ecnaЭкономика наукиEconomics of Science2410-132X2949-4680Delo Publishing house10.22394/2410-132X-2024-10-3-8-21ecna-470Research ArticleАКТУАЛЬНАЯ ТЕМА/ДИСКУССИЯDISCUSSIONПостпубликационное рецензирование: развитие научно-издательского процессаPost-Publication Review: Evolution of the Scientific Publishing Workflowhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-7890-7532КочетковД. М.KochetkovD. M.

Кочетков Дмитрий Михайлович – кандидат экономических наук, старший научный сотрудник научно-исследовательской лаборатории по проблемам университетского развития; старший научный сотрудник сектора прогнозирования и формирования приоритетов в сфере науки и инноваций; докторант Центра исследований науки и технологий

Scopus Author ID: 57194605735

620002, Свердловская область, г. Екатеринбург, ул. Мира, д. 19)

117218, г. Москва, Нахимовский пр-т, д. 32

2300 AX, Лейден, ул. Колффпад, д. 1

 

Dmitry M. Kochetkov – Candidate of Sciences in Economics, senior researcher at the Research Laboratory; senior researcher at the Sector of Forecasting and Science and Innovation Priorities; PhD candidate at the Centre for Science and Technology Studies

Scopus Author ID: 57194605735

19 Mira str., Ekaterinburg 620002

32 Nakhimovsky Ave., Moscow 117218

Kolffpad, Leiden 2300 AX

 

 

d.kochetkov@cwts.leidenuniv.nlУральский федеральный университет им. первого Президента России Б.Н. Ельцина; Институт проблем развития науки РАН; Лейденский университетРоссияUral Federal University, Ekaterinburg; Institute for the Study of Science, Russian Academy of Sciences; Leiden University, LeidenRussian Federation202405092024103821Copyright © Кочетков Д.М., 20242024Кочетков Д.М.Kochetkov D.M.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://ecna.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/470

Долгое время считалось, что рецензирование лежит в основе академических журналов и научной коммуникации, обеспечивая высокое качество и достоверность публикуемых материалов. Однако в начале XXI в. всё больше учёных стали сомневаться в традиционной модели рецензирования, заявляя о её кризисе. Цель настоящего исследования – предложить новый взгляд на рецензирование для полной реализации функций научной коммуникации. В исследовании используются методы исторического анализа и моделирования с использованием нотации BPMN (Business Process Model and Notation), которая традиционно используется для моделирования и описания бизнес-процессов. Рассматривается эволюция института рецензирования, включая анализ предпосылок текущих и будущих изменений в издательском деле, к которым автор относит кризис традиционной модели рецензирования и распространение практики размещения препринтов. Сопоставляются различные модели рецензирования с точки зрения функций научной коммуникации, а также предлагаются рекомендации по применению постпубликационного рецензирования в России

For a considerable period of time, peer review has been regarded as the cornerstone of academic journals and scientific communication, ensuring the high quality and reliability of published materials. However, in the early decades of the 21st century, a growing number of scholars began to challenge the traditional peer review procedure, questioning its efficacy. This study aims to provide a fresh perspective on the peer review mechanism, with the objective of enhancing the implementation of scientific communication's functionalities. The research employs historical analysis techniques and modelling methods based on Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) to compare diverse review models in terms of their influence on scientific communication. BPMN is a conventional tool employed for modelling and describing business processes. The evolution of the peer review procedure is explored, encompassing an examination of the factors contributing to current and future transformations in the publishing realm. The author refers to the crisis of the conventional peer review system and the growing prevalence of preprints, serving as exemplars of these transformations. Finally, suggestions for the implementation of the post-publication review workflow in Russia are provided.

