The Proposals and
Notes of Some Russian and Foreign Scientists and Researchers
Devoted to the
Improvement of The System of Publication and Estimation of Scientific Papers..
|
The Author Data |
The Author’s Proposals |
Alexander Shagaev Notes, concerned with these Proposals |
|
Morozov morozov_@yahoo.com |
It
is need power integrated search system ….
It is need the division of information on the
sections, when one same paper can be contained (when it is necessary) in some
different sections at the same time (although the server will contain only
one version of this paper)…. |
I
completely agree with this point of view. |
|
Abolin Oleg Eduardovich Job Organization: Public Corporation
“Chemical-Metallurgical Plan” Scientific Degree: Candidate of Chemical
Science; Job Position: Engineer - Methodologist e-mail: abolin@bk.ru |
I’d
like, also, to offer to make a database, containing information about
different rejected (by different publishers) papers (the reasons of
rejection, editors names, time of papers submission, author-editor
correspondence, papers texts). |
It
is possible, but it have meaning for separated scientific fields only, because the
visitors of such site must be specialists in this scientific field. It is
impossible for our project now, because it direct our discussion vector at
other direction (was a paper author/reviewer right or not). |
|
Erik S. Brown |
My
feeling is the only way to begin a new process of publishing is to have a few
recognized web sites to publish and archive new papers. Possibly, your
site should index the 'most visited' papers. Since the most important
work would get referenced in new papers, then we could assume that the most
'visited' papers would be a way to 'rank' papers that avoids the pier review
problem. It will only be when 'important' publications are found on such
websites (or blogs as you suggest) that we would
overcome the pier review problem of major publications |
It
is necessary to force official scientific organizations to consider such
Internet papers (that were not reviewed by usual journal’s reviewers, but
were published in Internet and have high rank between colleagues) as
scientific papers. |
|
Polianskiy Vladimir Nikolaevich Country: Job Position: former plant engineer, a
pensioner now. e-mail: vlamir@nsk.ru |
I
think that the development of forums is most effective your proposal. We must
act just now by means of the cooperation with the Russian State Duma and obtain more high status for forums (in ============================================================================== My
first proposal is devoted to the procedure of the collection of reviewers estimations. It
is the table containing 5 columns. 1,
3, 4 and 5-th columns must be narrow (for numbers), but the second column
must be wide. The
second column must contain different variants of estimation of a scientific
paper. For
example, the following text can be set at the first line – “The paper pretend
to principal change of the generally accepted theory ”. The
next line, that rank is smaller, can contain the following text – “The paper
pretend to the elimination of defects of the existent theory”. And
so on. The
last line can have the following form – “The paper don’t contain principal
differences from the existent technical solutions”. The
paper author must mark (by means of any symbol) such line (at the first
column) that characterize (on his/her view) his/her paper quality. The
3-rd column must contain estimations (1 estimation = 1 person) of the
registered public reviewers. They can be people which have different specialities. The
4 column must contain estimations of the registered professional reviewers. The
5 column must contain estimations of the registered members of jury (it maybe
that it will be High Certification Commission members). The example of such
Table is illustrated here. The
voting of all these 3 groups must be secret, but any reviewer can show
his/her notes (devoted to the paper), give advices and recommends although
he/shi is secret by login. The author must include corresponding information
(reviewers notes) in the paper in such case. The
voting of these groups of reviewers must be conducted by turn and must be
separated in the time, to give author the time to understand criticism and to
edit paper or prove its (criticism) groundlessness. ============================================================================== I
think that the following appeal (to author) must be located before the table: Author
– you must remember that: 1.
A new idea arise, at the first, in only one head on
all terrestial globe. Thus, you must be ready to
the fact that other people don’t understand you. You task is – to overcome
this misunderstanding. |
I
completely agree with this point of view. ========================== I
don’t have anything against such review list if it will be used by every
specialist reading a scientific paper in Internet. I can agree with this
proposal, also, if rejected paper is transferred to the folder “Rejected
Papers” (if the paper author don’t agree with reviewers estimation), but not is
removed from the journal site. However, I categorically can’t agree with the
following form of proposal “The voting of all these 3 groups must be secret,
but any reviewer can show his/her notes (devoted to the paper), give advices
and recommends although he/shi is secret by login.”, because it may result in
simple rejection of a paper (without any explanation of this decision). Any
negative note must be accompanied by the detail explanation of this decision.
The paper author must have possibility to defend his/her point of view. =========================== I
completely agree with this point of view. =========================== I
(and I hope Juan) will try do it, but we need wide active support of
scientific community. |
|
Parfenov Vladimir Alexandrovich Country: Job Position: junior scientific worker,
post-graduate student. e-mail: parfva@rambler.ru |
I’d
like to propose to send a submitted paper (with additional letter of
credence, containing the corresponding points of view of forum members) to
the publisher after 2-3 month discussion. It is necessary to force journal
reviewers to take into account these points of view during making their
(reviewer) decisions about paper publication or forced them to base any their
decision. Papers published at the journals maybe described as complete
scientific papers. Paper that was transferred (at the forums) at the folder
“accepted” must be described as thesis or report. |
I
can agree with this point of view only in small part, because the author of
this proposal give the right of the final decision to the hands of very small
group that can make incorrect resolve . Such
possibility is very big in such cases. |
|
Dzver – unknown member of the forum on the Russian scientific site Membrana |
The
task of the identification of PC user can’t be solved in reality on 100%,
because it is impossible to take his/her fingerprint evidence. It
is possible to do like in Paypal to identify user
with high probability. The user registration pass in
2 steps. The user start his/her registration by
input of his/her full name, address and other details on the registration
page. A usual post letter (not email), containing confirmatory cod is sended to him/her then. The user confirms his/her
registration when he/shi input this confirmatory cod. Practically
it is mean only that fact that a person which
started registration “see” this physical address. However it is enough to
guarantee user’s information on 99.99999% and to solve problem of clones. It
is possible to set user’s rank on the basis of additional information. For
example, on the basis of his/her papers, references to his/her papers and so
on (all this information must be confirmed). It is the basis of the
weight/authority of his/her vote (paper estimation) for the papers published
at the site. The
real full names is necessary, because existent
people (specialists) will guarantee the registration method. It isn’t
necessity to publish their real addresses, because they will be stored at the
“journal editor’s office ”. The
review process must be public. The paper is estimated by users (specialists)
on the basis of their ranks in the corresponding scientific field. It
is possible to devise so much, but there is the following question: It
is necessary to fund this project, because the real people (watching for the
realization of these rules) will do real work. This project will not work by
“himself”, although it is possible to decrease the
financial charges. The
papers published in accordance with this system will have enough rank if the
system is enough right and if it will be enough developed at the beginning
(it is most hard part of the task) (if will be published papers of normal,
but not mad scientists on the basis of this idea). At least (if this system
will be not officially established) scientists will read the papers published
in it (like in lanl). By
the way, it is possible “co-operate” with lanl,
because selected papers of well-known scientists can be automatically copied
to this system site and estimated here. In this case the authors of this papers will visit this system site to see the points
of view of their colleagues. |
These
proposals are very interesting and maybe useful in future system. I’d like to
recommend all scientists to take them (these proposals) into consideration. I
think that we must to think about them very carefully. |
|
Viktor Koldun |
How
about my question devoted a working device? Or you don’t sink lower of
General Everything Theory??? |
I
completely agree with this point of view. Any working device or computer program (developed
by the scientist or researcher) must be considered as full value scientific
work. |