Submitted:
11 October 2025
Posted:
13 October 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
This study analyzes the relationship between research output characteristics, faculty credentials, and institutional ranking performance in the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) 2025 under the Engineering category. Data comparisons across ranking bands (99, 100–150, 150–200, 201–300) reveal that pure institutional publications and higher ratios of full-time Ph.D. faculty contribute significantly to higher research and faculty-related scores. Conversely, excessive external collaboration correlates with reduced ranking performance despite higher publication counts. The findings emphasize the strategic importance of enhancing institutional research capacity, retaining experienced Ph.D. faculty, and fostering balanced internal collaborations.
Keywords:
NIRF engineering
; research performance
; pure institutional publication
; faculty quality
; Ph.D. ratio
; collaboration
; ranking analysis
1. Introduction
The NIRF Engineering ranking emphasizes research and faculty quality as major contributors to institutional excellence [1]. Among all parameters, quality publications and quality faculty (FSR and FQU) collectively account for nearly half of the total weightage [2]. The weightage is represented in Table 1. This study aims to identify key determinants that elevate institutional ranking performance using NIRF 2025 data.
The quality publication contributes approximately 40.5 – 45.5% of the total score. Sub-components include: FQU, PU, QP, FPPP, GPHD and PP. This indicates that institutional research strength remains the largest contributor to ranking performance. To compare among institutions, I randomly selected institutions in 101-150 band, 151-200 band, 201-300 band and 99 Rank. The institution name was not mentioned throughout the article.
2. Research Output and Pure Institution Outcome
Table 2 show that pure institutional publications (papers authored solely by internal faculty and students) contribute more effectively to NIRF Research scores. As per Scopus database for the calendar year 2021-2023.
The Rank 99 institution demonstrates a strong correlation between institutional-only publications (185 articles) and higher research marks. In contrast, lower-ranked bands (100–300) show higher collaboration percentages (over 150 – 270%) but lower research performance, highlighting that external collaborations, while increasing quantity, may dilute institutional credit.
3. Faculty Quality and Ph.D. Ratios (FSR and FQU)
Faculty Student Ratio (FSR) and Faculty Qualification (FQU) account for 15% of NIRF weightage combined. Institutions in the top 100 band maintain 100% Ph.D. faculty, outperforming bands with only 45–63% Ph.D. faculty. Experienced faculty distribution in 1:1:1 ratio across less than 8 : 8 to 15 : 15+ years correlates with higher Faculty Quality Unit (FQU) scores. Recognition as Ph.D. Supervisors increases institutional visibility and research capacity by attracting more scholars.
Table 3.
FSR and Scholars details. Data as per DCS 2025.
| Rank | Faculty | Ph.D. | % | Students | Full-time Scholars | Part-time Scholars |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100-150 | 278 | 175 | 62.95% | 3726 | 71 | 188 |
| 150-200 | 358 | 162 | 45.25% | 4308 | 27 | 84 |
| 201-300 | 225 | 121 | 53.78% | 3150 | 18 | 95 |
| 99 | 76 | 76 | 100.00% | 1130 | 176 | 81 |
4. Collaboration and Ranking Performance
While collaborations expand academic networks, excessive external dependence reduces institutional ownership of research outcomes. The Rank 99 institution shows 87.23% document collaboration, whereas others exceed 150–260%, correlating with lower research marks.
Table 4.
Publication Count as per Scopus Database for entire period of the institution. % with Doc. = Collaboration/ Documents; % with Authors = Collaboration/ Authors.
Table 4.
Publication Count as per Scopus Database for entire period of the institution. % with Doc. = Collaboration/ Documents; % with Authors = Collaboration/ Authors.
| Rank | Documents | Authors | Collaboration | % with Doc. | % with Authors |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100-150 | 3719 | 1958 | 5648 | 151.87% | 288.46% |
| 150-200 | 3010 | 1940 | 2997 | 99.57% | 154.48% |
| 201-300 | 2730 | 1688 | 4517 | 165.46% | 267.59% |
| 99 | 1691 | 670 | 1475 | 87.23% | 220.15% |
Thus, maintaining optimal collaboration—focused on institutional authorship—is key to maximizing NIRF credit.
