Indian mental concepts: Looking forward

Byline: M. Reddy, Starlin. Vijay What Do Psychiatrists Mean When They Talk About Yoga? Yoga is an ancient Indian practice with a particular worldview and psychology. Because of its indigenous and ancient character, yoga has perennially evoked interest in the minds of intellectual Indian researchers and physicians. Over the last century, it has captured the interest of the Western world and has garnered millions of followers across all nations. Since June 2015, the world community has even started celebrating the International Yoga Day. In the backdrop, with such an interest, we will discuss the available research and its implications for the practice of psychiatry in the 21[sup]st century. When health-care professionals talk about yoga, they usually discuss either its usefulness as a lifestyle intervention or as a potential treatment for physical and psychological problems. The health-care community, particularly mental health community, is currently interested in the physical exercises (Hatha Yoga or Pranayama ) and few ill-defined meditative practices (such as Dhyana in Mantra Yoga). Hence, the focus is less on the mystical-spiritual aspects of yoga and more on the measurable/interventional and physical-psychological aspects (this specific narrower aspect will be called as “Yoga therapy” in this article to differentiate it from the broader wholesome term – which is merely called - yoga). Recent research in psychiatry has been in search of the empirical evidence for the usefulness of yoga therapy as complimentary or solitary therapeutic agent in psychiatric treatment. A Brief Conceptual History of Yoga The practice of yoga might have been present long before it was systematized by Patanjali in his book, Yoga Sutras, which have aphorisms on yoga. Whatever evidence is available suggests that he lived around 100 BC. His yogic system borrows many ideas and concepts from Kapila's S?m.khya School of Philosophy.[sup][1] Yoga is a Sanskrit word for union. Patanjali practically defines yoga as the final annihilation ( Nirodha ) of all the mental states ( Cittav?tti ) through progressive stages to attain a steadied mind with particular types of graduated mental states.[sup][2] The ultimate goal as described by Patanjali is the attainment of a particular spiritual mind state which is variably called Moksha and Satcit?nanda (which can be translated as salvation or union with ultimate reality). Over centuries, many systems of yoga have been developed. The prominent ones which now exist are Hatha yoga, Mantra or Japa yoga, Surat-Shabd yoga (also known as Nam Bhakti ), Kundalini yoga, Tantra yoga (popularized by Bhagawan Rajneesh/Osho), etc., Out of these, Hatha yoga is the most popular kind in our day which has its emphasis on physical exercises or asanas, while Kundalini yoga with its Pranayama and Mantra yoga with its Dhyana are also well practiced and popular. The particular practices such as asanas, Dhyana and Pranayama of these three prominent schools have claimed specific physical and psychological health benefits.[sup][3] Review of Literature There is a lot of research literature on yoga as a therapy for physical and psychological problems. We will discuss few relevant individual studies and reviews on yoga therapy in psychiatric disorders. Anxiety and depression There are many studies [sup][4],[5],[6] showing improvement in anxiety and depressive symptoms (level 3 evidence [sup][7]) which is attributable to yoga therapy, this was similar to improvement due to physical exercise. Most studies might have been done on people with mild-to-moderate anxiety or depression. Very few studies done on melancholic depression have found inferiority to electroconvulsive therapy, but not to drug treatment.[sup][8] Hence, yoga therapy may be used as an add-on treatment in this population. Eating disorders Available studies [sup][9],[10] suggest that yoga therapy is useful in anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and binge eating disorder. …

Yoga, Ayurveda, and Siddha represent the ancient science of healthy living originated in India. Some of the oldest texts from around 5000 years back, such as Vedas and Upanishads, provide evidence of such lifestyle. Many seals and fossils from Indus Valley Civilization authenticate the practice of Yoga in ancient India. According to yogic tradition, Shiva, one of the Hindu Gods, is the first yogi (Adi yogi) and the first teacher (Adi Guru). The meticulous practice of Yoga is widely believed to play a major role to overcome mental and physical suffering and leads to self-regulation, and finally to self-realization or liberation. Since the Pre-Vedic period around 2700 B.C., people started practicing Yoga. Later on, Patanjali Maharshi (between 3rd to 6th centuries BC) systematized and codified knowledge of Yoga through his Yoga Sutras. Later, with the help of many sages and masters, Yoga spread through different traditions, lineages and Guru-shishya parampara. Various Yoga schools viz. Jnana, Bhakti, Karma, Raja, Dhyana, Patanjali, Kundalini, Hatha, Laya, Jain, Buddha, Hatha etc. which follow their own practice, principles and tradition. However, they all lead to the same goal. The history of modern Yoga started in 1893 when the Parliament of Religions was held. After that many yogacharya, teachers and practitioners tried to spread Yoga, not only in India but worldwide (1). One of the milestones in the history of Yoga has been the adoption of the International Day of Yoga. The Honorable Prime Minister Sri Narendra Modi addressed the world community on 27th September 2014 in 69 sessions of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) (2). The proposal was approved on 11th December 2014 by 193 members of UNGA to establish 21 June as “International Day of Yoga”. Six months later after passing the resolution and confirmation to establish IDY, the first IDY held in 2015. Several Yogic events were organized and publicized throughout India as well as abroad and got national and international publicity that Yoga has originated from Indian culture. The essential and pivotal role of Yoga in education, pedagogy, curriculum, as well as clinical research has been realized well across the globe (3). To achieve the same, AYUSH Ministry was established November 9, 2014 (http://ayush.gov.in) to facilitate research and educational activity in Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy. The existence and excellence of Yoga-based researches in the premier Institutes of India is another milestone towards the implementation of yogic sciences in the academic sphere. Several Yoga departments and centers in the premier Institutes and central universities of India, their existence and establishment, is the result of the consultative meeting on Yoga Education in Universities held in Bangalore on 2nd January 2016, chaired by the Hon’ble Minister for Human Resource Development in the presence of Vice-Chancellors from Indian universities. It was resolved to set up a Department of Yogic Art and Science in the Universities and constitute a committee on Yoga Education in universities to look into various aspects pertaining to setting up of these Departments. Further, collaborative efforts were made to support Psychology, Philosophy, and Yogic Science at different collaborating organizations, by utilizing their respective expertise, knowledge, resources and infrastructure (https://www.nhp.gov.in/list-of-yoga-institutes_mtl). The aim of such centers was to understand deeper knowledge of Yoga philosophy and Yoga therapy based on classical Yogic texts. For the last several years, S-VYASA University has been doing research on evidence-based Yoga & its application, to prevent diseases and to promote positive health (https://svyasa.edu.in/Research_Publications.html). Swami Vivekananda Yoga Anusandhana Samsathana (S-VYASA), established in 1986, is a pioneer Institute in the field of Yoga Research. It is the first and foremost Institute with a broad vision of scientifically evaluating yoga, its applications, and policies led by Dr. H R Nagendra.

To analyse the presence of women on the editorial teams of emergency medicine journals and the potential relationship between the pre-eminence of the journal and their presence. In this cross-sectional study, we examined 10 journals cited under the heading of 'Emergency Medicine' by Thomson Scientific in the Journal Citation Reports and 14 additional emergency journals not cited but which publish investigations in emergency medicine. We evaluated the editorial board posted on their websites, determining the number of men and women occupying executive tasks, as well as the sex of the editor-in-chief of each journal. We identified 372 people working on the editorial teams (mean: 15.5, SD: 13.5), 49 being women (13.2%). Of these 372 people, 28 were editors-in-chief but only one was female (3.6%). We found no statistical differences between indexed and nonindexed emergency journals regarding female representation on the editorial team or in the position of editor-in-chief. Neither did we find any relationship between female presence and the pre-eminence of the indexed journals using impact factor as a surrogate marker. Very few women are found either on editorial teams or in editor-in-chief positions in the emergency medicine journals, irrespective of the pre-eminence of the journal. It should be investigated whether a negative journal bias underlies these findings.

The primary source for this annotation on child and adolescent psychiatry is Indian Journal of Psychiatry. Articles covering various dimensions of child and adolescent mental health were searched from its electronic data base to discuss relevant articles. Literature was mainly in the form of original research articles, review articles, case reports, editorials, orations and presidential address.

ABSTRACTCamps are a popular approach to deliver medical care in India. While it is usually a one-off event for physical ailments, it is a long-term affair in Psychiatry. One of the first camps in psychiatry was rolled out as early as in 1967 at Mandar, Ranchi, followed by Raipur Rani (Haryana) in 1976 and at Gunjur, Karnataka in 1977. This camp approach became extremely popular and got expanded across India as they were thought to be synonymous with community-based outreach for mental illnesses. In the past 5 years, however, newer models of community care have emerged, necessitating a relook at this traditional approach. In this paper, the authors trace the origin, utility and future directions of these camps, taking data from community psychiatry camps conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bengaluru, a premier neuropsychiatric tertiary care institute in India. Data have been collated from the annual reports of the Institute, database from the District Mental health Program, Government of Karnataka, India, and compared with published literature on the same field. While camps remain as one of the important avenues to reach the unreached, there is a need to change the approach of their functioning by incorporating training (primary care providers) aspects and collaborative care. The latter may make the initiative more meaningful and sustainable.

No abstract available.

