bgscience@idbg.ru
+7 495 648 62 41 Russia, 127015, Moscow, Novodmitrovskaya st. 5A (b. 7)
Menu

Switch to Russian:to Russian

The global crisis of the reviewing institute and the network model to exit from it


Lazutkin A.P.
(about the author)

Lazutkin Andrey – (Siberian State Aerospace University, Russia)

Published in:
Scholarly Communication Review
– Volume 7, Number 4 (October-December 2017)



Keywords: collective intelligence, corruption in science, dialectics, e-libraries, expert rating, gamification Science, judicial contest, knowledge ranking, online debate, scientific criticism, scientometric ratings, web discussions


Citation:
Lazutkin A.P. (2017). The global crisis of the reviewing institute and the network model to exit from it. Scholarly Communication Review, 7(4), 197-213. doi: 10.18334/nppir.7.4.38363


Share:

Abstract:

As information and networking technologies develop, the scientific community increasingly expresses its concern about the decline in the quality of scientific review and the sharp increase in the number of fictitious scientific articles. The main danger of the crisis of the reviewing institute is that the on-line production of fictitious scientific articles legitimizes the production of equally fictitious scientific and expert ratings and statuses. This, in turn, leads to systemic corruption of science and the loss by the scientific community of its most important function - the function of legitimizing the actions produced by representatives of business and government. The deepest systemic crisis of science is explained in the article by the fact that modern scientific review is subordinated to the methodologically untenable principles of bureaucratic discourse - discourse without feedback, without any possibility of appeal from the author. The problem of creating an effective alternative to discourse is postulated, in which the reviewer, as an anonymous, appears in relation to the author of the article by the opponent and the judge in one person. The technological basis for this alternative is the self-organized system for moderating network expert discussions (online debates), the description of which is presented in the article. The "Online Debate" technology, the general description of which is given in the article, provides for an equal role interaction between the reviewer, the author and the editor, and is a network analogue of a judicial contest between a prosecutor, a lawyer and a judge. A unique feature of the described technology is the mechanism for determining the objective rating of judgments and personal reputational rating of participants in public (network) review.







References:
1. Guba K.S. Poisk i otbor rukopisey v amerikanskikh sotsiologicheskikh zhurnalakh: Sety vs Rynok // Sotsiologiya vlasti. – 2015. – T. 27. – № 3. – S. 93-125.
2. Petrosyan A.E. Mekhanizm tormozheniya (ekspertnaya otsenka nauchnyh rezultatov kak faktor sderzhivaniya kontseptualnyh innovatsiy). Chasty I // Sotsiologiya nauki i tekhnologiy. – 2015. – T. 6. – № 4. – S. 66-88
3. Petrosyan A.E. Mekhanizm tormozheniya (ekspertnaya otsenka nauchnyh rezultatov kak faktor sderzhivaniya kontseptualnyh innovatsiy). Chasty II // Sotsiologiya nauki i tekhnologiy. – 2016. – T. 7. – № 1. – S. 109-133.
4. Grundmann R., Shter N. Vlasty nauchnogo znaniya. – SPb: Aleteyya, 2015. – 324 s.
5. Habermas J. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1989. 301 p.
6. Ortega-i-Gasset X. Vosstanie mass [sb.] / Per. s isp. – M.: AST, 2002. – 509 s.
7. Shestopal A.V., Konnov V.I. Prakticheskaya epistemologiya: rol retsenzirovaniya v organizatsii nauchnoy deyatelnosti // Vestnik MGIMO Universiteta. – 2014. – № 1. – S. 198-207.
8. Kiseleva M. «Marzhinalnosty etogo biznesa ogromna»: s rukovoditelem KiberLeninki o buduschem nauchnyh publikatsiy. [Elektronnyy resurs] // Indicator.Ru. 15.02.2017. URL: https://indicator.ru/article/2017/02/15/kiberleninka-semyachkin-interview/?utm_source=indivk&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=kak-obespechit-otkrytyy-dostup-k-nauchnym (data obrascheniya: 20.09.2017).
9. Naukometriya i ekspertiza v upravlenii naukoy: sbornik statey / Pod red. D.A. Novikova, A.I. Orlova, P.Yu. Chebotareva. – M.: IPU RAN, 2013. – 572 s.
10. Kotlyar P. Iz spiska RINTs isklyucheny bolee 300 «musornyh» zhurnalov [Elektronnyy resurs] // Gazeta.Ru. 19.04.2017. URL: https://www.gazeta.ru/science/2017/04/19_a_10634891.shtml (data obrascheniya: 20.09.2017).
11. Kant I. Sochineniya: v 6 tomakh: t. 3. – M.: Mysl, 1964. – 799 s.
12. Lesh K. Vosstanie elit i predatelstvo demokratii / Per. s angl. Dzh. Smiti, K Golubovich. – M.: Logos, Progress, 2002. – 224 s.
13. Yaspers K. Ideya universiteta / Per. s nem. T.V. Tyagunovoy, red. perevoda O.N. Shparaga, pod obsch. red. M.A. Gusakovskogo. – Minsk: BGU, 2006. – 159 s.
14. Gertsen A.I. Sobranie sochineniy: v 30 tomakh: t. 3: Diletantizm v nauke. Pisyma ob izuchenii prirody, 1842-1846. – M.: AN SSSR, 1954. – 368 s.
15. Vazhneyshie kontseptsii teorii argumentatsii / nauch. red. A.I. Migunov. – SPb.: Filologicheskiy fakultet SPbGU, 2006. – 296 s.
16. Gamidov G.S., Kolosov V.G., Osmanov N.O. Osnovy innovatiki i innovatsionnoy deyatelnosti. – SPb: Politekhnika, 2000. – 328 s.
17. Momdzhyan K.Kh., Podvoyskiy D.G., Krzhevov V.S., Antonovskiy A.Yu., Barash R.E. Sistemno-teoreticheskiy podkhod k obyyasneniyu sotsialnoy realnosti. Filosofskaya ili sotsiologicheskaya metodologiya? // Voprosy filosofii. – 2016. – № 1. – S. 17-42.
18. Dzhey M. Dobrodeteli litsemeriya: O lzhi v politike / Per. s angl. M. Kukartsevoy; Nauchnye red. A. Metall (SShA), M. Kukartseva. – M.: Kanon+: Reabilitatsiya, 2015. – 352 s.
19. Rybka E.V. Ispolzovanie metoda debatov v obuchenii argumentatsii detey 10-12 let // Obrazovanie i nauka. – 2012. – № 6. – S. 148-156.