Research Experience in the Department of Anatomy: A Departmental Analysis
Background Search and research provides the basic feed for academic knowledge across all academic departments. Research provides depth in the knowledge of a given area of exploration. One novel and interesting idea of an individual, or a team of experts, in the department and healthy, extended support from the institute can change and answer the stream of mysteries in their own field of expertise.
Aim We intend to analyze the research experience of every individual in the department of anatomy among themselves, with the department and the institute, for further improvement of research in anatomy.
Methodology 13 participants comprising 9 faculty members and 4 postgraduates were requested to answer the questionnaire composed of three sections, with questions under headings such as individual, department, and institute.
Results and Conclusion Finally, analyses were made on the responses obtained and recommendations were submitted before the department Head for necessary interventions in order to improve the research atmosphere and research outcomes in the department of anatomy.
06 April 2020 (online)
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India
- 1 Bedi N. Medical research misconduct need regulatory reforms. Indian J Community Med 2014; 39 (04) 194-196
- 2 Manohar B. Need of research. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2017; 21 (01) 1
- 3 Arena R, Chambers S, Rhames A, Donahoe K. The importance of research — a student perspective. Behav Anal Pract 2015; 8 (02) 152-153
- 4 Gupta S. Research in Medical education. Indian Journal of Medical Specialities 2018; 9 (02) 73-76
- 5 Boet S, Sharma S, Goldman J, Reeves S. Review article: medical education research: an overview of methods. Can J Anaesth 2012; 59 (02) 159-170
- 6 Dolmans DHJM, van der Vleuten CP. Research in medical education: pratical impact on medical training and future challenges. GMS Z Med Ausbild 2010; 27 (02) Doc34
- 7 Regehr G. Trends in Medical education research:Academic medicine. Acad Med 2004; 79: 739-747
- 8 Eva KW. Medical education research approaches. Med Educ 2018; 52 (11) 1100-1102
- 9 B O’Brien. 2019 research in medical education planning committee. Med Educ 2019; 94 supplement 11S 5-6
- 10 Friesen F, Baker LR, Ziegler C, Dionne A, Ng SL. Approaching impact meaningfully in medical education research. Acad Med 2019; 94 (07) 955-961
- 11 Horton R. Expression of concern: Indo-mediterranean diet heart study. Lancet 2005; 366 (9483) 354-356
- 12 Marušić A, Bošnjak L, Jerončić A. A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PLoS One 2011; 6 (09) e23477
- 13 Steen RG. Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud?. J Med Ethics 2011; 37 (02) 113-117
- 14 Vasconcelos S, Leta J, Costa L, Pinto A, Sorenson MM. Discussing plagiarism in Latin American science. Brazilian researchers begin to address an ethical issue. EMBO Rep 2009; 10 (07) 677-682
- 15 Zhang Y. Chinese journal finds 31% of submissions plagiarized. Nature 2010; 467 (7312) 153
- 16 Godlee F, Wager E. Research misconduct in the UK. BMJ 2012; 344: d8357
- 17 Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One 2009; 4 (05) e5738
- 18 DowntoEarth. Available at: http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/ethics-trial Accessed March 2013
- 19 White C. Suspected research fraud: difficulties of getting at the truth. BMJ 2005; 331 (7511) 281-288
- 20 Singapore statement on research integrity. Presented at: 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity; 21–24 July, 2010. Singapore: