research in progress database in india is mainly managed by

India’s R&D expenditure & scientific publications on the rise

India is placed 3rd among countries in scientific publication.

India’s gross expenditure in R&D has tripled between 2008 & 2018 driven mainly by Govt sector and scientific publications have risen placing the country internationally among the top few. This is as per the R&D Statistics and Indicators 2019-20 based on the national S&T survey 2018 brought out by the National Science and Technology Management Information (NSTMIS), Department of Science and Technology (DST).

"The report on R&D indicators for the nation is an extraordinarily important document for the evidence-based policymaking and planning in higher education, R&D activities and support, intellectual property, and industrial competitiveness. While it is heartening to see substantial progress in the basic indicators of R&D strengths such as the global leadership in the number of scientific publications, there are also areas of concern that need strengthening," said Prof Ashutosh Sharma, Secretary,DST

The report shows that with the rise in publication, the country is globally at the 3 rd   position on this score as per the NSF database, 3 rd in the number of Ph.D. in science & engineering. The number of researchers per million population has doubled since 2000.

The report captures the R&D landscape of the country through various Input-Output S&T Indicators in the form of Tables and graphs. These pertain to Investments in national R&D, R&D investments by Government and Private sector; R&D relationship with economy (GDP), Enrolment of S&T personnel, Manpower engaged in R&D, Outrun of S&T personnel, papers published, patents and their international S&T comparisons.

The survey included more than 6800 S&T Institutions spread across varied sectors like central government, state governments, higher education, public sector industry, and private sector industry in the country, and a response rate of more than 90% was achieved.

Some of the key findings of the report are the following:

India’s gross expenditure in R&D has tripled between 2008 & 2018

• The Gross expenditure on R&D (GERD) in the country has been consistently increasing over the years and has nearly tripled from Rs. 39,437.77 crore in 2007- 08 to Rs. 1,13,825.03 crore in 2017-18.
• India’s per capita R&D expenditure has increased to PPP $ 47.2 in 2017-18 from PPP $ 29.2 in 2007-08.
• India spent 0.7% of its GDP on R&D in 2017-18, while the same among other developing BRICS countries was Brazil 1.3%, Russian Federation 1.1%, China 2.1% and South Africa 0.8%.

Extramural R&D support by central S&T agencies has increased significantly

• DST and DBT were the two major players contributing 63% and 14%, respectively of the total extramural R&D support in the country during 2016-17.
• Women participation in extramural R&D projects has increased significantly to 24% in 2016-17 from 13% in 2000-01 due to various initiatives undertaken by the Government in S&T sector
• As on 1st April 2018, nearly 5.52 lakh personnel were employed in the R&D establishments in the country

The number of researchers per mn populations has doubled since 2000

• Number of researchers per million population in India has increased to 255 in 2017 from 218 in 2015 and 110 in 2000.
• India’s R&D expenditure per researcher was 185 (‘000 PPP$) during 2017-18 and was ahead of Russian Federation, Israel, Hungary, Spain and UK.
• India occupies 3rd rank in terms of number of Ph. D.’s awarded in Science and Engineering (S&E) after USA (39,710 in 2016) and China (34,440 in 2015).

India is placed 3rd among countries in scientific publication as per NSF database

• During 2018, India was ranked at 3rd, 5th  and 9th  in scientific publication output as per the NSF, SCOPUS and SCI database respectively
• During 2011-2016, India’s growth rate of scientific publication as per the SCOPUS and SCI database was 8.4% and 6.4% as against the world average of 1.9% and 3.7%, respectively.
• India’s share in global research publication output has increased over the years as reflected in publication databases

India is ranked at 9th position in terms of Resident Patent Filing activity in the world

• During 2017-18 a total of 47,854 patents were filed in India. Out of which, 15,550 (32%) patents were filed by Indian residents
• Patent applications filed in India are dominated by disciplines like Mechanical, Chemical, Computer/Electronics, and Communication.
• According to WIPO, India’s Patent Office stands at the 7th position among the top 10 Patent Filing Offices in the world

[1. Research and Development Statistics At a Glance 2019-20

https://dst.gov.in/document/reports/research-development-statistics-glance-2019-20

2. S&T Indicators Tables 2019-20

https://dst.gov.in/document/reports/st-indicators-tables-2019-20

For more details, please contact Dr. Parveen Arora, Sc-G & Head, CHORD Division, DST

Email: parora[at]nic[dot]in , Mob.: +91-9654664614]

• Open access
• Published: 07 October 2013

Outcomes research resources in India: current status, need and way forward

• Jatin Shah 1 ,
• Akshay Pawaskar 2 ,
• Smit Kumar 3 &
• Nilima Kshirsagar 4 , 5  

SpringerPlus volume  2 , Article number:  518 ( 2013 ) Cite this article

3779 Accesses

3 Citations

Metrics details

Despite their importance, the number of outcomes research studies conducted in India are lesser than other countries. Information about the distribution of existing outcomes research resources and relevant expertise can benefit researchers and research groups interested in conducting outcomes research studies and policy makers interested in funding outcomes research studies in India. We have reviewed the literature to identify and map resources described in outcomes research studies conducted in India.

We reviewed the following online biomedical databases: Pubmed, SCIRUS, CINAHL, and Google scholar and selected articles that met the following criteria: published in English, conducted on Indian population, providing information about outcomes research resources (databases/registries/electronic medical records/electronic healthcare records/hospital information systems) in India and articles describing outcomes research studies or epidemiological studies based on outcomes research resources. After shortlisting articles, we abstracted data into three datasets viz. 1. Resource dataset, 2. Bibliometric dataset and 3. Researcher dataset and carried out descriptive analysis.

Of the 126 articles retrieved, 119 articles were selected for inclusion in the study. The tally increased to 133 articles after a secondary search. Based on the information available in the articles, we identified a total of 91 unique research resources. We observed that most of the resources were Registries (62/91) and Databases ( 23/91) and were primarily located in Maharashtra (19/91) followed by Tamil Nadu (11/91), Chandigarh (8/91) and Kerala (7/91) States. These resources primarily collected data on Cancer (44/91), Stroke (5/91) and Diabetes (4/91). Most of these resources were Institutional (38/91) and Regional resources (35/91) located in Government owned and managed Academic Institutes/Hospitals (57/91) or Privately owned and managed non – Academic Institutes/Hospitals (14/91). Data from the Population based Cancer Registry, Mumbai was used in 41 peer reviewed publications followed by Population based Cancer Registry, Chennai (17) and Rural Cancer Registry Barshi (14). Most of the articles were published in International journals (139/193) that had an impact factor of 0–1.99 (43/91) and received an average of 0–20 citations (55/91). We identified 193 researchers who are mainly located in Maharashtra (37/193) and Tamil Nadu (24/193) states and Southern (76/193) and Western zones (47/193). They were mainly affiliated to Government owned & managed Academic Institutes /Hospitals (96/193) or privately owned and managed Academic Institutes/ Hospitals (35/193).

Conclusions

Given the importance of Outcomes research, relevant resources should be supported and encouraged which would help in the generation of important healthcare data that can guide health and research policy. Clarity about the distribution of outcomes research resources can facilitate future resource and funding allocation decisions for policy makers as well as help them measure research performance over time.

Introduction

Outcomes research is concerned with determining the end results and in turn the effectiveness of healthcare practices, interventions and systems. Outcomes research focuses on topics ranging from effectiveness, appropriateness, access, quality of care, quality of life, health status, disease prevention, screening, drug treatment, medical procedures, medical practices, diagnostic tests, guidelines and healthcare policy (Jefford et al. 2003 ).

Despite the role of outcomes research studies in discerning practice variation (Pilote and Tager 2002 ), quality of care and determining “What actually works”, a quick literature search in Gopubmed (GoPubMed® 2013 ) conducted by the authors revealed that the number of outcomes research studies in India have been lower in comparison to countries like USA, UK and Germany. (9362, 195663, 46028, 36693 respectively). (Search strategy: “Outcome Assessment (Health Care)”[mesh], Gopubmed,) Although there is a lack of studies evaluating the reason behind this trend, paucity of funding, non availability of infrastructure, lack of relevant expertise and trained staff could be factors responsible for this trend. Even when these factors are available, there exists a significant disconnect amongst them as data about existing resources is not widely accessible. If made available, information about existing resources can help 1. Policy makers to plan efficient strategies that can build up on existing outcomes research resources thus ensuring economies of scale as well as predict resource use and improve efficiency in the allocation of resources (Liu et al. 2008 ). 2. Researchers and research groups become aware of existing research resources thus avoiding duplication and facilitating higher productivity at a lower cost. Despite the importance of this information, till date no previous study has worked on compiling and sharing this information in a systematic manner.

India currently faces a mixed burden of both communicable and non-communicable diseases, the latter responsible for two-third of the total morbidity burden and more than half (53%) of total mortality in India. (WHO 2013 ) This dual burden poses significant public health challenges before India like safeguarding public health, expanding health care coverage and improving quality of care while controlling costs. Given the current economic downturn, Indian policy makers need to take cue from Australia, Japan, South Korea and China where Outcomes Research data are used for setting national policy, designing drug formulary and drafting pharmaceutical economics guidelines. (Garman 2013 ) In order to encourage and facilitate the conduct of outcomes research studies, knowledge, access and sustained support of pre-existing resources is essential. Few studies have mapped outcomes research resources in India.

In order to bridge this gap, we carried out a review of the literature to identify and map resources described in previous outcomes research studies conducted in India.

We carried out a review of published literature and hence did not seek ethics approval for this review.

Definitions

Outcomes research resources include outcomes researchers, infrastructure, trained staff/manpower and electronic data sources like databases, registries, electronic health records, electronic medical records and hospital information systems. Data on researcher and electronic resources are reported in published literature but data on infrastructure and manpower is rarely published. Accordingly, we decided to focus on the former. For the purpose of this study, we used the following definitions of outcomes research resources:

Databases and Registries that collect data as a part of clinical practice or for research purposes. We used the following operational definition for a biomedical registry: A system for the registration, record keeping and referral of biomedical data, material or resources. (Dict.md, Medical dictionary, 2013 )

(i) Electronic medical records defined as computerized systems that collect, manage and deliver healthcare data and information in electronic format as a part of routine practice (Luo 2006 ) (Rustagi and Singh 2012 ) and (ii) Electronic Healthcare records defined as a “comprehensive, cross-institutional, longitudinal collection of a patient’s health and healthcare data”. (Hoerbst and Ammenwerth 2010 )

Experts – Details about researchers who carried out outcomes research studies using prospective or retrospective study designs.

Search strategy

Two reviewers (JS and AP) having previous experience in the conduct of reviews carried out an independent search in the following online biomedical databases: Pubmed, 1985 to 2012 (Home - PubMed - NCBI 2013 ), SCIRUS, 1980 to 2012 (Scirus search engine for scientific information 2013 ); CINAHL, 1985 to 2012 (CINAHL | Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health | EBSCO 2013 ) and Google scholar (Google Scholar 2013 ). The cut-off dates for each database vary. They indicate the period of availability of articles in each of the databases.

We combined the following keywords and their MESH terms using Boolean operators to build a search strategy: Outcomes, Database, Registry, Electronic Medical records, Electronic Healthcare records, Hospital Information systems and India. Details of the search strategy are described below.

Search strategies:

“Outcomes” AND (“Database” [Publication Type]) OR “Registries"[Mesh]) AND India

outcomes AND database AND India

outcomes AND registry AND India

(registry OR database) AND India AND “outcomes research”

(electronic health records) AND India

(electronic medical records) AND India

(electronic healthcare records) AND india

(India) AND electronic medical record[MeSH Terms]

Eligibility criteria

We defined criteria that would help us filter through the initial list of search results and identify articles that would provide us the required data.

We used the following inclusion criteria:

Articles published in English language,

Articles reporting outcomes research studies,

Articles reporting studies conducted using Indian data,

Articles providing information about outcomes research or epidemiological resources (databases/registries/electronic medical records/electronic healthcare records/hospital information systems) in India,

Articles describing epidemiological studies based on outcomes research resources (databases/registries/electronic medical records/electronic healthcare records/hospital information systems).

In case when a full text version of the article was unavailable, we included the abstract if it provided detailed information about the study. Articles retrieved by applying the search strategy were screened first by title, then by abstract and later by reviewing their full text version. At each step, articles dissatisfying the selection criteria were excluded. The shortlisted articles retrieved by each reviewer were compared and disagreements were resolved by discussion and mutual consent. Based on data present in the shortlisted articles, we compiled a list of outcomes research resources (Additional file 1 ). In order to cross-check our search results, we searched for all outcomes research articles published using these resources. We applied the selection criteria to the results of this secondary search and included articles that our search strategy missed during the primary search.

Data collection and data items

Two reviewers (JS and AP) independently reviewed each shortlisted article and captured information about the variables of interest in separate spreadsheets. The resulting data abstraction files populated by each reviewer were compared and disagreements were resolved by discussion and mutual consent.

After removing duplicate entries, we identified a list of resources, articles published based on the resources, bibliometric data for the articles and bibliometric data for researchers who published the articles.

