Developing and PublishingAcademic Products

Developing and Publishing
Academic Products
Sanjay Goel, 2014
Jaypee Institute of Information Technology, Noida
Blog - Engineering & Computing Education: Reflections and Ideation
at goelsan.wordpress.com
Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2014

Academic Products
• Theses , Technical reports
• Papers
– Research papers (theoretical, empirical)
– Survey papers
– Experience reports, Pilot studies, Case studies
– Position papers
– Book chapters
• Patents
• Paper reviews, Book reviews
• Articles, Blogs
• Open Educational Resources
– Course design
– Lecture notes – pdf, ppt
– Discussion cases
– Problem Sets
– Books, Book chapters
– Audio/video lectures
– Online courses
• Open Source Software
• Data, Test suites , Test benches
• Wiki, Q&A forums

Engineering and Computing Education
Some International Journals …
• Journal of Engineering Education, ASEE, since 1910
• European Journal of Engineering Education, Taylor and Francis, UK, since 1976
• The International Journal of Engineering Education, Dublin Institute of Tech., since 1985
• IEEE Transaction on Education, IEEE, since 1988
• Journal of Computer Science Education, Taylor and Francis, UK, since 1990
• International Journal of Technology and Design Education. Springer, since 1990
• Australasian Journal of Engineering Education. Australasian Association of Engineering
education, since 1991
• The Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, Consortium for Computing Sciences in
Colleges, Archived by ACM, since 1991
• Engineering Science and Education Journal, IEE, since 1992
• Global Journal of Engineering Education, UNESCO International Centre for Engineering
Education, since 1997
• Journal of Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Education, Auburn University, USA,
since 2000
• British Journal of Engineering Education, British Engineering Education Society, since 2000
• Journal of Information Technology Education, Informing Science Institute,USA, since 2002
• Journal of Information Systems Education, AITP, since 2003
• Online Journal of Global Engineering Education, University of Rhode Island, since 2006
• Advances in Engineering Education, ASEE, since 2007
• Transactions on Computing Education, ACM, USA, since 2009

Some International Journals
• Journal of Learning Sciences, LEA since 1991
• Innovative Higher Education, Springer
• Research in Science Education, Springer
• Education and Information Technologies, Springer
• Research in Higher Education, Springer
• Higher Education, Springer
• International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning , Georgia Southern
University
• International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, International Society
for Exploring Teaching and Learning

Some international Conferences and other Publications
• Annual conference of ASEE, since 1894
• Annual Conference of SIGCSE, ACM, since 1970.
• Frontiers in Education, ASEE & IEEE, since 1977.
• The Intl Conf. on Software Engg. (ICSE), since 1979
• Annual Conferences of Consortium for Computing Sciences in Colleges, since 1985
• IEEE Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training, since 1988
• Annual Conference of Australasian Association of Engineering Education, since 1990
• Annual Conference on Informing Science and Information Technology Education, Informing
Science Institute, since 2001
• Annual ASEE Global Colloquium on Engineering Education, since 2002
• Annual Conference of SIGITE, ACM, since 2003
• International Computing Education Research Workshop, ACM, since 2005
• Education Track in IC3, since 2008.
• India Software Engineering Conference since 2008
• The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS), ISLS since 1992.
• SIGCSE Bulletin, since 1969
• National Teaching and Learning Forum, Newsletter, USA, since 1991
• Prism, a magazine by ASEE, since 1998
• Tomorrow's Professor Listserv, Stanford University, USA, since 2000
• SIGITE Bulletin, since 2005

An Example of Review Parameters: IC3 2014
• Originality - Are you reasonably confident about the originality of this paper? You are requested to
check the EDAS reported similarity score and also the detailed similarity report. If the similarity
score is more than 20, you are requested to be extra careful in making your assessment about
originality
• Contributions - What are the major issues addressed in the paper? Do you consider them
important? Comment on the novelty, creativity, impact, and technical depth in the paper
• Literature Survey (Comment on the importance, recency, and quality of referred sources)
• Problem, Research Method, Argument and Claim - Comment on the clarity, relevance, and
consistence of the problem, research method, arguments, and claim(s)
• Assumptions and Validation - Comment on assumptions and validation in terms of
– a. Clarity, relevance, and validity of the background and contextual assumptions;
– b. Consideration of important parameters in selecting the criteria for assessment of results;
– c. Reasonable complexity of testing/operational conditions including data size and variety for
empirical validation
• Scalability/Generality of proposed solution - Is the proposed approach reasonably scalable/
generic?
• Strengths -What are the major reasons, if any, to accept the paper?
• Weaknesses -What are the major reasons. if any, NOT to accept the paper?

