In the 1990s the final grading (Satisfactory-outstanding) awarded to a scientist was communicated to him/her and he/she was given an opportunity to represent to the higher authorities for any anomalies. Guidelines were provided for giving excellent and outstanding gradings. These gradings were given marks and thresh holds were fixed for promotions,higher the promotion higher the thresh hold marks.The system of communicating the grade was withdrawn and again it is re-introduced. Any adverse remarks against any scientist were also communicated and he/she was given an opportunity to contest/explain. Scientists with outstanding/excellent grades are eligible for merit promotions (1 or 2 years before the normal residency period of 5 years). Boss biases exist. Undeserving candidates may be promoted to the exclusion of deserving candidates. Previously there was a cap on number of promotions (like 50% or 33% of the number of eligible candidates to create a triangular institutional structure). This cap has now been withdrawn.

As on today, there is no information available, on “the criteria adopted for observing transparency and objectivity in the assessment of attributes for awarding grades in APARs".In the absence of detailed marking scheme, the arbitrary marking awarded for the evaluation of attributes based on the so called “actual performance of the individual’s achievements” will continue to differ widely.

A sound Quality control/quality assurance (QA/QC) programme is essential for any organization involved in assessment/evaluations of personal attributes of Scientists. Without proper quality control (QC)/ detailed marking scheme/index (say h=index), the results/assessment obtained are directly dependent on the vagaries of the Assessors, Reviewers/countersigning/, and finally accepting authority, and the procedure adopted by different channel including promotional committee .

There are plenty of literature available  and discussions going on regarding ranking of Scientists. I quote here a few of them:

1.Does the h-index for ranking of scientists really work?

L Bornmann, HD Daniel - Scientometrics, 2005 - akademiai.com

2.What do we know about the h index?

L Bornmann, HD Daniel - Journal of the American Society for …, 2007 - Wiley Online Library

3.Are there better indices for evaluation purposes than the h index? A comparison of nine different variants of the h index using data from biomedicine

L Bornmann, R Mutz, HD Daniel - Journal of the American …, 2008 - Wiley Online Library

4. An improvement of the H-index: the G-index

L Egghe - ISSI newsletter, 2006 - pds4.egloos.com

5.Index aims for fair ranking of scientists

P Ball - Nature, 2005 - nature.com

6.The state of h index research

L Bornmann, HD Daniel - EMBO reports, 2009 - embor.embopress.org

7.An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output

JE Hirsch - Proceedings of the National academy of …, 2005 - National Acad Sciences

8.Does the h index have predictive power?

JE Hirsch - Proceedings of the National Academy of …, 2007 - National Acad Sciences

9.The R-and AR-indices: Complementing the h-index

B Jin, L Liang, R Rousseau, L Egghe - Chinese science bulletin, 2007 - Springer

10.On the h-index-A mathematical approach to a new measure of publication activity and citation impact

W Glänzel - Scientometrics, 2006 - akademiai.com

and many more papers on these aspects.

Recently, Research gate has also started evaluating scientists using various metrics including RG Score, Impacts points, etc. Research gate is still evolving  its various  metrics through feedback from international scientific community. Citation to publications is through confirmation by email to the authors.This "citation to publications"  feature  is not yet  fully updated in their database and needs immediate attention of the Research gate team.

Evaluation of any personal attribute is most difficult task and it needs bench marking.I would like to draw the attention of all Institutions /Organisations/Scientific bodies,etc,   to kindly contribute their best in evolving a mechanism  of DETAILED MARKING SCHEME for the evaluation of different attributes of Scientists, so that the gradings awarded should not differ from A1 to A3 and the real  purpose of APAR' s evaluation  can be successfully achieved  for the growth of organisation, growth of country, National mission and mandate .

In such circumstances, The Human errors will always be there in such evaluations at every stage /channel, if not evaluated independently and impartially.. I am of the opinion, Such Human Errors occurred, if any , should be identified , rectified, and  strict measures should be taken to discourage  such activities, otherwise they may prove destructive for any organisation.

It has been observed that instead of rectifying human errors, there is always a normal human tendency to justify them (for such human errors) and such authority commits further human errors to cover up their past mistakes/bias/errors in their assessment. Development of such mind set of superior authority in any organisation will not contribute for the growth and  development of the organisation.

