| |9 February 2017HIGHERReviewOne may be entertained by the fact that computer programs are now good enough to create drivable gabble, but what is alarming and sad though is that many journals/conferences continue to accept such papers without being able to scrutinize them critically.Myth 2: All top rated Peer Reviewed Journals make sound editorial decisionsA French computer scientist Cyril Labbé could detect more than 100 algorithmically generated articles in two major scientific publications. Later in 2012, he found out a batch of 85 fake articles in one of these publications. These two much respected publications on realizing their error decided to withdraw such papers post-date. Besides the computer generated articles, there are many more articles that are meaningless paper drudgery that sometimes make their way to some `good' peer-reviewed journals. A lengthy literature review with a long list of citations makes a paper being perceived as impressive and one that has depth. Given easy availability of electronic database and advanced MS Word application creation of citation list is not too difficult. The fact that Cyril Labbé could find out such editorial lapses in top rated peer reviewed journals shows that fault lines are much deeper than we perceive. It will be hence wrong to believe all `top' rated peer reviewed journal publications as crème da la crème. Myth 3: Publication in a top-tier journal alone certifies good researchNow given the mad race to publish and availability of algorithms, electronic databases and advanced documentation applications, every year millions of academicians around the world are attempting to cite previously published research literature. Often the ones cited by author who have made their way to top journals end up being cited more, as such citations are perceived to be of greater value. In such a scenario where many authors are using citations in their papers more to impress and are blindly copying them from the papers of their accomplished peers, will `impact factor' be a true measure always? What about the exciting new journals who are relatively new but are doing a great job when it comes to editing, review and publishing? It is similar to believing that all good products and innovations can come out of the great big companies alone! We need to remember that the start-ups have always altered the innovation landscape and Google ­ a start-up in 1998 - is perhaps one of the most exciting and innovative companies that we have today. Myth 4: All non-peer reviewed journals lack credibility Gregor Mendel, a priest by profession, did experiments on sweet pea that helped him postulate Laws of Genet-ics, which hold true even today. His only `mistake' was to publish that in an `obscure' journal. Almost three decades later, after his death Erich von Tschermak, Hugo de Vries, Carl Correns, and William Jasper Spill-man independently verified several of Mendel's experimental findings, ush-ering in the modern age of genetics. Mendel finally got his due but it is sad that the class system in journals pre-vented his work from spreading and being recognized. We believe that the collective wisdom of a group of peers make better judgements than an ed-itor alone and consider any non-peer reviewed journal as junk or one that lacks academic rigour. The yardstick has to be quality and application alone when it comes to research journal and not whether it is peer or non-peer re-viewed publication.Myth 5: Empirical research papers command greater rigour and credibilityA primary grader good in mathemat-ics in school is always branded as the sharpest, most intelligent and a bril-liant student, while those good in lit-erature or history are generally con-Both quantitative and qualitative research rest on rich and varied traditions that come from multiple disciplines and both have been employed to address almost any research topic one can think of
< Page 8 | Page 10 >