Resource dataset

We reviewed the methods section of each article to extract information about each resource. We also reviewed and extracted information available on their individual websites (if present) and internet in general (using Google search). We categorized the data for each resource using the following categories:

Type of resource: Resources developed/initiated as a part of a research project/study were categorized under 'Study specific’, those developed/initiated by a department in an organization were categorized under 'Departmental’, those developed through an institutional/organizational initiative or national initiative were categorized under 'Institutional’ and national initiative respectively. We evaluated

Type of affiliation: We analyzed the location of each resource and categorized its institutional affiliation into six sub-categories based on presence in Government owned academic institutes/hospitals (Example: A Government owned Medical College and attached Tertiary Care Municipal hospital), Privately owned and managed Academic Institute/hospitals (Example: A Private Medical College and attached Tertiary Care Hospital), Privately owned and managed non - Academic Institute/hospitals (Example: A Privately owned Tertiary Care Hospital), For profit private organizations (Example: a resource owned by a Pharma company), Government organizations (Example: A resource owned by the Health ministry) and Non Government organization/Society/Associations (Example: A resource owned by a national cardiology society)

Location state: We analyzed the geographical location of each resource and categorized it as per states and zones. For the purpose of facilitating analysis, we divided India into four zones viz: North, East, West and South.

Type of disease: By analyzing the articles retrieved and reviewing any additional information available on the web, we identified the disease type for which data was collected in the resource

Total number of articles published based on data of each resource

Bibliometric dataset

For each individual resource, we identified the total number of articles published till date (Nov 18, 2012). Next for each article, we extracted data on journal name, corresponding journal impact factor and citations received. Journal name was identified from the full citation of the article. We extracted data on journal impact factor from each individual journal website or referred to the ISI Thomson impact factor database ((Thomson Reuters | The Thomson Reuters Impact Factor | Science 2013 ). We extracted data on the total citations received by each article till date (Nov 18, 2012) by referring to Google scholar.

Researcher dataset

From the 133 articles, we extracted the names of first and last authors, their institutional affiliations, location details (city, state, country) and email addresses.

Finally we carried out descriptive analysis of the 3 datasets described above.

Search results

We identified a total of 4911 articles based on keyword search. After removing duplicate entries (31) we were left with 4846 articles for review. After reviewing titles and abstracts of articles and applying selection criteria, we shortlisted 126 articles. Next, we reviewed the full text of 126 articles and excluded 7 articles dissatisfying our selection criteria thus yielding a total of 119 articles which were selected for inclusion in the study. After analyzing these 119 articles, we were able to identify a total of 91 unique resources. 14 more articles were retrieved through a secondary search carried out with an aim of identifying additional publications related to the resources reported in the articles. This increased the tally to 133 articles. We were able to identify a total of 91 unique resources and 193 researchers who had published outcomes research articles using these resources. (Figure  1 : Flowchart describing review and article retrieval process)

Resource data

Type of resource

Our analysis reveals that most of the resources are registries (62/91) and databases (23/91) [Table  1 ].

Analysis of geographical distribution of the resources reveal that most of them are located in Maharashtra (19/91), Tamil Nadu (11/91), Chandigarh(8/91) and Kerala(7/91) States of India. Analysis on zonal perspective revealed their predominant presence in Southern (32/91) and Western (26/91) zones [Table  2 ].

Initiative driving/supporting the resource

Analysis of the affiliation data for each resource reveal that most of the resources are either institutional (38/91) or regional (35/91) initiatives [Table  3 ]. Further, analysis of their affiliation data also revealed that they were present in Government owned academic institutes/hospitals (57/91) and privately owned and managed Non - Academic Institute/hospitals (14/91) [Table  4 ].

Type of disease

Analysis of data collected by each resource and publications based on them reveal that most of the resources are collecting data on Cancer (44/91) followed by Stroke (5/91) and Diabetes (4/91) [Table  5 ].

Bibliometric data

Journal analysis

Our analysis revealed that most of the publications based on data from the 91 resources were published in international journals (139/193).

Citation analysis

We observed that the publications based on these resources received an average of 0–22 citations (55/91) and 21–40 citations (17/91) [Table  6 ].

Journal impact factor analysis

We noted that the articles using the data from the 91 resources were usually published in journals with an impact factor of 0–1.99 (43/91) and 2–3.99 (18/91) [Table  7 ].

Researcher data

Location of outcomes researchers

Analysis of geographical location data for each researcher revealed that they are primarily located in Maharashtra (37/193), Tamil Nadu (24/193), Chandigarh (16/193) and Karnataka (16/193) States. They are predominantly located in southern (76/193) and western zones (47/193) of India. Some of the authors (17/193) are located outside India [Table  8 ].

Affiliation of outcomes researchers

Analysis of the affiliation data for the outcomes researchers reveal that more than half of them are working in Government owned and managed Academic Institutes/Hospitals (96/193) and some in Privately owned and managed Academic Institutes/Hospitals (35/193). Some of them were affiliated to organizations outside India (10/193) [Table  9 ].

Flowchart describing review and article retrieval process.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that carried out a systematic analysis of outcomes research resources in India as reported in published literature. We collected information relevant to 91 outcomes research resources in India and report details about each resource, bibliometric data of publications derived from these resources and researchers that conducted research studies using data derived from these resources.

We observed a predominance of registries and databases in India. Research registries collect long term clinical, health services and epidemiological data for a given population. They are essential to understand clinical and epidemiological trends as well as useful for policy analyses, planning and management of health care resources. (Roos and Nicole, Roos and Nicol 1999 ) (Broemeling et al. 2009 ). Databases are usually study specific or project specific. They are usually designed to collect data to answer a specific research question. The low number of EMR, EHR and HIS in India might be because of the fact that India has been slow in the adoption of biomedical and research informatics tools. Although having a wide range of advantages (Fraser et al., 2005 ) (Lobach and Detmer, 2007 ) (Mildon and Cohen, 2001 ) (Rustagi and Singh, 2012 ) concerns about privacy, reduction in clinical productivity, being resource intensive, (Rustagi and Singh, 2012 ) (Kluger, 2009 ) high purchase and maintenance costs make their adoption slower (Jha et al., 2009 ) (Hillestad et al., 2005 ).

We observed a geographical predominance of resources and researchers in southern and western zones indicating an imbalance. This imbalance may be further complicated by the fact that researchers from one zone may not have access to data from a resource located in another zone. This may significantly influence policy and funding decisions further resulting in a vicious cycle of resource duplication, under utilization of resources, and wastage of funding.

We also observed a predominance of Institutional and regional initiatives in spearheading/managing the resources. Although this trend is noteworthy and beneficial, it reflects small scale and medium scale research projects. National registries have their own importance in nationwide policy decisions as data cannot always be extrapolated from regional data. There are numerous examples of large scale nationwide initiatives like Nationwide inpatient sample (HCUP-US NIS, 2013 ), National Health Insurance Research Database (NHRI, Taiwan, 2013 ), Disease registries maintained by National Registry of Diseases Office (NRDO, Singapore, 2013 ) that have and continue to significantly contribute to national healthcare decision making and planning as well as in the improvement of quality of healthcare. Thus a balanced distribution of regional and national resources is essential. We also noted that most of the resources and researchers were located in Government or Privately owned academic organizations. Although a good trend, these organizations usually serve the urban population and provide tertiary care. Given the fact that India is largely an agrarian country, equitable distribution of resources into urban and rural areas would facilitate the collection of data that is truly representative of the Indian population. Policies derived from such a representative sample will be more effective than those based on extrapolated data that do not represent real life scenarios.

Most of the resources collected data on Cancer, Stroke and Diabetes. Given the significant rise in cancer, cardiovascular and metabolic disorders in India, (Takiar et al., 2010 ) (Young et al., 2009 ) this distribution appears to be moving in the right direction. Yet, it should be noted that there exists a vast difference amongst number of resources in each of these groups indicating a predominance of cancer resources. Accordingly, it prepares the case for the need of similar outcomes data resources for nationally prevalent diseases like Malaria, Tuberculosis. This can be implemented by incorporating relevant outcomes data variables in surveillance and national programs.

A predominance of publications derived from the short listed resources in international journals is a good trend as it helps disseminate results to a global audience. Yet the Journal impact factor (JIF) and citation index of these publications may be indicative of the quality and impact of results published. Training programs to help clinicians and researchers collect data using global accepted data standards and report them using standard reporting guidelines may make future publications reach a larger audience and gain higher impact. In this regard, a workshop on imparting outcomes research skills to medical faculty members was recently conducted with the aid of Indian Council of Medical Research. (Savardekar L, Shah J, Bacchav S, Kshirsagar N, Translating Ideas into Research Projects and Manuscripts in Outcomes Research:Experiences of An ICMR Workshop. unpublished observations).

Most of the registries and databases identified through this study have not been explored to their true potential. In most cases, data from these registries have resulted in one to three publications. Further, most of them do not have their own websites or web pages within their organization. Sharing of data dictionaries or actual data – a norm of current times is hardly applicable to these resources. This demonstrates that detailed information about these resources is not easily accessible. The Department of Science and Technology (India) conducted a National Survey on Resources Devoted to Science &Technology Activities (National Science & Technology Management Information System, India, 2013 ) but the resultant data is not publicly available. Secondly, the survey questionnaire does not capture granular information about research resources. Finally, we are not aware about its utility and effectiveness in facilitating collaborations and guiding policy decisions at a state and national level. It is thus evident that awareness of existing outcomes research resources in India is low thus impairing the ability of 1. Researchers and research groups to optimally utilize existing outcomes data for carrying out outcomes research studies and 2. Research policy makers to utilize resource availability and resource performance data while making resource allocation decisions.

Limitations

All efforts were made to do an exhaustive review of the literature but given the nature of research question and limitations in terms of keywords and filters, we may have missed relevant publications reporting information about outcomes research resources. Secondly, data resources and researchers are not the only factors that contribute to outcomes research. Factors like skilled manpower, training opportunities, availability of funding, institutional policy have a role to play. Since this information is not readily available on the web or in publications, we interpreted based on the data that was available to us. There is a need for national level initiatives to collect data about the location, capabilities and performance of outcomes research resources. Thirdly, we did not include keywords related to surveillance data in our search strategy as surveillance in itself is a huge area and beyond the scope of this project. We intend to pursue this in a subsequent study. Finally, although semi automated methods like natural language processing and computational ontologies could have been utilized to carry out data extraction and reasoning of data extracted from published articles (Lin et al., 2010 ) (Ceci et al., 2012 ), we preferred the manual method as 1. The number of relevant articles identified through an initial review was low and 2. To ensure higher quality of data abstraction.

Abbreviations

Acute coronary syndrome

Myocardial infarction

Obstetrics & gynecology

Human immunodeficiency virus infection/Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome

Not applicable

Electronic medical records

Electronic healthcare records

Health information system.

Broemeling A-M, Kerluke K, Black C, Peterson S, MacDonald A, McKendry R: Developing and maintaining a population research registry to support primary healthcare research. Healthc Policy 2009, 5: 65-76.

Google Scholar  

Ceci F, Pietrobon R, Gonçalves AL: Turning text into research networks: information retrieval and computational ontologies in the creation of scientific databases. PLoS ONE 2012, 7: e27499. 10.1371/journal.pone.0027499

Article   Google Scholar  

CINAHL Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health EBSCO 2013. http://www.ebscohost.com/biomedical-libraries/the-cinahl-database . Accessed April 24, 2013

Dict.md Biomedical Definition 2013. http://en.dict.md/definition/Biomedical . Accessed April 24, 2013

Fraser HSF, Biondich P, Moodley D, Choi S, Mamlin BW, Szolovits P: Implementing electronic medical record systems in developing countries. Inform Prim Care 2005, 13: 83-95.

Garman L: The Dual Burden of Disease in India, What’s Going on at GRAVIS . 2013. . Accessed 11 Sep 2013 http://gravisindia.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/the-dual-burden-of-disease-in-india/

Google Scholar 2013. http://scholar.google.co.in/ . Accessed April 24, 2013

GoPubMed® 2013. http://www.gopubmed.org/web/gopubmed/ . Accessed April 24, 2013

HCUP-US NIS Overview 2013. http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/nisoverview.jsp . Accessed April 24, 2013

Hillestad R, Bigelow J, Bower A, Girosi F, Meili R, Scoville R, Taylor R: Can electronic medical record systems transform health care? Potential health benefits, savings, and costs. Health Aff 2005, 24: 1103-1117. 10.1377/hlthaff.24.5.1103

Hoerbst A, Ammenwerth E: Electronic health records: a systematic review on quality requirements. Methods Inf Med 2010, 49: 320-336. 10.3414/ME10-01-0038

Home - PubMed - NCBI 2013. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed . Accessed April 24, 2013

Jefford M, Stockler MR, Tattersall MHN: Outcomes research: what is it and why does it matter? Intern Med J 2003, 33: 110-118. 10.1046/j.1445-5994.2003.00302.x

Jha AK, DesRoches CM, Campbell EG, Donelan K, Rao SR, Ferris TG, Shields A, Rosenbaum S, Blumenthal D: Use of electronic health records in U.S. hospitals. N Engl J Med 2009, 360: 1628-1638. 10.1056/NEJMsa0900592

Kluger J: Electronic Health Records: What’s Taking So Long? Time Magazine . 2009. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1887658,00.html

Lin S, Ng JP, Pradhan S, Shah J, Pietrobon R, Kan MY: Extracting formulaic and free text clinical research articles metadata using conditional random fields. Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Second Louhi Workshop on Text and Data Mining of Health Documents . Stroudsburg, PA, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics; 2010:90-95.