In any national or international games, there are records or bench marking or international standards. Like wise in Analytical Chemistry, There are so many international certified reference  materials are available for quality assurance and quality control practices. These CRMs serve as bench mark for such purposes. Likewise, for the  measurement of different  attributes of scientists, there are indexes, RG Score or impact points available and these should be adopted.

It has been observed that superior authority instead of rectifying human errors, they  further try their best to justify them with fabricated irrelevant comments without any basis, just to cover up their past mistakes. Unfortunately,  Such  human errors propagate through so many channels and so on.

I will comment in depth on this issue.

Few aspects we can consider:

1. Quality of research and publications

2. Doing research projects

3. General behaviour

4. Administrative capabilities

5. Demonstrated leadership and effective decisions

6. General disposal of work

7. Etc. ... !

The performance review  is on the actual performance, the tasks that were completed and areas that need improvement,

• Meetings such as ''Action Inquiry'', is a method where organizational members use dialogue to foster their working relationships through enhancement of individual and group decision-making in an organization thereby improving productivity.
• Feedback is an important part of the PAS, the ratees should be given feedback on their competence and overall progress within the organization and be specific, timely and be against the predetermined performance expectations. It's within the employees’ rights to know how they are progressing in performing the assigned tasks and to receive feedback. The feedback should be provided on a continuous basis – daily, weekly or monthly reviews.
• The 360-degree feedback method can be utilized by organizations. This is a method that combines evaluations from various sources into the overall appraisal. The evaluations can be from peers, subordinates, superiors and the ratee herself. Evaluations from clients, suppliers, or customers can also be sought. The 360-degree feedback is costly but it is the most comprehensive since feedback is sought from everyone who is directly involved with the ratee. 

I would be happy if  both of : Dr.   Subhash C. Kundu and Krishnan Umachandran have detailed making scheme for evaluation of APAR.  Detailed marking scheme , I mean, just like in CBSC Class-XII Exam. Without detailed marking scheme, the evaluation/measurement of attributes will depend on the vagaries of the Assessor/ Reviewer/Competent authorities.  Kindly share in detail. , if you have such scheme.

I appreciate the CBSE class 12 detailed  Marking scheme, .It is well discussed and elaborated. There is a transparency and accountability but such schemes for APAR/CR's evaluations of Scientists are still lacking.

In CSIR the system of evaluating scientists has changed over the years from CR to APAR to PMS. You can approach CSIR Head Quarters for appropriate proformas over the years and compare them with ICAR, ICMR, DMRL etc. You can possibly come out with a comprehensive proforma to truly reflect the contributions of a scientist in an year.

Dear Dr. B.R. Rajeswara Rao Saheb,  Kindly help me  in getting in particular: Detailed marking scheme. I will try there also. Kindly give me email etc. I have studied DAE -APAR Evaluation also and the so-called merit promotion scheme of DAE.

My purpose is to propose such a scheme or to write an article  - free from errors /bias . I personally feel that  there is a need for detailed marking scheme  in DAE in particular,  so that the APAR evaluation should be reformative /motivational, instead of destructive in nature.  In the present situations, any grading can be justified by superior /competent authorities, which is very unfortunate. Moreover, the scientific aptitude and moral values have declined  to such an extent that no one can afford further decline for the growth of the organization.

Dear Dr. Rathore

Please contact Joint Secreatry administration or Planning and Performance Development (PPD) Head or Information Technology Head. I hope they will help you. You can also contact PME (Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation) department of any CSIR institute in your area for help. The attached link provides you the contact numbers and addresses of CSIR authorities. You can also access indivdual Institutes through CSIR website or the institute's website.

Best wishes

http://www.csir.res.in/External/Heads/aboutcsir/lab_phone/2015/05csirhq-fresh010415.pdf

Thanks for information.

In DST and other Scientific organizations, the gradings are normalized whether markings are 8 or 9  as outstanding but in DAE such is not the case ( the so called under Merit Promotion Scheme of DAE). Those who gets 9 markings are treated as outstanding and it all depends on bosses to award any marking ( 6-10) out of 10. In so many cases, ( Prior to APAR) makings are 11 to 13 x  but gradings are A2. In the absence of any detailed marking scheme,  such errors will continue to remain. There is a need for benchmarking  or well defined steps so that grading may not differ from A1 to A3 in APAR. Moreover, there is a need for transparency and accountability for the growth of any organization. In analytical chemistry or for any measurement systems, standards/international standards are mandatory to minimize  ( control ) the errors in measurements using validated methods otherwise results will depend on the vagaries of analyst.

