PHD601 — Research & Publication Ethics

Welcome, Scholar! 🎓

Your complete interactive study guide for PHD 601 — Research & Publication Ethics. Built from all previous year papers (July 2022 → May 2025). Everything you need to ace the exam.

7

Papers Covered

6

Study Units

4

Certain Topics

60+

Glossary Terms

40+

Flashcards

START HERE

🎯 Exam Predictions

4 Certain Topics (7/7) 4 Very High (6/7) Full probability table

UNIT 1

🧠 Philosophy, Ethics & Morality

5 Branches Ethics vs Morality Inductive/Deductive CoI

UNIT 2

🔬 Research Ethics & Conduct

FFP 13 Principles Authorship ICMJE

UNIT 3

📋 Publication Ethics & Plagiarism

COPE UGC Levels 7 Types Tools

UNIT 4

🌐 Open Access & Predatory Journals

Gold vs Green OA DOAJ Beall's List SHERPA/RoMEO

UNIT 5

📊 Metrics & Databases

Impact Factor h-index Scopus vs WoS UGC CARE

🃏 Flashcards

40+ cards — tap to flip. Test yourself before the exam.

✏️ Quiz Mode

MCQ practice with instant feedback. Know what you don't know.

⚖️ Comparison Tables

Scopus vs WoS, Ethics vs Morality, h-index vs IF, and more.

How to use this table: Topics in 6–7 papers are near-certainties — prepare model answers for ALL of them. Topics in 4–5 papers are very high probability. The exam has fixed OR-choice patterns; knowing both options in each question doubles your safety net.

★★★★★Impact Factor — formula, calculation, merits & demeritsCERTAIN 7/7

★★★★★Predatory Journals — definition, characteristicsCERTAIN 7/7

★★★★★COPE Guidelines — authorship, plagiarism, misconductCERTAIN 7/7

★★★★★Types of Research Databases (bibliographic, full-text, etc.)CERTAIN 7/7

★★★★★h-Index — definition, significance, how it differs from IFCERTAIN 6/7

★★★★★Scopus and Web of Science — features, comparisonCERTAIN 6/7

★★★★★UGC CARE List — all 4 categoriesCERTAIN 6/7

★★★★★Ethical Principles in Research / Research IntegrityCERTAIN 6/7

★★★★☆g-index, i10-index, h-index — all threeVERY HIGH 5/7

★★★★☆SJR (SCImago Journal Rank) — definition, how it worksVERY HIGH 5/7

★★★★☆Open Access — history / advantages & disadvantagesVERY HIGH 5/7

★★★★☆Plagiarism — types, levels, UGC penaltiesVERY HIGH 5/7

★★★★☆Ghost Authorship / Gift AuthorshipVERY HIGH 5/7

★★★★☆Publication Misconduct — types, serious vs. less serious, sanctionsVERY HIGH 5/7

★★★★☆Philosophy — definition, branches, 5 philosophical questionsVERY HIGH 5/7

★★★★☆Science vs. Philosophy — differencesVERY HIGH 5/7

★★★★☆DOAJ — history, features, inclusion criteriaVERY HIGH 4/7

★★★★☆Redundant / Duplicate PublicationVERY HIGH 4/7

★★★★☆SHERPA/RoMEO — purpose and useVERY HIGH 4/7

★★★★☆Ethics vs. Morality — differencesVERY HIGH 4/7

★★★★☆Conflict of Interest — types, managementVERY HIGH 4/7

★★★☆☆MEDLINE, EBSCO, DELNET — databasesHIGH 3/7

★★★☆☆Inductive vs. Deductive ReasoningHIGH 3/7

★★★☆☆Green and Gold Open AccessHIGH 3/7

★★☆☆☆Quartile of a Journal — Q1/Q2/Q3/Q4MODERATE 2/7

★★☆☆☆Corresponding Author — role and responsibilitiesMODERATE 2/7

★★☆☆☆IPP — Impact Per Publication vs. Impact FactorMODERATE 2/7

★☆☆☆☆Eriksson & Helgesson's 25 Criteria for Predatory JournalsPOSSIBLE 1/7

UNIT 1 — Very High Probability

Philosophy, Ethics & Morality

What is Philosophy? 5 Branches 5 Questions Science vs Philosophy Ethics vs Morality 4 Kinds of Ethics Inductive Reasoning Deductive Reasoning Intellectual Honesty Conflict of Interest

