The Discussion section in the manuscript of an original empirical study is the most creative and challenging part to construct. Incorrect discussion of results in many manuscripts submitted to scientific journals often leads to their rejection, even if the results themselves hold potential significance for the scientific community. The absence or poor quality of interpretation of results by the authors can negatively affect the overall perception of the study by readers. The most complete functional implementation of the Discussion section is achieved by adhering to its rhetorical structure. The purpose of this article is to analyze the functions, content, and rhetorical organization of the Discussion section of an original empirical study. The main function of the Discussion section is to interpret and explain the significance of the study’s results, highlight the current state of knowledge on the stated problem, and explain new aspects arising from the results obtained. Authors also need to specify the external validity of the data and demonstrate how these data can be generalized. The most effective way to implement the stated function is by relying on a model of the interdisciplinary rhetorical structure of the Discussion section, which can be modified according to the conventions of the discipline and the characteristics of the specific study. Depending on the study’s logic, certain rhetorical moves or steps of the structure may be omitted; however, a more comprehensive list of moves provides a more thorough interpretation of the results. Understanding the content of each move and its steps allows authors to present all necessary information regarding the obtained results in a way that ensures their objective and unambiguous perception by readers.

CRediT is a high-level taxonomy with 14 roles to describe author participation in scientific research. Although this taxonomy is used by thousands of journals around the world, it is currently available only in the English language. Volunteers from around the world have joined their efforts to make CRediT a multi-lingual instrument. The intention is to create not only human-readable, but also machine-readable translations that could be integrated into various systems (e.g., digital editorial offices). In this paper, we describe the process and outcome of translating the CRediT taxonomy into the Russian language. We note some flaws in the description of individual roles in the original language, which created additional translation difficulties. The question is raised about the necessity of describing the types of author participation in cases where the study is carried out by one researcher.

The international information exchange opportunities including those in the field of agriculture have expanded due to the computer technology development. The metadata of domestic articles on agricultural themes are beginning to be translated into English. The Central Scientific Agricultural Library (CSAL) is directly related to the dissemination of agricultural information, including in English, as it prepares metadata of articles published in some Russian agricultural journals for indexation in the international agricultural information system AGRIS. Quality of these metadata translations from Russian into English has been analyzed. Data available in printed and / or electronic versions of some scientific agricultural publications collected by the Central Scientific Agricultural Library were involved. Typical shortcomings made by Russian-writing translators have been identified. This is excessive adherence to the original sentences; translation of individual words but not the total meaning; insufficient consideration of sectoral specifics during vocabulary choosing. The reasons for the appearance of these shortcomings are analyzed. Based on the generalization of the experience accumulated at the Central Scientific Agricultural Library in creating and editing such metadata, recommendations have been composed to improve the translation quality of titles and abstracts referring to agricultural articles. The nuances of using some terms, as well as working with abbreviations, names of organizations, and article titles are described. Editors are recommended to pay more attention to the compilation of English metadata and build the system of work in this direction.

In the scientific literature, the link between an idea and its source is its reference information that allows the source to be identified and located. Not so obvious is where the source is cited in the text. Although authors are given extensive details on how to format references, they are not always taught when to cite them. Further, many are not vigilant in confirming the accuracy of the quoted information against the source or in verifying the associated reference information. In fact, discrepancies between the information cited in the text and the information actually presented in the source are common and often serious. Further, inaccuracies in references that break the link between the citation and its source are even more common. These discrepancies and inaccuracies affect the integrity of science and the validity of the citation metrics (for example, the Journal Impact Factor) that are used, rightly or wrongly, to evaluate the importance of journals and authors. Here, I discuss factors affecting when and where sources should be cited. I also consider factors that can bias the selection of sources and so interfere with the validity of citation analyses, review some considerations for evaluating a source, call attention to citation and quotation error rates, and review some strategies for reducing these errors. Finally, I summarise the most common recommendations for when, what, where, and why sources should or should not be cited.

