ICMR’s Impact of Research and Innovation Scale (IRIS) – Measuring Biomedical Research Impact in India

Impact of Research and Innovation Scale (IRIS) Latest News

• The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has proposed the Impact of Research and Innovation Scale (IRIS) to measure the impact of biomedical, public health, and allied research projects.
• Given ICMR’s role as India’s premier grants-giving and agenda-setting body in health research, IRIS could significantly shape the research ecosystem.

Key Features of IRIS

• ICMR proposes to measure research impact in units called publication-equivalents (PEs). 
• A research paper published in a peer-reviewed journal that reports results or methods of primary research, or a systematic review and meta-analysis is assigned 1 PE.
• While a research paper that is cited in policies or guidelines is assigned 10 PEs. 
• A patent’s impact is 5 PEs and that of a commercial device being used at scale is 20 PEs.

‹ ›

Advantages of IRIS

• Standardisation – Uniform metric: IRIS provides a common yardstick across disciplines (biochemistry, physiology, biomedical engineering, public health, etc).
• Recognition beyond citations: Breaks the conventional citation-driven incentive system and encourages diverse forms of impactful research.
• Policy and funding linkage: By tying PEs to funding allocation, IRIS can influence research prioritisation and resource distribution effectively.

Concerns and Limitations

• Theoretical weakness:
  • PE assignment lacks strong theoretical rationale.
  • It excludes influential works. For example, commentary, perspective, and narratives review papers will have 0 PE.
  • In this case, the 1977 paper that introduced the biopsychosocial model of medicine, which transformed medical and public health research, will have no impact. 
  • Articulating new ideas and critical discourse around emerging evidence are at the foundation of research, yet the PE-based system could discourage Indian researchers from pursuing articles of this nature.
• Skewed incentives:
  • It prioritises commercial devices (20 PEs) over policy-level interventions (10 PEs).
  • Risks undervaluing basic science, public health programmes, and academic medicine.
  • For example, the RATIONS clinical trial (studied nutrition in tuberculosis patients) and India’s Home-Based Neonatal Care (revolutionised community health programming) will be deemed to be less impactful.
• Risk to research as a public good:
  • Over-commercialisation may erode the ethos of science as a public good.
  • Potential misuse in India’s already weak research ethics culture.
• Need for transparency:
  • Development of IRIS requires rigorous methods, accountability, and peer validation.
  • Suggested approach: 
    • The assignment of PEs to different indicators could be done through a national-level Delphi study where researchers form a consensus on the assignment. 
    • Data must be shared with independent groups to analyse and validate the scale.

Conclusion

• Measuring research impact is inherently complex, with no universally correct model.
• ICMR must ensure transparency, inclusivity, and ethical safeguards while developing IRIS.
• Balance is essential to incentivise innovation and translation into practice without undermining fundamental research and critical academic discourse.
• Ultimately, research evaluation must align with India’s public health priorities and uphold research as a public good.

Source: TH