Liu GG, Eggleston K, Hu T: Emerging health economics and outcomes research in the Asia-Pacific region. Value Health 2008, 11: S1-S2. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00360.x

Lobach DF, Detmer DE: Research challenges for electronic health records. Am J Prev Med 2007, 32: S104-S111. 10.1016/j.amepre.2007.01.018

Luo JS: Electronic medical records. Primary Psychiatry 2006, 13: 20-23.

Mildon J, Cohen T: Drivers in the electronic medical records market. Health Manag Technol 2001, 22(14–6):18.

National Science & Technology Management Information System (NSTMIS). Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of India 2013. http://www.dst.gov.in/scientific-programme/ser-nstmis.htm . Accessed 11 Sep 2013

NHRI (National Health Research Institutes), Taiwan 2013. http://english.nhri.org.tw/NHRI_WEB/nhriw001Action.do . Accessed April 26,2013

NRDO, National Registry of Diseases Office, Singapore 2013. http://www.nrdo.gov.sg/ . Accessed April 24, 2013

Pilote L, Tager IB: Outcomes research in the development and evaluation of practice guidelines. BMC Health Serv Res 2002, 2: 7. 10.1186/1472-6963-2-7

Roos LL, Nicol JP: A research registry: uses, development, and accuracy. J Clin Epidemiol 1999, 52: 39-47. 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00126-7

Rustagi N, Singh R: Electronic medical record: time to migrate? Perspect Clin Res 2012, 3: 143-145. 10.4103/2229-3485.103596

Scirus search engine for scientific information 2013. http://www.scirus.com/ . Accessed April 24, 2013

Takiar R, Nadayil D, Nandakumar A: Projections of number of cancer cases in India (2010–2020) by cancer groups. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2010, 11: 1045-1049.

Thomson Reuters The Thomson Reuters Impact Factor Science 2013. http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/free/essays/impact_factor/ . Accessed April 24, 2013

WHO: WHO Country Cooperation Strategy (CCS) . WHO; 2013. . Accessed 11 Sep 2013 http://www.who.int/countryfocus/cooperation_strategy/en/

Young F, Critchley J, Unwin N: Diabetes & tuberculosis: a dangerous liaison & no white tiger. Indian J Med Res 2009, 130: 1-4.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik, Maharashtra, India

Kalpavriksha Healthcare And Research, Thane, India

Akshay Pawaskar

VIS Research Pvt Ltd, Thane, India

Clinical Pharmacology, Indian Council of Medical Research, Government of India, New Dehli, India

Nilima Kshirsagar

ESI-PGIMSR MGM Hospital, Government of India, Mumbai, India

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nilima Kshirsagar .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

NK: Conceptualized the study, reviewed the review results, approved final version of the manuscript. JS: Conceptualized the study, Carried out review of literature as per search strategy, data abstraction and wrote the manuscript. AP: Carried out review of literature as per search strategy, data abstraction and formatted the manuscript. SK: Carried out data analysis. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Electronic supplementary material

Additional file 1: outcomes research resources identified. (doc 73 kb), authors’ original submitted files for images.

Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images.

Authors’ original file for figure 1

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Shah, J., Pawaskar, A., Kumar, S. et al. Outcomes research resources in India: current status, need and way forward. SpringerPlus 2 , 518 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-2-518

Download citation

Received : 05 June 2013

Accepted : 27 September 2013

Published : 07 October 2013

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-2-518

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Outcomes research
• Research resources

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Wellcome Open Res

• PMC6392150.1 ; 2019 Jan 31
• ➤ PMC6392150.2; 2019 Apr 10

India Research Management Initiative (IRMI) – an initiative for building research capacity in India

Savita ayyar.

1 Jaquaranda Tree, Bengaluru, Karnataka, 560064, India

Shahid Jameel

2 Wellcome Trust/DBT India Alliance, New Delhi, 110025, India

Associated Data

No data is associated with this article.

Version Changes

Revised. amendments from version 1.

We thank all the reviewers for their valuable time and comments on version 1 of the manuscript. We have incorporated suggestions from the reviewers into this revised version of the manuscript. Research Management and RMA have been added as keywords. Additional details and references to the overall research funding landscape have been added and sections rearranged to provide more context to the ecosystem in India. A link to the Cambridge-Africa Partnership for Research Excellence (CAPREx) program has been added as an example of international collaborations shaping RM structures. Details of administrative steps in grant management have been expanded and rearranged. A section on the methodology for the IRMI pilot and data, quotations and references to support statements have been added, whilst retaining the Open Letter format of this publication. The IRMI Pilot represents the beginning of building wider RM infrastructure in India. Through the IRMI Pilot, we have worked with a small subset of Indian research institutions, both to raise awareness about RM and to understand gaps. This work will eventually need to be expanded to include a wider range of Indian research organizations and professionals. We thank Wellcome Open Research for this opportunity to share our work with the wider community.

Peer Review Summary

Research and innovation are growing in India with significant investments being made towards institutions, researchers and research infrastructure. Although still under 1% of GDP, funding for science and technology in India has increased each year for over two decades. There is also increasing realization that public funding for research should be supplemented with that from industry and philanthropy.

Like their counterparts worldwide, Indian researchers require access to professional research management support at their institutions to fully leverage emerging scientific opportunities and collaborations. However, there are currently significant  gaps in the research management support available to these researchers and this has implications for research in India.

The India Research Management Initiative (IRMI) was launched by the Wellcome Trust/DBT (Department of Biotechnology, Government of India) India Alliance (hereafter India Alliance) in February 2018 to narrow these gaps. A 12-month pilot phase has enabled conversations across multiple stakeholders. In this Open Letter, we share some insights from the IRMI pilot phase, which could aid systemic development and scaling up of research management as a professional support service across India. We anticipate these will stimulate dialogue and guide future policy and interventions towards building robust research and innovation ecosystems in India.

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors. Publication in Wellcome Open Research does not imply endorsement by Wellcome.

Research and Innovation in India is supported through significant investments from the Government of India, international agencies and more recently from the private sector. The National Science and Technology Management Information System (NSTMIS) Division lists nearly 7000 research institutions in India, including Central and State Universities, Central Government research institutions, Public sector and Private sector institutions and others 1 . Over 50% of research in India is supported with public funds from the Government of India , channelled through sources including the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), Department of Science and Technology (DST), Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) 1 – 3 .

Research support from the Government of India to Indian investigators includes competitive extramural funding from government agencies, via a wide range of competitive grants, fellowships and international collaborative funding schemes 2 . There are additionally opportunities for research via international funding partnerships such as the Wellcome Trust/DBT India Alliance (hereafter India Alliance), European Molecular Biology Organization (EMBO) and the Human Frontier Science Program (HFSP). Several philanthropic organizations including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Simons Foundation, Tata Trusts and Wellcome Trust support investigators and research projects in India.

While robust systems for managing intramural funding to research institutions are in place, corresponding processes for helping Indian researchers compete successfully for extramural funds have lagged behind. The current funding landscape presents both a need and an opportunity for India to develop a sound support base for this purpose.

About the IRMI Pilot

Research management (RM) systems worldwide have evolved in unique ways, driven by the complexities of research and innovation, the funding landscape and collaborative opportunities 4 – 8 . As an early step towards understanding RM practices in India, the Wellcome Trust, UK commissioned a scoping study in 2016 on research management (RM) in India, which included five Indian research institutions receiving funding from the India Alliance 9 . The India Alliance subsequently coordinated a panel discussion titled “Research Development Offices: The Need of the Hour” at its 2017 Annual Fellows meeting. Additionally, a voluntary and anonymous survey of India Alliance Fellows was carried out in 2017 to assess existing support for laboratory, data and research management, and research misconduct. Only 18% of respondents in the survey confirmed the presence of a Research Development Office at their institutions 10 . These early steps highlighted the need for developing and sustaining RM support at Indian research institutions.

Following on from these exercises, the India Alliance formally launched the India Research Management Initiative ( IRMI ) in February 2018 as an India-led 12-month pilot study aimed at creating awareness for research management, engaging in dialogue with Indian institutions and building a baseline of information upon which to base future policy and funding opportunities. The IRMI pilot has allowed us access to scientific leadership, faculty members, research managers and administrators at 31 participating institutions ( Figure 1 , Figure 2 and Table 1 ), staff at major research funding agencies in India and members of the international research management community.

CSIR - Council of Scientific and Industrial Research

We interacted with individuals in roles supporting grant management, project management, scientific outreach, innovation management, academic programs, financial management, operations, policy development and ethics in India, hereafter defined as Research Managers and Administrators (RMAs).

Conversations with institutions were centred on a framework of three themes: (i) Leadership support for research management, (ii) sustainability of research offices, and (iii) career development needs for RMAs. Discussions with stakeholders were conducted via site visits, audio and video calls, IRMI workshops, panel discussions and social media. To gather funding agency inputs on pre-award and post-award matters, staff feedback from the India Alliance was collected for the quality of grants processes followed at institutions. These conversations have allowed us to build an initial picture of expectations, constraints and requirements for various stakeholders.

Insights from the IRMI pilot

A broader working definition of rm is required for india.

Indian institutions encourage their researchers to raise funds from extramural sources including the Government of India and other funders, both to further research and as peer-reviewed endorsement of their research. Several institutions therefore have in place dedicated grant management offices, such as the Project Management and Evaluations (PME) Cells at research institutions of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), wherein support services are largely centred around financial management and reporting on extramural grants. Such offices need to widen their scope, incorporate proactive approaches and provide more responsive support to researchers.

India now requires a more comprehensive and inclusive definition of RM, which is also acceptable across institutions as well as funders. A more contemporary view of RM includes grant management at pre-award and post-award stages, partnership building at national and international levels, outreach to funding agencies, ethics, policy, managing team-science, impact analysis and others. Indian institutions developing their RM activities would benefit from taking this broader international scope into account for creating well-structured support services which address specific research needs.

The beginnings of wider RM in India

In the last decade, a small number of research institutions have taken steps to create science-led RM structures that extend beyond financial management. The National Centre for Biological Sciences (NCBS) in Bengaluru, the Translational Health Science and Technology Institute (THSTI) in Faridabad and Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER) in Pune are pioneers, with operations including international activities, partnership building, grants management at pre- and post-award stages, outreach and ethics. These institutions have a track record of successfully attracting and managing diverse sources of external funding, including the highly competitive India Alliance fellowships. Researchers and the leadership at these institutions regard support from research offices to be crucial for their success, and include these in future planning.

Other government and privately funded institutions have also started investing more broadly in RM. Examples of these are the National Centre for Cell Science (NCCS) in Pune, Centre for Stem Cell Research (CSCR) in Vellore, Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI) in New Delhi, Shiv Nadar University in Delhi-National Capital Region (NCR), George Institute of Global Health (GIGH) in New Delhi, Tata Translational Cancer Research Centre (TTCRC) in Kolkata and Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE) in Bengaluru.

At some of these institutions, development of de novo RM structures has been driven by the lateral movement of scientific administrators trained at funding agencies including the Wellcome Trust, Department of Biotechnology and India Alliance. These professionals have transmitted funding best practices to their new organizations and have worked in close collaboration with visionary and supportive management teams to build research offices from first principles. These are promising developments, which should be amplified across many more institutions.

Building new research offices

At present, Indian investigators spend a significant fraction of their time on administration, including the time spent on individually following up on their grant submissions and active grants with funding agencies. In the words of an India Alliance staff member, “In the absence of a central office, grant holders are often fighting a lone battle. They have to individually follow up with various Departments and scientific leadership at their host institutions as well as funding agencies to ensure that all grant-related requirements are met. While they would prefer to focus on their research programs and mentoring early career staff, much of their time is spent chasing after such tasks”.

Professional research management advice and support can significantly reduce the administrative burden on researchers and improve the effectiveness of funding proposals 5 , 11 , 12 . Outreach to funding agencies via a well-functioning centralized office is required for efficiency and creating institutional memory, and would be immensely beneficial to individual researchers, particularly in the context of proactive fundraising from diverse sources.

Institutions should take the initiative to build RM structures to support their unique research priorities. This additionally requires consistently demonstrating the value of RM to researchers and administration alike, to ensure acceptance and long-term sustainability. Leaders should create a climate of trust and actively promote the use of their research offices. This would need to be done in parallel to building capacity in areas such as laboratory management.

