India Research Award 2009
Gajendra P.S. Raghava
Monday, 27 April 2009 19:14 UTC
Their is interesting article on contribution of Indians in research See Thomson Reuters announces Indian global research excellence awards . Do you think citation is good criteria for evaluating research of individual/nation.
-
Replies
This topic has been locked by the forum moderators.
Jump to resultsResults
-
I am reading this particular post from start up till now. I have not read other posts of Gajendra (the initiator of this post), but I observed following
The initial question asked in the post was straight “Do you think citation is good criteria for evaluating research of individual/nation” and I was expecting a straight discussion on the topic “what is the good criteria of evaluating scientific research of individual/nation”. There might be (Okay there is) a lot of corruption in the award-nomination and the award-decision making system. But post here is not asking a description of that system, everyone is aware of it. Instead of discussing the key raised question, comments from anonymous hijacked the post and only thing what is there on the reply is a crap chay-shop discussion ‘system is bad’, ‘system is bad’, ‘system is bad’. Yes it is. I feel the only path forward is that we do ‘focused discussions’ (including constructive criticism) and implement the best possible practices in our personal and/or in our near influential circle.
Now I don’t want to deviate from the initial post and want to add that impact factor, H-index and g-index are very subjective categories. Although, in a scientific environment where most of the research done is inter-disciplinary, there is still a possibility, that a broad subject wise criteria can be created to evaluate the research. Non-bioinfo scientist thinks that getting 25000 hits per day on a website is not a good criterion to judge how important the research is….similarly non-biologist thinks that writing a review which will be quoted 20 times more than a research article is also a waste which might generate higher impact factor. Publication of a simple abstract or a small-paper in a conference is a common practice in computer-science research and in related bioinformatics research area and eventually they are considered publications. This is not common in biology where an ultimate test is a publication in ‘Cell’. A broad subject wise criteria of having either A or B or C or AB or ABC index should be evolved to evaluate the research in short-term.
In long term its inner-conscious, self-responsibility and joy of doing science are the best criteria to self-evaluate, if I may say.
-
I got the more detail about this India Research front award 2009, criteria of selection. Here I am posting the major points
Based on the ESI Research Fronts dataset
– Essential Science Indicators, 2008 6th bimonthly update; Includes 40,715 Highly Cited Papers (Top 1% papers
determined by category and by publication year) to form 6,596 Research Fronts clusters
• India subset
– 267 Research Fronts were selected as “India Research Fronts”, including at least one “India”paper (i.e. at least
one author address is India)Basic criteria
– There are at least 4 core papers in the front
– There are at least 2 core papers with “India”in author address
– Either most cited country, institution, or author must be from India to be recognized as fronts led by Indian
researchers
– The most cited author, or the author with the most number of papers in the front will be selected as award recipient
• Special consideration
– If found as multi-national effort, India’s contribution was carefully examined. Dropped if India is not among the top 3 countriesI have put PPT of thomson presentation on our site for complete detail
Please note that I am putting this information for discussion not for justifying this award. We need to discuss the criteria scientifically not winners
-
Anonymous
This is to reply for “Name does not matter content does”:
Probably you have not read the title of this post. It starts with, ”Their is interesting article on contribution of Indians in research See Thomson Reuters announces Indian global research excellence awards:….”. The award mentioned in the post did not, I repeat- DID NOT, indicate the contribution of Indian research in global research scenario. If Gajendra was interested in discussion the criteria of scientific output he could have said that in a straight forward way, without mentioning that award, as I mentioned in my previous post.I also have a problem if a car accessory manufacturer like wind-shield, head light, break pads etc start claiming that they manufacture cars. Of course those are very essential part of a car but they should not claim that they make a car.
Selection of such awards also have long term consequences on science education and research, as I discussed before.
“Focused discussion” can never be accomplished by blindly praising a rotten system and justifying that. That will only breed cronyism and strengthen the rule of mediocrity in Indian higher education and research (as it’s today).I appreciate the last post of Gajendra, particularly the last few lines: “Please note that I am putting this information for discussion not for justifying this award. We need to discuss the criteria scientifically not winners.”
