A Flaw in the NIRF Rankings – and a Fix

The Ministry of Human Resource Development released the fifth edition of the National Institutional Ranking Framework on June 11. Since 2017, when the first edition was introduced, engineering institutions have dominated the list. This year, seven of the top 10 places are occupied by the IITs. And in all five instalments, IIT Madras has never been dislodged from the top spot in the engineering rankings. Strangely, the other international ranking exercises, the Shanghai ARWU, the Times Higher Education and the Quacquarelli Symonds rankings, have rarely given IIT-M the topIIT Kharagpur and IIT Delhi now rank ahead of IIT Madras. Note the presence of Jadavpur University ahead of IIT Kanpur, and the presence of Vellore Institute of Technology ahead of IIT (Indian School of Mines) Dhanbad and IIT Guwahati. This is because the multiplied-score procedure recognises the fact that Jadavpur University and Vellore Institute of Technology leverage lower teaching and learning resources to produce relatively higher outcomes (research and graduation) than many privileged IITs. The NIRF score in its current form is unable to make this distinction. 

However, the ranking’s methods have a serious flaw (apart from the other well-known flaws that visit all ranking exercises). It builds a single score from five categories: teaching, learning and resources (TLR), research and professional practices (RPP), graduation outcomes (GO), outreach and inclusivity, and perception. These five broad heads are built up from various sub-heads, and a complex weighting and addition scheme is used to obtain the overall rating score, which can take a maximum value of 100. The institutions are finally rank-ordered based on these scores.If a ranking is really required, we can obtain a score obtained by multiplying the quality score and the output score. 

The flaw is that in a university system, TLR is technically ‘input’ and RPP and GO are ‘output’, and the NIRF adds the input and output scores to obtain the final score. This violates the basic principle of performance analyses: that performance is based on the input score and that quality is based on the ratio of output to the input. (Note that outreach and inclusivity and perception relate neither to academic nor research excellence but these are added as well.)

What happens when the NIRF scores are recomputed without adding the input and output? Let’s use an alternative two-dimensional paradigm, where the input is the ‘teaching, learning and resources’ (TLR) score, and the output is the sum of the ‘research and professional practices’ (RPP) and the ‘graduation outcomes’ (GO) scores. First, I normalise the values using the totals for RPP, GO and TLR for the top 100 engineering institutions in the NIRF 2020 list, then calculate the performance and quality scores.

Gangan Prathap is an aeronautical engineer and former scientist at the National Aeronautical Laboratory, Bangalore and former VC of Cochin University of Science and Technology. He is currently a professor at the A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technological University, Thiruvananthapuram.

Source: The Wire: 14/06/2020

UGC’s New Ethics Course for PhD Students Is Welcome but Not Good Enough

The University Grants Commission (UGC) has announced a new mandatory course for PhD students to familiarise them with ethical issues relevant to conducting and publishing research. In the long term, the course presumably aims to reduce the prevalence of research misconduct, for which India has developed an unenviable reputation.

The coursework the UGC has specified is to be completed before registration, and spans six units with 30 hours of teaching and which are all together worth two credits. It will cover topics such as (but not limited to) scientific conduct, publication ethics, open access publishing and research metrics.

There are many reasons why the Indian scientific community has a poor reputation when it comes to research quality. One of them is that most scientists and students are not very fluent in English, the de facto language of research worldwide, and are inclined to repeat what others have said when they can’t say it themselves. Another is that the education system – aside from notable exceptions at the level of some universities – has downplayed the importance of not plagiarising or not cherry-picking data.

Further, and to echo R. Prasad, science editor at The Hindu, the course is welcome to the extent that it addresses data fabrication and falsification but disappointing because it doesn’t extend to image manipulation.

In 2019, The Hindu reported that a string of papers published by Indian scientists had been flagged on a research discussion platform for including images that had been modified and/or copied from other sources in order to support a result when in fact they didn’t. The scientists that authored these papers, and who were thus responsible for the manipulation, hailed from prestigious national and state-level institutions as well as less prominent places, suggesting that the problem wasn’t affected by access to resources or better working environments but was likely more systemic in nature.

That many of these scientists also hold senior positions in their respective organisations, ergo the image manipulation was intentional and not inadvertent, supports the same conclusion. For example, in 2017, it emerged that V. Ramakrishnan, the director of the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Thiruvananthapuram, had published 50 papers from 1984 to 2014 that contained plagiarised text – a charge that Ramakrishnan rejected.

While some people, including administrators and research funders, may only just be waking up to the true extent of the problem, Retraction Watch‘s searchable database of retracted papers suggests Indian scientists have been manipulating images for decades. Elisabeth Bik, a microbiologist and scientific integrity consultant, has also unearthed numerous papers on Twitter and the evaluation platform with problematic images and which had Indian authors.

