|
|||
This paper was published at the Russian Journal "Chemistry and Life", 2004, № 12 and 2005, № 4
Science without denominations. It is impossible to touch
on the theme (concerned the possibility scientific papers publication)
when we continue to discuss the citation index (see "Chemistry and
Life", 2004, № 12 and 2005, № 4). It happened that not long ago we have
received a letter from the scientific worker (from the Institute of
Chemistry and Chemical Technology, Siberian Department of Russian
Academy of Sciences) Shagaev Alexander. He and his Spanish colleague
Juan R. Gonzalez-Alvarez have begin project devoted to the
revision of the system of publication and estimation of scientific
papers. The following reasons were their motives to start this crusade:
1) A big time time domain
(from 3 month to 1 year and even more) between submission and publication of scientific papers.
2) The decision about a
paper publication is taken by the anonymous reviewers. It is impossible
to contend with them very often. They can't know everything and they
practically aren't "absolutely impartial".
Express monopolism of
separated scientific directions takes place, also. So, the
representatives of alternative points of view can't publish their
results, because their results don't correspond to the "common" point of
view.
3) The editors try to
save the quality of scientific papers when they review any scientific
paper. However, the quality is the subjective criterion. Practically all
first papers of Nobel Prize laureates were at first rejected by the
reviewers. Even John Maddox (the previous editor-in-chief of the
"Nature") said onetime "if Isaac Newton had submitted his theory of
gravitation these days, his work would be rejected for peer-review
publication". Today is much more difficult to publish a
revolutionary scientific paper in a high-quality journal that 50 years
ago.
4) Young scientists, with
little established track record, find it hard to place printed papers in the "top" tier journals.
5) Some journals and
their papers are inaccessible, due to their exorbitant price (The
student rate for the single ACS biochemistry journal is over $350.
6) The High scientific
organizations in some countries(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.
The project authors
think that all the system is the the nutrient medium for different
illustrations of "corruption" (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 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 "leading"
scientists. The project author (Alexander Shagaev) believes that
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 (that cling to their official positions and
possibilities to control financial resources), the absence of
discussions and, as result, in absence of progress. Some scientists
agree with such point of view. It is illustrated at the project site.
The project authors proposals (here we illustrate some of them only.
Detail information see at the project site (
http://electrochemist2.narod.ru/index.html)
are illustrated bellow:
1) Every highly tailored
scientific journal must have different free and public subject
discussion forums, located at its Internet Web site. Authors can public
papers at the journal site, or inform editor board about their sites
where submitted paper is located. 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
mast be unlimited (all papers can be copied at the united database of
Academy of Science or corresponding scientific communities.). 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 "rankings" and C.V.)
in scientific community.
2) All submitted papers
must be published without any review (forum members can evaluate them
some time later) or with minimum review. The journal editor can remove
rejected paper to the folder "Rejected papers". He must inform all forum
readers about this facts and its reasons. So, any reader of the journal
can read such rejected paper and make his/her own conclusion about the
paper. The papers will be published at the discussion forum site just
after submission. The author is responsible for both his submitted
results and their representation form (orthographic, syntactic,
stylistic errors).
3) The members of the
discussion forum takes a decision about the scientific meaning of a
submitted paper based on public discussion (one proposal is to take into
account the points of view of scientists which have corresponding
scientific degree only. Other proposal is to take into account the
points of view of all scientists which have enough practice in the
corresponding field of science). Papers, approved by discussion forum
and accepted at electronic journal at any country must be described as
scientific papers by all dissertation councils. The transfer a paper at
the folder "Rejected Papers" and even it removal from the electronic
journal (if author agree with this action) as a result of the
discussion.
4) Unclassified
dissertations materials must be sited at the journals (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.
5) The best papers
of the discussion forums are published at the journals after editing
(orthographic, syntactic, stylistic). Thus, only best papers will be
published in any scientific journal.
Authors call all their colleagues to discuss this theme at the site:
http://electrochemist2.narod.ru/index.html
Professor, chief of organic catalysis laboratory
(Chemical Department of Moscow State University),
editor-in-chief of the journal "Journal of Russian
Chemical Society called by the name of D.I. Mendeleev"
Georgiy Vasilievich Lisichkin civilly agree to
comment this problem.
The review process is the basis of a good journal.
Discussion
First off all, I'd like
to note that the letter authors attempt to improve the system of the
publication of scientific papers (including the papers containing new
ideas) must be saluted. The are undoubtedly right when say that it is
necessary to use new possibilities (that are given by the electronic
communication facilities). However, concrete authors proposals provoke
my objections.
