The document discusses science communication strategies ranging from one-way information to two-way engagement. It concludes that the INSA policy supports open access dissemination and alternative metrics for research evaluation in India. Wider adoption of the policy statement

1. Science Communication in the Light of INSA
Policy Statement on "Dissemination and
Evaluation of Research Output in India”
Dr. Anup Kumar Das
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
Email: anupdas2072[at]gmail.com
http://anupkumardas.blogspot.com
Jt. Convener, Open Access India
Presented in 18th Indian Science Communication Congress (ISCC-2018) | Organised by CSIR-NISCAIR | 20-21 December 2018

2. Science Dissemination & Evaluation of Research
• Relevant Policy Statements – World
• San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (sfDORA or DORA)
• Announced during the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) in San
Francisco, the USA in December 2012.
• To do away with the use of traditional journal-based metrics, and achieving overall attention
of research.
• Celebrating Completion of 5 Years.
• Many Signatories Across the World including DBT and WT-DBT India Alliance from India
• Altmetrics: A Manifesto (2012)
• To track and report on the online attention of research.
• Supplements DORA in achieving alternative metrics for Science Dissemination & Evaluation of
Research.
• The Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics (2015)
• Provides ten principles for the appropriate use of metrics in research evaluation. They can be
used to maintain accountability of both evaluators and the indicators that they use in metrics-
based research assessment.

3. Science Dissemination & Evaluation of Research
• Relevant Policy Statements – India
• INSA Policy Statement on “Dissemination and Evaluation of Research Output
in India”
• Announced by the Indian National Science Academy in May 2018.
• What we publish is more important than where it is published.
• Takes principled stands on:
• 1. Promotion of Preprint Repositories and Peer Review after Dissemination.
• 2. Promoting Journals Published in India.
• 3. 'Publish or Perish’ Policy, Open Access Charges and Evolution of so-called
Predatory Journals. Minimizing Predatory Journals and Predatory Conferences in the
Country.
• 4. Criteria for Evaluating Research Output: “What Did You Publish” Rather Than
“Where Did You Publish?”
• The UGC (Promotion of Academic Integrity and Prevention of Plagiarism in
Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2018.
• Announced by the University Grants Commission in July 2018.
• Recommends some institutional mechanisms to eliminate the scope of malpractice of
plagiarism in higher education system across the country.
• Helps in achieving the academic integrity in the research ecosystem in the country.

4. • A group of editors of highly regarded journals that publish in the biomedical
sciences met in 2012 to discuss limitations of the two-year JIF and how the
JIF and other metrics might be better used by the scientific community. We
hope to educate the scientific community regarding the misuse of journal-
specific metrics in evaluating science and scientists (www.ascb.org/dora/a-
letter-to-thompson-reuters/)
• DORA paved the road to Altmetrics.

5. Altmetric Scores:
• Emphasizes on Research
Dissemination.
• Use altmetrics to track and report
on the online attention of
research.

6. INSA Policy Statement on “Dissemination and Evaluation of
Research Output in India”
• Target 1: Promotion of Preprint Repositories and Peer Review after
Dissemination.
• Recommends:
• 1.1 Various agencies/organizations in India that fund research should
take cognizance of articles that have been deposited in established
free open access Pre-Print Archives as a proof of prior-data.
• However, for further evaluation of author’s contributions for
assessment etc., peer-reviewed publication is important.

7. E.g. Preprint Archives

8. INSA Policy Statement on “Dissemination and Evaluation of
Research Output in India”
• Target 2: Promoting Journals Published in India.
• Recommends:
• 2.1. No agency should ask separate listing of research publications in
‘National’ and ‘International Journals’.
• 2.2. It is essential to take steps to enhance the visibility of established
Indian journals by proactively encouraging researchers in the country
to publish some of their papers in these journals.
• 2.3. Papers published in established Indian journals may even be
given special attention during any assessment if their citation
significantly exceeds the average citation rate of the journal.

