Why scholars shouldn't have to apply for recognition they already earned
Across many higher education institutions, researchers continue to face an exhausting cycle of paperwork just to receive publication incentives, citation awards, or distinctions such as Outstanding Researcher or Distinguished Scholar.
These are recognitions meant to acknowledge academic excellence, yet they paradoxically require scholars to repeatedly apply, justify and prove achievements that are already visible in public and verifiable databases.
It is a system that treats recognition not as an institutional responsibility but as a privilege that scholars must continually petition for. This reveals a deeper structural problem in how universities value knowledge and the people who produce it.
Requiring researchers to assemble thick folders, upload documents and gather attestations for accomplishments already recorded in citation indexes or publication platforms is unnecessary and counterproductive.
It consumes time that should be devoted to actual scholarship. For faculty juggling teaching, mentoring, administrative duties, and ongoing research projects, these procedural demands distort priorities. Hours that could be spent refining manuscripts, planning experiments, or advising students instead go into compiling forms and meeting application deadlines.
This recurring cycle also signals a troubling assumption. It implies that excellence is not recognized unless scholars ask for it. It shifts the burden of recognition from the institution to the individual, even when evidence of achievement is transparent, public and measurable.
Instead of celebrating research culture, the process becomes a test of compliance. Researchers must not only excel but also perform the administrative labor of proving that they have excelled, again and again.
This burden becomes even more contradictory in institutions where research is recognized only if it passes through the university’s official research colloquium. Although intended as a quality assurance mechanism, the system has hardened into a narrow filter that excludes legitimate scholarly work simply because it was conceptualized outside the colloquium calendar or undertaken through external grants and collaborations.
Such structures discourage initiative, delay productivity and diminish the value of scholarship conducted beyond institutional borders. Recognition must be awarded, not begged for and certainly not withheld merely because research took place elsewhere or at a time inconvenient to the bureaucracy.
Beyond inefficiency, this practice creates an incentive-driven culture that can reshape the very direction of research. When awards and incentives are tied to application periods and bureaucratic cycles, scholars learn to time their outputs accordingly.
The intrinsic motivations of inquiry risk being overshadowed by the logistical demands of award seasons. Instead of asking what knowledge must be generated for the public good, researchers may begin to ask what outputs fit within the next application round. The value of research becomes subtly linked to its eligibility for incentives rather than its contribution to understanding or societal needs.
This is not how a healthy research ecosystem functions. Strong universities cultivate an environment where recognition flows naturally from achievement, not from administrative persistence. If an institution publicly claims to value research, then it must design systems where support and distinctions are automatically conferred when scholars meet clear and measurable benchmarks.
Publication databases, citation trackers and internal research management systems already exist. Institutions can use these tools to generate annual or even quarterly reports identifying scholars who have met or exceeded criteria for incentives and awards.
Automatic and data driven recognition would transform the experience of researchers. It would demonstrate institutional respect, reduce administrative burden and free faculty to devote their energy to meaningful intellectual work.
It would also build a culture of trust, where the university affirms its responsibility to monitor, verify, and reward scholarly contribution without requiring scholars to repeatedly petition for acknowledgment.
Competitive or nomination-based awards can and should remain for extraordinary achievements that require qualitative assessment. But the routine incentives that reward consistent research output should not depend on repeated applications.
When the system demands that scholars continually reassert achievements that are already documented, it sends an inadvertent message that recognition is not based on merit but on administrative performance.
Research thrives where scholars feel supported, trusted, and valued. A shift toward automatic recognition is not merely a procedural improvement. It is a statement about what the university stands for. It affirms that knowledge production is central to its mission and that the people who carry out this mission deserve systems that honor their work without unnecessary barriers.
Institutions that aspire to foster excellence must ensure that recognition is a reflection of true merit and not a reward for surviving bureaucracy.
Arlyne “Madam Ate” C. Marasigan ([email protected]) is a professor at the College of Advanced Studies and a fellow at the Educational Policy Research and Development Office of the Philippine Normal University. Levi “Madam Chair” E. Elipane ([email protected]) is a professor and deputy dean of the College of Advanced Studies of the Philippine Normal University. Jayson L de Vera ([email protected]) is an associate professor at the Faculty of Science, Technology, and Mathematics. The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Philippine Normal University.
- Latest
