By Waseem Hassan :
In a well-intentioned bid to bring fairness to the often opaque world of academic credit
and promotions, Pakistan’s Higher Education Commission (HEC) introduced a research
publication policy on 5 November 2025. Its centerpiece is a weighted authorship model: for any
paper with more than three authors, 30% of the credit goes to the first author, 30% to the
corresponding author, and the remaining 40% is divided among all other co-authors.
At first glance, the policy may appear to offer a reasonable way to address concerns about
growing author lists. Yet a closer look suggests that a rigid, one-size-fits-all formula overlooks
the important and genuine differences that exist across academic disciplines.
By applying a uniform metric across all fields, the policy may unintentionally create new
forms of imbalance—affecting scholars not because of the quality of their work, but simply
because their disciplines rely more heavily on collaboration.
The evidence for this disciplinary chasm is stark and undeniable. To understand it, one
needs to look at the work of Professor Mike Thelwall of the University of Sheffield, a leading
expert in scientometrics. His groundbreaking analysis, “Research co-authorship 1900–2020,”
paints a clear picture: while collaboration is increasing everywhere, its scale is dictated by the
very nature of the research. In 2020, the average publication in Arts and Humanities had just 1.3
authors. In Immunology and Microbiology, that number soared to six.
Drill down further, and the contrast is even more striking: the Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer averaged 9.6 authors per article, while in Trends in Classics, 93% of papers were solo-authored.
To ensure that this discussion reflects real-world publishing practices rather than
assumptions, I sought the views of leading editors and senior scholars. These individuals—who
have collectively handled thousands of submissions over decades of editorial work—offered
insights shaped by deep, practical experience.
Their insight is invaluable, not only because of their experience, but because they engage
daily with the complexities of authorship, collaboration, and disciplinary variation. The feedback
that follows draws on this depth of expertise, offering guidance rooted in long-standing editorial
practice rather than personal opinion.
This is not a minor discrepancy; it is a fundamental feature of the global research. The same point is echoed by leading journal editors, including Professor Fred Paas, Editor-in-Chief of Educational Psychology Review (one of the top journals in its field), and Professor Roland Seifert, Editor-in-Chief of Naunyn-Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology (the oldest pharmacology journal founded in 1873). All confirm that author numbers vary sharply between fields, and caution that care is needed when applying a uniform weighted formula.
In the same vein, during our personal communication, Professor Lawrence Charles Parish
(a leading dermatologist) reminded me that the realities of modern scholarship are very different
from the past. “Medicine has become increasingly complex,” he observed, “and an author
writing a paper alone is now a rare event. Two, three, or more contributors are generally needed
to address the many dimensions contained in even one presentation.”
He offered a compelling comparison: “A single physician—such as Sir Jonathan
Hutchinson or Sir William Osler—could write a paper in Victorian and Edwardian times, but to
expect such a feat in modern times is unrealistic.” His remark captures the shift in contemporary
research: collaboration is no longer optional but essential, shaped by the growing scope, data
demand, and interdisciplinary nature of today’s medical science.
In fact, Professor Thelwall notes that this variation makes assigning credit a “very tricky
issue without a perfect solution.” He acknowledges that giving full credit to every author can be
unfair, but points out that the new model introduces its own set of problems. “The corresponding
author is not always an important role,” he stated, “so in some fields singling them out may be
unhelpful.” Furthermore, in fields that traditionally use alphabetical author ordering, “the first
author can be meaningless.”
Most critically, Thelwall highlights the policy’s potential to shortchange the very
research it should be encouraging. The “impression is that highly co-authored research studies
are often, but not always, more complex than solo work,” he explained, citing biomedical
research as an example where many specialists must collaborate to produce “complex, strongly
evidenced papers.” Under the HEC’s formula, each of these essential specialists would receive a
fraction of the credit, disincentivizing the large-scale teamwork that leading biomedical journals
depend on.
In Pakistan’s already highly competitive academic environment, where HEC criteria
weigh heavily on careers, these incentives will be felt very directly. As Thelwall warns, “the
policy incentivizes working in smaller teams to get a higher share of the credit.” The unintended
consequence? It may steer brilliant minds away from the “team science” essential for
breakthroughs in medicine, climate science, and physics, and towards smaller, perhaps less
ambitious, projects, precisely the kind of fragmentation that rigorous fields, as noted by
Professors Paas and Seifert, cannot afford.
The path forward is clear. When experts from data science, educational psychology,
pharmacology and nursing all raise the same red flag, it is time to listen. Research policies must
be as sophisticated and varied as the research they seek to nurture. A rigid authorship-weighting
system, however well-meaning, creates misaligned incentives and unintended barriers. Pakistan
has an opportunity to lead by developing a framework that is not just administratively simple, but
intellectually fair.
HEC should pause and refine the policy after a period of thoughtful debate and
extensive consultation with scholars across all disciplines, so that any new system is inclusive,
equitable, and grounded in the undeniable reality of global evidence.
