Why Indian professors are trading creativity for citations

Imagine a Sahitya Akademi winner being told that his/her life’s work is worth “zero” because it isn’t in a Scopus database. In the high-stakes world of Indian higher education, a structural paradox is stifling the Humanities. As institutions chase global rankings, scholarly value is increasingly defined not by what is read or taught but by what can be indexed.

Under the current rules of the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) and the National Board of Accreditation (NBA), a prize-winning novel or a landmark poetry collection often carries less institutional weight than a poorly written but Scopus-indexed article. We are currently measuring the weight of a soul using a scale designed for coal.

Metrics vs. meaning

The problem lies in the Scopus: Web of Science Trap. Global ranking systems rely heavily on databases that privilege standardised scientific formats. Poetry and creative fiction, published in literary magazines or small presses, remain invisible to these indexing systems. In the cold logic of ranking metrics, if a work is not indexed, it does not exist. This has birthed a “Humanities Gap”. While Science and Engineering align seamlessly with citation metrics, creative and practice-based research in the Arts is systematically disadvantaged. We are currently measuring knowledge produced in the library using tools designed for the laboratory.

Standardised research is often a “report” on what already exists. Creative writing is the act of bringing something new into existence. A research article on “Social Isolation in Urban India” provides data, percentages, and trends. However, a play about a lonely elderly man in a high-rise apartment makes the audience feel that isolation. Creative writing preserves the “soul” of a culture — its nuances, slang, and emotional landscape — which data points simply cannot capture. Most research articles are locked behind paywalls and written in jargon that only experts understand. A poem or a play is democratic; it can be read by anyone. It travels further and stays in the memory longer than a table of citations.

Internationally, the tide is turning. Forward-thinking frameworks now recognise Non-Traditional Research Outputs (NTROs) to avoid the false equivalence that treats all knowledge as a journal article. The U.K.’s REF 2029 evaluates poems as “outputs”, even allowing major collections to be “double-weighted” to reflect significant intellectual labour. In Australia, the ERA system tracks poetry under “Code J3”, requiring a “Research Statement” to justify its scholarly contribution. In European countries, creative work is treated as a “research artefact”, where the work itself is the primary site of knowledge. In the U.S., tenure committees routinely count poems as primary outputs based on publisher reputation and critical reception. All this proves that recognising art doesn’t mean lowering the bar; it means redefining rigour for different disciplines.

India doesn’t need to clone the U.K.’s REF or Australia’s ERA. It needs to borrow their conceptual clarity. A poem or a translation is not a substitute for research; it is research, conducted through a specific mode of inquiry. By adopting a lean NTRO framework, bodies like NAAC and NBA can bridge the gap between creative output and research evaluation without a structural overhaul.

Strategies

A first step is to formalise creative categories and explicitly recognise poetry, translation, and performance as valid research and not dismiss as “extracurricular”. Next comes the Research Context Note.Instead of a technical paper, allow a two-page brief detailing the work’s intellectual background, originality, and critical acclaim received. Third, existing criteria needs to be mapped and creative works can be interpreted under current parameters like Criterion 5 (Faculty Contribution) or Program Outcomes regarding societal relevance. Fourth is to apply weighted recognition and acknowledge that a book-length project involves more labour than a short-form article and grant it higher qualitative weight. Finally, mandate that institutional repositories archive creative works digitally alongside their research notes for transparent audit verification.

The goal is simple: start measuring knowledge in all its forms, rather than just its most “index-friendly” expressions. It is time for Indian accreditation to value the meaning behind the metrics.

If the professors aren’t rewarded for being creative, they won’t teach students to be creative. That’s the real loss for India’s workforce.

The writer is an Assistant Professor of English, specialising in Communication and Language Studies, at Velammal Engineering College, Chennai.