9. INSA Policy Statement on “Dissemination and Evaluation of
Research Output in India”
• Target 3: 'Publish or Perish’ Policy, Open Access Charges and Evolution of so-called Predatory
Journals. Minimizing Predatory Journals and Predatory Conferences in the Country.
• Recommends:
• 3.1. The academic community, especially the young research scholars and faculty need to be
sensitized about predatory journals and conferences so that they do not fall prey to such un-
academic activities.
• 3.2. Funding agencies should advise the concerned investigators to refrain from publication/
participation in predatory and substandard journals and conferences. Such publications and
participations must not be counted as research output.
• 3.3. Funding agencies and institutions should not generally provide funds to the conference
organizers for independent publication of the proceedings of a conference/ seminar unless the
conference is meant to be a brainstorming to review the status of a field and to plan future
directions.
• 3.4. Payment of open access charges, except in case of publication in well-established journals of
repute, may be generally avoided. APC-based Gold Open Access to be avoided.
• 3.3. Articles placed on established pre-print archives, which provide perpetually free access to all,
should be encouraged. Green Open Access is encouraged.
• 3.6. Emphasis has to be on Quality Rather than Quantity.

10. INSA Policy Statement on “Dissemination and Evaluation of
Research Output in India”
• Target 4: Criteria for Evaluating Research Output: “What Did You Publish” Rather
Than “Where Did You Publish?”
• Recommends:
• 4.1. Assessment of an individual's research contributions should primarily be based
on the impact of what is published rather than on where it is published. The 'Impact
Factor' of a journal must not be used as the primary indicator nor should it be used in
isolation.
• 4.2. Instead of assessing on numbers of papers published by an individual, assessors
should find out if the research output was only confirmatory in nature or led to
incremental or path-breaking advances.
• 4.3. Each of the 'Best 5' Papers identified by candidate/nominator should be
categorized as 'Confirmatory', 'Incremental Advance' or 'Path-Breaking Advance’.
• 4.4. In cases of multi-authored papers, specific contribution by the
applicant/nominee in the given paper should be clearly identified for assessment.

11. Identification of a work as 'Path-Breaking Advance' should be justified by
(a) Explicit Citations from Non-Overlapping Authors or
(b) Brief Statement as to Why the Applicant/ Nominator Considers the Given Work as 'Path-Breaking'
CategorizationofResearchPapers
'Confirmatory'
'Incremental Advance'
'Path-Breaking Advance'

12. The ladder
of Science
Communication,
Public
engagement and
Public
Participation in
Science
• Citizen participation in experiments,
data collection, experiences...
Citizen Science, Community Based
Research, Science Shops, Living Labs
• Formal Engagement and
Participation (Citizens Panel,
referendum), Participative
Technological Assessment (PTA),
Public Consultation (surveys, focus
groups)
• Informal Public Engagement:
Mutual Mobilization and Learning
Exercises (MML), Science Cafés,
World Café, Decide Game, Role Play
Activities, Makers and DIY actions...
• Some dialogue: social media
• Information and one direction
Science Communication: media
actions, website and newsletters,
talks, open days, books, exhibitions…
• No information, no communication
++++
+++
+
--
++

13. Conclusion
• INSA Policy Statement paves the way to the establishment of Pre-Print
archives in HEIs and Research Institutions in India.
• Great importance is given to dissemination of science through Open Access
channels and Indian scientific periodicals.
• We need to organize sensitization and awareness raising events for
researchers’ active participation in science dissemination, including self-
archiving.
• Alternative metrics for evaluation of research should be implemented, at the
Funders’ Level and Institutional Level, with the new techniques/ tools
available.
• Fellows of other science academies, science communicators, research
funders, and HEIs are encouraged to make use of the INSA Policy Statement.

14. • Thank You for your patient hearing !!!
http://anupkumardas.blogspot.com
http://openaccessindia.org