9. Research and Innovation Outcomes

Faculty orientation deck · draft / consultation marks

100score (Autonomous)

6metrics (Autonomous)

Outcomecategory

Criterion 9

Criterion 9 | Research and Innovation Outcomes

Understanding the metrics · Preparing the institution

Meaning • Documents • Responsibilities • Measurement
6 baseline metrics + 3 supplementary topics

Orientation to the proposed ten-attribute reform framework. Consultation/draft marks are not final official scoring rules.

Faculty orientation edition • 23 October 2026

Metric 9.1 | External Research Grants

No draft weightage given

Explain competitively or otherwise externally funded research supported by verifiable sanction, receipt and project activity.

Documents to prepare and maintain

Project sanction letter.
grant receipt and utilisation records.
progress/completion report.

Who is responsible?

Research and Development Cell.
principal investigators.
Finance Officer.

Number of externally funded research projects through Government and non-Government sources such as industry, corporate houses, national & international bodies (for non-govt. grants more than 100 lakhs (University)/5 lakhs (autonomous College)/50 thousand (Affiliated College)) for research project during the last three years

Total grants received from Government and non-government sources such as industry, corporate houses, national & international bodies for research project during the last three years

External Research Grants | measurement, weightage and interpretation

How the metric is understood or measured

Separate sanctioned, received and utilised amounts; record funder, duration and faculty denominator where needed.

Draft weightage / source maximum

Not a verified final allocation or score-conversion rule.

Strategic planning & Discussion

Map faculty research strengths to relevant funding opportunities.

Conduct proposal-writing workshops and internal peer review.

Encourage interdisciplinary proposals and external research partnerships.

Metric 9.2 | Research Publications

25 Marks

Explain scholarly outputs attributable to institutional faculty and researchers. Verify publication details, authorship and affiliation.

Who is responsible?

Research Development Cell and Librarian.
individual authors.
HoDs.

Peer reviewed research publications per faculty in peer reviewed Journals listed in SCOPUS/WoS/UGC Care, in indexed conference proceedings /book chapters (Indexed and external only) per teacher

Total number of publications in peer reviewed Journals listed in SCOPUS/WoS/UGC Care, in indexed conference proceedings /book chapters (external)

Number of books published by the faculty including book translated in Bharatiya Bhasha

Research Publications | measurement, weightage and interpretation

How the metric is understood or measured

Deduplicate by DOI or bibliographic identity; one co-authored paper is not multiple institutional publications.

Draft weightage / source maximum

25 Marks

Documents to prepare and maintain

Publisher records and publication copies.
DOI/ISBN/bibliographic list.
verified affiliation and author details.

Strategic planning & Discussion

List and link of the papers published in journals/ publications, peer reviewed conference proceedings/ book chapters (external) –

Link to the institutional website where the first page/full paper (with author and affiliation details) –

Link re-directing to journal source – cite website in case of digital journals

Do not multiply publication counts by the number of co-authors.

Metric 9.3 | Research Quality

20 marks.

Explain quality and influence beyond a raw publication count. The indicator source, date, discipline and limitations must be explicit.

Who is responsible?

Research Development Cell and Librarian.
Research committee.
faculty authors.
HoDs

Institutional Average h-index and citation index from SCOPUS +Web of Science

Average h-index from SCOPUS + Web of Science

Average citation index from SCOPUS + Web of Science

Research Quality | measurement, weightage and interpretation

How the metric is understood or measured

Do not invent an approved quality list or universal citation threshold; distinguish publication count from impact evidence.

Draft weightage / source maximum

20 marks.

Documents to prepare and maintain

Dated indexing/citation database extracts.
verified publication set.
documented analysis and research-integrity checks.

Strategic planning & Discussion

Conduct workshops on research methods, scholarly writing and publication ethics.

Review institutional research visibility and database-record accuracy

Prepare List of staff with web-link of the SCOPUS& Web of Science account

How can we strengthen the quality and usefulness of our research?

Metric 9.6 | IPRs Produced

5 marks

Explain intellectual property outputs with their correct legal stage and institutional role.

