Dear @D.P.S. Rathore, I am not aware of the existence  of such metrics for scientists. But, I am free to recommend The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics! Fine 10 pronciples :"

• Quantitative evaluation should support qualitative, expert assessment
• Measure performance against the research missions of the institution, group or researcher
• Protect excellence in locally relevant research
• Keep data collection and analytical processes open, transparent and simple
• Allow those evaluated to verify data and analysis
• Account for variation by field in publication and citation practices
• Base assessment of individual researchers on a qualitative judgement of their portfolio
• Avoid misplaced concreteness and false precision
• Recognize the systemic effects of assessment and indicators
• Scrutinize indicators regularly and update them

“Simplicity is a virtue in an indicator because it enhances transparency.”"

http://www.nature.com/news/bibliometrics-the-leiden-manifesto-for-research-metrics-1.17351

To the best of my knowledge, as on date , there is no such performance index to assess reliably different personal attributes of a scientist.

Without proper marking scheme as is commonly used in say, class-12 exam/ university exams , it is practically difficult to do the real justice in evaluations of personal /professional  attributes of scientists.Any valid and reliable measurement scale is mandatory for any reliable and transparent assessment/measurement. Moreover, assessor /reviewers should have expertise to understand the scientific contents. Any geologist can not do justice with a chemist or vice versa. There is a need of  expert  scientific advisor with proven records for such assessment.

Validated detailed making scheme for the evaluation of different attributes in APARs should be mandatory otherwise the assessment will depend on the vagaries of assessors, reviewers and all other superior  authorities. It is so simple to understand that without a calibrated scale , what is the reliability and validity of any evaluation.?

For the teacher and scientist, the performance indicators may be:

1. Teaching -- UG/PG/Research scholars

2. Research -- Research publications, research projects, guiding scholars, etc.

3. Governance -- Heading the department, other administrative assignment

4. Academic bodies -- contribution academically being member

5. Statutory bodies -- part of top administration

6. Social contribution -- contribution in national integration, etc.

7. Consultancy -- contributing in up gradation of industries, etc.

8. Etc. ... !

Any valid and reliable measurement scale is mandatory for any reliable and transparent assessment/measurement.

Dear @D.P.S. Rathore, I am not aware of the existence  of such metrics for scientists. But, I am free to recommend The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics! Fine 10 pronciples :"

• Quantitative evaluation should support qualitative, expert assessment
• Measure performance against the research missions of the institution, group or researcher
• Protect excellence in locally relevant research
• Keep data collection and analytical processes open, transparent and simple
• Allow those evaluated to verify data and analysis
• Account for variation by field in publication and citation practices
• Base assessment of individual researchers on a qualitative judgement of their portfolio
• Avoid misplaced concreteness and false precision
• Recognize the systemic effects of assessment and indicators
• Scrutinize indicators regularly and update them

“Simplicity is a virtue in an indicator because it enhances transparency.”"

http://www.nature.com/news/bibliometrics-the-leiden-manifesto-for-research-metrics-1.17351

@Prof Rathore.:A very debatable question 

@ Prof Ljubomir Jacić : Like your recommendations

But, during my 35 years of Career in scientific  R&D, I found that majorty of scientist's assessment parameters are for name sake. I have seen that  generally  only "YES" men are always benefited over and above their "APR" . All APR are biased. I have seen good scientists, are side lined/neglected/discouraged and "YES' men put into main stream, encouraged & rewarded in number of ways.

In different Scientific departments, such as DST, DRDO and   DAE, the APAR evaluations for awarding grading are different but all are lacking in strict guidelines for detailed marking scheme.

In the absence of detailed marking scheme, any grading differing from A1 ( outstanding)  to A3 (very good) can be justified by the competent authority. ( Highly biased assessment system)

In my opinion, such assessment system require immediate kind attention of all responsible authorities of DoPT, Government of India.

Thanks for information.