Typical Reasons of Rejection
1. Not relevant to the scope of journal/conference
2. Does not make new contribution to the knowledge or its application/too local, too
small
3. Lack focus, Overcrowded with ideas
4. Objective not clear, Need for research not established, Poor problem statement
5. Introduction, data, literature survey do not support conclusions
6. Insufficient/irrelevant/outdated literature survey
7. Poorly conducted study, inadequate research, methodological problems, research
steps missing
8. Wrong assumptions, over generalization
9. Incomprehensible, lack of clarity, Inconsistency, Confusing usage of technical
jargon, Structural deficiencies, Jerks in the flow, boring, exceeds size limits, poor
language, poor/confusing presentation of data, Author guidelines not followed
10. Poor sampling/testing/statistics/interpretation/analysis, invalid and illogical
arguments
11. Suspected reproducibility of experiments/calculations, wrong maths
12. Unsubstantiated claims, Future projections without a how
13. Redundancy
14. Poor response to reviewer’s comments
15. Unethical practices

Research = Inquiry
• The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.
― Einstein
• The scientist is not a person who gives the right answers, he's one who asks the right questions
― Claude Lévi-Strauss (anthropologist)
• The outcome of any serious research can only be to make two questions grow where only one
grew before. ― Thorstein Veblen (economist)
Kalama Sutta, The Buddha's Charter of Free Inquiry
• It is proper for you, to doubt, to be uncertain
• Do not go upon what has been acquired by
• repeated hearing;
• tradition;
• rumor;
• what is in a scripture;
• surmise;
• axiom;
• specious reasoning;
• bias towards a notion that has been pondered over;
• another's seeming ability;
• consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.'

Critical Thinkers’ Dispositions and Habits
Recognize and Avoid
Simplistic worldview (Kurland 2000)
• See things in black and white, as either-or
• See questions as yes or no with no subtleties.
• Fail to see linkages, related elements, and complexities
Egotistical worldview (Kurland 2000)
• Take their facts as the only relevant ones.
• Take their own perspective as the only sensible one.
• Take their goal as the only valid one.
Socio-centric worldview
• Consider their own social group as superior to that of others.
• Inquisitiveness, Intellectual Humility & Autonomy
• Faith in Reason, Self Confidence and Intellectual Perseverance
• Intellectual Courage, Self Reflection & Correction
• Analyticity and patience – in reasoning, inference, judgment, and synthesis
• Discipline, Systematicity and Intellectual Integrity
• Intellectual Empathy, Open-mindedness, and Fair-mindedness
• Maturity

Engineering Innovation: Context and Benchmarking
Engineering R&D will possibly reach $45 billion by 2020. India
has the potential to capture a 40% share of global offshore
revenues of engineering R&D services.
- NASSCOM, 2010

Evolving Role and Concerns of Engineering
• Engineering serves the human needs
– at all levels of human needs
• Maslow’s model : physiological, safety, belonging, esteem,
cognition, aesthetic, self actualization, and also transcendence.
– through transfer, transformation, and application
of Matter, Energy, and Information
Engineering:
• Conventional concerns –
utility, efficiency, robustness, safety, ergonomy, legal
• Modern concern- user experience, sustainability, globalization
Innovation Is Most Important Factor For Growth

India’s Ranks in Global Innovation Index, 2013
66
102
4287
11
65
95
9449
89
105
53
44
53
105
133
102
46
96
30
77
76
108
124
51
106
24
37
22
62
122

Changing
India
• 4000 IT product companies
• In the last 5 years, 750+ tech
start-ups in last 5 years in
Bangalore & NCR.
• Last year, around 400 new
tech start-upsSanjay Goel, JIIT, 2014

Patent Grants, WIPO, 2012

WIPO, 2012

Trends in Patent applications filed abroad for the top
five origins and BRICS origins, WIPO, 2012

Education Vs Innovation
Bruce L. Gary (1993), A New Timescale For Placing Human Events, Derivation Of Per Capita Rate Of
Innovation, and a Speculation On The Timing of The Demise Of Humanity

Engineering PhD Education in India: Is it
really serving its purpose?
http://goelsan.wordpress.com/2010/12/14/will-todays-phd-education-in-india-create-inspiring-
academic-leaders-of-tomorrow/

PhD Education
• To prepare intellectual leaders who will do the groundwork
to create new paradigms and products for tomorrow - NAS,
NAE
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine (1995), Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scientists
and Engineers.

PhD Education
• A Ph.D. is a long, in depth research exploration of one topic [1]. - CMU
– By long we’re typically talking about 6 years.
– By in depth we mean that at the end of the Ph.D. you will be the world
expert or close to it in your particular area. You will know more than your
advisor about your particular research area. You will know about your
research than anyone at your school.
– By one we mean that by the last couple years of your Ph.D., you will typically
be working on only one narrow problem.
• PhD is about creating intellectual capital
• Intellectual Capital = Knowledge x Effort x Talent x Morality (+/-)
- Sandor Kopatsy,1999
1. Mor Harchol-Balter (2011), Applying to Ph.D. Programs in CS, CMU

Expertise: Effort Vs Talent ?
• Bloom (1985): International-level performers in maths, biochemistry, music, sculpture, swimming
and tennis, had studied with master teachers, many even relocated to be close to a desired teacher or
an excellent training environment and virtually all of them had sought out a teacher, who either
him(her)self had reached the international level or had had prior students who had reached that level.
• Winston Churchill practiced his oratory style in front of a mirror.
• Sam Snead (the best natural Golf player ever) - “…when I was young, I’d play and practice all day,
then practice more at night by my car’s headlights. My hands bled. Nobody worked harder at golf
than I did.”
• Benjamin Franklin - Days after he’d enjoyed reading an article, he would try to reconstruct it from
memory in his own words. Then he would compare it with the original, so he could discover and
correct his faults.
• Mozart’s musical tutelage started before he was four years old.
• Advanced chess players spend 4 hrs/day studying published games between international chess
masters. Masters had acquired some 50,000 chunks /patterns. Most recent champions in chess were
at one time tutored by chess masters.
• An expert musician (committed full time) spent a total of 56.75 hrs/week on music-related activities.
In comparison amateur spent only 7.02 hrs.
• Simon and Chase’s (1973) Theory of expertise and “10 year rule”: Individuals require 10+ years of
preparation to attain international level performance. Development of genuine expertise requires
struggle, sacrifice, and honest, often painful self assessment.
• In general, IQ tends to correlate with performance at very low skill levels, and is not significant for
individuals reaching high levels of performance after extended deliberate practice.

Effort for Good PhD: Some Benchmarks
• In Spain less than 10% PhD candidates are finally granted the degree.
• In USA, around 50% candidates across disciplines do not complete the degree.
• A survey of around 200 PhD students at York University, Canada showed that 6 years was
the average time to complete their degrees. Out of these students 66% never had part time
status.
• A study of PhD students at Rutgers University showed that the mean time for completion
of degree requirement for students who spend more than 52 hours per week for their PhD
studies is 4.5 years. This was found to be 6.7 years for those who spent 44 hours per
week.
• In a conversation, Prof. Sartaj Sahni, University of Florida indicated that for full-time
students, it takes around 5 years of regular work to complete the PhD requirements.
Demanding advisors normally expect and engage the PhD candidates to work for 60-70
hours per week.
• Prof. Rao Vemuri, University of California, Davis, told that his part time PhD scholars,
took around 8 years for completing the required work.
• As per Prof. Bhattacharyya, his 30+ PhD scholars at IIT Delhi took 5-7 years to complete
their degree and more than 80% joined industry after completing their PhD.
• As per Prof. B. C. Mal, IIT Kh, Full time scholars are usually taking between 3 - 5 years.
After 2 - 3 years some of them join jobs and start working as a part time scholar. They are
taking 6 - 8 years.
• Bologna Process - European universities
180 credits * 30 hrs. of work per credit = 5400 hrs. of work

Elapsed and Registered Time-to-Doctorate
(Median Years), 2007-09 Exit Cohorts
Time-to-Doctorate at UC and
Comparison Institutions , 2007-2009
Exit Cohorts, University of California
Office of the President
Nerad, M., & Cerny, J. (2000). From Rumors to
Facts: Career outcomes of English PhDs. ADE
bulletin, 43-55.
PhD. Completion Rates (2007)
• USA 56%
• Australia 65%
• UK 72%
Australia
Average Time to completion = 5 years
Jiranek, V. (2010). Potential predictors of timely
completion among dissertation research students
at an Australian faculty of sciences. International
Journal of Doctoral Studies, 5, 1-13.

