Page 88 - Academic and Research Book_WEB

like most metrics and indeed, like many things in life, it has many flaws. Because the criteria used
to determine the impact factor are not transparent and because these can be rigged by unscrupulous
editors, it remains an imperfect metric. Certainly, it was not meant to be created for the purpose of
judging a specific research paper and for awarding promotions to researchers. We are trapped in a
Catch-22 situation. Researchers in India and abroad are being judged by many academic bodies based
on the impact factor of the journals that they, the researchers, have published in. Besides the obvious
flaw in this, is the bigger issue — the fact that most Indian journals have low impact factors. By
encouraging Indian researchers to publish in the high impact journals from abroad, we are advising
our researchers to publish their best research in non-Indian journals! Therefore, the impact factors of
Indian journals will continue to remain low.
The principles of medical research ethics encompass more than just clinician-participant/patient
interaction. Laboratory physicians also need to adopt these principles in their actions with patients
and patient samples (Bhagwat and Pai, 2020; Vaz, et al., 2016).

The Hong Kong Principles for Assessing Researchers’ Integrity

David Moher, et al. (2020) designed The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers integrity. This
was done by circulating an early draft of the manuscript among the 700 attendees at the 6th World
Conference on Research Integrity, followed by further discussions, and then feedback from more than
100 people.

The Principles

1. Assess researchers on responsible practices from conception to delivery, including the
development of the research idea, research design, methodology, execution, and effective
dissemination.

2. Value the accurate and transparent reporting of all research, regardless of the results.
3. Value the practices of open science (open research) — such as open methods, materials, and data.
4. Value a broad range of research and scholarship, such as replication, innovation, translation,
synthesis, and meta-research.
5. Value a range of other contributions to responsible research and scholarly activity, such as peer
review for grants and publications, mentoring, outreach, and knowledge exchange.

Code of Ethics

World Economic Forum Young Scientists Community, June 2016

The World Economic Forum Young Scientists (2016) created a code of ethics. This code was created
after a workshop, which was followed by much thought and deliberations with peers and experts in
various fields, such as, biology, physics, environment, technology. Although there seems to be no
specific mention of medicine in this group, the lessons apply to all of us, and indeed, even to those in
vastly different fields of research, such as, history and geology. It is worth reading the original article,
which is freely available on the web. However, in brief, there are seven principles:

1. Engage with the public — Scientists should communicate the results of their research to the
person on the street rather than stay in ivory towers only.

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY AND RESEARCH QUALITY | 77