Version 1 Referees: 2 Approved, 2 Approved With Reservations

Wellcome Open Research 2019, 4:18 Last updated: 25 FEB 2019
OPEN LETTER
India Research Management Initiative (IRMI) – an initiative for
building research capacity in India [version 1; referees: 2
approved, 2 approved with reservations]
Savita Ayyar 1, Shahid Jameel 2
1Jaquaranda Tree, Bengaluru, Karnataka, 560064, India
2Wellcome Trust/DBT India Alliance, New Delhi, 110025, India
First published: 31 Jan 2019, 4:18 ( Open Peer Review

v1 https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15073.1)
Latest published: 31 Jan 2019, 4:18 (
https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15073.1)
Referee Status:
Abstract Invited Referees
Research and innovation are growing in India with significant investments being 1 2 3 4
made towards institutions, researchers and research infrastructure. Although
still under 1% of GDP, funding for science and technology in India has version 1
increased each year for over two decades. There is also increasing realization
published report report report report
that public funding for research should be supplemented with that from industry 31 Jan 2019
and philanthropy.
Like their counterparts worldwide, Indian researchers require access to
professional research management support at their institutions to fully leverage 1 Simon Kerridge , University of Kent,
emerging scientific opportunities and collaborations. However, there are UK
currently significant gaps in the research management support available to
these researchers and this has implications for research in India. 2 Silke Blohm, SOAS University of London,
The India Research Management Initiative (IRMI) was launched by the UK
Wellcome Trust/DBT (Department of Biotechnology, Government of India) India
Alliance (hereafter India Alliance) in February 2018 to narrow these gaps. A 3 Katrina Lawson , Oxford University
12-month pilot phase has enabled conversations across multiple stakeholders. Clinical Research Unit, Vietnam
In this Open Letter, we share some insights from the IRMI pilot phase, which
could aid systemic development and scaling up of research management as a 4 L.S. Shashidhara, Indian Institute of
professional support service across India. We anticipate these will stimulate Science Education and Research, Pune,
dialogue and guide future policy and interventions towards building robust India
research and innovation ecosystems in India.
Any reports and responses or comments on
Keywords the article can be found at the end of the
Research, Management, India, Extramural Funding, Scientific Administration, article.
Science careers, Professionalization, IRMI Pilot
This article is included in the Wellcome Trust/DBT

India Alliance gateway.

Page 1 of 16
Corresponding author: Savita Ayyar ([email protected])
Author roles: Ayyar S: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision,
Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing; Jameel S: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Writing –
Review & Editing
Competing interests: SA is an independent consultant commissioned by the Wellcome Trust/DBT India Alliance to develop the IRMI Pilot.
Grant information: This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust through a Wellcome/DBT India Alliance Grant [IA/IRMI/18/00001].
Copyright: © 2019 Ayyar S and Jameel S. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
How to cite this article: Ayyar S and Jameel S. India Research Management Initiative (IRMI) – an initiative for building research capacity
in India [version 1; referees: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations] Wellcome Open Research 2019, 4:18 (
https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15073.1)
First published: 31 Jan 2019, 4:18 (https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15073.1)

Page 2 of 16
Disclaimer staff at major research funding agencies in India and members