I'd like to note (at the
beginning), that my notes are concerned with the Russian chemical
journals, because I well know the situation, concerned with scientific
publication at this field. I can't judge about situation in other
fields, in medicine particularly, because I assume that situation (in
these fields) aren't univocal.
Let start from the statement that there is a big retention interval
from the moment of paper submission to it publication. It is the reason
of the poverty of Russian science and accordingly our scientific
journals. It is necessary to have additional staff (editors,
typesetters, makers-up, adjustors) to make such retention interval equal
to 3-4 months (it is the time that is necessary for the release delta
and polygraphic works). It is necessary to pay adequate hire to all of
them.
It is necessary to pay
adequate fee (for the fast review) to reviewers that mainly work on a
voluntary basis. It is one of the reasons of a big retention interval
from paper submission to it publication. It will be useful to increase
the journals volume and their numbers during a year. For example,
"Russian chemical journal" "Journal of the Russian Chemical Society
called by the name of D.I.Mendeleev" have not state or any other
systematic financial support. It is the reason why retention interval is
equal from 3 months to 1 year.
Now about reviewers. Of course, the knowledge of any scientific worker
is limited, but the fact that a paper is evaluated by limited number of
reviewers (but not "all world") is right. It is so, because reviewers
are specially selected scientists which have highest qualification.
Every journal, as a rule, is proud of his reviewers. Furthermore,
editors select reviewers, also, on the basis of their human merits (they
must be well-wishing, patient and, composed people). Two (or even four
in some journals), but not one reviewers review (at the same time) every
submitted paper in serious scientific journals to prevent any
subjectivism. Only the system of careful review is the basis of good
reputation of the journal. Interesting, high level journal is the
journal where any paper was reviewed by two reviewers at least. You can
compare, for example, "Langmuir" with any departamental collection of
articles (here the author, by himself, must send to editors a review).
The problem of anonymity
is very far-fetched very largely. In some journals, for example
"Sorosovsky Educational Journal" the review is open. Most of editors
propose choice right to reviewers, but not force them sign their notes.
Reviewers don't hide their names very often. It is impossible to demand
complete and absolute openness of all reviewers, because there are some
people which have unstable psyche and which are looped on their "super
problems". The open review of such people papers can to represent a
danger (to reviewer) to devote all his (reviewer) future life to sterile
discussions with this inadequate person. It is known tragic cases
murder of reviewers.
A good paper written by
unknown author (without well-known boss, as co-author) will be published
if it really good. It is the real problem to refuse (in publication)
when well-known "boss" is between co-authors. However, it don't mean
that the paper of unknown scientists will be not accepted. The example
when reviewer rejected (50 years ago) Belousov's paper (devoted to
oscillation reactions) is illustrated every time in such cases. It is
necessary to note, that science become more democratic during last time.
There are many journals publishing papers, devoted to similar themes
now. Thus, Boris Pavlovich Belousov can to submit his paper to 5 Russian
journals (and to some number of foreign journals), at least, if he was
rejected at the "Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry" now. At time
when he lived he had only one possibility - to publish his paper at the
"Russian Journal of Physical Chemistry" only. He had not possibility to
publish his paper at foreign journals, because he worked at the secret
institute. Thus, it is more easier to publish revolutionary paper now,
in comparison with time 50 years ago. However, revolutions in science
take place very rarely, but not often as think the project authors.
It is the solution, also,
of a problem when highly tailored journals don't accept papers devoted
to adjacent themes/branch of science. The academician O.M. Nefedov
founded and leaded the journal "Mendeleev communications" that publish
papers from any fields of chemistry. Time delay (between submission and
publication) is equal to 4 months. It accept papers from any fields of
chemistry and publish them on English at once. The papers, submitted to
this journal is reviewed by Russian and English specialists. This
journal was specially created for the fust publication of good papers.
Another journal ("Proceedings of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
chemical series") presents all fields of chemistry, also, and papers
size can be enough big. . Time delay (between submission and
publication) is equal to 6-7 months. The third journal "Progress of
Chemistry" publishes reviews on all fields and, some time, problematic
themes, devoted to new ideas. These journals are the journals of Academy
of Sciences. Them accept any papers from institutes of higher
education, applied-research scientific research institutes. The
submitted paper must be good only. All these journals have high (in
comparison with other Russian journals) impact factor.
(The scientific journals
level is evaluated by means of impact factor, that is determined by the
American Institute of Scientific Information. Its value is depends on
often cited papers number in the journal. Russian journals have low
impact factor, but this fact isn't the consequence of level of Russian
science. This low impact factor is the consequence of language barrier
(the number of these journals readers is very small), and Americans
assurance that all science are made in USA. "Chemistry and Life"
editor camment).
When can I agree with the
project authors? A paper is confronted with such opposition level that
proportional to its (paper) novelty level. People are working within the
bounds of common paradigm and usual work is more easy then
revolutionary. We tried to solve this problem 12 years ago at our "
Journal of the Russian Chemical Society called by the name of
D.I.Mendeleev". At 1994 we started to publish the special journal number
with the motto "New ideas and hypothesises". We wanted to give
possibility to publish their papers to all people which devised or
developed anything cardinally new. We specially "decreased barrier" for
the authors of such papers and even don't demanded detail confirmation
of their idea or hypothesis (for facilitation of their task). The new
ideas must be correspond to conservation laws, don't have any
self-contradictions and to have cause-and-effect relations only.
From 1994 to 2003 it ware published 10 such journal numbers. We created
the first such number by ourselves. However, drift takes place then and
we were forced to reject 50% of submitted papers, because they don't
correspond to our simplest demands. Our editorial board cruelly rejected
some paper, which author insisted that 8,5 millions kilocalories are
released during the decomposition of 1 kg of Na2Si3O7 (so called
silicate energetics). However this gibberish was published in one
scientific journal, in one popular science journal and in tens
departmental journals. We carefully studied all published papers after
we published journal number 10 (each of them contains 15 papers). The
result of this analysis was published at the "Journal of the Russian
Chemical Society called by the name of D.I.Mendeleev" № 2, 2003. It was
founded that, only 15% percents of papers have essential novelty. It
isn't so much as was waited by the authors of this project. So, we don't
publish such numbers now, but we publish such papers in current journal
numbers in the rubric "New ideas and hypothesises". Some of such papers
are really interesting and don't corresponded to the present concepts.
For example, we have published very non-trivial S.E. Shnolia papers,
devoted to the fine structure of the radioactive decay. Opposite example
is when we rejected a paper, devoted to the transmutation of elements
in the electric discharge (electric spark). This paper was rejected
because absence of clear confirmations of the flowing of reactions, but
not because the energetic level (in the accordance with well known
physical lows) is small for nuclear reactions. Any experiment must be
reproductible and it is very important criterion. The theme devoted to
the reproductible of experiments merits to the separate discussion.
Now about the open
publications at the sites. There aren't any doubts that big number of
scientific journals will appear in the Internet at the nearest time.
This process have begun now. The time delay (between submission and
publication) will be smaller in such journals (in comparison with usual
journals). 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.
Discussion forums, as I
think, it are very useful. We want to organize such forum at our site
for the discussion of new ideas. We must don't do any organizational
conclusions from these discussions, but just to take them into
consideration.
The main problem, now, is
small accessibility of foreign scientific journals for Russian
scientists. The printing versions of these journals are very expensive.
There isn't, practically, even one library that can be subscribed to
complete list of chemical journals. Institutes of higher education and
Scientific Research institutes have not financial resources for the
access to electronic versions of scientific journals. The main problem
is financial problem (like in the case of time delay).
Full text electronic
versions of some our journals, for example "Journal of the Russian
Chemical Society called by the name of D.I.Mendeleev", are free
illustrated at the Internet (
http://www.chem.msu.su/rus/journals/jvho/welcome.html
),
but publication of electronic versions only is premature. 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? By the way, the quality of
Russian electronic journals are essentially smaller then the quality of
corresponding printing journals. 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.
Additional information from the "Chemistry and Life" editor board:
We decided don't study
this situation (with scientific publications) at the other fields of
science. Chemistry is our field of science. However, we asked (about
this problem) two famous medicine professors which have well known name
in the medicine field. It was found that time delay (between submission
and publication) is more bigger (1, 5 year is very big lucky). Their
fields of view, concerned with review process are similar: the review
process is need to eliminate the number of poor papers, that number is
very big. They admit, also, that even well-wishing reviewer can
don't read submitted paper during 2 month, because he/she is very busy.
They also agree that it is very difficult to refuse to accept a paper
when one co-author is well known person.
The question about the
ideas conflicting with common conceptions is very dangerous. The
medicine is mainly descriptive and statistical science and so filed for
the fantasy is essentially more. However, our interlocutors were
unanimous that "why not if a paper is reasoned?".
A small accessibility of
scientific information is the reason of serious anxiety. So, they think
that idea of parallel publication of papers (in electronic journals)
isn't insensible. Such method was used by biologists in the program
"Genome of human". All news were set at the site and time delay was
equal to 0. It maybe it is the method of future science.
Editor board note: the
open folder "Rejected papers" maybe very useful. There will be no
offended persons. However, only independent professional reviewer must
transfer rejected papers to this folder, but not discussion forum. It is
very difficult image that active scientists will have any time to
control (on a voluntary basis) all submitted papers.
Electronic science is accessible for all.
V. Blagutina
Discussion.
It is necessary to note
that West scientists worried essentially early. The main their problem
was accessibility of scientific information. The price of the
subscription (on scientific journals) increased 3 times more during last
10 years. So, libraries were forced to refuse to subscribe to most of
journals. Scientific journals publishers make no secret of the fact that
scientific journals publication is very profitable business. For
example, The American Association for Advancement of Science (AAAS)
finances most of its projects by means of profit, concerned with the
publication of the journal "Science".
All begun from private initiative.
At 1991 Internet server
www.arxiv.org
start its function. It offers to send physical papers and make from
them free public archive. This site is increased now and it become the
main scientific library not only in physics, but in informatics,
astronomy and mathematics. About half of all papers (in physics) are
sended at this server now before their publication in printing form.
About 2000 papers appear at the arxiv.org during every month and more
than 140000 people visit this database during every day.
United free public
medicine electronic database (PubMed Central) was created at 2000. Its
aim is to collect all papers in one place and lighten the information
search for scientists. PubMed Central call all journals to send to him
all published papers as soon as possible (maybe half of year or
year after publication). Big number of publishers don't want to send
their published papers to anywhere even they (publishers) make these
journals free and public at their journals web sites after some time.
Some journals have agree to send their published papers to PubMed
Central. So, the process has begun.
Public scientific
library (Public Library of Science - PloS) was founded at October 2000.
It is coalition of scientists - researchers which have the main aim - to
make world science and medicine literature open for all. They prepared
open letter signed by about 34000 scientists from 180 countries. This
letter contained their demand to open (in Internet) scientific papers
(half year after their publication) for all. It was offered to found a
special electronic archive (with search service), containing full text
electronic versions of all published (in English) papers. Anybody must
found (in this archive) any information, concerned with results of
scientific research. Scientists, signed this letter threaten with
boycott to publishers if they don't react to this action. "Nature" and
"Science" organized electronic discussions at their sites. Some of
publishers started to think about taking money from authors, but not
from readers. As a result any revolutionary change was not, but some
scientific journals begun to open their published papers for all.
As a result of this turmoil PloS
got grant that used for the foundation electronic scientific resource (
www.publiclibraryofscience.org
)
where 2 virtual scientific journals are published now: "Biology" (from
2003) and "Medicine" (from 2004). All papers published in these journals
(now its number is about 200) are accessible and free for all.
Publishers take money from authors which want to publish their papers.
Publication price is not small and it equal to 1500 USA dollars/paper.
The submitted papers are necessarily reviewed by "most qualified
and respected (in corresponding scientific fields) scientists". The
editor board of a journal can postpone payment, cancel it or take its
part only if author has not money (and reviewer agree). The paper
published in such electronic journal is considered as full value
scientific paper (for the quoting). The journal "Biology" hopes to get a
high impact factor to this summer. This public library have a plan to
begin publication 5 additional journals (concerned with biology,
genetics and medicine) at the nearest year.
The American Chemical
Society begun expand access to scientific papers, publishing in 33 their
scientific journals. Part of the papers (that are made on the basis of
grants of National Institute of Helth) will be sended at the open
Internet portal "National Medicine Library" (PubMed Central) 12 month
after their publication. Furthermore full text of all papers will be
accessible by means of web links, controlled by authors. This additional
option is more democratic in comparison with the present time optiona
when it is possible download only 50 copies of a paper 1 year after it
publication (09.03.2005, agency Newswise).
Belshtein Institute
declared about the beginning publication (at 2005) the new free
electronic journal, concerned with organic chemistry. This journal
(electronic version with full open access) will be published by means of
join support of Belshtein Institute and BioMed Central. BioMed
Central publish, now, about 130 journals. You can free read them in
Internet. The new organic chemistry journal will be included in this
portal (that has good search system). New Belshtein journal will publish
original papers from all fields of organic chemistry and adjacent
fields. Such form gives possibility to all chemists to become familiar
with their colleagues papers. The papers will be at the continuous
online access form, but their one year archive will sell. Belshtein
Institute will finance publication accounts, so papers authors don't
need to pay for their papers publication. (11.03.2005, AlphaGalileo).
Click here (ChemAndLifeNoteEngl.html) if you want
to read Alexander Shagaev notes, concerned with this articles.
Click here (ChemAndLifeNoteEngl2.html) if you want to read Juan R. Gonzalez-Alvarez (Spain) notes, concerned with this articles. |
|||
|