In DST and other Scientific organizations, the gradings are normalized whether markings are 8 or 9  as outstanding but in DAE such is not the case ( the so called under Merit Promotion Scheme of DAE). Those who gets 9 markings are treated as outstanding and it all depends on bosses to award any marking ( 6-10) out of 10. In so many cases, ( Prior to APAR) makings are 11 to 13 x  but gradings are A2. In the absence of any detailed marking scheme,  such errors will continue to remain. There is a need for benchmarking  or well defined steps so that grading may not differ from A1 to A3 in APAR. Moreover, there is a need for transparency and accountability for the growth of any organization. In analytical chemistry or for any measurement systems, standards/international standards are mandatory to minimize  ( control ) the errors in measurements using validated methods otherwise results will depend on the vagaries of analyst.

I would like to quote " one of the reviewer commented in APAR: Grading 8.1 may be accepted"  He has signed and stamped also. Such a reviewer is lacking in basics , whether 8.1 is marking or grading. Such errors continued through different channels.

I would be happy to know the steps initiated by scientific organizations for APAR evaluations..

How to validate the markings awarded to the different attributes of a scientists in their Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APARs)?. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_validate_the_markings_awarded_to_the_different_attributes_of_a_scientists_in_their_Annual_Performance_Appraisal_Report_APARs [accessed May 13, 2015].

In my opinion, such assessment system require immediate kind attention of all responsible authorities of DoPT, Government of India.

Research projects, earned grants for research, patents and publications are important performance indicators!

Dear respected friends, let me bring some more fine articles about the issue of measuring scientific contribution! I do hope it will help to prolong the discussion under this fine thread.

http://www.wired.com/2012/01/new-ways-to-measure-science/

http://phys.org/news/2013-06-scientific-impact.html

Some more fine resources on scientific contribution!

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/51/17599.full

http://blog.physicsworld.com/2013/04/11/what-is-the-best-way-to-measure-a-researchers-contribution-to-science/#container

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/284910?uid=3738936&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21106422863521

http://www.harzing.com/download/popmingers.pdf

The h index as a research performance indicator

In 2005, Jorge Hirsch introduced a new indicator for quantifying scientists' research output. His h index was proposed as an alternative to other bibliometric indicators such as citations per paper. It is based on a scientist’s lifetime citedness, which incorporates productivity as well as citation impact (an all-in-one metric).

http://www.lutz-bornmann.de/icons/viewpoints.pdf

Metrics: Do metrics matter?

"Many researchers believe that quantitative metrics determine who gets hired and who gets promoted at their institutions. With an exclusive poll and interviews, Nature probes to what extent metrics are really used that way..."

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100616/full/465860a.html

Dear @D.P.S. RATHORE, I do find this article about ISI, The counting house very good one. It is about reliability of citation statistics as scientific indicator!

http://www.nature.com/articles/415726a.epdf?referrer_access_token=-rFrqofsTjoWjhKddO2l-9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OLEf35skxlvVQ6B16Y85adsw1mY-lURKlMH0I_fyn8uMPAoXROcRO4eAycxMgiwGneY5FOPeuHgHqa-2RpxJqNN01X6N7S3J5KrUmuryMxLv1WxQWIXHmiLY4ugfGOkwl0VkQZj568Lr9hOog8KFpv&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6873/full/415726a.html

Yes, Ljubomir Jacić,

ISI Thomson Reuters citation index is also important criteria.

An excellent research paper : Characterizing Social Media Metrics of Scholarly Papers: The Effect of Document Properties and Collaboration Patterns!

"A number of new metrics based on social media platforms—grouped under the term “altmetrics”—have recently been introduced as potential indicators of research impact...

On the whole, our results confirm that citations and social media metrics are essentially different. Not only are indicators obtained at the level of papers weakly correlated, but factors that typically affect citations rates do not seem to affect social media counts in a similar manner. Therefore, social media metrics cannot actually be seen as alternatives to citations, but at most as complements to other type of indicators..."

Many fine resources, charts etc are available!

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0120495

In DAE, now a days, there is misuse of position and power.There is gross misuse of the MERIT PROMOTION SCHEME OF DAE. Even, Ph.D.Degrees are being manipulated by superior authorities of AMD..

1.One Ph.D.Degree was awarded based on the thesis submitted to Osmania University, as per details given below:

Integrated Geological, Geochemical, Geophysical, Remote Sensing, and GIS Studies on the Controls of uranium Mineralisation in the Proterozoic Kunjar - Darjing Basin in Odisha, India/ Anand Kumar Chaturvedi

Author(s): Anand Kumar Chaturvedi;

Pavanaguru, R;

Department of Geology, Osmania University;

Subjects: Geology;

Publisher: : Osmania University Hyderabad , 2013;

Bar code: TH7804

(Attached file: AKC-PHDLIB.pdf)

2.The only paper published from the thesis is:

"The role of GIS in spatial modeling of multidisciplinary geoscientific data for uranium exploration over the Kunjar-Darjing basin, Orissa."

Authors: ANAND KUMAR CHATURVEDI, RAMESH BABU VELDI, MARKANDEYULU AMULOTU, R.PAVANAGURU and ANJAN CHAKI

Journal of Geological Society of India, vol. 86,No.6, pp. 657-672, 2015.

This is a case-study paper, in which RAMESH BABU, VELDI ( second author) is the corresponding author.( First page – attached, file: JGSI-AKC-2015.pdf)

Moreover, this publication is based on his earlier Conference paper presentation in 2010 as follows:

Page. 78 PREVIEW AUGUST 2010 ASEG-PESA 2010 Conference Handbook

ABSTRACTS

ASEG-PESA 2010 Conference Handbook AUGUST 2010

SPATIAL MODELLING OF MULTI-DISCIPLINARY GEOSCIENTIFIC DATA FOR URANIUM EXPLORATION OVER THE KUNJAR-DARJING BASIN, ORISSA – A GIS

APPROACH

V. Ramesh Babu*, A. K. Chaturvedi, A. Markandeyulu, P. K. Srivastava and A. Chaki

Airborne Survey and Remote Sensing Group, Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research, Department of Atomic Energy, Hyderabad, India

[email protected]

Application of Geographical Information System (GIS) for identifying the spatial locations of target areas for uranium exploration using multi-disciplinary geoscientific data is presented in this paper. The data sets used in this study are Airborne Gamma Ray Spectrometric (AGRS), Aeromagnetic (AM),Satellite images, regional ground gravity and geochemical surveys over one of the promising mobile Proterozoic Kunjar-Darjing basins to the west of Singhbum Uranium Province (SUP), Orissa, India. All these data sets are processed and interpreted independently in terms of geology based on characteristics such as intensity, frequency and texture of the images generated. Various ratio maps generated from AGRS data were used as training points for spatial modeling by building relationships (topology) with the structures and geology interpreted from the magnetic and gravity datasets. This study shows that integrating the geological, geophysical, geochemical and other geodata in a GIS environment provides valuable guidelines for geological mapping as well as identifying target areas for uranium exploration.( copy attached-conference paper-2010.pdf).

(This paper has been approved by Dr.Anjan Chaki, then Director, AMD and co-author of paper).

The name of the co-author: P.K.Srivastava has been removed and the name of : R. Pavana guru ( Guide of Shri Anand Kumar Chaturvedi ) has been added and order of co-authors changed.

3.In both these papers, V. Ramesh Babu is the corresponding author. Moreover, It is very clearly stated that it is a case-study paper in the conclusion part ( Journal of Geological Society of India, vol. 86,No.6, pp. 657-672, 2015). Moreover, there is no reference of conference paper cited in this publication. This is simply suppression of facts, citation manipulation and plagiarism.

The references cited are all old prior to the year 2008. There is no update of literature since the year 2008 till date. There is no novelty or innovation or new findings have been incorporated in this Ph.D. thesis submitted by Mr. Anand Kumar Chaturvedi ( Part time candidate) under the Guidance of Prof. R.Pavanaguru ( Retd. Professor) in the thesis titled:

“Integrated Geological, Geochemical, Geophysical, Remote Sensing, and GIS Studies on the Controls of uranium Mineralisation in the Proterozoic Kunjar - Darjing Basin in Odisha, India” for the award of Ph.D. degree in Geology, Department of Geology, Osmania University, Hyderabad.