The course is also limited because it doesn’t discuss, at least on the face of it, the consequences of engaging in unethical practices. Then again, if the corresponding sanctions exist, all institutes must implement them and uniformly so. Currently, very few researchers at various institutes have been appropriately punished for their transgressions, contributing to the widespread idea that, in India, you can plagiarise and flourish. It’s possible that simply ensuring intentional errors will be caught and dealt with, irrespective of who committed them and their stature within an institution, could significantly mitigate the extent of the problem. And if scientific institutions can make a habit of it, the UGC or any other body may have fewer reasons to interfere.

Thus, Prasad writes, “If UGC is serious about teaching research and publication ethics, it should make scientific conduct and publication ethics into two separate courses with sufficient teaching hours or devote more time to teach research ethics and necessarily include image preparation as part of the course.”

But if the course is going to be administered in its current form, then the UGC at least has to commit to two things: first, quantify the problem and maintain the numbers on record, and second, check whether the course achieved its intended outcomes, such as by reducing the number of cases of misconduct, once every five years and modify the course as necessary.

Source: The Wire, 10/01/2020

ICMR Policy Document Accused of Plagiarism

ICMR now says 'issue of plagiarism is not relevant' as document is 'not in public domain' – a claim not backed by facts.

New Delhi: The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), the apex body responsible for guiding the country’s biomedical response to the coronavirus pandemic, has been accused of plagiarism, with a new policy document published by it lifting as much as 37% of its content from unattributed sources– a portion considered substantial by all standards.

But for the seriousness of the charge, it only joins a pile of concerns about the ICMR’s ethical conduct since March, when India’s COVID-19 outbreak turned serious.

A complaint was lodged anonymously with the Union health minister Harsh Vardhan on June 12, and a copy was shared with The Wire as well as with a secretary at the health ministry, the Directorate General of Health Services and the director-general ICMR.

The document – called ICMR’s Disabilities Guidance Document in short – appears to have lifted multiple passages from previously published work, including research papers, information websites like those of the WHO and from institutional websites like those of NIMHANS and AIIMS.

Its preparation was supervised by Raman R. Gangakhedkar, the chief epidemiologist at ICMR. It was conceived, “edited and compiled” by scientists Ravinder Singh, Sumit Aggarwal and Heena Tabassum. It was published sometime last month.

According to a ‘similarity report’ compiled using an online tool called iThenticate, the document had plagiarised 9,046 words in all – amounting to 37% of the text – in 106 different chunks. The biggest chunk is of 1,193 words from the WHO website.

As it happens, Harsh Vardhan was elected the chairman of the World Health Assembly’s executive board in May. The assembly is the international forum through which the WHO’s members govern the WHO.

The complaint asked that Vardhan initiate a probe if the charge of plagiarism was borne out, even as the complainant pointed to specific structural provisions that might help.

“To ensure the image of ICMR does not get tarnished, secretary of Department of Health Research and director general of ICMR set up a Research Integrity Unit in the division of human resource development, ICMR headquarters, New Delhi, in 2019,” the complainant wrote.

ICMR also requires all institutes in its purview to have a research integrity officer (RIO), whose job it is to ensure all official documents, including research papers, originating from each institute to be free of research misconduct. This typically takes the form of an undertaking that the authors of each document have to sign.

Whether this practice has the desired effect is hard to say, considering numerous government academic institutes in India have been embroiled in multiple plagiarism and misconduct controversies. For example, a year ago this month, the Indian Institute of Toxicology Research, Lucknow, came under the scanner after 130 papers published by its researchers were found to have used spurious images to hold up the results of research. The institute is a laboratory under the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research.

The complainant in the present case also noted the gravity of the situation considering ICMR is responsible for ensuring other institutes whose conduct it oversees don’t plagiarise content themselves.

“ICMR is a body framing national ethical guidelines in research. It is their responsibility to act on their own plagiarism to send a consistent message to researchers and policymakers, that as the premier research institute of this country they will hold themselves to the same standards that they expect of other researchers,” the complainant’s note stated.

The complaint also reminded minister Vardhan that “the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Academic Integrity and Prevention of Plagiarism in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations 2018, in clause 12.2, prescribes penalties in case of plagiarism in academic and research publications.”

These rules stipulate that documents that “plagiarism in academic and research publications” to the extent of 10-40% warrant the withdrawal of the manuscript.

Finally, the complainant asked for exemplary punishment against confirmed offenders and for the respective institutes they are affiliated with to initiate independent action.

Dr Aggarwal, one of the scientists who conceived, edited and compiled the report, is a member of the ICMR’s research group on operational research under the National Task Force (OR-NTF) on COVID-19. On June 16, a preprint paper coauthored by Dr Aggarwal, as well as Narendra Kumar Arora, the chairperson of the OR-NTF, was involved in a different controversy. The study described in the paper suggested India’s COVID-19 case load would only peak in late 2020. But while many of the paper’s authors are affiliated with ICMR and the paper also acknowledged funding from the body, ICMR itself said it hadn’t funded the study and distanced itself from the conclusions.

