By Md Syful Islam, Ankara | 13 April 2026
The Beginning of the Paradox and the Crisis
Within Bangladesh’s higher education system, social science, public policy, and law have together formed a vast academic sphere inseparably connected to almost every university in the country. It is difficult to imagine a full-fledged university in Bangladesh without departments such as political science, sociology, economics, public administration, development studies, and law. Every year, thousands of students enroll in these subjects, hundreds of teachers remain engaged in teaching and research, and new knowledge is being produced continuously.
Yet within this broad academic reality, a sharp paradox exists. Despite having such a large knowledge-based community, the presence of internationally recognized, stable, and influential domestic journals for social science, policy, and legal research is effectively close to zero. Where the scope of knowledge production is the widest, institutional recognition and structural support are the weakest.
This paradox becomes even clearer when one observes that the number of Bangladesh’s research publications has visibly increased over the last decade; in 2025 alone, Scopus-indexed publications exceeded 18,000. But this growth is mainly quantitative. It has not been reflected in qualitative excellence or field-based advancement, especially in social science, public policy, and law. The reason is that Bangladesh does not have a single Scopus- or Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI)-indexed journal in these subjects.
The Real Picture of Bangladesh’s Research Structure
If the present structure of Bangladesh’s social science, public policy, and legal research is examined, a fundamental contradiction becomes clear: although the volume of research has increased, its institutional foundation and global impact remain almost absent. This crisis is reflected most clearly in the domestic journal system. Although more than a hundred journals are listed on Bangladesh Journals Online (BanglaJOL), analysis shows that around 40 to 50 percent of these journals are irregular or effectively inactive. Even among the active journals, regular publication, strong peer review, and articles from researchers abroad are almost nonexistent. As a result, these journals cannot consistently generate citations and fail to reach international standards.
This weakness is also reflected in international indexing. In 2019, only 17 journals from Bangladesh were included in Scopus; only one belonged to the social science category, and there were none in law or public policy. Later, the University of Asia Pacific’s Journal of Law and Policy (UAPJLP) (2022–2024) and the BiLD Law Journal (2020–2022) were temporarily included, but both are now discontinued. In addition, although a multidisciplinary journal has recently been included in Scopus, as of 2026, there is still no permanent, specialized, and consistently indexed journal in social science, public policy, or law. Even more importantly, Bangladesh’s presence in these fields on the SSCI list of Web of Science is effectively zero.
According to the SCImago (SJR) database, most of Bangladesh’s social science journals have an H-index below 5, which indicates extremely low impact by international standards. At the same time, multiple journals from India and Pakistan are positioned at the Q2–Q3 level. The most important issue is that this has created a “citation trap.” Because of low quality, local social science journals do not receive citations; and because they do not receive citations, they do not gain international recognition. As a result, competent researchers consciously avoid domestic journals and choose to publish in foreign high-impact journals instead.
Why Inclusion in SSCI/Scopus Is Essential
In research, inclusion in SSCI (Social Sciences Citation Index) and Scopus is not merely a formal recognition; rather, it is the main gateway into the global knowledge system. These indexes are effectively regarded as the “gold standard” for determining the quality, acceptability, and impact of research.
First, inclusion in these indexes reflects a rigorous quality-control process. Journals listed in SSCI or Scopus are generally run through double-blind peer review, regular publication schedules, and international editorial structures. As a result, research published in such journals is not merely an academic piece of writing; it is part of a verified and globally accepted body of knowledge.
Second, these indexes play a decisive role in international visibility and citation. Once research is included in SSCI or Scopus, it becomes easily accessible to researchers worldwide, and the likelihood of being cited in subsequent research increases substantially. In social science and law, policy influence and legal reasoning depend to a large extent on previous research. Citation, therefore, is not simply a matter of academic prestige; it is also an indicator of policy and legal impact.