I would like to quote " one of the reviewer commented in APAR: Grading 8.1 may be accepted"  He has signed and stamped also. Such a reviewer is lacking in basics , whether 8.1 is marking or grading. Such errors continued through different channels.

I would be happy to know the steps initiated by scientific organizations for APAR evaluations..

In the 1990s the final grading (Satisfactory-outstanding) awarded to a scientist was communicated to him/her and he/she was given an opportunity to represent to the higher authorities for any anomalies. Guidelines were provided for giving excellent and outstanding gradings. These gradings were given marks and thresh holds were fixed for promotions,higher the promotion higher the thresh hold marks.The system of communicating the grade was withdrawn and again it is re-introduced. Any adverse remarks against any scientist were also communicated and he/she was given an opportunity to contest/explain. Scientists with outstanding/excellent grades are eligible for merit promotions (1 or 2 years before the normal residency period of 5 years). Boss biases exist. Undeserving candidates may be promoted to the exclusion of deserving candidates. Previously there was a cap on number of promotions (like 50% or 33% of the number of eligible candidates to create a triangular institutional structure). This cap has now been withdrawn.

I think the mechanism of grading nowhere reflects the ability of assessor.  Further, even within the same department poor avenues are provided to some of the deserving candidates  and accordingly  poor grading is presumed for their performance. Filling / assessment of  APAR is more a ritual for the assessor and role of the candidate is very limited. 

If marking system is not clear, then the evaluator may assess and give marks on the basis of continuous observations through out the period. He/she may devise itself some objective criteria.

However, self appraisal report must be considered!

 Present marking system has belittle the importance of the grade like outstanding. Like other service sector the scientific community is also doing job and as such there is no scope for changing the grading system. Even the most dedicated person does not have the liberty to spell the truth. Science which suits the department/individual is the only science  rest is wastage of energy. Unless norms for giving uniform opportunity  is ensured, the outcome of improving the grading system will not serve the objective. First step is providing the space, second is providing the resource, third is written commitment after discussion not merely ritual of writing the target and next year target achieved, written write up (submission by individual) elaborating how the target was achieved finally discussion before a panel in which person should be asked to explain why a particular grading can be given to him and finally decision of his grading based on his overall quality which should include overall capability and capability to enhance as a team leader (resource generator), hardcore scientific attitude, highly responsible behaviour in managing the routine requirement of the department, ability to impart training to others, innovative, unidirectional, regular presence, social and discipline related attributes. Lastly ways and means to convince him why a particular grade is given to him or not given to him. In our system everyone feels that he was worth getting outstanding grade which is denied without any justified grounds. Lastly grass routed motivational/HR  programme is needed before the grading system can yield a fruitful result.       

Thanks for sharing your views. It is very clear that without clearly defined and validated detailed marking scheme for evaluation of different attributes , it is practically impossible to do justice for all. Such bias will always continue to propagate from one channel to others, if not assessed independently and impartially at each stage for the growth of the individual and organization.

Hopefully a questionnaire should be given prior to planning for next year APAR. The questionnaire   should emphasize his present assignment, his satisfaction level, any changes which he may wish to make to suite his interest within the scope of his work, if further guidance will be needed to set a goal, what resources will be required to him to attain the objective, how long will it take to arrange the resource, what alternative can be suggested either at his end or at the end of the expert to change his objective if the particular resource is not available, what is the anticipated time require to comply his committed objectives, what type of motivational changes can enhance his capability (support of psychoanalyst or HR is highly required). After completion of the questionnaire session candidate should present how by the beginning of next year he will adhere his commitment if fails even after providing adequate resource how he will be withdrawn or rewarded. In the mean time candidate should be assessed at a definite interval to convey him that the progress is directional or still modification is required. Lastly the reason for writing a paper and order of authorship should be earmarked and bias  due to conflict of interest can be resolved. Lastly a second independent review committee should discuss the assessment and grading and the candidate can put forward his case before the review committee. The role of modern IT can be taken ( at least the discussion held during review should be recorded so that convincingly it can be said why Mr. X cannot be given a particular grade not Mr. Y).

Dear Dr. Vivekanand Jha, I appreciate your views.