As a foil to most of these parts, I'm going to inject my comments:
1) As per I know hobbyist are the one who does the things wholeheartedly with utmost meticulousness.
While there are some hobbyists who do, I think the vast majority don't. Not compared to scientific work, where if controls and standard procedures aren't implemented and followed, papers will not be accepted.
2) I prefer hobbyist because there wont be any time limits for them to finish up the work in a hurry where as it happens among scientific community resulting inferior quality papers with unrealistic/fake results. 
There are exceptions, I agree.
Whatever your issues with the scientific community here, I'm sorry, but I really don't think that hobbyists are the answer. In my experience as someone who has tried to present a scientific point of view to this forum for many years now, myths and antiscience still dominates. Much of the 'knowledge' is still largely based on anecdote and 'friend-of-a-friend' or 'read-on-the-Internet-one-time'. At least with a scientific paper, you have a little hope that it wasn't just anecdote. For most hobbyists, anecdote is all that is known. Look how many people still firmly believe that ich is in every tank, or that a fish kept in too small a tank will be bulging with overgrown organs.
This is not to say that papers haven't been published with poor results or poorly conducted experiments, but their quality scientifically is still greatly superior to most anything done by even the most dedicated hobbyist. For example, even the dedicated hobbyists don't typically repeat the data gathering and experiments to any kind of meaningful statistical significance.
Lastly, most papers that concern this hobby are written for the commercial fisheries industry -- and they is their primary goal. The aquarium hobby generates far less income than the commercial fisheries. So, that is what is studied, for the most part. There are also some biology and genetics research that use fish in their studies, but they aren't usually working for someone with a concern about the hobby industry.
3) Since, hobbyist has a sort of digging things to it's greater depths. but, I am not saying a researcher lacks it. Instead, he can only relay on scientific facts and figures and the can take insights from very limited number of people.
I don't understand what alternative you are trying to present here. How can one NOT 'rely on scientific facts and figures'? Again, are you going to rely on anecdote? Your conclusions from from facts and figures not acquired scientifically are surely going to be misleading at best, flat out wrong or dangerous at the worst. I almost hesitate to say it, but this is the kind of approach taken by someone trying to sell a 'miracle cream' or 'magic powder' that cures all diseases.
They implicate all of science because science got a few things wrong, and try to convince people that their unsupported ideas don't need to be supported to possibly be true.
I guess to cut to the chase here -- if you have so little faith in science, then propose a better mechanism and system that will do better. Science as a process and institution have evolved to do a pretty darn good job of separating the gold from the fools gold. It certainly isn't perfect. But, if you think of all the knowledge that mankind has accrued over the last 3000 or years, it is truly astounding how far we've come in such a short time. If you think that there is something better out there, then I'd be most interested to know what it is.
4) Right now what worked for Dr. Timothy Hovanec not necessarily work in the very same manner with me.
Sure. Science needs people to continuously challenge the status quo, in order to come up with the next revolution. But, you also need to fully understand the work Hovanec did, and not just dismiss it out of hand.
5) I think whatever research are being carried out are ending up it's life in scientific article as a high/low impact factor oriented journal is not a good sign. It has to reach to the target group who are in real need like this forum people.
If you are proposing setting up an aquarium hobby news service to read the papers, translate them into common language, and post the summaries here, then that is great. Otherwise, It won't matter if the papers are published in the lowest of low impact journals, or in
Science or
Nature (two of the highest imapact journals). The hobbyist won't read them. #1 The language of the papers necessarily is written in the language of scientists. Just like we have our own lingo in the hobby ('
LFS', 'cycling', etc.), scientist have their own language so that they don't have to write out in full detail every time. And, a person not trained in that branch of science is probably not going to be able to determine the lingo very well. #2 The average hobbyist, even if they did read the paper and somehow understand the words, probably won't understand the results and know how to apply them to the hobby anyway. Again, to understand science takes training -- and most of the time, summaries or translations into common language is a decent analogy, but rarely perfect. For example, a lot of the analogies about general relativity (like the bowling ball on the bed analogy of how matter distorts space-time) are incomplete at best. All analogies are. One does not really understand general relativity without studying it. And it would be the same for papers about the aquarium hobby.
And lastly, the average fish related paper is published in a low impact journal because there just isn't a lot of money in it, as above.
6) A researcher carries out his work till the end of his dissertation or till funding is being given for that allotted objectives whereas in case of hobbyist there is no end for his curiousness and even he believes in sharing the knowledge like this forum does.
A researcher 'believes in sharing the knowledge' by publishing papers. Again, if you are starting a clearing house to spread the results of these publications to hobbyist forums, more power to you.
EDITED TO ADD: I also want to address the 'till the end of his dissertation or till funding is being given' phrase here, and say that scientists are employees as well as scientists. Many of them started a career in science because they enjoy it, but it is still a career, too. They have to pay mortgages, rent, bills, etc. If funding is not available to do a project, even if they really want too, they probably need to be responsible to their families and do work that will actually pay the bills. It would be nice if research could be paid for just for its own sake, but in the real world, money to do the research is pretty necessary.
6) There are too many fishes dying in the hobby only because of lack of awareness regarding proper caring, handling, stress and transportation etc.
Sure, but that is what a forum like this is about. In the end, however, you have to acknowledge that fish forum members are only a tiny percentage of people who own fish. Far less than 1%, really. A forum is one way that helps spread information, but if your true goal is to get this knowledge to as many people as possible, you are going to need to come up with a new way besides a forum.
Good luck with this. I hope that you can do it, but to many people, their fish in their aquarium are just 'disposable' pets. They just don't care a huge amount. I hope that you can change this attitude, but I think that many have tried and not gained much traction.
b) Importantly, many people want an instant cure.
Once again, I just get a sense of seeking a 'miracle cure', which to me just sounds like someone trying to scan others. I am not saying that you are trying to scam people. But, there are already pretty instant cures out there today. Ones that shift the ammonia ammonium balance really quickly. Bottles with instant cycling in them. And, some of these work better than others.
But, if the desires expressed above are genuine about wanting to spread the knowledge to as many people as possible, then I don't think that an instant cure is compatible. Because having an instant cure means that people won't need to learn the proper knowledge and caretaking. Why would they need any more knowledge than the instant cure?
So, all in all, I think that there are some misconceptions or at least two fairly different points of view here. It may just be that trying to type things out over a forum are leading to these misconceptions. I do not see how anecdote from hobbyists can be any kind of replacement for a scientific method -- and in short, if you don't think that the scientists are studying the right things, then your work can change that. But, you will have to do it scientifically, with good controlled experiments and solid data gathering and analysis.