-
I am reading this post since it started. To me this particular post has two parts. First one is the award which Dr Raghava has proudly announced and defended its selection. Second one is the criteria for scientific output. Anonymous is posting his messages mainly on the first part.
I fully support anonymous view on that matter. It is very unfortunate that some like name does not matter content does (NDNMCD) may find it “crap chay-shop” discussion. But to me anonymous has brought out a very crucial aspect of Indian science and highlighted the attitude of our so-called educated class. Even NDNMCD had to accept that there is corruption and system is bad. Yet he is reluctant to denounce the award. To me “focused discussion” does not mean glossing over the short comings of any system and praising the outcome of a corrupt selection process, be it an award or a school exam. Anyway, I will be very interested to know which chay shop he goes!
It’s a common practice, even among Indian so-called educated class that they accept corruption as a part of life and never dare to oppose that. If someone dares, then he becomes an immediate target to ridicule. Probably majority educated people in India are scared and ashamed of themselves when face such an opposition or meet people who still have some guts to go against the tide.Indexing of publication is an important criterion. But at no indexing parameter in biological science a journal like Cell can be ignored.
In India, majority do not join research out of love, but mainly out of compulsion, after failing in almost all other competitive exams (medical, engg, UPSC etc). “Inner-consciousness, self-responsibility and joy of doing science are the best criteria to self-evaluate” do not apply for majority of Indian scientists. For them false and self-propaganda is the best way. They are really scared and probably ashamed when they face those rare breed of people who still dare to tell when the king is naked.
Informatics and bioinfo people become furious when they hear the truth that informatics is a secondary sector of engineering/science and will always remain so despite of its higher salary and joining of large number of Indians. Majority rule never means that it have to be right, both in judging quality of science and opposing corruption in science/society. -
Dear Goel, I do not agree that we have few people who dare to criticize system. I feel other way around after reading blogs particularly on nature network. Most of posts are basically criticizing indian system; none of them is talking positive aspects of system. Whenever, I talk anything positive about our system to promote science, I got plenty of emails against me. I am in system and trying my best to promote science in india. We should understand why our critics also lose their credibility? Most of us waste our time in criticizing system without performing our own duty. It should be other way round; these critics should demonstrate how they achieve excellence despite bad system (or how they control bad practice in system). This may set good examples for our young generation.
Here I am reposting my message which I write for Role of Money in Indian Science . Please read that topic if you have time. I have tried number of times to initiate scientific discussions on nature, but every time people deviate from topic and start to abuse indian system. None of them ready to take blame on self. None of us is realizing that system have send us upto this stage where we can discuss issues (most of us are highly highly qualified) now its our responsibility to push science in country. Only we can improve our system. Why we are not writing how nature users (individuals) are contributing to improve the indian system at least in term of science
=== repost of message ==
This is exactly my concern. I am seeing that everybody is criticizing indian system. In our system we have produce more critics than contributors. We have negative attitude we always see only negative things not positive things. If we succeed than we take all credit and no credit to Indian system. If we fail than we blame our system. None of us realizing that we are all over the worlds because we got good educations and research system. We got highest qualifications without spending money due to concept of free education system, even in USA it is difficult to afford higher education. I feel very sad when some of our colleagues sitting abroad abuse our Indian system from where they got all education, where lot of money have been spend by govt. on their education. Instead of contributing back to system they are degrading the image of country. Think if we are in any unstable country, still we were all over the world, my answer is no, does not matter how intelligent we are. From my childhood I am observing one thing that our students are criticizing teachers, juniors are criticizing seniors, young researchers are criticizing seniors scientist. We all enjoy criticism but most of us not ready to take responsibility to contribute. I am not defending seniors or teachers, my question is who are these peoples, your parents, elder brothers/sisters. All these peoples are among us after independence out country is govern by us. How many juniors have tried to understand these senior peoples. Ok you will say our culture is like that our seniors are not ready to listen juniors. This is fine. But I have seen my colleagues when they were junior they criticize seniors when they become senior they are much worse than their own seniors. How long this cycle will go. One day our juniors will also become senior, they should make sure that they are better than their own seniors. No single person can change system but each individual may contribute significantly. We all should try our best to contribute to science in given situation rather than just criticizing seniors.Another observation I have that we are too zealous. If our colleague is doing good than we never publicize it because we do not want to accept that our indian colleague can do better. We are ready to accept that foreign colleague can do better than us because we have lot of complexity problem. If we find even a small weakness in Indian colleague or system than we try to publicize as much as possible. If we got selected for any post than we feel that we got selected because we are capable. If we fail than we start to abuse system. I have seen people fail because they do not deserve, still able to publicize that their is abnormality in selection. We enjoy the negative things and accept easily negative things without thinking or verifying the facts. Somebody write that one person not got selected despite after 2 cell papers, I do not know about this story. If anybody have two papers in cell as first author, I do not see why any institute will reject the person. Most of the good institutes are looking for good researchers.
