Publication of Papers: CPSP needs to Revisit Its earlier decision

Shaukat Ali Jawaid

A few years ago, I met the late Prof. Zafarullah Chaudhry, then President of CPSP, and expressed my concerns about the postgraduate research process. I told him that many postgraduates were getting their dissertations written by professional writers for a fee. Since no scientific papers were being published from this research, the entire exercise was largely wasted, with dissertations simply gathering dust at the CPSP.

I suggested that, instead of requiring a dissertation, CPSP should mandate the writing and publication of a scientific paper in a standard, peer-reviewed journal. CPSP could evaluate various journals published in Pakistan and issue a list of recognized journals. This would be a more meaningful requirement than a dissertation and would also promote a research culture. Prof. Zafarullah Chaudhry listened to me patiently and kindly agreed with the suggestion.

A few weeks later, CPSP issued a notification offering postgraduates the option to either write a dissertation or publish two papers in CPSP-recognized journals. A list of approved journals was also provided. While this was a positive development, unfortunately—as is often the case—some of the recognized journals included in the list were of questionable quality, possibly included under some pressure.

At that time, no one anticipated that those who paid for their dissertations would adopt the same unethical approach for publishing scientific papers. Now, the situation has worsened. Paper mills are thriving not only in Pakistan but also globally. They openly offer ghostwritten papers and sell authorship positions, charging varying amounts depending on whether one is listed as the first, second, third, or subsequent author. First authorship commands the highest price. These services are openly advertised on social media, and what is most disappointing is that some senior medical professionals and professors appear to be involved or complicit in this unethical practice.

Last year, CPSP issued another notification, this time completely replacing the dissertation requirement with two scientific papers. It also allowed publication in any HEC-recognized journal. Unfortunately, many predatory journals have managed to gain HEC recognition, despite failing to be approved by the PM&DC Journal Evaluation Committee—despite attempts to exert pressure and influence because they do not practice any peer review system to maintain quality of the manuscripts accepted for publication.

This has undermined the original goal of fostering a research culture. CPSP leadership would be well advised to revise the requirement: reduce the number of required scientific papers for FCPS eligibility to just one, and mandate that it be a prospective study. The research synopsis should be approved by the CPSP RTMC, and the study should be conducted under the supervision of a qualified supervisor. Postgraduates should be able to complete the study within one year and then submit it to a PM&DC-recognized journal.
Since CPSP has representation on the PM&DC Journal Evaluation Committee—and in fact, the committee is chaired by a CPSP nominee—it is well aware of its functioning and transparency. A joint committee between HEC and PM&DC for evaluation and recognition of biomedical journals has been suggested in the past, since HEC lacks the expertise in this area. However, this has yet to be implemented. Until then, CPSP should accept publications in PM&DC-recognized journals, and a journal’s acceptance letter should be sufficient to allow candidates to sit for the examination.

The PM&DC Journal Evaluation Committee should also improve its own processes—by meeting regularly, ensuring transparent operations, and supporting medical journals effectively. Journals that have been evaluated and approved should remain recognized for at least one to two years. The committee should focus on non-compliant journals and consider re-evaluation only if there are credible complaints. Journals found guilty of unethical publication practices should face suspension after due process and a fair opportunity to respond.

Currently, editors of some PM&DC-recognized journals whose recognition has expired—or is about to expire—are in a difficult position. Authors are hesitant to submit manuscripts, fearing non-recognition. This uncertainty must be avoided. Editors should be able to work in a stable environment with peace of mind and support researchers in timely, ethically sound publication.

Finally, PM&DC should report known predatory journals to the FIA and other government agencies. All individuals and entities involved in this form of intellectual corruption must be held accountable and face exemplary punishment.