The NIRF classification system, initially conceived as a breath of fresh air, shows signs of distortion | Photo credit: Leolid
Propge George Akerlof, in his 1970 article, used the “lemon” metaphor to describe how markets collapse when quality cannot be verified. In the used car market, dishonest vendors push buyers of low quality cars that make suspicious or even good cars. Approximately this asymmetric information destroys the market completely.
The same analogy can now be extended to the Indian Academy, where the NIRF classification system, initially conceived as a breath of fresh air, shows signs of distortion. When the Ministry of Education launched Nirf in 2015, it was a welcome change of the classifications promoted by the media rewarded advertising budgets rather than academic quality. Nirf offered clarity and transparency, publishing a 100 -page methodology document, with clear pesos in five categories: teaching, learning and resources, research and practices, graduation results, dissemination and inclusion, and peer perception.
Initially, the framework brought order to a chaotic space. But soon, the cracks were asked to appear. The institutions began to rise from 25 to 30 ranges with one year, a statistically unlikely feat. While the NIRF promised random data audits, the application remained weak. The classification system slowly became a heavyweight presence that few wanted to challenge. Some, however, raised their voices. The newspapers and websites have occasionally exhibited irregularities in the data presented, but the Ministry does not have firm action tasks to correct the course. Institutions beg the Faculty of Pressure to publish more documents and increase appointments.
Committed quality
The result was a quantity change. Documents of multiple authors, multiple flourished affiliates. Some faculties managed to publish around 50 articles in a year, which scored almost one per week. Monetary incentives further distorted the image.
Many institutions introduced cash prizes by publications. The teachers considered profitable to pay ₹ 3.5 Lakh to publish a document if the institution rewarded ₹ 4 Lakh in return. The teacher maintained a small margin and improvements promotion opportunities. The institution improved its classification. The leadership received boobolades or even extension. Even when the cash awards were not sacrificed, the faculty was still under pressure, since the promotions were linked to publications counts. Some institutions celebrated such professors on social networks, further encouraging the trend. Honest researchers who focused on quality felt forced to follow this path. The author of gifts, ghost writing and paper factories became common. It is not surprising that India Today occupies third place in the world for retracted research work, only behind the United States and China.
This situation raises a series of questions. Are the institutions that foosate the environments where the little ethical practices are normalized here? Are the publications become the objective, with little concern for the quality of the investigation or how is it achieved? If honest institutions receive lower ranges, will they feel obliged to manipulate data? Will this trend discourage the industry to participate in research associations with the Indian Academy? Building a transparent and credible classification system for a country as varied as India is a difficult task. It is not just about choosing the correct parameters, but also to ensure that the data is genuine and true quality reflections. Institutions will always try to win an advantage, but the system should not reward erroneous retailers. The penalties for false reports must be firm and applied in all areas, regardless of the size or influence of the institution.
The NIRF classification frame must evolve to remain credible. Without rigorous validation and a solid ethical base, it runs the risk of becoming a tool that rewards the surface level performance. A classification system must reward the substance, not the appearance. If this does not happen, the Indian Academy can, in fact, a lemons market.
Rajib is director of Bimtech, and Rao is the vice chancellor of the BITS BITS Pilani Group of Institutions and former director of Iit Delhi. The views are personal
Posted on April 24, 2025