Coming to the situation in Pakistan, there was a time when researchers here did not publish internationally. It was a good step forward when they started doing this. Following this, scientists used to be evaluated by the list of publications they included in their CVs. However, with the advent of Impact Factor (IF), things began to change. When this measure was applied to the list of publications of many so-called scientists and heads of scientific institutions, they were left with nothing. Hundreds of publications vanished altogether. But what we must realise is that this was only one step forward and not an end in itself.
Here we should pause for a moment and ask ourselves: what is the aim and purpose of research in the Sciences and Mathematics? Is it to accumulate IFs like a video game where one strives to score high and beat the existing highest score, or is it to come up with ideas that can add to the existing body of knowledge? But this is exactly what the institutions that have taken upon themselves to judge and evaluate research and rank researchers are not doing. In Pakistan, the Higher Education Commission (HEC) and the Pakistan Council for Science and Technology (PCST) are ranking scientists who have been ‘conferred’ awards (whether they deserve them or not) merely on the basis of some numbers; these include all civil and other awards. Is there any respectable research award in the world that is given without actually reading the research? How can one judge research from the colour of the title page of the journal where it is published, or by some number attached to that journal? As mentioned above, the Fields Medal was awarded to Grigori Perelman when his research had not been published in any journal!
The worst effect these policies have is on the section of our society that cannot afford it at all: our youth. Research for a PhD degree is supposed to be cutting-edge and on the frontiers of the field it is awarded in. Most of the research done in Pakistan is by PhD candidates, which means these policies make their research work questionable. As a result of the current policies, what they learn during their whole research-training period is how to achieve certain numbers and then how to increase them. And, since they start hiring new PhD students as soon as they complete their own PhD, they impart exactly what they had learnt during their own ‘training’ and it goes on like a chain reaction. The recent explosion of business houses for online journals is basically to fulfil the increasing demand for publishing. Doing PhD in our universities currently means only one thing: a few research papers where your name appears among the list of authors, even though that might be only by mistake (and in many instances that is indeed the case!). Thus, during their PhD, students here do not get training in how to think, investigate and analyse, but only how to write papers in such a way as to get them published. It is like being trained to be an orator when you have nothing to say.
The message is loud and clear: your research performance is not judged by what you do and what you write; it is judged by some numbers associated with the journal where your work is published. So your job now is simply to look for ways by which you can increase those numbers. Those who are attached to our universities know that the message is very well taken by our youth, and they are doing the needful. This is what happens when we blindly follow artificial ranking systems for scientists and institutions. It is the result of striving to fulfil the ranking criteria for institutions; a couple of years ago researchers affiliated with King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah outnumbered highly cited researchers at the University of Cambridge by 50 percent in the field of astronomy! Following these measures as targets and conferring awards to people on the basis of these criteria in Pakistan without actually judging and reading their research work is producing examples that are no less amusing.
The current policies are creating an environment that is not different from the Nobel Prize winner economist George Akerlof’s market for lemons where, as a result of the asymmetry of information between the seller and the buyer, the bad drives out the good in the market. In our case, the HEC and PCST know nothing about the product scientists are handing over to them for evaluation, as a consequence of which the good is constantly being discouraged. These standards are set so deep in our minds that people not conforming to them, however good they may be, are looked upon as aliens and a threat to our system. These methods for evaluating and rewarding scientific investigation pose obstacles in the way of many capable researchers. They are, in fact, preventing many good scientists abroad from coming back to Pakistan.
A pertinent question that can be asked here is: who should then judge and evaluate research work? Should researchers not be encouraged by giving out awards and recognition? The answer is: if you cannot judge do not give awards, and do not rank and categorise. “When we decide what to measure, we signal what counts,” Drew Faust, President Harvard University recently wrote in the New York Times. Thus, crediting the wrong people and presenting them as role models, particularly to our youth, is far more harmful than not crediting at all. But the actual situation is not that bad. It is true that the community in Pakistan is very small; there are not enough people who can do justice to evaluations and assessments. But we should not forget that Mathematics is essentially an international activity. It is not (and should not be) done in isolation. Once we decide to really promote Mathematics and encourage real mathematicians by awarding them then it is not something that cannot be done. We need to ask ourselves if this is something in which we are pioneers. If not, then we should see how other people have been doing this for ages. There are international bodies to promote Mathematics research in developing countries and emerging nations. For example, the Commission for Developing Countries formed by the International Mathematical Union is assisting many countries right now. They can be approached for help and guidance.
I forgot to mention earlier that at the conclusion of the opening ceremony of the Hyderabad ICM, when the delegates were being taken by buses to their accommodations, they actually witnessed what they had been told earlier: people were driving on the left, right and in the middle of the road. I thought the situation was not very different in Pakistan!
(Concluded)
Coming to the situation in Pakistan, there was a time when researchers here did not publish internationally. It was a good step forward when they started doing this. Following this, scientists used to be evaluated by the list of publications they included in their CVs. However, with the advent of Impact Factor (IF), things began to change. When this measure was applied to the list of publications of many so-called scientists and heads of scientific institutions, they were left with nothing. Hundreds of publications vanished altogether. But what we must realise is that this was only one step forward and not an end in itself.
Here we should pause for a moment and ask ourselves: what is the aim and purpose of research in the Sciences and Mathematics? Is it to accumulate IFs like a video game where one strives to score high and beat the existing highest score, or is it to come up with ideas that can add to the existing body of knowledge? But this is exactly what the institutions that have taken upon themselves to judge and evaluate research and rank researchers are not doing. In Pakistan, the Higher Education Commission (HEC) and the Pakistan Council for Science and Technology (PCST) are ranking scientists who have been ‘conferred’ awards (whether they deserve them or not) merely on the basis of some numbers; these include all civil and other awards. Is there any respectable research award in the world that is given without actually reading the research? How can one judge research from the colour of the title page of the journal where it is published, or by some number attached to that journal? As mentioned above, the Fields Medal was awarded to Grigori Perelman when his research had not been published in any journal!
The worst effect these policies have is on the section of our society that cannot afford it at all: our youth. Research for a PhD degree is supposed to be cutting-edge and on the frontiers of the field it is awarded in. Most of the research done in Pakistan is by PhD candidates, which means these policies make their research work questionable. As a result of the current policies, what they learn during their whole research-training period is how to achieve certain numbers and then how to increase them. And, since they start hiring new PhD students as soon as they complete their own PhD, they impart exactly what they had learnt during their own ‘training’ and it goes on like a chain reaction. The recent explosion of business houses for online journals is basically to fulfil the increasing demand for publishing. Doing PhD in our universities currently means only one thing: a few research papers where your name appears among the list of authors, even though that might be only by mistake (and in many instances that is indeed the case!). Thus, during their PhD, students here do not get training in how to think, investigate and analyse, but only how to write papers in such a way as to get them published. It is like being trained to be an orator when you have nothing to say.
The message is loud and clear: your research performance is not judged by what you do and what you write; it is judged by some numbers associated with the journal where your work