenders risk being blacklisted from future rankings. Institutions will need to strengthen their internal ethics committees, audit high-risk studies before publication, and prioritize quality over quantity of papers.
While many experts welcome this step, some believe that ensuring research integrity in India remains a long journey. Some experts suggest that a blunt penalty may push cases into the shadows. Institutions may be less cooperative with journals that publish their authors' research. Also, not all retractions are due to fraud, and failing to distinguish between causes may prevent the disclosure of honest errors.
To avoid unintended consequences, NIRF should publish how it classifies and tallies retractions and provide institutions with a way to appeal. The process must be transparent, and the methodology should be public. Retraction notices should use a standard set of reasons so that rankings can classify them accurately.
The introduction of negative marking by NIRF is a significant step towards promoting academic integrity and research ethics in Indian higher education. While challenges remain, this initiative has the potential to create a more transparent and accountable research environment, aligning India with global standards.
