Indeed, this is the most unfortunate part, specially in the Indian scenario. Sukanta is absolutely correct. There are a few well-decorated persons who don't have credentials and spending lot of time in building contacts. They are successful in the mission. After getting key positions, they don't allow to grow young researchers as they are afraid of retaining there positions. Never mind.

My advice: accept this also as a challenge. Do more efforts. Don't get discouraged. Struggle with greater vigour and strength. A day will come when your work will be recognised and such type of persons will fall flat, then you will come out as more matured and confident scientist.

Before you start a crusade, I suggest you talk to several senior scientists around you, just to see if they have the same perspective. None of my initial attempts to publish were discriminated at all - the journals I published in as a junior scientist were always treating me fairly. Yes, it is clear that a well-known scientist has an a priori favour in the game of getting published, but subject to available space I would not say that every junior are discriminated. Perhaps your limited English became an excuse in this particular case? That is indeed a bummer - you should always be able to get help to re-phrase the initial manuscript, with the help of a native English speaker. I hope it works out in the end.

Thank you for your precious view. Science should not be evaluated with language burden. The way u are representing your work, I think you are beyond the average thinkers. The objective of the discussion is not to start crusade. I respect your thinking towards avg newcommers like me. The world is not same for all. Possibly your works were precious but if you focus on history there are several example of good works which were criticised and thrown away. Subsequently after few decades got attention.

Thank you again for sharing your views !

My history as a scientist started with working, hands-on, with my PhD supervisor. He showed me how to write well in technical English, he helped me with the logic in the math parts of the paper, how to write in a way that should help the reader - by, for example, not using the most fancy English word you can find, but plain English. He helped me realise what the ordering among the topics should be, and he gave me many other hints, such as how to write a good overview of the field. If you are on your own, can't you try to find an English-speaking scholar to help you with the structuring of the paper?

Here is a guide that I wrote down from a chat I had with my former supervisor, and the boss in our research group, Subhash Narula, on how to structure a paper.

Article “Subben׳s checklist” and the assessment of articles in mathe...

Indeed, this is the most unfortunate part, specially in the Indian scenario. Sukanta is absolutely correct. There are a few well-decorated persons who don't have credentials and spending lot of time in building contacts. They are successful in the mission. After getting key positions, they don't allow to grow young researchers as they are afraid of retaining there positions. Never mind.

My advice: accept this also as a challenge. Do more efforts. Don't get discouraged. Struggle with greater vigour and strength. A day will come when your work will be recognised and such type of persons will fall flat, then you will come out as more matured and confident scientist.

This case is familiar in Indian scenario. I have seen many Indian researchers who are always looking for an opportunity to make a bigger circle around him/her so that their works get published/done in priority. Most of the time, those who have work with someone having a tag in his/her name are given preferences either in a job interview or publishing an article. However, many more are there who work hard and get published their articles regardless of any such unfair environment. Truth and hard work always prevails in the long run, I believe in this.

Yes I strongly agree and believe this is going on both at national and international level publications. Now working groups and their contacts are becoming more important than the quality of work.

Bandana is absolutely correct. It is true' not only papers, but also for true for the sanction of research projects and various awards. Even less qualified people rejecting good projects in DST, MoES like that.

Its a bitter truth, you have to except it sooner or later. But, how to counter it?, is more important than criticizing it at any platform. We have to think and start work on it, like any other. Let us think what could be the best possible solution of this menace.

Have been tracking this discussion across the last few months. Several important points are made that are factual.

1. Pre-set biases in the peer review system

2. Controlled ease of approvals / acceptance that appear to suggest 'group' benefits rather than pure academic reviews

3. Limitations imposed on those with poor communication skills (language barrier - if one may call that).

My take on this (admittedly based on personal experience):

a) This is a global phenomenon and not restricted to any one country, culture, science stream or otherwise.

a) We can criticize - but is not likely to break the system.

b) Easier to 'join the system' than change it. The point is how many of the 'senior experts around (who were once critics of the erstwhile system) have really made an effort to bring in transparency and change? My (perhaps limited) experience is that NONE has done that. They carry forward the same system and same biases! Those who make genuine efforts to change get relegate rather quickly.

c) Good science never remains hidden. May get delayed recognition, but it gets there for sure. In-spite and notwithstanding the system.

d) Language is a barrier. True. However, if we understand that the only way to propogate your findings and interpretations is to communicate in a language that is easily understood. Bad communication skills need to be overcome - not used as an excuse. There are enough support systems freely available in today's world (including from major journals) that help those requiring assistance. Use them.

Keep safe and healthy...

Dear Sir,

I am grateful to you to raise this important issue in the forum. I feel the same. Now I find no challenge to publish papers. I think publisher should take serious measures to address the issues. Selection of editors and associate editors are important. Many times, these associate editors do not belong a field for which they are entrusted for. More numbers of people should be included and these editors/associate editors should function for max 3 years with journal. Rotational policy is important. I have many ideas . This is the first one to start with. But inclusion of more number people and rotational policy are important aspect in research review process. Lets debate more and see other comments.

regards

Arindam

Scientist , NRSC;ISRO