Picking up the thread from the previous column, ‘Vagaries of Higher Education’, I intend to share with readers my analytical reading of the merit of Pakistani Research Journals, particularly those classified as ‘Y’ or ‘X’ category by the Higher Education Commission. I want to explore the way in which academic manipulation is orchestrated through those journals, with the sole purpose of fulfilling the criteria set by the HEC for tenure track positions.

The quantity of articles published, instead of quality and academic rigour, seems to have become the established norm. The pertinent question about the modus operandi of assessing the value and worth of the research papers published in those journals is also flagged in this piece. The HEC’s indecisive stance on Humanities and Social Sciences is a big cause of concern for people eager for these branches of knowledge to evolve and prosper in Pakistan.

Some quarters do believe that the HEC caters to the needs of the advanced study of science only and anything else (humanities and social sciences) distracts its attention and energy from pursuing its real goal. That real goal is the promotion of science, which presumably is the "key to progress". But pleading the case of social sciences in comparison to pure sciences is not our concern here. The focus is on research journals dealing with history and social sciences.

Ever since the higher education in Pakistan took what I call the "publishing turn" from 2002 onwards, we have seen scores of research journals emerging on the country’s academic scene. The major reason is the HEC’s stipulation that has tied promotions for university teachers to the number of publications they produce. As a consequence, there began a race for publication -- solely to ensure promotion to the next grade on the salary scale.

Another usual practice is editors publishing their own articles in journals they edit themselves. In some cases, the editor has demonstrated the staggering audacity of publishing four articles in one issue, with himself as the co-writer of each one of them. Globally, such practice is considered morally bankrupt, but not so in Pakistan.

Ironically, the HEC is also turning a blind eye to such practices. Sadly, no mechanisms exist to prevent this academic corruption. Even sadder is the fact that no serious thought is being given to put a halt to it. There are also many complaints of teachers making full use of their students’ assignments, converting them into research articles which are published in their name. Many students, the victims of such perfidy, have confided in me, which initially I found very hard to believe. I thought it must be one or two isolated cases. But the evidence of its pervasive currency and scale has left me with no other option than to acknowledge, sadly, that this is a common practice.

The HEC has set certain criteria for ranking of the journals. The lowest are Z category journals followed by Y and X categories. The Z category journals are ranked lowest because of inconsistency in their publication. Having an editorial board, the refereeing of the articles submitted for publications from at least two foreign experts and international indexation/abstraction are the major stipulations that journals are meant to fulfil in order to be elevated to the next category. Even to maintain their existing category, journals are supposed to meet some of these conditions.

The condition usually circumvented pertains to foreign refereeing. The quality of the research articles which are not properly reviewed by an international expert usually leaves much to be desired in terms of language, argument and methodology. Such experts are usually picked from the technologically-advanced countries with their educational structures still markedly underdeveloped.

I would suggest that what is required is an independent academic audit of these journals by a team of editors from internationally acclaimed journals. They should conduct an annual review of those journals. It will involve quite a bit of persuasion on the part of the HEC officials, but it is a necessary and manageable task. I have no doubt that such a process would have a far-reaching impact.

Ironically, a large number of internationally recognised journals are not on the ISIS list, which HEC officials follow like a gospel. Contemporary South Asia, South Asian History and Culture, South Asia, South Asian Review, Victorian Studies and the International Journal of Punjab Studies may be acceptable at the Universities like Harvard and Cambridge but not to the HEC. Many of these journals are published by reputable publishing houses and must surely be on the HEC’s radar.

Unfortunately, in the current situation, scholars prefer publishing in a Pakistani journal of ‘Y’ category, instead of submitting to those published by Routledge and Sage, just because these are not recognised by the HEC. It is therefore suggested that HEC should revise its accepted list of international journals and make it more inclusive.

Another issue is that a monograph book, even if published by a renowned publisher, does not carry enough weight. The journal article is the form the HEC is enamoured with. This makes Pakistani academic scenario quite different from the established international practice. Only two books can be taken into consideration while assessing the performance of any academic, which is bizarre to say the least. That tendency exemplifies the HEC’s tilt towards pure sciences, where book writing is not valued.

Similarly, chapters in edited volumes (even if they are published by world-famous publishing houses) are not counted at all. Any person (and I know of many personally) contributing to an edited volume comes to realise that his or her effort has gone to waste because the HEC holds it absolutely worthless. Perhaps, such practice is not in vogue among most in the Pakistani scientific academe.

One hopes that the HEC will be forthcoming in accepting the worth not only of academic books but that of the chapters contributed to edited volumes.