Anant Bhan, a bioethics expert, had said, “If ICMR say they did not fund the study, and the authors claim it was funded by ICMR, and ICMR claims its scientist who is a co-author was not aware of the manuscript, this is a gross publication ethics issue. So who is right?”

A rights activist said ICMR should urgently refrain from questionable practices, especially when it could simply have attributed the content it copied in the report to their original sources.

Incidentally, this report was the subject of discussion among disability rights activists last month. While they were impressed at first with the volume of work, their concerns eventually came to focus on the fact that none of the persons involved in drafting the report was from the disability sector.

Sangeeta Sharma, a professor and head of paediatrics at the National Institute of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases, New Delhi, noted that the OR-NTF – which recommended the report – needed to “include persons with disability for fairness and equality of justice”.

Emails to the offices of the health minister, the ministry secretary, the ICMR director general and the Directorate General of Health Services hadn’t elicited a reply at the time of publishing. The article will be updated if and when they do.

Source: https://thewire.in/government/icmr-policy-document-plagiarism-disability-rights

Digital media is redefining modes of political communication and mass contact

As India enters a technology-driven world, changes in the country’s political discourse are natural and communication between parties and people will become simpler.

Public participation is the bedrock of a successful and vibrant democracy. Debates, discussions and a healthy exchange of ideas go a long way in strengthening the foundations of democratic systems. Countries across the globe took to newer modes of public communication even as their democracies kept evolving. With the advent of the printing press in the 15th century, science and knowledge found the fuel to spread from one corner of the world to the other. These printing presses also played a major role in the Renaissance that swept through Europe in the 15th and 16th centuries.

The first experiment with public gatherings to take political ideas to people happened when the 19th century was drawing to a close. William Ewart Gladstone, who got elected as Britain’s prime minister in 1892, had made public gatherings the medium to communicate his political ideas. Around the same time, leaders in America too were engaged in similar experiments.

During India’s freedom struggle, the trend of using newspapers and magazines for communication picked up. Post-Independence, political parties continued to use them to further their political discourse. In fact, newspapers and magazines became a tool for politicians to convey their ideas to the masses.

Around the same time, radio emerged as a medium that not only provided a platform for political debates but also helped to spread social awareness even in distant villages. Radio programmes on farming, women empowerment and other indigenous issues were received well by people.

The entry of television triggered a huge transformation. The presence of visuals was television’s biggest advantage. It is for this reason that TV has remained a medium for debates between political parties.

The advent of new mediums, however, has in no way rendered the old modes of communication redundant. Even in this era of social media, print, radio and television remain relevant in several ways. Programmes such as “Kaun Banega Mukhyamantri’ and political exit polls keep people glued to television. Radio continues to be widely popular among the urban youth. Newspapers have undergone changes to meet the requirements of changing times.

The digital mode of communication is now the most effective mode of communication. Tweets and Facebook posts are sources of information even for the so-called mainstream communication channels. However, the discussions happening on these platforms seldom result in ideas that last.

The situation emerging from the coronavirus pandemic signals changes in the ways of public communication and mass contact. With social distancing norms becoming mandatory amid the growing need for public communication, media has emerged as a powerful platform. Since India is a multi-party democracy, political parties are expected to keep channels of communication open even during difficult situations.

Home Minister Amit Shah’s Bihar jansamvad rally has introduced us to a new experience of digital communication. The digitally-held rally saw the participation of crores of people. The experiment was also important as it allowed such a huge programme to be organised with such little resources and so little time. Because a large number of people turn up at public rallies, a lot of resources are spent in managing the logistics. And it is only natural for the public to join public communication programmes with enthusiasm.

The success of these digital innovations in public communication has opened the doors for its increased use in the times to come. This has also been possible because of the growing penetration of digital technology in India’s rural areas. There is no doubt it will aid in strengthening public participation in India’s democracy.

As India enters a technology-driven world, changes in the country’s political discourse are natural and communication between parties and people will become simpler. It is also possible that the use of banners, posters and pamphlets will reduce in the near future and there is likely to be greater acceptance of campaigning through digital means. The country is, without a doubt, entering a new phase of political public communication.

This article first appeared in the print edition on June 24, 2020 under the title “The New Public Sphere”. The writer is general secretary, BJP, and Rajya Sabha MP

Source: Indian Express, 24/06/2020

Quote of the Day

“When you choose your friends, don't be short-changed by choosing personality over character.”

