Affiliation:
1. Associate Professor, Candidate of Sciences in Social Communications, National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”
2. Professor, Doctor of Sciences in Social Communications, National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”
3. Candidate of Sciences in Philology, National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”
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.
Publisher
LLC CPC Business Perspectives
Reference62 articles.
1. Academic Virtue and Plagiarism. (2020). Facebook Groups. - https://www.facebook.com/search/top?q=Академічна%20доброчесність%20та%20плагіат
2. The art of scholarly reviewing: Principles and practices
3. Blank, R. (1991) The effects of double-blind versus single-blind reviewing: Experimental evidence from the American economic review. The American Economic Review, 81(5), 1041-1067. - https://www.jstor.org/stable/2006906
4. Medical communication: the old and new. The development of medical journals in Britain.
5. Do Author-Suggested Reviewers Rate Submissions More Favorably than Editor-Suggested Reviewers? A Study on Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献