I will appreciate if some our critics write that how they are contributing to Indian science. How they are doing different than our seniors so their juniors will not level similar allegations on them. I also wants to know individual’s view what weakness they see in their-self due to which they can not become good researcher. How we (juniors) are doing better than our seniors so that we have lot of potential candidates for novel prize. I am interested to listen personal views of forum members rather than standard criticism. Please also suggest solutions.
-
Dear Goel, I do not agree that informatics or bioinfo are secondary sector of science/engineering. For your information journals like Nature, Cell, JBC are also publishing purly bioinformatics papers. Theoretical research is as important as experimental they need each other growth. If you are biologist and feel that you may survive without help of bioinformatics then you are living in false impression. Please learn to respect all contributions not only your own contributions.
I request bioinformatics community not discourage from this type of posts where they consider bioinformatics less important than biology. Remember Ramachandran plot (computational biology) is much more popular than most of biological contributions from India.
-
Anonymous
No one is denying bioinformatics is necessary in advancement of science but it can never be called a main-stream one. Can you give few examples of Nature or Cell paper which was published ONLY about bioinformatics (not in “methods” or “technical advance” section)? FYI, Ramachandran plot was not bioinformatics. It was also not improvement of existing algorithm/software (like yours) but a novel work. He also proved his theoretical plot with sufficient experimental evidences. You have not developed a single drug or vaccine yet claim big about your achievement. You have the liberty to think and advertise that manufacturing break pad is same as manufacturing cars, but that’s not the case for any reasonable person!
You probably did not read all the posts in the same thread. Majority of Indian seniors do not deserve respect. That’s why juniors do not give them respect. You probably have not heard, “respect can not be demanded but earned” and that is spontaneous. Whenever a junior person tries to vent out his frustration and seek help against any injustice, seniors block almost all the avenues and then blame the concerned juniors for his inability to adjust to the system and accept all the corruptions there. The major problem for Indian science is cronyism and corruption. That starts from the very beginning of ones career. Then it continues till faculty appointment and then till he reaches the top. If we were different, as your view suggest, then we would not find us in our present system.
Many people are doing their part to address that issue. Majority of them do not loudly advertise what they are doing to address the issue. I find it really amazing that you are still trying to justify the award in some pretext. Your previous post does not clear the confusion regarding the selection of award winners. You also have not yet managed time to reply the questions I asked you several times while you have got plenty of time to post non-relevant info to confuse and divert the issue.
You are asking us to discuss “the criteria scientifically, not winners” at the same time you do not like us to discuss the result of following the selection criteria. What is the point of discussing a selection procedure when the winners from such a selection are out of discussion?Bioinformatics community is growing in India, as the main stream research is chocking. But that will not change the fact that informatics is a secondary sector. You can outsource informatics part (as many US-EU labs are routinely doing and some Indian technicians are more than happy to do that routine job at fraction of cost) but you can not outsource the main research. It will be better if you start advertising your achievement after achieving the goal you yourself fixed, i.e drug discovery.
