Neurology India
menu-bar5 Open access journal indexed with Index Medicus
  Users online: 2753  
 Home | Login 
About Editorial board Articlesmenu-bullet NSI Publicationsmenu-bullet Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe Videos Etcetera Contact
  Navigate Here 
 Resource Links
  »  Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
  »  Article in PDF (369 KB)
  »  Citation Manager
  »  Access Statistics
  »  Reader Comments
  »  Email Alert *
  »  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

  In this Article
 »  References
 »  Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded49    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


Table of Contents    
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 63  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 811-813

Author's reply

Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA, USA

Date of Web Publication6-Oct-2015

Correspondence Address:
Venkatesh S Madhugiri
Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Madhugiri VS. Author's reply. Neurol India 2015;63:811-3

How to cite this URL:
Madhugiri VS. Author's reply. Neurol India [serial online] 2015 [cited 2020 Jul 12];63:811-3. Available from:


I thank Dr. Sharma and other authors for their words of appreciation. I would like to respond to the issues they have raised in their communication:

  • The vast majority of clinical neuroscience institutes train DM and MCh students. Furthermore, these students are the future clinicians. As a clinician myself, I was interested in looking at research and publication output from clinical neuroscience programs rather than from the basic science research programs. The only exception to this would be the Ph.D., clinical neuroscience course conducted at a few centers including NIMHANS, Bengaluru
  • I agree that the research and publication output would be higher from those institutes that have a Ph.D. program.[1] However, as mentioned in the methodology, a paper was included in this analysis only if a faculty member from either the neurology or neurosurgery department was a co-author in it.[2] Co-authorship obviously implies a contribution by that clinical neurosciences faculty to that project and/or paper. Therefore, it is only fair that even though a Ph.D. scholar may have carried out the bulk of the actual work, it would be included in the output of the clinical department in this study
  • I will do my best to include the Ph.D clinical neurosciences program in my next analysis as well as to sort papers by their theme –either as being clinical or laboratory based research
  • I apologize for the under-reporting of the publication output from the King George Medical University (KGMU). As I have mentioned in the methodology, the names of the institutes recognized to run DM and MCh programs were obtained from the Medical Council of India (MCI) and the National Board of Examinations (NBE) websites. Several institutes have been listed by several different names in the published papers. This created problems in the analysis – however, I did try to include as many names of the institutes as possible. Similarly, the KGMU was listed by its older name on the MCI website. This led to the confusion and error
  • I did correspond with the Heads of a few departments, using again, the email identities listed on the website. Unfortunately, this too did not prove to be an efficient method of collating data. This only underscores the importance of having an updated web presence for all departments and institutes. I am of the opinion that laxity in this regard is highly undesirable and that this duty should be allocated as an administrative responsibility to one of the departmental faculty members
  • I would take this opportunity to strongly request all authors and institutes to ensure that the names of the departments and institutes are listed in a consistent fashion when writing the author affiliations in a paper. This will help to ensure the accuracy of any scientometric analysis of their publication output in the future
  • I have, to an extent, verified the figures provided by the authors and find them to be accurate. Therefore, I have ranked the neurology training institutes afresh on the basis of this data. These rankings are listed in [Table 1] - edited and [Table 2] - edited. I would like to mention that the ranking of the neurosurgery department also changed once the new name was used for analysis. However, since it did not have the adequate numbers to figure in the tables, no change was required in this regard.
Table 1: Overall publication performance of neurology teaching institutions

Click here to view
Table 2: Citation performance of the neurology training institutes in India

Click here to view

This is a pilot analysis of the research and publication output of institutes that train students in clinical neurosciences in India. I hope that future analysis will be more refined and accurate and be based on more current data.

Financial support and sponsorship


Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 » References Top

Bala A, Gupta B M. Mapping of Indian neuroscience research: A scientometric analysis of research output during 1999-2008. Neurol India 2010;58:35-41.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
Madhugiri VS. Publication performance and research output of Neurology and Neurosurgery training institutes in India: A 5-year analysis. Neurol India 2015;63:338-46.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  


  [Table 1], [Table 2]


Print this article  Email this article
Online since 20th March '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow