The recent editorial in Indian Pediatrics [1] is very timely, and
attracted the attention of medical professionals across the globe,
particularly from India. Very rarely such a vast circulation of any
editorial in various online medical professionals groups and social
media has been observed in recent times. All the five criteria notified
by Medical Council of India (MCI) for faculty promotion were critically
commented upon by the authors. Although the concerns listed in the
editorial in question seems to be raised logically and are rational, but
in our opinion concerns raised about indexing and authorship criteria
needs further deliberations.
As far as indexing issue is concerned, indeed the
suggestions by the authors in editorial are worth consideration and as
suggested by them Science Citation Index and IndMEd should replace Index
Copernicus. We would like to add further that list of indexing agencies
should be increased from the current six to about ten, and it should be
made mandatory that any publication must have at least two out of the
ten indexing. This will definitely help in curtailing the wings of
predatory journals that now run their business mostly by listing
themselves on "Index Corpernicus" or by obtaining a single indexing as
per MCI requirements. The introduction of a minimum requirement of any
two indexings for promotion purpose will force them to raise their
publication standard, and side-by-side this step will automatically take
care of quality of research by faculty.
There is no doubt that the contribution of all
authors is equally important and cannot be ignored, but the motive
behind MCI guideline cannot be brushed aside. Gift authorship is a
reality, and should be tackled. And there are more reasons to defend the
MCI guideline in this regard. In a study based on international
assessment of authorship position, significant differences existed
between the understandings of appropriate roles for first versus last
listed authors. First-listed authors were at least seven times more
likely to be involved in study conception and conduct, manuscript
writing, had a major study contribution and performed the majority of
the work involved. Lastly listed authors were at least seven times more
likely to be viewed as having a minor or no contribution to the study,
provide funding, be a laboratory head/mentor, hold a senior position,
and supervise/oversee the study [2]. Moreover, the way of referencing
reduces the visibility of all authors apart from the first few [3].
According to a recent study [4], only 15.6% clearly declared
contributions from all three International Committee of Medical Journal
Editors (ICMJE) categories and the responses of 166 (13.0%) authors
could not be matched to ICMJE criteria. Interestingly, among these 13%,
about 56.3% stated that they made a significant contribution, without
listing what that contribution was!! [4].
It may not be appropriate to be very flexible in
criteria for promotion in India where most of the original and
substantial research is limited to only few medical colleges /
institutions and rest are just doing "re-search" in the name of
research. A recent study in India observed that about 60% of the medical
colleges here did not have a single publication in past ten years [5].
With the maximum number of predatory journals being contributed from
India, 42% of fake single-journal publishers are based in India, and
where money is the only criteria for publication, it is not hard to
imagine how a single publication could be misused for promotion if every
author is allowed to take credit of it for promotion purpose [6].
The authors in the editorial have written that it may
even encourage the practice of denying first authorship, and credit, to
junior researchers whose contribution is often the maximum and it is not
uncommon to find the senior-most author as the first author (even in
case reports) due to the premium placed on this position [1]. But the
current MCI criteria’s are for the promotion of faculty members and not
the post graduate students who could easily have been side lined by
their Head of the Departments or thesis guide. When the junior most
aspirant aspiring for promotion as per new MCI guidelines, in this case
an Assistant professor, knows that he must publish two paper with first
or second authorship to get promotion, it’s hard to believe that he/she
will easily give away his/her precious research and first authorship to
his seniors, at least for two papers.
Dear Editors, It’s a matter of just four papers in a
total span of seven years – right from starting the faculty career as
Assistant Professor to Professor. MCI is not asking too much of research
– just one paper in two years on an average. And if the faculty members
are genuinely interested in research, what stops them to conduct several
more studies with multiple researchers, and then publish papers by
giving equal credit to all. After all, every faculty member should have
an opportunity to see his name as first or second author (at least in
four research papers) and feel proud, when down the lane, at the time of
their retirement; they look back at their career.
1. Aggarwal R, Gogtay N, Kumar R, Sahni P, for the
Indian Association of Medical Journal Editors. The Revised Guidelines of
the Medical Council of India for Academic promotions: Need for a
rethink. Indian Pediatr. 2016;53:23-6.
2. Zbar A, Frank E. Significance of authorship
position: An open-ended international assessment. Am J Med Sci.
2011;341:106-9.
3. Hundley V, Teijlingen EV, Simkhada P. Academic
authorship: who, why and in what order? Health Renaissance.
2013;11:98-101.
4. Malicki M, Jeroncic A, Marusic M, Marusic A. Why
do you think you should be the author on this manuscript? Analysis of
open-ended responses of authors in a general medical journal. BMC
Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:189.
5. Ray S, Shah I, Nundy S. The research output from
Indian medical institutions between 2005 and 2014. Curr Med Res
Pract. 2016;6:49-58.
6. Shen C, Bjork BC. ‘Predatory’ open access: A
longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC
Med. 2015;13:230.