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors. Pub- of the international research management community.
lication in Wellcome Open Research does not imply endorsement
by Wellcome. We interacted with individuals in roles supporting grant man-
agement, project management, scientific outreach, innovation
Background management, academic programs, financial management, opera-
Research and Innovation in India is supported through signifi- tions, policy development and ethics in India, hereafter defined
cant investments from the Government of India, international as Research Managers and Administrators (RMAs). These
agencies and more recently from the private sector. While robust conversations have allowed us to build a broader picture of
systems for managing intramural funding to research institutions expectations, constraints and requirements for various stakehold-
are in place, corresponding processes for helping Indian ers.
researchers compete successfully for extramural funds have lagged
behind. Insights from the IRMI pilot
The research funding landscape in India
In 2016, the Wellcome Trust, UK commissioned a scoping study Over 50% of research at Indian institutions is supported with
on research management (RM) in India, which included five public funds from the Government of India, with the rest com-
Indian research institutions receiving funding from the Well- ing from private sources (i.e. industry), philanthropy and interna-
come Trust/DBT (Department of Biotechnology, Government tional agencies. There are significant opportunities for international
of India) India Alliance (hereafter India Alliance). The India collaborative research via bilateral and multilateral collabora-
Alliance subsequently coordinated a panel discussion titled tions, including the European Molecular Biology Organization
“Research Development Offices: The Need of the Hour” at its (EMBO) and the Human Frontier Science Program (HFSP). Sev-
2017 Annual Fellows meeting. Additionally, a voluntary and eral philanthropic organizations such as the Bill and Melinda
anonymous survey of India Alliance Fellows was carried out in Gates Foundation, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Simons
2017 to assess existing support for laboratory, data and research Foundation, Tata Trusts and Wellcome Trust support investiga-
management, and research misconduct. Only 18% of respondents tors and research projects in India. The current funding landscape
in the survey confirmed the presence of a Research Development presents both a need and an opportunity for India to develop a
Office at their institutions1. These early steps highlighted the need sound RM support base.
for developing and sustaining RM support at Indian research
institutions. A broader working definition of RM is required for India
Indian institutions encourage their researchers to raise funds from
Following on from these exercises, the India Alliance formally external sources, both to further research and as peer-reviewed
launched the India Research Management Initiative (IRMI) endorsement of their research. Several institutions therefore
in February 2018 as an India-led 12-month pilot study aimed have in place dedicated grant management offices, such as the
at creating awareness for research management, engaging Project Management and Evaluations (PME) Cells at research
in dialogue with Indian institutions and building a baseline institutions of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research
of information upon which to base future policy and funding (CSIR), wherein support services are largely centred around
opportunities. The IRMI pilot has allowed us access to scientific financial management and reporting on extramural grants. Such
leadership, faculty members, research managers and administra- offices need to widen their scope, incorporate proactive approaches
tors at 31 participating institutions (Figure 1, Figure 2 and Table 1), and provide more responsive support to researchers.
Figure 1. Diversity of institutions engaging with the India Research Management Initiative (IRMI) initiative, including autonomous
research institutions of Government of India Departments such as Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), Department of
Biotechnology (DBT), Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), CSIR; Universities,
Medical Centres & associated research units and Others.
Page 3 of 16
Figure 2. Geographical locations of institutions engaging with the India Research Management Initiative (IRMI) initiative.
India now requires a more comprehensive and inclusive defini- The beginnings of wider RM in India
tion of RM, which is also acceptable across institutions as well as In the last decade, a small number of research institutions have
funders. A more contemporary view of RM includes grant man- taken steps to create science-led RM structures that extend
agement at pre-award and post-award stages, partnership building, beyond financial management. The National Centre for Biologi-
outreach to funding agencies, ethics, policy, managing team- cal Sciences (NCBS) in Bengaluru, the Translational Health Sci-
science, impact analysis and others. Indian institutions developing ence and Technology Institute (THSTI) in Faridabad and Indian
their RM activities would benefit from taking this broader inter- Institute of Science Education and Research (IISER) in Pune are
national scope into account for creating correspondingly well- pioneers, with operations including international activities, partner-
structured support services. ship building, grants management at pre- and post-award stages,
Page 4 of 16
Table 1. List of Indian institutions engaging with the IRMI initiative.
Name of research organization