Individual researchers at institutions can take an interest in developing their institutional grants offices, and provide inputs and constructive feedback into how such offices could best support their needs. They could also connect with peers across India, via leadership networks, shared administrative structures and platforms such as IndiaBioscience , to explore solutions to issues encountered in creating research offices in India.

Diversity of Indian research organizations: implications for RM

Research in India spans agricultural, biological, biomedical, chemical, physical, mathematical, earth, engineering and materials sciences, and other disciplines including social sciences. Institutions such as the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) impart quality education in medical and engineering disciplines, respectively, and are also well regarded for their research efforts 1 .

Systemic efforts at boosting RM in India should also take into account the operational sizes and administrative complexities of India’s myriad research institutes and universities 13 , 14 . This currently varies widely, with an average life sciences research institute supporting 30–70 faculty members and the universities, AIIMS, IITs and others having much larger faculty bodies. With changes to funding structures for central and state universities, these higher education centres will also need to establish RM systems suited to their unique requirements 15 .

Pre-award grant management- a missing element

Support from a central office at the pre-award stages was found to be available at only 9 of 31 institutions. In many cases, grant applicants did not have access to alerts about forthcoming deadlines, neutral professional advice on funding agency schemes and policies and alignment with institutional focus at the pre-award stage. Lack of awareness also made some researchers sceptical of the value of pre-award support, which was viewed as a hindrance or an administrative bottleneck.

Institutions have a responsibility to ensure that outgoing grant applications are compliant with legal, financial and ethical requirements. In addition, funders may have their own expectations with respect to matters such as IP, which need to have been considered by the institution. In the absence of structured pre-award services, the leadership at several Indian institutions often do not receive timely support with due diligence on applications, which leads to submission delays and avoidable errors in grant applications (conveyed to us by India Alliance staff).

The lack of proactive pre-award support can compromise both the ability of Indian researchers to identify and seek funding in a timely manner and institutional benefits from pre-award due-diligence and proper budgeting for grant proposals. This would feed forward into the ability of investigators to manage their grants in alignment with agency norms. This aspect of RM will need to be addressed, both from the perspective of changing attitudes and in developing in the required professional support at Indian institutions.

Team-science: reducing the administrative burden on investigators

Indian researchers are now increasingly participating in complex multi-institutional, often international, team-science projects to address major research questions. With India contributing to international consortia such as EMBO, HFSP and others, Indian researchers have an opportunity to participate and compete at a global level. Managing collaborations requires attention to several administrative considerations, both at pre-award and post-award stages, including budget support and due-diligence at the point of grant submission, project management, regular communication between partners, joint reporting responsibilities, IP management and cross-institutional integration of funding systems and requirements. Such activities would benefit from dedicated RM support for all collaborators, to reduce administrative burden on the investigators and facilitate seamless integration across all participating national and international stakeholders 16 – 19 .

Team-science efforts in India are being funded from both local and international sources and Indian institutions should be willing to request and justify direct resources for RM personnel on grants supporting team-science, rather than expecting their investigators to take care of all administrative requirements.

Sustainability of careers

India has a substantial pool of early career researchers trained to the PhD and postdoctoral levels. With limited academic positions, scientific administration at funding agencies and research institutions is emerging as an attractive career option. In parallel, there is an expectation from researchers that professionals with “blended” scientific and RM skills will be required to drive a wave of change within current administrative structures at their respective institutions 20 .

Scaling up RM in India will require the creation of long-term employment opportunities and career structures for RMAs at research institutions across the country. The availability of RM jobs in Indian research institutions should become the norm rather than an exception, as it currently stands. Institutions receiving core-funding from the Government of India face challenges in recruiting RMAs, particularly those with successful academic backgrounds. There is currently no clear path for hiring scientifically trained staff to purely management roles in research organizations supported by the government. Changes to present recruitment norms are required at the policy level to enable government-supported institutions to employ scientifically qualified research managers and create RM structures and roles.

Institutional overheads are globally accepted as a means of supporting research office costs. However, more clarity is needed in India about the use of grant overheads for recruitment of RMAs. It would be beneficial for institutions to work within their respective administrative frameworks to develop clear policies for costing overheads on grant proposals and to utilise a proportion of overheads received towards the recruitment of RMAs.

Capacity building

With the profession being at an early stage in India, concerted efforts on several fronts are required to prepare and develop an RMA workforce for the next decade. Training programs need to be coordinated in diverse areas of RM, at exploratory, beginner and advanced levels. In order to widen the scope of RM in India, RMAs need access to training modules in several aspects of RM. Training and exchange opportunities should be made available to RMAs in India, potentially through the work of multiple stakeholders.

Individuals with backgrounds in areas such as research, medicine, dentistry and public health would likely play key roles in shaping RM structures for Indian institutions, in a manner that caters to specific institutional requirements and priorities. The profession will hence need to be open to participation from a wider pool of staff with diverse training. Career development programs for Indian RMAs would have to take cognizance of these considerations and incorporate suitable standards.

There are already two RM training programs being offered in India. The Department of Science and Technology (DST) supports training of active scientists at different levels, which does not specifically cater to the career requirements of RMAs . Opening such courses to RMAs would significantly widen the benefits to institutions. Workshops on scientific administration are being supported through the Newton Bhabha Fund and offered by IISER Pune in partnership with the British Council and IndiaBioscience. These workshops, aimed at women candidates wishing to develop careers in scientific administration, have elicited growing interest from the community.

Indian RMAs would also benefit from inclusion in a global community of professionals. IRMI workshops and attendance of Indian delegates at INORMS 2018 were the first opportunities for Indian RMAs to interact with each other and with peers from other parts of the world. There is now a dedicated Linkedin page as an early online community for Indian RMAs. Such networking efforts require nurturing and development. In the longer term, once there is a sizeable RM community in India, it would be beneficial to have a professional association of RMAs, which would be expected to cater to future networking and career development needs of India’s RMAs and for ensuring their connectivity with the international RM community .

The gender issue

A recent survey has highlighted that in several countries, RM is female dominated 21 . This is true for India as well. At the IRMI institutions, the majority of RMAs from academic backgrounds are women at early or intermediate stages of their RM careers. The Indian research ecosystem needs to recognise the value of good RM support. It is important for RM to be accepted as a bona-fide profession and not be viewed as an optional route for retaining women with research backgrounds in the workforce, with the risk of their being relegated to ill-defined support roles with unclear paths for career progression.

Wider participation from other stakeholders

The primary mandate of the India Alliance, which supported the IRMI Pilot, is to enable biomedical research. Conversations during this phase show that RM systems in India need to be inclusive of all areas of science, including social sciences. Beyond IRMI, a wider effort would require collaboration between several funders to support this across disciplines. For maximum impact, the development of RM as a profession in India would require government commitment and participation.

Conclusions

Indian institutions must now invest in developing a sound RM support base for their investigators. Without such support, the time of a researcher and funds invested in research are not being optimally utilized. The lack of good RM support also risks future growth and the ability to sustainably attract extramural funding from government, private, philanthropic and international sources. Building RM as a viable profession in India will require concurrent creation of sustainable jobs at Indian institutions and training of RM aspirants at different levels. The nascent RMA community in India will benefit from the creation of a formal members association, which can then serve to channelize training, networking and international collaborative opportunities. Such an association could also function as an advocacy group for key funders supporting research in India. With wider participation from RMAs, institutions, mentors and funders, RM can grow considerably in India and make a significant impact on its research and innovation landscape.

Data availability

Acknowledgements.

The advisory group that helped develop a framework and international linkages for the IRMI pilot included Dr Simon Kay and Ms Claire Cunliffe at the Wellcome Trust and Dr John Kirkland, Chief Operating Officer of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. They are gratefully acknowledged.

The authors also thank staff members at the India Alliance, in particular Dr Madhankumar Anandhakrishnan, Dr Sarah Iqbal, Dr Banya Kar for their insights and inputs on the development of IRMI, and Ms. Saritha Vincent for logistics. Members of staff from the DBT and the DST are thanked for their participation in IRMI events through 2018. Support from research managers at all institutions participating in the IRMI initiative is gratefully acknowledged, in particular those attending INORMS 2018 and the IRMI workshops and discussions. Several members of the international RM community helped with ideas on RM as a global profession. We also thank all institutions and researchers who engaged with the IRMI pilot at site visits, workshops, panel discussions and on social media, and provided the essential researcher perspective for this initiative.

[version 2; peer review: 4 approved]

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust through a Wellcome/DBT India Alliance Grant [IA/IRMI/18/00001].

Reviewer response for version 2

Silke blohm.

1 Pan-African University, Gesellschaft für internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), Bonn, Germany

It is good to see that the authors have taken a significant number of peer reviewers’ comments into account, both with regards to establishing a clearer structure as well as a stronger integration of relevant literature. As a result, it reads a lot more fluid.

The paper is attempting to cover quite a wide range of topics within the subject of research management starting from work into an identified increased need for research management to the development of a profession of RMAs addressing this perceived need. These two parts at times still seem disconnected at times and conclusions are not always evidenced. 

The need for research management is mainly explained through an increase in external funding and documented through an overall low number of research support structures. This alone does not seem a strong argument for these support structures, even though practice in other countries would indicate the benefit of such offices. 

The development of the profession of RMAs is explored in more detail. I like the consideration of future career paths within the discipline which will play an important role in the sustainability of such roles and offices. What I would question here is the emphasis on the requirement of an academic background. Looking at regions where research support offices are well established seems to indicate a wide range of backgrounds in successful RMAs which would suggest that this complex field might need a mix of different skills (ranging from various academic (partly non-STEM) backgrounds, legal or financial qualifications, to a wider set of management and partly also leadership skills). In the slightly wider field of higher education management this is often referred to as the ‘third sector’.

Overall though, the article seems significantly stronger now. As previously said, this seems an important piece of work for a region where research support structures are emerging but are certainly still under researched. Hopefully it will increase the awareness for this subject and lead to an overall strengthening of research at Indian institutions. It also seems to provide a good starting point for future studies and research.

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Simon Kerridge

1 University of Kent, Canterbury, UK

It is gratifying to see that the authors have taken on board the various reviewers’ comments and have made significant efforts to address them.  The Open Letter is now, I think, much stronger; and makes better use of the evidence base, with far fewer unsubstantiated claims.  The coverage of the literature is also much improved, although perhaps the Colquhoun citation might be placed differently.  I would imagine that rather than being associated with “can significantly reduce the administrative burden on researchers and improve the effectiveness of funding proposals” that it might more naturally be associated with a phrase such as the “viewed as a hindrance or an administrative bottleneck” later in the text.

One area that I still have an issue with is the asserted perceived need for RMAs to have a scientific background. While this might be the norm for countries developing an RMA infrastructure, it does not appear as prevalent in countries that has a long history of RMA.  But perhaps this is natural evolution over time - an interesting area for research perhaps; similarly with the gender dynamic of the profession.

Overall the text and structure have been improved and I hope will increase the impact that the Open Letter will have.  In my view this professionalization of RMA is entirely the right direct of travel for building research capacity in India, and I hope that it will be a catalyst for continued change. I would like to congratulate the authors on their efforts.

Katrina Lawson

1 Oxford University Clinical Research Unit, Hanoi, Vietnam

2 University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

This version is much clearer. I think the argument you make for more development of Research Management capacity in India is strong, and the results of the IRMI pilot are also coming through much more clearly in this revised version.   

I still think that there is a lot more to say about the gender issue (this is an area where more research is needed!), and although I personally disagree that there is a strong need for RMAs to have science backgrounds, the reference to the pilot study data now shows clearly where this expectation has arisen from.  

I think this Open Letter is really important, and I hope that it leads to more attention for the need to develop Research Management Capacity in India.  

Congratulations to the author team.

Reviewer response for version 1

L.s. shashidhara.

1 Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Pune, Pune, Maharashtra, India

In the past ten years, we have seen massive expansion of S&T enterprise in India. Also, in the entire world the way science is pursued is also very different since the beginning of this millennium. All of this demands special category of scientific professionals trained in science management and administration in research/education institutes and universities. They should not only manage day-to-day activities of their organisation, they should also be in the forefront of planning, executing, assessing and communicating (to the policy makers, finance people and public at large) various educational and research activities in S&T. In this context, the survey and its analysis discussed in this article is timely and essential. 

The article has surveyed a good number of diverse organizations and has outlined the current status of Research management in India. As the article has pointed it out, unfortunately, except for a handful of organizations, in all organizations researchers themselves have to run around to get everything done. Since they are not specialized in these skills, they spend more time, but output is much wanted in terms of quality and quantity. 

The authors have also made some constructive suggestions on how to improve the situation. The work undertaken by the authors is commendable. 

However, much of the discussion is on managing grants. Research management goes beyond all this. People with necessary skills of framing policy so that science and its methods are widely used in all policy decisions for improved governance, people with good communication skills, people with administrative skills in setting up laboratories, procuring instruments and reagents, maintenance of equipment, graduate admissions (how to attract and select best students), facilitating national and international collaborations, and science entrepreneurship should be part of a good science management team of any medium size (100+ faculty) to large (400+ faculty) University/research institute. 

