УI donТt agree with
your points, but I am ready give up my life to your
right to say about themФ
Voltaire
Уif Isaac
Newton had submitted his theory of gravitation these days, his work would be
rejected for peer-review publicationФ
John Maddox,
previous editor-in-chief of the УNatureФ
The current system of evaluation and publication of scientific papers
becomes old cardinally and does not correspond to the requirement of the modern
time.
One can state the following negative features of the system:
1) Very
big temporal delay (from 3 months to 1 year for instance) between the
submission of the paper and its publication. This standard delay can be even of
two years for some scientific journals (e.g. some journals of the
2)
A
limited number of persons (always with a limited knowledge) take the final
decision about the publication or rejecting of a paper. The publication of the
rejected paper can be delayed during a long period of time (and even forever),
if we take into account the limited number of strictly specialized journals and
authorТs patience;
3)
Well-known
problems with the peer review process of maintaining УqualityФ in scientific
literature. Quality is a subjective concept. Moreover, new ideas, orаа ideas that conflict with the mind-set and
set-mind of the reviewer have always faced difficulty. According to Campanario, at least 18 of the papers that next have been
identified between the most cited of the history of science (Science Citation
Index) were initially rejected by the editors and referees of scientific
journals. Practically all Nobel laureates have seen rejected their initial
papers by conservative mind reviewers. Today is much more difficult to publish aа revolutionary
scientific paper in a high-quality journal that 50 years ago. John Horgan (scientific writer) has claimed that the lack of
revolutionary ideas on science may be a symptom of that science has finished.
He just forgets the current unpleasant political environment of scientific
publication;
4)
Very
small number of discussions in the journals;
5)
Young
scientists, with little established track record, find it hard to place printed
papers in the УtopФ tier journals.
6)
Very
limited access to some journals due to their prohibitive prices. The student
rate for the single ACS biochemistry journal is over $350. Note: The rate does
not include the affiliation student rate and is higher for students residing
outside of
7)
High
publication rates for some journals. E.g. $100 per article
plus $100 per journal page. Typically chemical theoretical papers are
around 10-15 pages;
8)
The
High scientific organizations (e.g. High Certifying Commission in
9)
Absolute
anonymity of reviewers. One can consider this rule as normal. The following
natural questions can arise, nevertheless:
- what
is the reason of such reviewers fear if his point so highly rated by scientific
community and journal editor board? It maybe they are afraid of the revenge of
author of rejected paper? We have another, more believable answer to these
questions:
УThe reviewers and editor
board are afraid of possible publicity of their incompetence in some
questions.Ф
The following facts can be
considered as the confirmation of the aforesaid assumption:
УThe readers of any scientific
journal arenТt informed about any rejected papers, submitted to the journal.
They arenТt informed, also, about the reasons of the rejection of any rejected
paper. The editor board of the journal and its reviewers must to explain their
decisions to other scientists, otherwise. We donТt sure that they will get
corresponding approval in all such cases. Such facts are just concealed from
the journal readers, now. The possible points of other scientists are donТt taken into account in these cases.Ф
We canТt say that that described questions werenТt arosed
before (some history
examples of the problem). However, the recent application of modern information
technologies improves little to the current unpleasant system of evaluation and
publication of scientific papers. Deep-rooted and express monopolies of
separated scientific directions groups are the result of this situation. The
representation of others (alternative) points of view cannot publish their
results, because their points of view are not coincident with the УcommonФ
(often incorrect) point of view in the corresponding scientific field.
This situation is intolerable, because it prevents scientific progress.
Seven months ago, after of a 7-month investigation, the House of Commons
Science and Technology (UK) concluded that, Уthe current system is not
providing the access needed for the progress of science.Ф.
This situation is intolerable, because becomes the nutrient medium
for different illustrations ofа УcorruptionФ (e.g. contractual defense
of scientific degrees, squandering of financial resources, premeditated
rejection of papers agreeing with alternative points of reviewer owns). This
situation is taking place in all fields of science. It is the reason of small
effectiveness of the scientific workа and is the reason why governmentsа (and some part of people) slighting attitude
to scientific manpower in some countries (
This situation is the reason of the leaving science by young and active
scientific workers, specially in those fields where
there just one standard point of view that is hard controlled by a number of
УleadingФ scientists.