UNIT 2 — CERTAIN Topics

Research Ethics & Scientific Conduct

13 Ethical Principles FFP Misconduct Fabrication Falsification Salami Slicing Misrepresentation Corresponding Author Gift/Ghost Authorship ICMJE 4 Criteria

UNIT 3 — CERTAIN Topics

Publication Ethics, Plagiarism & Misconduct

COPE (since 1997) 9 Core Practices Serious vs Minor Misconduct 7 Types of Plagiarism UGC 4 Levels Detection Tools Redundant Publication

UNIT 4 — Very High Probability

Open Access, Predatory Journals & Tools

OA Timeline 1991–2018 Gold vs Green OA DOAJ (2003) Predatory Journals 12 Characteristics Beall's List THINK.CHECK.SUBMIT SHERPA/RoMEO JCR Criteria

UNIT 5 — CERTAIN Topics

Indexing, Databases & Research Metrics

8 Database Types MEDLINE EBSCO DELNET (1988) Scopus (2004) Web of Science (1964) UGC CARE 4 Groups Impact Factor Formula h-index (Hirsch 2005) g-index, i10, SJR, SNIP

UNIT 6 — Good to Know

Making Research Publishable

Choosing Right Journal IMRaD Structure Peer Review Types Detecting Misconduct Preventing Plagiarism

1.1 What is Philosophy? ›

Philosophy is the systematic, rational study of fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. From Greek: philo (love) + sophia (wisdom) = "love of wisdom."

Five Philosophical Questions (Exam Favourite)

Metaphysical: What is the ultimate nature of reality? Does God exist?
Epistemological: What is knowledge and how do we acquire it? Can we ever be certain?
Ethical: What is the right thing to do? What constitutes a good life?
Logical: What constitutes valid reasoning? How do we distinguish good from bad arguments?
Aesthetic: What is beauty? What makes art meaningful?

Branch	Focus
Metaphysics	Nature of reality, existence, space, time, causality
Epistemology	Nature, origin, scope and limits of knowledge
Ethics	Right and wrong conduct; principles of good life
Logic	Principles of valid inference and correct reasoning
Aesthetics	Nature of beauty, art, taste, and sensory experience
Political Philosophy	Justice, rights, law, liberty, government
Philosophy of Science	Foundations, methods, and implications of science

1.2 Science vs. Philosophy — Key Differences ›

Dimension	Science	Philosophy
Method	Empirical observation, experiment	Rational argument, logical analysis
Verifiability	Falsifiable, testable hypotheses	Not always empirically testable
Scope	Specific, measurable phenomena	Broad, abstract, universal questions
Goal	Explain, predict, control natural events	Understand meaning, values, existence
Tools	Laboratory, statistics, data collection	Logic, thought experiments, language
Certainty	Probabilistic conclusions from evidence	Reasoned conclusions from premises
Progress	Cumulative; old theories replaced	Ongoing debate; no final answers

1.3 Ethics vs. Morality ›

Aspect	Ethics	Morality
Origin	Greek 'ethos' — character/habit	Latin 'mores' — customs/habits
Nature	Systematic, theoretical, codified	Personal, cultural, intuitive
Source	External — professional codes, law	Internal — conscience, upbringing
Scope	Rules for professional/social conduct	Personal beliefs about right and wrong
Consistency	Universal standards across context	Can vary between individuals/cultures
Enforcement	External sanctions possible	Self-regulated through guilt/conscience
Example	Publication ethics code, medical ethics	Personal belief that cheating is wrong