4.It is worth to be stated here that Mr. Anand Kumar Chaturvedi is holding Senior position: Additional Director ( Research & Development), Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research, Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India, Hyderabad and Prof. R. Pavanaguru was funded a DAE-BRNS project for Rs. 18,58,900/= , title of the project: “Characterisation of granitic phases and associated igneous suites to assess their potentiality for uranium minieralisation in the northern parts of Cuddapah basin, A.P. ( in collaboration with AMD) during the year 2010-11”.

Based on material evidences, it is very clear that the candidate: Mr. Anand Kumar Chaturvedi has not carried out any Ph.D. Thesis work. Such a Ph.D. thesis work describing Case-Study is unsuitable and do not fulfill the basic requirement for the award of Ph.D.Degree. This is a gross scientific misconduct and plagiarism. Award of such Ph.D.Degree is a fraud. This is as a result of big racket and scandal involving superior authorities of AMD (Mr. A.K.Rai, Additional Director, Mr. P.S.Parihar, Director, and Dr.Anjan Chaki, Ex-Director, AMD and Dr.R.K. Sinha, Chairman, AMD council & AEC including DAE involved in DAE funding of research project to such greedy people for quick fame, promotions-the so-called misuse of merit promotion scheme based on manipulated outstanding grading and PRIS-manipulations in AMD. All these people are lacking in Scopus and Research gate Scores including h-index. (simply a copy and paste from publications in in-house journal: Exploration and Research for Atomic Minerals (EARFAM) , which is copy right © Director, AMD and is gross misuse of their position and power in the organization. It is a matter of serious concern and all persons involved in promoting scientific misconduct and plagiarism should be punished.

This is gross misuse of position and power in the DAE.

Two Ph D Thesis have been awarded in Geology by University of Mysore, Mysore, Karnataka during the year 2012-13 as per details given below:

1. Sl No. 209, Subject: Geology, Name of candidate: Sri. Ashwani Kumar Rai, Title of thesis: Mineralogy, Geochemistry and Fluid Inclusions Studies in Stratabound Uranium Deposits of Vempalle Dolostone Around Kanampalle, SW Part of Cuddapah Basin, A.P, India,

Name of the Guide: Prof. C.Srikantappa, Department/ Institute: DOS Geology, Manasagangotri, Mysore-6, Date of Award:11/27/2012

2. Sl. No.210, Subject: Geology, Name of candidate: Mr. Syed Zakaulla,

Title of thesis: Geological, Petrochemical and Fluid Inclusion Studies of Basement Granitoids and Cataclasites – Hosted Uranium Mineralisation Around Lakkireddipalle, SW Margin of Cuddapah Basin, AP, India,

Name of the Guide: Prof. S. Govindaiah, Department/ Institute: DOS Geology, Manasagangotri, Mysore-6, Date of Award:12/19/2012

This is in continuation of my letter dated 14-12-2015 sent by email and also separately by speed post on the above subject.

Based on material evidences received through RTI Act-2005 vide letter No.EX.9.2/Ph.D./RTI/2015-16 Dated 31-12-2015 and Letter No. EX9.2/Ph.D/RTI/2015-16 dated 25-01-2016 from Registrar(evaluation), University of Mysore, Mysore, Karnataka. The facts are stated below:

i. Both candidates , Mr. Syed Zakaulla ( Enrollment No. WOF-1184/09-10 ) and Mr. Ashwani Kumar Rai ( Enrollment No. WOF-1185/09-10) got registered for their Ph.D. Degree in Geology, University of Mysore, on 03-07-2009.

ii. Four papers have been published as stated as per the details given below:

(a)DEFORMATION MECHANISMS RELATED TO URANIUM MINERALISATION-EXAMPLE FROM MULLAPALLE SHEAR ZONE, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH,

Authors: S.ZAKAULLA, A.K. RAI, K. UMAMAHESHWAR, P.B.MAITHANI AND

ANJAN CHAKI,

The Indian Minerologist, Vol. 44, No.1, January, 2010, pp. 81-86.

