'Scholarly peer reviewing': The art, its joys and woes

Highly cited forensic practitioners in the discipline legal and forensic medicine and the importance of peer-review and publication for admission of expert testimony

Peer-review of manuscripts submitted to scholarly journals for publication dates back ~ 350 years and this process represents the foundation of scientific publishing. After a manuscript has undergone and survived a rigorous peer-review, this conveys a stamp of approval, because it signifies the work has been checked by independent experts in the scientific discipline concerned. The publication and citation track records of people instructed to appear as expert witness in civil and criminal litigation are important considerations. Using a publically available database, the most highly cited scientists in the discipline legal and forensic medicine were identified. For each scientist, a composite score was calculated based on six different citation metrics; (i) Total number of citations, (ii) H-index, (iii) H_m-index, which modifies the H-index for multi-authored papers, (iv) Citations to single-author papers, (v) Citations to single and first author papers and (vi) citations to single, first and last author papers. The top 100,000 most highly cited scientists from all disciplines were identified along with the top 2% of the most highly cited in each of 176 sub-fields. The latest version of the citation databases, up to the end of 2020, classified 14.163 people as having legal and forensic medicine as their primary research discipline. Of these, there were 29 names listed among the top 100,000 most highly cited in all disciplines and 299 were among the top cited 2% in their particular sub-field. More than 50% of the highly cited forensic practitioners resided in four countries (USA, Germany, UK and Australia). The top-ten most highly cited individuals were the same in all four versions of the database (2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020) and represented the sub-disciplines of toxicology (n = 3), genetics/DNA/heredity (n = 3), whereas two specialized in pathology/toxicology and two in pathology/genetics.

Impacts of Novel Vietnamese Government Regulations on Radiological PhD and Professorship Candidates: an Initial Report

INTRODUCTION

In Vietnam, the successful publication of research in indexed journals is mandatory to obtain academic appointments and promotions in medical colleges and institutions, according to the current guidelines established by the State Council for Professorship and Ministry of Education and Training.

AIM

This study aimed to investigate the impacts of novel Vietnamese government regulations on radiological PhD and professorship candidates.

METHODS

This study evaluated freely accessible data, available online, and, therefore, did not require institutional review board approval. We assessed the numbers of radiological PhD candidates at Hanoi Medical University and the numbers of published Vietnamese radiological papers, from 2012 to 2019, indexed in the SCImago database. In addition, we evaluated the numbers of qualified radiological professors and associate professors employed at universities during the same period. We did not include nuclear medicine PhD and professorship candidates, in this study. The data are presented as bar and line charts.

RESULTS

Following the enactment of 08/2017/TT-BGDĐT and 37/2018/QĐ-TTg, we observed that the numbers of radiological PhD and professorship candidates were significantly reduced. From 2012 to 2019, only one candidate qualified for appointment as a radiological professor. However, the number of radiological papers rose dramatically during the same time period.

CONCLUSION

The enactment of 08/2017/TT-BGDĐT and 37/2018/QĐ-TTg had strong impacts on the numbers of PhD and professorship candidates. Owing to these new regulations, the number of published, international, peer-reviewed radiological papers has increased; however, some undesired consequences may have occurred, such as papers being published in predatory or suspected predatory journals, double or triple submissions, and plagiarism.

Faculty promotions in medical institutions in India: Can we improve the criteria?

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.