ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2015
Current views and practice of faculty members and consultants regarding 'Publications in India': A cross-sectional study.
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impacts of Novel Vietnamese Government Regulations on Radiological PhD and Professorship Candidates: an Initial Report.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2020Review
- Changing paradigm in the scientific publication process: Are we encouraging Science or Pseudoscience? Urgent need for introspection and self regulation.Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2017Article
- Institute for Scientific Information-indexed biomedical journals of Saudi Arabia. Their performance from 2007-2014.Saudi medical journal · 2016Article
- Faculty promotions in medical institutions in India: Can we improve the criteria?Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2016Article
- Preparing manuscript: Scientific writing for publication.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsThere 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.
methodsWe 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.
resultsAbout 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.
conclusionOur survey results depict the current author related views and trends in publication practice which may guide in evidence-based policy making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.