AICTE committee recommends new PhD and DSc guidelines for technical education, sparking debate among academics and stakeholders.
A five-member committee appointed by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) has recommended a new set of guidelines for doctoral studies in technical education, aiming to standardise Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) and Doctor of Science (DSc) programmes across the country. Until now, technical institutions followed the University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations for PhD programs, while following their own guidelines for DSc programs.
Most of the PhD guidelines submitted by the AICTE are a continuation of the UGC’s minimum standard regulations of 2022. However, in certain areas, AICTE has introduced new provisions, such as mandatory publications by research scholars and scrapping interview-based criteria for selection, which have sparked debate in the academia.
Further, the emphasis on quantitative eligibility criteria for the DSc programme, such as 20 years of teaching experience, 25 research papers, and over 5,000 citations, which is almost one-fourth less than at the universities level, is seen by academicians as too rigid. The committee, however, defends these guidelines as “necessary, since research is the cornerstone of doctoral studies.”
In February this year, AICTE formed a five-member expert committee to draft the guidelines. It included Prof. Rajeev Tripathi (RGPV, Bhopal), Prof. Ananya Mukherjee (Shiv Nadar University), Prof. Prabhat Ranjan (DY Patil International University), and Prof. V. Rajendran (AMET University). The panel was led by Prof. K. R. Venugopal, former Vice Chancellor of Bangalore University.
The committee submitted its report in July, outlining a framework for doctoral research in engineering, technology, management, and design. According to Mr. Venugopal, with the AICTE Executive Council approving the committee’s recommended guidelines, the report is now with the government. “Once it receives approval, it will be gazetted.”
Interview replaced by written exam
The report accessed by The Hindu shows that the AICTE says the Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) should continue to issue PhD admission notifications, and explicitly mentions “twice a year”, one before each academic semester.
The AICTE has also continued rolling admissions for candidates who qualify in national-level tests. Those who clear NET, GATE, or equivalent exams can register as JRF or SRF and can enrol in their doctoral program at any time of the year.
Previously, HEIs could determine the number of candidates to call for interviews and select them based on 70 percent weightage to the qualifying exam and 30 percent to the interview. The new guidelines have done away with interview-based criteria.
As per the report, HEIs can still call candidates for interviews based on the number of Ph.D. seats available, but now, 70 percent weightage is assigned to the entrance test at HEIs level and 30 percent to the qualifying examination like NET, and GATE. ‘
Mr. Venugopal says that he observed and was informed that there is favouritism where professors tended to favour certain candidates and assign difficult questions or lower marks to others. To address this, he said the committee decided to remove interview-based criteria from the selection process.
However, Prof. Arun Tangirala, Dean at IIT Tirupati, shares that there may be some cases, but doing away with the interview as a criterion altogether may not help the institutes or the supervisors. He added that institutions and supervisors may lose sight of a student’s personality and oral skills, which are equally important in the PhD journey and cannot be gauged through a written exam.
Prof. Yusuf Akhter, Assistant Professor at Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University and Editor-in-Chief of Archives of Microbiology, international journal of Springer Nature, notes that research interest mismatches between a scholar and supervisor can create challenges. He adds that one key purpose of the interview is to gauge a scholar’s interests and understanding of themes within the supervisor’s expertise. With interviews removed from the selection process, scholars may fail to meet expectations, and supervisors already managing heavy academic workloads could face additional strain.
Mandatory publication by a scholar
The report says that a candidate can register in any field or domain, including trans-disciplinary, regardless of their prior degree discipline. Following the same UGC guidelines, the full-time Ph.D. program under the AICTE will run for a minimum of three years, including coursework, and a maximum of six years. But for part-time candidates, the minimum duration is four years and the maximum is eight years, with a 20 percent reduction in workload provided by the employer.
But, the AICTE has reinstated mandatory publishing requirements that the UGC formally dropped in 2022. Both full-time and part-time doctoral scholars must now publish two Scopus-indexed journal papers, excluding review surveys, and one peer-reviewed conference paper before the submission of the thesis. It also adds that the candidate must be the first author and corresponding author for these publications.
The AICTE has also introduced a new concept for completion of PhD early in “exceptional cases”. Scholars who publish two Scopus-indexed Q1 journal articles and one conference paper, along with holding patents or making major academic contributions, may submit their thesis six months early, instead of three.
Mr. Venugopal defended the move, noting that UGC regulations are only minimum standards, meaning universities are free to go beyond them. Even though the UGC dropped the requirement in 2022, many universities continue to mandate publications. According to him, if a student is not required to publish during the Ph.D., how could they later guide their own students or contribute to research in the future?
But academicians point out that mandating publications had already been criticised during the UGC’s time, as it fuelled predatory journals and poor-quality research. Prof. Dheeraj Sanghi, former professor at IIT Kanpur and now Dean at Ashoka University, argues that enforcing a “numbers rule” pushes students towards low-quality outlets, since publishing in top journals often take a year and may not be feasible within a PhD cycle, especially when students are bound by scholarship timelines which are four to five years.
Adding to this, Prof. Rajeev Kumar, retired from JNU and IIT Kharagpur, says that not every scholar under a supervisor may be capable of producing a quality, publishable paper during their PhD. While they could be pushed to publish, the focus should be on quality rather than quantity.
During a PhD, the emphasis should be on identifying a meaningful research problem and developing further work, rather than simply producing publications. As per Mr. Kumar and Mr. Sanghi such decisions should be left to the supervisor or with the institute, as they differ case by case.