Who is responsible?

IPR Cell and inventors.
Research Cell.
authorised institutional signatory.

Total number of IPR including published/ granted patent copyright produced | trademark Geographical indication (GI) Design registration contributing to OER in the last three years:

No of IPR granted patent, copyright, trademark, Geographical indication(GI), Design registration

No of IPR published patent, copyright, trademark, Geographical indication(GI), Design registration

No of OERs .

IPRs Produced | measurement, weightage and interpretation

How the metric is understood or measured

Distinguish filing, publication and grant. A single patent progressing through stages is not three separate granted patents. A patent application is filed, later published and eventually granted. Each stage is documented.

Draft weightage / source maximum

5 marks

Documents to prepare and maintain

Official application/publication/grant record.
inventor and applicant details.
ownership or licensing agreement.

Strategic planning & Discussion

Which departmental outputs have potential for intellectual-property protection?

What original learning resources can we contribute as OER?

Organise IPR awareness and application workshops.
Identify original research, innovations and creative outputs with IPR potential.
Develop openly licensed educational resources (OER).

Do not report one application as three granted patents.

Metric 9.7 | Consultancy and Training

10 marks

Explain active joint fund generating consultancy projects and their revenue per faculty

Who is responsible?

Consultancy and Training Committee
HoDs
Planning Committee
Principal and Governing Council .

Number of consultancy projects and their revenue per faculty during the last three years(a)Number of consultancy projects during the last three years(b)Revenue generated through consultancy during the last three years

Number of training programs (MDPs, EDPs, FDPs, etc) in respectivediscipline conducted and revenue generated(a)Number of training programmes during the last three years(b)Revenue generated through training programmes during the last three years

Identify a real need. Offer relevant expertise. Obtain approval. Deliver quality. Document the outcome. Account for every receipt.

Consultancy and Training | measurement, weightage and interpretation

How the metric is understood or measured

Link each agreement/programme to activities and outputs; avoid counting the same project repeatedly under different partners.

Draft weightage / source maximum

10 marks

Documents to prepare and maintain

Valid agreement.
joint project/activity evidence. Audited Statements
verified outputs and partner confirmation.
Course Scheme Schedule Enrolment Register and other Records

Strategic planning & Discussion

What expertise can our faculty offer to external organisations, and how can we organise, deliver and document it?

Faculty expertise mapping|

Local needs assessment|

“One department–one service” exercise|

Consultancy proposal clinic|

Training programme design workshop|

Interdisciplinary service teams|

Three-year evidence recovery drive|

Client-feedback and follow-up exercise

Metric 9.8 | Supplementary Research Collaboration

No draft weightage given

Explain active joint research producing projects, publications, shared facilities or other verified outputs. An inactive MoU is insufficient.

Documents to prepare and maintain

Valid agreement.
joint project/activity evidence.
verified outputs and partner confirmation.

Who is responsible?

Research Cell and investigators.
partner institutions.
Principal.

Collaboration with national/international institutions of higher ranking /industries with their focus which include:

Interdisciplinary research
Inter-University national/international faculty

Community based research
Technology transfer

Research Collaboration

Not established in the Draft

Research Collaboration | measurement, weightage and interpretation

How the metric is understood or measured

Link each agreement to activities and outputs; avoid counting the same project repeatedly under different partners.

Draft weightage / source maximum

Not established in the Draft

No autonomous metric-specific allocation available

Not a verified final allocation or score-conversion rule.

Strategic planning & Discussion

Identify partners with complementary research expertise and facilities.

Develop joint proposals, shared research activities and interdisciplinary projects.

Agree on responsibilities, timelines, resource use and expected outputs

Additional topic 9.9 | Number of Student Start-ups

Not established in the Draft

Explain student-founded ventures and the institution's contribution to their development. Distinguish an idea, incubation and an operating venture.

Documents to prepare and maintain

Student-founder and registration proof.
incubation/mentoring records.
dated operating-status evidence.

Who is responsible?

Incubation/Entrepreneurship Cell.
student founders.
faculty mentors.