1 Jamia Hamdard, New Delhi
2 National Institute of Epidemiology, Chennai
3 Centre for Stem Cell Research Vellore
4 Regional Centre for Biotechnoloy, Faridabad
5 CSIR- Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad
6 Translational Health Sciences and Technology Institute, Faridabad
7 National Centre for Cell Science, Pune
8 Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Berhampur
9 Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Pune
10 Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Thiruvananthapuram
11 KEM Hospital and Research Centre, Pune
12 Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine, Bangalore
13 National Centre for Biological Sciences, Bangalore
14 Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore
15 George Institute for Global Health, New Delhi
16 Shiv Nadar University, Uttar Pradesh
17 All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi
18 Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay
19 Sri Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology, Thiruvananthapuram
20 Public Health Foundation of India, New Delhi
21 National Institute of Plant Genome Research, Delhi
22 CSIR- Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology, Delhi
23 St Johns Research Institute, Bangalore
24 Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Bangalore
25 International Centre for Theoretical Sciences, Bangalore
26 Kidwai Cancer Institute, Bangalore
27 Institute of Public Health, Bangalore
28 National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore
29 Tata Translational Cancer Research Centre, Tata Medical Centre Kolkata
30 Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics, Hyderabad
31 LV Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad
CSIR - Council of Scientific and Industrial Research
outreach and ethics. These institutions have a track record of suc- for Stem Cell Research (CSCR) in Vellore, Public Health Foun-
cessfully attracting and managing diverse sources of external dation of India (PHFI) in New Delhi, Shiv Nadar University in
funding, including the highly competitive India Alliance fellow- Delhi-National Capital Region (NCR), George Institute of Global
ships. Researchers and the leadership at these institutions regard Health (GIGH) in New Delhi, Tata Translational Cancer Research
support from research offices to be crucial for their success, Centre (TTCRC) in Kolkata and Ashoka Trust for Research in
and include these in future planning. Ecology and the Environment (ATREE) in Bengaluru.
Other government and privately funded institutions have also At some of these institutions, development of de novo RM
started investing more broadly in RM. Examples of these are structures has been driven by the lateral movement of scien-
the National Centre for Cell Science (NCCS) in Pune, Centre tific administrators trained at funding agencies including the
Page 5 of 16
Wellcome Trust, Department of Biotechnology and India Alliance. Pre-award grant management- a missing element
These professionals have transmitted funding best practices to Support from a central office at the pre-award stages was found
their new organizations and have worked in close collaboration to be available at only a small minority of institutions. In many
with visionary and supportive management teams to build research cases, grant applicants do not have access to dedicated sup-
offices from first principles. These are promising developments, port, neutral advice and alignment with institutional focus at the
which should be amplified across many more institutions. pre-award stage. Likewise, the leadership at several institutions
often do not receive timely support with due diligence on appli-
Building new research offices cations, which leads to submission delays. Lack of awareness
At present, Indian investigators spend a significant fraction of also makes some researchers sceptical of the value of pre-award
their time on administration, including the time spent on indi- support, which was viewed as a hindrance or an administrative
vidually following up on their grants with funding agencies. bottleneck.
Outreach to funding agencies via a centralized office is required
for efficiency and creating institutional memory, and would be The lack of proactive pre-award support compromises the
immensely beneficial to individual researchers, particularly in the ability of Indian researchers to identify and seek funding in a timely
context of proactive fundraising from diverse sources. manner, and for the institution to benefit from pre-award due-
diligence and proper budgeting for grant proposals. This feeds
Institutions should take the initiative to build RM structures to forward into the ability of investigators to manage their grants in
support their unique research priorities. This additionally requires alignment with agency norms. Collaborative proposals involving
consistently demonstrating the value of RM to researchers and Indian institutions lacking research offices often suffer delays,
administration alike, to ensure acceptance and long-term sus- inadequate due diligence, undercosting of proposals on the
tainability. Leaders should create a climate of trust and actively Indian side, inadequate overheads and sluggish project manage-
promote the use of their research offices. ment. This aspect of RM will need to be addressed, both from the
perspective of changing attitudes and in developing in the required
Individual researchers at institutions can take an interest in devel- professional support at Indian institutions.