1.4 Kinds of Ethics ›

Normative Ethics: Standards of right and wrong. Includes consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics.
Applied Ethics: Ethics applied to real domains — bioethics, research ethics, environmental ethics, business ethics.
Metaethics: Examines the nature of ethical claims — are moral facts objective? What does 'good' mean?
Descriptive Ethics: Studies what people actually believe is morally right, without judging it.
Professional Ethics: Codes governing specific professions — Hippocratic oath, legal ethics, research publication ethics.

1.5 Inductive vs. Deductive Reasoning ›

Aspect	Inductive	Deductive
Direction	Specific → General conclusion	General principle → Specific conclusion
Conclusion	Probable (not guaranteed)	Certain if premises are true
Use in research	Hypothesis generation; grounded theory	Hypothesis testing; mathematical proof
Example	100 swans are white → all swans may be white	All metals expand when heated; copper is metal → copper expands
Research approach	Qualitative, exploratory	Quantitative, confirmatory

1.6–1.7 Intellectual Honesty & Conflict of Interest ›

Intellectual honesty is the commitment to sincerity, accuracy, and absence of self-serving bias. Key attributes: Accuracy, Transparency, Consistency, Accountability, Openness to revision.

Types of Conflict of Interest

Financial CoI: Funding or equity stake from a company whose products are studied
Academic/Intellectual CoI: Reviewing a competitor's paper; strong prior position on outcome
Personal CoI: Reviewing work by a close friend, relative, or long-time rival
Institutional CoI: The institution itself has financial interests in the research outcome

Managing CoI

Mandatory disclosure to journals, funding agencies, institutions
Recusal from peer review or editorial decisions where CoI exists
Independent oversight committees
Public CoI registries for clinical trial researchers

2.1 13 Ethical Principles in Research ›

🎯These 13 principles appear in 6/7 papers. Know each one with a brief application.

Principle	Meaning / Application
Honesty	Report data, methods, results truthfully. Never fabricate, falsify, or misrepresent.
Objectivity	Avoid bias in design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation.
Integrity	Act with consistency and commitment to moral values in all research.
Transparency	Share methods and data openly; disclose funding and conflicts of interest.
Carefulness	Avoid errors; document and preserve research data carefully.
Openness	Share data, methods, and materials; be open to critique and new ideas.
Confidentiality	Protect privacy of participants and confidential information.
Respect for IP	Credit others' contributions; never plagiarise.
Responsible Publication	Publish to advance knowledge, not merely to build a publication record.
Social Responsibility	Consider societal risks; promote public good from research findings.
Non-Discrimination	Treat all collaborators, students, and participants fairly.
Competence	Maintain expertise; undertake only work within your competence.
Human Subjects Protection	Obtain informed consent; minimise harm; protect vulnerable populations.

2.2 Scientific Misconduct — FFP & Other Forms ›

FFP = Fabrication + Falsification + Plagiarism. These are the three core forms of scientific misconduct — intentional violations of professional norms.

Fabrication (F): Inventing data or findings never collected. E.g., recording fake experimental measurements.
Falsification (F): Manipulating materials, data, or processes to alter results. E.g., doctoring gel images, removing inconvenient data points.
Plagiarism (P): Using another's work, ideas, or data without attribution, presenting them as one's own.

Other Forms of Misconduct

Duplicate/Redundant publication — same work in multiple journals without disclosure
Salami slicing — splitting one study into multiple thin papers
Gift authorship — including someone with no substantive contribution
Ghost authorship — hiding the actual writer of a paper
Coercive authorship — supervisor forces inclusion despite no contribution
Selective reporting — reporting only positive or significant results (p-hacking)
Misrepresentation of data — using graphs or statistics in a misleading way

2.3 Misrepresentation of Data — Examples ›

Truncated y-axis: Starting the y-axis at 50 instead of 0 to make a small difference appear dramatic
Cherry-picking: Showing only the time period when results were positive
Misleading averages: Using mean when median is more appropriate (skewed salary data)
Confusing correlation with causation: Presenting correlational data as if it proves causation

2.4 Corresponding Author — Role & Responsibilities ›

The corresponding author is the researcher designated to handle all communications about the manuscript before, during, and after publication.