5. Strategic Implications for Institutions
Institutions should focus on fostering a strong internal research ecosystem by encouraging in-house research projects and effectively utilizing existing infrastructure to generate pure institutional outputs. Retaining and rewarding Ph.D.-qualified faculty with balanced experience profiles will further strengthen academic and research capabilities. Additionally, promoting Ph.D. supervisor recognition can attract more research scholars, thereby enhancing the Ph.D. Graduated (GPHD) metrics. Finally, it is essential to monitor collaboration ratios to ensure that the institution’s contribution remains predominant in Web of Science-indexed publications, thereby maximizing research visibility and ranking performance [3,4].
6. Conclusions
NIRF Engineering rankings are influenced not just by publication quantity but by the institutional quality and ownership of research. Institutions aiming for top-band recognition should focus on sustainable internal research ecosystems, experienced Ph.D. faculty retention, and balanced collaboration policies. Pure institutional research emerges as a more reliable indicator of research excellence than collaborative volume.
Author Contributions
Palanichamy Naveen: Conceptualization, methodology, validation, formal analysis, investigation, resources, data curation, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, supervision, project administration. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Acknowledgments
Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
| NIRF | National Institutional Ranking Framework |
References
- Naveen, P. How to Get Your Institution into the Top 200 in NIRF Ranking? TechRxiv 2023. [CrossRef]
- Naveen, P. Weighing Faculty Research Contribution in Institutional Growth and Incentivization. Preprints 2025, 2025031733. [Google Scholar]
- Naveen, Palanichamy, Benchmarking the Growth of Engineering Institutions: A Phased Roadmap from Foundation to Eminence (April 26, 2025). [CrossRef]
- Naveen, P. Performance Appraisal System for Faculty in Engineering Institutions. Preprints 2025, 2025041730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1.
Weightage of NIRF Engineering Category.
| Parameter | Actual Score | Weightage |
|---|---|---|
| Student Strength (SS) | 20 | 6 |
| Faculty-student ratio (FSR) | 30 | 9 |
| Combined metric for Faculty with PhD (FQU) | 20 | 6 |
| Financial Resources and their Utilisation (FRU) | 30 | 9 |
| Publications (PU) | 35 | 10.5 |
| Quality of Publications (QP) | 40 | 12 |
| Patent (IPR) | 15 | 4.5 |
| Projects and Professional Practice (FPPP) | 10 | 3 |
| Placement and Higher Studies (GPH) | 40 | 8 |
| University Examinations (GUE) | 15 | 3 |
| Median Salary (GMS) | 25 | 5 |
| Ph.D. Students Graduated (GPHD) | 20 | 4 |
| Region Diversity (RD) | 30 | 3 |
| Women Diversity (WD) | 30 | 3 |
| Economically and Socially Challenged Students (ESCS) | 20 | 2 |
| Facilities for Physically Challenged Students (PCS) | 20 | 2 |
| Peer Perception (PP) | 100 | 10 |
Table 2.
Publication Count with only home affiliation. Publication Count as per Scopus database for the calendar year 2021-2023. Faculty Count and Ph.D. is w.r.to DCS 2025.
Table 2.
Publication Count with only home affiliation. Publication Count as per Scopus database for the calendar year 2021-2023. Faculty Count and Ph.D. is w.r.to DCS 2025.
| Rank | Faculty | Ph.D. | % | Article and Others | Conference Paper |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100-150 | 278 | 175 | 62.95% | 52 | 169 |
| 150-200 | 358 | 162 | 45.25% | 81 | 300 |
| 201-300 | 225 | 121 | 53.78% | 23 | 147 |
| 99 | 76 | 76 | 100.00% | 185 | 99 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