oping their institutional grants offices, and provide inputs and
constructive feedback into how such offices could best support Team-science: reducing the administrative burden on
their needs. They could also connect with peers across India, investigators
via leadership networks, shared administrative structures and Indian researchers are now increasingly participating in com-
platforms such as IndiaBioscience, to explore solutions to issues plex multi-institutional, often international, team-science projects
encountered in creating research offices in India. to address major research questions. With India contributing to
international consortia such as EMBO, HFSP and others, Indian
Diversity of Indian research organizations: implications for researchers have an opportunity to participate and compete
RM at a global level. Such activities benefit from dedicated RM
Research in India is conducted both at universities and at over support, to reduce administrative burden on the investigators and
200 autonomous research institutes supported by various arms facilitate seamless interactions across all participating national
of the Government of India such as the Department of Biotech- and international stakeholders. Team-science efforts in India
nology (DBT), Department of Science and Technology (DST), are being funded from both local and international sources and
CSIR, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), Depart- Indian institutions should be willing to request and justify
ment of Atomic Energy (DAE), Ministry of Human Resource direct resources for RM personnel on grants supporting team-
Development (MHRD) and others, including private funders2. science, rather than expecting their investigators to take care
Research at these organizations spans agricultural, biological, of all administrative requirements.
biomedical, chemical, physical, mathematical, earth, engineering
and materials sciences, and other disciplines including social Sustainability of careers
sciences. Institutions such as the All India Institute of Medical India has a substantial pool of early career researchers trained
Sciences (AIIMS) and Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) to the PhD and postdoctoral levels. With limited academic posi-
impart quality education in medical and engineering disciplines, tions, scientific administration at funding agencies and research
respectively, and are also well regarded for their research efforts. institutions is emerging as an attractive career option. In paral-
Systemic efforts at boosting RM in India should also take into lel, there is an expectation from researchers that professionals
account the operational sizes and administrative complexi- with “blended” scientific and RM skills will be required to
ties of India’s myriad research institutes and universities. This drive a wave of change within current administrative structures.
currently varies widely, with an average life sciences research
institute supporting 30–70 faculty members and the universities, Scaling up RM in India will require the creation of long-term
AIIMS, IITs and others having much larger faculty bodies. With employment opportunities and career structures for RMAs at
changes to funding structures for central and state universities, research institutions across the country. The availability of RM
these higher education centres will also need to establish RM jobs in Indian research institutions should become the norm
systems suited to their unique requirements3. rather than an exception, as it currently stands. Institutions
Page 6 of 16
receiving core-funding from the Government of India face efforts require nurturing and development. In the longer
challenges in recruiting RMAs, particularly those with success- term, once there is a sizeable RM community in India, it would
ful academic backgrounds. There is currently no clear path for be beneficial to have a professional association of RMAs, which
hiring scientifically trained staff to purely management roles in would be expected to cater to future networking and career
research organizations supported by the government. Changes development needs of India’s RMAs and for ensuring their
to present recruitment norms are required at the policy level to connectivity with the international RM community.
enable government-supported institutions to employ scientifically
qualified research managers and create RM structures and roles. The gender issue
A recent survey has highlighted that in several countries, RM is
Institutional overheads are globally accepted as a means of sup- female dominated4. This is true for India as well. At the IRMI
porting research office costs. However, more clarity is needed institutions, the majority of RMAs from academic backgrounds
in India about the use of grant overheads for recruitment of are women at early or intermediate stages of their RM careers.
RMAs. It would be beneficial for institutions to work within The Indian research ecosystem needs to accept RM as a bona-
their respective administrative frameworks to develop clear fide profession and not merely as a route for retaining scien-
policies for costing overheads on grant proposals and to utilise tifically trained women in the workforce, who may then get
a proportion of overheads received towards the recruitment of relegated to ill-defined support roles with unclear paths for
RMAs. career progression.
Capacity building Wider participation from other stakeholders

