The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) will soon introduce negative marking for certain research-related lapses, including retracted papers and citations of tainted research. The announcement followed the unveiling of the tenth edition of the NIRF by Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan . Since its inception, the framework has not included penalties for research malpractice , making this a first for India’s premier institutional ranking system.
Officials emphasised that the move is aimed at enhancing transparency and credibility in higher education rankings. Anil Sahashrabudhe, chairman of the National Board of Accreditation , which manages the NIRF, said to PTI, “For the first time, penalties are being formally stitched into the ranking methodology to act against research malpractice and misrepresentation of data. Draft norms for the negative marking system are currently being finalised.”
Scope of negative marking
The NIRF evaluates institutions across five broad parameters: teaching and learning, graduation outcomes, research, outreach, and perception. With over 8,700 institutions participating in the 2024 cycle, NIRF results have become a key reference for students, recruiters, and policymakers. Research misconduct, particularly the retraction of papers over periods of two to three years, has raised concerns about institutional credibility . The introduction of negative marking aims to curb this trend.
Addressing ranking anomalies
Ranking systems such as QS, Times Higher Education , and NIRF have previously ignored research retractions in scoring, allowing some institutions to rise in rankings despite significant issues in their research wings. Officials noted that without penalties, there is little incentive for institutions to correct errors or address misconduct.
Legal and policy context
The need for stricter measures was highlighted in a public interest litigation (PIL) filed before the Madras High Court in April, which questioned the transparency of ranking systems like the NIRF. The PIL argued that rankings were calculated “merely on data provided by educational institutes on their websites, without any verification or auditing.” The court initially issued an interim stay, which was later lifted after the Centre clarified that a scientific method prescribed by an expert body was being followed for publishing NIRF rankings.
Next steps
With negative marking soon to be integrated, the NIRF framework will penalise research malpractice systematically, enhancing the credibility of Indian institutional rankings and aligning them with global standards. Draft guidelines for the negative marking system are expected to be released soon, allowing institutions to prepare for the updated evaluation criteria.
Officials emphasised that the move is aimed at enhancing transparency and credibility in higher education rankings. Anil Sahashrabudhe, chairman of the National Board of Accreditation , which manages the NIRF, said to PTI, “For the first time, penalties are being formally stitched into the ranking methodology to act against research malpractice and misrepresentation of data. Draft norms for the negative marking system are currently being finalised.”
Scope of negative marking
The NIRF evaluates institutions across five broad parameters: teaching and learning, graduation outcomes, research, outreach, and perception. With over 8,700 institutions participating in the 2024 cycle, NIRF results have become a key reference for students, recruiters, and policymakers. Research misconduct, particularly the retraction of papers over periods of two to three years, has raised concerns about institutional credibility . The introduction of negative marking aims to curb this trend.
Addressing ranking anomalies
Ranking systems such as QS, Times Higher Education , and NIRF have previously ignored research retractions in scoring, allowing some institutions to rise in rankings despite significant issues in their research wings. Officials noted that without penalties, there is little incentive for institutions to correct errors or address misconduct.
Legal and policy context
The need for stricter measures was highlighted in a public interest litigation (PIL) filed before the Madras High Court in April, which questioned the transparency of ranking systems like the NIRF. The PIL argued that rankings were calculated “merely on data provided by educational institutes on their websites, without any verification or auditing.” The court initially issued an interim stay, which was later lifted after the Centre clarified that a scientific method prescribed by an expert body was being followed for publishing NIRF rankings.
Next steps
With negative marking soon to be integrated, the NIRF framework will penalise research malpractice systematically, enhancing the credibility of Indian institutional rankings and aligning them with global standards. Draft guidelines for the negative marking system are expected to be released soon, allowing institutions to prepare for the updated evaluation criteria.
You may also like
'Would do well to introspect': India's rebukes Bangladesh over Khagrachhari unrest claim; terms it baseless
Delhi 'godman' case: Chaitanyananda remanded to 14-day judicial custody; accused of molesting students
Chennai Customs Officers Accused of Corruption, Finance Ministry Assigns Revenue Department to Investigate
Driver rushed to hospital after bus smashes into building in busy city centre street
Antony blasts Man Utd over Ruben Amorim treatment before exit - 'Lack of respect'