Perhaps, a follow up to this article, authors may consider taking up a survey on how institutional research ecosystem is managed in this country. Perception is, we are not managing well and there is no organizational policy in managing it. A systematic study would give an idea of what India-specific management needs are.

It is really great to see this report. As with many developing countries, the Research Administration landscape in India is evolving slowly and in a different way that the RA landscape in developed countries. It is rare for resources to be available to investigate and address the infrastructural environment that exists around research support, and the project that has led to the development of IRMI is immensely valuable, as evidenced in this article.

I think that the article could benefit from some more clear definitions of terms. 

Intramural vs extramural: Although it is undoubtedly common in India, I am not clear about what is considered intramural vs extramural funds, and the distinction appears to be significant for this piece. I initially thought that extramural meant competitive funding from outside of India, but now am not sure. How are intramural funds awarded to the researchers? Is it a competitive grant-making process?

Definition of RM: The article calls for broader definition of RM, but I’m not sure what the baseline definition is. Is it just financial accounting post-award? The example list of what would be included in a contemporary view of RM is quite all-encompassing – I wonder if there is benefit in providing more clarity around these functions, and perhaps a scale of development. I felt that this section was also a little bit in conflict with the assertion later on that each institution needs to build RM structures that support their unique research priorities.  I think this point is crucial – RM needs to reflect the needs of the research in each context, and there is no single perfect solution.

In the section about pre-award support, slightly more discussion around the concept of due diligence could be helpful. It would be good talk about the needs for institutions to comply with legal and ethical constraints, as well the constraints imposed by funders – which can be significant, particularly in terms of financial control and IP.

The team science point is very important. You could also specifically mention some of the administrative considerations involved in supporting collaborative research – including IP considerations, shared reporting responsibilities, conflicts of interest, research contract management, and financial reporting and liability for audit.

I think the point about gender is extremely valuable to make here, and you could make it more strongly. The fact that research administration globally is a female dominated profession is one of the direct reasons that it is undervalued. There is an entire PhD project that could be spent on this particular issue, but for the purposes of this article I would make the point more clearly that Research Administration is undervalued precisely because of gender discrimination. I think it’s not phrased quite right at the moment when you say RM is “a route for retaining scientifically trained women in the workforce”. I think the more obvious point is that RM is being used as a tool to exclude scientifically trained women from the scientific workforce. People should not be training for 15 years to become scientists, and then find that the only research-related work they can get is in the research office doing accounts. I think this also feeds into the capacity building section.  I am not sure of the reason why you seem to arguing that RMAs should preferably be trained scientists. A science background is sometimes an advantage in RM, and other times quite irrelevant. But insisting on a scientific background for the RMAs is probably contributing to the gender imbalance, and the filtering of female scientists into the research office and out of the lab.

Finally, the case for creating a professional association of RMAs in India is very strongly made here, in particular when considering the need for wider participation from other stakeholders. An RM professional network will be able to broker that support, and advocate for the needs of the research community in relation to RM.

This review was written under the assumption that the submitted  article is an opinion piece, rather than a scientific report.

The paper describes an important piece of work which seems very timely and is filling a gap within its regional context. The conclusions and recommendations seem compelling and would seem to align with findings/developments in other places. However, this connection is not explicitly made and not evidenced strongly enough. Here drawing on existing studies and publications, e.g. from existing research management associations or some academic studies and papers published, could significantly strengthen the paper.

The paper gives some important and insightful background on the historical development of research and related funding at Indian universities. This information is useful and would also benefit from references to supporting work and data. The paper then seems to jump too quickly to some initial conclusions before having outlined the foundation for these conclusions. Here a restructure of the order of chapters/paragraphs would help to development a clearer line of argument. It would seem useful to first give an introduction into the Indian HE and research funding landscape before then moving to what seems at the core of the paper, the IRMI pilot.

The authors have conducted what seems an impressive amount of work on data collection through surveys and individual discussions. The paper gives some insights into findings, overall though could make better use of this data and be more precise about findings and conclusions drawn. 

While these conclusions made might seem obvious and likely could be supported by data and case studies from similar developments in other regions, those links have not explicitly been drawn and not enough reference has been made to existing work in this area. This would seem a main weakness of this paper which could be addressed by cross-referencing findings and conclusions back to the data collected and to experiences/findings made in other regions/institutions.

Overall the reader would benefit from a clearer structure which would avoid jumping from observations to conclusions and back. Important aspects to cover would seem:

• a brief historical overview of research and research funding at Indian HEI, 
• an introduction of the pilot this article is based on, the methodology used and why it has been used,
• a brief summary of other work in this area, i.e. experiences of emerging research management/administration structures in other places (which would then later on support the conclusions drawn)
• findings from the pilot
• discussion of findings in context of the wider development of research management/administration globally
• conclusion/recommendation

Overall this is a very laudable and ambitious attempt at covering what seems a very large amount of work and data. The paper is also entering a field that overall still seems ‘under-researched’ with limited publications available. The paper would seem an important piece of work to contribute to the overall body of literature on evolving research support structures in HEIs. 

The intent of this Open Letter might be to give an overview of the pilot study and some initial findings rather than embedding the work in a comprehensive sector and literature review. In this case a clearer focus on giving an introduction into the pilot and its aims and where possible sharing some initial findings might be a more realistic achievement in this paper. It would seem crucial to cross-reference and evidence any findings and conclusions.

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

Overall the Open Letter is clear and compelling - India should invest in Research Management and Administration (RMA) infrastructure in order to better support researchers in their endeavours.  The specific recommendation for the creation of a national association for RMAs is also welcome.  However some of the assertions are not underpinned with evidence, at least not with evidence provided in the article.

This is a real shame as the overall argument is (in my opinion) sound, but it is perhaps because of my experience as an RMA that I believe this, rather than with the evidence presented in the article - in some cases the Open Letter does not provide evidence for the assertions made.  However it does appear that much evidence will have been gathered in the IRMI work.  This could perhaps be more explicitly and directly drawn into the Open Letter – one method could be the incorporation of quotes from participants; but this could be problematic post hoc, and would perhaps change the tone of the article.  Another is to provide more detail on claims, for example “At present, Indian investigators spend a significant fraction of their time on administration…” there is no indication of what this fraction might be, or how the data to make the assertion was collected.

In terms of unsupported assertions, another example is "Collaborative proposals involving Indian institutions lacking research offices often suffer delays, inadequate due diligence, undercosting of proposals on the Indian side, inadequate overheads and sluggish project management." - is this the case, where is the evidence?  It seems (to me) to be a reasonable assertion, and one I presume that came from the IRMI work – but the authors do not state this.  However, most of these assertions do reflect the findings of others, but again they are not referenced.

India / IRMI specific assertions were similarly unsupported, for example “Support from a central office at the pre-award stages was found to be available at only a small minority of institutions.” How many of the 31 institutions looked at was this?  There is no underlying dataset to help answer this.

One specific assertion that I do not quite follow is: “Individuals with backgrounds in areas such as science, medicine, dentistry and public health would likely play key roles in shaping RM structures for Indian institutions, in a manner that caters to specific institutional requirements and priorities.”  As shown in their 4 th reference (disclaimer, this was work I led), around the world, RMAs come from a wide variety of academic backgrounds.  It is not clear why this would be focussed around science and medicine in India.  However the IRMI work was based around institutions predominantly it seems in these subject areas and so perhaps, given the newness of the profession in India and the apparent propensity in countries where RMA is developing for RMAs initially to be researchers moving into administration, then perhaps this is to be expected.

One specific weakness is in addressing opposing views.  This is only highlighted with the sentence “Lack of awareness also makes some researchers sceptical of the value of pre-award support, which was viewed as a hindrance or an administrative bottleneck.” which is then not countered or debated.  For example David Colquhoun makes some strong statements http://www.dcscience.net/DC-research-fortnight-020610.pdf ; however the majority of the literature suggests that “good” research support can indeed unencumber the researcher from administrative burden, and even help improve the chances for research bids to be successful. See for example Pamela F. Miller (2017) 1 , and Natasha G. Wiebe and Eleanor Maticka-Tyndale (2017) 2 .

Given the use of the worded “blended” in terms of professionalism, one might have expected a reference to the work of Celia Whitchurch.  In general there is a low level of citation.

I would have liked to see “Research Management” and “RMA” included in the keywords.

Overall the authors are to be commended in covering such a large amount of ground in such a short space, however this does perhaps mean that the reader has to take some assertions on face value.  Perhaps as an Open Letter, to provoke debate, this is not unreasonable but the arguments would be much stronger with the evidence base that the IRMI work surely produced – allowing the conclusions to be properly justified.

In summary, the effectiveness of Research Management and Administration is in general an under researched area, and this Open Letter and its recommendations are welcomed, but is felt that some work is needed to show robust evidence for the conclusions made.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Sign up for alerts
• 14 February 2019

Improving research ecosystems in India

• Shahid Jameel &
• Savita Ayyar

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

To compete, Indian institutions must create enabling environments for world-class research. © S. Priyadarshini

When Arun Shukla returned as an assistant professor at the Indian Institute of Technology-Kanpur, he was sceptical about staying competitive. Having trained with Nobel Laureates for his PhD and postdoctoral work in Germany and the United States, Arun worried about infrastructure, funding, and opportunities to collaborate internationally. Through the years, his worries have been echoed by many researchers returning to India after training overseas.

India has invested significantly in building its science and innovation base: supporting researchers at various career stages, creating new institutions and governance systems, offering interdisciplinary research opportunities, initiating large-scale infrastructure projects, and developing high-end research facilities.

Today, India publishes the world’s sixth largest number of peer-reviewed research papers; these numbers have grown at an annual rate of 14% compared to a global average of 4%. Though still under 1% of GDP, science funding has increased each year for more than 20 years. A National postdoctoral programme has taken shape with government funding of 2,500 postdoctoral fellowships a year. A startup ecosystem is putting down roots, and academia is building links with industry.

Support for research

Despite these efforts, the question remains: does India have an enabling environment to support researchers like Arun, who are returning in growing numbers? Institutional environments are a mixed bag, with few providing mentorship, flexible funding and tenure. Most institutions are hierarchical.

A recent survey of scientists published in Nature showed vast leadership gaps with highly variable mentorship, training and institutional support. An anonymous survey of Wellcome Trust/DBT India Alliance Fellows tried to assess the situation in India. Of the 60 respondents, only about 50 per cent received formal or informal mentorship and career development support at their institutions. Significantly, 15 per cent also reported research misconduct cases in their labs, which were addressed through internal mechanisms. The survey also revealed inadequate support for academic leadership (40 per cent), lab management (35 per cent), data management (15 per cent), research misconduct (58 per cent) and technology transfer (53 per cent). Though all institutions in India provide some support for financial management of extramural projects, only 18 per cent respondents said their institution has a research development office.

To compete, Indian institutions must create enabling environments for world-class research. This would involve processes for the recruitment and assessment of competent and motivated faculty, early-career researchers and support staff; setting up accessible and affordable infrastructure; and developing research management capacity and collaborations that add value. In such endeavours, other stakeholders such as funding agencies also need to come forward to build partnerships with institutions. Hiring the right people, who fit the institutional culture and vision, and to mentor, nurture and support them with adequate resources, is critical.

However, most Indian institutions standardise input with varying output instead of the other way around. The quality of periodic assessments is variable, often without a performance-driven system of reward or criticism, which breeds complacency, except where overcome by individual ambition and brilliance. For instance, the India Alliance tries to look hard for the right people, fund them flexibly and generously, and assess them critically. Fellows embrace this and make a positive impact by being more critical of their own work, as well as that of others when they serve on review committees.

Diversity in science

Ensuring diversity encourages big-picture thinking and introduces different ways of achieving excellence. In India while 50 per cent or more science undergraduates, postgraduates and PhD students are women, only about 15 per cent occupy faculty positions in science departments. Intervention is needed to keep women competitive as they manage careers and family. India Alliance gives due importance to career breaks, including maternity leave. Fellows are also given a one-year full cost extension of fellowship following a maternity leave. Institutional measures, such as increasing recruitment age, time to tenure, and daycare facilities are needed to make a level playing field.

Formal institutional mechanisms are needed to support research management and academic leadership. Expecting a researcher to be entirely self managing is often detrimental. Indian researchers need to be sensitised about new roles that help balance the time they spend on research and administration. Research management includes a set of activities conducted at the boundaries of research and is now essential for optimal output. These include support to identify funding opportunities, managing programmes, public engagement, impact analysis, and ethics. Research management requires blended skills, spanning academic, creative and administrative functions. Few institutions in India have structured management support.

To create awareness about research management, the recently launched the India Research Management Initiative (IRMI) aims to help institutions share ideas, identify gaps, and find sustainable solutions. More than 30 institutions have formally registered with IRMI and several others have reached out. Workshops have highlighted issues with sustainability of careers in research management and the challenges of building formal networks and training, given the relative scarcity of institutional research offices. This is being followed up with ways to connect research managers locally via online working groups, courses and networking events. An international networking opportunity for research managers is showing best global practices.

