Current views and practice of faculty members and consultants regarding ′Publications in India′: A cross-sectional study

Abstract

Background and Aims:There is an increasing enthusiasm and pressure to submit scientific articles to journals for publication due to official policies. This has led to increased stress on authors and editors and in issues like plagiarism. We planned a cross-sectional study with an aim to explore the current publication related views and practice of faculty members and consultants.Methods:We conducted a questionnaire based prospective survey with 22 questions divided into parts. Print and electronic versions were sent to around 18,270 members in total, a majority of whom were anaesthesiologists and 600 members responded to our questionnaire. A database was created and analysed using Microsoft Excel.Results:About 80% felt that online journals were better read than print journals. Eighty eight percent agreed that publications improve academic skills. The Medical Council of India requirements to publish in reputed journals were cited as the main reasons for plagiarism. The publication rule had become a burden for 46% respondents. Review articles were most likely to be read though clinical investigations were considered to be of maximum academic significance. Review/publishing time followed by author requirements and journal indexing were the points our respondents liked to see most when choosing a journal for article submission.Conclusion:Our survey results depict the current author related views and trends in publication practice which may guide in evidence-based policy making.

Faculty promotions in medical institutions in India: Can we improve the criteria?

“…[5] In a survey on current publication-related views and practice of faculty members and consultants, it was found that the publication rule had become a burden for 46% respondents; 27% respondents felt that publications are a mandatory stress, 57.3% felt that the mandatory number of publications induces unhealthy competitions and 56.1% felt that the rule of mandatory publications exerts undue stress on editors of national and indexed journals. [8] This survey though portrays interesting opinions of Indian anaesthesiologists on some aspects of publications has a low response rate; nevertheless, there are currently no other survey results published in India on this topic. Often, the articles written by Indian researchers are deficient in grammar and adequate references.…”

“…[17] As mentioned by an author and also found in a survey, the MCI rule of mandatory publications has encouraged plagiarism. [58]…”

Changing paradigm in the scientific publication process: Are we encouraging Science or Pseudoscience? Urgent need for introspection and self regulation

“…Today, the real scientific world is at risk of getting overshadowed and inundated under the cloud of 'pseudo science'. [3][4][5] This editorial is aimed at increasing awareness for the readers of this journal about the magnitude of the crisis in the field of scholarly publications, by highlighting various pertinent issues with emphasis on a relatively obscure aspect of publishing -bibliometric indices and our preoccupation with such. While the well known forms of publication misconduct continue unabated, such as authorship issues, conflicts of interest, plagiarism in its various forms, research fraud, salami slicing, it is of concern that the entire scholarly publication process should not get hijacked.…”

“…While the well known forms of publication misconduct continue unabated, such as authorship issues, conflicts of interest, plagiarism in its various forms, research fraud, salami slicing, it is of concern that the entire scholarly publication process should not get hijacked. [2][3][4][5] Today, knowingly or unknowingly, a significant proportion of stakeholders in the field of scientific publications ranging from the authors, reviewers, editors and even the publishers often indulge in blatant violation of publication ethics in its various forms. Individual author misconduct has been known since a while now.…”

“…However, increasing instances of reviewer, editorial and publisher fraud is a cause for distress for all those who wish to thrive in a genuine scientific milieu. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] One could have never imagined rigging of the peer review process! Now we have instances of journal editors being more interested in revenue generation and manipulating the entire citation process by selective publishing of articles, encouraging coercive citations and 'citation cartels' so as to artificially improve the Journal Impact Factor which would in turn attract more paying clientele authors in an Open Access (OA) format.…”