This situation is the reason of depression of science on the last
decades. The jeremiads of leaders of scientific organizations (in such
countries like
We would like to offer the following our list of arrangements for
the improving of the current situation of modern science:
|
╣ |
Juan
proposalsа ( |
Alexander
Shagaev proposals ( |
|
1 |
Every highly tailored
scientific journal must have different free and public subject discussion
forums, located at its Internet Web site. An author (registered by means of
his/her real name, scientific degree, job place) can
use journal site for the submission of his/her papers. Discussion may be
focused on the submitted/published papers but, of course, reference to
external material is permitted. The journal site must have public archives,
containing all submitted papers located at every discussion forum. The
storage time of submitted papers in the archive may be unlimited. Unlimited
storage time is provided by the sending off submitted papers to the united
database of Academies of Sciences and corresponding Scientific Societies. The
data will be saved if journal will be closed or its discussion forum will be
attacked by the computer virus attack. This archive will decrease, at least
partly, plagiarism and redundancy (unfortunately, the submission of similar
results in different journals is an usual technique
for obtaining more elevated УrankingsФ and C.V.) in scientific community.
These papers may be the basis of the human knowledge for the next
generations. Next generations can understand the author even if his
generation does not understand him. His/her scientific results will be not
lost. The journal site contain, also, the archive УRejected PapersФ, containing
papers rejected during discussions at the forums.; |
|
|
Private publications or
publications with small capabilities could use external forums or blogs for scientific discussion; |
. The author selects
available discussion forum (corresponding to the theme of his/her submitted
paper) or creates a new forum, if necessary forum is absent. The site
interface guarantee the notification of site users about any new papers and
its (paper) discussion forum; |
|
|
2 |
Minimal review process is required for favoring an adequate
development of science. The problem of current peer-review process is the
current specific УpeerФ procedure instead of the revision concept itself. My
own experience on journals and Internet forums and blogs
suggests a minimal review splitting on inadequate and adequate papers (some
details); |
The papers will be published (at the discussion
forum) just after submission (please, compare this time with the present publication
time). The author is responsible for both his submitted results and their
representation form (orthographic, syntactic, stylistic errors). All
submitted papers must be published without any initial review. All forum
members (specialists in the scientific field and all interested scientists)
will be reviewers later. The author of the paper has a chance to correct
errors that were revealed during the discussion. Such rule (the possibility
to correct errors) must be unconditionally accepted by all scientific
community. Only such scientist that donТt do
anything donТt make errors. Now, erroneous published results are the reasons
of the deep stress for honest scientists, but other dishonest scientists can
do anything to hide their published errors. The solution of this problem
helps to any honest scientist to find a way out of this painful situation
with dignity. Any submitted paper can be saved (at the list of accepted
papers) or transferred to the archive УRejected PapersФ (on the basis of the
decision of most forum members) after some time (the duration of the time
must be discussed).а The journal
readers must be informed about any rejected paper and the reasons of its
rejection. Any reader of the journal can read such rejected paper and make
his/her own conclusion about the paper. It can help reveal errors in the
paper evaluation in some cases. Preliminary (even minimum) review of the
submitted papers (by means of editor or editorial board of the journal) is
absolutely senseless, because this process is inferior to the forum members
actions in the respect of efficiency and competence; |
|
3 |
Any person with a scientific or mathematical degree can comment and
reply the results of a journal paper. Inadequate papers are those violating
the most basic aspects of science: scientific
method, basic mathematics and scientific concepts, well-known experimental
data, etc. Even an undergraduate student can recognize inadequate papers on
the discipline (example). The rest of papers are accepted. Accepted papers can
be wrong or correct, but it will be necessary further analysis by
specialists. Next, I focus on electronic journals. Future research can
demonstrate that current or previous accepted papers would be eliminated of
the electronic journal. In the current journals policy, the wrong papers
remain on the literature forever; |
Any person which have
sufficient knowledge in the corresponding field of science can comment and
reply the results of a journal paper. The members of the
discussion forum takes a decision about the scientific meaning of a
submitted paper based on public discussion (or rating system). Future
research can demonstrate that current or previous accepted papers must be
transferred to the archive УRejected PapersФ (the reasons of such decision must
be indicated) or transferred from the archive УRejected PapersФ to list of
accepted papers; |
|
Review process is
continuous, during all life of the journals. If there is scientific consensus
on that a published article is wrong and its author also agree, then the
