Alexander Shagaev’s notes, concerned with the article “Science without

denominations”, published at the 5-th number of Russian journal

“Chemistry and Life” (2005, pp. 6-10).

Answers and notes, concerned with comments of professor, chief of the organic catalysis

laboratory (Chemical Department of Moscow State University), editor-in-chief of “Journal

of the Russian Chemical Society called by the name of D.I.Mendeleev”

Georgiy Vasilevich Lisichkin:

1) I’d like to express my thanks to Georgiy Vasilevich for his understanding of importance of discussed problem.

2) I can’t agree with Georgiy Vasilevich when he evaluate the reasons of big time delay (between submission and publication). His answer is easy expected for me (on the basis of Russian nature of this scientist). He made the main accent to the small financial resources (for the payment for editorial preparation for publication, polygraphic works, additional staff: editors, typesetters, makers-up, adjustors, reviewers). He indicated, also, on the small value of the journal and small journal numbers publishing during 1 year. Undoubtedly the serious problem is absence of state or any other financing. I have a serious reasons to think that your polygraphic workers have additional earnings, because they perform the orders of exterior organizations. There isn’t any wrong in this situation. The present time is hard and all try live as they can. However, I think that online functioning (that need small financial resources) of your journal will allow your journal to make much bigger volume of work (with minimum inputs on the equipment and additional staff – reviewers number can be decreased to 0). The increase of number of submitted papers, more democratic, open system of evaluation of their quality by means of people with particular speciality (your readers) will allow you greatly increase the number of accepted papers (and your circulation) and selling (on the basis your readers orders) collections of corresponding top papers will allow you to solve your financial problems. I’d like to repeat very important note:

the time delay (between submission and publication) in our (or any other journal, where usual review system is used) don’t change essentially even when such journal will has excellent financing. This time delay is inalienable feature of the present system based on the review process. This time delay will died only after introduction (in practice) of our system.

3) your point of view (that points of view of your journal readers is immaterial) not stand up to criticism, because your readers aren’t simple people from the street (simple people don’t people don’t need your journal, they don’t read it and will not read it in future). Your readers are professionally qualified specialists which work in chemistry during a long time. Their points of view (on the basis of quality) aren’t smaller then point of view of your separated reviewers (which were selected from your journal readers/authors). The total (effective) professional level, concernment and total time (used for the study of published papers) of your readers is incommensurably bigger with the comparison of the similar characteristics of your separated (even high level, but in only one field) reviewers. Your statement about complete incompetence of your readers (“However, one can confidently assert that the quality of electronic journals will be formed by the level of its reviewers (by specialists, exactly, but not by the voting of readers as offering the project authors). The truth isn’t determined by a majority vote.”) is, to put it mildly, tactless.

There is only one step from your statement to the attempt to create separated caste if “super scientists/ super people”, so called “elite”, in the science. This “elite” impose its will (as unconditional truth) on all scientific community. The human history know much number (tragic on the consequences for simple people) treatment to form such castes/nations of “super people”. At the science the attempts of representatives of opposite (to “elite”) points of view to publish their results is blockaded and their attempts just simply wittingly concealed/hided. The “generally accepted” rule of reviewers anonymity absolutely approach to these actions of so called “elite” (see bellow).

4) about anonymity problem. This problem isn’t farfetched. It is very actual. At all time the attitude to anonymous authors was only one – scorn. We don’t say, here, about juridical cases when anonymous witness giving evidence is jeopardized and his/her life is defended by the corresponding lows. In our case, only a person which isn’t sure in his/her knowledge will hide his/her real name. The actions of such “reviewers” are such that the author of the rejected papers can’t to call in question such anonymous “specialists” very often, because editors defend their reviewers in most of such cases. You (Georgiy Vasilevich) absolutely concealing the fact that journals readers just don’t inform about rejected papers and about the reasons of such decisions of editors and reviewers. We don’t sure that all such actions can find support from the journal readers. Such actions of editors and reviewers can be evaluated is absolute disregard of the journals readers and authors. At the case of our system the reaction of any author of the rejected paper will be more easy-tempered, because his/her paper was shown to all colleagues and next generation can read and understand it even it located at the folder “Rejected papers”. Now, when author has not possibility to send his/her paper to some number of journals (at the same time) and due to the present review time the author can died before publication of his/her paper, especially if his/her paper will be consecutively rejected in number of journals (where, sometime, selfsame reviewer “star” works). I’d like to make additional and very important note, also: “who said that author of the rejected paper must look for another journal to publish his/her paper???!!! In the accordance with normal human logic, but not time-server (which look for any journal where he/she can publish his/her paper) logic editors and reviewers rejecting good papers must look for another job!!! Our proposals increase the possibility such events, because it set them outside the law!!!”.

