Daily Times

Certainly, the Higher Education Commission has been taking the persistent stab at raising the quality of national research journals for donkeys’ years. As the policies developed by HEC come out in the open, the write-ups start coming down on them like a tonne of bricks. The Commission thinks per se it is boosting the research culture in the country but it leaves also some objections behind what it puts forward. Let’s sparkle the discussion about the meeting held by HEC just about three months ago where the new policy for research journals was developed.

In its 34th meeting held on August 30 and August 31 this year, the HEC has decided to develop a strong policy shift towards a more transparent and rigorous system for the accreditation of the research journals. The meeting has approved the revised criteria, which will be applicable from July 1, 2020. Until now, the journals accredited by HEC have been working under the four categories i.e. W, X, Y and Z. Now, the journals recognized under the ‘Z’ category have been delisted. There now remain only three categories i.e. W, X and Y. The eligibility requirements the HEC has fixed for the accreditation of the journals have been distributed among three categories as follows:

The accreditation of ‘Y’ category Journals: For the accreditation of journals of ‘Y’ category, the eligibility requirements are; the journals should have the strong academic editorial board entailing the members having PhDs along with strong research and publication background in the relevant areas. This criterion has left a hiatus; what exactly do they mean by the strong research and publication background? Simply, they should have spelt out the required number of publications in this criterion. Another interstice is, what if the members having PhDs but not the strong research and publication record? Bah! Furthermore, the members of the editorial boards or even the editors to journals will not publish, as it says, their papers in the journals they are the parts of. This criterion will give them the alternative chance to get their papers published in other journals by knitting the contacts with the people leading the journals and they will be interchanging the spaces for their papers from both sides. In simple manners, editors will be sharing their papers to publish in their journals based on friendship grounds. The game of exchanging the papers will be skyrocketing. Moreover, the journals under ‘Y’ category will publish 1/5th of total papers from their institutions. Only this decision seems good.

The accreditation of ‘X’ category Journals: For the accreditation of the journals in this category; the first requirement fixed in this category is too onerous. It asks the published articles in ‘X’ category journals be peer-reviewed by well-reputed international experts in the field. If the papers’ peer review has been demanded from the international experts then what about the reputation of national PhDs? Are they [national PhDs] ineligible to review the papers? If not, then why should not be the one PhD reviewer from Pakistan? This thing can easily draw the attention of Pakistani PhDs. On the flip side, the journals of this category have been directed to publish 1/4th of articles having international authorships and self-institutional publications have not been allowed. These two points, by knitting together, are generating a common objection. If the authorships from international spheres are required and self-institutional publications are disallowed then what about the national doctors or students enrolled in the MPhil and PhD programs?

The accreditation of ‘W’ category Journals: Now this category is of highest and top-most ranking in Pakistan. For the accreditation, what it requires is discouraging the quality of research carried out and published in Pakistani journals. It requires the publications should have the indexation with well-reputed global databases having a preference of the web of science and Scopus. This is also a nebulous pronouncement that does not expound what exactly the amount of indexation should be there. Further, the journals must have the citation information from diverse sources, but it does not decipher if the sources should be from abroad or within the country or even from both abroad and national arenas. If the international citation information is meant here, then it erects also a quarrel whether the publications of HEC’s recognized journals are futile. If yes, then who is responsible for this igniting anguish? Why should not the national citation information be required for the accreditation?

The requirements put forward in the meeting are all inclusively playing the mice and cats game. Every requirement made necessary in the meeting is indirectly leaving multiple questions that are hanging in the neck of research culture being driven in Pakistan. Nowhere is the mention if the publications appeared in the ‘Z’ category journals will be esteemed or counted. Because the journals of ‘Z’ category have been delisted from the recognised journals’ list.

Leave now this hatred discussion. The grave issue that hinders the enthusiasm sparkling in the youth is that the journals have now fixed hefty publication charges that are beyond the reach of almost people – especially from joblessness sphere. In one of my articles appeared a couple of weeks ago in daily Pakistan Observer, I have suggested that the frequency of the journals must be increased from bi-annual to quarterlies so that the spaces for many articles can be widened. On the other hand, the publication charges must also be fixed, bearable to all. People already in the job can bear the charges but what about those fallen prey to joblessness?

The writer is a member of the Editorial Board of a Russian Research Journal, “Bulletin of Science and Practice”