Evaluation of the professional worth of scientific papers, their citation responding and the publication authority

Abstract

For the most part, the “publish or perish” paradigm has inevitable implications on the quality of research published because the scientific results are evaluated by quantity and not by quality. The pressure for multiple publication results in creation of so-called predators journals acting without the required peer reviving. Moreover, the citation records of papers do not reflect duly their scientific quality enhancing mere quantity. The growth of sophisticated “push-and-button” apparatuses allows easier preparation of publications while facilitating ready-to-publish data. Articles can thus be compiled by mere combination of different measurements usually without idea what it all is about and to what purpose this may serve. Moreover, any deep-rooted theory which is contravening mainstream executions is not welcome because is breaking the effortless often long-established practice. While the number of publications is clearly a quantitative criterion, much hopes has been placed on citation, which promised to serve well as an adequate measure of the genuine scientific value, i.e., of quality of the scientific work. The impact factor is related to the van’t Hoff law of activity coefficient. The case of Russian publication policy and that of JTAC are particularly examined. JTAC is enlightened by providing basis for new fields of thermal material science which should be recognized as a yet missing impact.