5) It is pleasant that idea of discussion forums is met with understanding. However, I can’t agree with the view that “We must don’t do any organizational conclusions from these discussions, but just to take them into consideration.”. It was mentioned in our proposals, that author send to such forums his/her paper, that he/she wrote maybe during for a long time. So, simply “to take it into consideration” without taking it into account as scientific paper (if it is approved by forum members) is simply shameless action. Any scientist which is respecting himself/herself don’t send his/her paper to such “forum”. Unfortunately, our “scientific elite” (HCC and dissertational councils) refusing to consider Internet scientific publications of all (without exception) foreign scientific centers, and Internet scientific publications of independent scientists (independently of their scientific level). Such actions can be evaluated as very stupid conservatism and the wish to control all and everything. Such “scientific” organizations and their leaders are infamy of the Russian science!!! In the accordance with the aforesaid text, your (Georgiy Vasilevich) words “First of all our universities don’t describe the publications at electronic journals as scientific paper that can be used as links at dissertation or other paper. They scarcely agree that “they must describe” such papers as scientific papers. Who force them to do it?” illustrated your unbelief in the possibility of the changes. Russia have not any chance to create a new modern science if all will be think like you. We understand that it is very difficult to break old, conservative system of publications and evaluating of scientific papers, but it is necessary to do something in this direction. It is the aim of our project.

6) now about your note “Secondly, the time of the life of the printing journal version is bigger in comparison with the time of life of the corresponding electronic journal version. I am not sure that electronic versions of scientific journals (in Internet) can have enough time of life. It maybe this situation will change in future.”. I’d like to send you to our project proposals. Unfortunately, our discussion, in this case, maybe similar to well known discussion of old Russian academicians about the possibility to make a personal PC. This discussion took place when such PC were created at the West.

7) now about accessibility of journals. I feel disappointing perplexity every time when I visit the site of the Russian electronic library. There are lot full text electronic versions of foreign scientific journals here and zero number of corresponding Russian journals. This situation is simply shameful.

The answers to notes of two unknown medicine professors (which have well known name in medicine).

1) it is very funnily, that these dear sirs (with well known name in medicine) didn’t inform us about their names. I am sorry, but I feel some similarity to the present system of anonymity of reviewers. Why it is so frightful to call his/her own name???

2) I am not surprised at the views of dear sirs about review process. However, I will not repeat my view, concerned with this theme. It is shown in the previous text.

3) it is pleasant fact that “…idea of parallel publication of papers (in electronic journals) isn’t insensible.”. However, there aren’t any words about necessity to consider (as scientific papers) other good scientific papers published in Internet.

The comments to the notes of editor board of the journal “Chemistry and Life”

1) it is pleasant fact that idea, concerned with the folder “Rejected papers” was supported by the journal.

2) I can’t agree with the journal editors view, concerned with the review process. I will not repeat my notes – they were shown in the previous text.

3) unfortunately, editors of “Chemistry and Life” visit our project site not very often. It isn’t my reproach to them. I understand that they are very busy people. However, our site information is changed very often. So, I’d like to recommend for all to visit our project site and to read information about the history of previous initiatives. We don’t think that we give you absolutely full information (it maybe we loss some moments), but we tried do search it as good as we can. We think, that this information will be interesting and it have some differences from information located at the “Chemistry and Life”.

4) at the finish we’d like to make the following resume: - “The electronic science is accessible NOT for all. Unfortunately, online Internet scientific papers don’t considered yet as scientific papers by the representatives of conservative present system (in Russia also). The main fight in this direction just begun, but its result is predetermined - conservative present system is doomed to defeat. The question consists at the time that is need for it. We call all sane representatives of scientific community assist to the introduction of new, progressive and democratic system so that you will not be ashamed (in front of your offsprings) of your passive support of conservative, corrupt system inhibitory the progress of science and all human society!!!”