Again, the reason stated was numbers, but actually was concerns about content. Mukherjee now admits as much: “I’m an academic first. My name shouldn’t be associated with substandard stuff.” Reading the (14) monographs produced adds substance to the argument that they were extremely variable in quality.

Further confirmation is available from studying citation indices; unlike the frequently cited Occasional Papers, the recent Monographs have practically never been used as scholarly references.

The monographs are to be replaced with the revived original series and Mukherjee also wants them them online, not snazzily printed at the NMML’s expense. So why was that not done in three years?

For the papers, it is claimed that output depends on the academics who have been selected as NMML fellows.

The new batch, Mukherjee promises, the first in the selection of which she had some say, are going to be properly productive. As for the journal, she didn’t want one produced until she can hire an editor. (The last one was produced by a junior researcher, she said. On an average, a reasonable journal has several full-time employees.)

•For many of the petition’s signatories, the next objective indicator is the central problem: the reference collection.

Researchers, old and new, worry about gaps in a once-legendary collection. Delhi University’s Mahesh Rangarajan points out that there isn’t even a committee to select new books any more, signifying an autocratic style of functioning.

Mukherjee says that committee meetings consisted of selecting books from an ad hoc tray of new books delivered by local booksellers; she didn’t think that had accountability, so she hired someone to oversee acquisition — by looking through academic book reviews and catalogues of Indian publishing houses.

... contd.