Friday, October 8, 2010

Publications - growth

Abi, in response to my paper in Current science, writes

It's easy to get depressed after reading articles ...that provide a snapshot of the state of science (or, academia in general) in India. But snapshots do not tell us anything at all about the tremendous changes that we have been seeing and experiencing in India in the past decade or so. To get a good sense of the direction and pace of these changes, what we need are studies that track India's progress over the last several decades.
Therefore, I wrote such a paper recently, which will be published shortly. A snapshot from this paper.
Figure 1a shows that the total number of publications from India, China and USA over the period of 1960 to 2010. USA had a sharp increase in the number of publications in the early 1970s, while China shows a sharp increase in 2002. In 1996, India, China and USA published around 20, 27 and 320 thousand papers, respectively. By 2002, India and USA published around 26 and 320 thousand papers, respectively, indicating that the growth of publications were not significant in this time period. However, by 2002, China had increased its number of publications to 57 thousand, twice what it had published in 1996. However, the real remarkable growth is in the period from 2002 to 2009. In 2009, India, China, USA published 58, 280 and 414 thousand papers, respectively i.e., compared to 1996, India had increased by a factor 3, China had increased by a factor of 20, while USA increased by 30%.
One can look at the share of publications (i.e., number of publications published by the country divided by the total number of publications in the world). USA showed a marked drop in share of world papers from 40 to 29 percent between 1981 and 2008 while India has remained nearly constant with a world share of 3.0% in 1981 and 3.3 percent in 2008. As expected, China has shown exceptional growth in global share over the 1981-2008 period while Australia, Brazil and South Korea also increased their share of publications. 
Figures 2a to 2f show the total number of publications from India, China and USA in major science journals from 1980 to 2010. The increase of number of papers in these top journals mirrors that the increase in the overall number of publications. An increase in the overall number of papers leads to an increase of papers both in the top journals and the bottom journals. Thus, the number of citations per paper has remained nearly constant (Fig 3) over the years for India, China and USA. This clearly indicates that an increase in the number of papers does not necessarily lead to loss of quality. 

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

Prof. Madras,

In your calculations, did you include Taiwan (ROC) as a part of China or a separate country?

Thanks
Bharat

Giri@iisc said...

Dear Bharat,

No. because isi wos does not do so.

giridhar

Anonymous said...

Robert G. Edwards has been awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine this year for in-vitro fertilization. Dr. Subhash Mukhopadhyay developed in-vitro fertilization independently with an easier method almost at the same time. He was declared fraud by a committee (jealous and stupid) set up by Govt. of West Bengal. This led Dr. Mukhopadhyay to commit suicide. This is one of the unfortunate scenario of the Indian Science. A great scientist (would have been get a Nobel) was not recognized by his own countrymen. If I remember correctly, the baby (now a lady) born by this method by Dr. Mukhopadhayay lives in Bangalore.

Someone please shed a light on this and give the soul of that poor scientist a recognition.

-B

Anonymous said...

It is one of the greatest tragedies in Indian science. Ridiculing breakthroughs and productive scientists are important charactersizations of Indian science. Take for example the recent case of Prof. Suman Chakraborty. However numerous such samples are available in IISC itself. Is that a cause for IISC`s ranking having a neagtive slope in books and general perception as well? They openly laugh when a junior faculty reports his/her publications and citations, as if to not publish is the state of art. Recently Prof. Madras told about the concept of "quality mind" emanating from such laccadazical minds. Laughing Out Loud ! Hey lazy professors, wake up from slumber, get out of the well and see the world with open eyes. And for heavens sake do some meaningful work either fundamental or applied but not high school fantasies, which has become a fashion of late there.
Dr. S

Anonymous said...

It is one of the greatest tragedies in Indian science. Ridiculing breakthroughs and productive scientists are important charactersizations of Indian science. Take for example the recent case of Prof. Suman Chakraborty. However numerous such samples are available in IISC itself. Is that a cause for IISC`s ranking having a neagtive slope in books and general perception as well? They openly laugh when a junior faculty reports his/her publications and citations, as if to not publish is the state of art. Recently Prof. Madras told about the concept of "quality mind" emanating from such lackadaisical minds. Laughing Out Loud ! Hey lazy professors, wake up from slumber, get out of the well and see the world with open eyes. And for heavens sake do some meaningful work either fundamental or applied but not high school fantasies, which has become a fashion of late there.
Dr. S

Anonymous said...