(b)GEOCHEMISTRY OF URANIFERROUS GRANITE MYLONITES AROUND LAKKIREDDIPALLE AREA , SOUTH WESTERN MARGIN OF CUDDAPAH BASIN, ANDHRA PRADESH,

Authors: SYED ZAKAULLA, A.K. RAI, K. UMAMAHESHWAR, P.S. PARIHAR

AND P.B.MAITHANI,

The Indian Minerologist, Vol. 45, No.1, January, 2011, pp. 62-74.

( Above (a) and (b) are Ph.D.Thesis paper of SYED ZAKAULLA)

(c) PETROGRAPHIC CHARATERISTICS OF DOLOSTONES FROM AREAS AROUND KANNAMPALLE IN SOUTH WESTERN MARGIN OF CUDDAPAH BASIN,

Authors: A.K.RAI, SANGEETA BHAGAT, SURESH KUMAR, R.P.SINGH AND S.ZAKAULLA,

The Indian Minerologist, Vol. 44, No.1, January, 2010, pp. 74-80.

(d) GEOCHEMISTRY OF THE URANIFERROUS DOLOSTONES FROM AREAS AROUND KANNAMPALLE IN SOUTH WESTERN MARGIN OF CUDDAPAH BASIN,

Authors: A.K.RAI, S.ZAKAULLA, D.VIDYASAGAR, M.G.MURGAN, M.K.BIRUA,

AND R. SIVASUBRAMANIAN,

The Indian Minerologist, Vol. 45, No.1, January, 2011, pp. 24-35.

(Above (c) and (d) are Ph.D.Thesis paper of A.K.RAI)

(iii) Both Ph.D. candidates are authors in these symposium presentations ( all 4 papers). The names of their Ph.D. Thesis Guides are missing. Moreover, There is no documentary reference or /evidence in the manuscript as well as even in acknowledgement, as stated in their attendance certificates stated as quote “ …..was in residence with me in our Department to carry out his research work related to Ph.D.thesis…..” unquote. These are fake certificates and has no material evidences.

All cited references in these publications are prior to July 2009 ( Prior to their Ph.D.Degree registration on 03-07-2009) .

The reference : Rai, A.K., Zakaulla, S and Chaki A ( 2010) is incorrect. The year 2010 is incorrect. This reference is of IAEA symposium presentation in June, 22-26, 2009,

All references in this symposium presentations and in their Ph.D. thesis are prior to July, 2009 and published these symposium volume in 2010 and 2011, respectively. These thesis are now available on ‘SHODGANGA’ uploaded on 8th January, 2016.

All these papers are based on symposium presentations on" Advances in Atomic Mineral Science in India during the 50-year period 1959-2009"(AAMSI-5909) from 26th to 28th August 2009, at Hyderabad as a part of the Homi J.Bhabha Golden Jubille Celebrations of the Minerological Society of India and the Centenary Celebration of Dr. Homi J.Bhabha during August, 2009.

Based on this symposium, 22 papers were published in vol., 44 of "The Indian Minerologist" and 25 papers were included in vol. 45, in a symposium volume published by Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research, Hyderabad in 2010 and 2011 respectively , Edited by Anjan Chaki, K. Umamaheshwar and K. Shiv Kumar ( All AMD superior authority). Prof. C. Srikantappa is the Secretary and Prof. S. Govindaiah, is Editor, of Minerological Society of India. Moreover, the details of these symposium volumes are not available on google, or Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration & Research(AMD) or Minerological Society of India websites. There are no regular volumes published by the ‘Minerological Society of India’ nor any publisher. These are symposium volumes and “the Indian Minerologist” is not a refereed National journal.

(iv) The statement in their attendance certificates are absolutely wrong, quote “ Published two research papers in the National journal related to earth science related to thesis work” unquote.