article would be corrected by the own author or eliminated of the electronic
journal. Further discussion on different proposals is necessary still.; |
||
|
4 |
The results of these discussions
(taking place in any discussion forum in any country) must be taken into
account by all dissertation councils and certifying commissions; |
|
|
5 |
The papers approved by the
discussion forum and papers that are kindly cited in other authors papers (in
Internet also) must be considered as scientific publications. These papers
can be used for the defense of scientific degrees and research programs and
can be included in the C.V. of the authors in the same footing that others
УtraditionalФ scientific publications; |
|
|
6 |
|
Unclassified dissertations
materials must be sited at the journalsТ (scientific organizations) sites for
public discussion on the discussion forums by all scientists interested in
them. The scientific results of these discussions must be taken into account
during the defense of dissertations, other scientific degrees, and research
programs. This action will decrease the possibility of corrupt contractual
defenses; |
|
7 |
|
The editorial board of the
scientific journals provides free support (coordinated with the authors) for
editing (orthographic, syntactic, stylistic) of best papers submitted at the
discussion forums. These papers will be published in these journals. Thus,
only best papers will be published in any scientific journal. |
|
8 |
|
Academies of Sciences of different countries and strictly
specialized scientific communities (with help of interested scientific publishers)
can finance public and free publication and access of all scientific papers
in Internet. Capital inputs will be returned by means of the results of the
snapping-back in the efficiency of scientific work. Open access and free
publication at such sites will assist (to these scientific communities) in
afflux of new scientific ideas and to increase of scientific level these
communities members. The softening of membership demands (cancel of
membership fee) for authors of most interesting papers (submitted at the
sites of these communities) plus the possibility to defense scientific degree
(for aforesaid authors) will assist in afflux of new perspective scientists
in these communities. Big international organizations that are responsible
for education and science (UNESCO) can finance this program later. Close
cooperation of scientists (from other countries), development of standing and
update public scientific and technical databases will be assured. |
The proposed arrangements are not final. We
would like to take a vote for all scientific workers from different countries,
concerned with this theme. Collected notes and signatures will be send to editorial boards of all scientific journals and
academies of sciences on all countries.
Mankind is continuously confronted,
during all its life, with new threat for its being (natural disasters,
epidemics, destitution). All previous human experience shows that science
(based on the present, very sluggish, conservative and bribable system of
publication and estimation of quality of scientific papers) cannot on-the-fly
help to humanity in these tasks solving. This system is obstacle in social
progress. Thus, it must be reformed cardinally.
We ask you to take the initiative in this
situation, because we all need it. Thus, we try to change the old inadequate
system of publication and estimation of scientific papers. We want to make
scientific life more interesting, unite all scientists, to minimize negative
influence of scientific speculators. We hope that proposed arrangements allow
us to hasten publications of good scientific papers, their introduction, and
the scientific progress. We would like to ask you seriously to treat to this
vote. You can obtain a letter, containing questions, concerned with this vote.
We ask you to confirm your point of view and signature in these cases. Now we
plan to collect your points of view (concerned with this theme) and your wish
to take part in the vote (certified by your signature). We welcome any your
constructive notes and criticism, concerned with this project, but we would
like to ask you to inform us about your point of view, concerned with the
present system and our project. We will appreciate to you if you inform to your
colleagues about this project.
Dear colleagues weТd like to ask your help in
the solving of the following our problem:
Our project is international, because it
devoted to the solving of scientific problems for all countries. WeТd like to
make forums for the direct online discussion of different scientific problems.
Unfortunately, not all Russian scientists know English. So, weТd like to make 2
forums, now: Russian forum (for such Russian scientists who donТt know English)
and English forum (for other scientists). Unfortunately, I (Alexander Shagaev)
have not enough time for the continuous translation of different Russian
messages from Russian into English. I can, only ask Russian scientists to send
English versions of their messages to English forum. Russian forum is
functioning now, but English forum is not created yet. So, weТd like to ask you
to help us to make free, public English forum. Your help will be very much
appreciated.
We wait your
proposals and notes. WeТd like to ask you toа vote for the introduction of the new
system (on the page УTo Send Your Note
to UsФ).а We wait your support of our
project. The present reactionary bureaucratic system is drag on the
scientific and social progress. It donТt change by
itself. We can change it by means of our join efforts only.
Enterprising group.