Most science is technology intensive, making it difficult for an individual or institution to master or afford everything, underpinning the importance of cutting-edge core facilities, technical support and collaborations. Funders must establish such facilities and institutions require practices that encourage their use. Research offices can support with raising and managing funds for shared facilities.

The late management expert, Peter Drucker, once said: “Three things happen naturally in organizations: friction, confusion and underperformance. Everything else requires leadership”. Good leadership demands a vision, awareness of one’s strengths and weaknesses, and the ability to form partnerships and manage conflicts to achieve that vision. This requires marshalling resources, whether facilities, funds or people. These skills do not come naturally to researchers, who take on administrative responsibilities in addition to their research, often without training.

Indian science needs to connect better with global efforts to address problems unique to India, but relevant in the global context, and to ensure that research capacity is built in a sustainable manner. A robust ecosystem is needed for India to fully participate in global science, through visionary leadership, enabling practices, global visibility, mobility and support for building partnerships, the ability to gain and manage funding, and public engagement.

(*CEO, India Alliance. **Consultant, Jaquaranda Tree, Bengaluru.)

[Nature India Custom Edition: Decade of Discovery]

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nindia.2019.17

Reprints and permissions

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Current Status of ShodhGangotri: Repository of Indian Research in Progress

Related Papers

Universities are highly responsible for developing new theories through innovative research studies in all around the globe. Students and scholars are putting their best efforts to produce new facts and principles in these centres of higher studies. In India we have around 350 universities and every year almost more than 12000 PhDs are being produced by these universities. Avoiding duplication of research work is a serious matter of concern to all nations. Innovations in ICTs become a boon to avoid duplication as well as utilization of these studies. An electronic submission of these dissertations and theses are known as ETDs. Modern information and communication technology (ICT) acts as an effective intervener for paradigm shifting from closed access theses and dissertations to open access electronic theses and dissertations (ETD). The present study brings out grate opportunity to the library professionals to implement makes the initiatives to create the MoU from Shodhganga from INFLIBNET for the purpose of submission of electronic theses and dissertations. Nearly 202 universities from 29 States of India are registered in Shodhganga as on 25 th march 2015. It is highlighted one that among the 29 States of India, 32 universiti es from Tamil Nadu are registered in the ETD repository scheme of INFLIBNET. It is encourage one that within three months of 2015, 16 universities are register MoU with INFLIBNET for Shodhganga and it may break the earlier records of registration within end of the 2015. Among the 29 States, 202 universities were signed MoU, It is noticed that 54 universities are registered in 2013, 51 universities in 2012, 38 universities registered in 2011 and 10 universities registered in 2010, as on March 2015, 16 universities are registered MoU with INFLIBNET for Shodhganga. It understands from the table that 14 Government universities and 18 private universities from Tamil Nadu are register with Shodhganga. In the second position, 17 government and 7 private universities from Maharashtra registered for Shodhganga. Among the top 25 Indian university in these list, 5 state universities like such as follow as Anna university, Periyar University, Bharathidasan University, Manonmanian Sundarnar University and Bharathiar University are submitting more ETD to Shodhganga.

Prof. Rupak Chakravarty

INFLIBNET (information library network) has gradually emerged as the backbone of the higher education sector of India. The remarkable initiatives taken by the INFLIBNET strive for strengthening and supporting information needs of the students, scholars, teachers, scientists, and peers. Scholars all around the world would be thankful to the INFLIBNET for their marvelous and ambitious project in the direction of bringing millions of theses and dissertation under the umbrella of OA. With 166,675 full-text ETD items and growing, it qualifies to be called a massive digital library (MDL). This chapter discusses the salient features, significance, and implications of the Shodhganga. It also discusses Shodhgangotri, a database consisting of approved research proposal submitted by the research scholars. The chapter concludes with discussion on the evaluation report of the Shodhganga website with the web-analyzer software Nibbler.

Raja Iqbalnabi

ETDs can contain non-text elements such as multimedia, sound, video, and hypertext links. This enables scholars worldwide to locate, search, and download ETDs. For most scholars, the the Ph.D thesis and M.phil dissertations are the first major work of scholarship they produce. To make those works more readily available to other scholars, as well as to save money, many universities and libraries are now making digitized (or electronic) versions available. The Shodhganga@INFLIBNET is set-up using open source digital repository software called DSpace developed by MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) in partnership between Hewlett- Packard (HP). The DSpace uses internationally recognized protocols and interoperability standards. Shodhganga provides a platform for research scholars to deposit their Ph.D. theses and make it available to the entire scholarly community in open access. An attempt has been made to determine the present status of participating Indian Universities in Shodganga.

Birender Pal

Data and Information are an integral component resulting to form the knowledge. In terms of research information management (e-resource), the Institutional Repository (IR) has played an immense role. Research data is another important asset of research which needs to be properly managed. The situations of research data management in European, American and Australian continents is very much advanced and are having a well research data management platform for their researcher. But when we study the research data management aspect basically in Indian context, then the situation is quite different than the other countries of the world. In Indian universities, a lot of research data has been collected by the researcher which is unutilized after the completion of research. This paper explores that what is the present status of research data management policy in Indian context. It also highlights on how India can have the research data management policy in the field of academics. It furthe...

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)

Dr.subhash dhule

digbijoy das

Social Science Research Network

Parishmita Hazarika

Ankita Saloi

The present study attempts to evaluate the contributions made by the central universities of Northeast India to the open access repository of Shodhganga by INFLIBNET. Out of total 10 central universities of Northeast India, 9 Universities have already signed with MoU of Shodhganga repository and all are contributing their theses and dissertations to this project. North Eastern Hill University (NEHU) made the first initiative to signed MoU with Shodhganga and it has the highest numbers of 2,093 contributions in the repository and ranked 1st among all the central universities of Northeast India. Department of Education of North Eastern Hill University (NEHU) has the highest numbers of contribution in the repository of Shodhganga by INFLIBNET. English was the most preferred language for the theses and dissertations of the central universities of Northeast India.

Siva Kimidi

The digital content produced now a days is enormous and in this connection libraries role at various level is crucial. Higher educational institutions generate and make available a quantum of digital academic and scholarly content. The crossover from print to electronic databases in the libraries is playing prominent role to collect, archive, maintain and publish the content. In this context, the establishment of institutional repository is an important step towards enhancing the visibility of the educational institute across the globe. Research Archive of Indian Institute of Technology, Hyderabad (RAIITH) is built and managed by using open source software (Eprints). Also it discusses about the methods used to collect, collate and publish scholarly content in RAIITH. The challenges come across during the implementation and the testing phase were well addressed. In addition, to complement the traditional citation-based metrics, the latest metric tool viz. Altmetric is structured for ...

OCLC Systems & …

Filbert Minj

RELATED PAPERS

Felipe Hernández

haifa sallem

International Journal of Information Technology and Computer Science

Utpal Biswas

Plant Journal

Mauro Carneiro

Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública

Alejandro Zeballos

Journal of Modern Physics

Shantaram Vasikarla

Barnita Ghosh

Ukrainian Journal of Ecology

Mohammadali Rowshanzamir

Journal of Turkish Studies

João Ricardo Martins

Erciyes Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Fen Bilimleri Dergisi

atilla temur

Susana Bandieri

International Journal of Indian Psychology

shelly bhagat

Geoheritage

Teresa Mota

Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

Akash Singh

Journal of Pure and Applied Microbiology

Associate Prof. Dr. Hany M . Yehia

Besek Bambu Untuk Hantaran

maya tutugama

Nordic Journal of Botany

Karl-georg Bernhardt

FEBS Letters

Atsushi Ikai

Pedagogická Orientace

Erich Petlak

Charles Fawole

Nature Astronomy

James O Chibueze

Journal of Education and Culture

Nurul Aulia

Revista Topoi

Topoi. Revista de História , Luciana Murari

Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas

andrei isnardis

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Outcomes research resources in India: current status, need and way forward

Affiliation.

• 1 Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik, Maharashtra India.
• PMID: 24171151
• PMCID: PMC3804670
• DOI: 10.1186/2193-1801-2-518

Background: Despite their importance, the number of outcomes research studies conducted in India are lesser than other countries. Information about the distribution of existing outcomes research resources and relevant expertise can benefit researchers and research groups interested in conducting outcomes research studies and policy makers interested in funding outcomes research studies in India. We have reviewed the literature to identify and map resources described in outcomes research studies conducted in India.

Methods: We reviewed the following online biomedical databases: Pubmed, SCIRUS, CINAHL, and Google scholar and selected articles that met the following criteria: published in English, conducted on Indian population, providing information about outcomes research resources (databases/registries/electronic medical records/electronic healthcare records/hospital information systems) in India and articles describing outcomes research studies or epidemiological studies based on outcomes research resources. After shortlisting articles, we abstracted data into three datasets viz. 1. Resource dataset, 2. Bibliometric dataset and 3. Researcher dataset and carried out descriptive analysis.

Results: Of the 126 articles retrieved, 119 articles were selected for inclusion in the study. The tally increased to 133 articles after a secondary search. Based on the information available in the articles, we identified a total of 91 unique research resources. We observed that most of the resources were Registries (62/91) and Databases ( 23/91) and were primarily located in Maharashtra (19/91) followed by Tamil Nadu (11/91), Chandigarh (8/91) and Kerala (7/91) States. These resources primarily collected data on Cancer (44/91), Stroke (5/91) and Diabetes (4/91). Most of these resources were Institutional (38/91) and Regional resources (35/91) located in Government owned and managed Academic Institutes/Hospitals (57/91) or Privately owned and managed non - Academic Institutes/Hospitals (14/91). Data from the Population based Cancer Registry, Mumbai was used in 41 peer reviewed publications followed by Population based Cancer Registry, Chennai (17) and Rural Cancer Registry Barshi (14). Most of the articles were published in International journals (139/193) that had an impact factor of 0-1.99 (43/91) and received an average of 0-20 citations (55/91). We identified 193 researchers who are mainly located in Maharashtra (37/193) and Tamil Nadu (24/193) states and Southern (76/193) and Western zones (47/193). They were mainly affiliated to Government owned & managed Academic Institutes /Hospitals (96/193) or privately owned and managed Academic Institutes/ Hospitals (35/193).

Conclusions: Given the importance of Outcomes research, relevant resources should be supported and encouraged which would help in the generation of important healthcare data that can guide health and research policy. Clarity about the distribution of outcomes research resources can facilitate future resource and funding allocation decisions for policy makers as well as help them measure research performance over time.

Keywords: India; Outcomes research; Research resources.

UNESCO Science Report 2021

In India (chapter 22), the government launched the Digital India programme in 2015 to transform the ecosystem of public services. Sharp growth in access to Internet has fuelled the digital economy, including e-commerce. 

The flagship Make in India programme has sought to promote investment in manufacturing and related infrastructure, among other things. Although it may have helped to improve the business environment, it has had little tangible impact on manufacturing itself. Since Covid-19, the manufacturing sector has been developing frugal (low-cost) technologies, including lung ventilators.  

Since 2016, the Start-up India initiative has boosted the number of start-ups but these remain concentrated in the services sector, in general, and software development, in particular. 

Overall research intensity remains stagnant and the density of scientists and engineers remains one of the lowest among BRICS countries, despite having risen somewhat. 

The government has reduced the tax incentive for firms conducting R&D, which is consistent with the finding of the previous UNESCO Science Report (2015) that the tax regime had ‘not resulted in the spread of an innovation culture across firms and industries’. Pharmaceuticals and software still account for the majority of patents. Although inventive activity by Indian inventors has surged, foreign multinational corporations remain assignees for the vast majority of patents.  

The phenomenon of ‘jobless growth’ that has plagued India since 1991 has worsened. Moreover, in 2017, the size of the workforce contracted for the first time since independence. Another concern is the low employability of graduates, including those enrolled in STEM subjects, although this indicator did improve over 2014–2019. The ambitious National Skills Development Mission aims to train about 400 million Indians over 2015–2022.  

Air and water pollution remain life-threatening challenges in India. The government is striving for universal electrification and the diffusion of electric and hybrid vehicles.  

Selected data

almost doubling each year since 2016

India’s top cross-cutting strategic tech subject by volume

of all Indian students in higher education in 2018

Infographics

• Figure 22.1 : Socio-economic trends in India  
• Figure 22.2 : Trends in research expenditure in India  
• Figure 22.3 : Trends in scientific publishing in India  
• Figure 22.4 : Trends in Innovation in India  
• Figure 22.5 : Revenue foregone in India as a result of R&D tax incentive, 2008–2019  
• Figure 22.6 : Trends in human resources in India  
• Table 22.1 : Indian pharmaceutical companies active in Covid-19 vaccine research, 2020  
• Table 22.2 : Indian strategies and policies for Industry 4.0 technologies 

India in the UNESCO Science Report

Continue reading.

The World Bank In India

With a population of more than 1.4 billion, India is the world’s largest democracy. Over the past decade, the country’s integration into the global economy has been accompanied by economic growth. India has now emerged as a global player.