Background . We assessed the balance between the number of publications required by medical teachers and the publication space available in the Indian medical journals. Methods . The Medical Council of India (MCI) website, its guidelines and documents were searched and we extracted data on the number of medical colleges, undergraduate and postgraduate seats and faculty requirement. The required number of assistant professors and associate professors was calculated. The publication requirements were estimated according to MCI's February 2020 guidelines. A publication which satisfied the above guidelines for promotion was counted as 'eligible publication'. Indian medical journals indexed in any of the MCI-permitted databases were identified, and the number of eligible articles in them in 2019 was counted. Results . India has a total of 79 798 MBBS seats, 33 025 postgraduate seats and 4231 superspecialty seats in MCI-certified medical institutions and to teach them 35 285 assistant professors and 23 116 associate professors are required. Assuming that each publication could serve a maximum of 3 teachers, we will need approximately 50 696 eligible publications in the next 7 years. A search of applicable databases, identified 162 unique Indian medical journals of which 79 were indexed in PubMed/PubMed Central. Among the remaining 63 were indexed in DOAJ, 14 in EMBASE, 3 in Scopus and 3 were indexed only in WOSSCIE. These journals cumulatively published a total of 8508 eligible publications in 2019. Conclusion . The publication space in Indian medical journals is limited, thus there is a need to have a national medical repository such as MedRxiv to prevent publication in predatory journals.

Sir, Amit Ranjan Basu's article ‘Historicizing Indian Psychiatry’1 and the commentaries on it by Paul Hoff2 and Sridhar Sharma3 invoke some critical comments. Dr Sharma completely misses the point of ‘historicism’ (as noted by A.R. Basu himself) and provides an ‘account/appraisal’ of Indian history that has little relevance to the issue. Or may be, in an ironical sense, this brings forth the importance of Foucault's methodology in understanding/managing our past. Even as a simple historical story telling, the article contains some gross inaccuracies and sweeping generalizations that need critical reflection. The battle of Buxar in 1764 was not ‘between the East India Company under the leadership of Lord Clive and Nawab Sirajjudaula’. Sirajjudaula was defeated in 1757 battle, apprehended within a few days by the company sepoys and was murdered by Mohammedi Beig at the instigation of the company. The 1764 battle was between the company on one hand and Mir Kasim, Shah Alam II and nawab of Audh on the other. Neither was Clive the leader of the company forces at that time. He was in England though he came back soon afterwards at the helm of the company. Neither Charaka nor Hippocrates were individuals in history but represent schools of thought and systems of medicine. Hippocratic times were 600 to 300 BC. The Hippocratic oath that we know of today was formulated sometime in 3rd century BC. Ayurvedic times are taken as 8th century BC to 8th century AD. The Charaka Samhita (a compilation of the then thoughts and practices) is a product of 1st century AD. It is definitely post-Alexander. Thus the claim that Indian humor theory predates Greek one is completely untenable. The glaring fact that is being ignored is that at that time there was a fair bit of business and cultural exchange between west and east and all ideas, be it about medicine or astronomy or mathematics evolved in an environment of exchange. ‘Philosophy in India is essentially spiritual’—this often quoted sentiment is itself a post-colonial construction that arose from the need to create an east-west dichotomy. As a strategy of recovery of pre-colonial self it is flawed and is historically completely incorrect. Dr Sharma mentions, in a general way, a multitude of psychotherapeutic theories and practices mentioned in ancient Indian text, many in as yet untranslated Sanskrit texts. It will be nice to have definitive examples. To represent a glorified and sanskritized one-dimensional version of past in this subcontinent is a crypto-political move that has been going on for too long. Invoking and interpreting Gita and some such other texts in exclusivity to construct our psychiatric past by other authors reflect the same phenomenon. Psychiatry is a product of post-industrial paradigm and there can be an (ancient) history of psychiatry but there cannot be an ancient psychiatry. Both Paul Hoff and Sharma tend to equate Foucault with antipsychiatry. This reflects a rather poor reading of Foucault and antipsychiatry both. Given that Laing latched on to Foucault's work, Szasz was rather non-committal. Both of them attacked the then psychiatry from an Existential point but Szasz's was a Judeo-Christian moralistic over interpretation of Sartre while Laing was notorious for continuously shifting his theoretical positions and practices. On the other hand Cooper was a member of South African Communist Party and his criticisms were made from that angle. Foucault himself had little to say about antipsychiatry (or psychiatry for that matter) and his study of madness and unreason was an example to demonstrate a larger project of unraveling historical development of ‘ideas and practices’. In Basu's writing ‘Indian Psychiatry’ and ‘psychiatry in India’ are used interchangeably and without any specificity. Does he consider the two to be equivalent? I think that will be rather naïve and anti-Foucauldian in itself. Basu is also, rightly, concerned about the construction of lack resulting from the power play that goes behind the development of episteme in a Foucauldian sense but does not distinguish it from the power play that generates in colonial exchange that precludes dialogue and fosters silence. He is also rather vague in pointing out how to address this lack and listen to it in a turn around of Foucauldian method. That is a bit disappointing. In trying to be too Foucauldian, Basu also ignores Derrida's criticisms of Foucault's reading of Cartesian reason–unreason.

