Abstract :
If we were given a questionnaire of “How do we measure a researcher as a true scientist? with optional answers like (a) Having a good number of publications, (b) having attending numerous conferences, (c) with a high popularity as always appeared in mass media, and (d) good international networking and good public relations. Options (c) and (d) always come later after option (a) has been achieved, while option (b) can be simply achieved or abstract be accepted for presentation in any conference. Hitherto, publishing in any peer-reviewed journals carry a certain quality since they are highly subjected to peer review evaluation before the paper can be accepted for publication in a journal. Needless to say, those constructive comments given by the reviewers are very crucial in shaping our scientific understanding in our subject area rather than rejection experience (Yap, 2009). Having said so, option (a) will definitely be the best answer. The fact is that option (a) should not be argued whatsoever as the best answer [since publications speaks louder than anything else] and options (a), (b) and (c) are supplementary criteria to option (a) but they are not as vital as option (a).