Third, these indexes function as central benchmarks in university rankings and institutional recognition. QS, Times Higher Education, and other global ranking systems rely primarily on research publications, citation impact, and presence in indexed journals. Therefore, if a country’s universities remain invisible in SSCI/Scopus, their opportunity to move forward in global competition becomes limited.
Fourth, the structure of academic careers and incentives is directly tied to these indexes. In Bangladesh, as in most countries of the world, Scopus- or SSCI-indexed publications are given priority in determining faculty promotions, research grants, and professional recognition. As a result, publication in these indexes has become a necessary condition for researchers, one that can hardly be bypassed.
The Depth of the Structural Crisis: “The Alarming Core”
If the current crisis in Bangladesh’s social science and legal research is explained merely as institutional weakness, its real depth cannot be grasped. In fact, it is a structural disaster operating at multiple levels, at the center of which lies a complex combination of policy contradiction, intellectual dependency, and economic exploitation.
First, a clear policy paradox exists here. Universities and regulatory bodies, especially the UGC, have made publication in Scopus- or SSCI-indexed journals almost mandatory for faculty promotion and academic advancement. But at the same time, the state has failed to create any journal of sufficient quality in which this requirement could be fulfilled domestically. As a result, researchers are trapped in a structural “dead end.” International publication is their only path, yet that path lies completely outside domestic control.
Second, this dependency gives rise to a deeper intellectual problem that can be called “intellectual colonialism.” Research conducted on Bangladesh’s social realities, legal structure, or policy issues is primarily being published on the platforms of foreign commercial publishers such as Elsevier, Springer, Sage, Wiley, or Routledge. As a result, although the knowledge is produced domestically, its circulation, ownership, and economic control largely pass into the hands of the outside world. The paradox becomes even sharper when one realizes that this research is not easily accessible to domestic readers either; rather, one must pay expensive subscription fees or other charges to read it.
Third, this process is connected to a clear economic dimension, which may be considered a “knowledge tax.” To publish in international journals, researchers often have to pay high Article Processing Charges (APCs), which in many cases range from $1,000 to $3,000 or even more. In a country like Bangladesh, where per capita income is roughly within the same range, this is a serious financial burden for researchers to bear personally. As a result, research publication has effectively become an expensive process that drains foreign currency from the country, while the state remains unable to build any long-term knowledge infrastructure in return.
Fourth, this structural pressure is also influencing the subject matter and direction of research. To gain acceptance in international journals, researchers are often compelled to move away from local realities and choose topics that align with global trends. As a result, Bangladesh’s marginal, complex, and context-dependent social and legal problems are gradually being pushed out of the research mainstream.
A dangerous cycle is therefore being created: research detached from domestic realities is being published internationally, while domestic problems remain unresolved because of a lack of research.
The Internal Logic of the Structural Crisis
First, there is a clear institutional failure here, which may be identified as a governance failure. There is a lack of effective coordination among research policy, university administration, and journal management. On the one hand, the UGC is making publication in international-standard journals mandatory. On the other hand, it is failing to ensure the infrastructure, training, and financial support needed to achieve that standard. As a result, a deep disconnect has emerged between policy directives and actual capacity.
Second, the political economy of knowledge has made this crisis even more complex. The global academic publishing system is largely dominated by the Global North, where knowledge is treated as a commercial commodity. Within this structure, developing countries such as Bangladesh may be “knowledge producers,” but they are not “knowledge controllers.” Thus, although they produce knowledge, their control over its distribution, pricing, and practical influence remains limited.
Third, the language barrier is a silent but deeply influential factor. Since most international journals are English-based, researchers must present their work in another language. In many cases, this causes the loss of contextual nuance. This is particularly serious in legal and public policy research, where local realities and linguistic subtleties are extremely important. In such cases, translation itself poses a risk of distorting or oversimplifying knowledge.
Fourth, this structure has produced a dual human-resource crisis, which can be explained as “brain drain” and “brain waste.” On the one hand, skilled researchers are leaving for foreign countries in search of better research environments and opportunities. On the other hand, those who remain in the country cannot use their full potential because of inadequate infrastructure, funding, and publishing opportunities. As a result, the country’s overall knowledge-production capacity is being damaged.
Fifth, the distortion of the research incentive structure has further deepened this crisis. In the current system, indexation and the number of publications are receiving greater emphasis than the actual quality of research. As a result, researchers are often compelled to choose lower-quality or irrelevant topics simply for quick publication, and in some cases, the risk of predatory journals also arises. In this context, research is no longer functioning as a process of knowledge production; it is becoming a means of fulfilling an institutional requirement.
Together, all these factors have created a complex structural reality in which social science, public policy, and legal research are being constrained not only by institutional limitations but also by global power structures, linguistic barriers, and internal policy inconsistencies.
Autopsy of Failure: The Effective Causes of Structural Breakdown
To understand the crisis in Bangladesh’s social science, public policy, and legal research in an effective way, it is necessary to identify the specific points at which the institutional structure is breaking down. This failure has not emerged from any single cause; rather, it has developed through the combination of multiple operational weaknesses.
First, the lack of technical and digital infrastructure is a basic obstacle. Running an international-standard journal requires Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs), CrossRef membership, a professional online submission and editorial management system such as OJS, and plagiarism detection mechanisms. Most university-based journals in Bangladesh still cannot ensure these basic elements consistently. As a result, these journals become stuck at the very initial stage, before they can even begin to approach international standards.
Second, the unprofessional nature of editorial management is a serious problem. In many cases, journal editing is not treated as a full-time profession but as an additional administrative burden. As a result, editorial boards do not remain active, the peer review process becomes prolonged, and publication schedules turn irregular. In international indexing, “regularity” and “editorial consistency” are extremely important, yet most Bangladeshi journals fail to maintain them.
Third, institutional neglect is a major element of this failure. Within university budget allocations, research and journal development often receive little priority. Research funding is limited, and very few institutions have built separate professional teams or structures for journal management. Consequently, journals become dependent on individuals rather than institutions.
Fourth, the shortage of human resources and training has created a long-term problem. International-standard research and publication require advanced research methods, academic writing skills, and review capacity. But most universities lack regular training or mentoring structures to develop these competencies. In particular, research training and supervision at the PhD level remain limited and uneven.
Fifth, the absence of journal evaluation and quality-control systems has created a structural weakness. Bangladesh still lacks an effective national standard or ranking system that can assess the quality of domestic journals and provide guidance for improvement. As a result, no real competition or incentive for quality improvement develops among journals.
Finally, a crucial reality is that all these weaknesses are interconnected and reinforce one another. Technical deficiency intensifies editorial weakness, editorial weakness reduces citations, low citation hinders international recognition, and in this way a continuous cycle of failure is created.
Lessons from the Models of Other Countries
To understand this structural crisis more clearly, comparative experience is extremely important. Some countries with similar socio-economic realities have nevertheless successfully transformed their academic publishing structures.
First, Turkey’s DergiPark is a notable example. It is a centralized, state-supported digital journal platform that has brought hundreds of academic journals under a single infrastructure. Through DergiPark, journals receive online submission systems, editorial management, peer review tracking, and DOI integration. As a result, even small or university-based journals gain the opportunity to operate according to international standards. Most importantly, the platform has shifted journal management away from individual dependence and placed it within an institutional framework.
Second, Indonesia’s SINTA (Science and Technology Index) model is an effective national evaluation structure. SINTA incorporates the country’s journals and researchers into a central database and ranks them according to quality. As a result, competition is created among domestic journals, and a clear incentive for quality improvement emerges. At the same time, the government uses this evaluation system in research funding and faculty promotion, thereby ensuring policy and institutional coordination.
Third, India’s UGC CARE List is an example of policy intervention, where the University Grants Commission has created a list of recognized journals and made that list mandatory for faculty promotion. Although this model has some limitations, it still demonstrates an important point: if the state actively participates in journal quality control and recognition, a national research ecosystem can indeed be built.
