The pleasure of excellence-led growth and the pain of enforcing publishing ethics: the experience of PMBP

Raghuram, Nandula

doi:10.1007/s12298-017-0420-4

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rather, it was a particularly efficient solubilizer of P, was able to tolerate high salt concentration, and produced significant higher amounts of GA; thus, it appears that improving plant performance under conditions of P deficiency and/or salinity stress requires the ability of the PGPR to solubilize P, even under salt stress, and/or to generate GA, rather than being able to fix nitrogen. The same conclusion has been reached regarding the interaction of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens with a range of plant species such as Chinese cabbage, radish, tomato, and mustard plants [ 45 ]. To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first to report the contribution of Arthrobacter sp .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 53%

The Response of Maize to Inoculation with Arthrobacter sp. and Bacillus sp. in Phosphorus-Deficient, Salinity-Affected Soil

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Salinity and phosphorus (P) deficiency are among the most serious soil factors constraining crop productivity. A proposed strategy for alleviating these stresses is supporting plants by inoculation with growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR). Here, a comparison of the ability of two maize composite and two F1 hybrid varieties to tolerate a P deficiency in either a saline or a non-saline environment showed that the uptake of nutrients by all four entries was significantly reduced by the imposition of both soil salinity and P deficiency, and that their growth was compromised to a similar extent. Subsequently, the ameliorative effect of inoculation with three strains of either Arthrobacter sp. or Bacillus sp. in an environment, which suffered simultaneously from salinity and P deficiency, was investigated. Inoculation with each of the strains was found to limit the plants’ uptake of sodium cations, to increase their uptake of potassium cations, and to enhance their growth. The extent of the growth stimulation was more pronounced for the composite varieties than for the F1 hybrid ones, although the amount of biomass accumulated by the latter, whether the plants had been inoculated or not, was greater than that of the former varieties. When the bacterial strains were cultured in vitro, each of them was shown as able to produce the phytohormones auxin, abscisic acid, gibberellins, and cytokinins. The implication is that since the presence in the rhizospere of both Arthrobacter sp. and Bacillus sp. strains can support the growth of maize in salinity-affected and P deficient soils in a genotype-dependent fashion, it is important to not only optimize the PGPR strain used for inoculation, but also to select maize varieties which can benefit most strongly from an association with these bacteria.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 53%

The Response of Maize to Inoculation with Arthrobacter sp. and Bacillus sp. in Phosphorus-Deficient, Salinity-Affected Soil

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…70 As Nandula Raghuram, a founding member of the SSV, notes, "Unlike the scientific community in many Western countries that did not mount an organized response to misconduct till their governments intervened and established offices of research integrity in the 1990s, Indian scientists voluntarily founded SSV way back in 1986." 71 Formation of the SSV was a concrete historical outcome of the crisis in the 1970s. In contrast to self-congratulatory Western narratives about fighting fraud from the forefront, this historical account reveals that India was at the leading edge of reform, well in advance of most Western countries.…”

Section: Formation Of the Ssv In The 1980smentioning

confidence: 99%

Historicizing the crisis of scientific misconduct in Indian science

Shahare

Roberts

2020

Hist Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A flurry of discussions about plagiarism and predatory publications in recent times has brought the issue of scientific misconduct in India to the fore. The debate has framed scientific misconduct in India as a recent phenomenon. This article questions that framing, which rests on the current tendency to define and police scientific misconduct as a matter of individual behavior. Without ignoring the role of individuals, this article contextualizes their actions by calling attention to the conduct of the institutions, as well as social and political structures that are historically responsible for governing the practice of science in India since the colonial period. Scientific (mis)conduct, in other words, is here examined as a historical phenomenon borne of the interaction between individuals’ aspirations and the systems that impose, measure, and reward scientific output in particular ways. Importantly, historicizing scientific misconduct in this way also underscores scientist-driven initiatives and regulatory interventions that have placed India at the leading edge of reform. With the formal establishment of the Society for Scientific Values in 1986, Indian scientists became the first national community worldwide to monitor research integrity in an institutionally organized way.

show abstract

“…Since the last editorial on the growth performance of the journal (Raghuram, 2017), PMBP crossed another important milestone of 10,000 citations in Google Scholar and has reached 11,537 citations at the time of this writing ( Fig. 2), with a h-index of 43 and i10 index of 363 (https:// scholar.google.co.in/citations?hl=en&user=hLrG91UAAAA J&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%