Mr. Akhter says that requiring a scholar to be both first and corresponding author can be problematic. In academic journals, the first author is typically the person who has contributed most directly to the research and manuscript, while the corresponding author is primarily responsible for communicating with the journal during submission and review. Making it mandatory for the scholar to hold both roles may burden him.
Regarding the “exceptional cases” allowing a PhD submission in 2.5 years, Mr. Sanghi observes that coursework alone typically takes six months, and producing a high-quality research paper often requires at least a year. He says completing two journal papers along with a conference paper within this timeframe, and using that as a basis for early submission, appears largely unfeasible.
AI, relocation and specific timelines
A practice already followed by the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) with integrated PhDs, AICTE has now opened an industrial experience route for doctoral entry. As per the report, candidates with a four-year bachelor’s degree, at least 60 percent marks, and five years of industry experience are now eligible.
The AICTE has recently introduced the mandatory declaration on the use of artificial intelligence, along with plagiarism in doctoral work. Excluding the footnotes, references, bibliographies, and previously published papers by the scholar will be excluded from plagiarism or AI-generated content checks, with a written declaration. And, supervisors are required to certify the originality and ethical use of these tools without any compromise of academic integrity or originality of the research work, the report said.
The UGC sets maximum supervision limits of Professor (eight), Associate Professor (six), Assistant Professor (four), scholars at any given time. The AICTE applies the same limits but explicitly mentions both supervision and co-supervision.
Further, the UGC guidelines recognise only Adjunct Faculty, who may serve in a co-supervisor role. The AICTE further expanded it to include additional faculty categories, such as Professor of Practice, Visiting Faculty, Associate Professor of Practice, Assistant Professor of Practice, and Adjunct Faculty. Under AICTE guidelines, these faculty members can co-supervise up to two Ph.D. scholars. Professor Emeritus and retired faculty may co-supervise up to four Ph.D. scholars at any point in their lifetime.
In terms of relocation, UGC mentions it for female scholars, due to marriage or otherwise. AICTE now allows relocation for any scholar or supervisor or co-supervisor for reasons subject to assessment by the competent authority.
The evaluation timeline has also been fixed. AICTE outlines timelines for the Research Advisory Committee (RAC): the first RAC occurs within three weeks of provisional registration to set coursework; the second, within two months of coursework results, confirms registration. Subsequent meetings are held every six months to review progress. Further, each HEIs must complete the entire process of assessing a PhD thesis, including the viva-voce declaration, within six months of submission with provisional certificates issued within a week of the viva board’s recommendation.
Mr. Tangirala points out that at present AI detection tools are not yet as effective as plagiarism tools, which may result in false positives or false negatives. Regarding timeline frameworks, which help manage both the scholar and the supervisor, these are already being followed at the university level. He says, given the many operational constraints at universities, leaving this responsibility to the institute would suffice for practical purposes.
However, Mr. Venugopal notes that institutions should develop and adopt better tools to assist supervisors and scholars in detecting AI usage. His committee also encountered reports of delays in awarding provisional certificates, which prompted them to include specific time-frame guidelines in their recommendations.
Guidelines for DSC and jurisdiction over doctoral guidelines
In addition, guidelines for the DSc degree program have now been framed, whereas earlier universities followed their own regulations. The DSc is a postdoctoral degree granted to individuals who have made significant contributions to research and scientific advancement.
As per the report, the eligibility criteria for the DSc degree require that the candidate hold a PhD from any Indian university recognised by the UGC, or from a foreign university listed in global rankings. Further, the candidate must have a minimum of twenty years of experience, which can include teaching, research, or industrial experience, with at least ten years at the level of a Professor or an equivalent grade. They also should have published at least twenty-five research papers with a cumulative impact factor of 100, a Scopus h-index of 20 with over 2,500 citations, and a Google Scholar h-index of 30 with more than 5,000 citations, or alternatively, hold five Indian utility patents.
Additionally, the candidate should have supervised or co-supervised at least fifteen awarded PhD scholars, or served as Principal Investigator or Co-Investigator on five high-value research projects. They must have authored or co-authored two research monographs, or edited two books, conference proceedings, or publications with reputed publishers. Finally, it says that it is desirable for the candidate to be a Fellow of a recognised professional academy, association, or society.
However, academics argue that these guidelines “set the bar too high”, given that most universities currently award the DSc to candidates who hold a PhD and have just around three to four years of teaching experience or five to ten research publications.
Mr. Venugopal explains that the DSc is intended for individuals recognised for significant contributions in their field. However, he notes that at several universities and institutes, this degree is often awarded with little or no substantial contribution.
Mr. Akhter noted that despite having relatively few publications, some researchers have made significant contributions. He cited Rosalind Franklin and James D. Watson published fewer than 50 papers in their lifetime, yet played a crucial role in the discovery of the DNA structure. Setting DSc requirements of 25 papers along with 20 years of experience and over 5,000 citations for candidates in their 30s or 40s, he argued, is “above the bar and too rigid”.
Academicians also warn that jurisdictional concerns between AICTE and UGC may arise in the near future. Mr. Akhter and Mr. Sanghi notes that the new AICTE guidelines, if enforceable, could raise jurisdictional issues as for technical institutions that are part of, or affiliated with, universities which also follow UGC regulations, and certain AICTE provisions, such as the interview criteria, may contradict UGC rules.
But, Mr. Venugopal says that since his report is now with the ministry, the UGC, the AICTE, and other stakeholders will need to reach a consensus. As these are the “first guidelines for doctoral studies” in technical education, any jurisdictional issues will have to be resolved before the gazette is released.
Remove