Measuring research by volume alone distorts priorities. Critically evaluate the shift towards quality, impact and open-access indicators in India's S&T policy.

Counting papers and patents rewards research that is easy to count, not research that matters. NITI Aayog's India S&T Scoreboard (3 November 2026) moves away from that. It rates States/UTs on research quality, impact, collaboration and open access across academia, government R&D labs and industry [1]. The direction is right, but the design is incomplete.

Why volume alone distorts priorities

• It pushes researchers to publish more rather than better, so the system favours what can be measured.
• It favours States that are already ahead. Eight States account for over 60% of R&D spending [2], so raw counts reflect existing wealth rather than present effort.

Merits of the shift

• Impact over count: it puts the focus on the quality and impact of research [1].
• Open access: publicly funded findings reach State universities and startups more widely.
• Collaboration indicator and three-sector lens: these show how strong university–industry links are and what share of each State's R&D comes from industry [1].
• Evidence-based federalism: States compare themselves with peers and find their areas of expertise. This is cooperative and competitive federalism at work [1].

Limitations

• Outputs without inputs: there is no indicator for R&D spending or for researchers [1]. Yet GERD has stayed near 0.7% of GDP, and States fund only 6.4% of it [2]. A State can therefore be credited for work done in labs the Centre pays for.
• Thin human base: India has 262 researchers per million people against China's 1,585 [3]. Quality metrics cannot make up for missing capacity.
• Weak implementers: State S&T Councils have irregular funding, staff who are not regular employees, and little autonomy [4]. A low score may lead to no action at all.
• Comparability: the methodology and update cycle have not been disclosed [1]. The India Innovation Index 2021 ranked Major, North-Eastern/Hilly States and UTs in separate groups [5]. Without such groups, Ladakh will always look like a failure next to Karnataka.

Quality, impact and open-access indicators correct the bias towards volume, but they measure results without the money, people and institutions behind them. NITI Aayog should add input indicators, rank States within peer groups and by rate of improvement, and fix a stable methodology. Each State's gaps on the Scoreboard should feed the Key Coordination Group proposed for State S&T Councils [4]. Combined with the goal of private funding for half of GERD [3], this would make competitive federalism fair and support Viksit Bharat@2047 [1].