Home News National Rabid Troll Liver Doc Tries To Mock IITM Director Kamakoti With Citation...

Rabid Troll Liver Doc Tries To Mock IITM Director Kamakoti With Citation Numbers, Gets Publicly Schooled

By
The Commune
-
Rabid Troll Liver Doc Tries To Mock IITM Director Kamakoti With Citation Numbers, Gets Publicly Schooled

Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra’s “gaumutra visheshagya” (cow urine expert) jibe against IIT Madras Director Professor V. Kamakoti unexpectedly triggered something the Opposition perhaps did not anticipate – a closer look at Kamakoti’s actual credentials.

Far from being the caricature painted in political speeches, social media users began circulating his academic record, research profile, patents, national security roles, and perhaps most importantly, his leadership of India’s indigenous SHAKTI microprocessor programme.

That, however, did not stop alleged hepatologist Dr. Cyriac Abby Philips whose hospital was recently under the scanner for alleged organ trafficking, popularly known on social media as “The Liver Doc”, from attempting to belittle Kamakoti’s academic standing using Google Scholar metrics.

“That’s Pretty Bad For An IIT Director”

Sharing screenshots comparing citation metrics, Philips wrote:

“That’s pretty bad for an IIT Director actually. And I’m just a researcher in a trust hospital, spending my own money for research without the government support that IITs get.”

The remark quickly went viral.

But instead of undermining Kamakoti, it triggered an avalanche of criticism directed at Philips himself, with netizens who were engineers, academics and researchers accusing him of comparing completely unrelated disciplines through meaningless bibliometric numbers.

Comparing Hepatology With Chip Design? Apples vs Oranges

Another criticism centred on how different fields generate academic output. Medical researchers frequently publish observational studies, retrospective analyses, case reports and clinical reviews.

Computer architecture, VLSI and processor engineering involve lengthy design cycles where years may pass before one publishable outcome emerges.

The two disciplines simply cannot be compared using raw citation totals.

Philips was comparing a clinician publishing medical literature with a computer architect working in semiconductor engineering.

Netizens pointed out that medicine and hardware engineering function in entirely different publication ecosystems.

Clinical medicine routinely produces large volumes of review papers, case reports, consensus statements and treatment guidelines, many authored by dozens or even hundreds of researchers, which naturally accumulate citations rapidly.

Microprocessor architecture does not.

Building processors takes years of engineering, silicon fabrication, verification, testing and deployment before any academic publication emerges.

One cannot simply publish five hardware papers every month.

“Citation Flexing” Backfires

Several users also took issue with the manner in which Philips showcased his own citation metrics.

Citation counts, h-index and i10-index are field-specific indicators meant for comparing researchers within the same discipline – not for declaring one scientist “better” than another across entirely different domains.

One of the papers Philips highlighted had an unusually long list of authors, with his name appearing among dozens of contributors. In modern biomedical research, especially multi-centre studies and clinical collaborations, papers often carry tens or even hundreds of co-authors, making raw publication and citation counts poor standalone indicators of individual scientific contribution.

Netizens contrasted this with engineering disciplines such as VLSI design and computer architecture, where research teams are generally smaller and publication cycles significantly longer.

Engineering Builds Products, Not Citation Factories

Commentators noted that Kamakoti’s career has largely revolved around building technology rather than maximising publication metrics.

He led development of the SHAKTI processor family, India’s first indigenous open-source microprocessor initiative – a project aimed at reducing India’s dependence on foreign semiconductor technology.

Unlike software algorithms, which may generate thousands of citations, semiconductor architecture often results in patents, fabricated chips and deployed systems rather than endless journal publications.

The Scientists Philips Compared Kamakoti With Work In Entirely Different Domains

Philips later attempted to strengthen his argument by sharing a list of India’s highest-ranked computer scientists based on citation metrics.

But most names on that list specialise in artificial intelligence, machine learning, fuzzy logic, optimisation algorithms and data science – fields known for extremely high publication volume.

Professor Kamakoti works in computer architecture, secure systems and VLSI hardware engineering.

Those disciplines naturally produce fewer publications because the work culminates in physical chips rather than software models.

His research also intersects with strategic national infrastructure and cybersecurity, where substantial portions of high-impact work never enter the public academic domain.

By That Logic, Even Dr APJ Abdul Kalam Was An ‘Inferior Scientist’?

Perhaps the most damaging rebuttal came when users applied Philips’ own logic to former President Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam.

Kalam’s publicly available research metrics are significantly lower than those Philips cited for himself.

Yet few would argue Kalam was academically inferior.

His career was spent leading India’s missile programme, directing satellite launch missions, developing strategic defence systems and helping deliver the Pokhran-II nuclear tests – not chasing journal citations.

By Philips’ own reasoning, Kalam too would appear to be a “poor scientist” because his citation numbers were lower.

Even history-making Chinese mathematicians who were awarded the 2026 Fields Medal Hong Wang and Yu Deng would pale in comparison to Philips.

The absurdity of that comparison highlighted why citation counts alone cannot measure scientific contribution.

Google Scholar Isn’t The Universal Scorecard

Several netizens also questioned Philips’ reliance on Google Scholar. Unlike curated academic databases, Google Scholar indexes conference papers, theses, reports, preprints and numerous non-peer-reviewed documents, often inflating citation counts.

Others noted that switching to databases like Scopus substantially narrows the citation gap.

More importantly, netizens stressed that citation numbers are meaningful only within the same discipline.

Comparing hepatology with computer architecture is statistically meaningless because publication cultures differ dramatically.

Even Acharya Balkrishna Would Rank Above Him By This Logic

The debate took an even more awkward turn when users pointed out that, by Philips’ own logic, Acharya Balkrishna, the Patanjali co-founder often ridiculed by the same Philips for pushing ‘pseudo science’, ranked above him on several publication metrics.

The comparison was intended to expose the weakness of relying solely on citation statistics.

If one were to judge scientific merit purely through Google Scholar numbers, one could arrive at bizarre conclusions that few academics would seriously defend.

The point was not that Balkrishna is a greater scientist than Philips, but that bibliometric scores divorced from context quickly become meaningless.

National Service Cannot Be Measured Through Google Scholar

Beyond academia, Kamakoti’s career extends into national policy.

He serves on India’s National Security Advisory Board, has chaired national AI policy initiatives, leads one of India’s premier engineering institutions, and was recently appointed to the committee tasked with reforming the National Testing Agency.

None of those contributions generate citations.

Yet their public impact arguably exceeds many highly cited research papers.

Attempt To Belittle Kamakoti Ends In Self-Goal

Instead of discrediting Professor Kamakoti, Philips’ comments ended up drawing attention to a broader misconception – that research quality can be reduced to a single Google Scholar screenshot.

The backlash highlighted a reality well understood inside academia but often ignored on social media: citation counts are context-dependent, field-dependent and methodology-dependent.

A clinician’s publication profile cannot meaningfully be compared with that of a semiconductor architect, just as an economist cannot be compared with a missile scientist.

Professor Kamakoti’s legacy rests not merely on journal metrics but on building India’s indigenous processor ecosystem, contributing to national cybersecurity, shaping technology policy and leading IIT Madras.

Those achievements cannot be captured by an h-index alone.

In attempting to diminish Kamakoti’s credentials through superficial citation comparisons, Philips found himself on the receiving end of widespread criticism, with many arguing that he had exposed a poor understanding of how research impact differs across scientific disciplines, rather than exposing any deficiency in the IIT Madras Director’s academic standing.

Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR