Volume 1, 2018
PERSPECTIVE

A Policy Statement on “Dissemination and Evaluation of Research Output in India” by the Indian National Scince Academy (New Delhi

pdf
  • Praveen Chaddah
    ,
  • Subash C. Lakhotia
Praveen Chaddah
Flat 702, Block 24, Heritage City, Gurgaon 122 002.
Subash C. Lakhotia
Cytogenetics Lab, Department of Zoology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi 221 005

Published 2023-09-04

Keywords

  • No keyword.

How to Cite

Chaddah , P., & C. Lakhotia, S. (2023). A Policy Statement on “Dissemination and Evaluation of Research Output in India” by the Indian National Scince Academy (New Delhi. DIALOGUE: Science, Scientists and Society, 1, 1–11. Retrieved from https://dialogue.ias.ac.in/index.php/dialogue/article/view/62

Abstract

Considering the necessity of common and objective parameters of assessment of research outputs, the Indian National Science Academy (New Delhi) has, after extensive deliberations involving its entire fellowship, issued this policy statement on Dissemination and Evaluation of Research Output in India. It is expected that this will be adopted and implemented by different agencies/regulatory bodies in India.

pdf

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

  1. Baldwin M (2017) In referees we trust? Physics Today 70 44-49
  2. Beall J (2012) Predatory publishers are corrupting open access Nature 489 179
  3. Bornmann, L and Marx W (2016) The journal impact factor and alternative metrics EMBO Reports 17 1094-1097
  4. Callaway E (2016) Publishing elite turns against impact factor Nature 535 210-211
  5. Chaddah P (2011) E-print archives ensure credit for original ideas Sci Dev net Oct 17 http://www.scidev.net/global/ communication/opinion/e-print-archives-ensure-credit-fororiginal- ideas.html
  6. Chaddah P (2012) Ensuring credit for original thought Current Science 103 350
  7. Chaddah P (2013) Knowledge creation from our universities Current Science 105 566
  8. Chaddah P (2014a) Improving scientific research, even without changing our bureaucracy Current Science 106 1337-1338
  9. Chaddah P (2014b) Not all plagiarism requires a retraction Nature 511 127
  10. Chaddah P (2015) Lessons on impact factor from the DBT and DST open access policy Proc Indian Natn Sci Acad 81 553-555
  11. Chaddah P (2016a) On the need for a National Preprint Repository Proc Indian Natn Sci Acad 82 1167-1170
  12. Chaddah P (2016b) Enhancing the efficacy of the ‘DBT and DST Open Access Policy’ Current Science 110 294-295
  13. Clark A M and Thompson D R (2016) Five (bad) reasons to publish your research in predatory journals J Adv Nurs 73 2499-2501 doi:10.1111/jan.13090
  14. Cobey K D, de Costa e Silva M, Mazzarello S, Stober C, Hutton B Moher D and Clemons M (2017) Is this conference for real? Navigating presumed predatory conference invitations J Oncology Practice 13 410-413 doi 10.1200/JOP. 2017.021469
  15. Elango B and Ho Y S (2017) A bibliometric analysis of highly cited papers from India in Science Citation Index Expanded Current Science 112 1653
  16. HCSTC (House of Commons Science and Technology Committee) (2011) Peer review in scientific publications. Report no. HC 856 https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ cm201012/cmselect/cmsctech/856/856.pdf
  17. Jacobs H (2014) Something rotten EMBO Reports 15 817 Jayaraman K S (2017) UGC rules blamed for helping promote fake journals in India Nature India http://www. natureasia.com/en/nindia/article/10.1038/nindia.2017.114 doi:10.1038/nindia.2017.114
  18. Johnston M (2013) We have met the enemy, and it is us Genetics 194 791-792
  19. Kiesslich T, Weineck S B and Koelblinger D (2016) Reasons for journal impact factor changes: influence of changing source items PloS One 11 e0154199
  20. Lakhotia S C (1990) Poor science, poor journals Current Science 59 773-774
  21. Lakhotia S C (2009) Nature of methods in science: technology driven science versus science driven technology Bioessays 31 1370-1371
  22. Lakhotia S C (2010) Impact factor’ and ‘we also ran’ syndrome Current Science 99 411
  23. Lakhotia S C (2013) ‘National’ versus ‘International’ Journals Current Science 105 287-288
  24. Lakhotia S C (2014) Why we publish, what we publish and where we publish? Proc Indian Natn Sci Acad 80 511-512
  25. Lakhotia S C (2014) Research, Communication and Impact (Editorial) Proc Indian Natn Sci Acad 80 1-3
  26. Lakhotia S C (2017a) The fraud of open access publishing Proc Indian Natn Sci Acad 83 33-36
  27. Lakhotia S C (2017b) Mis-conceived and mis-implemented academic assessment rules underlie the scourge of predatory journals and conferences Proc Indian Natn Sci Acad 83 513-515
  28. Marcus A and Oransky I (2015) What’s behind big science frauds? New York Times May 22 2015 Nature Physics Editorial (2016) Keep posting Nature Physics 12 719
  29. NIH (2017) Reporting preprints and other interim research products https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/ NOT-OD-17-050.html
  30. Noone K J (2016) Beware the impact factor Ambio 45 513-515
  31. Patwardhan B, Dhavale D D, Bhargava S, Deshpande R, Jaaware A, Ghaskadbi S and More M (2015) Guidelines for Research Publications http://www.unipune.ac.in/uop_files/ Report-Guidelines_20-5-15.pdf
  32. Pohit S, Mehta K and Banerjee P (Editorial Coordination) (2015) India: Science and Technology, Vol. 3. Foundation Books, Cambridge University Press (New Delhi) and CSIRNational Institute of Science,Technology and Developmental Studies (New Delhi)
  33. Priyadarshini S (2017) India tops submissions in predatory journals Nature India http://www.natureasia.com/en/nindia/ article/10.1038/nindia.2017.115 doi:10.1038/nindia. 2017.115
  34. Stephan P, Veugelers R and Wang J (2017) Reviewers are blinkered by bibliometrics Nature 544 411-412
  35. van Leeuwen T N and Wouters P F (2017) Analysis of publications on Journal Impact Factor over time Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics 2 4 doi.org/10.3389/ frma.2017.00004
  36. Woolston C (2014) High retraction rates raise eyebrows Nature 513 283.