Submitting the manuscript to the journal
Responding to all editorial queries and reviewer comments
Ensuring all co-authors have approved the final submission
Certifying that all authors meet authorship criteria
Disclosing conflicts of interest on behalf of all authors
Handling post-publication correspondence (corrections, retractions)
Ensuring data availability commitments are fulfilled

2.5 Authorship Issues & ICMJE Criteria ›

Type	Definition	Ethical Problem
Gift Authorship	Including someone who made no substantive contribution	Inflates credentials; dilutes accountability
Ghost Authorship	Hiding the actual writer (e.g., pharma company writer)	Conceals conflicts of interest; deceptive
Coercive Authorship	Supervisor demands inclusion without contribution	Ethical abuse of power
Omission	Excluding someone who made substantial contributions	Denies credit; potential legal issue

ICMJE Criteria — ALL 4 must be met to qualify as author:

Substantial contribution to conception, design, data acquisition, or analysis
Drafting the article or critically revising it for important intellectual content
Final approval of the version to be published
Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work

3.1 COPE — Committee on Publication Ethics ›

🎯COPE has appeared in ALL 7 papers. Know its founding year (1997), purpose, and the 9 core practices.

COPE was founded in 1997 in the UK. It provides guidelines, flowcharts, and case discussions to help editors and publishers handle misconduct. Over 12,000 member journals worldwide.

9 COPE Core Practices

Authorship and Contributorship: Use ICMJE criteria; define who qualifies as author vs. contributor
Complaints and Appeals: Journals must have transparent, documented processes
Conflicts of Interest: Disclosure required from authors, editors, and reviewers at submission
Data and Reproducibility: Encourage data sharing; investigate fabrication/falsification
Ethical Oversight: IRB/IEC approval required for research involving humans or animals
Intellectual Property: Respect copyright; check all submissions for plagiarism
Journal Management: Transparent ownership, governance, and editorial policies
Peer Review Processes: Clearly documented, consistently applied peer review
Post-Publication Discussions: Corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern handled promptly

For Serious Misconduct (FFP), COPE advises editor to:

Not simply reject — investigate
Contact the author for explanation
If unsatisfied, contact the author's institution
Consider retraction if already published
Retain all evidence. Sanctions imposed by institution, not journal.

3.2 Publication Misconduct — Types & Sanctions ›

Serious Misconduct

Fabrication, Falsification, Plagiarism (FFP)
Duplicate/redundant publication without disclosure
Ghost or gift authorship
Manipulation of peer review (fake reviewer accounts)
Simultaneous submission to multiple journals

Less Serious Misconduct

Selective citation to please editors
Salami slicing
Inadequate attribution of collaborators
Failure to disclose minor conflicts of interest

Sanctions for Serious Misconduct (escalating):

Formal letter of reprimand to the author
Formal retraction of the published paper
Notification to the author's institution
Prohibition from submitting to the journal for a defined period
Reporting to funding agencies and professional bodies
Academic dismissal, termination, or legal action

3.3 Plagiarism — Complete Coverage ›

🎯Plagiarism has appeared in 5/7 papers. Know all 7 types AND the UGC 4-level penalty table.

Plagiarism is using another person's work, ideas, expressions, data, or code without proper attribution. It violates both ethics and intellectual property law.

Note: Similarity ≠ Plagiarism. Similarity is a technical % detected by software. Plagiarism is the ethical dimension. High similarity can be legitimate (quoted text). Low similarity can still be plagiarism (stolen ideas rephrased).

