Press F5 button to see a new version of the page

УI donТt agree with your points, but I am ready give up my life to your

right to say about themФ


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 Russian Academy of Medical Sciences). Once, a scientific paper appeared in 1957 in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, 25 years after it was initially submitted. Such situation is simply absurd at the informational age. Additional note (concerned with this theme) of one of the members (Alexander Shagaev, Russia) of the Enterprising group;

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 North America. Some scientists canТt become acquanted with such papers (published by their colleagues) duringа for a long time as a result of such mercenary actions. Scientific and total progress of all mankindа is very seriously hampered in course of such actions. There is not other name for these actions of УscientificФ publishers besides УcriminalФ;

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 Russia) refuse to consider the independent scientists papers, in Internet, (even published at the leading foreign scientific centers sites) as scientific papers. Thus, other scientists are forced to publish their papers in the journals (robbing readers/authors and hampering to the free papers publications and knowledge accessibility) controlled by these organizationТs bureaucrats, only. It is the way to thrust these bureaucrats opinion (fallacious very often) on all scientific community. Such Уscientific Ф bureaucratsа save their dominant positions (and their financial control) in the present time bureaucratic Уofficial scienceФ thanks to such methods. Thus, criminal actions of such bureaucratsа take place. Such УscientificФ organizations and their leaders are opprobrium for the scientific community of such countries.(some details).

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 (Russia). This situation is the reason of low social status and salary for scientific workers in such 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 Russia) about small financing are right only in part. The real reason of this situation is the prevailing monopolies of separate groups in scientific society, the absence of discussions and, as result, in absence of progress.

 We would like to offer the following our list of arrangements for the improving of the current situation of modern science:

Juan proposalsа (Spain)

Alexander Shagaev proposals (Russia)


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;


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;


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.;


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;


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;



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;



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.



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.



Hosted by uCoz