Number of Student Start-ups | measurement, weightage and interpretation

How the metric is understood or measured

Count distinct verified ventures, not founders; specify whether registered, incubated or operating.

Draft weightage / source maximum

Not established in the Draft

No autonomous metric-specific allocation available

Not a verified final allocation or score-conversion rule.

Strategic planning & Discussion

Which student projects can develop into viable ventures?

What institutional support will help them move from idea to market?

Conduct idea challenges, business-plan workshops and mentoring sessions.
Facilitate prototype development, incubation and market linkages.
Support student-founded ventures and external start-ups through the Technology Business Incubator (TBI).

A business-plan competition entry is not automatically an operating startup.

Weightage sources W1/W2 are draft/consultation material. Percentage ≠ score; no invented thresholds.

Supplementary/ 9.4 • PhDs Awarded

20 marksSupplementary coverage · not an additional confirmed scored metric

Explain completed doctoral research associated with the institution's recognised research activity.

Who is responsible?

Research Centre coordinator and supervisors.
affiliating/awarding university.
Research Cell.
HoDs

Number of PhDs awarded by the institution per full-time teacherduring the last three years:

Number of Ph.Ds awarded by the institution during the lastthree years
Number of full-time teachers as eligible guides

PhDs Awarded | measurement, weightage and interpretation

How the metric is understood or measured

Distinguish degree-awarding institution, research host and supervisor affiliation.

Draft weightage / source maximum

20 marks

Strategic planning & Discussion

Compile a table detailing the number of student registrations, submissions, and awards over the past three years.

Analyse these metrics against the previous Self Study Report (SSR) to highlight areas requiring improvement

Supplementary • Research Fellowships

Not applicable for Autonomous Institutions in the DraftSupplementary coverage · not an additional confirmed scored metric

Explain recognised fellowship awards and support to researchers. The matrix excludes this row for autonomous colleges; retain supplementary coverage.

Documents to prepare and maintain

Fellowship award letter.
provider verification.
joining/payment evidence and affiliation record.

Who is responsible?

Research Cell and award recipients.
Finance/Research administration.

Research Fellowships | measurement, weightage and interpretation

How the metric is understood or measured

Separate award, tenure and actual receipt; do not treat a project salary automatically as a research fellowship.

Draft weightage / source maximum

Not applicable for Autonomous Institutions in the Draft

No autonomous metric-specific allocation available

Not a verified final allocation or score-conversion rule.

Number of research fellowships (JRF/SRF) received among the enrolled Researchers

Ph .D scholars in the institution during the last three years: .

Certified list of JRFs SRFs and others

Weightage reference

External Research Grants20 marks.
Research Publications25 marks..
Research Quality20 marks.
IPRs Produced5 marks.
Research CollaborationNot specified.
Consultancy & Training10 marks.
Number of Student Start-upsNot specified.
PhDs Awarded20 marks.
Research FellowshipsNot specified.

Faculty preparation checklist

Prepare the evidence

Use approved, dated and signed academic/administrative records.
Prepare a concise explanation supported by the relevant primary records.
State the period, cohort, unit and counting method for numerical claims.
Use source-specified periods only where confirmed; verify the final applicable window.

Coordinate responsibility

Criteria coordinator consolidates the criterion; departments supply subject records.
HoDs verify academic claims; relevant offices verify finance, HR, exams and admissions.
Academic Council/Board of Studies approvals support curriculum decisions.
Protect personal data and use anonymised summaries for sensitive records.

Orientation discussion and immediate institutional actions

Questions for faculty and departments

Which existing activity demonstrates this criterion most convincingly?.
Which claim currently lacks an approved document or primary record?.
Where are counts inconsistent between departments and central offices?.
Which improvement needs an academic or administrative decision?.

Actions after the orientation

Nominate criterion Coordinator and metric-level faculty/office leads.
Prepare a document inventory and identify genuine gaps.
Correct the academic/administrative practice—not just the report wording.
Ask IQAC to confirm the applicable framework, periods and scoring source before submission.