‐ W. Somerset Maugham

“जब आप अपने मित्रों का चयन करते हैं तो चरित्र के स्थान पर व्यक्तित्व को न चुनें।”

‐ डब्ल्यू सोमरसेट मोघम

Master the art of answering

With entrance exams scheduled to be held in July, here is a guide on how to get good marks

Monica thought she had written her exam answers well but, when the results were declared, she found she had not scored much. Heartbroken, she kept wondering what had happened. This is a common situation.

The fault lies not with students like Monica who are diligent, but with the fact that students are never taught how to answer questions in the exam. Multiple choice questions are easy to score if the student knows the correct answer, but subjective or essay-type questions pose a challenge.

In college, our seniors used to advise us to fill pages and get marks. So, all of us would write non-stop for three hours until our hands ached! It was when I became a teacher that I realised the fallacy of this advice. Hence, here are a few tried and tested tips that could help students of all disciplines write answers that fetch good grades in the exam.

Try them

Tip 1: Read the question carefully and understand and underline every key word. For example, if the question is “Describe the different functions of X”, then list the functions and describe them precisely using everyday examples. Do not describe X. The question is about its functions. Stick to the question asked and answer it completely but precisely, keeping in mind the total marks it carries.

Tip 2: In order to remember the points you wish to write, make an acronym out of the key words of the main points and note it somewhere on your answer paper. Supposing the five functions of X are to restore, develop, pump, extend, and maintain; then the different letters of the acronym ‘REMPD’ can help recall them. Should you forget a point, leave it out; but don’t try to bluff the examiner.

Tip 3: Use a good and clear handwriting while writing. There is no need to write as if you were signing a cheque or an autograph! Legible writing helps the examiner understand the points easily. Hard-pressed for time, examiners cannot spend time deciphering handwritings. They move on without giving credit.

Tip 4: Make it a habit to underline/highlight only the keywords when answering. When the points are highlighted, the examiner cannot miss them. Every examiner has hundreds of answer booklets to assess. Second, illustrate your points with relevant diagrams. Third, a web chart or a tree diagram presenting the main concepts visually before presenting the explanation will impress the examiner.

Tip5: Always revise the answers after completing the paper. Do not be in a rush to leave the hall. Proofread for mistakes. Check if you have left something unanswered. Check your roll number. Students often lose marks often out of carelessness. Repentance in hindsight is futile.

To summarise, if you read your question paper carefully, write clear and complete answers neatly and proofread them, good marks will deservedly come your way.

Viney Kirpal is a former Professor of English, IIT Bombay. vineykirpal@gmail.com

Source: The Hindu, 20/06/2020

Revolving door: On Manipur politics

A never-ending tale of defections continues to churn the political pot in Manipur

The politics in Manipur has come under fresh turmoil following the withdrawal of support to the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government from MLAs belonging to the National People’s Party (NPP), two independents and defections by three BJP MLAs to the Opposition. The Biren Singh-led government has probably now been reduced to a minority. The uncertainty in the numbers in the 59-member Assembly has been due to several defections in the last three years, beginning with former Minister T. Shyamkumar’s shift of allegiance from the Congress to the BJP in 2017. This enabled the BJP, with only 21 MLAs, to form the government with the support of the NPP, the four member Naga Peoples’ Front, an independent and an MLA belonging to the Trinamool Congress. The defection by Mr. Shyamkumar who went on to become a Minister in the ruling cabinet was not ruled on for disqualification for three years, before the Supreme Court intervened, stripping the Minister of his post and banned him from entering the Assembly in March 2020. Subsequently, the Speaker disqualified him. Seven more MLAs from the Congress had defected to the BJP since 2017, and the Speaker has yet to rule on their disqualifications. On Friday, only a select number of these seven, and most of whom had not gone back reportedly to the Opposition-fold were allowed by the Speaker to vote in the Rajya Sabha elections, whose results were disputed by the Congress. This might not survive a legal challenge. But the whimsical changes in loyalties have once again opened the door for the Congress to stake claim to form the government.

The shenanigans in Manipur are not unique to the State. The examples of Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh most recently, and Arunachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand earlier show the utter failure of the anti-defection law in curbing the brazen subversion of electoral mandates by legislators who get elected on the ticket of one party but do not find it inconvenient to shift to another, due to the lure of ministerial berths or financial gains. If the role of the Speaker who has the authority to decide upon defections has been utilised by ruling parties to engineer defections without inviting immediate disqualification in some cases, legislators have also adhered to the law in letter if not spirit by utilising the option of outright resignation. This begs the question whether the anti-defection law actually serves any purpose today. In the absence of any amendments to the law suitably, the only disincentive for defectors is the possibility that voters might punish them in a by-election. But as Karnataka recently showed, voters in some States have yet to discern candidacies beyond considerations of patronage and identity, emboldening parties to retain or seize power through immoral machinations.

Source: The Hindu, 20/06/20