These examples reveal a common truth. Turkey, Indonesia, and India are also situated within developing-world realities, yet through organized and goal-oriented initiatives, they have managed to move their journal systems toward international standards. And where does Bangladesh stand in comparison?
The Way Forward and Recommendations: An Integrated National Framework
First, establishing a central digital journal platform is essential. Following Turkey’s DergiPark model, a state-supported platform could be developed to integrate all university-based journals in the country. If DOI integration, an online submission system, peer review tracking, and an editorial workflow are ensured on such a platform, journal management would become more professional and more standardized.
Second, a national journal indexing and evaluation framework needs to be created. A system similar to Indonesia’s SINTA or India’s UGC CARE could be introduced to classify domestic journals according to quality. This would create competition among journals, while linking the evaluation system to faculty promotion and research grants would establish policy consistency.
Third, it is necessary to set specific targets for achieving international indexing. The UGC and the Ministry of Education could jointly adopt a “National Journal Development Program,” the goal of which would be to bring at least 5 to 10 journals in social science, public policy, and law into Scopus or SSCI within a defined timeframe. For this, a special budget, technical support, and an international advisory team would be needed.
Fourth, the economic barriers to research publication must be removed. The Article Processing Charges required for publishing in international journals could be borne by the state or universities. At the same time, domestic journals should offer low-cost or free publication opportunities so that researchers can produce quality work without financial pressure.
Fifth, human resource development must be prioritized. Regular training programs should be introduced in research methodology, academic writing, peer review skills, and journal editing. In particular, long-term quality improvement will not be possible unless PhD-level research and supervision are strengthened.
Sixth, the editing and management of journals must be professionalized. If editors are given designated allowances, full-time responsibilities, and training, journals can move out of individual dependence and become institutionally sustainable.
Finally, the foundation of all these initiatives must be a change in policy perspective. Bangladeshi researchers are already serving as editors and reviewers for prestigious foreign journals. If similar structures can be built for them at home, the country can begin to escape the grip of brain drain.
Future Risks: If This Trend Continues
If the current trend continues, Bangladesh’s social science, public policy, and legal research will become trapped in an even deeper cycle of dependency, with effects that extend beyond academia into state policymaking and legal structures.
First, a “knowledge dependency” will emerge. If the domestic research structure is not strengthened, the country will become increasingly dependent on foreign research, theories, and analyses in policy making and legal reform. As a result, the risk of adopting policies misaligned with local realities will increase.
Second, there is a possibility of creating a “policy vacuum.” If social science and public policy research fail to analyze domestic problems adequately, policymakers will lack a reliable evidence-based foundation for decision-making. As a result, the decision-making process may become driven by experience alone or by immediate reaction, which may prove ineffective or harmful in the long run.
Third, intellectual marginalization will become a real danger. If domestic research has no presence in the international knowledge system, Bangladesh’s social and legal realities will not find a place in global discussions. Consequently, the country will remain in a marginal position within the worldwide process of knowledge production.
Fourth, the waste of human resources will intensify. Skilled researchers will become more outward-looking and leave the country, while those who remain will be unable to use their abilities fully because of inadequate opportunities. In the long run, this will create a knowledge vacuum that will be difficult to fill.
Finally, if this trend continues, Bangladesh risks becoming a “knowledge-consuming state,” one that does not produce its own knowledge but merely consumes knowledge produced elsewhere. This reality poses a profound threat to the intellectual autonomy of a state.
It must be remembered that this is not simply a matter of academic limitation; it is a national crisis. Despite a large, active, and promising knowledge community, this field is unable to realize its full potential due to weak institutional structures and policy inconsistencies.
I want to end with a fundamental question: Will Bangladesh become a state capable of producing its own knowledge, or will it remain merely a consumer state dependent on others’ knowledge?
The time to make that decision is now.
If you want to read it in Bengali: https://www.minbarbd.com/article/1454