It was investigated whether the geopolitical situation (the Russian-Ukrainian conflict) has an impact on the strategy of choosing scholarly journals by Russian authors, and what it means if it does. The data on publications of the Russian Federation from 2010 to 2023 were analyzed in comparison with other countries. The limitation of the study is a short observation period, two years, comparable to the cycle of preparation of a scientific publication. A study of the thematic focus, the author’s composition, and international cooperation was conducted. The work used data from Scopus, Web of Science, RSCI and CRIS systems. The global impact of the geopolitical situation on the publication indicators has not been revealed, although trends in international cooperation are changing in the long term. Assumptions are made about the greater impact on the number of publications of the decrease in the activity of universities of the 5-100 project, the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and the insufficient growth rate of new Russian authors published in Russian journals.

Preprints, which are non-peer-reviewed documents that are typically precursors of peer-reviewed papers, or as open access archival forms of published papers (post-prints), are increasingly becoming part of the publishing open access culture. Preprints have been lauded as a rapid form of publication, but for them to be useful and reliable sources of information, they and information pertaining to them (e.g., bibliometric indicators) need to be effectively managed by the servers where they are hosted. In recent years, a number of new preprint servers have emerged. One type of preprint server is owned by publishers, while another is ownership or financial support by philanthropic organizations This paper focuses on one case of the latter type. In 2016, the Virginia, US-based, philanthropically-funded Center for Open Science (COS) launched three preprint services (engrXiv, PsyArXiv, SocArXiv) and started Open Science Framework (OSF) Preprints in 2017. The latter was used as a “template” service to attract thematically-linked communities of academics that also wished to have their own preprint servers. In June 2024, COS listed 29 preprint servers, although 14 of them have ceased publication or hosting of preprints by COS / OSF. One reason may be due to the commercialization of the COS / OSF “template” service, which charges preprint managers an annual fee based on the volume of preprints published annually. In the light of the 14 preprint servers that are no longer hosted at or by COS / OSF, this paper briefly discusses the financial sustainability and information stability of preprint servers, which mostly allow authors to publish preprints for free. Authors’ preprints are usually screened by fairly superficial screening and moderation processes, and it is not unusual to find opaquely or “silently” deleted preprints from preprint servers, including those of COS/OSF. Given that this organization is a well-funded leader of the open science movement, greater transparency is required regarding its own funding, operations, and management, as well as a more frank and an open debate regarding the ethical limitations associated with preprints.

The information environment of scientific research requires fundamental changes. Decisionmaking and research assessment cannot be based on opaque and non-inclusive information anymore. The signatories of the Barcelona Declaration on Open Research Information have taken responsibility for transforming how research information is created and used. Openness of information should become a new standard in science. This introduction aims to provide a brief overview of the Barcelona Declaration, including its context, aims, motivations, and potential challenges for implementation.

The article describes the goals, methods, and results of developing a set of versatile requirements for formatting scientific manuscripts, the application of which can be automated. The experience and results of testing the developed requirements and methods of their automation are presented. The set of requirements for formatting scientific manuscripts in an editable format allow the document to be circulated between the authors, editors, reviewers, and layout designers, thus optimizing labor- and time resources. The developed requirements meet the text document standards adopted in the Russian Federation and are approved by typographic specialists. The requirements are supported by built-in MS Word automation tools (macros) and are executed automatically. The author’s time spent on mastering the requirements and automation tools is compensated by accelerating the formatting of lengthy documents in the future. The requirements can be customized according to individual preferences and specific publisher requirements. The developed tools were tested as part of the specialized course “Preparation of a Scientific Article for Publication” at Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University. It was found that students become to acknowledge the importance of using formatting styles when the text is initially aligned according to the IMRAD format. By that means, the text structure and formatting tasks are interrelated, complementing each other during the article preparation process. The presented set of requirements seems promising in terms of developing a generally accepted standard.