Reviewing articles as a way of professional evaluation of scientific texts: organizational and ethical aspects

  • 397 Views
  • 27 Downloads

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

The purpose of the paper is to summarize the organizational and ethical aspects, problems and prospects of peer reviewing. To do this, from September 2019 to January 2020, a survey of Ukrainian scientists registered in Facebook groups “Ukrainian Scientific Journals”, “Ukrainian Scientists Worldwide”, “Pseudoscience News in Ukraine”, “Higher Education and Science of Ukraine: Decay or Blossom?” and others was conducted. In total, 390 researchers from different disciplines participated in the survey. The results of the survey are following: 8.7% of respondents prefer open peer review, 43.1% – single-blind, 37.7% – double blind, 9.2% – triple blind, 1.3% used to sign a review prepared by the author. 75.6% of respondents had conflicts of interest during peer reviewing. 8.2 % of reviewers never reject articles regardless of their quality. Because usually only editors and authors see reviews, it can lead to the following issues: reviewers can be rude or biased; authors may not adequately respond to grounded criticism; editors may disregard the position of the author or reviewer, and journals may charge for publishing articles without proper peer review.

view full abstract hide full abstract
    • Figure 1. Distribution of answers to the question “What model of review did you work on?”
    • Figure 2. Distribution of answers to the question “What model of review do you prefer?”, %
    • Figure 3. Distribution of answers to the question “What is your main motivation to be a reviewer?”
    • Figure 4. Distribution of answers to the question “For what reasons do you reject articles?”
    • Figure 5. Distribution of answers to the question “Do you check the facts in scientific articles?”
    • Figure 6. Distribution of answers to the question “How impartial are your assessments?”
    • Conceptualization
      Svitlana Fiialka
    • Data curation
      Svitlana Fiialka, Nadija Figol
    • Formal Analysis
      Svitlana Fiialka, Olga Trishchuk, Nadija Figol
    • Investigation
      Svitlana Fiialka
    • Methodology
      Svitlana Fiialka, Nadija Figol
    • Validation
      Svitlana Fiialka, Olga Trishchuk, Nadija Figol
    • Writing – original draft
      Svitlana Fiialka
    • Writing – review & editing
      Svitlana Fiialka
    • Project administration
      Olga Trishchuk
    • Resources
      Olga Trishchuk
    • Supervision
      Olga Trishchuk