Preview

Science Editor and Publisher

Advanced search

Peculiarities of scientific communication in Russia (from the experience of the Council on the Ethics of Scientific Publications)

https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2018-3-4-129-133

Full Text:

Abstract

N. Luman noted that science exists because of the truth/ lie code, so in science, one true statement can be connected only to another true statement. In this logic, we could assume that the communication between scientific journals authors, experts and the Council on the Ethics of Scientific Publications working under the auspices of the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers (ASEP) determined by the absolute values of science. During the three years of its activity, the Ethics Council has gathered quite a rich experience of communication in terms of requests / recommendations concerning violations of ethical norms with publications referring themselves to scientific ones. At the same time, the results of communications / miscommunications between journals, authors, reviewers, databases of scientific information allowed to systematize and identify nine types of communications (both formal and informal). The main conclusion we can draw is that lies and disrespect have become the norm, and science as a type of activity in Russiarisks to mutate when it sets goals that are different from the search for scientific truth.

About the Author

A. V. Kuleshova
Russian Public Opinion Research Center; Association of Science Editors and Publishers (ASEP)
Russian Federation

Anna V. Kuleshova, Cand. Sci. (Sociol.), Managing Editor of the journal Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniya: Ekonomicheskie i sotsial’nye peremeny / Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes, Russian Public Opinion Research Center; Chair of the Council of Science Publication Ethics of the Association of Science Editors and Publishers (ASEP)

Moscow



References

1. Антоновский А. Ю., Бараш Р. Э. «Истина» и «власть» как категории социальной философии. Мониторинг общественного мнения: экономические и социальные перемены. 2017;(5):120–134. DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2017.5.08

2. Кулешова А. В., Подвойский Д. Г. Парадоксы публикационной активности в поле современной российской науки: генезис, диагноз, тренды. Мониторинг общественного мнения: Экономические и социальные перемены. 2018;(4):169–210. DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2018.4.10

3. Makri A. Pakistan and Egypt had highest rises in research output in 2018. Nature. 2018;21 Dec. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-018-07841-9

4. Меrton R. The Institutional Imperatives of Science. In: Barnes B. (ed.) Sociology of Science. Penguin, London; 1965, pp. 65–79.


For citation:


Kuleshova A.V. Peculiarities of scientific communication in Russia (from the experience of the Council on the Ethics of Scientific Publications). Science Editor and Publisher. 2018;3(3-4):129-133. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2018-3-4-129-133

Views: 702


ISSN 2542-0267 (Print)
ISSN 2541-8122 (Online)