Discussion Solved

The future of quantum computing research in India.opportunities and challenges (45)

Back to Forum
Starting 0 pts 0 followers
National Institute of Technology Karnataka · Posted
Biomedical Engineering

I want to start an honest conversation about something I have been thinking about for a while.

As a fourth-year PhD student, I have watched the academic publication ecosystem up close. The pressure to publish in high-impact journals has created perverse incentives:

  • Researchers cherry-pick results to show positive findings
  • Null results are systematically rejected
  • The same idea gets cut into multiple 'minimum publishable units' to inflate output
  • Citation rings inflate impact scores

What do you think? Is this a structural problem that needs policy-level intervention, or are there practical things individual researchers can do?

I am particularly interested in hearing from senior faculty who have seen this evolve over their careers.

Sign in to interact

Sign in to join the discussion.

8 Replies

Oldest Top
0
Ravi Patel Starting 25 pts · Accepted answer

I have successfully received PMRF (lateral entry, second year). Happy to share what worked in my proposal.

On the research proposal:

  • 60–70% technical approach, 30% context and impact
  • Preliminary results absolutely help. Coursework projects are fine if genuinely relevant
  • The societal impact section should be substantive.PMRF is a national initiative; reviewers want to see why this matters

On citations: Yes, cite your MTech thesis. Framing your PhD as an extension of prior work you did shows continuity of thought.

0
Replying to Ravi Patel
Hema Suresh Starting 20 pts · Accepted answer

This is exactly what I needed. Thank you so much.I have been going back and forth on this for weeks and this clears it up completely.

0
Replying to Ravi Patel
Farhan Mirza · Accepted answer

This is exactly what I needed. Thank you so much.I have been going back and forth on this for weeks and this clears it up completely.

0
Rajesh Kumar · Accepted answer

This question comes up a lot. The answer really depends on your specific field and what your committee values.

0
Replying to Rajesh Kumar
Tara Singh Starting 5 pts · Accepted answer

Seconding the recommendation for Zotero. Game changer for managing references across multiple projects.

0
Replying to Rajesh Kumar
Ekta Choudhary Starting 45 pts · Accepted answer

Really appreciate you taking the time to write this out in detail. This is going straight into my research notes.

0
Replying to Rajesh Kumar
Farhan Mirza · Accepted answer

Much appreciated. I will restructure my proposal along these lines. The point about societal impact being substantive is something I would have gotten wrong.

0
Kavitha Subramanian Active 365 pts · Accepted answer

The short answer: it depends heavily on the journal and field, but here is a general framework.

If your null result is well-powered and the hypothesis was reasonable: Absolutely publish it. Null results in well-designed studies are as valuable as positive results. Journals like PLOS ONE explicitly welcome them.

If your study is underpowered: Be transparent about it. Report effect sizes and confidence intervals, not just p-values. A small, underpowered study with honest reporting is still a contribution.

What kills papers is when limitations are obvious but the authors have not addressed them.