Blind leading the blind: When professors don’t publish but students must
The release of CHED Memorandum Order 15 series of 2019, which sets the policies, standards and guidelines for graduate education in the Philippines, was framed as a bold reform to align the country’s higher education system with international expectations.
By mandating that graduate students publish in refereed and indexed journals before completing their degree, CHED sought to elevate the research culture of Philippine universities, raise the global visibility of Filipino scholarship and produce graduates who are competitive in an increasingly knowledge-driven world.
This requirement seems laudable, echoing international norms where publication is a mark of graduate-level achievement. It ensures that degrees are not awarded without evidence of research competence.
However, a closer look reveals a troubling contradiction at the heart of the policy. Graduate students are compelled to publish as a condition of graduation even though many of their own faculty mentors, who are supposed to model this scholarly pathway, have not published in refereed and indexed journals themselves.
This contradiction exposes deeper structural issues in Philippine higher education that risk undermining rather than advancing the spirit of reform. While the intent behind CMO 15 is commendable, its flawed implementation exposes structural weaknesses in Philippine higher education.
The most glaring problem with CMO 15 lies in the assumption that graduate faculty are adequately equipped to shepherd students through the arduous process of publishing.
In reality, many professors holding graduate faculty status were appointed based on teaching experience or administrative credentials, not research productivity. Some earned their advanced degrees at a time when publication was not a graduation requirement, and many have since focused on teaching and service rather than research.
For them, navigating the world of journal submission, peer review and revisions is unfamiliar territory. Yet they are now tasked with mentoring students through precisely these processes.
When students encounter the inevitable difficulties of rejection, reviewer critique and the technical demands of preparing manuscripts for indexed outlets, faculty who have never experienced this themselves are often at a loss on how to provide guidance. This situation burdens students with unrealistic expectations and weakens the credibility of the very programs that enforce the policy.
The gap between policy intent and institutional capacity is starkest in state universities and colleges, as well as smaller private institutions that serve as the primary providers of graduate education outside the major metropolitan centers.
These institutions often lack research infrastructure, functional research offices, or in-house journals with rigorous editorial systems. They may not have established linkages with reputable publishers or the funds to support faculty and students in pursuing publication.
In such contexts, requiring students to publish in indexed journals borders on punitive, because it imposes conditions that cannot be met without significant institutional backing. It is in these institutions where students, often working professionals financing their own education, experience the harshest consequences.
Some are forced to resort to questionable or predatory journals that promise quick publication for a fee, thereby undermining the very quality assurance that CHED hoped to enforce.
Another unintended consequence of the publication requirement is the ethical dilemma it introduces into the student-faculty relationship. To ensure student graduation, some faculty agree to be listed as co-authors on papers where their contribution is minimal or even non-existent.
In other cases, students shoulder the entire burden of research design, data collection, analysis, writing and submission, while faculty appear as authors primarily to meet institutional expectations.
This practice erodes the integrity of authorship, reduces mentoring to a symbolic role and diminishes the authentic pedagogical value of graduate supervision.
At its worst, it incentivizes faculty to exploit students’ work to pad their own publication records, which further distorts the educational purpose of graduate study.
The inequity of implementation across institutions further widens the divide between elite universities and the rest. Universities with established research traditions such as the University of the Philippines, Ateneo de Manila, De La Salle and other research-oriented institutions already have faculty who are publishing regularly in international journals.
They also have access to research funding, collaborative networks and institutional support for both faculty and students. For students in these settings, the publication requirement, while still challenging, is achievable with guidance.
In contrast, graduate students in regional state colleges or smaller private schools, where faculty themselves have limited or no publication experience, face an uphill battle.
The same national policy thus produces vastly different outcomes depending on institutional context, which raises questions of fairness and equity. Instead of leveling the playing field, the policy risks entrenching existing hierarchies in Philippine higher education.
The intent of CHED to professionalize and globalize Philippine graduate education is valid. Research is central to graduate study, and publication is one important avenue of disseminating knowledge.
The problem is not with the aspiration but with the sequencing of reform and the lack of corresponding support. If CHED imposes such a requirement, it must ensure that higher education institutions—especially SUCs and LUCs with limited resources—are adequately supported with the infrastructure, training and incentives necessary to comply.
By imposing the publication requirement on students without first capacitating faculty and institutions, CHED has reversed the logical order of capacity-building. Faculty should have been required to publish first and provided with the means to do so.
Only when a critical mass of research-active graduate faculty exists across the system, and when institutions are equipped to sustain this culture, would it be reasonable to extend the requirement to students. Without this groundwork, the policy risks being seen as punitive, unrealistic, and reflective of the myopic nature of policy design in the country.
A more sustainable approach would recognize that building a culture of research is not achieved by fiat but through long-term investment in faculty development and institutional support. Graduate faculty need structured opportunities to enhance their research skills, write for publication and engage with scholarly communities both locally and internationally.
Universities need research offices that provide technical editing, mentoring and grant support, as well as incentives for faculty who successfully publish.
Mentorship should not be left to individual faculty alone but supported by institutional systems that allow students to work with multiple mentors, including those outside their home institution, who have publication track records.
In parallel, CHED could consider a phased implementation of the policy, beginning with research-intensive institutions and gradually extending it to others as faculty capacity improves. Publication should also be understood broadly, including not only journal articles but also creative work, policy briefs, or community-based research outputs that meet rigorous standards and contribute meaningfully to society.
At its heart, the debate over CMO 15 is a debate about where responsibility lies in developing a national research culture. Placing the burden primarily on graduate students while ignoring the capacity gaps of faculty and institutions is an easy way out for regulators, but it does little to address the systemic weaknesses of Philippine higher education.
Students cannot be expected to walk a path that their own professors have not traveled. If the goal is to raise the profile of Philippine research globally, then faculty must first embody the standards they are supposed to pass on to their students.
Otherwise, the policy becomes a hollow performance of quality assurance, producing anxiety, inequity and questionable practices rather than genuine academic excellence.
Graduate education promises degree conferral and the nurturing of a scholarly identity. For this promise to be realized, the system must first take seriously the responsibility of equipping those who mentor with the very capacities they are asked to cultivate in their students.
Moreover, the policy has inadvertently opened a market for predatory journals, which thrive on the desperation of students and faculty alike. Instead of advancing Philippine scholarship, CMO 15 risks entrenching a cycle of weak mentorship, inequitable outcomes and compromised integrity unless it is accompanied by genuine investment in capacity-building and institutional reform.
Arlyne C. Marasigan and Allen A. Espinosa are professors and fellows at the Educational Policy Research and Development Office; Levi E. Elipane is associate professor and deputy dean of the College of Advanced Studies of the Philippine Normal University; and Leah Amor S. Cortez is associate professor at the Faculty of Science, Technology, and Mathematics and executive director and provost of the Philippine Normal University South Luzon.They may be reached at [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected], respectively. The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Philippine Normal University.
- Latest
