In the global academic world, being invited to serve as editor of a reputed journal is not merely a personal accolade. It is also an institutional recognition, a chance for the university or research centre to showcase its intellectual capital on the international stage. Yet, at the National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER), Mohali, such an opportunity was lost in 2017–18 because of bureaucratic rigidity and administrative caution.
A senior professor at NIPER, then just a few years away from retirement, was invited by the Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis, a respected international journal in the field of pharmacy. The journal offered him a position on its editorial team, with a proposal to even establish an editorial office within NIPER.
The selection was based on solid credentials. Over 15 years, the professor had published nearly 50 papers in the journal, reviewed more than 110 manuscripts, and served on its editorial board for almost a decade. Few could claim such dedication.
The assignment was not honorary alone. It carried responsibilities such as evaluating manuscripts for scientific and ethical flaws, managing peer review, and coordinating with an international editorial team. The professor would be given plagiarism-checking tools, affiliation to NIPER Mohali, full access to journals, and financial support: USD 2,000 annually for travel and USD 10,000 as honorarium. The initial tenure was for two years, extendable up to 10.
For NIPER, the benefits were obvious. Every manuscript handled would carry its name, giving the institute international visibility in pharmaceutical sciences.
Following the procedure, the professor requested the Director of NIPER to seek approval. In December 2017, the Director flagged the financial aspects and wrote to Dr. V. M. Katoch, former Director-General of ICMR and then Chairman of NIPER’s Board of Governors.
On 22 December 2017, Dr. Katoch responded, citing the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. He advised that such work must be done outside duty hours and should not interfere with NIPER responsibilities. He also sought comments from the institute’s administration before taking a final call.
The professor clarified that editorship was not occasional work but a professional responsibility. He pointed out that he had already been associated with the journal for nearly 15 years—publishing, reviewing, and serving on the editorial board without pay. The only new element was the travel support and honorarium.
He argued that such income clearly fell under the category of “literary, cultural, artistic, scientific or technological efforts,” which does not require special sanction. He requested that his case be considered under this clause.
Despite his reasoning, the matter was referred to the Registrar—an officer with little exposure to research or academics. On 29 January 2018, the Registrar replied that editorial work was of a “continuous nature,” would take “considerable time,” and should be treated as part-time employment.
He suggested that one-third of the honorarium be credited to the institute if allowed. He also warned that since the professor was “single-handedly running the department,” additional work would burden him. His recommendation was clear: deny permission.
The decision effectively blocked the appointment. Ironically, the same professor had already reviewed over 110 manuscripts and served on the editorial board for years without any objection. The only difference now was the financial component.
Instead of celebrating international recognition and making NIPER more visible globally, the administration chose to treat the honorarium as outside employment. The possibility of applying consultancy rules—where a share of the earnings could have been deposited with the institute—was ignored.
This episode exposes a larger problem: India’s rigid bureaucratic framework often undervalues intellectual contributions. When an academic spends years building credibility with an international journal, that recognition should be harnessed for institutional benefit.
By blocking the professor’s editorship, NIPER lost a chance to host an editorial office of a prestigious journal and enhance its reputation worldwide. What should have been a matter of pride became an example of how the letter of the rule was given precedence over its spirit.
Academic editorship is not a part-time job in the sense of outside employment; it is a service to the scientific community. Institutions that encourage such roles not only empower their faculty but also project themselves onto the global stage.
In this case, both the professor and NIPER were denied that opportunity. Rules were followed, but vision was lost.