The decision of which journals researchers submit their manuscripts to is based on a range of factors, including the quality of reviews, acceptance probability, turnaround time, target audience and fit, but an increasing one is the journal's reputation or perceived ‘quality’ as most commonly currently quantified by its impact factor.1 In an earlier editorial, it was argued that the impact factor, although not without flaws, provides a reasonable ball park assessment of the journal's impact or usefulness.2 It was, however, suggested that a small array of metrics would be more appropriate and could include a second citation metric that included citations to textbooks (are papers from the journal being used to provide evidence for undergraduate and postgraduate texts?), a download metric (how many people are reading the articles?) and a journal's acceptance rate.2 Because of its recognised flaws, new citation metrics are being introduced to rival the impact factor3-7 and these new metrics have been highlighted by their use in recent international Government research assessments.7 For example, Elsevier's Scopus database, which provides the citation metrics SCImago Journal Ranking Indicator and CiteScore, has been used in a number of national assessment exercises, including the UK Research Excellence Framework (2014), The Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) assessments (2010, 2012, 2015), the Italian Abilitazione Scientifica Nazionale's researcher assessment (2012, 2013) and the Portuguese Fundação para a Ciência e aTecnologia (FCT) assessment (2013/14).7 In light of these developments, it is timely to describe the various citation metrics and consider what is the most appropriate metric(s) for a clinical journal such as Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics (OPO). The most well-known, currently used citation metric is the Thomson-Reuters (now Clarivate Analytics) Institute of Scientific Information (ISI)'s 2-year journal impact factor.2, 8-10 The 2016 impact factor was calculated by the number of citations to the journal's articles published in 2014 and 2015, divided by the number of ‘papers’ published in the journal during those years. Only citations from journals that are included in Clarivate's Journal Citation Reports (JCR) on the online subscription-based service Web of Science (previously Web of Knowledge) count. This severely limits what is counted as a citation, although it could be argued that this keeps the quality of citations high. The denominator includes research papers (original articles, review papers, etc.) and does not include editorials, letters and news items, but JCR citations to all articles count (including those to editorials and letters). Case reports appear to be judged on a journal-by-journal basis by Web of Science, sometimes they are included in the denominator (and as they are rarely cited, this would lower impact factors) and sometimes not. This lack of transparency is also a flaw in the use of the impact factor and it is difficult to predict impact factors as it is not easy to forecast which documents will be included in calculations and which will not. OPO has an impact factor of 2.30 with 290 citations in 2014 and 2015 to 126 research papers (290/126 = 2.30). Web of Science also provides several other citation metrics, including an immediacy index, a 5-year impact factor and an Eigenfactor score (see Table 1).3 The 2016 immediacy index was determined by the number of citations in 2016 from papers published in 2016 (for OPO, 57/60 = 0.95) and is heavily dependent on papers published earlier in the year (e.g. the January OPO issue) as the papers published in the later issues (e.g. the November OPO issue) are highly unlikely to be cited in that year, given the lag in time from submission to publication of any papers that could cite a November publication. The immediacy index is sometimes considered an indicator for the following year's impact factor. This also highlights the fact that the 2-year window for impact factors is less (1.5 years?) for papers published in the November and December issues due to this time lag between submission and publication of citing papers. This is another reason why the 2-year impact factor is flawed. The 2016 5-year impact factor was determined by the number of citations in 2016 from papers published in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 (for OPO, 777/323 = 2.41). It is similar to the 2-year impact factor in that includes citations to editorials and letters in the numerator, but does not count them in the denominator. Web of Science also includes an indicator of the longevity of citations from journals, the journal half-life. This indicates the median age of papers cited in the given year, so that OPO's 2016 cited half-life of 9.9 years, indicates that half of the citations to OPO in 2016 were from papers 9.9 years old or younger. This citation metric is rarely discussed or used, but is a useful indicator of the longevity of papers in a journal. For example, our website includes a list of OPO's classic papers (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1475-1313/homepage/classic_papers.htm) that remain relevant and still cited despite being up to 25 years old. The Eigenfactor is produced for Web of Science by Jevin West and Carl Bergstrom at the University of Washington, www.eigenfactor.com).3 It provides 5-year citation data and weights the prestige of citations using an algorithm similar to Google's PageRank, so that citations from high ranking journals such as Nature and Science count more than lower ranking journals. It does not include journal self-citations (e.g. Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery citations in Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery papers; author self-citations in different journals are counted), which works against highly specialised journals. However, its algorithm attempts to adjust for citation differences between different research fields.3 Unlike impact factors, eigenfactors are based on a total score of citations and are not divided by the number of papers published. This means that if two journals have the same impact factor, but one publishes 1000 papers per year and the other 500 papers, the former will have twice the eigenfactor. This may be partly because the eigenfactor is provided as a reference for libraries, in that journals can be ranked using a ‘Cost-Effectiveness Search’ based on the citation value per dollar that they provide. From the perspective of libraries, the 1000 paper volume journal provides twice as many articles for their readers compared to a 500 paper journal of equal impact factor. SCImago and CiteScore are the principal citation metrics developed within Elsevier's online subscription-based service Scopus to rival impact factors provided by Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science.6 SCImago is the most well-established of the Scopus metrics. It is based on 3-year citation data, so that the 2016 SCImago Journal Rank Indicator (JRI) is based on citations in 2016 from papers published in 2013, 2014 and 2015.11 Like Eigenfactors, it weights the prestige of citations using an algorithm similar to Google's PageRank. It also differs from impact factors in that editorials and letters are included in the denominator. This means that journals which include a large number of editorials and letters, such as the Nature and Lancet series of journals, tend to have significantly lower SCImago JRIs (and CiteScores) than would be expected from their impact factors.5 CiteScore is a more recently introduced metric (December 2016) and is similar to SCImago, but differs in that it doesn't weight citations (Table 1). Both SCImago and CiteScore consider ‘documents’ beyond just journal articles, such as books and conference proceedings. Indeed, the Scopus database includes far more (they claim ‘double’) journals than Web of Science. For example, Web of Science includes four optometry journals: Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics, Optometry & Vision Science, Contract Lens & Anterior Eye and Clinical & Experimental Optometry. Scopus includes these four journals, plus the Journal of Optometry and Clinical & Refractive Optometry and Scopus includes a subcategory of optometry journals11 unlike Web of Science where Optometry journals are considered within the Ophthalmology subcategory or Google Scholar which has a joint Ophthalmology and Optometry subcategory.12 Google Scholar provides two citation metrics, the 5-year h-index and 5-year median h-index.12 These h-indices are Journal indices (h-indices can also be calculated for individual researchers and will be the topic for a future editorial). A h-index of N is calculated if N papers published in a journal have been cited N or more times. The median h-index is the median number of times that those N articles have been cited. In these ways the h-index avoids being distorted by one or a small number of very highly cited articles, which is a problem for the other metrics. Another strength is that it provides citations from all sources available on the web and can include citations in textbooks and important websites for example. This is also a potential downfall in that some of those sources are non-scholarly and some citations can be double (or more) counted if they appear in different places on the web. In addition, the h-index is typically driven by the papers in the two earliest years as these have the largest citations, so it provides potentially out-of-date information. For example, Optometry & Vision Science's 2017 h-index of 36 is based on 34 papers from 2012 and 2013, two from 2014 and none from 2015 or 2016. The 2017 h-index is therefore indicating the citation levels of the 2012 and 2013 volumes. It also provides a total score of citations and does not divide by the number of papers a journal publishes in the 5-year period, so that it is highly dependent on the number of papers. For example, although Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics (OPO) has much higher average citation metrics (Impact factor, SCImago and CiteScore) than Optometry & Vision Science, OPO's Google Scholar h-index (25) is lower than Optometry & Vision Science (36) as it published about three times fewer papers in 2012–2016 (391 vs 1207). Of the six main citation metrics, three are 5-year, two 3-year and one 2-year. Eigenfactors chose 5-years as ‘in many research areas, articles are not frequently cited until several years after publication. Therefore, measures that only look at citations in the first 2 years after publication can be misleading’.3 Scopus’ metrics use 3-years as ‘The time window that is chosen for a metric calculated for all serial titles in a multi-disciplinary database like Scopus should be a compromise that is the best fit across all subject areas……3 years is long enough to capture the citation peak of the majority of disciplines. A shorter time window, such as 2 years, is unfair to slower moving fields such as Physics and Astronomy. A longer time window, such as 5 years, is unfair to more rapidly moving fields such as Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.’6 The champions for a 2-year citation metric are, not surprisingly, those that this metric favours such as researchers in the biochemistry and molecular biology fields. Indeed, it has been suggested that the importance of the 2-year impact factor in rating research quality has led to the loss of clinical staff in UK academic departments of medicine in favour of basic scientists who are likely to provide higher impact factor papers (and thereby perhaps gain greater funding for their University) for the UK Research Assessment Exercise.10 Basic research is cited by both basic research and clinical research papers, while clinical research is cited by other clinical research papers, textbooks, professional guidelines etc. and much of the latter does not get included in impact factor calculations. Certainly, researchers in the biochemistry and molecular biology fields can readily publish in high impact factor journals and this can affect inter-discipline comparisons within Universities and with granting agencies as well as Government research assessments. Journals receiving numerous citations soon after publication might suggest that they have immediate and high impact and therefore must be high quality. However, papers in fields that cite a high volume of recent work tend to do so because older work rapidly becomes obsolete because of rapid advances in that field.13 Taking the example in Table 2, a hypothetical journal in which papers were cited highly in the first few years but then tails off, could have an impact factor of 10 but minimal impact after about 5 years. A journal in a discipline that is more of a slow burner would have citations in the other direction. Its impact factor could be 2.5, but its greatest impact is after 5 years and remains highly cited in subsequent years given the broader and sustained relevance of the research. The former journal does not appear to be providing papers that are four-times more impactful or higher quality and it could be argued that its overall impact is considerably less in the longer term. The latter example is not fanciful. For example, OPO's top cited paper, with 324 citations at an average of 25 citations per year, received 2 and 6 citations in its first 2 years after publication! The top cited papers in OPO tend to peak in terms of citations in years 3 and 4. For example, the top 10 cited OPO papers from the last 8 years that have a full 5-year history had mean citations rates of 12 and 13 in years 1 and 2, yet 15 and 17 in years 3 and 4, then drop to 13 in year 5. The lower cited papers follow this pattern even more strongly. Given that our impact factor is 2.3 currently, this highlights that impact factors tend to be greatly influenced by a relatively small number of highly cited papers rather than the breadth of papers published.2, 9 A 5-year window appears to be better, but has other problems. As discussed previously the Google Scholar h-index tends to be out-of-date and often reflects the two oldest volumes included, so that a 2017 h-index is essentially based on citations from 2012 and 2013. The issue is also present for other 5-year metrics such as the Eigenfactor and 5-year impact factor, although to a lesser extent. The 5-year impact factor score also takes many years to change in that a new editorial team would have to wait about 7 years before they could determine whether changes to the journal had influenced the 5-year citation metrics. Three or 4 year metrics may therefore be a good compromise. The impact factor's inclusion of citations from editorial and letters without including them in the denominator during its calculation seems inappropriate. I am not aware of any rationale for doing this and no other citation metric does so. The variable inclusion of case reports and other items means that there is a lack of transparency in the calculation of the impact factor and it is difficult to predict despite access to Web of Science. All journal articles other than news items should be included in both the numerator and denominator of citation metric calculations. Although the inclusion of journal self-citation is open to citation ‘game playing’ by journals, their removal as in Eigenfactors, seems harsh on specialised journals (such as Cataract & Refractive Surgery and the Journal of Refractive Surgery) which are bound to have a high level of journal self-citations. The weighting of citations in Eigenfactors and SCImago seems reasonable, but again leads to questions about transparency: what is the algorithm? Who decides what it is? I assume this is why Scopus have recently introduced the simpler CiteScore. Finally, should the main citation metric be an average or total score of citations? Is a journal of higher quality because it produces a good number of highly cited papers (but many more poorly cited ones) because it publishes a large number of papers? Or is it a journal whose average quality is high? I clearly prefer the latter, but this is likely due to the fact that OPO is a relatively small journal. The use of the total number of citations without division by the number of papers published means that Google Scholar and Eigenfactor citation metrics are heavily influenced by how many papers the journal publishes: they do not measure quantity or quality but a variable mixture of both. An earlier editorial argued that several citation metrics should be used, the standard 2-year impact factor plus another.1 That argument was predicated on the perception that the impact factor is so well established it is irreplaceable. It is not. Not too many years ago, the suggestion of Snellen visual acuity being replaced would have been laughed out of clinics. However, the Snellen chart is flawed and visual acuity using logMAR-based charts is now the standard in research studies, clinical trials and in computer-based systems and is quickly becoming the standard in everyday clinics.14 Similarly, the impact factor (i.e. the standard 2-year impact factor) is flawed, mainly because the 2-year window is inappropriate for so many journals and disciplines,2, 3, 5, 9 but also because of its illogical calculation, restriction to the relatively small range of journals included in Web of Science and lack of transparency. A range of metrics may well be ideal,2, 4, 6 but the 2-year impact factor being used as the standard surely needs to be challenged. To answer the question in the title, the best citation metric for a clinical journal (that provides an average citation score) currently available appears to be Scopus’ SCImago Journal Ranking Indicator or CIteScore. This may be best accompanied by a range of other metrics2, 4 that could include the Web of Science's 5-year impact factor and cited half-life, download metrics and acceptance rate. Thank you to Prof. Joanne Wood for helpful comments on an earlier version of this editorial. As the Editor-in-Chief of OPO, I am likely to favour the citation metrics that best portrays OPO; similarly as a researcher I am likely to favour citation metrics that favour my own clinical vision science research and highlight inadequacies in metrics that do not (such as the 2-year impact factor). OPO is listed in Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar.

