The role and significance of peer-review in Russian and foreign library and information science journals: a comparative analysis
https://doi.org/10.24069/SEP-21-03
Abstract
The paper summarizes experience of the authors as peer-reviewers of more than 100 manuscripts in twelve Russian and foreign academic journals on Library and Information Science in the last seven years. Prepared peer-reviews were used for making a list of the most usual critical and special comments for each manuscript that were subsequently structured for the conducted analyzes. Typical issues accompanying the peer-review process are shown. Significant differences between the results of peer-review in Russian and foreign journals are detected: although the initial quality of newly submitted manuscripts is approximately equal, the final published versions in foreign journals addressed all critical and the majority of minor reviewers’ comments, while in Russian journals more than one third of final versions were published with critical gaps. We conclude about low interest in high quality peer reviews among both authors and editors-in-chief in Russian journals. Despite the limitations of the samples, the obtained findings can be useful when evaluating the current peer-review system in Russian academic journals on Library and Information Science.
About the Authors
V. N. Gureyev
Trofimuk Institute of Petroleum Geology and Geophysics, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences; State Public Scientific Technological Library, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Vadim N. Gureyev, Cand. Sci. (Educ.), Senior Researcher at Information Analysis Center; Senior Researcher
Publons: https://publons.com/researcher/A-4778-2014
Novosibirsk
N. A. Mazov
Trofimuk Institute of Petroleum Geology and Geophysics, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences; State Public Scientific Technological Library, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Nikolay A. Mazov, Cand. Sci. (Eng.), Leading Researcher, Head of Information Analysis Center; Leading Researcher
Publons: https://publons.com/researcher/G-6469-2010
Novosibirsk
References
1. Мельников О.Н. Рецензирование как фактор повышения качества информации. Научная периодика: проблемы и решения. 2011;1(2):20–23. URL: https://nppir.ru/PDF/03NP211.pdf (дата обращения: 18.10.2021)
2. Mulligan A., Hall L., Raphael E. Peer review in a changing world: An international study measuring the attitudes of researchers. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2013;64(1):132–161. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22798
3. Скалабан А.В., Юрик И.В., Лазарев В.С., Лис П.А. Анализ белорусских научных журналов, индексируемых в Science Citation Index Expanded и Emerging Sources Citation Index. Научные и технические библиотеки. 2019;(11):93–110. https://doi.org/10.33186/1027-3689-2019-11-93-110
4. Белая книга Совета научных редакторов о соблюдении принципов целостности публикаций в научных журналах. Обновленная версия 2012 г. Пер. с англ. Екатеринбург: Изд-во Урал. ун-та; 2016. 132 с. http://doi.org/10.15826/B978-5-7996-1742-4
5. Meadows A. Librarians and Societies and Publishers – Oh My! 2013. URL: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/04/03/librarians-and-societies-and-publishers-oh-my/ (accessed: 18.10.2021).
6. Mabe M. The growth and number of journals. Serials. 2003;16(2):191–197. http://doi.org/10.1629/16191
7. Bornmann L., Mutz R. Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2015;66(11):2215–2222. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23329
8. Larsen P.O., von Ins M. The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index. Scientometrics. 2010;84(3):575–603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0202-z
9. Bartholomew R.E. Science for sale: The rise of predatory journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2014;107(10):384–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076814548526
10. Lukić T., Ivana B., Biljana B., Ljubica I.B., Dragan M., Dušan S. Predatory and fake scientific journals/publishers-a global outbreak with rising trend: A review. Geographica Pannonica. 2014;18(3):69–81. https://doi.org/10.5937/GeoPan1403069L
11. Gureev V.N., Lakizo I.G., Mazov N.A. Unethical authorship in scientific publications (A review of the problem). Scientific and Technical Information Processing. 2019;46(4):219–232. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0147688219040026
12. Лопатина Н.В., Цветкова В.А. О новых подходах к оценке научной деятельности: рассуждения авторов-рецензентов. Научно-техническая информация. Серия 1: Организация и методика информационной работы. 2021;(4):38–42.
13. Тихонова Е.В., Раицкая Л.К. Рецензирование как инструмент обеспечения эффективной научной коммуникации: традиции и инновации. Научный редактор и издатель. 2021;6(1):6–17. https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2021-1-6-17
14. Williams S. Scientists, Publishers Debate Paychecks for Peer Reviewers. Scientist. 2020. URL: https://www.thescientist.com/careers/scientists-publishers-debate-paychecks-for-peer-reviewers-68101 (accessed: 18.10.2021).
15. Beverungen A., Bohm S., Land C. The poverty of journal publishing. Organization. 2012;19(6):929–938. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508412448858
16. Copiello S. On the money value of peer review. Scientometrics. 2018;115(1):613–620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2664-3
17. Тамбовцев В.Л. Рецензирование в современных научных коммуникациях. Управление наукой: теория и практика. 2021;3(1):35–54. https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2021.3.1.2
18. Garcia J.A., Rodriguez-Sánchez R., Fdez-Valdivia J. The author–reviewer game. Scientometrics. 2020;124(3):2409–2431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03559-6
19. Baruch Y., Konrad A., Aguinis H., Starbuck W. (eds). Opening the Black Box of Editorship. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK; 2008. 296 p. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230582590
20. Митрофанов М.И. Лицензия Elpub. Платформа комплексной поддержки научного журнала в сети Internet. В кн.: Научное издание международного уровня – 2015: современные тенденции в мировой практике редактирования, издания и оценки научных публикаций: сборник трудов 4-й Международной научно-практической конференции (26–29 мая 2015 г., Санкт-Петербург). СПб.: НЭИКОН; 2015. С. 81–86. URL: https://www.elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_23791196_91236703.pdf (дата обращения: 18.10.2021)
21. Москалева О.В., Акоев М.А. Прогноз развития российских журналов: издательства. Наука и научная информация. 2020;3(2–3):131–154. https://doi.org/10.24108/2658-3143-2020-3-2-3-131-154
22. Гуреев В.Н. Научное рецензирование в публикационном процессе и в карьере ученых. В кн.: Забинякова О.Б. (ред.) Современные техника и технологии в научных исследованиях: сборник материалов 11-й Международной конференции молодых ученых и студентов (24–26 апреля 2019 г., Бишкек, Киргизия). Бишкек: НС РАН; 2019. Т. 2. С. 60–66. URL: http://www.ipgg.sbras.ru/ru/science/publications/materials-nauchnoe-retsenzirovaniev-publikatsionnom-protsesse-2019-043659 (дата обращения: 18.10.2021)
23. Попова Н.Г., Коптяева Н.Н. Академическое письмо: статьи IMRAD. Екатеринбург: Институт философии и права УрО РАН; 2014. 160 с. URL: https://rassep.ru/academy/biblioteka/106583/ (дата обращения: 18.10.2021)
24. Simkin M.V., Roychowdhury V.P. Read before you cite! Complex Systems. 2003;14(3):262–274. URL: https://www.complex-systems.com/abstracts/v14_i03_a05/ (accessed: 18.10.2021)
25. Gureev V.N., Mazov N.A. Citation analysis as a basis for the development of an additional module in antiplagiarism systems. Scientific and Technical Information Processing. 2013;40(4):264–267. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0147688213040151
26. Mazov N.A., Gureev V.N., Kosyakov D.V. On the development of a plagiarism detection model based on citation analysis using a bibliographic database. Scientific and Technical Information Processing. 2016;43(4):236–240. https://doi.org/10.3103/S0147688216040092
27. Кулешова А.В., Чехович Ю.В., Беленькая О.С. По лезвию бритвы: как самоцитирование не превратить в самоплагиат. Научный редактор и издатель. 2019;4(1–2):54–51. https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2019-1-2-45-51
28. Москалева О.В. Российские журналы в Web of Science Core Collection. Научный редактор и издатель. 2018;3(1–2):26–32. https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2018-1-2-26-32
Review
For citations:
Gureyev V.N., Mazov N.A. The role and significance of peer-review in Russian and foreign library and information science journals: a comparative analysis. Science Editor and Publisher. 2021;6(2):93-103. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24069/SEP-21-03
Views: 797
Email this article 
