The international project of the revision of the present system of scientific publications and estimation of scientific papers

The International Project of the Revision of the Present System
of the Publication and Estimation of Scientific Papers.

"I don't agree with your points, but I am ready give up my life to your right to say about them"

The last words of Giordano Bruno were: - "To reduce to ashes do not signify to refute".
Now we modify them to the words - "To reject scientific paper do not signify to refute it."

"if Isaac Newton had submitted his theory of gravitation these days, his work would be rejected for peer-review publication"
John Maddox, previous editor-in-chief of the "Nature"

The current system of evaluation and publication of scientific papers becomes old cardinally and does not correspond to the requirement of the modern time.
One can state the following negative features of the system:
1)  Very large temporal delay (from 3 months to 1 year for instance) between the submission of the paper and its final publication if everything goes right. This standard delay can be even of two years for some scientific journals (e.g. some journals of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences). In one occasion, a scientific paper appeared in 1957 in the Journal of the American Chemical Society, 25 years after it was initially submitted. Those delays are in essence purely bureaucratic and economic. E.g. journals would earn less money publishing larger volumes or issues, and editorial boards prefer to delay the publication of accepted papers until the next open volume or issue. Such situation is simply absurd at the informational age. Additional note (concerned with this theme) of one of the members (Alexander Shagaev, Russia) of the Enterprising group.
2)  A limited number of persons (always with a limited knowledge) take the final decision about the publication or rejecting of a paper. This decision is often based in the opinion of anonimous referees. The publication of the rejected paper can be delayed during a long period of time (and even forever), if we take into account the limited number of strictly specialized journals and author's patience. Almost all the authors of revolutionary papers, latter winning a Nobel Prize, saw their papers rejected by mainstream and top journals, often because editors found the work unimportant or because referees believed that the paper was wrong. A comment of one of the members (Juan R. Gonzalez-Alvarez, Spain) of the Enterprising group.
3)  Well-known problems with the peer review process of maintaining "quality" in scientific literature. Quality is a subjective concept and there is cases where reviewers have abused of his position. Moreover, new ideas, or ideas that conflict with the mind-set and set-mind of the reviewer have always faced difficulty. Gunter Blobel, in a news conference given just after he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine, vividly stated that the main problem one encounters in research is "when your grants and papers are rejected because some stupid reviewer rejected them for dogmatic adherence to old ideas". Similar thoughts were emphasized by the nobel winner J. L. Schwinger, during a talk given on 7 December 1991, in Japan:
"The pressure for conformity is enormous. I have experienced it in editors' rejection of submitted papers, based on venomous criticism of anonymous referees. The replacement of impartial reviewing by censorship will be the death of science."
Currently peer review reinforces orthodoxy rather than quality and according to recent systematic investigation of the peer review system, its assumptions about fairness and objectivity are rarely tested. A comment of one of the members (Juan R. Gonzalez-Alvarez, Spain) of the Enterprising group.
4)       Very small number of discussions in the journals;
5)   Young scientists, with little established track record, find it hard to place printed papers in the "top" tier journals. Young scientists often accept to become mere coworkers of senior stablished scientists, pursuing the research directions established by their department chiefs. Only when they are senior can obtain a solid position and start to think by themselves, pursuing their own research lines.
6)  Very limited access to some journals due to their prohibitive prices. One usually finds eight pages long research articles being priced so high as $25 -additional taxes excluded- in mainstream journals published by academic societies self-proclaimed for non-profit. There is cases of journal who rate over $12 each published page, and for really expensive journals, we can find "Research highlights" of less than one page long being priced so high as $32. Few authors, research groups, and
institutions can support those abusive prices. A comment of one of the members (Juan R. Gonzalez-Alvarez, Spain) of the Enterprising group.  Some scientists can't become acquanted with such papers (published by their colleagues) during for a long time as a result of such abuse. Scientific and total progress of all mankind is very seriously hampered in course of such actions. There is not other name for these actions of "scientific" publishers besides "criminal";
7)  High publication rates for some journals. E.g. $100 per article plus $100 per journal page. Typically chemical theoretical papers are around 10-15 pages. Some novel publication systems as PLoS solicit to authors the payment of a fee ranging from the $1300 to $2850 for each published article.
8)       The High scientific organizations in some countries (e.g. High Certifying Commission in Russia) were forced (under pressure of progressive scientists, researchers and thanks to unassuming efforts of our project) to extend the list of scientific publishers and internet journals which publications are considered as scientific now. Nevertheless they refuse to consider the other independent scientists papers, in Internet, (even published at the leading foreign scientific centers sites) as scientific papers yet. Thus, some scientists are forced to publish their papers in the journals (robbing readers/authors and hampering to the free papers publications and knowledge accessibility) controlled by these organization's bureaucrats, yet. So, these bureaucrats trying to thrust their opinion (fallacious very often) on all scientific community yet. Such "scientific " bureaucrats  trying to save their dominant positions (and their financial control) in the present time bureaucratic "official science" thanks to such methods. Thus, criminal actions of such bureaucrats  take place. Such "scientific" organizations and their leaders continue to be the opprobrium for the scientific community of such countries.(some details).
9)       Absolute anonymity of reviewers in some scientific journals. One can consider this rule as normal. The following natural questions can arise, nevertheless:
- what is the reason of such reviewers fear if his point so highly rated by scientific community and journal editor board? It maybe they are afraid of the revenge of author of rejected paper? We have another, more believable answer to these questions:
"The reviewers and editor board are afraid of possible publicity of their incompetence in some questions."
The following facts can be considered as the confirmation of the aforesaid assumption:
"The readers of any scientific journal aren't informed about any rejected papers, submitted to the journal. They aren't informed, also, about the reasons of the rejection of any rejected paper. The editor board of the journal and its reviewers must to explain their decisions to other scientists, otherwise. We don't sure that they will get corresponding approval in all such cases. Such facts are just concealed from the journal readers, now. The possible points of other scientists are don't taken into account in these cases.". Not long ago (2008) one russian scientific journal ("The journal of scientific publications of post-graduate students and doctors") published nonsensical paper ("Stump-puller: algorithm of typical unification of accessibility and superfluity points") that was written by computer programm!!!  Reviewer estimated actuality of the paper as high, named the research selection object as correct, estimated the paper novelty as excellent!!! The reviewer was not content with the paper style only. The reviewer comment was laudatory and the paper was published one month later after submission!!! The detals of this scandalous situation you can find at the following addresses:;;; . The Russian Information Agency reported about this situation. You can find the corresponding information at the following internet address also - This situation showed the the present system based on anonymous and completely incompetent reviewers is completely obsolete. It is very hard to imagine more shameful case. How high the scientific level of the vaunted (by the High Certifying Commission in Russia) reviewers if they can't to discern the computer pseudo-scientific raving!!! And such reviewers make decisions to reject papers of other scientists??? It is very simple question: - the reviewer read the paper or not? It is very interesting to know the names of these completely incompetent reviewers  from the journal editor-in-chief (Ivanov Vladimir Ivanovich) and from all team of the journal (their names are located at the address:  Unfortunately the journal editorial staff do not want to publish the names of these completely incompetent reviewers. This case is evident proof of our project ideas.
We can't say that that described questions weren't arosed before (some history examples of the problem). However, the recent application of modern information technologies improves little to the current unpleasant system of evaluation and publication of scientific papers. Deep-rooted and express monopolies of separated scientific directions groups are the result of this situation. The representation of others (alternative) points of view cannot publish their results, because their points of view are not coincident with the "common" (often incorrect) point of view in the corresponding scientific field.  This situation is intolerable, because it prevents scientific progress. Seven months ago, after of a 7-month investigation, the House of Commons Science and Technology (UK) concluded that, "the current system is not providing the access needed for the progress of science.".
This situation is intolerable, because becomes 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). Russian example of "scientific" corruption is shown in the address. This situation is taking place in all fields of science. It is the reason of small effectiveness of the scientific work  and is the reason why governments  (and some part of people) slighting attitude to scientific manpower in some countries (Russia). This situation is the reason of low social status and salary for scientific workers in such countries.
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.
This situation is the reason of depression of science on the last decades. The 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, the absence of discussions and, as result, in absence of progress.
We would like to offer the following our list of arrangements for the improving of the current situation of modern science:

