In development of the discussion "Problems of scientific publications".
The main functions of scientific journals are the selection of the most interesting articles, the establishment of the absence of errors in them and the publication.
Editors select articles. Their interests coincide with the interests of publishers not quite and even less with the interests of science. Even in their own best interests, editors often make bad decisions because of their complexity.
Reviewers identify errors in articles. They are often wrong too. If only because most of the reviews are written by young scientists and graduate students.
Today, the technical distribution of information carriers, i.e. the edition takes place on the Internet for almost free
The basis of a modern effective system of scientific publications can be an Internet directory, in which authors will freely publish the details of their articles, abstracts, links-addresses of archival storage of articles, factual data and discussion materials.
Such a system will provide users with the opportunity to participate in discussions of articles and will store and publish the materials of these discussions.
It will take readers' ratings of articles for their significance, originality, and accuracy, and calculate article and author ratings based on those ratings.
The main function of scientific discussions is to identify errors in articles and in the arguments of the debaters - incorrect terms, logical contradictions and inconsistencies with facts.
Formal discussions of articles between their proponents and opponents reveal errors in them much more effectively than reviews.
Therefore, such discussions will replace traditional peer review.
The basic principles of formalized discussions are described in my article "A fundamental discovery will teach the elite to think!"
Formal discussion of articles is not only the most effective method for detecting errors, but also the best way to disseminate research results and theories in scientific communities.
Before publication, authors will discuss their articles with opponents.
Discussion materials will be required parts of article publications.
After publications, any users registered in the system can participate in discussions.
In addition to discussions of the identified errors, in special sections of the discussion, recommendations of the debaters on the development of projects and separate discussions of them can be presented.
Based on the results of their discussions, opponents will rate the significance, originality and accuracy of the articles.
These scores will be multiplied by the professional ratings of the opponents.
The obtained values and estimates will be published in the Catalog together with the details of the articles and will determine their initial ratings.
Revealing errors in scientific articles is hard, highly qualified and expensive work. Therefore, the budgets of scientific projects should provide sufficient amounts for the fees of opponents. The influence of the opponents' fees on the identification of errors in the articles and on the marks given will be compensated by the influence of the adequacy of the marks on the reputation and ratings of opponents.
Members of the scientific communities, in which the works are published, can give their personal assessments to these works. These ratings can be added to the ratings of opponents and will be published in the files of articles in the Catalog. On a cumulative basis, the System will calculate article ratings.
Readers can also rate the debaters, including opponents.
As a result of studying the materials of the ongoing discussions, readers can change their ratings of articles and debates.
A cataloged system for awarding article ratings based on collective assessments of researchers will be significantly more effective in informing the scientific community than peer-reviewed journals.
The system will also calculate and publish the current personal ratings of users.
These will include their ratings as authors of the articles, their ratings as debaters and their ratings as readers-evaluators of the articles.
Author ratings will be calculated by the sum of ratings of published articles.
Discussion ratings will be calculated by the sum of the readers' ratings.
The current professional ratings of users will be calculated based on the author's and discussion ratings, taking into account some coefficients.
Ratings can accumulate over time, but the terms of the ratings of previous years can be reduced according to some formulas and past terms.
Formulas and coefficients for calculating ratings will be compiled and changed in the process of creating, operating and improving the System.
Scientific administrators can receive additional ratings based on user assessments for the results of institutes, projects, research directions, etc.
The ratings of the reader-evaluators can be determined by their professional ratings multiplied by, for example, ∑ (1 - | K - P | / K) / N, where K is the average collective rating of the article or the debater, P is the reader's personal rating, N is the number articles and debates assessed by the reader.
In calculating these ratings, estimates for the previous 2-3 years will be taken into account.
Readers' ratings of articles and debates will be multiplied by the rating ratings of readers.
Rankings can replace academic degrees, citation indices, article count, etc.
The rating system of researchers can be the basis for self-government of scientific communities.
Scientists unite in local and network communities - teams of laboratories, departments, projects, institutes, virtual scientific schools, city, regional, interregional, sectoral, national, international communities.
When making decisions by the scientific community, the weight of the vote of each of its members should be equal to its current rating.
During the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences, I participated in discussions in the Society of Scientists and published two articles on self-government of fundamental science -
Management of science in the state of the XXl century
Management of science in the state of the XXl century - 2
The main function of managing fundamental science is the distribution of state funding by industry, institution, region, and project.
Self-governing scientific communities can optimally allocate resources, much more efficiently than bureaucratic, incompetent, corrupt government agencies.
The distribution of resources by scientific communities at all levels will successfully replace the ineffective, corrupt, humiliating grant system.
The described System can be created and operated, as suggested by a colleague V. Novikov (@nnseva) , on the basis of crowdsourcing and crowdfunding, under the auspices of the industry, national or international scientific community.
In the process of creating it, a prototype system could operate, possibly on Habr.com.
For several years, this System and several other similar international systems will work alongside traditional journals. Gradually, the number of users of these systems will increase, and the authors and subscribers of journals will thin out. In 2-3 years, almost all journals will go bankrupt, and these systems will provide scientific communications for the entire World.
E. Gershman