Beyond Publish or Perish: An Institutional Quality-Weighted Research Scoring Framework for Indian Medical Colleges

Abstract

Indian medical academia faces a structural conflict between the National Medical Commission (NMC) promotion mandates, which emphasize publication volume, and the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), which demands high-impact, globally indexed quality. This dichotomy has inadvertently incentivized a 'toxic triad' in academic publishing: volume padding (salami-slicing), gift authorship (exploitative chronologies), and the proliferation of predatory publishing. To resolve this, our institution designed and implemented the Research Commendation Programme (RCP). The RCP utilizes an 'Inclusive Merit' mathematical scoring matrix that standardizes digital identity (ORCID), explicitly penalizes distant co-authorships and predatory journals, and employs a volume saturation curve to decay the value of low-tier publications while rewarding Tier 1 (Scopus/WoS) excellence. In a retrospective pilot (2022-2024), the framework successfully evaluated 115 faculty members and processed 465 publications. It stratified researchers into objective categories without administrative friction, successfully shifting the institutional focus from quantity to verified quality. The RCP demonstrated proof-of-concept by successfully filtering volume-padding and stratifying faculty into objective quality tiers. It serves as a scalable administrative prototype for Indian medical colleges to internally realign faculty incentives and foster a culture of genuine academic impact.