Thurgood, Lori, Mary J. Golladay, and Susan T. Hill
(2006), "US Doctorates in the 20th Century."
Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
Total Time to Doctorate (TTD), the total elapsed calendar
time between receipt of the baccalaureate and receipt of the
doctorate, including time not enrolled in school;
Registered Time to Doctorate (RTD), the time in
attendance at all colleges and universities between receipt
of the baccalaureate and receipt of the doctorate, including
enrolment not related to the doctoral program;
Post baccalaureate Time to Doctorate (PTD), total
elapsed calendar years between the first post baccalaureate
attendance at the institution that awarded the doctorate and
receipt of the doctorate. It includes time spent in a
master’s degree program if these studies were at the same
institution that granted the doctorate.

Ethical Issues in Academic Publishing
1. Data
– fabrication, falsification, manipulation, misappropriation, theft, unauthorized use
2. Tendentious interpretation
3. Plagiarism and self plagiarism
4. Gift and Pressured Authorship
– Authorship without the author’s knowledge
– Inappropriate authorship on students paper
– Overly prolific authors
– Change in authorship
5. Ghost Authorship
6. Duplicate Submission
7. Salami/Sibling Publications
8. Overlapping publications
9. Undeclared conflict of interest/competing interest
10. Compromised editorial/reviewer independence
• Tandon, V. R., Mahajan, A., Sharma, S., & Gupta, S. K. (2006). Unethical publication practices. J Med Edu Res, 8, 123-4.
• Gollogly, L., & Momen, H. (2006). Ethical dilemmas in scientific publication: pitfalls and solutions for editors. Revista de Saúde
Pública, 40(SPE), 24-29.
• Stoilescu, D., & McDougall, D. (2010). Starting to publish academic research as a doctoral student
• http://publicationethics.org/cases, 1997 onwards

Morality: Plagiarism
IC3: International Conference on Contemporary Computing
2014 2013 2012
• Total papers received: 738 577 189
o Papers with similarity score >=20: 60% 33% 25%
• Acceptance rate --- 19% 33%
IC3-2013
• 80% accepted papers had the similarity score of <=20.
• 90% accepted papers had the similarity score of <=24.
• Acceptance rate of papers with similarity rating <=20 was 30%
• Acceptance rate of papers with similarity rating >=30 was 5%.Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2014

Prohibited Authors- IEEE, June 2014
• Total prohibited authors = 811
• Indian authors = 289
(including from IIT Roorkee, IIT Kh, IIT Mumbai, NIT Jaipur, NIT Jalandhar,
NIT Bhopal, Thapar, YMCA, SSN College of Engg., MITS, Univ of Culcatta)
• Chinese = 176
• Pakistani, Japanese = 02 each
• France, South Africa = 01 each
• Germany, Brazil, Russia = 00

Multiple Submission: A response from an editor
... It has come to our attention that you simultaneously submitted the same
paper to two journals, one of which was --XX-- and one --YY--.
Reviewers at --XX-- work voluntarily in the interests of helping other
academics get their work published more readily. For each paper this means
several hours work. It is very disappointing when we discover at the end of
the reviewing process that all this work has been wasted. A condition of
acceptance of a paper for review is that it has not been published nor
submitted for consideration elsewhere. When authors such as yourselves
abuse the goodwill of reviewers by breaking this condition you undermine
the whole system of voluntary work that makes academic publications
feasible.
Consequently, we will not be publishing this paper.

Responsible research publication:
International standards for authors
Wager E & Kleinert S (2011) Responsible research publication: international standards for authors.
A position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore,
July 22-24, 2010. Chapter 50 in: Mayer T & Steneck N (eds) Promoting Research Integrity in a
Global Environment. Imperial College Press /World Scientific Publishing, Singapore (pp 309-16).
(ISBN 978-981-4340-97-7)
1 Soundness and reliability
1.1 The research being reported should have been conducted in an ethical and responsible
manner and follow all relevant legislation.
1.2 The research being reported should be sound and carefully executed.
1.3 Researchers should use appropriate methods of data analysis and display (and, if needed,
seek and follow specialist advice on this).
1.4 Authors should take collective responsibility for their work and for the content of their
publications. Researchers should check their publications carefully at all stages to ensure
methods and findings are reported accurately. Authors should carefully check
calculations, data presentations, typescripts/submissions and proofs.