AT A GLANCE

India is one of the fastest growing economies of the world and is poised to continue on this path, with aspirations to reach high middle income status by 2047, the centenary of Indian independence. It is also committed to ensuring that its continued growth path is equipped to deal with the challenges of climate change, and in line with its goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2070.

The growth of the past two decades has also led to India making remarkable progress in reducing extreme poverty. Between 2011 and 2019, the country is estimated to have halved the share of the population living in extreme poverty - below $2.15 per person per day (2017 PPP) (World Bank Poverty and Inequality Portal and Macro Poverty Outlook, Spring 2023). In recent years, however, the pace of poverty reduction has slowed especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, but has since moderated in 2021-22.

Certain challenges persist. Inequality in consumption continues, with a Gini index of around 35 over the past two decades. Child malnutrition has remained high, with 35.5 percent of children under the age of 5 years being stunted, with the figure rising to 67 percent for children in the 6-59 months age group. Headline employment indicators have improved since 2020 but concerns remain about the quality of jobs created and the real growth in wages, as well as around the low participation of women in the laborforce.

India’s aspiration to achieve high income status by 2047 will need to be realized through a climate-resilient growth process that delivers broad-based gains to the bottom half of the population. Growth-oriented reforms will need to be accompanied by an expansion in good jobs that keeps pace with the number of labor market entrants. At the same time, gaps in economic participation will need to be addressed, including by bringing more women into the workforce.

The World Bank is partnering with the government in this effort by helping strengthen policies, institutions, and investments to create a better future for the country and its people through green, resilient, and inclusive development.

Economic Outlook

After real GDP contracted in FY20/21 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, growth bounced back strongly in FY21/22, supported by accommodative monetary and fiscal policies and wide vaccine coverage. Consequently, in 2022, India emerged as one of the fastest growing economies in the world, despite significant challenges in the global environment – including renewed disruptions of supply lines following the rise in geopolitical tensions, the synchronized tightening of global monetary policies, and inflationary pressures.

In FY22/23, India’s real GDP expanded at an estimated 6.9 percent. Growth was underpinned by robust domestic demand, strong investment activity bolstered by the government’s push for investment in infrastructure, and buoyant private consumption, particularly among higher income earners. The composition of domestic demand also changed, with government consumption being lower due to fiscal consolidation.

Since Q3 FY22/23, however, there have been signs of moderation, although the overall growth momentum remains robust. The persisting headwinds – rising borrowing costs, tightening financial conditions and ongoing inflationary pressures – are expected to weigh on India’s growth in FY23/24. Real GDP growth is likely to moderate to 6.3 percent in FY23/24 from the estimated 6.9 percent in FY22/23.

Both the general government fiscal deficit and public debt to GDP ratio increased sharply in FY20/21 and have been declining gradually since then, with the fiscal deficit falling from over 13 percent in FY20/21 to an estimated 9.4 percent in FY22/23. Public debt has fallen from over 87 percent of GDP to around 83 percent over the same period. The consolidation has largely been driven by an increase in revenues and a gradual withdrawal of pandemic-related stimulus measures. At the same time, the government has remained committed to increasing capital spending, particularly on infrastructure, to boost growth and competitiveness.

Last Updated: Sep 27, 2023

THE WORLD BANK GROUP AND INDIA

The World Bank Group’s (WBG) over seven decade-long partnership with India is strong and enduring. Since the first loan to Indian Railways in 1949, the WBG’s financing, analytical work, and advisory services have contributed to the country’s development. International Development Association – the WBG’s soft-lending arm created for developing countries like India - has supported activities that have had a considerable impact on universalizing primary education; empowering rural communities through a series of rural livelihoods projects; revolutionizing agriculture through support of the Green and White (milk) Revolutions; and helping to combat polio, tuberculosis, and HIV/AIDS.   In FY18, the relationship reached a major milestone when India became a low middle-income country and graduated from International Development Association financing.

COUNTRY PARTNERSHIP FRAMEWORK

The WBG’s present engagement with India is guided by its Country Partnership Framework for FY18-22 (CPF).  The CPF builds on the decades-long partnership and seeks to address the country’s development aspirations and priority needs identified in the Group’s  Systematic Country Diagnostic for India . It aims to work with India so that the country’s rapidly growing economy makes much more efficient use of resources; fosters inclusiveness by investing in human capital and generating more quality jobs; and develops strong public sector institutions that are capable of meeting the demands of a rising middle-class economy. The CPF’s approach combines a focus on ‘what’ the WBG will work on and ‘how’ it will engage India in the process.  What  will   the WBG work on?

• Promoting resource-efficient growth , including in the rural, urban, and energy sectors as well addressing disaster risk management and air pollution;
• Enhancing competitiveness and enabling job creation , including improving the business climate, access to finance, connectivity, logistics, skilling, and increasing female labor force participation;
• Investing in human capital  through early childhood development, education, health, social protection, and rural water supply and sanitation. 

How  will the WBG amplify the impact of its work in India?

• By leveraging the  private sector
• By harnessing India’s  federalism
• By strengthening  public institutions
• By supporting  Lighthouse India  to foster knowledge exchanges within the country and between India and the rest of the world. 

In all its activities, the WBG will seek to address  climate change, gender gaps,  and the  challenges and opportunities afforded by technology .  

WORLD BANK GROUP PROGRAM

The World Bank’s lending program consists of 98 lending operations. Of the $21.4 billion in commitments, $19.3 billion is from IBRD, $2.0 billion is from IDA – the Bank’s soft lending arm - and $0.1 billion is from other sources, primarily grant funding from the Global Environment Fund. 

Roughly a little more than one third of these operations and around 40% of commitments are either for central or multi-state operations, while the remainder consists of state-specific operations in 26 of India’s 28 states. 

The four largest portfolios are  Agriculture  (15 operations totaling $3.1 billion in commitments),  Energy , (11 projects totaling $4.0 billion in commitments), Health, Nutrition & Population  (11 projects totaling $2.8 billion) and Transport  and Water (11 projects each totaling $2.5 billion respectively).

In FY23, the Bank approved 15 operations amounting to $4.37 billion.  Of this, $ 4.32 billion is lending from IBRD and $0.05 billion from IDA (recommitted from cancelled IDA programs). Around 15-18 projects are expected to be delivered in FY24, with total commitments in the range of $3.5 – 4 billion.

For the IFC, India is the biggest client country, accounting for over 10 percent of its global portfolio with a committed portfolio of US$6.5 billion as of June 30, 2023. IFC has more than 250+ active projects in sectors including infrastructure, health, energy, manufacturing, housing, technology, and finance. Since its first engagement in 1958, IFC has invested more than US$27 billion (including mobilization) in over 500 companies in India. India is the sixth largest shareholder in IFC, owning a 4.01 percent stake.

IBRD and IFC work together in several areas, most notably in energy, transport, water and health. The World Bank partnership has been particularly strong in raising financing for renewable energy initiatives, especially in supporting the Government of Madhya Pradesh in setting up the largest solar park project that provides solar power with a total capacity of 2.25 gigawatts at a record low cost, reducing carbon emissions by 3.8 million metric tons per year and powering 60% of the Delhi metro. Similarly, IFC and IBRD collaborated under the Government of India’s flagship Clean Ganga program, ‘ Namami Gange ,’ helping revamp sewage treatment plants using hybrid annuity-based PPP projects, treating 218 million liters of water per day in three cities, and contributing to the steady rejuvenation of the sacred river for millions. IFC led the PPP mandate, while IBRD loan facilitated payment guarantees to boost private sector participation in the sector.

The Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) does not have exposure in India. MIGA has been working closely with the Ministry of Finance to provide credit enhancement solutions at the state-level and state-owned enterprise (SOE) level. This will enable state governments and SOEs to utilize long-term commercial financing, which can complement concessional lending provided by other multilaterals and development finance institutions.

The WBG has a wide-ranging program of Advisory Services & Analytics. The program informs policy debate, provides analytical underpinnings and learnings for operations and strategy, facilitates the scale up of innovative solutions, and helps to improve state capability. As of October 2021, some 18 analytical studies and 15 advisory activities were ongoing. Key areas of focus include  poverty and macroeconomic analysis ,  financial sector reform ,  enhancing human capital including universal health coverage  and  gender ,  air quality management , as well as  state capability and governance . 

*FY23 means Financial Year from July 2022 - June 2023

WBG financing supported India’s achievement of numerous results over the past five years, highlights of which include:

Education : The World Bank’s approximately $2.7 billion support for education in India covers primary, secondary, and tertiary education, as well as skills development for its young population.  

The World Bank’s $250 million Skill India Mission Operation (SIMO) is backing Central and State government initiatives to skill young people—including the disadvantaged and vulnerable—to acquire the skills needed for a wide range of jobs that are in demand in the market. The project has trained almost 6 million young people, 34 percent of whom are women. Some 40 percent of the trainees were employed within six months of completing their course.

The World Bank also supports state government programs for reforms in primary and senior secondary education. School education projects in Andhra Pradesh , Chhattisgarh , Gujarat and Nagaland are helping strengthen foundational learning of the students, provide training and resources for the professional development of teachers, and use data-driven programs to  improve learning assessment systems for remedial education.

A new World Bank program - Multidisciplinary Education and Research Improvement in Technical Education Project   to be implemented in 14 States and Union Territories will support research and innovation in climate change and sustainable energy. The program is expected to benefit around 350,000 students. In Madhya Pradesh and Odisha , reforms in tertiary education have helped close to 2 million students from disadvantaged groups get access to quality higher education and skills, making them more employable.

Social Protection :

During the COVID-19 pandemic, World Bank support of $1.65 billion through two projects, Accelerating India’s COVID-19 Social Protection Response Program  and Creating a Coordinated and Responsive Indian Social Protection System  helped protect the poor and vulnerable through transfers in cash and kind. About 320 million vulnerable people received cash transfers into their bank accounts.  About 800 million people received additional food rations.

In Jharkhand , a market-driven skills training and secondary education program has helped set up about 13,000 strong community level clubs that provide skills and education to over one million adolescent girls and young women.

In West Bengal , an ongoing program is providing social protection services to poor and vulnerable groups, with a focus on strengthening institutions for delivering care to elderly persons and those with disabilities. The program is also working to increase female labor force participation. Digital transfers through the Jai Bangla Platform reached 3.1 million beneficiaries in the first half of 2023.  

The World Bank’s current health portfolio in India of around $2.8 billion includes both national and state-level projects:

A $1 billion COVID-19 Emergency Response Project helped the government strengthen health facilities in states, procure essential medical supplies – such as testing-equipment and kits, personal protective equipment, gloves, masks, and oxygen cylinders. It also helped insure 2.2 million frontline health workers. In addition, it helped expand health facilities dedicated to COVID-19, raising their number from 163 in March 2020 to more than 23,000 in June 2022.  Over 926 million COVID-19 tests were supported and 3,362 testing laboratories created.

An additional $1 billion in World Bank support is helping the government strengthen health service delivery . This includes all aspects of pandemic preparedness and response , improving real-time disease surveillance, better One Health coordination and enhancing  capacity for biosecurity.

World Bank is also supporting the National Tuberculosis (TB) Elimination Program to improve success rates of treatment, including of multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB). It is also scaling up direct transfer of cash benefits into the bank accounts of TB patients.

In Andhra Pradesh , Meghalaya , Mizoram , Nagaland , Tamil Nadu , and Uttarakhand ongoing programs focus on improving the quality of health care services, and strengthening the management of non-communicable diseases. In Uttarakhand, clusters of public health facilities, using a public private partnership (PPP) model, now have specialists available regularly, resulting in improved service delivery.  Digital health strategies for improved service delivery are being implemented in Andhra Pradesh, Nagaland and Tamil Nadu.

Rural Water Supply and Sanitation : Since 2000, World Bank projects have contributed over $2.8 billion in financing for rural water supply and sanitation. About 30 million people from over 30,000 villages—with populations ranging from 150 to 15,000—have gain better access to drinking water. About 167 million rural people have benefitted from improved sanitation. Many of the projects have helped promote women’s participation in discussions around changing age-old sanitation behaviors. Local institutions have been strengthened to improve operations and maintenance of water and sanitation infrastructure and upgrade service delivery.

Agriculture

World Bank-financed projects are promoting climate resilient agriculture in Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra Odisha and Tamil Nadu. The focus is on introducing climate smart technologies, using water more efficiently, adopting crop diversification for better soil health and using climate resilient seeds.  World Bank is also focusing on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and using clean energy in post-harvest activities. Since 2016, World Bank-financed projects have brought around 1.7 million hectares of land under climate resilient agriculture.  Around 2 million farmers are adopting improved agriculture technologies.