You said, “None of us realizing that we are all over the worlds because we got good educations and research system”. Really? Ask any person in US-EU if they take Indian students for “quality”! You have no idea what you are talking about. Of course no decent employer should and will ever admit that openly; but that’s reality. We are everywhere due to our huge number and cheap cost, not for quality. Many countries in EU (and now US too) are taking strict steps to curb inflow of Indian techies and also on outsourcing jobs. Do you think they are stupid enough to loose quality? If you think that a US university has collaborated with you for your “quality” then you are far away from truth. If we were everywhere in the world for quality, then we would have a fair representation in highest scientific positions and awards like Nobel from India, as well as from Western countries. Do we have that proportionate representation in that area? NO.
-
Dear Anonymous, I am defending bioinformatics and you are attacking me, I am not comparing my work with ramachandran plot. Their are two issues one is about my work, anonymous asked from me and I described it in previous posts. Everything is in public whether it is good or bed. I am no more interested in discussion my own work. Second issue is importance of bioinformatics which is attacked by goel and you, which I defend in my previous post. Following are publication of two groups, you may see where they have published (Nature , CELL etc). Every-time you are asking data from me instead doing some work yourself. You should also work scientifically to get data.
http://genomics.princeton.edu/tavazoie/web/publications.html
http://arep.med.harvard.edu/gmc_pub.htmlIt is not possible to discuss you email point-by-point because you are attacking all sides and statement are contradictory to each other. Some time you said poor performance of indian compare to other systems like USA and some time you are attacking USA system. This is similar situation we have in thread “Role of Money in Indian Science”.
So far I have not seen any logical attack on criteria of selection of “Thomson Awards” except abusing it. What I am observing attack from all side using standard statements on net without scientific content. I am unable to see any sincere attempt from anonymous on issue except attacking me. If attacking me or my work is intention then I am no longer interested in discussions.
-
Anonymous
Again you are shifting the goal post again and deviating from the issue, as usual. I don’t understand why you can not answer the straight forward questions I asked. I am asking again.
“You also conveniently forgot to mention what is the H-index,G-index and total citation index for other seven “global award winners”.
Your G/H index and total citation index means nothing unless we can compare that to other Indian scientists e.g that of Dr Satyajit Mayor (of NCBI, Bangalore; some of his publications are listed in previous post) or what is the average index for scientists in your own institute or other Indian institutes".Earlier you said that you do not have time. Now you are sitting a different reason. You have demonstrated that you have plenty of time to post useless rhetoric but always bypass reverent questions asked to you regarding the award or bioinformatics. You indicated Ramachandran plot as a masterpiece for BioInfo work in India, now you saying something different on that issue. I asked you to site articles published in reputed journals (Cell, Nature etc) solely on bioinformatics. But all the links you sent do have bioinformatics but all those are substantiated with sufficient experimental data. All those had relevant biological questions and used bioinformatics as a tool to solve that and which was supported by real time experimental data. I could not check all the papers from the links, but some.
E.g:
A universal framework for regulatory element discovery across all genomes and data types. Mol Cell. 2007 Oct 26;28(2):337-50.
Applications from yeast to human uncover putative and established transcription-factor binding and miRNA target sites, revealing rich diversity in their spatial configurations, pervasive co-occurrences of DNA and RNA motifs, context-dependent selection for motif avoidance, and the strong impact of posttranscriptional processes on eukaryotic transcriptomes.Predictive behavior within microbial genetic networks:
Science. 2008 Jun 6;320(5881):1313-7.
We provide evidence for such anticipatory behavior by revealing striking correlations of Escherichia coli transcriptional responses to temperature and oxygen perturbations-precisely mirroring the covariation of these parameters upon transitions between the outside world and the mammalian gastrointestinal tract. We further show that these internal correlations reflect a true associative learning paradigm, because they show rapid decoupling upon exposure to novel environments.I do understand that you can not perceive the difference but will undertake another vague rhetoric. Probably I am wasting my time here in this thread.
Results
-
