Involving Ukrainian early career scientists in publishing practices and their attitudes to scholarly communication
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/kpm.05(1).2021.04
-
Article InfoVolume 5 2021, Issue #1, pp. 38-49
- 454 Views
-
76 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
This paper highlights the authorship, co-authorship, and peer review experience of Ukrainian early career scientists to see their attitudes to scholarly communication. A questionnaire was distributed through Facebook groups and university networks all over Ukraine. Results from 630 respondents demonstrated contradictory tendencies of Ukrainian early scientists’ publication activity. Most respondents try to gain recognition, adhere to high standards, and improve their writing skills. Meanwhile, there is a problem of low motivation, violations of academic integrity, detachment from the international scientific community, etc. 5.6% of respondents admitted that they wrote articles where they substituted the results without conducting experiments, deliberately distorted the results of research, and forged experimental data. Above a half of the respondents (52.9%) have experience of reviewing and consider it to improve their authorship skills, engage in scientific dialogue, cope with new methods and theories, etc. But 95.0% of reviewers had problems, for example obviously poor-quality articles for review (47.5%), a request for a review when the article does not match the reviewer’s qualifications (32.5%), no access to data to check dubious results (15.0%), lack of instructions for reviewers (10.0%), ignoring significant remarks by authors (7.5%). The survey showed a significant predominance of co-authored articles. Among the main motives for publishing co-authored articles, respondents highlighted the following: saving time, intellectual development, co-payment of publications, access to expensive equipment, the chance of being quoted, and cooperation.
- Keywords
-
References20
-
Tables0
-
Figures10
-
- Figure 1. Percentage of scientists who have articles in Ukrainian scientific journals not indexed by Web of Science and (or) Scopus
- Figure 2. Percentage of scientists who have articles in Ukrainian scientific journals indexed by Web of Science and (or) Scopus
- Figure 3. Reasons why 32.9% of respondents have no articles in journals indexed in Web of Science and (or) Scopus
- Figure 4. Comparing the reasons for the rejection of articles by journals editors indexed and not indexed by Web of Science and (or) Scopus
- Figure 5. Roles of early career scientists as co-authors
- Figure 6. Motives and stimulus for publishing co-authored articles
- Figure 7. Conflicts or other issues related to co-authored publishing
- Figure 8. Reviewers’ comments in the case of a positive review
- Figure 9. Reviewers’ comments in the case of a negative review
- Figure 10. Pros and cons of communication between authors and reviewers
-
- Aragon, C., Poon, S., & Silva, C. (2009). The changing face of digital science: New practices in scientific collaborations. Proceedings of the 27th International Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
- Bozeman, B., & Youtie, J. (2016). Trouble in Paradise: Problems in Academic Research Co-authoring. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(6), 1717-1743.
- Breuning, M., Backstrom, J., Brannon, J., Gross, B., & Widmeier, M. (2015). Reviewer Fatigue? Why Scholars Decline to Review their Peers’ Work. PS: Political Science & Politics, 48(4), 595-600.
- Figg, W., Dunn, L., Liewehr, D., Steinberg, S., Thurman, P., Barrett, J., & Birkinshaw, J. (2006). Scientific Collaboration Results in Higher Citation Rates of Published Articles. Pharmacotherapy, 26(6), 759-767.
- Fox, C. (2017). Difficulty of recruiting reviewers predicts review scores and editorial decisions at six journals of ecology and evolution. Scientometrics, 113, 465-477.
- García, J., Rodriguez-Sánchez, R., & Fdez-Valdivia, J. (2019). The Game Between a Biased Reviewer and His Editor. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25(1), 265-283.
- Haffar, S., Bazerbachi, F., & Murad, M. (2019). Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 94(4), 670-676.
- Henriksen, D. (2018). What factors are associated with increasing co-authorship in the social sciences? A case study of Danish Economics and Political Science. Scientometrics, 114(3), 1395-1421.
- Hu, Z., Chen, C., & Liu, Z. (2014). How are collaboration and productivity correlated at various career stages of scientists? Scientometrics, 101(2), 1553-1564.
- Jamali, H., Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A., Abrizah, A., Rodríguez-Bravo, B., Boukacem-Zeghmouri, C., Xu, J., Polezhaeva, T., Herman, E., & Świgon, M. (2020). Early career researchers and their authorship and peer review beliefs and practices: An international study. Learned Publishing, 33(2), 142-152.
- Kulkarni, N. (2015). Measuring information changes at handoff points. Proceedings of the 2015 Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference.
- Mason, S., & Merga, M. (2018). A current view of the thesis by publication in the humanities and social sciences. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 13, 139-154.
- McNutt, M., Bradford, M., Drazen, J., Hanson, B., Howard, B., Jamieson, K., Kiermer, V., Marcus, E., Pope, B. K., Schekman, R., Swaminathan, S., Stang, P. J., & Verma, I. (2018). Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2557-2560.
- Olesen, A., Amin, L., & Mahadi, Z. (2018). Unethical authorship practices: A qualitative study in Malaysian higher education institutions. Developing World Bioethics, 18(3), 271-278.
- Powell, W. (1998). Learning from collaboration: knowledge and networks in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. California Management Review, 40(3), 228-240.
- Sonnenwald, D. (2007). Scientific collaboration. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 643-681.
- Tennant, J. (2018). The state of the art in peer review. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 365(19), 204.
- Vesper, I. (2018, September 7). Peer reviewers unmasked: largest global survey reveals trends. Nature.
- Walker, R., & Rocha da Silva, P. (2015). Emerging trends in peer review. A survey. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 9, 1-18.
- Willis, M. (2016). Why do peer reviewers decline to review manuscripts? A study of reviewer invitation responses. Learned Publishing, 29(1), 5-7.