M.J. Narasimhan Medal for Best Paper Published - Guidelines

1. Only full papers published in a particular volume of a year will be considered. The paper may be on applied or basic aspect or dealing with development of new techniques or concepts.

2. Review articles and Short Notes will be excluded.

3. If the papers are published in series each paper is to be considered on its own merit.

4. The following criteria will be followed or judging the best paper:

    a)    Originally, reliability and objectives of the research findings.

    b)    Significance of the findings reported in the paper.

    c)    The methodology used in the research paper should be appropriate.

    d)    Presentation of the paper – This includes Abstract, Key words, Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Tables, Graphics, Discussion and Conclusions.

5. The award must be given every year and only one paper should be recommended for the award.

6.    a) For preliminary screening the paper dealing with pathological aspect of the diseases caused by fungi, nematode, phanerogamic parasites, physiological and deficiency diseases will be screened by the two experts on pathology.

    b) The papers dealing with plant virology, bacteriology and mycology will be screened by the experts on the committee of the respective field.

c) The paper which will be placed first by the majority of the members of the judging committee will be adjusted as the best paper.

7. If any member of the Judging Committee requires Indian Phytopathology volume for a particular year it will be supplied to the member on returnable basis

Criteria for judging the award

 

Max. marks/ Question

Item-wise distribution       (Maximum Limit)

Marks     Allotted

I Best

II Best

III Best

1.   Importance of research in the

a)     National Interest; or

b)     International Context

5

 

 

 

5

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.   The paper is concerning

a)     Fundamental research; or

b)     Applied research

3

 

 

 

2

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.   a)      An entirely new hypothesis              10 has been put forward; or

       b)     Confirmed the prev. hypothesis

      (1:5; 5:10; 10:15 years back) or

c)      Contradicted previous hypothesis (1:5; 5:10; 10:15 years back) or

d)     Innovative type of study

10

 

8

 

5

 

7

10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.   The techniques used are

a)     Adequate; or

       a’)  Inadequate

b)     Reproducible; or

       b’)  Irreproducible

c)      A new technique has been developed

7

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

1

2

1

 

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.  Does it contain sufficient  quantitative

a)    experimental data; or

b)    is mostly hypothetical

7

 

 

 

7

5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.  Immediate agricultural/industrial beneficial implication

12

 

12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.  Has the paper added any significant  knowledge to the  basic concepts

10

 

 

10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.  Is it going to open new vistas in field of research

8

 

8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9.  How tentative or firm are the  conclusions as measured against the previous knowledge

8

 

 

8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10. Referees remarks                     

a)   What are your personal observation about this best paper

b)  Enlist the second best paper as per opinion

c)    How this paper is better than second best paper

5

5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Marks :  

75

 

 

 

 

 


WRITING

PART–B 

 

Max. marks

Item-wise  distribution (Maximum Limit)

Marks     Allotted

I Best     

II Best

  III Best

1.   Is the title

a)   Appropriate & relevant

a’)  Inappropriate & irrelevant

b)   Does it convey exactly about

the research hypothesis;

c)   or not

2

 

1+1

 

 

 

2.   Abstract

3

1+2

 

 

 

a)    Gravity and clarity of the

abstract or is lengthy and

confusing 

 

 

 

 

 

b)    Does it explain concisely the

hypothesis, the approach adopted  conclusions and authors assessment  of their significance; or is it vauge 

 

 

 

 

 

3.    Materials and Methods :

       Is it written to be reproducible

       Experiment easily

2

 

 

 

 

4.    Presentation of the results

7

 

 

 

 

a)    Do the tables and illustration contain all the evidence on which a paper  is based

 

Yes/No 3:2

 

 

 

b)    Is the information presented in the  tables or illustrations repeated either  in the text or elsewhere:

 

Yes/No 2:1

 

 

 

c)     Are the illustrations/tables/graphs  having some purpose or superfluous

 

Yes/No 2:1

 

 

 

5.    Literature cited is

a)    Sufficient; or

a’)  Insufficient

b)    Relevant; or

b’)  Irrelevant

c)     Upto date

c’)  Old

5

 

2

1

2

1

1

0

 

 

 

6.    Has the author avoided peculations in discussion

2

 

 

 

 

7.     Is the discussion

a)    Thought providing

a’) Or not

b)    Based on speculation

b’) or experimental findings

4

 

2:1

 

 

2:1

 

 

 

 

TOTAL

 

25