India boasts of eminent science and social science institutes like IISc, the IITs, TIFR, JNU and Tiss. Yet, only 10 Indians figure among the world’s top 1% highly-cited researchers (HCR) in the two fields. To top it, some of the 10 are not from the country’s leading institutes. The list, comprising over 4,000 of the globe’s most ‘influential’ researchers, in its fifth edition, has been released by the firm Clarivate Analytics Eminent scientist and former head of the scientific advisory council to the prime minister, CNR Rao, figures on the list. A professor each from IIT-Kanpur, IITMadras, and JNU and two from NIT-Bhopal, too, are on the global HCR list, which covers over 60 countries, though more than 80% of the names come from only 10. Remarkably, 70% are from just five countries (see box). Among institutions, Harvard University has the highest representation on the list, with 186 names.While India’s representation is negligible, neighbor China is third on the list, ahead of Germany.JNU’s Dinesh Mohan, who figures on the list, said that till last year, less than five Indians would be on the list. “This year, they have included an additional category of ‘cross-field’, which took the number to 10,” he said. “Citations also depend on the nature of work. Areas such as climate change , water and energy are areas where research is more relevant nowadays. Where you publish your work is also important for impact.” Mohan’s team at JNU’s School of Environmental Sciences has come up with a sustainable solution to biomass burning by converting agricultural residue into biochar, which can improve soil fertility and crop production.Rao, who has been on the HCR list in its earlier editions and has over a lakh citations, said India must improve its quality of research, along with quantity to improve citations. “About 15 years ago, China and India were at the same level. But now China contributes to 15-16% of science in the world and ours is only about 3-4%.”Ashok Pandey, from CSIR’s Indian Institute of Toxicology Research, is the only HCR from CSIR, which has a network of over 5,000 scientists. “It is a matter of concern, and needs to be addressed by the government, and stakeholders, including scientists,” he said.IIT-Kanpur professor Avinash Agarwal, a Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar awardee, who is also on the list, said applied research does not get enough respect in a country like India, which is obsessed with fundamental research. “We need to improve our research ecosystem... Predatory journals, where you pay and publish, need to be heavily penalised. There is a lack of focus on quality research in Indian academia,” he said. “Also, teaching and research are two sides of the same coin. If teachers do not do high quality research, they will not be updated with new developments.”The other Indian names on the HCR list are: Alok and Jyoti Mittal (a married couple; Jyoti is the only woman researcher on the list) from NIT Bhopal; Rajnish Kumar from IIT-Madras; Sanjeeb Sahoo from Institute of Life Sciences, Bhubaneshwar; Rajeev Varshney from International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Hyderabad; Sakthivel Rathinaswamy from Bharathiar University , Coimbatore.The reasons why India has minuscule representation on the list include socio-economic and cultural factors, the nature of academics in the country, and also brain drain. Also, India’s top institutes are primarily centres for theoretical research. “The pure science research has become highly specialised. Scientists from pure sciences tend to have a very small peer group. There will not be many researchers from pure sciences even on the global HCR list,” said Mayank Vahia, a former TIFR professor who is now the dean of the School of Mathematical Sciences, NMIMS, explaining why researchers from the pure sciences do not have good citation indices. “On the contrary, research in applied sciences is directly related to industry, is of immediate utility value and also has larger reach.”In India, even in applied research, Vahia said, industry investments for long-term projects are not significant, compared to the US. Commenting on the list, he said, “Technology is patented and put to use, and the focus is not much on publications, leading to the poor numbers.”