№

Juan proposals  (Spain)

Alexander Shagaev proposals (Russia)

1

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 "rankings" 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 "Rejected Papers", containing papers rejected during discussions at the forums.;

Scientific journals must include free and public forums or blogs for discussing each article. The discussion at forums and blogs must be directly accesible at the journal website. Discussion is moderated, but moderators only reject posts violating basic guidelines for scientific discussion [see here], moderators stop ad hominems, straw man, red-herrings, but also stop spam, internet trolls, and bots. In principle anonymous posting at forums and blogs is not permitted to prevent abuse; however, exceptionally high-quality anonymous post could be permitted. Authors can use journal website for the submission of papers. Rejected

papers could be re-submitted to other journal or to an united database owned by scientific bodies as Academies of Sciences, Scientific Societies, and other public and private publishers and bodies joining to the database. Online search engines would index and cache all the databases and journal websites. This electronic index and cache will decrease, at least partly, plagiarism and redundancy (unfortunately, the submission of similar results in different journals is an usual

technique for increase the number of publications for better academic "rankings" and C.V.) in scientific community.

. 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;

2

Minimal review process is required for favoring an adequate development of science. The problem of current peer-review process is the current specific "peer" 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);

Peer review is double. First a fairly peer-review process guarantizes that the work does not contains strong mistakes and deserves further study. The main difference is that this process is open. Reviewers cannot reject a paper anonymously censoring the authors or theories that they dislike. Authors know the identity of reviewers and can reply them directly. Both reviewers comments and author responses are published as appendix in the paper. This adds transparency to the review process. In the current process, readers of journals do not know the reason for which a paper was accepted or rejected.

Nobody is free of error. Moreover science evolves and stuff which was believed to be true 100 years ago is not more now. Therefore, published papers can be posteriorly peer-reviewed by any reader. Authors must improve/change/update the published papers in a periodical basis.

Diferent versions of a same paper are unambiguously differenciated using

versioning labels and date of improve/ hange/update. This gives us a concept of living journals rather than the current frozen journals. This also eliminates the need for Errata sections in the journals [see details here].

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 don't do anything don't 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 "Rejected Papers" (on the basis of the decision of most forum members) after some time (the duration of the time must be discussed).  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;

3

Renowned experts in the paper subject would review the paper before publication.

Once published any reader can comment and reply the results of a journal paper in the forums/blogs. Any reader can submit a more formal review to the journal editors. This is reviewed and if approved added to the appendix togheter the author reply to the criticism.

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 "Rejected Papers" (the reasons of such decision must be indicated) or transferred from the archive "Rejected Papers" 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.;

4

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;

5

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 "traditional" scientific publications;

6

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. This action will decrease the possibility of corrupt contractual defenses;

The human nature do not change too much during the last 2000 years. So, we have that we have. We have abuses of power in science. In Russia, particularly, such abuses of power (particularly, in science) are occuring everywhere. Practically all russian dissertation councils are  affected by corruption. Its chiefs (different institute directors, chairs and laboratory chiefs) and their favourites feel themself in such councils as medieval feudal lord in his patrimony. They can to refuse in scientific degree possibility to any scientist if they do not like this scientist only.

Post-graduate or scientific degree candidate which addresses to such 'scientists' for the scientific degree defending are in complete dependence from such 'scientists' and their caprices (that are sometime unlawful: bribes, expensive presents, inclusion to paper co-author and so on). Some post-graduates or scientific degree candidates which spent a lot of time to write their papers and dissertations are forced to agree with such unlawful claims (to go on compromise with own conscience), because they hope -nobody will know about this fact. Another post-graduates or scientific degree candidates which have not any object knowledge simply buy the scientific degree (that they need) from such 'scientists'. Standard price of criminal scientific degree in Russia is equal 1000 - 3000$ USA. Another post-graduates or scientific degree candidates which do not want to go on compromise with own conscience do not have any  possibility to defend their scientific degree in such "dissertation councils" by means of different farfetched bureaucratic pretexts. (that are making by bribable chiefs of "dissertation councils"). Sometime such bribable chiefs of "dissertation councils" do it openly with open effrontery. They do it because they feel their absolute impunity in Russia. Honest scientist are included in the black list of bribable chiefs of "dissertation councils" furthermore. Bribable chiefs of "dissertation councils" (and criminal bribable institute directors, chairs and laboratory chiefs) call him squabbler and organize joint baiting on him.  Now he have not posibility to defend his scientific degree and even to find any normal scientific job, corresponding to his scientific level. Now he can to work as laboratory assistant (for example) at best. His scientific career and human life are destroyed by means efforts of such criminal bribable chiefs of "dissertation councils" and their stooges. Some of honest scientists (which have enought money) immigrate, other are forced to leave official science (some of them fall within abject poverty and die like russian historian Pohlebkin). It is the usual method to break honest scientist. Bribable chiefs of "dissertation councils" (institute directors, chairs and laboratory chiefs) prefer to take on silent, obedient, incompetent research fellow (which have not own point of view), but not active, energetic, competent and honest scientist (which has his own point of view). It is the usual method of "work" of criminal bribable chiefs of official russian science. They call the method as "political chemistry", "political physics", "political mathematics" and so on. This method is not connected with science. It is the collection of methods of intrigues (removal competitor from office; stir up laboratory workers on each other - the old rule - "separate and dominate" and so on) that help them to save their leading positions in criminal official "science". Scientific careers and human lifes of honest scientists are destroyed (for example talented mathematician Grigory Perelman which proved Poincare hypothesis and was declared as ineligible in his own institute and was forced to leave official science), the general level of science go down (institutes staff is forming by passive, incompetent "scientists" which can't to develope own new ideas and have not own point of view),  progress of humanity slow down as result of such criminal actions. It is obvious that these bribable chiefs of "dissertation councils" are usual criminals. The singular place where they (and their high rank patrons: leaders of Science Academy) must be located is prison cell. We can't to wait any progress in science while fates of honest scientists and fates of their discoveries are solved by by small group of criminal and bribable chiefs of "dissertation councils. It is necessary to annihilate the system of scientific degree, because it is potential tool of strict obedience of all scientific community to interests of small group of criminal and bribable directors of institutes, chiefs of "dissertation councils", chairs and laboratory chiefs. All parts of this system (post-graduate course; anonymous uncontrolled system of papers review; fixed, thrusting to all scientists "scientific" journals for publication; inaccessible for most of scientists journals that publish papers only one time and bury it (instead of to open it for all after some time); uncontrolled bribable "dissertation councils) are created to controll all scientific community by aforesaid small criminall group. This system beget monopolism in science, impedes progress of science and humanity, destroys fates of honest talented scientists and fates of their discoveries. The system must be destroyed.

7

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.

8

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.