Empowering Rural Women

Since 2003, World Bank has provided $2.2 billion in support of the Women’s Self-Help Group (SHG) movement in India through several state and national projects. Around 32 million rural women have been mobilized into 2.9 million SHGs.   Rural women have been trained and now earn their own livelihood as Pashu Sakhis (looking after animals), Bank Sakhis (helping rural people operate Bank accounts), or operating canteens at government hospitals and offices, and as masons building toilets.  These empowered women have also been encouraged to become entrepreneurs, running small businesses like poultry and goat farms, grocery shops, and cottage industries, and provided access to markets.   These entrepreneurial initiatives have helped the SHGs access commercial finance of over $14.5 billion.  These projects were also the genesis of the Government of India’s National Rural Livelihoods Mission (NRLM), which is world’s largest platform for women’s social and economic empowerment.  As of April 2023, the NRLM supports over 91 million women through 8.4 million SHGs.

households have seen their lives improve as a result of soil and water conservation in 7 drought-prone districts of Karnataka

India: Commitments by Fiscal Year (in millions of dollars)*

Around the bank group.

Find out what the Bank Group's branches are doing in India.

STAY CONNECTED

Additional resources, country office contacts.

This site uses cookies to optimize functionality and give you the best possible experience. If you continue to navigate this website beyond this page, cookies will be placed on your browser. To learn more about cookies, click here .

Research in Indian management: prospects and challenges

• Point – Counterpoint
• Published: 02 October 2023
• Volume 50 , pages 379–383, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Ashish Pandey 1  

205 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Even a cursory look at the management research output would suggest that the majority of the management research in India takes place with the microlevel atomistic constructs developed in the Western context and used without examining their meaning in Indian society and without studying the correlated constructs in the Indian text or Indian languages. In this write-up, I propose and explain that the Indian perspective on management is important to be studied because it can make at least five contributions to the field of management, which can have local and global value. These are in terms of providing perspective, practices, concepts, models and studying management in the context of hybridity and uniqueness of the institutions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

In Search of Indian Management

Indian Management (?): A Modernization Experiment

Pandey, A. (2022). NPTEL Course Yoga and Positive Psychology, Week 6: Lecture 14 C: Seasons with Revolving Sun and Impact on Physiology.

Agrawal A, and Pandey A (2022). Development of the construct of organizational healing. In: Academy of Management Proceedings Vol 2022, No. 1 Academy of Management, Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510, p 15800

Alok K (2017) Sāttvika leadership: an Indian model of positive leadership. J Bus Ethics 142:117–138

Article   Google Scholar  

Bhawuk DPS (2022) Indian management: constructs, models, and theories. In: Pandey A, Budhwar P, Bhawuk DPS (eds) Indigenous Indian Management Palgrave Studies in Indian Management. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Google Scholar  

Bose DM, Sen SN, Subbarayappa BV (1971) A concise history of science in India. Indian National Science Academy, New Delhi

Covaleski MA, Dirsmith MW, Samuel S (1996) Managerial accounting research: the contributions of organizational and sociological theories. J Manag Account Res 8:1–36

Dagar C, Pandey A, Navare A (2022) How yoga-based practices build altruistic behavior? Examining the role of subjective vitality, self-transcendence, and psychological capital. J Bus Ethics 175:191–206

Dharmapal S (1971) Indian science and technology in the eighteenth century. Impex India, Delhi

Gupta RK (2011)The Process of Developing New Concepts and Theories, and its implications for Doctoral Education and Research, Key-note address given at the Conference of the National Association of Psychologists, In: IRMA Anand on Dec 12th, 2011

Haque MS (1997) Incongruity between bureaucracy and society in developing nations: a critique. Peace Change 22(4):432–462

Joullié JE (2016) The philosophical foundations of management thought. Acad Manag Learn Educ 15(1):157–179

Kapadia M, Dagar C (2022) Understanding self and well-being based on ayurveda: implications for indian management. Indigenous Indian management: conceptualization, practical applications and pedagogical initiatives. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 157–197

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Navare A, Pandey A (2022) Karma Yoga: scale development and studies of the impact on positive psychological outcomes at the workplace. Int J Cross Cult Manag 22(2):271–299

Pandey RB (1949) Hindu Samskaras, a socio-religious study of the Hindu Sacraments. Vikrama Publications, Banaras

Pandey A (2022) Human self, work and of human being: Indian worldview and implications for management practices and scholarship. Indigenous Indian management: conceptualization, practical applications and pedagogical Initiatives. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 23–59

Pandey A, Gupta RK, Arora AP (2009) Spiritual climate of business organizations and its impact on customers’ experience. J Bus Ethics 88:313–332

Pandey A, Budhwar P, Bhawuk DPS (2022) In Search of Indian management. In: Pandey A, Budhwar P, Bhawuk DPS (eds) Indigenous Indian management palgrave studies in indian management. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Ray, P.C.(1937) ‘Progress of Chemistry in Ancient India’, Science and Culture, Vol. II(16), April 1937, p. 497.

Sinha J (1933) Indian Psychology Vol. I Cognition, 1st edn. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited, Chennai

Sinha J (1961) Indian Psychology Vol. II, Emotion and Will. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited, Chennai

Sinha J (1969) Indian psychology Vol. III, Epistemology of perception. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited, Chennai

Sinha S (2019) Is the aspirational districts programme merely a political device? Economic and Political Weekly, Mumbai

Download references

This study received a partially financial support by Indian Council for Social Science Research grant no. 02/6103/GN/2021-22/ICSSR/RP/MJ.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Shailesh J. Mehta School of Management, I.I.T. Bombay, Powai, Mumbai, India

Ashish Pandey

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashish Pandey .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

Author declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Pandey, A. Research in Indian management: prospects and challenges. Decision 50 , 379–383 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40622-023-00358-9

Download citation

Accepted : 31 August 2023

Published : 02 October 2023

Issue Date : September 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40622-023-00358-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Indian Knowledge System
• Indian Concepts
• Institutional hybridity
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

India is world’s 4th in research output, but ranks 9th in citations

Visual Stories

Search form

• Agricultural Sciences
• Astronomy & Space Sciences
• Chemical Sciences
• Cognitive Sciences and Psychology
• Computer Sciences and IT
• COVID-19 Research
• Earth, Atmosphere & Environment Sciences
• Energy Sciences
• Engineering Sciences
• Life Sciences & Biotechnology
• Mathematical Sciences
• Material Sciences
• Medical Sciences
• Pharmaceutical Sciences
• Physical Sciences
• Traditional Knowledge
• Other Areas
• Institutional
• International
• Grants for Seminar and Conferences
• Startup Grants
• Ministries & Departments
• Centres of Excellence
• Thematic Centres
• Centres of Higher Learning
• National Academies
• Statewise S&T Organisations
• Industry Related Associations
• Laboratories
• International Organisations
• Civil Societies
• Science Centres & Planetaria
• All Programmes & Schemes

Research and Development

• Human Resource and Development
• Women Schemes
• International Programmes
• Societal Development
• Academia Industry Partnerships
• School Students
• Graduate Students
• Post Graduate Students
• PhD Scholars
• Post Doctoral Fellowships
• Scholarships for Women
• Faculty and Scientists
• National Fellows
• Grassroot Innovations
• Industrial Innovations
• COVID-19 Technology
• Earth, Atmosphere & Env. Sciences
• Rural Technologies

Programmes & Schemes

Programmes & schemes menu.

• All Programmes & Schemes
• Technology Incubators
• Startup Technologies
• Funding Opportunities

Programmes & Schemes Views

• भारत सरकार GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
• विज्ञान और प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
• Screen Reader Access

Search form

विज्ञान एवं प्रौद्योगिकी विभाग

• Home   >>  
• Indias R&D expenditure & scientific publications on the rise  >>  

Indias R&D expenditure & scientific publications on the rise

India’s gross expenditure in R&D has tripled between 2008 & 2018 driven mainly by Govt sector and scientific publications have risen placing the country internationally among the top few, as per the R&D Statistics and Indicators 2019-20 based on the national S&T survey 2018 brought out by the National Science and Technology Management Information (NSTMIS), Department of Science and Technology (DST).

"The report on R&D indicators for the nation is an extraordinarily important document for the evidence-based policymaking and planning in higher education, R&D activities and support, intellectual property, and industrial competitiveness. While it is heartening to see substantial progress in the basic indicators of R&D strengths such as the global leadership  in the number of scientific publications, there  are also areas of concern that need strengthening," said Prof Ashutosh Sharma, Secretary, DST

The report shows that with the rise in publication, the country is globally at the 3 rd    position on this score as per the NSF database, 3 rd in the number of Ph.D. in science & engineering. The number of researchers per million population has doubled since 2000.

The report captures the R&D landscape of the country through various Input-Output S&T Indicators in the form of Tables and graphs. These pertain to Investments in national R&D, R&D investments by Government and Private sector; R&D relationship with economy (GDP), Enrolment of S&T personnel, Manpower engaged in R&D, Outrun of S&T personnel, papers published, patents and their international S&T comparisons.

The survey included more than 6800 S&T Institutions spread across varied sectors like central government, state governments, higher education, public sector industry, and private sector industry in the country, and a response rate of more than 90% was achieved.

Some of the key findings of the report are the following:

India’s gross expenditure in R&D has tripled between 2008 & 2018

• The Gross expenditure on R&D (GERD) in the country has been consistently increasing over the years and has nearly tripled from Rs. 39,437.77 crore in 2007- 08 to Rs. 1,13,825.03 crore in 2017-18.
• India’s per capita R&D expenditure has increased to PPP $ 47.2 in 2017-18 from PPP $ 29.2 in 2007-08.
• India spent 0.7% of its GDP on R&D in 2017-18, while the same among other developing BRICS countries was Brazil 1.3%, Russian Federation 1.1%, China 2.1% and South Africa 0.8%.

Extramural R&D support by central S&T agencies has increased significantly

• DST and DBT were the two major players contributing 63% and 14%, respectively of the total extramural R&D support in the country during 2016-17.
• Women participation in extramural R&D projects has increased significantly to 24% in 2016-17 from 13% in 2000-01 due to various initiatives undertaken by the Government in S&T sector
• As on 1st April 2018, nearly 5.52 lakh personnel were employed in the R&D establishments in the country

The number of researchers per mn populations has doubled since 2000

• Number of researchers per million population in India has increased to 255 in 2017 from 218 in 2015 and 110 in 2000.
• India’s R&D expenditure per researcher was 185 (‘000 PPP$) during 2017-18 and was ahead of Russian Federation, Israel, Hungary, Spain and UK.
• India occupies 3rd rank in terms of number of Ph. D.’s awarded in Science and Engineering (S&E) after USA (39,710 in 2016) and China (34,440 in 2015).

India is placed in 3rd among countries in scientific publication as per NSF database

• During 2018, India was ranked  at 3rd, 5th  and 9th  in scientific publication output as per the NSF, SCOPUS and SCI database respectively
• During 2011-2016, India’s growth rate of scientific publication as per the SCOPUS and SCI database was 8.4% and 6.4% as against the world average of 1.9% and 3.7%, respectively.
• India’s share in global research publication output has increased over the years as reflected in publication databases

India is ranked at 9th position in terms of Resident Patent Filing activity in the world

• During 2017-18 a total of 47,854 patents were filed in India. Out of which, 15,550 (32%) patents were filed by Indian residents
• Patent applications filed in India are dominated by disciplines like Mechanical, Chemical, Computer/Electronics, and Communication.
• According to WIPO, India’s Patent Office stands at the 7th position among the top 10 Patent Filing Offices in the world

1. Research and Development Statistics At a Glance 2019-20

https://dst.gov.in/document/reports/research-development-statistics-glance-2019-20

2. S&T Indicators Tables 2019-20

https://dst.gov.in/document/reports/st-indicators-tables-2019-20

For more details, please contact Dr. Parveen Arora, Sc-G & Head, CHORD Division, DST

Email: parora[at]nic[dot]in, Mob.: +91-9654664614

Related Organization

Miscellaneous.

LISQUIZ.COM

Librarians Learning Portal

Reconducted UGC NET June 2013 Paper II-(11-20)

Share This Article

Research in Progress

RIP The Transportation Research Board's Research in Progress (RIP) Database contains information on more than 9,700 current or recently completed transportation research projects. RIP records primarily are projects funded by the U.S. Department of Transportation and State Departments of Transportation. University transportation research also is included in the database.

Records by Location

Recent Records by Topic

Design & construction.

• Bridges & Other Structures
• Construction
• Geotechnology
• Hydraulics & Hydrology

Operations & Preservation

• Maintenance & Preservation
• Operations & Traffic Management
• Security & Emergencies

Planning & Environment

• Environment
• Planning & Forecasting

Policy & Organization

• Administration & Management
• Data & Information Technology
• Education & Training
• Transportation (general)

Safety, System Components, and Users

• Freight Transportation
• Passenger Transportation
• Safety & Human Factors
• Terminals & Facilities
• Vehicles & Equipment
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Documentation & Training Materials
• TRID Database Homepage
• TRID Serials
• TRT - Transportation Research Thesaurus
• International Transport Research Documentation (ITRD)
• Literature Searches and Literature Reviews for Transportation Research Projects

Recent Records by Mode

• Marine Transportation
• Motor Carriers
• Pedestrians and Bicyclists
• Public Transportation

Questions or comments? E-mail [email protected]