From my long experience of teaching, the researchers who have rich researching CV usually have poor teaching records and vice versa. That is especially true for the universities that haven't a sufficient researching budget. The reason behind that is that researching needs more time at the expense of teaching.

I think there is a correlation as doing research a teacher can develop his or her knowledge.

anyway follow these links for additional information,

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1170652?seq=1

Article Correlation between Academic Cheating Behavior and achieveme...

Nadeesha Sewwandi Abegunasekara Thanks for sharing excellent links. I am interested to know whether person getting good grade/marks or rank in school/university will be good researcher or not.

Hermann Gruenwald I mean correlation between research performance and performance at college/university level.

Yes, there is a positive correlation between academic and research excellence.

This is my opinion

It it difficult to draw any such conclusion on global level, as scoring and grading systems are highly variable. Indian grading system is highly crippled, particularly at the evaluation and germination of scientific focus. Conventional teaching at most academia (except a few) as well exams are very poor at the evaluation of the curiosity and scientific temperament of a person, including leading PhD entrance examinations, With more than a decade of experience of teaching and closely observing thousands of students I strongly believe for at least Indian context that there is a poor correlation between good grades and good research temperament (I have seen students with average grades doing extremely well in research and some with high grades are performing poor). Although I have never performed such academic study, but my observations are based on real data of several hundreds of students. Perhaps, if you are looking for any such data for specific purpose, CSIR or ICMR must be having such information and they do publish related data sometimes.

Dear Gajendra Pal Singh Raghava ,

Indeed, an interesting question. Would be interesting to find out whether this issue is ever studied. What I can say is:

-Can imagine that it varies a lot depending on the discipline you talk about (Life Sciences, Philosophy, Literature studies etc.)

-As far as I can tell, like Aditya Arya , I have seen no correlation between students graduated cum laude (or summa cum laude) and becoming/being more than excellent researchers

-As said by Hermann Gruenwald my impression is that excellent students tell you not that much about important characteristics like great imagination, good social and networking skills, ability to overview more disciplines etc.

-Good grades can be more ‘controlled’ by yourself while working on ‘hot topics’, working at a well-reputed institute, working with more than excellent colleagues is (at least in part) a matter of luck

To put it in other words: it would highly surprise me when a firm correlation exists.

Best regards.

Dear Dr. Rob Keller,

I am a researcher and I believe that a good researcher is not always a great teacher, but it is not true that the opposite is the rule. I am perplexed about the "good teachers" who are modest scholars, because they often present the matter as absolute certainties. The theme of innovation is very broad. The part of innovation that can arise from scientific research is certainly of crucial importance for a country that should focus on innovation. Unfortunately, in Italy the resources for scientific research have been reduced to a very low level and consequently it makes little sense to hope that significant ideas for innovation can arise from Italian research. What is produced is, as usual, the fruit of the creativity and will of Italian researchers who, despite the difficulties of the system, do not give up in their work.

My best regards, Pierluigi Traverso.

I think research aptitude should be tested separately and encouraged. Nurture research aptitude because it's so entwined with higher learning, sometimes that might be a limitation. Out of box thinking may or may not be present in academically sound individuals.

I believe that the academic standards that each university follows in measuring and evaluating the quality of research is the link or intermediate variable between the two variables that you mentioned in your question.

I think there is a significant association between academic and research excellence.

Hermann Gruenwald

Very nice. 😉

Dear Hermann Gruenwald great source. For those not able/willing to read the book...have a look at this:

https://fourminutebooks.com/why-a-students-work-for-c-students-summary/

Aditya Arya Thanks for writing your experience. I am interested whether there is any study which study on large data. It is also possible that most of talented person who have high grade, are not interested in research profession. They prefer jobs like engineer or medicine after qualifying competitions.

Academics is about archiving knowledge, research is about learning to create new knowledge (skills). Consequently, these are different levels of human learning,

https://orl9.wordpress.com/deutero-learning/ and they may even represent different personality types of humans.

No doubt, academic excellence always helpful for research excellence. Full dedication, creativity, innovative ideas, passion along with vast reading on subject needed for research excellence. Need to think beyond routine path for excellence. Minds should be ignited for research excellence.

From my point of view, the true question is: are the tests and scoring systems can reflect the students' ability in solving realistic, especially unprecedented, questions? and how much?

Ideally, if the tests and grading systems are good enough, it should help us to tell apart excellent students from the poor ones.

However, as a Chinese with more than a thousand years of standardized testing history, I have not seen the system work in any higher education. The standardized test, as its name suggest, is best for checking the grasp of those common knowledge, but not the creativity that is needed in scientific discovery. Indeed, an excellent researcher usually needs a solid background knowledge, but the solid background itself does nothing more than a computer database. It is still people in the end who use the database to design the analyses, and make discoveries. (Yes, big data and machine learning can discern patterns now, but they are merely patterns if no humans try to explain them.) So, this system is not useless. Yet comparing to picking up the excellence, it works much better in terms of reducing the unqualified.

Meanwhile, because of the huge difference between disciplines as mentioned by Rob Keller , it is improbable to find a normalized grading system to fairly judge the grades across different fields. An 'A' from cell biology might represent very different quality from an 'A' from neurology or biophysics. Moreover, even the 'impact factor', a widely used index for academic achievement, is often misleading due to the papers and researchers from different disciplines.

Last but not least, we should remember that the tests and grades are invented by men, while scientists are always looking for questions raised by nature. Sometimes, I feel disappointed about it: it is like a group of cavemen are using a mesh to filter stones to make hand axes, while the real characteristic that we want is actually the sharpness rather than the size.

Gajendra - in my personal experience there is no direct correlation between great research and good teaching. I think that in most cases both of them go hand in hand. However, during my long career I have seen both extremes. Quite often you meet colleagues who are good teachers and are popular among the student but do not regularly write research papers. I also remember colleagues who were great researchers but more or less hated teaching. But then, as I said, these are extremes and fortunately exceptions. Luckily, my teachers and mentors were all of the category great researcher PLUS excellent teacher.

From my long experience of teaching, the researchers who have rich researching CV usually have poor teaching records and vice versa. That is especially true for the universities that haven't a sufficient researching budget. The reason behind that is that researching needs more time at the expense of teaching.

It is rare cases that one who is successful in teaching can be a good researcher.

There is no correlation between those who are good in teaching may not be a good researcher.

Teaching will help to dig more textual knowledge based on the syllabus whereas the research will dig the fact and knowledge from the reality of the test investigation in the field or laboratory situations.

The percentage is less to those who have a successful on both interrelated profession.

It supposed to be, but its not necessary.

Professor Hermann Gruenwald described learning and research in four precise words. Yes, this is how we differentiate between those who recite and those who create knowledge. The scientific researcher is described this way. We have Research Centers that do not teach students, the researchers work in scientific research, when they came to the College, we noticed their success in teaching in addition to their excellence in scientific research

For a good researcher it is not necessary that he/she should have good academic record. There are many examples. A person having good academic record may not be a good independent researcher. Research needs idea. During the lockdown period I know a 10th failed boy developed a prototype motor bike in the Balasore of Odisha, India. He developed the bike from different discarded materials.