7 Types of Plagiarism

Direct/Verbatim: Copy-pasting text without quotation marks or citation
Mosaic (Patchwriting): Rearranging phrases or replacing a few words while retaining sentence structure
Paraphrase Plagiarism: Rewriting ideas without attribution
Self-Plagiarism: Reusing one's own previously published work without disclosure
Idea Plagiarism: Stealing a concept or research design without crediting the originator
Source-based Plagiarism: Citing a source that does not actually support the claim
Data Plagiarism: Using another researcher's unpublished data without permission

UGC Levels of Plagiarism & Penalties

Level	Similarity %	Penalty
Level 0	Up to 10%	No action required
Level 1	10% – 40%	Manuscript returned for revision and resubmission
Level 2	40% – 60%	Submission suspended 1 year; supervisor debarred from guiding for 2 years
Level 3	Above 60%	PhD registration/award cancelled; debarred from submission for 3 years

Detection Tools

Turnitin: Most widely used globally; compares against academic papers, web content, student submissions
iThenticate: Preferred for journal submissions; compares against published academic literature
Unicheck: Cloud-based university tool
SPPU Tool: Developed by Savitribai Phule Pune University to identify predatory publications

4.1 Open Access — History & Types ›

Open Access (OA) is the free, immediate, unrestricted online access to research outputs, enabling any user to read, download, copy, and distribute articles without financial or permission barriers.

OA Timeline

1991: arXiv.org launched at CERN — first major preprint server
2002: Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) — coined the term
2003: PLOS Biology launched — first major peer-reviewed OA journal
2008: NIH mandates all funded research deposited in PMC within 12 months
2018: Plan S — requiring immediate OA for all publicly funded research

Gold vs. Green Open Access

Feature	Gold OA	Green OA
Publication route	Published directly in OA journal	Self-archived in repository
Immediate access	Yes, from publication	May have embargo (6–12 months)
Cost to author	Often requires APC	Usually free to author
Version accessible	Final published version	Usually accepted manuscript
Examples	PLOS ONE, BioMed Central	arXiv, institutional repositories, SSRN

4.2 DOAJ — Directory of Open Access Journals ›

DOAJ is an online whitelist directory indexing high-quality, peer-reviewed, open-access journals. Founded 2003 at Lund University, Sweden. Indexes 20,000+ journals from 130+ countries.

DOAJ Inclusion Criteria (journals must satisfy):

Must be peer-reviewed and exercise active quality control
Must provide free, unrestricted online access to full text
Must have a valid, working ISSN registered at issn.org
Must not charge readers or institutions for access
Must have editorial board with genuine, contactable members
Must be in active publication (not dormant)

DOAJ Seal is awarded to journals meeting highest transparency/openness standards. DOAJ functions as a 'whitelist' helping researchers distinguish credible publications from predatory ones.

4.3 Predatory Journals — Complete Coverage ›

🎯Predatory Journals has appeared in ALL 7 papers. The definition, characteristics, and how to avoid them are all essential.

Predatory journals are fraudulent publications that exploit the Open Access model by charging APCs without providing legitimate peer review or editorial services. Term coined by librarian Jeffrey Beall (~2010) who compiled 'Beall's List.'

12 Characteristics of Predatory Journals

Rapid 'peer review': Accept papers within days; peer review is absent or cosmetic
Spam solicitation: Aggressive, unsolicited emails inviting submissions with flattery
Misleading names: Mimic prestigious journals
False indexing claims: Falsely claim indexing in Scopus, WoS, or PubMed
Fake impact factors: Fabricated from unofficial sources
Dubious editorial board: Scholars listed without consent or fake identities
Hidden or unclear APC: Fees only disclosed after acceptance
No retraction policy: Published errors are never addressed
Poor web quality: Poorly designed websites, grammatical errors, broken links
Very broad scope: Claims to cover 'all disciplines'
Rapid publication promise: Guaranteed publication for a fee within days
No peer review transparency: No explanation of review process or reviewer selection

