I agree Dean. Further, would the community at large be interested and if so would researchers be capable of presenting their work in a format that was interesting and understandable for the lay person? Interesting work has shown that even decision makers treat research outcomes with some contempt by manipulating and spinning the finings to their advantage whilst a few researchers are carefully selected to help support a policy agenda. What percentage of total (social) research actually makes a difference to society?

Dear Sir, scientific publications have some constructive information as results. Which is only for the use of community for that very purpose. These results find the place as technology and benefit the community at large. Thanks

I fully agree with Sarwan Kumar Dubey.  It is the only way to share a person's ideas/concepts, inventions and innovations with others.  Many interdisciplinary research topics take a shape only by communication of technical results.  

It's a 'double-edged sword'. Yes - the community at large will most often benefit from open, honest and rigorous research outcomes. However, as many recent critiques identify (especially of so-called rigorous systematic reviews and clinical trials in clinical research - for instance) does what gets published and reported really assist - or might it be some carefully-devised 'smokescreen' that hides the real truth and is more designed to serve the purposes of powerful gate-keepers who would prefer that the community were mis-lead to believe that  research outcomes were always in their best interests. 

I agree Dean. Further, would the community at large be interested and if so would researchers be capable of presenting their work in a format that was interesting and understandable for the lay person? Interesting work has shown that even decision makers treat research outcomes with some contempt by manipulating and spinning the finings to their advantage whilst a few researchers are carefully selected to help support a policy agenda. What percentage of total (social) research actually makes a difference to society?

Very strong points Dean and Glenn bringing forward the issue and the problem "Researchers for Hire!!" who will not think twice to twist clinical findings for "fat returns".

However, we should not turn our heads away from those few researchers who volunteer to walk the extra mile to make things easier to understand to the lay person. Bringing research outcomes to the public is a challenge to seek.

The basic purpose of scientific research is to benefit the community at large by knowing the unknown, exploring the unexplored and creating awareness about the new research findings. Yes, there are difficulties to bring the research outcomes to public and make them understand the utility of the same. But attempts by the honest researchers must go on, through public forums and social bodies.

Thank you dear colleagues for your continuous support and commenting about such an important topic. Indeed Jaharkanti what you mentioned stresses my comments.

Happy holidays to all.

I think that, so far, we are all agreed that study findings have to be closely 'scrutinised' - and a good, cautionary approach is to be initially 'suspicious'. Glenn's point that 'best' findings are 'lay-freindly' is a very good one - and Hussin's notion of 'researchers for hire' and 'fat returns' very much resonates with my own clinical experiences. It would be very good to think that 'one day' exposures (such as poly-pharmacy) will 'out the bad from the good'. 

The benefits of the publications to the community is definitely proved by the development in technology and lively hood improvement. However more number of the publications are not directly used by society. Only those researches which affects directly are known. Public exposure of researches will enable novice in the field to think about research.

Dean, your comments, as usual, are perceptive and illustrate the problems and issues involved in the entire arena of research and publication.  Glenn, Hussin, Jaharkanti, and Anil you have pointed out key elements to be considered and discussed.  Thank you all for your valuable contributions.

For each article published there are thousands more, many of which are equally as valid, that remain locked away in the researcher's computer.  How do we bring these to the light of the scientific community.

How do we take the benefits to society found in these volumes of published and unpublished research from the scholarly arena to the community at large and push for them to be implemented as policy?

A big question and a good question John.

Health policy is often based on a pre-determined political rhetoric that many lay-consumers cannot navigate and many health providers cannot understand, support or legislate for themselves - and many policy-makers are 'rubbing their hands in glee' that this is a common state-of-affairs that allows administrators to keep a cap on costs. 

'The consumer is always right' - so the sooner that we can empower the consumer with 'accurate' research findings - the sooner the established system will change and researchers may enjoy a more fruitful research climate.

Dean, that's a big "amen" on your last paragraph!!

Thanks John and Nirmala - always good to get feedback from enlightened colleagues who 'feel the force'.

Great question,  appreciated!!

Research provides information for policy makers how to manage the situation under their circumstances. It provides transfer of research-induced technology to users which are the only way to measure research benefits to communities.

As agricultural economist let me say my feeling: The great new feature of the modern progress in agriculture is the rapid increase in the utilization of science and the results of scientific research as a source of information and guidance in improving and perfecting agricultural methods.

One can’t deny, however, in some cases the research finding failed to satisfy the users (communities) due to:

- It does not reflect/ recognize the real situation of the users.

- It does not have participatory components starting from problem identification, planning and implementation.

- Linking the technology to the users might be weak (inadequate promotion/ extension system), are few to mention.

Thus, avoiding the above mentioned problems and following the right research procedures and research ethics will safe the research findings from being shelved.

Therefore, using public forums and social bodies, to discuss the issue and to make awareness to the communities, there need to be integrated works among different stakeholders, those how have direct and/or indirect relation to the research output. More importantly responsibility and accountability is crucial from the start (technology generation) to the end (technology transformation and use) to make a difference in using scientific research findings.

This is really a dilemma, so what is the benefits of publishing studies that will finally end on the shelves?! Researchers need to think in methods that stimulate application the emerged knowledge! 

Unfortunately, "Evidence Based Practice" is a globally accepted "Slogan"; however, to what extent it is really applied??!!

Thank you Dean for your excellent inputs. I also thank Beneberu for his insight to a very practical dilemma.

Thank you, Beneberu, for an excellent contribution to this discussion.  I admire your pointed and practical solutions/methods for taking research  "from the pot to the table" so to speak.  I'm optimistic that this will be more frequently the case, probably made possible or at least aided by the advent of the internet and technology age with international transparency and diffusion of knowledge.

Regards, John

In this era of publish or perish culture, publication is hardly aimed at betterment of the society. Further, a researcher can not really do much about uplifting the societal standard. It is the responsibility of the governments to see how research findings are to be used for betterment of the people. That however is hardly seen. 

This is true Hemanta whereby a government has an independent entity for strategic development of the country and has an innate policy to tie research to the country's developmental projects. Few countries have such an entity which makes things difficult.

As far as I understand, in the Western countries original researches are actually honoured by the Governments. For example, the Food Problem, the first ever application of Linear Programming, was kept unpublished until the 2nd World War was over. Similarly, Wald's Sequential Probability Ratio Test was published only after the 2nd World War was over.These two problems were actually proposed by the US Government for possible solution to the academia. Such examples are rare. Now, the academia are supposed to publish or face extinction!  

Thanks Hemanta for your facts. Both examples date back to decades, I guess the most recent researches supported by government are the Big Data outcomes and the Genetics research results. Although, I think the media had a lot to do with making things more understandable to the general public.

In the financially sound Universities, the kind of researches that you have cited are easily possible. However, for applied sciences, in the economically backward countries, merit is forced to be on the backseat! It is not that in the economically backward countries there is dearth of talent. However, in the State Universities of India for example, researches in Physics, Chemistry etc. are forced to follow the Western World. It is difficult for a researcher in a State University in India to get a costly instrument necessary for his researches. In the West, this is not the case. 

Thank God, my field is Mathematics. I do not need a costly instrument for my researches! My brain is my laboratory!

Unfortunately, the publish or perish culture has already affected India too! 

Very realistically described Hemanta, I appreciate your feedback which is very educational.

As is well known, zero was an Indian discovery. The ancient Indian system of Astronomy in which it was presumed that the Earth is at the center of the Universe, is accurate enough to pinpoint the exact time and duration of eclipses, lunar as well as solar, although the presumption of a geocentric Universe was wrong anyway. Those days are gone! Now, see where India stands in the world of Science! The West has taken over the reign already, and nothing can be done about it! The reason is rooted at monetary power! There is no dearth of talent in India. But just talent is not enough!

Anyway, science must stride forward. Publication is also important. The world as a whole has been progressing after all. Ultimately, the society has been served. That is undeniable.          

Yes Hemanta, what you described applies as well to the Arab world with the difference that Arabs have the monetary power however miss-used and never utilized to develop the Arab talents. Simply talents brain drain abroad.

To educate a student in an Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) for example, the Indian Government spends a lot. Most of the outputs go and settle abroad! I am an IIT product myself; I feel very bad about this brain drain. The Arabian countries offer scholarships for their students to study abroad, but once again the money spent goes down the drain due to brain drain! 

Thank you Hussin and Hemanta for highlighting serious problems about bias towards  Big data and Genetic research from governments. These are lucrative industries and the media, too, is often biased. Generally professionals have little time for keeping up with the literature and as Thomas Kuhn said "Scientists work within a conceptual paradigm that strogly inflences the way in which they see data." R Lewontin and R Levin: "Statistics can provide opportunites to suggest different conclusions from the same basic data." Can you use your brain laboratory Hemanta to expand on these two positions? What do you say about racial (or racist) genetic research? is race not a social construct? I am an unqualified medical researcher and autodidact.

Cara, you also brought forward more challenging concepts which in many cases lead to biases and possibly to conflict. Even more dangerous is the issue of data manipulation to reflect intended results.

I do have certain objections regarding misuse of Statistics, yes! Let me see if anything can be done about it. 

misuse of facts are used to justify wars. As for scientific outcomes I am a strong believer in the diffusion of the results to the community. Creating awareness is always a positive thing.

Dear Cara,

Statistics is one branch of Mathematics that has been being very much misused. Just like any other branch of Mathematical Sciences, Statistics too is based on mathematical principles. However, most of the users of statistical mathematics do not show any interest to see whether the basic principles are actually followed or not. Do you want examples?  

Yes Hemanta, I am interested with your examples. I think we cannot generalize your last statement.

Yes please Hemanta, as many as you can provide. Significance can be manipulated by enlarged sample sizes I'm told by a biostatistician.

Okay, Cara, I would first start with one example. Say, daily rainfall in a place during a particular period is probabilistic, and therefore we can use statistical methodology in analyzing rainfall data. However, temperature in a place, unlike daily rainfall, changes continuously, and therefore using statistical methodology would be defective in this case. What I mean is, temperature at 3 pm say, is probabilistic, but just temperature without any specified time lies in an interval. Analyzing interval type of data using Statistics is not proper.

This discussion may actually be quite long! Let us see how far it takes us!

Your  example made my temperature rise briefly! Can you provide an example how population genetics, "the privileged causal role of genes", is frequently used in racial medical research without taking into account the causal role of environmental factors? How can this be corrected by collecting environmental data and then being statistically evaluated? Anyway I believe that 'race' is a social construct. Woops - my temperature is rising again!

Yes, Cara, race is as you have said effected by social parameters. Effect of circumstantial data can be studied introducing the variables in the model concerned, and if it is found that a particular variable does not have any statistically significant effect, that variable can be dropped from the list making the model simpler thereby. There are methods to test whether a variable is important enough or not.   

Thanks Hemanta. Can you supply me with the simplest method to test the importance of a variable? Is dropping a variable called masking? I've completely gone off the original question. Apologies.

Never mind, Cara! In a discussion, all sorts of matters may come up.

Suppose, a variable (Y) is linearly dependent on ten supposedly independent variables X1, X2, ..., X10. You may try to frame a mathematical model of the type:

Y = a0 + a1X1 + a2X2 + ... + a10X10.

Now suppose you are interested to find out if some of the independent variables are not so important. A process of doing that is known as Stepwise Regression. The process is as what follows:

Step 1: Assuming linearity of regression, find the coefficients of linear regression between Y and X1, between Y and X2, ......, between Y and X10. Let them be r1, r2, ...., r10. Find out the maximum of r12 , r22, ...., r102. Suppose the maximum is r52. This will mean that X5 is the most important variable to define Y.

Step 2: Now suppose,the following equation defines the linear relationship between Y and X5. This can be easily found using the standard method of least squares. Say,

          Yest = b0 + b1X5

where Yest is estimated Y for observed X5. Find 

          Z = Y - Yest.

Step 3: Repeat the process of Step 1, for Z and X1, X2, ..., X4, X6, ..., X10. Once again find out the most important variable to define Z. 

In this way, if you proceed, you would find that the multiple linear regression coefficient R2 between Y and the 10 original variables can be found by using, say 5 of the variables, say X5, X9, X2, X3 and X7 in that order. This will mean that the other five variables are not important, and hence they can be neglected.

Actually, what I have described is a very standard method known to the Statistics fraternity!

Thanks a lot Hemanta. I'll now be able to interrogate how our medical researchers are using the method (or not) when they persist with their cancer racial genetic research. 

Sharing details about the running process of the research with the community eases suspicion and adds interest to ask for awareness about the topic.

Back to the question. The community receives a very minute portion of what the research community is producing. Few universities plan for conferences whose audience is simply the citizen.

Science progresses by the falsification of research programs rather than by those repetitive paradigmatic programs that bore and alienate the public. Maybe the citizens should be exposed to all sides and be invited to participate in discussions regarding the outcomes of the researches. After all, research affects and is effected by us all.  We should also have access to the raw data. The media must report both sides of the argument thus diminishing bias towards particular industries that finance research. 

Good point Cara, transparency adds more validity and reliability especially if the research results are challenged and confirmed by other researchers. This way the benefit is even higher.

Well Cara, I think RG is facilitating that researchers have access to data sets and raw data which helps in rectifying reliability and validity of research published. Consequently, the public will benefit as well.

Agreed Hussin. But don't you think that industry protects its xenobiotic and unsafe pharmaceutical products by funding and publishing positive research results with regard to their products, leaving lay people confused and even ill? It's rare that exposures of rigging occur - perhaps too costly for litigation from opponents of the huge wealthy industries.

One more time you are right, when corporations intend to hide their wrong doings the public is not offered authentic information.

According to R Lewentin and R Levin: "Statistics can provide opportunities to suggest different conclusions from the same basic data" and "In both contrast and correlational analysis all the real work is done by the a priori decision imported in the analysis". What do you think about this Hussin and our brain laboratory Hemanta? Sorry to be so persistent!

I agree Cara, manipulation of the data mining of basic data many times is governed by the providers of funds!! 

You are right Ghada, the public will be manipulated in case research data is biased on purpose and usually politicians use such approaches by funding certain research institutions to support their points of view. Such a case occurred back in 1998 in Lebanon, when a UN fund research reported poverty levels in Lebanon. After going in depth into the researcher's methodology, we found it was not apt. However, results were extensively publicized by politicians.

Apartheid South African medical researchers divided so-called 'races' into 4 groups; white, Indian, coloured and black. Their 'findindings' concluded that blacks had the lowest prevalence of cancers without acknowledging that they had little access to health care facilities and greater exposure to xenobiotic carcinogens at work and home. No journal would publish my article (locally or abroad): South African Cancer Stats: 1986-1992: A Legacy of Causes and Concealment. This racial research often persists to this day.

Strongly agree with you Cara, and I did touch on this issue in another question of mine dealing with Publish Divide! and publishers biases including reviewers' biases. These issue are always there.

Thanks for your agreement Hussin. Would it be possible for you to answer again with your question dealing with Publish Divide?

Dear Hussin, "What is to be done"?

I am using "Research Publishing" divide as analogous to "Digital Divide", that is, the observation of inequalities or a gap between researchers' potential to publish in class A journals, who live in the southern hemisphere versus those of the north hemisphere.

Many researchers who do not teach in elite universities across the globe (as divided above) have hard times to enter the circle of the A-Journals although researched topics are highly more practical to 80% of the world communities versus the 5% of elite publications and read by less than 20% of the world communities!

Dear Hussin, I've been trying to send you a copy of Who promotes primary health care and why, a 1995 study in the South African Medical Journal. I haven't succeeded. Perhaps you can help me. Your findings show once again that elitism reigns and stems from the west, which perpetuates its own paradigms and obfuscates southern alternatives. I believe ResearchGate provides a platform for challenging the status quo. 

Yes Cara. That is the reality. Try to send file to me via my email.

Dear Hussin, please send me your email address to [email protected]

Dear Hussin please send me a copy of your article about the Research Publishing Divide

Actually Cara, I have not published such an article yet, however, work is in progress. At this stage only sharing excerpts.

Thank you for your interest.

I guess the social sciences researchers have more success in publishing with higher public interest. Social problems are more attractive for people to comprehend.

I agree with you Ghada, the social sciences and humanities topics are much more related to the day by day interests of the public and are easier to share.

Bringing the results of scientific research nearer to the community can be made easier with the intervention of the reporters who are specialized in investigative articles about the advancements occurring in a continuous manner.

I guess what Glenn asked cab be solved by either reporters for local magazines and newspapers who are specialized in writing scientific material in a language approachable by the layperson.

Agreed Hussin. But specialist reporters may spin scientific material according to their political bents.

You are right Cara except if the subject does not touch social issues and it deals with only general scientific knowledge for example, neuroscience, robotics, etc...

Hussin, are social issues not the very ones the general public needs to read about and interrogate?

Absolutely (:-)) and the ones susceptible for political manipulation. Indeed, it is a tough call these days for many to be truthful and transparent while resisting the power of money versus manipulation.

Thank you for highlighting the status quo Hussin.

Although asked well over 4 years ago, the Question remains current and topical.

The Answer would seem to depend on whether the response is from an academic researcher, a politician overseeing research funds, or a member of the community.

If research publications are decomposed into theoretical, on the one hand, and applied/practical/empirical, on the other, the community may have benefited more from the latter, even though theory is an excellent foundation for applied, practical and empirical research.

I guess the direction of the question is more towards do policy makers take advantage of scientific publications which assess current affairs. Then, the benefit toward the community is many folds more.