With the profession being at an early stage in India, concerted The primary mandate of the India Alliance, which supported
efforts on several fronts are required to prepare and develop an the IRMI Pilot, is to enable biomedical research. Conversations
RMA workforce for the next decade. Training programs need during this phase show that RM systems in India need to be inclu-
to be coordinated in diverse areas of RM, at exploratory, begin- sive of all areas of science, including social sciences. Beyond
ner and advanced levels. In order to widen the scope of RM in IRMI, a wider effort would require collaboration between several
India, RMAs need access to training modules in several aspects funders to support this across disciplines. In particular, the devel-
of RM. Training and exchange opportunities should be made opment of RM as a profession in India will require commitment
available to RMAs in India, potentially through the work of and participation from the Government of India for maximal
multiple stakeholders. impact.
Individuals with backgrounds in areas such as science, medi- Conclusions

cine, dentistry and public health would likely play key roles in Indian institutions now need to invest in developing a sound RM
shaping RM structures for Indian institutions, in a manner that support base for their investigators. Without such support, the
caters to specific institutional requirements and priorities. The time of a researcher and funds invested in research are not being
profession will hence need to be open to participation from a optimally utilized. The lack of good RM support also risks future
wider pool of staff with diverse training. Career development growth and the ability to sustainably attract extramural funding
programs for Indian RMAs would have to take cognizance of from government, private, philanthropic and international
these considerations and incorporate suitable standards. sources. Building RM as a viable profession in India will require
concurrent creation of sustainable jobs at Indian institutions and
There are already two RM training programs being offered in India. training of RM aspirants at different levels. The nascent RMA
The RM courses supported by the Department of Science and community in India will benefit from the creation of a formal
Technology (DST) are aimed at active scientists at different levels members association, which can then serve to channelize train-
and do not specifically cater to the career requirements of RMAs. ing, networking and international collaborative opportunities.
Opening such courses to RMAs would significantly widen the Such an association could also function as an advocacy group
benefits to institutions. Workshops on scientific administration for key funders supporting research in India. With wider partici-
are being supported by the Newton Bhabha Fund and offered by pation from RMAs, institutions, mentors and funders, RM can
IISER Pune in partnership with the British Council and India- grow considerably in India and make a significant impact on its
Bioscience. These workshops, aimed at women candidates research and innovation landscape.
wishing to develop careers in scientific administration, have
elicited growing interest from the community. Data availability
No data is associated with this article.
Indian RMAs would also benefit from inclusion in a global com-
munity of professionals. IRMI workshops and attendance of
Indian delegates at INORMS 2018 were the first opportunities
for Indian RMAs to interact with each other and with peers from Grant information
other parts of the world. There is now a dedicated Linkedin page This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust through a
as an early online community for Indian RMAs. Such networking Wellcome/DBT India Alliance Grant [IA/IRMI/18/00001].
Page 7 of 16
Acknowledgements IRMI, and Ms. Saritha Vincent for logistics. Members of staff from
The advisory group that helped develop a framework and the DBT and the DST are thanked for their participation in IRMI
international linkages for the IRMI pilot included Dr Simon events through 2018. Support from research managers at all
Kay and Ms Claire Cunliffe at the Wellcome Trust and institutions participating in the IRMI initiative is gratefully
Dr JohnKirkland, Chief Operating Officer of the National acknowledged, in particular those attending INORMS 2018
Institute of Economic and Social Research. They are gratefully and the IRMI workshops and discussions. Several members of
acknowledged. the international RM community helped with ideas on RM as a
global profession. We also thank all institutions and researchers
The authors also thank staff members at the India Alliance, in who engaged with the IRMI pilot at site visits, workshops, panel
particular Dr Madhankumar Anandhakrishnan, Dr Sarah Iqbal, discussions and on social media, and provided the essential
Dr Banya Kar for their insights and inputs on the development of researcher perspective for this initiative.
References
1. Jameel S, Ayyar S: Improving research ecosystems. Decade of Discovery, a special 3. Jameel S: India’s Universities are feebling away. Nature India. 2018.
edition produced for the India Alliance in partnership with Nature India. 2018; 52. Reference Source
2. Transforming Science and Technology in India. Economic survey of India, 2018; 4. Kerridge S, Scott S: Research Administration around the world. Res Manag Rev.
Chapter 8: 119. 2018; 23(1).
Reference Source Reference Source
Page 8 of 16
Open Peer Review

Current Referee Status:
Version 1
Referee Report 25 February 2019
https://doi.org/10.21956/wellcomeopenres.16445.r34744
L.S. Shashidhara
Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Pune, Pune, Maharashtra, India
In the past ten years, we have seen massive expansion of S&T enterprise in India. Also, in the entire
world the way science is pursued is also very different since the beginning of this millennium. All of
this demands special category of scientific professionals trained in science management
and administration in research/education institutes and universities. They should not only manage
day-to-day activities of their organisation, they should also be in the forefront of planning, executing,
assessing and communicating (to the policy makers, finance people and public at large) various
educational and research activities in S&T. In this context, the survey and its analysis discussed in this
article is timely and essential.

The article has surveyed a good number of diverse organizations and has outlined the current status of
Research management in India. As the article has pointed it out, unfortunately, except for a handful of
organizations, in all organizations researchers themselves have to run around to get everything done.
Since they are not specialized in these skills, they spend more time, but output is much wanted in terms of
quality and quantity.

The authors have also made some constructive suggestions on how to improve the situation. The work
undertaken by the authors is commendable.

However, much of the discussion is on managing grants. Research management goes beyond all this.
People with necessary skills of framing policy so that science and its methods are widely used in all policy
decisions for improved governance, people with good communication skills, people with administrative
skills in setting up laboratories, procuring instruments and reagents, maintenance of equipment, graduate
admissions (how to attract and select best students), facilitating national and international collaborations,
and science entrepreneurship should be part of a good science management team of any medium size
(100+ faculty) to large (400+ faculty) University/research institute.
Perhaps, a follow up to this article, authors may consider taking up a survey on how institutional research
ecosystem is managed in this country. Perception is, we are not managing well and there is no
organizational policy in managing it. A systematic study would give an idea of what India-specific
management needs are.
Is the rationale for the Open Letter provided in sufficient detail?

Yes
Does the article adequately reference differing views and opinions?

Page 9 of 16

Yes
Are all factual statements correct, and are statements and arguments made adequately
supported by citations?
Yes
Is the Open Letter written in accessible language?

Yes
Where applicable, are recommendations and next steps explained clearly for others to follow?
Yes
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Genetics, Developmental biology and also Science Policy, administration,
communication etc.
I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that
it is of an acceptable scientific standard.
Katrina Lawson
Oxford University Clinical Research Unit, Hanoi, Vietnam
It is really great to see this report. As with many developing countries, the Research Administration
landscape in India is evolving slowly and in a different way that the RA landscape in developed countries.
It is rare for resources to be available to investigate and address the infrastructural environment that exists
around research support, and the project that has led to the development of IRMI is immensely valuable,
as evidenced in this article.
I think that the article could benefit from some more clear definitions of terms.
Intramural vs extramural: Although it is undoubtedly common in India, I am not clear about what is
considered intramural vs extramural funds, and the distinction appears to be significant for this piece. I
initially thought that extramural meant competitive funding from outside of India, but now am not sure.
How are intramural funds awarded to the researchers? Is it a competitive grant-making process?
Definition of RM: The article calls for broader definition of RM, but I’m not sure what the baseline
definition is. Is it just financial accounting post-award? The example list of what would be included in a
contemporary view of RM is quite all-encompassing – I wonder if there is benefit in providing more clarity
around these functions, and perhaps a scale of development. I felt that this section was also a little bit in
conflict with the assertion later on that each institution needs to build RM structures that support their
unique research priorities. I think this point is crucial – RM needs to reflect the needs of the research in
each context, and there is no single perfect solution.

In the section about pre-award support, slightly more discussion around the concept of due diligence
could be helpful. It would be good talk about the needs for institutions to comply with legal and ethical

Page 10 of 16
could be helpful. It would be good talk about the needs for institutions to comply with legal and ethical
constraints, as well the constraints imposed by funders – which can be significant, particularly in terms of
financial control and IP.

The team science point is very important. You could also specifically mention some of the administrative
considerations involved in supporting collaborative research – including IP considerations, shared
reporting responsibilities, conflicts of interest, research contract management, and financial reporting and
liability for audit.

I think the point about gender is extremely valuable to make here, and you could make it more strongly.
The fact that research administration globally is a female dominated profession is one of the direct
reasons that it is undervalued. There is an entire PhD project that could be spent on this particular issue,
but for the purposes of this article I would make the point more clearly that Research Administration is
undervalued precisely because of gender discrimination. I think it’s not phrased quite right at the moment
when you say RM is “a route for retaining scientifically trained women in the workforce”. I think the more
obvious point is that RM is being used as a tool to exclude scientifically trained women from the scientific
workforce. People should not be training for 15 years to become scientists, and then find that the only
research-related work they can get is in the research office doing accounts. I think this also feeds into the
capacity building section. I am not sure of the reason why you seem to arguing that RMAs should
preferably be trained scientists. A science background is sometimes an advantage in RM, and other times
quite irrelevant. But insisting on a scientific background for the RMAs is probably contributing to the
gender imbalance, and the filtering of female scientists into the research office and out of the lab.

Finally, the case for creating a professional association of RMAs in India is very strongly made here, in
particular when considering the need for wider participation from other stakeholders. An RM professional
network will be able to broker that support, and advocate for the needs of the research community in
relation to RM.
This review was written under the assumption that the submitted article is an opinion piece, rather than a
scientific report.

Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
Partly
Reviewer Expertise: Research Management

