You are wrong.

The violation of ethics is that a scientist is required to support knowingly false postulates. This is typical for areas that are global in nature.

Fortunately, this does not apply to applied sciences, the results of which are implemented in production and bring profit.

In the solar system of our own earth, the Suraj i. e. the Sun is one and unique. It is quality, not quantity. Truth always triumphs. We should stress only on truth not on propaganda. Fire cannot be kept hidden by means of cover. In our ancient sanaatan history, the position of really learned and philanthropist was higher than the king. In present day society it may sound ridiculous. However, hope for the best........

In Hindu tradition, quality is consistently emphasized over quantity, a principle reinforced in both scriptures and narratives. For instance, Lord Krishna accepted a simple handful of flattened rice from his childhood friend Sudama, illustrating that sincerity carries more value than material abundance. Likewise, a single tulsi leaf is considered as meaningful as an offering of immense wealth, underscoring the idea that devotion lies in intent rather than scale. Such stories highlight that genuine worth resides in quality, not numerical excess.

This emphasis extends beyond devotion to the sphere of ethics. Vibhishana, despite being Ravana’s brother, urged him to abandon the immoral desire to abduct Sita, thereby placing truth and righteousness above familial loyalty. Similarly, Vidura, minister to King Dhritarashtra, advocated granting the promised land to the Pandavas in order to preserve justice and peace. These episodes demonstrate that the pursuit of truth and quality must be safeguarded even under pressure from power, politics, or personal interest.

By contrast, many contemporary academic systems measure merit primarily by numerical indicators such as publication counts and citation indices. Such criteria shift attention from the quality of research to its quantity, inadvertently encouraging unethical practices. A particularly troubling manifestation of this tendency is the rise of paid journals and paid publications. In such outlets, scholars are often required to pay substantial fees in exchange for publication, regardless of the originality or rigor of their research. This practice undermines the principle of peer review, dilutes the credibility of scientific literature, and allows financially privileged scholars to gain visibility while marginalizing those without resources. Instead of rewarding intellectual merit, these systems commodify knowledge and reduce scholarship to a transactional exchange.

Lobbying, political influences, and personal egos within the scientific community further exacerbate these problems, privileging superficial recognition over genuine contribution. The tension between tradition and modern practice thus becomes evident. Whereas tradition values the sincerity of intent and the integrity of action, modern academic culture too often rewards appearances—the husk—rather than substance—the grain. If the academic community is to realign with ethical and moral principles, it must re-evaluate its criteria for merit, reject exploitative models of paid publication, and return to a focus on quality as the foundation of intellectual and moral progress.