Adversities faced by Y or Z category health science journals with HEC, Pakistan

  • Mujahid Hussain FG College, Kharian Cantt
  • Mahnoor Dr FM & DC, Islamabad
Keywords: Adversity, Publication, Health science, Journal, Pakistan.


Objective: To know the rate and predictors for derecognition/demotion in HEC-indexed Y, and Z categories health science journals (HSJs)

Methods: A list of HEC-indexed Y and Z categories HSJs was downloaded from the official website of HEC, Pakistan on 29 July 2019. General information like the type of publisher, specialty, sponsoring body, origin city, and sector (Armed Forces/Civilian) of the derecognized or demoted journals were noted. Fundamental issues like HEC's procedures were resolved using literature review, contacts to the affected journals, and peer-to-peer discussions.  

Results: Of 50 journals, 25 (50%) were found against each of the Y and Z categories.  Fourteen (56% of the total) Y category journals faced adversity in the form of derecognition (n = 5) or demotion (n = 9). Whereas, the rate increased remarkably to 64% (n = 16) in the Z category. Similarly, the high rate was noticed in specialty-specific journals (67.9%, n =19). A journal under private sponsorship had twofold more chance of the adversity (95%CI:1.003-2.918, p = .05) than public-sponsored journals (75 vs. 50%, respectively). Most of the affected Z category journals (n = 13, 81.3%) had their first registration with HEC before 2015.

Conclusion: The policy of HEC for derecognition/demotion of HSJs needs extensive review to promote medical publications.


1. Grimaldo F, Marusˇić A, Squazzoni F. Fragments of peer review: A quantitative analysis of the literature (1969-2015). PLoS ONE. 2018; 13(2): e0193148. journal. pone.0193148.
2. HEC (Higher Education Commission). Application Form for the HEC recognition/ upgradation of research journals. site/ssjournlas. Retrieved on 4th Aug, 2019.
3. Sherin A. Medical journalism in Pakistan: Where do we stand? J Postgrad Med Inst. 2010;24(3):71-73.
4. Jawaid SA, Jawaid M. What regulatory agencies like HEC, PM&DC can do to help improve quality and standard of Pakistani Biomedical Journals. Pak J Med Sci. 2017; 33(2):251–253. DOI:10.12669/pjms.332.12857.
5. Jawaid SA, Jawaid M. Are the editors faced with e-problems performing their duties and responsibilities satisfactorily? Pak J Med Sci. 2013; 29(5):1087-1092.
6. Jawaid SA. Professionalism in medical journalism and role of HEC and PM & DC. Annals Kings Edwards MeD Uni. 2016; 22(3):164-166.
7. HEC (Higher Education Commission). Notification on criteria for evaluation of Social Science journals [No. 2(22/Acad(SS&H)/HEC/2017/236; December 5, 2017; Effective from 1st July, 2018].
8. Hennekam S, Ananthram S, McKenna S. Co-workers’ perceptions of and reactions to employee’s involuntary demotion. Employee Relations. 2019; 41(4):740-757. 10.1108/ER-07-2018-0192.
9. HEC (Higher Education Commissin). HEC Recognized Health Science Journals https: // Documents/Sciences/Science-Journals/Health-Sciences-Journals.pdf. Retrieved on 29th July, 2019.
10. Mirza MS, Mahmood K. Web-based Services in University Libraries: A Pakistani Perspective (2009). Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). 283. https:// digitalcommons. Retrieved on 5th Aug, 2019.
11. Bain LE. Ethics approval: responsibilities of journal editors, authors and research ethics committees. Pan Afr Med J. 2017; 28:200. DOI:10.11604/pamj.2017.28.200.14170.
12. PM & DC (Pakistan Medical & Dental Council). Regulations for the appointment/promotions of faculty. 2017. LinkClick.aspx? fileticket=OELjgmNQY6U=&tabid=292&mid=845 on November 1, 2019. Retrieved on 6 Aug, 2019.
13. Richtig G, Berger M, Lange-Asschenfeldt B, Aberer W, Richtig E. Problems and challenges of predatory journals. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2018; 32(9):1441-1449.
14. Montizaan R, de Grip A, Cörvers F, Dohmen T. The impact of negatively reciprocal inclinations on worker behavior: Evidence from a retrenchment of pension rights. Manage Sci. 2015; 62(3):668-681.
15. Pelletier KL, Bligh MC. Rebounding from corruption: Perceptions of ethics program effectiveness in a public sector organization. J Bus Ethics. 2006:67: 359. doi. org/ 10. 1007/s10551-006-9027-3.
16. Aggarwal P, Shi M. Monogamous versus polygamous brand relationships. J Assoc Consumer Res. 2018; 3(2): 188–201.DOI:10.1086/ 697078.
17. King J. Polycentricity and Resource Allocation: A Critique and Refinement. Oxford: Oxford Jurisprudence Discussion Group. 2006. michaelmas-term-2006.html. Retrieved on 10th Aug, 2019.
18. Kassirer JP. Why be a medical editor? J Am Med Assoc. 2001; 285:2253-2254.
19. Jawaid SA. What medicine and medical journal editing mean to me. Mens Sana Monogr. 2006;4(1):62-77. DOI:10.4103/0973-1229. 27606.
20. Sherin A. Role of regulatory bodies in improving the quality of medical journals of Pakistan. Khyber Med Univ J. 2015;7(4):145-146.
21. Jawaid SA. Proceedings of workshop on medical editing and peer review held at NICH and DUHS, Karachi, Pakistan. Pak J Med Sci. 2008; 24(4):637-641.
22. Ali PA, Watson R. Peer review and the publication process. Nurs Open. 2016;3(4):193-202. DOI:10.1002/nop2.51.
23. Pedersen MJ. Public service motivation and attraction to public versus private sector employment: Academic field of study as moderator? Intl Public Manage J. 2013; 16(3):357-385. DOI: 10.1080/10967494.2013.825484.
24. Barnes J. Assessing the value of IS journals. Commun ACM. 2005;48(1):110-112.
25. Van Dalen HP, Henkens K. Why demotion of older workers is a no-go area for managers. Intl J Human Res Manage. 2018; 29(15):2303-2329. DOI. 10.1080/ 09585192. 2016. 1239214.
How to Cite
Hussain M, Dr M. Adversities faced by Y or Z category health science journals with HEC, Pakistan. JRMC [Internet]. 30Sep.2020 [cited 22Oct.2020];24(3):214-8. Available from: