Indian Journal of PsychiatryIndian Journal of Psychiatry
Home | About us | Current Issue | Archives | Ahead of Print | Submission | Instructions | Subscribe | Advertise | Contact | Login 
    Users online: 1188 Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Print this article Email this article Bookmark this page
Search Again
 Back
 Table of Contents
 
 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Article Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert
 Add to My List
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed494    
    Printed31    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded42    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 
ARTICLE
Year : 2000  |  Volume : 42  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 203-208

Do Indian Researchers Read Indian Research? A Reappraisal, Four Years Later


1 Additional Professor, Department of Psychopharmacotogy, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore-560 029, India
2 Department of Psychiatry, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore-560 029, India
3 Royal Edinburgh Hospital, 2, Morningside Park, Edinburgh EH 10 5HF, Scotland, United Kingdom

Correspondence Address:
Chittaranjan Andrade
Additional Professor, Department of Psychopharmacotogy, National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bangalore-560 029
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


PMID: 21407937

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

A previous study found that many papers in the Indian Journal of Psychiatry (UP) had failed to reference relevant papers previously published in the same journal. The present study examined whether any change in referencing patterns had occurred The database comprised 182 eligible articles published in the UP during 1993-1996. In general, few articles cited previous UP papers (median citations, 0-1); however, few articles omitted to cite previous (relevant) UP research (median omissions, 0-1). The average number of articles cited: omitted was 2:1. Original articles cited as well as omitted more UP references than brief communications. The larger the number of total references cited, the larger was the number of UP references both cited and omitted. No significant changes in referencing patterns was evident across the years. Indexing of articles, an important method of identifying relevant, previously published research was grossly adequate in 89% of articles; the average article received 2 index entries. While UP papers appear to be receiving greater attention, it is suggested that room for improvement remains.



[PDF]*

        

Print this article         Email this article