You will be presented with the full text of a biomedical research paper. Please write an abstract for this paper. Your response should include the abstract and no additional text.

Paper text:
the new guidelines stipulate that publications in e - journals will not be considered for promotion .
this guideline is probably in response to the proliferation of predatory journals , almost exclusively among e - journals , over the past 5 years .
it is worrying that the largest number of authors and publishers seem to be from india .
while the mci 's corrective measure is laudable , the definition of  e - journals  is variable .
we assume that mci implies e - journals are those that do not have a print version .
this guideline would exclude many high - quality journals that are published only in the electronic format , for example , the plos group of journals , the biomed central journals , british journal of clinical pharmacology , and new zealand medical journal .
it might also exclude journals that publish papers in a longer e - version and a shorter print version ( bmj ) .
many believe that  paper journals  of niche specialties ( with limited circulation ) may soon cease to appear .
publishing is rapidly shifting to the electronic format and an explosive growth in e - journals is envisaged .
the main objective of this guideline appears to be to limit predatory publishing and to ensure quality .
this can be achieved by insisting on other criteria such as indexing because reputed indexes are unlikely to include predatory journals .
a more direct measure would probably be an assessment of each individual journal by peers . until such an evaluation is available ,
we agree with the mci 's requirement that the journal of publication be listed in a recognized database . however , we suggest that the list of databases provided in the mci 's order needs a re - look . for example , index copernicus was last updated in 2014 .
some journals listed on this index and their publishers appear on beall 's list of potentially predatory journals .
in fact , beall 's blog says ,  index copernicus has no value .  although the mci 's order lists medline and index medicus separately , these are actually one database . similarly , pubmed is not only a database but also a search engine that searches databases including medline and pubmed central .
more important is the omission of science citation index , an important database currently published by thomson reuters and of indmed , a database of indian medical journals , curated by the indian council of medical research .
we suggest the following list of acceptable databases : medline , pubmed central , science citation index , embase / excerpta medica , scopus , and indmed .
the mci guideline states that only  original research articles  and  original research papers  will be eligible for consideration .
the objective here appears to be to include papers with original data and exclude case reports and reviews or opinions .
however , this guideline is not precise because different journals classify original research variously under these two and some other sections , such as brief communications and short reports .
further , this clause discredits meta - analyses and systematic reviews that involve scientific interpretation of original data . instead of prescribing specific article - type labels
, the mci could suggest that the paper should report  original research data or its interpretation in a meta - analysis or systematic review . 
the guidelines implication that case reports , reviews , and opinion pieces should not carry any value remains debatable since these are an important part of scientific dialog .
the distinction between  national  and  international  journals is unclear . the inclusion of words such as  india  or 
similarly , the presence of words such as  international ,   global ,  or  world  in a journal 's name does not confer it with a higher quality .
national journals are in fact more likely to publish research that is relevant to the local population .
again , this discrimination by the mci appears to be a surrogate marker for quality .
since indexing has already been included as a criterion , the terms  national  and  international  have little value .
we also suggest that the criterion of society journals is removed as indexation covers the quality requirements .
the quality of a number of nonsociety journals ( for example , the lancet ) is widely recognized .
finally , the mci guideline of limiting credit to only the first two authors of a paper is too restrictive .
this guideline seems to be an attempt to weed out the malpractice of gift authorship .
again , the mci 's aim is laudable , but the implementation can result in greater harm .
the first name in a paper is generally associated with the person who did the maximum work and the last name being that of the supervising senior .
the mci guideline suggests that other names except the first two on the byline are those of  guests . 
the research scenario has moved towards collaborative and multidisciplinary projects conducted by large teams . to publish a paper in a high - quality journal ,
a researcher needs to look at a research problem from diverse aspects ( e.g. , clinical , laboratory , genetics , and immunology ) .
hence , good papers often have multiple authors with equal contribution , and all of them deserve equal credit .
the mci guideline may not only deny credit to all those who have contributed but also even encourage the practice of denying the first authorship and credit to junior researchers whose contribution is often the maximum .
experience of many medical editors shows that it is not uncommon to find the senior - most author as the first author ( even in case reports ) due to the premium placed on this position .
therefore , we suggest that this guideline should be removed , and all the authors of a paper should receive credit for it .
we appreciate the mci 's intention to give research its due recognition in academic institutions as well as for streamlining the process of promotion of teachers .
our suggestions to amend the existing guidelines , summarizes in box 2 , can help remove ambiguities in the new mci guidelines .
these could also serve as the starting point of a wider consultation on the evaluation of research performance of medical teachers in india .
note : this editorial is being published simultaneously in the indian heart journal , indian journal of anaesthesia , indian journal of gastroenterology , indian journal of medical ethics , indian journal of medical microbiology , indian journal of occupational and environmental medicine , indian journal of pathology and microbiology , indian journal of pharmacology , indian journal of physiology and pharmacology , indian journal of urology , indian pediatrics , international journal of health research & medicolegal practice , journal of anaesthesiology clinical pharmacology , journal of ayurveda and integrative medicine , journal of clinical and scientific research , journal of conservative dentistry , journal of family medicine and primary care , journal of indian academy of forensic medicine , journal of mahatma gandhi institute of medical sciences , journal of postgraduate medicine , national journal of integrated research in medicine , and the national medical journal of india . 
 it may also be published in forthcoming issues of other journals . 
 this editorial is not endorsed by all members of the indian association of medical journal editors ( iamje ) .