Cogprints

Opinion of Health Care Professionals towards Submitting a Research Article to a Journal.

Srikanth, S and Niveditha, G and Rana, S and Brahma, B (2013) Opinion of Health Care Professionals towards Submitting a Research Article to a Journal. [Journal (On-line/Unpaginated)]

Full text available as:

[img]
Preview
 PDF - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives.
61Kb

Abstract

There are no specific criteria to measure a journals quality, but indexation of a journal in a reputed database such as PubMed/Medline, SCOPUS, EMBASE etc, and whether the journal is having an impact factor produced by Thomson Reuters are looked upon. Many more indexation database have come up recently, and authors are publishing more articles than before. This questionnaire based study was conducted in November 2012 in two medical colleges in south India with the aim to know the opinion of health care professionals towards submitting a research publication to a journal. Prior approval was taken from the Institutional Ethics Committee to conduct the study. The selected participants were from tutors to professors. The information was recorded and analyzed using Microsoft Excel (2007 version). A total of 297 respondents participated in the study, out of which 263 completed the questionnaire. Assistant professors had more number of publications and also had the maximum number of publications as first author. Among the papers published <10% were published in journals which are pubmed indexed. Highest percentage of pubmed indexed journals were published by professors which was around 10%. The knowledge about impact factor was higher among the junior faculty than the professors. The knowledge regarding quality of a journal, with respect to indexation and impact factor of a journal is grossly inadequate among the doctors. Necessary steps should be taken by editorial board of reputed journals and associations such as International Council Of Medical Journal Editors or regulatory authorities such as Medical Council of India to spread the knowledge about quality of a journal.

Item Type:Journal (On-line/Unpaginated)
Keywords:Indian medical research; Indexed journal; Impact factor; Publication
Subjects:JOURNALS > Online Journal of Health and Allied Sciences
ID Code:9160
Deposited By: Kakkilaya Bevinje, Dr. Srinivas
Deposited On:25 Feb 2014 12:42
Last Modified:25 Feb 2014 12:42

References in Article

Select the SEEK icon to attempt to find the referenced article. If it does not appear to be in cogprints you will be forwarded to the paracite service. Poorly formated references will probably not work.

1. Sahu DK. Small journal vs. high impact journal: Dilemma of a new author. Indian J Pharmacol. 2009;41(3):95-96.

2. Satyanarayana K, Sharma A. Biomedical Journals in India: Some critical concerns. Indian J Med Res. 2010; 132:119-122.

3. Nature Editors: Not so deep impact. Nature. 2005;435:1003-1004.

4. Gupta BM, Bala A. A scientometric analysis of Indian research output in medicine during 1999-2008. J Nat Sc Biol Med. 2011;2:87-100.

5. Pandya S. Why is the output of medical research from India so low? BMJ. 1990;301:33.

6. Reddy KS, Sahni P, Pande GK, et al. Research in Indian medical institutes. Natl Med J India. 1991;4:90-92.

7. Arunachalam S. How relevant is medical research done in India? A study based on Medline. Curr Sci. 1997;72:912-922.

8. Ahmed MKK. Why do we need quality articles, what are we going to do with? J Young Pharm. 2011;3:81-82.

9. Ahmed MKK. White paper on J Young Pharm Statistics JYP: Where Do We Stand !!!. J Young Pharm. 2010;2:1-2.

10. Ahmed MKK. Eclectic and rich mix of quality reviews in 2nd issue of Sys Rev Pharm. Syst Rev Pharm. 2010;1:111-112.

11. PubMed Help. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK3827/#pubmedhelp. Last accessed on 3rd January 2012.

12. Medline Fact Sheet. Available from http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/medline.html. Last accessed on 15th January 2013.

13. Mahawar KK. Role of Peer Review in Biomedical Publishing. WebmedCentral MISCELLANEOUS (2011);2(4):WMC001863.

14. Conn VS, Valentine JC, Cooper HM, Rantz MJ. Gray literature in meta-analyses. Nurs Res. 2003;52(4):256-61.

15. ISI Web of science. Available from http://thomsonreuters.com/content/science/scripts/elqnow/elqRedir.htm?ref=http://thomsonreuters.com/content/science/pdf/Web_of_Science_factsheet.pdf. Last accessed on 23rd January 2013.

16. Malathi M, Thappa DM. The intricacies of impact factor and mid-term review of editorship. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2012;78:1-4.

17. Scopus. Available from http://www.info.sciverse.com/scopus/. Last accessed on 28th January2013.

18. Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008;22(2):338-342.

19. Embase. Available from http://www.elsevier.com/online-tools/embase/about. Last accessed on 15th February 2013.

20. Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998. Available from http://www.mciindia.org/RulesandRegulations/TeachersEligibilityQualifications1998.aspx. Last accessed on 20th February 2013 at 5pm.

21. Balhara YP. Publication: An essential step in research. Lung India. 2011;28:324-325.

22. Sahu DKR. Will one more indexing help the Indian journal of pharmacology? Indian J Pharmacol. 2003;35:119-120.

Metadata

Repository Staff Only: item control page

Cogprints is powered by EPrints 3 which is developed by the School of Electronics and Computer Science at the University of Southampton. More information and software credits.