By: Anum Shafique
Academic research is fundamentally rooted in a scientific process that follows established protocols, formats, and methods. In Pakistan, as in many other countries, universities adhere to these protocols, particularly in the domain of quantitative research. Students, within a relatively short period (typically a semester), are introduced to the process of writing a research project that aligns with these protocols. The rigor of this process intensifies at higher levels of education, such as MS and PhD programs. The credibility of this scientific process is underscored by the fact that research papers produced through these methods often find their way into high-impact journals. This attests to the process’s authenticity and the researchers’ capability to adhere to it.
However, concerns arise when we consider the process of research evaluation. As a novice researcher, I have observed that despite following rigorous protocols, the evaluation process, particularly the blind peer review, can be fraught with subjectivity. In a blind peer review, the reviewers—unknown to the author—provide feedback based on their expertise and experience. This system, in theory, ensures an unbiased evaluation, but in practice, it can be compromised by the reviewers’ level of expertise and their understanding of the specific research methodologies employed.
A significant issue arises when the evaluator, despite holding a PhD in the relevant field, lacks the necessary skills or fails to appreciate the nuances of the methodology used in the research. The outcome can be detrimental if an evaluator reviews a research paper superficially or without a comprehensive understanding. High-quality research may be unjustly rejected due to the evaluator’s incompetence, while subpar work might be accepted due to a lack of critical scrutiny. This raises a critical question: who is responsible for these outcomes?
The situation is exacerbated when evaluators have expertise in related but distinct domains. For example, an economics graduate might be tasked with evaluating research in finance, or an expert in primary research methods might be reviewing a study based on secondary research. If these evaluators do not fully grasp the complexities of the work they are assessing, the result can be disastrous. The challenge is determining who ensures that evaluators are both competent and appropriately matched to the research they are reviewing.
Another layer of complexity is added by personal biases. Evaluators, instead of approaching the process with compassion and objectivity, may become judgmental, failing to provide constructive feedback. This is particularly troubling in academia, where intellectual rigor and fairness should be paramount. Gender biases also persist, with the “glass ceiling” effect adding another barrier for researchers, especially when presenting their work in person. Furthermore, the integrity of the research evaluation process is called into question by journals that prioritize article processing charges over quality. In such cases, payment can guarantee publication, regardless of the research’s merit.
These issues represent just the tip of the iceberg. It is crucial to remember that research should not be a subjective or judgmental process. To maintain the integrity of academic research, we must address these challenges and ensure that evaluations are conducted with the rigor, fairness, and objectivity that the scientific process demands.
The writer is a freelance columnist. She can be reached at [email protected]