Dr. Madras, There is also a deep concern behind China`s meteoric ascent. This article proves that:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/07/world/asia/07fraud.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&th&emc=th

But then, that does not mean progress in not desired. Problem with bulk of the people at the helm of affairs in our country is that they love to live and are also allowed to do so in a self consolatory world of their own. They are satisfied that they do not publish or do any research whatsoever and to hide this shortcoming by publicly announcing that they are devoted to building insitutes, so they are not with research anymore. Another class does such problems like "high school fantasies" ..i.e. going very complex on very "insignificant" problems. Not that these are simple but thing is that there exists a million more important problems that need urgent attention for the sake of the nation, humanity and self. For doing "unimportant" problem one rarely does a favour to the above mentioned and to self in terms of citations and quality publications which are undeniably a measure of scientific quality. Scientific freedom is important but a scientist`s accountability to the society cannot be denied. But one thing is common in both classes. They are always active in ridiculing people like Prof. Madras or Prof. Chakraborty. It is of urgent necessity to eradicate such nuisance for improvement in the country`s scienific output.

Dr. S

Anonymous said...

The history of science is full of examples of scientists who lost their minds or lives because their work was not accepted. Most of them found heavy criticism from colleagues whose work was going to be jeopardized by their new discoveries (e.g., fellow faculty, editors, reviewers, etc).

It is a very unfortunate situation, mainly for the family of such scientists. However, I do not see the point of blaming the "unfortunate scenario of the Indian Science".

It should not be hard to google and find out several examples.

M.

Anonymous said...

"But one thing is common in both classes. They are always active in ridiculing people like Prof. Madras or Prof. Chakraborty."

This is true but Prof. Madras is quite liked in IISc, except perhaps in his department. I think a few people are always jealous of performers and expect chamchagiri from these performers.

Anonymous said...

I disagree with M. The reason being in India the reward of a good work is absolutely nonmaterialistic and hence the only expectation is intangible recognition. This is not so in the western countries where research is associated with highly tangible benefits. So, it is not hard to expect that fallout would be more severe in India. But tell why in India the examples are so catastrophic like denial of a Nobel Prize: e.g. J.C. Bose and S. Mukhopadhyay. In India it has become a part of culture (may be due our subordinate status for 3 centuries) to pull your peer down just becuase one doesnt have the quality.
Dr. S

Anonymous said...

I am a proud Indian but no point denying this shameful aspect of our scientific culture. It needs to be eradicated just like polio. The performing scientists need not be a hero to the whole society but need to be looked up to in the scientific world.
Dr. S

Ankur Kulkarni said...

B @Oct 8, 10:51PM

Is there proof that Dr Subhash actually discovered IVF before Edwards? The very basis of science is proof. From what I know, Dr Subhash didn't publish his findings anywhere. Without any evidence, how are we to give him credit?

If he had some documented his findings, perhaps recognition could be given. There is precedent for this in Mathematics - Doeblin's documents were discovered recently and revealed that he had independently developed the famous Ito integral. Doeblin has already started receiving credit for it. Similar is the case of Karush (who got credit for first proving the optimality conditions though Kuhn and Tucker were the first to get credit).

Remember that all of the above involved hard-core evidence.

If Dr Subhash had indeed developed IVF but had not published it, then this 'missed Nobel' is a lesson in why publishing is not of illusionary importance but is in fact an integral part of being a scientist.

Anonymous said...

Dear Ankur Kulkarni,

It is not about a missed nobel, but to see how the jealousy of Indian (better say Kolkatan in this case) scientists destroy life of a true scientist...By the way, the baby (her name is Durga, live in Bangalore now) was born in Kolkata 67 days after the first IVF baby was born. Though Durga is not the first IVF baby, it is clearly an independent work, (see the time '67 days'). Edwards' method required a complicated surgery to collect the mother's egg, Dr. Mukhopadhay's methods required some minimal invasive surgery(similar to laparoscopy).

Dr. Mukhopadhay's claim was immediately jeopardized by his fellow Drs. and scientists.

If Indian scientists won't recognize their colleague's work who will?

-B

Ankur Kulkarni said...

Before we begin the argument we need to answer this question: Is there evidence that what he did was independent, original work? Without an answer to this, nothing can be said.

Besides, from what I know, Edwards also received huge criticism, particularly from right-wing groups.

Anonymous said...

Dear Dr. Kulkarni,

Yes! There are proofs. Please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subhash_Mukhopadhyay_%28physician%29, his publications and other documents are documented here. More need to be done.

-B

Anonymous said...

A few years back Dr. T.C.Anand Kumar of ICMR, analyzed Dr. Mukherjee's notes and confirmed his achievements. As is expected in India, there never was any inquiry into why the Govt of West Bengal instituted committee (this was around the beginning of the rule of india's longest serving chief minister) looking into the same notes called him a fraud and had him transferred to a eye hospital (he was a professor of physiology).

He was at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Anonymous said...

Yes.. Thanks anonym for putting that forward. Thats another vice. Politicisation of research and education. Its worst in west bengal but prevalant in India as well. Infact that explains why the directors of IIT changes with changing power at the central government. In India leads to dissipation of research output. In China it leads to fabrication of research output !

Anonymous said...

i actually find it shameful to talk about most of the profs in iisc. around 80% of the profs here do zero work, and expect their students to do all the work/publishing for them.

however there are exceptions and some profs are really honest and do individual/independent work/publishing

Anonymous said...

Professors are not supposed to do individual, independent work and publishing. They are supposed to guide Ph.D students and graduate them.

In experimental groups, faculty can not do experiments. Students have to do them, write the work and discuss with faculty. If the faculty delays in giving ideas or correcting papers, one can complain. But then one should also ask why students are joining with the particular professors.

Some faculty in IISc have 10+ Ph.D students, some have none. Is it not a reflection of the quality and willingness of the faculty ??

Anonymous said...

i know of profs who do individual/independent research.

one example is C S Jog in mechanical engg dept. and of course there are many more like him.

@above
it is a foolish assumption to think that profs are not supposed to carry out individual research. a prof can solve a problem in some 1 year whereas the same problem would take 3-4 years for the student to solve(because the profs have experience/knowledge whereas students are still learning)
do you still think that profs sole job is to guide students and not carry out experiments or do research ??
i'm sorry but you are wrong

Anonymous said...

Aon above, read the above carefully. I said that faculty can not do experiments, their students have to do it. Experiments do not run faster for a professor.

I do not know who this Jog is but I am sure he is a theory person and does not do experiments.

Professors can do independent research but their main (not sole) job is to guide students.

Anonymous said...

@above

ya he is a theory person.

but there are many other examples, he isn't the only one.

but you are right in saying that the prof must not delay in giving ideas or correcting papers.

however, i feel the profs main job is to do research with/without the aid of students.

and you are right, as many profs here are unwilling to take students above a given number(due to laziness), and this problem has to be eradicated

Anonymous said...

Anon @ October 15, 2010 6:27 PM,

Take any article from a big journal like Nature or Science. See a Prof's place in the author's list. Almost invariably you find him as a last and as a corresponding author. This means prof. never do any experiment. Prof's duty is to conceive a big research area or problem, advise the students and postdocs, correct the paper, help his students and postdocs for their career , and most importantly write proposal for grants.

In many cases, Prof. does not even have any input or advice in there's student's ph.d work unless the student wants. It is generally a student's choice if (s)he wants to do an independent research or not.

-B

Anonymous said...

I am interested in knowing how someone like Prof. Madras handles a large number of research students. After all, people like him can not do experiments..do students get individual attention if they want.can do they independent research?

This is a general question and I just taking the blog owner as an example.

Anonymous said...

@ -B

have a look at prof roddam narasimha's list of publications

he has both individual and guided publications

http://www.jncasr.ac.in/emu/rnsimha/RN_Website_12may08/rn_files/publications/modification/scientific_articles.htm


this is what i have observed with many profs in iisc

1.many profs do not define the problem properly
2.not many advise their profs properly either
3.there are profs here who take something like 1 year to correct papers(due to laziness, or just to screw the students)
4. many profs like to screw/play around with the careers of their students
5.i have seen very very few cases(just 1 actually) where the student is free to carry out independent research. you basically have to do the work assigned by your prof or take the boot.

Anonymous said...

roddamnarasimhapublications