Page 11 of 16
Reviewer Expertise: Research Management
it is of an acceptable scientific standard.
Silke Blohm
SOAS University of London, London, UK
The paper describes an important piece of work which seems very timely and is filling a gap within its
regional context. The conclusions and recommendations seem compelling and would seem to align with
findings/developments in other places. However, this connection is not explicitly made and not evidenced
strongly enough. Here drawing on existing studies and publications, e.g. from existing research
management associations or some academic studies and papers published, could significantly
strengthen the paper.
The paper gives some important and insightful background on the historical development of research and
related funding at Indian universities. This information is useful and would also benefit from references to
supporting work and data. The paper then seems to jump too quickly to some initial conclusions before
having outlined the foundation for these conclusions. Here a restructure of the order of
chapters/paragraphs would help to development a clearer line of argument. It would seem useful to first
give an introduction into the Indian HE and research funding landscape before then moving to what
seems at the core of the paper, the IRMI pilot.
The authors have conducted what seems an impressive amount of work on data collection through
surveys and individual discussions. The paper gives some insights into findings, overall though could
make better use of this data and be more precise about findings and conclusions drawn.
While these conclusions made might seem obvious and likely could be supported by data and case
studies from similar developments in other regions, those links have not explicitly been drawn and not
enough reference has been made to existing work in this area. This would seem a main weakness of this
paper which could be addressed by cross-referencing findings and conclusions back to the data collected
and to experiences/findings made in other regions/institutions.
Overall the reader would benefit from a clearer structure which would avoid jumping from observations to
conclusions and back. Important aspects to cover would seem:
a brief historical overview of research and research funding at Indian HEI,
an introduction of the pilot this article is based on, the methodology used and why it has been
used,
a brief summary of other work in this area, i.e. experiences of emerging research
management/administration structures in other places (which would then later on support the
conclusions drawn)
findings from the pilot
discussion of findings in context of the wider development of research management/administration
globally
conclusion/recommendation
Overall this is a very laudable and ambitious attempt at covering what seems a very large amount of work

Page 12 of 16
Overall this is a very laudable and ambitious attempt at covering what seems a very large amount of work
and data. The paper is also entering a field that overall still seems ‘under-researched’ with limited
publications available. The paper would seem an important piece of work to contribute to the overall body
of literature on evolving research support structures in HEIs.
The intent of this Open Letter might be to give an overview of the pilot study and some initial findings
rather than embedding the work in a comprehensive sector and literature review. In this case a clearer
focus on giving an introduction into the pilot and its aims and where possible sharing some initial findings
might be a more realistic achievement in this paper. It would seem crucial to cross-reference and
evidence any findings and conclusions.

Yes

No
Partly

Yes
Partly
Reviewer Expertise: International Higher Education management, research management
it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined
above.
Simon Kerridge
University of Kent, Canterbury, UK
Overall the Open Letter is clear and compelling - India should invest in Research Management and
Administration (RMA) infrastructure in order to better support researchers in their endeavours. The
specific recommendation for the creation of a national association for RMAs is also welcome. However
some of the assertions are not underpinned with evidence, at least not with evidence provided in the
article.
This is a real shame as the overall argument is (in my opinion) sound, but it is perhaps because of my

Page 13 of 16
This is a real shame as the overall argument is (in my opinion) sound, but it is perhaps because of my
experience as an RMA that I believe this, rather than with the evidence presented in the article - in some
cases the Open Letter does not provide evidence for the assertions made. However it does appear that
much evidence will have been gathered in the IRMI work. This could perhaps be more explicitly and
directly drawn into the Open Letter – one method could be the incorporation of quotes from participants;
but this could be problematic post hoc, and would perhaps change the tone of the article. Another is to
provide more detail on claims, for example “At present, Indian investigators spend a significant fraction of
their time on administration…” there is no indication of what this fraction might be, or how the data to
make the assertion was collected.
In terms of unsupported assertions, another example is "Collaborative proposals involving Indian
institutions lacking research offices often suffer delays, inadequate due diligence, undercosting of
proposals on the Indian side, inadequate overheads and sluggish project management." - is this the case,
where is the evidence? It seems (to me) to be a reasonable assertion, and one I presume that came from
the IRMI work – but the authors do not state this. However, most of these assertions do reflect the
findings of others, but again they are not referenced.
India / IRMI specific assertions were similarly unsupported, for example “Support from a central office at
the pre-award stages was found to be available at only a small minority of institutions.” How many of the
31 institutions looked at was this? There is no underlying dataset to help answer this.
One specific assertion that I do not quite follow is: “Individuals with backgrounds in areas such as science,
medicine, dentistry and public health would likely play key roles in shaping RM structures for Indian
institutions, in a manner that caters to specific institutional requirements and priorities.” As shown in their
4th reference (disclaimer, this was work I led), around the world, RMAs come from a wide variety of
academic backgrounds. It is not clear why this would be focussed around science and medicine in India.
However the IRMI work was based around institutions predominantly it seems in these subject areas and
so perhaps, given the newness of the profession in India and the apparent propensity in countries where
RMA is developing for RMAs initially to be researchers moving into administration, then perhaps this is to
be expected.
One specific weakness is in addressing opposing views. This is only highlighted with the sentence “Lack
of awareness also makes some researchers sceptical of the value of pre-award support, which was
viewed as a hindrance or an administrative bottleneck.” which is then not countered or debated. For
example David Colquhoun makes some strong statements
http://www.dcscience.net/DC-research-fortnight-020610.pdf; however the majority of the literature
suggests that “good” research support can indeed unencumber the researcher from administrative
burden, and even help improve the chances for research bids to be successful. See for example Pamela
F. Miller (2017)1, and Natasha G. Wiebe and Eleanor Maticka-Tyndale (2017)2.