How to Avoid Predatory Journals

Check against DOAJ, Scopus Source List, Web of Science Master Journal List, UGC CARE List
Use the THINK. CHECK. SUBMIT. checklist (thinkchecksubmit.org)
Verify editorial board members on institutional websites
Confirm stated indexing claims directly with the database
Never respond to unsolicited email invitations to submit

4.5 SHERPA/RoMEO ›

SHERPA/RoMEO (Rights MEtadata for Open archiving) is a free online tool that aggregates and analyses journal and publisher copyright and self-archiving policies. Hosted by the University of Nottingham.

Colour Coding (Classic)

Green: Can archive preprint AND post-print or publisher's PDF
Blue: Can archive post-print but not preprint
Yellow: Can archive preprint only
White: Archiving not formally supported

5.1 Types of Research Databases ›

🎯Types of Research Databases has appeared in ALL 7 papers. Know all 8 types with examples.

Type	Description	Examples
Bibliographic	Index metadata: title, abstract, author, keywords — not full text	Scopus, Web of Science
Full-Text	Provide complete article text for download	ScienceDirect, JSTOR, PubMed Central
Citation	Track citations between articles for impact analysis	Scopus, WoS, Google Scholar
Subject-Specific	Focused on a particular discipline	PsycINFO, ERIC, MEDLINE
Institutional Repositories	Self-archived research at university level	DSpace, EPrints, SSRN
Preprint Servers	Pre-peer-review articles shared openly	arXiv, bioRxiv, SSRN
Patent Databases	Technical inventions with legal protection	USPTO, Espacenet, InPASS (India)
Multidisciplinary	Cover many fields in one platform	Google Scholar, ProQuest

5.5–5.6 UGC CARE List — 4 Categories ›

UGC-CARE (Consortium for Academic and Research Ethics) List is India's official whitelist of quality journals, launched in 2018 to replace the earlier UGC journal list.

Group I: Journals indexed in Web of Science Core Collection (SCIE, SSCI, A&HCI, ESCI)
Group II: Journals indexed in Scopus (excluding those on the CARE exclusion list)
Group III: Journals from UGC-identified quality publishers: Taylor & Francis, Springer, Elsevier, Wiley, etc.
Group IV: Indian language journals recommended by expert committees for UGC recognition

Publications in CARE journals count toward API (Academic Performance Indicators) for promotions. Mandatory for faculty CAS (Career Advancement Scheme). PhD scholars must publish in CARE-listed journals before thesis submission.

5.6 ⭐ Impact Factor — THE MOST TESTED TOPIC ›

🎯Impact Factor has appeared in ALL 7 papers. Know the formula, worked example, and all merits & demerits perfectly.

The Impact Factor (IF) is a measure of the average number of citations received by papers published in a journal during a specific two-year period. Developed by Eugene Garfield at ISI in 1955; published annually in JCR by Clarivate.

IF (Year X) = Citations in Year X to papers published in (X-1) and (X-2) ÷ Total articles published in (X-1) and (X-2)

Worked Example: A journal published 200 papers in 2021 and 150 papers in 2022. In 2023, all those papers together received 700 citations.

IF (2023) = 700 ÷ (200 + 150) = 700 ÷ 350 = 2.00

Merits

Simple, single numerical score for comparing journal quality within a field
Widely recognised internationally
Incentivises publication in well-reviewed venues
Helps editors track their journal's standing

Demerits

Unfair cross-field comparison (Biology higher than Mathematics)
Susceptible to manipulation: self-citation, coercive citation
Review articles inflate IF
Short 2-year window disadvantages fields with longer citation cycles
Measures the journal, NOT the individual paper or author
DORA recommends against using IF to evaluate individual researchers

5.7 ⭐ h-Index — Hirsch 2005 ›

🎯h-Index has appeared in 6/7 papers. Know definition, example, and differences from IF.