Introduction from the Editorial Team Selima Sultana, Paul Knapp, Ridwaana Allen, and Tyler Mitchell The publication of issue 62.3 (Fall) marks nearly the three-fourths point of our term as an editorial team. An advertisement for the position of the next editor(s) of Southeastern Geographer has already been disseminated with the anticipation that the new editorial team will start their responsibilities in the summer of 2023. The journal, which had its first issue published in 1961, has served as an outlet for scholarly research from early- through late-career scientists focusing on geographical studies of the American South. The journal’s principal foci have been twofold: 1) to help develop potentially interesting research to make it publishable, timely, and relevant to a broad audience; and 2) to serve as a medium that promotes and documents the activities of SEDAAG (https://sedaag.org/) members. Included in this issue is a compilation of ten essays from former colleagues and friends that recognize the scholarly work, mentoring, and kindness of the late Dr. Bobby Wilson. In reading through the essays, a great appreciation of Dr. Wilson’s contributions emerges, and it is wonderful that the journal can serve as a forum to publish these essays. This issue also includes a cover image of Atlanta and an accompanying essay about the city by Eric Spears and Jordan Brasher of Columbus State University as background information for the upcoming SEDAAG meeting that will be held in Atlanta on November 19–22, 2022. Finally, each year the Fall issue of Southeastern Geographer includes recognition of SEDAAG members for outstanding service and scholarship contributions in a summary of the previous Annual Meeting activities. We hope that the incoming editorial team will continue the traditions of Southeastern Geographer. In addition to the Forum honoring the late Dr. Bobby Wilson, issue 62.3 includes three articles, summarized below, and two book reviews. We are grateful for the contributions made by these authors and the constructively critical comments offered by the reviewers that improved these high-quality papers. As always, please consider submitting your work to Southeastern Geographer as we are committed to facilitating a thorough review process conducted in a timely manner. Based on Mississippi being one of the hardest-hit states with respect to COVID-19, Ali et al. utilized the CDC’s social vulnerability index (CDC SVI), geographic information systems (GIS), and linear regression to examine the spatial pattern of COVID-19 and its association with social determinants of health. Unlike many other studies that use the CDC SVI, Ali et al. focus on the local scale rather than the national scale, specifically by investigating COVID-19 incidence and mortality at Mississippi’s county scale. The CDC SVI offers a relative vulnerability ranking based on four subthemes. The researchers did [End Page 174] observe a spatial association between the CDC SVI and COVID-19-related health outcomes. In particular, there was a statistically significant association between the SVI and cumulative mortality, while the SVI subtheme household composition and disability predicted higher incidence. Their overall findings help illustrate the dynamic nature of pandemics and how vulnerability may change over spatiotemporal scales. Higgins and Engle examine the Appalachian Just Transition and analyze two community food initiatives within the context of the Just Transition: a community-based gardening program and a produce prescription program (PPP). They investigate whether these programs maintain existing unjust systems or strive for a more equitable, sustainable future. They employ compassionate scholarship, propose the use of an evaluative approach, and make recommendations based on their findings. Overall, the programs did strive to address the lack of access to fresh and healthy food in their communities but were limited by systemic constraints which hindered their ability to make lasting changes. Smith and Blizard quantitatively examine the relationship between municipal incorporation and Black-White segregation in the southern United States between 1990 and 2010. They utilize the U.S. Census Bureau’s definition of the South and employ two modeling techniques: difference regression and spatial lag first difference regression. They found high levels of municipal incorporation in counties within Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Alabama and increasing levels of Black-White segregation in several states...

mark the 10th anniversary of Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine (CEEM), we take a moment to reflect on our journey, achievements, and the remarkable contributions of our global community. Launched in September 2014, CEEM began with a mission to disseminate high-quality research and to advance the field of emergency medicine, both in the clinical and the experimental area. Today, we celebrate not only our growth in impact but also the commitment of our contributors and readers to improving patient care worldwide. Over the past decade, CEEM has witnessed a phenomenal impact factor increase from 0.28 in 2016 to an impressive 1.9 in 2023. This remarkable progress is a testament to the dedication and hard work of our editorial team, peer reviewers, the Korean Society of Emergency Medicine, and especially our contributing authors. We are honored to have become a recognized platform in the realm of emergency medicine, nominated as an Emerging Science Citation Index (ESCI) journal by Clarivate and proudly positioned in the upper 50% of emergency medicine journals globally. In addition to our standing in the ESCI, our success is also reflected in our Scopus Scientific Journal Ranking (SJR), where CEEM is honored to be ranked 38 out of 110 emergency medicine journals worldwide. With over 500 published articles, including 300 original research articles, our journal has emerged as a vital resource for the dissemination of innovative findings and evidence-based practices in emergency medicine. The contributions have come from an incredibly diverse group of authors, spanning more than 20 countries across North America, Europe, Asia, Oceania, and Africa, truly making CEEM a global journal reflecting a wide array of experiences and knowledge practices. This anniversary is not only a moment of celebration but also an opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to the field of emergency medicine. As we embark on the next decade, we will continue to strive for excellence, fostering collaboration among researchers, clinicians, and practitioners to ensure the rapid dissemination of vital information that can lead to improved outcomes in emergency care. We are excited about the future of CEEM and are committed to continuing our role as a leading journal, advocating for the sharing of knowledge, and supporting innovative research. We invite all members of the emergency medicine community to contribute to this journey, whether through submitting original research, engaging in our peer review processes, or simply sharing our work within your networks. We really appreciate you for being a part of CEEM's 10-year journey. Together, let us continue