Juan proposals  (Spain)
Alexander Shagaev proposals (Russia)

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;
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;
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.;
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;
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;

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.
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.

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.
The proposed arrangements are not final. We would like to take a vote for all scientific workers from different countries, concerned with this theme. Collected notes and signatures will be send to editorial boards of all scientific journals and academies of sciences on all countries. Mankind is continuously confronted, during all its life, with new threat for its being (natural disasters, epidemics, destitution). All previous human experience shows that science (based on the present, very sluggish, conservative and bribable system of publication and estimation of quality of scientific papers) cannot on-the-fly help to humanity in these tasks solving. This system is obstacle in social progress. Thus, it must be reformed cardinally. We ask you to take the initiative in this situation, because we all need it. Thus, we try to change the old inadequate system of publication and estimation of scientific papers. We want to make scientific life more interesting, unite all scientists, to minimize negative influence of scientific speculators. We hope that proposed arrangements allow us to hasten publications of good scientific papers, their introduction, and the scientific progress. We would like to ask you seriously to treat to this vote. You can obtain a letter, containing questions, concerned with this vote. We ask you to confirm your point of view and signature in these cases. Now we plan to collect your points of view (concerned with this theme) and your wish to take part in the vote (certified by your signature). We welcome any your constructive notes and criticism, concerned with this project, but we would like to ask you to inform us about your point of view, concerned with the present system and our project. We will appreciate to you if you inform to your colleagues about this project. Dear colleagues we'd like to ask your help in the solving of the following our problem: Our project is international, because it devoted to the solving of scientific problems for all countries. We'd like to make forums for the direct online discussion of different scientific problems. Unfortunately, not all Russian scientists know English. So, we'd like to make 2 forums, now: Russian forum (for such Russian scientists who don't know English) and English forum (for other scientists). Unfortunately, I (Alexander Shagaev) have not enough time for the continuous translation of different Russian messages from Russian into English. I can, only ask Russian scientists to send English versions of their messages to English forum. Russian forum is functioning now, but English forum is not created yet. So, we'd like to ask you to help us to make free, public English forum. Your help will be very much appreciated. We wait your proposals and notes. We'd like to ask you to  vote for the introduction of the new system (on the page "To Send Your Note to Us" We wait your support of our project. The present reactionary bureaucratic system is drag on the scientific and social progress. It don't change by itself. We can change it by means of our join efforts only. Enterprising group.
Hosted by uCoz