The Higher Education Commission (HEC) has recently introduced a new national research publication policy that enforces a weighted authorship model for all papers with more than three authors. Although intended to enhance fairness and transparency, the policy has generated considerable debate across universities. Under the revised framework, the first author and the corresponding author will each receive 30 per cent credit, while the remaining 40pc will be divided among the other co-authors.
Currently, most universities require 10 publications for appointment or promotion to the post of associate professor (BPS-20), and 15 publications for professor (BPS-21). In addition, universities typically expect that at least five publications must have been produced within the preceding five years — equivalent to one publication per year.
Let us take an example and follow the above weighted system. In a six-author paper, the first and corresponding authors will get 30pc weightage, but the other authors will receive only 10pc each. To reach the 300-point threshold for associate professor (10 publications × 30 points), a middle author earning 10 points per paper would now require 30 papers rather than the previously expected 10.
This also means that to meet the ‘five publications in five years’ rule, a middle author would need 15 weighted-equivalent publications over the same period — triple the annual workload expected under the current system. At the professor level, middle authors would need 45 publications to reach the required 450 points — again, three times the previous requirement.
The new system may also reshape how faculty members earn extra marks for publications beyond the minimum eligibility criteria. Universities typically award up to 20 marks for additional outputs, with candidates earning two marks per paper as principal author, and one mark per paper as co-author. Once adjusted to the weighted system, middle authors must publish 30 additional papers to accumulate full marks.
The calculations above are based on the promotion rules of one major public-sector university. Even a small increase, when combined with weighted authorship, would further intensify pressure on middle authors, who already need two to three times more publications to earn the same credit as first or corresponding authors.
Some faculty members view it as a fairer way to recognise those who lead and communicate the research. They believe that it discourages honorary authorship, clarifies contributor roles, and may encourage researchers to take on more meaningful responsibilities rather than relying on passive co-authorship.
Others express concerns. Collaborative and interdisciplinary fields may be dis-proportionately affected because middle authors now face much higher publication demands. Early-career researchers and postdocs, who contribute substantially but are not always first authors, may experience slower progression. Some also fear the policy could reduce large-team collaborations, strain professional relationships, and create competition for limited first-author opportunities.
Questions have also been raised about whether or not existing infrastructure and funding can support these increased expectations.
Complicating the matter further, most Pakistani universities still judge re-searchers solely on publication counts, with no distinction between top-tier journals and routine indexed outlets.
The policy also raises a broader question: will the federal government, provincial authorities, and university administrations s expand funding, improve research infrastructure, and administrative support to match these tougher requirements?
WASEEM HASSAN & IMDAD ULLAH MOHAMMADZAI
PESHAWAR
