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



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


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
Country: USA
 Organization: Argenta LLC
Job Position: Director
Scientific Degree: B.A. Chemistry

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: Russia

Job Position: former plant engineer, a pensioner now.
Scientific Degree: no


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 Russia). The low about status of public scientific forums is necessary.


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.
2. You are not Got.  Only Got know your idea better then you. So, be considerate towards other people views.  They want know this truth also and everyone from them go to this truth by his/her own way, stated by Got.
Alexander Shagaev must make a conceptual design of the project (as a practical step of the beginning initiative) and repeatedly to make a request to the Russian president Putin. It is necessary to obtain the financing for the project approbation. It will be good if Juan will make corresponding request to the Spanish King also.

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: Russia
Organization: Institute of Chemistry and Chemical Technology, Siberian Department Of Russian
Academy of Sciences (Krasnoyarsk).

Job Position: junior scientific worker, post-graduate student.
Scientific Degree: no


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 user rank maybe made with “saturability”, for example as type 1/(1+1/x) in order to limit it for single user. It is possible to control of new users (whose send additional information to increase their ranks) by means of 5 existent random high rank users (specialists working in this field) which receive new user information (for confirmation).

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.


Hosted by uCoz