Given the use of the worded “blended” in terms of professionalism, one might have expected a reference
to the work of Celia Whitchurch. In general there is a low level of citation.
I would have liked to see “Research Management” and “RMA” included in the keywords.
Overall the authors are to be commended in covering such a large amount of ground in such a short
space, however this does perhaps mean that the reader has to take some assertions on face value.
Perhaps as an Open Letter, to provoke debate, this is not unreasonable but the arguments would be
much stronger with the evidence base that the IRMI work surely produced – allowing the conclusions to
be properly justified.

Page 14 of 16
be properly justified.
In summary, the effectiveness of Research Management and Administration is in general an under
researched area, and this Open Letter and its recommendations are welcomed, but is felt that some work
is needed to show robust evidence for the conclusions made.
References
1. Miller PF: The Global Research Environment. Chapter 3 in Research Management: Europe and
Beyond. 2017.
2. Wiebe NG, Maticka-Tyndale E: More and Better Grant Proposals? The Evaluation of a Grant-Writing
Group at a Mid-Sized Canadian University. Journal of Research Administration. 2107. 67-92

Yes

No
Partly

Yes
Yes
Competing Interests: The reviewer has been minimally involved in the Wellcome Trust/DBT India
Alliance / African Academy of Sciences initiative that the authors have played a major role in; however we
have not worked directly together.
Reviewer Expertise: Research Management and Administration
it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined
above.
Comments on this article

Version 1
Reader Comment 02 Feb 2019
Prashanth N Srinivas, Institute of Public Health Bengaluru, India
Congratulations on writing up the experience of IRMI. Country/institutional investment in research

Page 15 of 16
Congratulations on writing up the experience of IRMI. Country/institutional investment in research
management will be crucial in realizing the impact of the ongoing investments into research in India. In my
opinion, many large government research institutions are struggling without this role right now. Introducing
such roles in non-governmental research organasations in India (such as ours) also has its challenges.
Changes to grant architecture similar to the changes introduced to accommodate open access publishing
fees would be needed to ensure adequate focus on research management.
Competing Interests: My institution (IPH Bangalore) has participated in workshops conducted under
IRMI initiative.

Page 16 of 16

Version 1 Referees: 2 Approved, 2 Approved With Reservations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Version 1 Referees: 2 Approved, 2 Approved With Reservations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Version 1 Referees: 2 Approved, 2 Approved With Reservations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wellcome Open Research 2019, 4:18 Last updated: 25 FEB 2019

First published: 31 Jan 2019, 4:18 ( Open Peer Review

Disclaimer staff at major research funding agencies in India and members

Table 1. List of Indian institutions engaging with the IRMI initiative.

Name of research organization

Capacity building Wider participation from other stakeholders

Individuals with backgrounds in areas such as science, medi- Conclusions

Open Peer Review

Referee Report 25 February 2019

Is the rationale for the Open Letter provided in sufficient detail?

Does the article adequately reference differing views and opinions?

Does the article adequately reference differing views and opinions?

Is the Open Letter written in accessible language?

Referee Report 22 February 2019

Is the rationale for the Open Letter provided in sufficient detail?

Does the article adequately reference differing views and opinions?

Is the Open Letter written in accessible language?

Referee Report 20 February 2019

Is the rationale for the Open Letter provided in sufficient detail?

Does the article adequately reference differing views and opinions?

Is the Open Letter written in accessible language?

Referee Report 14 February 2019

Is the rationale for the Open Letter provided in sufficient detail?

Does the article adequately reference differing views and opinions?

Is the Open Letter written in accessible language?

Comments on this article

You might also like