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

Svitlana Fiialka,Olga Trishchuk,Nadija Figol

doi:10.21511/kpm.04(1).2020.03

Abstract

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.

Highlights

Scientific journals play the most significant role in the production and dissemination of new knowledge
Summarizing the theoretical findings of the study, choice options): double-blind peer review, when we conducted a survey of Ukrainian reviewers on both reviewers and authors were unknown to their attitude to reviewing, motivation, reviewing each other during the manuscript evaluation promodels they prefer, cases of conflict of interest, dif- cess, – 198 responses; single-blind peer review, ficulties in engaging with authors and editors
The results of the analysis of the scientific literature indicate that the necessary conditions for quality review are as follows: the reviewer reveals any potential conflict of interest; refuses to review if it considers itself incompetent in the topic of the article; draws attention to the originality and scientific value of the article; identifies both the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript; provides constructive suggestions on how to improve the article; demonstrates a positive collegial tone of communication rather than a negative “restaurant critic”

Summary

Introduction

Scientific journals play the most significant role in the production and dissemination of new knowledge. In the practice of scientific communication, the editor does not make decisions on the article alone, but relies on the reviewers’ recommendations. These recommendations can be contradictory: even if four reviewers are involved in the review of the manuscript, four different solutions are possible: publish, publish with minor modifications, publish if revised, and reject (Donmoyer, 1996). Scholarly articles appear at the boundaries of disciplines, so another problem arises: “Who can give expert judgment to such research?” (Fox, 2017)

Objectives

Results

Conclusion