|
|||
Alexander Shagaev's notes, concerned with the article "Science without
denominations", published at the 5-th number of Russian journal
"Chemistry and Life" (2005, pp. 6-10).
Answers and notes, concerned with comments of professor, chief of the organic catalysis
laboratory (Chemical Department of Moscow State University), editor-in-chief of "Journal
of the Russian Chemical Society called by the name of D.I.Mendeleev"
Georgiy Vasilevich Lisichkin:
1) I'd like to express my thanks to Georgiy Vasilevich for his understanding of importance of discussed problem.
2) I can't agree with
Georgiy Vasilevich when he evaluate the reasons of big time delay
(between submission and publication). His answer is easy expected for me
(on the basis of Russian nature of this scientist). He made the main
accent to the small financial resources (for the payment for editorial
preparation for publication, polygraphic works, additional staff:
editors, typesetters, makers-up, adjustors, reviewers). He indicated,
also, on the small value of the journal and small journal numbers
publishing during 1 year. Undoubtedly the serious problem is absence of
state or any other financing. I have a serious reasons to think that
your polygraphic workers have additional earnings, because they perform
the orders of exterior organizations. There isn't any wrong in this
situation. The present time is hard and all try live as they can.
However, I think that online functioning (that need small financial
resources) of your journal will allow your journal to make much bigger
volume of work (with minimum inputs on the equipment and additional
staff - reviewers number can be decreased to 0). The increase of number
of submitted papers, more democratic, open system of evaluation of their
quality by means of people with particular speciality (your readers)
will allow you greatly increase the number of accepted papers (and your
circulation) and selling (on the basis your readers orders) collections
of corresponding top papers will allow you to solve your financial
problems. I'd like to repeat very important note:
the time delay (between
submission and publication) in our (or any other journal, where usual
review system is used) don't change essentially even when such journal
will has excellent financing. This time delay is inalienable feature of
the present system based on the review process. This time delay will
died only after introduction (in practice) of our system.
3) your point of view
(that points of view of your journal readers is immaterial) not stand up
to criticism, because your readers aren't simple people from the street
(simple people don't people don't need your journal, they don't read it
and will not read it in future). Your readers are professionally
qualified specialists which work in chemistry during a long time. Their
points of view (on the basis of quality) aren't smaller then point of
view of your separated reviewers (which were selected from your journal
readers/authors). The total (effective) professional level, concernment
and total time (used for the study of published papers) of your readers
is incommensurably bigger with the comparison of the similar
characteristics of your separated (even high level, but in only one
field) reviewers. Your statement about complete incompetence of your
readers ("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.") is,
to put it mildly, tactless.
There is only one step
from your statement to the attempt to create separated caste if "super
scientists/ super people", so called "elite", in the science. This
"elite" impose its will (as unconditional truth) on all scientific
community. The human history know much number (tragic on the
consequences for simple people) treatment to form such castes/nations of
"super people". At the science the attempts of representatives of
opposite (to "elite") points of view to publish their results is
blockaded and their attempts just simply wittingly concealed/hided. The
"generally accepted" rule of reviewers anonymity absolutely approach to
these actions of so called "elite" (see bellow).
4) about anonymity
problem. This problem isn't farfetched. It is very actual. At all time
the attitude to anonymous authors was only one - scorn. We don't say,
here, about juridical cases when anonymous witness giving evidence is
jeopardized and his/her life is defended by the corresponding lows. In
our case, only a person which isn't sure in his/her knowledge will hide
his/her real name. The actions of such "reviewers" are such that the
author of the rejected papers can't to call in question such anonymous
"specialists" very often, because editors defend their reviewers in most
of such cases. You (Georgiy Vasilevich) absolutely concealing the fact
that journals readers just don't inform about rejected papers and about
the reasons of such decisions of editors and reviewers. We don't sure
that all such actions can find support from the journal readers. Such
actions of editors and reviewers can be evaluated is absolute disregard
of the journals readers and authors. At the case of our system the
reaction of any author of the rejected paper will be more easy-tempered,
because his/her paper was shown to all colleagues and next generation
can read and understand it even it located at the folder "Rejected
papers". Now, when author has not possibility to send his/her paper to
some number of journals (at the same time) and due to the present review
time the author can died before publication of his/her paper,
especially if his/her paper will be consecutively rejected in number of
journals (where, sometime, selfsame reviewer "star" works). I'd like to
make additional and very important note, also: "who said that author of
the rejected paper must look for another journal to publish his/her
paper???!!! In the accordance with normal human logic, but not
time-server (which look for any journal where he/she can publish his/her
paper) logic editors and reviewers rejecting good papers must look for
another job!!! Our proposals increase the possibility such events,
because it set them outside the law!!!"
5) It is pleasant
that idea of discussion forums is met with understanding. However, I
can't agree with the view that "We must don't do any organizational
conclusions from these discussions, but just to take them into
consideration.". It was mentioned in our proposals, that author send to
such forums his/her paper, that he/she wrote maybe during for a long
time. So, simply "to take it into consideration" without taking it into
account as scientific paper (if it is approved by forum members) is
simply shameless action. Any scientist which is respecting
himself/herself don't send his/her paper to such "forum". Unfortunately,
our "scientific elite" (HCC and dissertational councils) refusing to
consider Internet scientific publications of all (without exception)
foreign scientific centers, and Internet scientific publications of
independent scientists (independently of their scientific level). Such
actions can be evaluated as very stupid conservatism and the wish to
control all and everything. Such "scientific" organizations and their
leaders are infamy of the Russian science!!! In the accordance with the
aforesaid text, your (Georgiy Vasilevich) words "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? illustrated your unbelief
in the possibility of the changes. Russia have not any chance to create a
new modern science if all will be think like you. We understand that it
is very difficult to break old, conservative system of publications and
evaluating of scientific papers, but it is necessary to do something in
this direction. It is the aim of our project."
6) now about your
note "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.". I'd like to send you to our
project proposals. Unfortunately, our discussion, in this case, maybe
similar to well known discussion of old Russian academicians about the
possibility to make a personal PC. This discussion took place when such
PC were created at the West.
7) now about
accessibility of journals. I feel disappointing perplexity every time
when I visit the site of the Russian electronic library. There are lot
full text electronic versions of foreign scientific journals here and
zero number of corresponding Russian journals. This situation is simply
shameful.
The answers to notes of two unknown medicine professors (which have well known name in medicine).
1) it is very funnily,
that these dear sirs (with well known name in medicine) didn't inform us
about their names. I am sorry, but I feel some similarity to the
present system of anonymity of reviewers. Why it is so frightful to call
his/her own name???
2) I am not
surprised at the views of dear sirs about review process. However, I
will not repeat my view, concerned with this theme. It is shown in the
previous text.
3) it is pleasant
fact that idea of parallel publication of papers (in electronic
journals) isn't insensible. However, there aren't any words about
necessity to consider (as scientific papers) other good scientific
papers published in Internet.
The comments to the notes of editor board of the journal "Chemistry and Life"
1) it is pleasant fact that idea,
concerned with the folder "Rejected papers" was supported by the journal.
2) I can't agree
with the journal editors view, concerned with the review process. I will
not repeat my notes - they were shown in the previous text.
3) unfortunately,
editors of "Chemistry and Life" visit our project site not very often.
It isn't my reproach to them. I understand that they are very busy
people. However, our site information is changed very often. So, I'd
like to recommend for all to visit our project site and to read
information about the history of previous initiatives. We don't think
that we give you absolutely full information (it maybe we loss some
moments), but we tried do search it as good as we can. We think, that
this information will be interesting and it have some differences from
information located at the "Chemistry and Life".
4) at the finish we'd
like to make the following resume: - "The electronic science is
accessible NOT for all. Unfortunately, online Internet scientific papers
don't considered yet as scientific papers by the representatives of
conservative present system (in Russia also). The main fight in this
direction just begun, but its result is predetermined - conservative
present system is doomed to defeat. The question consists at the time
that is need for it. We call all sane representatives of scientific
community assist to the introduction of new, progressive and democratic
system so that you will not be ashamed (in front of your offsprings) of
your passive support of conservative, corrupt system inhibitory the
progress of science and all human society!!!"
|
|||
|