India will begin penalising universities with a high number of retracted research papers in its influential National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF). The policy, announced this week, marks the first time any national university ranking system has introduced such a measure, prompting both praise and caution from the academic community.
Retractions — formal withdrawals of previously published academic work — are often a means of correcting honest mistakes. However, a growing proportion arise from cases of plagiarism, data fabrication, or other breaches of research integrity. India now ranks third globally in terms of total retractions, behind only China and the United States, according to Retraction Watch, an international database that tracks withdrawn papers. In India, roughly two in every 1,000 published papers are retracted, and the majority are linked to misconduct.
Achal Agrawal, a data scientist and founder of India Research Watch, an online group dedicated to research integrity, welcomed the move. “Retractions are a very important signal of misconduct, and we should be looking closely at them now,” he said. Agrawal called the measure a necessary first step, and expressed hope that penalties would be strong enough to deter unethical practices.
The ranking system, overseen by the National Board of Accreditation, considers various metrics such as teaching quality, research output, and citation impact. With many universities dependent on their NIRF rankings to access government grants and academic privileges, the new penalties are expected to carry weight. Institutions with high numbers of retractions could face deductions in their scores, and persistent offenders may even be barred from future rankings.
Anil Sahasrabudhe, chair of the accreditation board, said this year’s penalties will be mostly symbolic, with more serious consequences likely in the future. Retractions will be counted using the Scopus and Web of Science databases, covering the past three years. While a small number of retractions is considered acceptable, institutions showing recurring patterns may face stronger disciplinary measures. “When they happen in large numbers, they are not necessarily by error but deliberate, hence need to be punished to send a strong signal,” Sahasrabudhe explained.
Some academics, however, have raised concerns. Moumita Koley, a metascience researcher at the Indian Institute of Science in Bengaluru, supports the initiative but warns that it may not fix the root problem. “Indian science needs a little clean-up, and this shows that people have taken note,” she said. “But the ranking system still rewards quantity over quality. Unless that changes, researchers and institutions will continue to prioritise volume over integrity.”
International experts also urge caution. Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch, warned that targeting retractions could create perverse incentives — such as suppressing or delaying retractions to protect institutional rankings. “You want universities to be accountable,” he said, “but this should also trigger a deeper rethink of the ranking metrics themselves, which currently encourage excessive publishing.”
The NIRF’s reliance on Scopus and Web of Science rather than Retraction Watch — which provides more detailed context and reasons for each retraction — has also drawn criticism. Experts argue that only retractions due to misconduct, not honest errors, should result in penalties. Sahasrabudhe acknowledged the need for refinement and said efforts are underway to use AI and data analytics to better detect patterns of malpractice and reduce pressure to publish.
India’s move stands in contrast to global ranking systems, which currently do not penalise retractions. Institutions listed in rankings by QS, Times Higher Education, and US News & World Report do not lose points for retracted papers, although such papers are removed from citation calculations. Some international ranking bodies even regard retractions as signs of a healthy academic culture of transparency and accountability.
As India becomes the first country to explicitly link retractions to institutional rankings, the policy signals a broader recognition of the urgent need to uphold research integrity. Whether it will have its intended effect — and avoid unintended consequences — will become clearer when the updated rankings are released later this year.