(v)It is worth to be noted that Prof. S. Govindaiah, Ph. D. guide of the candidate Mr. Syed Zakaulla has been working on DAE-BRNS Funded projects as stated below:

(a)As the Co- Principal Investigator of a major research project entitled „Characterzation of ore forming fluids and fluid flow analyses in the Proterozoic unconformity type uranium deposits in Gogi in Bhima basin and Kaladgi basins, southern India. Funding agency: DAE-BRNS, Mumbai. Amount; Rs. 19,39,000-00 (1-3-2009-2-3-2012)

(b) As the Principal Investigator of a major research project entitled Nature and composition of fluids and their role in uranium mineralization in the basement granites, quarzites from Gulcheru- Pulivendla and Vempalle dolostones, Cuddapah basin, Andhra Pradesh. Funding agency: DAE-BRNS, Mumbai. Amount; Rs. 17, 61,000-00 (November2009- November 2012

(c)and also to Prof C. Srikantappa PI , DAE-BRNS Project ( Guide of A.K.Rai).

It is very clearly evident that both these thesis are lacking in innovation, no new findings and in originality. Both these candidates have not carried out any Ph.D. Thesis work. These Ph. D. Thesis are not worth publishing even a single research paper originated from them in National/International journals. AMD has already carried out extensive exploration work in early nineties in Cuddapah basin of Andhra Pradesh. A number of papers have been published in EARFAM by AMD. An overview report by Dr. Anjan Chaki, the then Director, AMD is available on internet. Both these thesis work appear plagiarism (simply a copy and paste from publications in in-house journal: Exploration and Research for Atomic Minerals (EARFAM) , which is copy right © Director, AMD and is gross misuse of their position and power in the organization.

It is the responsibility and duty of Competent Authority of AMD( Shri P.S.Parihar, the then Director, AMD, Hyderabad) also to check such plagiarism and scientific misconduct but unfortunately all these superior authority are co-authors in these symposium presentations.

There is nothing new information in these symposium presentations. Strictly speaking, it is a gross scientific misconduct, plagiarism and gross violation of ethics in scientific publishing. Award of both such Ph.D. Degrees - is a fraud. This is as a result of big racket and scandal involving superior authorities of AMD (Mr. A.K. Rai, Additional Director ( Now Director, AMD wef 31-12-2015 (AN), Mr. P.S.Parihar, the then Director,AMD and Dr.Anjan Chaki, Ex-Director, AMD and Dr.R.K. Sinha, Chairman, AEC& Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy ( Chairman-AMD council ) including other DAE–BRNS authority involved in DAE-BRNS funding of research projects in collaboration with AMD to such greedy professors for quick fame, promotions-the so-called misuse of merit promotion scheme based on manipulated outstanding grading and PRIS-manipulations in AMD/DAE. All these people are lacking in Scopus and Research gate Scores including h-index. (It is simply a copy and paste from publications in in-house journal: Exploration and Research for Atomic Minerals (EARFAM), which is copy right © Director, AMD and is gross misuse of their position and power in the organization. It is a matter of serious concern and all persons involved in promoting scientific misconduct and plagiarism should be punished. This is gross misuse of position and power, and gross misuse of DAE-BRNS funding in the DAE.

Based on material evidences, it is very clear that both these candidates: Mr. Syed Zakaulla ( Enrollment No. WOF-1184/09-10 ) (Presently, Regional Director, AMD, Bangalore) and Mr. Ashwani Kumar Rai ( Enrollment No. WOF-1185/09-10) ( Presently Director, AMD, Hyderabad) have not carried out any Ph.D. Thesis work. Such Ph.D. thesis are unsuitable and do not fulfill the basic requirements for the award of Ph.D. Degree.

Competent authorities may investigate award of Ph. D. Degrees by University of Mysore, Karnataka, through independent bodies for their scientific misconduct, violation of ethics in scientific publications and plagiarism. Integrity of such persons holding senior positions in Government of India ( Head of Scientific Organisation), are doubtful and is a matter of very serious concern. This requires immediate kind attention of Government of India. All such persons and their promoters should be punished severely.

Based on material evidence received under RTI Act-2005 vide Letter No. JNV/Lok/Information/2016/4730 dated 22-03-2016 & JNV/AKA/Shodh/16/9151 dated 14 th March, 2016, there is one Ph.D.Degree  awarded to Shri Prakhar Kumar, Scientific Officer-G, Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration and Research (AMD)-Part time candidate   on the thesis title:

A study on configuration, development and economic potential of Quaternary Calcrete with special reference to Atomic Minerals around Jodhpur, Rajasthan"  under the Guidance of Prof. K.L.Shrivastava, Geology Department ,  Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur, Rajasthan and Dr. D.K.Sinha, SO-H , AMD as internal Guide, awarded in 2015.

The date of Ph.D. Registration is 11th June, 2009. The Registration Letter No.JNVU/ACA/r/11/407 issued from Academic branch of Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur,

The papers incorporated in his Ph.D. thesis are presentations in symposium with three co-authors from AMD-   but without the name of his Guides, as given below:

1. Hydrogeochemical signatures in the semi-arid terrain of western Rajasthan-Implications on future exploration strategy for locating surficial -type .uranium deposits: National Symposium on " Advances in Atomic Mineral Science in India during the 50 year period 1959-2009, August,2009, AMD, Hyderabad.

Prakhar Kumar, Dheeraj Pandey, K.Ramesh Kumar and L.K.Nanda

2. Sub-surface geology of Kankani-Gurha area, Jodhpur District, Rajasthan , India: Its implications on Uranium exploration in Calcretes: Geology, Genetic & Resource Analysis of Mettalic , Non-metallic & Energy Minerals ( Coal, Petroleum & Atomic Minerals)Ed. M.S. Shekhawat, pp. 136-138, National Seminar Volume , 2010, Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur.

Prakhar Kumar, A. Yugandhara Rao, K. Ramesh Kumar, and L.K.Nanda

            Based on material evidences, it is very clear that the candidate: Mr. Prakhar  Kumar  has not carried out any Ph.D. Thesis work under the guidance of Ph.D.thesis supervisors: Prof. K. L. Shrivastava  (Guide: from JNV University) and Dr. D.K.Sinha ( internal guide from AMD) as stated and indicated in the permission letter-No. AMD-2/5633/89-Adm.III  dated January 24, 2008 ( copy provided under RTI-Act-2005). Such a Ph.D. thesis work incorporating his earlier symposium presentation work, is unsuitable and do not fulfill the basic requirement for the award of Ph.D.Degree. This is a gross scientific misconduct and violation of ethics as per the University Grants Commission (UGC), The Gazette of India Notification-2009.  The minimum requirement for the submission of Ph.D.thesis for further evaluation is publication of one research paper in referred journal in co-authorship of Ph.D.guide as the senior corresponding author.

Since, there is no publication in referred journal and name of the guides are missing-A Gross violation of UGC norms. There is no material evidence of supervision of research work- A FRAUD Ph.D.Degree.

Such Ph.D.Thesis require outright rejection and cancellation  of Doctorate Degree awarded in Geology by Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur.

Research projects, research grant, patents and publications, etc..

Dear Dr. Rathore,

Thank you for your invitation.

I agree with you that there are not indicators for the personal attributes of a scientist. Also, I agree with Prof. Sharma for his view with regard to the 'YES' men.

There are some very good indicators for the professional attributes of a scientist, as pointed out by Prof. Kundu, Prof. Jacić and Dr. Biswal. The problem is, in my opinion, that even in the same institution, the indicators change from person to person. To become more understandable, when a scientist applies for a better position in his/her institution, there are two possibilities: to gain or lose the position. In any case, the indicators, quantitatively and qualitatively, must be the same, that is, the rules of the 'game' must be unchanged.

Kind Regards

There is no efficient single indicator of the performance of scientists. Academic credentials are not fulfilled by many great inventors or researchers. Production can be misleading, even when it extols the importance of editors, because that depends very much on the professional field, the language in which you write and many other factors. Highly cited publications often are by belonging to large circles of current researchers with influence in publishing circles. In some fields it is feasible that you can determine the originality of contributions patent processes, but this is impractical in other fields. There are publications that went unnoticed for decades that are later recovered by the scientific community later (the first findings that changes in stock prices do not exhibit normal behavior would be just one of many examples). Then, any assessment by a quantifier should only serve as support for a qualitative assessment, taking into objectives and goals of the research account, relevance from various perspectives in the field and in the place where it is made; and, of course, another increasingly important element is the provision of the scientific community of all relevant for rebuttal or replica of the studies elements.

I would say the following:

stature of the project funding agency,  research grant, research publications, impact factor of the journal published,  citations,  patents..

QbD in clinical trials

QbD is a strategic/systemic approach in making better product development to make best use of the success of getting new products to the market faster, safer, and smarter and for less cost. QbD in clinical trials brings out a new product progression toolkit

with new predictive tools and new evaluative tools. New predictive tools include enhancing predictability and efficiency along the crucial path by early recognition of product candidate with maximal efficacy versus molecular and biological processes and early estimation of product safety. New evaluation tools are to enhance the performance of clinical trials and medical care. 

http://www.ijppsjournal.com/Vol5Issue3/6932.pdf

Performance indicators:

Key Performance Indicators:

•Technology (know-how) transfer

•Strengthening health care technology

•Increasing competitiveness of health industries

•Information industrialization Information industrialization Information industrialization Information industrialization

•Improve customer satisfaction for public service

Indirect Performance Indicators:

•Papers

•Patents

•Effect on making social & economic profits

•Advances in technology development

•Public based technology

•Reinvigorate local economy

•Productivity increase

•Development of human resources

•International cooperative research

•Construction and utilization of research facilities

https://higherlogicdownload.s3.amazonaws.com/EVAL/271cd2f8-8b7f-49ea-b925-e6197743f402/UploadedImages/AEA_JI_HYUN_PARK.pdf

In my opinion, there should be independent and impartial assessment of different attributes by the assessor, reviewers and accepting authority covering all aspects of the work plan with detailed justifications.

Research evaluation is a MUST. I have attached fine document about Research Evaluation Metrics dear @Rathore. Please, do study this proposal.

Intelligence. Talent. The ability to do the hard work.

Every would-be scientist needs:

1. Raw brain power

2. Dedication to finish long-term projects

3. Communication skills (writing, speaking)

4. Curiosity

5. Attention to detail

http://www.mikebrotherton.com/2007/11/05/five-qualities-required-to-be-a-scientist/

I agree with Ljubomir Jacić for evaluating research results. I would add a concret qualitative or qualitative "sault" in any "piece" of science. Solving problems or improving previous results (in industry, basci and applied research, theory, academia, etc.) should be main concerns for research.

When evaluating research results, metrics provide a good tool for quality assessment.

Nevertheless, If we are evaluating researchers, metrics may become cruel. For example: number of publications / patents / projects approved / grants are important performance indicators but a limited "score" in any of these should not be necessarily considered a bad criteria.It can be affected by economic reasons (infrastructure, funds for publishing in some journals, aims and scope of those projects (it is better a big solid one that a lot of divided microprojects surrounding a similar topic).

That is why I agree with Mahmoud Omid recommendations more centered in the research proved capabilities (skills, potential,...) than measuring coldly their results.

A deep case by case analysis are even better but not always desirable or available for  grant funders, evaluating staffs, international scientific boards, etc.

I agree with Ljubomir and Subash too

Dear Sir,

I think that  the performance indicator of different attributes of scientists lies in in fact that how these attributes make the human lives better. It may appear in different form. The applicability of the attributes will measure of scientist performances.

I think the good performance measures are:

• Relevant

• Understandable

• Timely

• Comparable

• Reliable

• Cost effective

Key performance attributes of scientists should  include dynamic spectrum such as spatial connect with other scientists; count rate of publications readout; social use timed research.

10- Is what I am doing Just, Fair, Legal, Responsible and Helpful?

I think that the work whatever a researcher is doing is precious for him and he feel he is providing his/ her best to the society. it is the duty of the guide of the new researcher to ensure that the work whatever is being pursued is new and is beneficiary in the field of science. rest the impact factor of the journal is reviewed by the citations of the journal by others. and i think only the good work is cited only. so it is necessary to get the work published in a good journal 

Thanks @Kaj Heydorn  for your kind message:

In my opinion your paper should be published in the journal most relevant to the subject of your work, because this is where your personal impact is greatest. If your contribution is good enough, it wil be cited, regardless of the impact factor of the journal.