рецензированиенаучный журналнаучная коммуникациянотация BPMNpeer reviewacademic journalscholarly communicationBPMN notationРабота выполнена в рамках государственного задания Министерства науки и высшего образования Российской Федерации (тема 122040800182-0 Прогнозные исследования развития научного потенциала Российской Федерации).The study was conducted within the state assignment of Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (topic 122040800182-0).ReferencesПарафонова В. А. Становление научно-популярных журналов в России // Вестник Московского университета. Серия 10. Журналистика. 2011. № 6. С. 61–72. https://vestnik.journ.msu.ru/books/2011/6/stanovlenie-nauchno-populyarnykh-zhurnalov-v-rossii/Aczel, B., Szaszi, B., & Holcombe, A.O. (2021). A billion-dollar donation: Estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 6(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00118-2Сухарев О. С. Топосы российского рецензирования // Инвестиции в России. 2020. Т. 10. С. 43–48.Avissar-Whiting, M., Belliard, F., Bertozzi, S. M., Brand, A., Brown, K., Clément-Stoneham, G., Dawson, S., Dey, G., Ecer, D., Edmunds, S. C., Farley, A., Fischer, T. D., Franko, M., Fraser, J. S., Funk, K., Ganier, C., Harrison, M., Hatch, A., Hazlett, H., … Williams, M. (2024). Recommendations for accelerating open preprint peer review to improve the culture of science. PLOS Biology, 22(2), e3002502. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002502Тамбовцев В. Л. Рецензирование в современных научных коммуникациях // Управление наукой: теория и практика. 2021. Т. 3. № 1. С. 35–54. https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2021.3.1.2Bornmann, L. (2011). Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45(1), 197–245. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112Тихонова Е. В., Раицкая Л. К. Рецензирование как инструмент обеспечения эффективной научной коммуникации: традиции и инновации // Научный редактор и издатель. 2021. Т. 6. № 1. С. 6–17. https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2021-1-6-17Braben, D., & Dowler, R. (2017, September). Peer review processes risk stifling creativity and limiting opportunities for game-changing scientific discoveries. LSE Impact Blog. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/09/17/peer-review-processes-risk-stifling-creativity-and-limiting-opportunities-forscientific- discoveries/Этика научных публикаций: руководства, стандарты и блок-схемы Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Этика научных публикаций / Под ред. О. В. Кириллова, Н. Г. Попова; пер. Е. А. Балякина, А. А. Буцанец, С. П. Зернес, [и др.]. Ассоциация научных редакторов и издателей, 2023. https://rassep.ru/academy/biblioteka/116140/Brembs, B., & Drury, L. (2024, March 27). The Open Access rising tide: Gates Foundation ends support to Article Processing Charges. International Science Council. https://council.science/current/blog/theopen-access-rising-tide-gates-foundation-ends-support-to-article-processing-charges/Aczel B., Szaszi B., Holcombe A. O. A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review // Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2021. Vol. 6. № 1. P. 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00118-2Chapelle, F. H. (2014). The History and Practice of Peer Review. Groundwater, 52(1), 1–1. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12139Avissar-Whiting M., Belliard F., Bertozzi S. M. [et al.] Recommendations for accelerating open preprint peer review to improve the culture of science // PLOS Biology. 2024. Vol. 22. № 2. P. e3002502.COPE. (2013). Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers (English). Committee on Publication Ethics. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9Bornmann L. Scientific peer review // Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. 2011. Vol. 45. № 1. P. 197–245. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112COPE. (2021). Diversity and inclusivity. https://doi.org/10.24318/RLqSoVsZBraben D., Dowler R. Peer review processes risk stifling creativity and limiting opportunities for gamechanging scientific discoveries // LSE Impact Blog. 2017. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/09/17/peer-review-processes-risk-stifling-creativity-and-limiting-opportunities-for-scientificdiscoveries/Drury, L. (2022). The Normalization of Preprints. SRELS Journal of Information Management, 79–85. https://doi.org/10.17821/srels/2022/v59i2/169462Brembs B., Drury L. The Open Access rising tide: Gates Foundation ends support to Article Processing Charges // International Science Council. 2024. https://council.science/current/blog/the-open-accessrising-tide-gates-foundation-ends-support-to-article-processing-charges/Funders support use of reviewed preprints in research assessment. (2022, December 7). eLife. https://elifesciences.org/for-the-press/e5423e39/funders-support-use-of-reviewed-preprints-in-researchassessmentChapelle F. H. The History and Practice of Peer Review // Groundwater. 2014. Vol. 52. № 1. P. 1–1. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12139Fyfe, A. (2019, September). Quality in peer review: A view through the lens of time. The Royal Society. https://royalsociety.org/blog/2019/09/quality-in-peer-review-a-view-through-the-lens-of-time/COPE. Diversity and inclusivity. 2021. https://doi.org/10.24318/RLqSoVsZGinsparg, P. (2011). ArXiv at 20. Nature, 476(7359), 145–147. https://doi.org/10.1038/476145aCOPE. Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers (English). Committee on Publication Ethics, 2013. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9Hess, E.L. (1975). Effects of the review process. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, PC-18(3), 196–199. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.1975.6591188Drury L. The Normalization of Preprints. // SRELS Journal of Information Management. 2022. P. 79–85. https://doi.org/10.17821/srels/2022/v59i2/169462Horbach, S.P. J.M., & Halffman, W. (2020). Journal Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation: Cautious Innovator or Sleepy Giant? Minerva, 58, 139–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-019-09388-zFyfe A. Quality in peer review: a view through the lens of time // The Royal Society. 2019. https://royalsociety.org/blog/2019/09/quality-in-peer-review-a-view-through-the-lens-of-time/International Science Council. (2023). The Case for Reform of Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.24948/2023.14Ginsparg P. ArXiv at 20 // Nature. 2011. Vol. 476. № 7359. P. 145–147.Kaltenbrunner, W., Waltman, L., Barnett, A., Byrne, J., Chin, J.M., Holcombe, A., Pinfield, S., Vazire, S., & Wilsdon, J. (2023). MetaRoR – a new form of scholarly publishing and peer review for STS. EASST Review, 421. https://easst.net/easst-review/easst-review-volume-421-july-2023/metaror-a-new-form-ofscholarly- publishing-and-peer-review-for-sts/Hess E. L. Effects of the review process // IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication. 1975. Vol. PC-18. № 3. P. 196–199. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.1975.6591188Karhulahti, V.-M., & Backe, H.-J. (2021). Transparency of peer review: A semi-structured interview study with chief editors from social sciences and humanities. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 6(1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00116-4Horbach S. P. J.M., Halffman W. Journal Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation: Cautious Innovator or Sleepy Giant? // Minerva. 2020. Vol. 58. P. 139–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-019-09388-zKeen, S. (2015). Post Keynesian Theories of Crisis. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 74(2), 298–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12099International Science Council. The Case for Reform of Scientific Publishing. 2023. https://doi.org/10.24948/2023.14Kirillova, O.V., & Popova, N.G. (Eds) (2023). Ethics of scientific publications: Guidelines, standards and flowcharts of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Association of Science Editors and Publishers. https://doi.org/10.24069/ASEP-2023-ethics (in Russ)Kaltenbrunner W., Waltman L., Barnett A., Byrne J., