Article in PDF
How to Cite
Citation Manager
Readers' Comments (0)
Audio Visual Article Statistics
Link
to PUBMED
Print this Article
Send to a Friend
Advertisers
Access Statistics Resources
Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."
Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011
Dr. Shankar P.R.
"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."
Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011 Anuradha
Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.
Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020
Original article / research
Full Version
A study of finger prints – bilateral asymmetry and sex difference in the region of Andhra Pradesh
Correspondence Address :
Muralidhar Reddy Sangam MD,
Assistant Professor of Anatomy,
NRI Medical College, Chinakakani, Guntur district,
Andhra Pradesh, India. PIN – 522 503,
Phone: 08645 – 236 777, Fax: 234577, 237404.
Mobile No: 9440668501
E-mail murali_sangam@yahoo.co.in
Introduction: Fingerprints are considered to be the most reliable criteria for personal identification. The present study was undertaken to observe the distribution of finger print pattern in males and females, and to observe the bilateral asymmetry in the region of Andhra Pradesh.
Material and methods: The study was carried out in 506 individuals in NRI medical college, Chinakakani, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. In the study 268 were males and 238 were females.Finger prints are collected by Cummins ink method, then studied and analyzed statistically.
Results: Whorls were of high frequency on thumb, index and ring fingers in males. But females presented high frequency of loops on all fingers expect ring finger. There is a significant bimanual difference. Whorls are more common in right hands. Arches and radial loops are more on left index finger.
Conclusion: Such studies may be useful particularly in Forensic Medicine.
Finger prints, Sex difference, Bimanual difference
Dermatoglyphics is the study of the pattern of the fine ridges on the fingers, palms and the soles. The term ‘dermatoglyphics’ was coined by Cummins. The type of finger print is unique and it is based on the genetic characteristics of each individual. They form the most reliable criteria for personal identification. Bilateral asymmetry is one of the least understood aspects of the dermal ridge patterns. The measure of asymmetry which has mainly been used in population and genetic studies is the right and left difference in the total finger ridge count. Holt (1) described that the ridge count on the right hand was higher than that on the left. Acree (2) conducted a study to determine whether gender had an impact on the finger ridge density. Bosco (3) described that sex chromosomes influenced the size of the cells, which in turn could affect the ridge counts. Karlik (4) showed that males had a higher ridge count and breadth than females, which was associated with a higher right ward directional asymmetry in the ridge counts.
The present study was taken up to study the pattern and the intensity of finger prints and the influence of sex and handed ness in the region of Andhra Pradesh, as there was no available literature in this aspect.
This study was carried out in the Department of Anatomy, NRI Medical college, Chinakakani, Guntur district, Andhra Pradesh, in 506 individuals, out of which 268 (53%) were males and 238 (47%) were females. The duration of the study was from 2009 to 2011 (2 years). The male: female ratio was 1.12:1. Fingerprints are collected after washing the hands with soap water and drying. The Cummins ink method was used. Printers ink was uniformly spread on a plain glass slab and prints were taken. Later, the fingerprints were studied with the help of a hand lens. The pattern of the fingerprint and the ridge count were studied. The results were analyzed statistically.
Observati ons The general distribution of the finger print pattern was of the order that loops were the most common pattern (56.3%), followed by whorls (39.5%) and arches (4.2%) respectively. The results of the study have been tabulated.
The general distribution of the finger print pattern was of the order that loops were the most common pattern (56.3%), followedby whorls (39.5%) and arches (4.2%) respectively (Table/Fig 8), (Table/Fig 9)(Table/Fig 10). This observation was similar to that of Nitin et al (5), who stated that the most frequent pattern was the ulnar loop, in the total population.
On every digit, except on ring finger, ulnar loops were the most abundant pattern, their frequency ranging downwards from 72.5% on the little finger, 66.2% on the middle finger, 50.6% on the thumb, 41.6% on the index finger and 40.2% on the ring finger. Whorls were more numerous on the ring finger (56.4%), followed by the thumb (46.2%) and the index finger (41.8%). The middle and the little fingers presented a sharp reduction in the frequency of the whorls (27.6% and 25.4% respectively). Arches were abundant on the index (9.8%) finger, followed by the middle (4.7%) finger, the thumb (2.6%) and the ring (2.5%) and the little (1.7%) fingers. Radial loops were abundant on the index (6.8%) finger, followed by the middle (1.5%) and the little (0.9%) fingers. The thumb (0.6%) and the little (0.4%) finger showed the least frequency of the radial loops (Table/Fig 1).
There was a significant bimanual difference; whorls were slightly more common on the right hands. Radial loops and arches were more frequent on the left index finger than on the right one. Arches were more frequent on the left middle finger than on the right one (Table/Fig 1).
But there was a significant difference in the frequency of the patterns in males and females. In the present study, loops were higher in females (60.5%) than in the males (52.3%). A similar observation was made by GG Reddy (6). In the present study, whorls were highly frequent in males (44%) than in females (34.3%) and arches were highly frequent in females (5.5%) than in males (3.7%). Whorls were highly frequent on the thumb and the index and ring fingers respectively and they were least on the middle and little fingers where the frequency of the loops was high. In contrast to this, females presented a high frequency of loops on all the digits except on the ring finger. Arches were highly frequent in females than in males on all the digits except on the right ring finger.
A bimanual difference in the distribution of the arches was significant in both sexes, where females presented a high frequency of arches on the right hands, except on the ring finger. In contrast to this, males presented a high frequency of arches on the left hands except on the ring finger. The radial loop frequency was more in females than in males (Table/Fig 2)(Table/Fig 3).
According to Dankmeijer (7), the index of the arch/ whorls appeared to be more significant in the comparative stastistics. In the present study, the pattern type index was 14.19 in females and 8.47 in males. The value of the pattern intensity may be stated either as the number of triradii per individual (8) or as the average number of triradii per finger (9). The pattern intensity index in the present study was 12.94 per individual and 1.294 per digit in females; 14.02 per individual and 1.402 per digit in males. This observation was similar to the findings of GG Reddy (6) who reported the pattern intensity index in males as 14.17 and as 12.84 in females.
The ridge count consisted of the number of ridges which cut or touched a straight line which ran from the triradius to the core or the centre of the pattern. TFRC – Total finger ridge count was the count of the number of ridges from the triradius to the core pattern and was counted for all the digits of both the hands. Since the whorl has two triradii, the maximum number of ridges from one of the two triradii to the core was counted. AFRC – Absolute finger ridge count was the counting of all the ridges of all the digits ofboth the hands from all the triradii to the core. Since the whorl has two triradii, the number of ridges from both the triradii to the core was counted. Absolute and total finger ridge counts were more in males than in females. (Table/Fig 4)(Table/Fig 5) Ridge counts were more in males than in females. (Table/Fig 6) (Table/Fig 7) A similar observation was made by Richard Green et al (10) and Kunter et al (11). In both the sexes, ridge counts were more on the right hands than on the left hands. High ridge counts were observed on the thumb and the middle fingers of both the sexes. The ridge count was least on the index fingers of both the sexes, as the frequency of the arches was elevated.
The present study revealed that there were significant sex and bimanual differences in the distribution of the finger print pattern. So, such studies may be of great value in forensic medicine, but the influence of regional variations and genetic factors should not be overlooked.
- Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
- Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
- Academic Search Complete Database
- Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
- Embase
- EBSCOhost
- Google Scholar
- HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
- Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
- Journal seek Database
- Popline (reproductive health literature)
- www.omnimedicalsearch.com