Paradoxical mushrooming

Publish or Perish is the mantra chanted by researchers at all levels across educational bodies. An individual researcher who is bestowed with innate research skills runs for filling up the publication criteria for a competitive sustainability. On the other hand, the semi-skilled learners also manage the buoyancy in keeping up the spirit of the race, and match the numbers of the published papers of their contemporaries, heedless to the concept of quality in composition.

As per the dictums, an individual shapes up the artwork in the name of research, and sends it to the designated platform for publication. The process undergoes a series of reviews, blind folded scrutinisation before it appears on the table. The sender needs to exhibit sound patience and perseverance to get updates on every different status of its publication. Curiosity bends down to fathom the critical duration of the gestation period before the outcome is visible across the masses, digitally or manually or both. It is accepted without any pinch of debate that a raw material cannot skip the ‘work in progress’ phase prior to its evolution as a finished product, but if the state of ‘in progress’ reveals inordinate delay, then the consumption of the final product by the end users will be switched over frequently without hesitation, as today the customers value time over cost.

The papers composed by researchers, putting collectively their scarce resources, goes into oblivion in the name of scrutiny or reviews, making them accountable in the institutions for zero tangible output and also resulting in the utter fall of true writing spirits. Efforts to minimise these twin inconsistencies are not much prominent to date.

“Rome was not built in a day” — a proverb which deeply connotes that maturity takes place with the passage of time and patience. A researcher needs to adhere strictly to the norms of the publication, with timeline being more crucial. It is obvious that the publication house, with a pool of heterogeneous papers, might take time beyond the stipulated dates to respond to the concerned authors but, in practical scenarios, the pain pops up when the deferred positive response is received — the fact of the research becoming obsolete for future researchers and the interested readers. On the other hand, if the rejections dawn into the researchers’ inbox after an expected waiting, the frustration sets in. Due to the compulsion to fulfill the outlined academic criteria as per literature guidelines, the researchers need to prepare, without any visible expectation, a series of such papers which might get stuck in the Wonderland of Review in the Publishers’ empire. This hue and cry in the publication process is raising concerns among many composers who are situationally compelled to sacrifice their core interest of writing and march towards a couple of smart publication processes where ethics starts underpinning at its maxim. Across the educational bodies where the epitome of success of academicians is measured by the procedure of intensive qualitative publication, streamlining of the same lies in the hands of transparent and timely decision making of the publishing houses where the output generation in the nomenclature of “Yes/No” should be reasonably faster. Research loses its intrinsic worth when it is kept at the back burner by the publishing houses to meet the unbeatable load of administrative tasks of the review process. From the perspective of a genuine researcher, it is sensible to create awareness when the time is ripe. The difficulty to bridge the gap between the unforeseeable delay in receiving responses from the publishers and inability to timely sensitise the masses with the burning issues need to be handled with subtlety and rationality. The publication process in India is lagging way behind in contrast with its foreign counterparts as we emphasise on bounties over beauties. The loaded entry of the paper in soft mode can be arrested by the publishers so as to exercise the control on the review process. The researchers can invest their resources elsewhere once they find no vacancy for submission in a particular platform. There were many cases where the scholars were compelled to postpone their submission of the thesis due to non-fulfillment of criteria of indexed publication in their rigorous research journey of 4 to 5 years, approximately. Discrimination in quality does exist in case of paid and unpaid publications, but due to paucity of time and remarkable mad rush, the researchers are left with no choice but to surrender their passion. The positional impact of the researcher in his/her career with a basket of exclusive paid publications might be adverse in the long run on account of non-alignment with institutional expectations. On the other hand, those who are wholly and solely credited with pure unpaid collections might find their solemnity in cloud nine in the thirteenth hour of their professional journey. Academicians are trying their best to keep up their chins with a calculated balance of paid and unpaid publications, which at least can uphold their sustainability.

A mechanism of reinforcement of the rules towards an enriching research atmosphere demands immediate inculcation from the community of publishers. It also rests upon the institutional understanding and practices of considering the varied publication procedures.

To foster an impressive research learning culture, the three much-needed ingredients are: streamlining of the review response to keep up the novelty of the writing, drafting of the research guidelines at par with the reality, and the researchers’ unwavering commitment to contribute in the publication drive even if it seems to be a predicament.

The writer is Assistant Professor, Dept of Commerce, Christ University, Bangalore. Views expressed are personal