Should Publications be the Only Means of Assessment? Some Alternatives!

Abstract

It is with great interest that I read the letter to the editor titled "should publications be the only means for assessment?" [1] The letter seemed to voice the general sentiments among the members of the multitasking clinician-academician researcher community like us. Infact, the title of the letter would be the main culprit behind a number of issues plaguing the research world like the rise in plagiarism, unethical research reporting practices, authorship controversies and burn out of researchers. Infact, the issue of burn out in researchers has been aptly termed "publish and perish" in place of the usual adage of "publish or perish" by an author. [2] The solution lies in a comprehensive assessment in terms of assessment of teaching abilities (teaching awards, peer evaluation, learner evaluation etc.); clinical skills and patient care abilities (objective patient feedback, prescription auditing, peer evaluation etc.) mentoring ability (student feedback) assessment of administrative abilities (involvement in institutional committees, organizing workshops etc.) personal qualities (ethical standards, leadership quality, community work etc.) and research acumen (publications and projects). [3] Assessment in all these domains, though cumbersome, is essential for accurate judgment for recruitment or promotion purposes. Efforts should be taken by regulatory or guiding authorities to objectify such a multipronged rating system that should eventually replace the undue emphasis of the number of publications. It would also be a partial solution to many of the controversies surrounding bio-medical research today.