There is frequently debates about quality and impacts of scientific papers but what ultimately matters is does it benefit any patients/people? We do need all the basic sciences and platforms to develop our knowledge but in medicine let us never forget the patient. Titles are useful tools if they are used responsibly. Publish for knowledge and improvement of lives of humanity and the rest will come by itself.

Dear Sathian,

Good papers are a proof of quality of research. I want to stress on 'GOOD' papers here.

I know publications are really important for career progression. But they are also fruits of our labour and therefore there is no harm in getting more. And when u have high number of publications, what is wrong in including the details in biodata.

Which university promotes someone who publishes 10 articles to a professor rank?Regardless, publishing your work also shows your competency and expertise in a field. I personally don't think the number matters as much as the quality of work published and the journal in which the research is published. With regards to what you include in your biodata, you include all if you want or mention the top 10 or 20 best publications that will also show your credibility. Hope this helps!

Dear Dr. Apurva Kumar Sir,

Thank you so much for the answer. It is valuable.

Dear Dr. Purnima Madam,

Thank you so much for the answer. It is valuable. Universities from developing countries have the criteria like 2 article for Assistant professor, 4 for associate in addition to the 2. and 4 more for professor. So if a faculty have required amount of teaching experience and qualification also he will not be promoted if doesn't have publication. Yes madam good suggestion better to include the best 20 articles. It can reduce the number of pages.

Very interesting discussion. My own opinion is that people should not write for the sake of promotion alone. Research and the dissemination of its result should have the primary aim of advancing knowledge, solving relevant problems and exploring interesting hypotheses. The tendency is for one to sacrifice quality for quantity if promotion is the sole aim of publishing.

In my opinion publication is nothing but a proof of clinical and research work. Any body can do a clinical work or an academic work but to translate that in to a published proof it takes a lot of effort: And the amount of publications one produces should always indicates ones interest in communicating something to the scientific literature. I Have seen my colleagues who do a lot of academics and clinical but hardly spend time on translating in to published literature.

In open access publication era it has become very difficult to analyze the quality as some times the citations are also seen for low impact papers as they are visible more.

In a hurry; out of competition; for promotion; for monetary benefits: If publications are done for the sake of publication there is every chance that their quality will be less and give more chances for plagiarism. Journals are also now a days increased in huge numbers and if they do not follow standards of publications we may see much of the literature online a photocopy of others: this by itself is the reason why we are questioning the number of publications.

It is the responsibility of the learned person to follow ethics and communicate any scientific literature that has been developed over a genuine work. I have a strong feeling that Indians always have a dearth of funding and most of the times will not be able to complete a genuine work. Exception always remains where some centers are adequately funded: question now arises if the fund was really used for the project or not: over all It always depends on personal ethics when comes to genuine publication even if it is not a high impact work

Publication is the interest of one person: to write his research or clinical work or his own ideas, opinions that may or may not have been experimentally proven. A zeal he continues to carry through his long career which allows him to be constantly be interested in his chosen field: we are now using it as a parameter for promotion/for monetary benefit: for competition between colleagues.

...not only the number of published papers, but the quality of each of the publications, that is what really matters...

There is frequently debates about quality and impacts of scientific papers but what ultimately matters is does it benefit any patients/people? We do need all the basic sciences and platforms to develop our knowledge but in medicine let us never forget the patient. Titles are useful tools if they are used responsibly. Publish for knowledge and improvement of lives of humanity and the rest will come by itself.

in Italy to apply for an associate position you are required to submit 14 papers. No difference bertween a position in a minor teaching university or a top research Academy. The point is how to select between your 100 papers the more informative and relevant 14.

http://abilitazione.miur.it/public/index.php

wee said Dr Christian Hendriksz: Publish for knowledge and improvement of lives of humanity and the rest will come by itself.

I thinks that citation counts better reflect quality (and in particular usefulness) than journal impact factor - which will be the more useful paper - one published in a top journal but only cited a handful of times, or one from a less prestigious publication, with several hundred citations in other published papers...

Dear Dr. Robert Sir, Brilliant answer Sir. Publishing articles in high impact factor journal will not imply the article is useful to the scientific world.