As we embark on a new year, it seems appropriate to pause and assess how the journal Particle & Particle Systems Characterization (hereafter referred to as Particle) has grown since its launch as a multidisciplinary, materials-science-focused journal at the start of 2013. From the outset, we intended to cover a broad spectrum of topics in the journal, ranging from the synthesis and characterization of particles to the application of these particles in areas such as biomedicine, catalysis, environmental science, micro/nano-electromechanical applications, micro/nano-fluidics, molecular electronics, photonics, sensing, and other areas. A quick look at the word cloud (Figure 1) generated from the keywords of all articles published in 2013 and 2014 shows that we are accomplishing our initial aim of producing a multidisciplinary journal that serves various communities. Naturally, after two years of submissions to the journal we were curious to see the origin of the manuscripts that we publish. In Figure 2, we present an overview of publications per region. While citations to published papers are by no means the only measure to assess the impact of work, they can provide some indication as to the importance and urgency of the results presented in a particular field of research—assuming that authors cite work that is of high relevance to their own ongoing research endeavours. At this point, it is worth reminding readers that in order for the references to Particle to be correctly recorded (for example, in CrossRef, Pubmed, or ISI Web of Knowledge), the correct Chemical Abstracts Service Source Index (CASSI) abbreviation—Part. Part. Syst. Charact.—must be used for citations. Deviations of this standard abbreviation result in incorrect bibliographic information, making it more difficult for our readers/your fellow researchers to discover your published work. Table 1 provides a list of the highest cited articles published in 2013. We are pleased with the range of topics presented, which, judging by the level of manuscript submissions to the journal and the positive feedback we receive when talking to researchers, appeals to the journal's broad readership. In the relatively short history of Particle, we have benefited greatly from the support of our Editorial Advisory Board and Executive Board members and the broader academic community. Through a number of collaborations, we have to date published three special issues (Figure 3) on Remotely Controlled Colloids, Interfaces, and Biosystems (guest editors: Gleb Sukhorukov, Igor Luzinov, and Sergiy Minko), The Basque Country regional special issue (guest editor: Luis M. Liz-Marzán), and Particles for Healthcare Applications (guest editors: Bin Liu, Xiaohu Gao, and Lanry Lin Yue Yung). One milestone of note for Particle and one of its sister journals, Advanced Optical Materials (also published first issue in Jan. 2013) was the attainment of the journal's first immediacy index, which was announced in July 2014. The immediacy index for Particle is 0.805 and that for Advanced Optical Materials is 0.867. The Immediacy Index—calculated each year by Thomson Reuters ISI—is the average number of times an article is cited in the year it is published. It indicates the topicality and urgency of work published in a scientific journal. These are excellent results that reflect the high-quality of work published in the first year of both journals. Particle and Advanced Optical Materials will obtain their first partial impact factors in June 2015. Other journals in the Advanced Materials journal family are shown in Figure 4. Our newest additions, Advanced Science and Advanced Electronic Materials, are now open for submissions. A concise overview of all the journals in the Advanced Materials family (such as journal scope, editorial board members, editorial contact details, keywords, and sample published articles) can be found here: http://www.wiley-vch.de/journals/booklets/AMjournalfamily/. In conclusion, we would like most sincerely to thank: our editorial advisory board and executive board members to whom we are indebted for their continued support; our ever-expanding database of referees, who give their time to provide their expert opinion on work, enabling us to publish manuscripts of the highest standard; and last but by no means least to our authors, who entrust their best work to our journal. The editorial team is looking forward to a continued collaboration as the journal grows in the coming years. To be alerted of articles as soon as they are published, you can follow the Early View section on our Wiley Online Library homepage (www.particle-journal.com) and/or follow us on Twitter.

Impact factors and relevance of research outputs: one step forward, two back?

The current study explores whether theorized risk factors in Western countries can be used to predict school violence perpetration in an Asian cultural context. The study examines the associations between risk factors and school violence perpetration in Taiwan. Data were obtained from a nationally representative sample of 14,022 students from elementary to high school (Grades 4 to 12) across Taiwan. The analysis reported in this study focuses on only junior high school students (Grades 7 to 9, N = 3,058). The results of a regression analysis show that gender, age, direct victimization, witness victimization, alcohol use, smoking, anger traits, lack of impulse control, attitudes toward violence, poor quality of student-teacher relationships, and involvement with at-risk peers were significantly associated with school violence in Taiwan. The overall results suggest strong similarities in risk factors found in the West and school violence in Taiwan. They therefore point toward using similar strategies developed in the West to enhance students' positive experiences in their personal, family, and school lives to decrease school violence.

The concept of mind and consciousness has been central to both classical yogic philosophy and contemporary psychological science. The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali presents a systematic psychological framework centered around citta (mind-stuff), its modifications (vrittis), and the attainment of higher states of consciousness through disciplined practice. Modern psychology, particularly cognitive psychology, similarly investigates mental processes, cognition, behavior regulation, and altered states of consciousness. This paper thematically explores conceptual parallels between Patanjali’s model of citta and contemporary psychological constructs of mind and consciousness. By analyzing key themes: nature of mind, cognitive fluctuations, self-construction, emotional regulation, and transformation of consciousness, this study demonstrates that classical yoga philosophy offers a systematic psychological model that resonates with modern theoretical and empirical frameworks. The comparison highlights yoga’s relevance not merely as a spiritual discipline but as a profound psychological science.