2 Honesty
2.1 Researchers should present their results honestly and without fabrication, falsification or
inappropriate data manipulation. Research images (e.g. micrographs, X-rays, pictures of
electrophoresis gels) should not be modified in a misleading way.
2.2 Researchers should strive to describe their methods and to present their findings clearly and
unambiguously. Researchers should follow applicable reporting guidelines. Publications should
provide sufficient detail to permit experiments to be repeated by other researchers.
2.3 Reports of research should be complete. They should not omit inconvenient, inconsistent or
inexplicable findings or results that do not support the authors’ or sponsors’ hypothesis or
interpretation.
2.4 Research funders and sponsors should not be able to veto publication of findings that do not favour
their product or position. Researchers should not enter agreements that permit the research sponsor
to veto or control the publication of the findings (unless there are exceptional circumstances, such
as research classified by governments because of security implications).
2.5 Authors should alert the editor promptly if they discover an error in any submitted, accepted or
published work. Authors should cooperate with editors in issuing corrections or retractions when
required.
2.6 Authors should represent the work of others accurately in citations and quotations.
2.7 Authors should not copy references from other publications if they have not read the cited work.

3 Balance
3.1 New findings should be presented in the context of previous research. The work of
others should be fairly represented. Scholarly reviews and syntheses of existing research
should be complete, balanced, and should include findings regardless of whether they
support the hypothesis or interpretation being proposed. Editorials or opinion pieces
presenting a single viewpoint or argument should be clearly distinguished from scholarly
reviews.
3.2 Study limitations should be addressed in publications.

4 Originality
4.1 Authors should adhere to publication requirements that submitted work is original and has not been
published elsewhere in any language. Work should not be submitted concurrently to more than one
publication unless the editors have agreed to co-publication. If articles are co-published this fact
should be made clear to readers.
4.2 Applicable copyright laws and conventions should be followed. Copyright material (e.g. tables,
figures or extensive quotations) should be reproduced only with appropriate permission and
acknowledgement.
4.3 Relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors’ own, should be
properly acknowledged and referenced. The primary literature should be cited where possible.
4.4 Data, text, figures or ideas originated by other researchers should be properly acknowledged and
should not be presented as if they were the authors’ own. Original wording taken directly from
publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations.
4.5 Authors should inform editors if findings have been published previously or if multiple reports or
multiple analyses of a single data set are under consideration for publication elsewhere. Authors
should provide copies of related publications or work submitted to other journals.
4.6 Multiple publications arising from a single research project should be clearly identified as such and
the primary publication should be referenced. Translations and adaptations for different audiences
should be clearly identified as such, should the original source, and should respect relevant
copyright conventions and permission requirements. If in doubt, authors should seek permission
from the original publisher before republishing any work.Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2014

5 Transparency
5.1 All sources of research funding, including direct and indirect financial support, supply of equipment
or materials, and other support (such as specialist statistical or writing assistance) should be
disclosed.
5.2 Authors should disclose the role of the research funder(s) or sponsor (if any) in the research design,
execution, analysis, interpretation and reporting.
5.3 Authors should disclose relevant financial and non-financial interests and relationships that might
be considered likely to affect the interpretation of their findings or which editors, reviewers or
readers might reasonably wish to know. This includes any relationship to the journal, for example if
editors publish their own research in their own journal. In addition, authors should follow journal
and institutional requirements for disclosing competing interests.

6 Appropriate authorship and acknowledgement
6.1 The research literature serves as a record not only of what has been discovered but also of who made the discovery.
The authorship of research publications should therefore accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work
and its reporting.
6.2 In cases where major contributors are listed as authors while those who made less substantial, or purely technical,
contributions to the research or to the publication are listed in an acknowledgement section, the criteria for
authorship and acknowledgement should be agreed at the start of the project. Ideally, authorship criteria within a
particular field should be agreed, published and consistently applied by research institutions, professional and
academic societies, and funders. While journal editors should publish and promote accepted authorship criteria
appropriate to their field, they cannot be expected to adjudicate in authorship disputes. Responsibility for the
correct attribution of authorship lies with authors themselves working under the guidance of their institution.
Research institutions should promote and uphold fair and accepted standards of authorship and acknowledgement.
When required, institutions should adjudicate in authorship disputes and should ensure that due process is
followed.
6.3 Researchers should ensure that only those individuals who meet authorship criteria (i.e. made a substantial
contribution to the work) are rewarded with authorship and that deserving authors are not omitted. Institutions and
journal editors should encourage practices that prevent guest, gift, and ghost authorship.
6.4 All authors should agree to be listed and should approve the submitted and accepted versions of the publication.
Any change to the author list should be approved by all authors including any who have been removed from the
list. The corresponding author should act as a point of contact between the editor and the other authors and should
keep co-authors informed and involve them in major decisions about the publication (e.g. responding to
reviewers’ comments).
6.5 Authors should not use acknowledgements misleadingly to imply a contribution or endorsement by individuals
who have not, in fact, been involved with the work or given an endorsement.Sanjay Goel, JIIT, 2014

7 Accountability and responsibility
7.1 All authors should have read and be familiar with the reported work and should ensure that
publications follow the principles set out in these guidelines. In most cases, authors will be
expected to take joint responsibility for the integrity of the research and its reporting. However, if
authors take responsibility only for certain aspects of the research and its reporting, this should be
specified in the publication.
7.2 Authors should work with the editor or publisher to correct their work promptly if errors or
omissions are discovered after publication.
7.3 Authors should abide by relevant conventions, requirements, and regulations to make materials,
reagents, software or datasets available to other researchers who request them. Researchers,
institutions, and funders should have clear policies for handling such requests. Authors must also
follow relevant journal standards. While proper acknowledgement is expected, researchers should
not demand authorship as a condition for sharing materials.
7.4 Authors should respond appropriately to post-publication comments and published correspondence.
They should attempt to answer correspondents’ questions and supply clarification or additional
details where needed.

8 Adherence to peer review and publication conventions
8.1 Authors should follow publishers’ requirements that work is not submitted to more than one
publication for consideration at the same time.
8.2 Authors should inform the editor if they withdraw their work from review, or choose not to respond
to reviewer comments after receiving a conditional acceptance.
8.3 Authors should respond to reviewers’ comments in a professional and timely manner.
8.4 Authors should respect publishers’ requests for press embargos and should not generally allow their
findings to be reported in the press if they have been accepted for publication (but not yet
published) in a scholarly publication. Authors and their institutions should liaise and cooperate with
publishers to coordinate media activity (e.g. press releases and press conferences) around
publication. Press releases should accurately reflect the work and should not include statements that
go further than the research findings.

9 Responsible reporting of research involving humans or animals
9.1 Appropriate approval, licensing or registration should be obtained before the research begins and details should be
provided in the report (e.g. Institutional Review Board, Research Ethics Committee approval, national licensing
authorities for the use of animals).
9.2 If requested by editors, authors should supply evidence that reported research received the appropriate approval
and was carried out ethically (e.g. copies of approvals, licences, participant consent forms).
9.3 Researchers should not generally publish or share identifiable individual data collected in the course of research
without specific consent from the individual (or their representative). Researchers should remember that many
scholarly journals are now freely available on the internet, and should therefore be mindful of the risk of causing
danger or upset to unintended readers (e.g. research participants or their families who recognise themselves from
case studies, descriptions, images or pedigrees).
9.4 The appropriate statistical analyses should be determined at the start of the study and a data analysis plan for the
pre-specified outcomes should be prepared and followed. Secondary or post hoc analyses should be distinguished
from primary analyses and those set out in the data analysis plan.
9.5 Researchers should publish all meaningful research results that might contribute to understanding. In particular,
there is an ethical responsibility to publish the findings of all clinical trials. The publication of unsuccessful
studies or experiments that reject a hypothesis may help prevent others from wasting time and resources on
similar projects. If findings from small studies and those that fail to reach statistically significant results can be
combined to produce more useful information (e.g. by meta-analysis) then such findings should be published.
9.6 Authors should supply research protocols to journal editors if requested (e.g. for clinical trials) so that reviewers
and editors can compare the research report to the protocol to check that it was carried out as planned and that no
relevant details have been omitted. Researchers should follow relevant requirements for clinical trial registration
and should include the trial registration number in all publications arising from the trial.

Thanks
Sanjay Goel,
Jaypee Institute of Information Technology, Noida
Blog - Engineering & Computing Education: Reflections and Ideation
at goelsan.wordpress.com

Developing and PublishingAcademic Products

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (15)

En vedette

En vedette (7)

Similaire à Developing and PublishingAcademic Products

Similaire à Developing and PublishingAcademic Products (20)

Plus de Sanjay Goel

Plus de Sanjay Goel (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)