Author’s affiliation misreporting patterns, a cross-sectional evaluation of Qena Faculty of Medicine (QFM) PubMed indexed publication in 2020 as an example of Egyptian academic institutes.

Background The scientific activity of an institution or an individual researcher is being measured through various indicators; of which is their amount or publication and citation. Inappropriate presentation or reporting of the authors' affiliation may deprive their institution of getting the research credit for the published work. The study primary objective was to detect the possible patterns of authors' affiliation misreporting by evaluation Qena Faculty of medicine (QFM) (as a representative of Egyptian academic institutions) PubMed indexed publications over one year period. The Secondary objectives were to, 1: document the QFM contribution to the South Valley University (SVU) publications and 2: to check the incidence of contribution from QFM different departments through the same period. Results A PubMed search limited to one year searching for publications from SVU, QFM and QUH. The resulted articles were examined to evaluate the contribution of different faculties to the overall SVU publications. QFM and QUH were further evaluated for, contribution of the departments, and the presence of authors affiliation misreporting, the later was divided into three main patterns, Ⅰ: Missing affiliation information, Ⅱ: Mistakes in affiliation reporting, and Ⅲ: Inconsistent affiliation reporting. A total of 261 articles were examined. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine was the most contributing by 95 (35.2 %) articles followed by QFM by 77 (28.4 %). For the 77 articles published from QFM and QUH, the cooperation between QFM departments was as follows: authors from only one department (59, 76.6%), two (9, 11.7%), three (4, 5.2%), and four (5, 6.5%), this makes a total contribution of all departments as 105 articles, of which 83.8% and 16.2% from clinical and academic departments respectively. The most commonly occurring authors affiliation misreporting was pattern Ⅱ in 47 (44.8 %) articles, followed by pattern Ⅲ in 31 (29.5%) pattern and pattern Ⅰ in 16 (15.2%). Conclusions Certain patterns of authors' affiliation misreporting were detected; identifying such patterns will help avoid them in future and to guard against depriving a certain institution of its research credit. Further evaluation of other faculties or universities on a wider scale is highly encouraged.

Author-Suggested, Weighted Citation Index: A Novel Approach for Determining the Contribution of Individual Researchers

A novel scientometric index, named ‘author-suggested, weighted citation index’ (Aw-index) is proposed to indicate the scientific contribution of any individual researcher. For calculation of the Aw-index, it is suggested that during the submission of a scholarly article, the corresponding author would provide a statement, agreed upon by all the authors, containing weightage factors against each author of the article. The author who contributed more to the article would secure a higher weightage factor. The summation of the weightage factors of all the authors of an article should be unity. The citation points a researcher receives from a scholarly publication is the product of his/her weightage factor for that article and the total number of citations of the article. The Aw-index of any individual researcher is the summation of the citation points he/she receives for all his/her publications as an author. The Aw-index provides the opportunity to the group of authors of a multi-authored article to determine the quantum of partial citations to be attributed to each of them. Through an illustrative example, a comparison of the proposed index with the major scientometric indexes is presented to highlight the advantages of the Aw-index.

Fishing for Genes: How the Largest Gene Family in the Mammalian Genome was Found (and Why Idiosyncrasy in Exploration Matters)

In 1991, Linda Buck and Richard Axel identified the multigene family expressing odor receptors. Their discovery transformed research on olfaction overnight, and Buck and Axel were awarded the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Behind this success lies another, less visible study about the methodological ingenuity of Buck. This hidden tale holds the key to answering a fundamental question in discovery analysis: What makes specific discovery tools fit their tasks? Why do some strategies turn out to be more fruitful than others? The fit of a method with an experimental system often establishes the success of a discovery. However, the underlying reasoning of discovery is hard to codify. These difficulties point toward an element of discovery analysis routinely sidelined as a mere biographical element in the philosophical analysis of science: the individual discoverer’s role. I argue that the individual researcher is not a replaceable epistemic element in discovery analysis. This article draws on contemporary oral history, including interviews with Buck and other actors key to developments in late 1980s olfaction.

An Efficient Questionnaire based system: Problems with Composing English Skills to Write a Research Paper

Wale, B. D., et.al. (2021) English is the common global language for communication purpose in universal. Due to this it cannot be ignored or denied by any academician and research publications with various domains such as life science, engineering and technology. The importance of English in writing research papers is that it makes successful paper publications in reputed international journals which improves the profile of individual researcher and academic institutions [1].

A case study on the need of English language proficiency in academic research

Wale, B. D., et.al. (2021) English language is very important throughout the universe. It is important because it will improve student’s self-efficiency for writing and also it will improve their motivation to write. The importance of English is that it makes successful paper publications in reputed international journals which improves the profile of individual researcher and academic institutions [1]. Rao, V. C. S.

Registered Reports: A process to safeguard high-quality evidence

From the perspective of an individual researcher, Registered Reports may appear as little more than yet another article format — a format with an unusual workflow, perhaps, but ultimately just a slightly different route for one’s research to enter the published record. From the perspective of a scientific claim, however, Registered Reports are much more than that: They establish a new standard for evidence quality. A hypothesis that is upheld in a Registered Report has survived a process that was highly potent at finding any flaws with it. First, the method used to test the hypothesis was vetted in peer review and judged capable of providing an informative test before the results were known. Second, the criteria the data had to pass to be counted as supporting the hypothesis were predefined and left minimal room for the evidence to be presented as stronger than warranted (e.g., due to capitalising on chance). And third, the results would have been published in the same place even if they had contradicted the hypothesis.

Philosophical foundations of research, and the case of the epistemic well, in a least developed nation.

Inspired by an ancient tale of kupamanduka (Well Frog) that never ventures out of the well and lives to think the well as the world and see nothing beyond it. This article conceptualises the ‘Epistemic Well’ and the native epistemic community that dwells in it remains within the confines of the epistemic well. Philosophical foundations are the core of each individual researcher and all research questions, hypothesis, methodologies, recommendations are shaped by it. Particular modes of governance instil particular modes of philosophies. Under neoliberalism the prevailing philosophical foundations have been identified as, detached, decontextualized, depoliticized, dehistoricized, dissocialized, deproblematized, reductionist/individualist, instrumentalization, separation, marketisation, positivist and objectivist. The combination of these attributes builds the epistemic well. The epistemic well of research is not absolute and is not meant to provide quantification data. The epistemic well is a reflexive tool that can be used to evaluate a research especially for a nation like Nepal. The research funds or the benefits that ensues a researcher are important criteria for research. When thinking of a research topic, the primary determining factor becomes the amount of fund available the gaze of a native researcher can overlook various conditions and processes. The epistemic community that is formed by these researchers maintain and sustain particular epistemes. The NCD’s were selected primarily to stick to a cohort but this does not limit the scope and purpose of the epistemic well.

The Problem with Peer Review

In this episode professor at UIT - The Arctic University of Norway, Bård Smedsrød, gives us an insight into peer review. How does the system work today, and what's problematic with it? Smedsrød also offers some solutions and encourages Universities to be much more involved in the peer review process. The host of this episode is Erik Lieungh. You can also read Bård's latest paper on peer reviewing: Peer reviewing: a private affair between the individual researcher and the publishing houses, or responsibility of the university? This episode was first published 2 November 2018.