We thank the authors of this communication for their insightful comments
on our editorial [1]. The use of indexing in
journal databases as a surrogate marker for quality of journals has its
own pitfalls, as was acknowledged in our editorial. We agree with the
suggestion that the list of databases should be expanded, but suggestion
of a specific number of databases is arbitrary. Any index or database
that is widely recognized for its quality, should be welcome.
Similarly, we are not sure why they insist on
inclusion of a journal in two databases as a specific criterion. There
is no doubt that increasing the number of databases to qualify would
increase the likelihood of ‘acceptable quality’ but then why not 3 or 4?
The objective is not to make it difficult for good journals to qualify
but to try and weed out low-quality or ‘predatory’ journals. If the
included databases are chosen carefully for their quality, inclusion of
a journal in one database should be as good as inclusion in two or more.
After all, most databases share the criteria they use to evaluate
journals for inclusion. These criteria are often based on principles of
transparency and best practice that distinguish legitimate journals and
publishers from the non-legitimate ones, such as those jointly
identified by the Committee on Publication Ethics, the Directory of Open
Access Journals, the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association, and
the World Association of Medical Editors [2].
With respect to the limitation on number of authors,
their argument that gift authorship is widely prevalent is valid, and is
likely to have been one of the reasons for the Medical Council of India
(MCI) recommendations. They however contradict themselves by stating
that "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", suggesting that juniors in a department can refuse ‘gift’
authorship to their senior colleagues. If they can decline ‘gift’
authorship to a senior colleague, one would think that they would also
be likely to refuse gift authorship to other colleagues, who are
competitors, if all the authors listed on a publication were to get
equal credit at the time of promotion. Limiting credit to two authors
may paradoxically also increase the risk of gift authorship, if the
primary author recognizes that the persons listed at 3rd or 4th
position or beyond would not benefit from such
authorship in promotions.
Whether research and publications should indeed be
criteria for promotion is a wider issue. Most academic medical centers
aim for excellence in three areas, namely patient-care, teaching and
research. Though contribution in significant measure by faculty members
in each of these may be desirable, most are unable to do so and end up
contributing to only one or two of the areas [3]. Our medical teaching
institutions and regulatory bodies need to engage in a debate on this
subject. However, this issue was beyond the scope of our editorial,
which, given our affiliation to the Indian Association of Medical
Journal Editors, dealt primarily with issues that concern biomedical
journals and their editors.
Overall, we accept that what constitutes ‘creditable
research’ that should count towards academic promotions is not easy to
define, and the suggestions in our editorial are certainly not
infallible. The objective of our editorial was to highlight this very
problem. The letters received are heartening, and we hope that these
will keep this issue in focus and engender debate that will make the
process of academic promotions in our medical colleges more robust.
References
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. Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in
Scholarly Publishing. http://publicationethics.org/files/Principles
of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.pdf.
Accessed June 10, 2016.
3. Fleming VM, Schindler N, Martin GJ, DaRosa DA.
Separate and equitable promotion tracks for clinician-educators. JAMA.
2005;294:1101-4.
|