{"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}
引用次数: 1
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.