科学期刊的评价:论文与俄罗斯出版界的意见

N. Alimova
{"title":"科学期刊的评价:论文与俄罗斯出版界的意见","authors":"N. Alimova","doi":"10.24069/2542-0267-2019-3-4-140-150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. Scientific journal editors must thoroughly evaluate the content intended for publication in scientific journals. To date, there has been insufficient research on the analysis of the legal status of Russian scientific journal editors, who receive heavy criticism for violating publication ethics. This fact makes the evaluation procedure an acute problem that is becoming increasingly relevant. Additionally, the opinion of the Russian publishing community has not been studied to identify problems related to the evaluation of scientific j ournals and, in particular, the activities of Dissernet. In this regard, this study aims to fill this research gap. Materials and Methods . The study is based on an analysis of the Disserpedia data available on the public site https://biblio.dissernet.org. The materials were provided by the project coordinators and a survey eliciting the opinions of the members of the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers (ASEP) was conducted. Results. The analysis of the Disserpedia data revealed that 88 % of the journals included in this resource committed massive violations. Notably, only 10 % of the journals made some efforts to rectify the situation. At the same time, the results of the survey showed that almost 90 % of the respondents were ready to address the issues raised by Dissernet. According to the author, this result indicates that the Russian scientific publishing community is ready to begin the dialogue with public institutions that have undertaken the task of evaluating journals. Virtually, one-third of the journals in the Disserpedia cannot be accused of incorrect borrowings. Approximately 70 % of the journals in the Dissedopedia are published by educational and scientific organizations. Commercial organizations that publish scientific journals constitute one-fifth of the total amount of journals in the Disserpedia. Conclusion. The Russian scientific publishing community is ready to implement international ethical rules in their editorial activities and improve the status of already published content.","PeriodicalId":256387,"journal":{"name":"Science Editor and Publisher","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of scientific journals: Disserpedia and the opinion of the Russian publishing community\",\"authors\":\"N. Alimova\",\"doi\":\"10.24069/2542-0267-2019-3-4-140-150\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction. Scientific journal editors must thoroughly evaluate the content intended for publication in scientific journals. To date, there has been insufficient research on the analysis of the legal status of Russian scientific journal editors, who receive heavy criticism for violating publication ethics. This fact makes the evaluation procedure an acute problem that is becoming increasingly relevant. Additionally, the opinion of the Russian publishing community has not been studied to identify problems related to the evaluation of scientific j ournals and, in particular, the activities of Dissernet. In this regard, this study aims to fill this research gap. Materials and Methods . The study is based on an analysis of the Disserpedia data available on the public site https://biblio.dissernet.org. The materials were provided by the project coordinators and a survey eliciting the opinions of the members of the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers (ASEP) was conducted. Results. The analysis of the Disserpedia data revealed that 88 % of the journals included in this resource committed massive violations. Notably, only 10 % of the journals made some efforts to rectify the situation. At the same time, the results of the survey showed that almost 90 % of the respondents were ready to address the issues raised by Dissernet. According to the author, this result indicates that the Russian scientific publishing community is ready to begin the dialogue with public institutions that have undertaken the task of evaluating journals. Virtually, one-third of the journals in the Disserpedia cannot be accused of incorrect borrowings. Approximately 70 % of the journals in the Dissedopedia are published by educational and scientific organizations. Commercial organizations that publish scientific journals constitute one-fifth of the total amount of journals in the Disserpedia. Conclusion. The Russian scientific publishing community is ready to implement international ethical rules in their editorial activities and improve the status of already published content.\",\"PeriodicalId\":256387,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science Editor and Publisher\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science Editor and Publisher\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2019-3-4-140-150\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science Editor and Publisher","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2019-3-4-140-150","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of scientific journals: Disserpedia and the opinion of the Russian publishing community
Introduction. Scientific journal editors must thoroughly evaluate the content intended for publication in scientific journals. To date, there has been insufficient research on the analysis of the legal status of Russian scientific journal editors, who receive heavy criticism for violating publication ethics. This fact makes the evaluation procedure an acute problem that is becoming increasingly relevant. Additionally, the opinion of the Russian publishing community has not been studied to identify problems related to the evaluation of scientific j ournals and, in particular, the activities of Dissernet. In this regard, this study aims to fill this research gap. Materials and Methods . The study is based on an analysis of the Disserpedia data available on the public site https://biblio.dissernet.org. The materials were provided by the project coordinators and a survey eliciting the opinions of the members of the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers (ASEP) was conducted. Results. The analysis of the Disserpedia data revealed that 88 % of the journals included in this resource committed massive violations. Notably, only 10 % of the journals made some efforts to rectify the situation. At the same time, the results of the survey showed that almost 90 % of the respondents were ready to address the issues raised by Dissernet. According to the author, this result indicates that the Russian scientific publishing community is ready to begin the dialogue with public institutions that have undertaken the task of evaluating journals. Virtually, one-third of the journals in the Disserpedia cannot be accused of incorrect borrowings. Approximately 70 % of the journals in the Dissedopedia are published by educational and scientific organizations. Commercial organizations that publish scientific journals constitute one-fifth of the total amount of journals in the Disserpedia. Conclusion. The Russian scientific publishing community is ready to implement international ethical rules in their editorial activities and improve the status of already published content.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信