ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2016
Faculty promotions in medical institutions in India: Can we improve the criteria?
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Challenges and solutions for the promotion of medical sciences faculty members in Iran: a systematic review.BMC medical education · 2022Pooled it
- Changing winds, a silent return, and promises to keep: The journey resumes in an artificial intelligence era.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2026Article
- Implementing a multidimensional faculty promotion matrix at Saint George University of Beirut Faculty of Medicine.MedEdPublish (2016) · 2024Article
- A tripartite challenge of orphaned manuscripts, heedless writing and reluctant reviewing...... revamping the editing process!Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2021Article
- Research and COVID-19: Losing momentum every now and then.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2021Article
- Predatory Journals Spamming for Publications: What Should Researchers Do?Science and engineering ethics · 2018Article
- MAKING A CASE FOR MORE CASE REPORTS.Annals of Ibadan postgraduate medicine · 2017Article
- Predatory Publishing Is a Threat to Non-Mainstream Science.Journal of Korean medical science · 2017Review
- The mandatory regulations from the Medical Council of India: Facts, opinions and prejudices.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2016Article
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
Research publications are desirable for academic promotion in medical colleges as per the current rules of the Medical Council of India (MCI). These rules reflect an endeavour to improve the academic standards. We strongly believe that every medical college teacher should conduct true research and contribute to good peer-reviewed publications. However, it is felt that the MCI rule has the potential to lead to undesirable consequences, and the quality of teaching and learning could take a back-seat. There is an urgent need to adopt more objective criteria and better guidelines as followed by well-known global institutes. In our own country, the University Grants Commission has formulated specific guidelines for this purpose in the form of Academic Performance Indicators which, it appears, are not taken into consideration by the MCI. This article discusses the adverse impact of the rule and suggests ways for the adoption of a more scientific assessment system for faculty appointment and promotion.
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.