A researcher has an h-index of h if exactly h of their papers have each been cited at least h times. Proposed by physicist Jorge E. Hirsch in 2005.

Worked Example: A researcher has 12 papers with citations (ranked): 45, 32, 20, 15, 10, 8, 7, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1

Paper 7 has 7 citations; Paper 8 has 6 citations.
h-index = 7 (7 papers with ≥7 citations each)

h-Index vs. Impact Factor

Aspect	h-Index	Impact Factor
Measures	Individual author's productivity + impact	Journal's average citation rate
Applies to	Authors / researchers	Journals
Time window	Cumulative (all career)	2-year window
Published by	Google Scholar, Scopus, WoS (per author)	JCR by Clarivate Analytics
Limitation	Favours older/prolific researchers	Cross-field comparison unfair

5.8 Other Research Metrics: g-index, i10, SJR, SNIP, IPP ›

g-Index (Egghe, 2006): Top g papers together have received at least g² citations. Always ≥ h. Gives more weight to highly-cited papers than h-index.
i10-Index (Google Scholar): Number of publications with ≥10 citations. Simple and transparent.
SJR (SCImago Journal Rank): Weights citations by prestige of citing journal (like Google's PageRank). Resistant to self-citation manipulation. Organised into Q1–Q4 quartiles.
SNIP (Source Normalized Impact per Paper): Corrects for differences in citation practices between fields. Allows fairer cross-disciplinary comparison than raw IF.
IPP (Impact Per Publication): 3-year citation window metric (unlike 2-year IF). More stable year-to-year.
CiteScore: Scopus annual metric using 4-year citation window.
Quartile (Q1–Q4): Q1 = top 25% of journals in field (highest prestige). Q2 = 25th–50th. Q3 = 50th–75th. Q4 = lowest 25%.

5.3–5.4 Scopus vs. Web of Science ›

Feature	Scopus	Web of Science
Owner	Elsevier	Clarivate Analytics
Launch Year	2004	1964 (ISI)
Journal Coverage	~25,000+ journals (broader)	~21,000 journals (more selective)
Impact Metric	SJR, SNIP, CiteScore	Impact Factor (JCR), h-index
Backfile Coverage	From 1996	From 1900 in some databases
Prestige	High — widely used in Asia & Europe	Highest — gold standard globally
Best For	Breadth of discovery, recent literature	Prestige, historical data, IF calculation

WoS Core Collections:

SCIE: Science Citation Index Expanded — natural and applied sciences
SSCI: Social Sciences Citation Index
A&HCI: Arts and Humanities Citation Index
ESCI: Emerging Sources Citation Index — journals meeting WoS standards but not yet in core

6.2 IMRaD Structure — Standard Research Paper ›

Section	Purpose & Content
Title	Concise, specific, keyword-rich; reflects study design and key variable
Abstract	Structured summary: Background, Objective, Methods, Results, Conclusion (150–300 words)
Keywords	5–8 terms for indexing; use MeSH or field-specific controlled vocabulary
Introduction	Background, literature gap, research question, objectives
Methodology	Replicable: design, population, sampling, instruments, data collection, analysis
Results	Objective presentation of findings; tables, figures, statistics — without interpretation
Discussion	Interpret results; compare with prior studies; address limitations; state implications
Conclusion	Summary of key findings; contributions; recommendations; future research
References	Complete, consistently formatted (APA, Vancouver, MLA, etc.)

6.3 Peer Review Types ›

Single-blind: Reviewers know authors' identity; authors don't know reviewers
Double-blind: Both authors and reviewers are anonymous — reduces bias
Open peer review: Both identities disclosed; promotes accountability
Post-publication peer review: Open critique after publication (e.g., PubPeer)
Transparent peer review: Reviews published alongside article

SELECT COMPARISON

Showing all cards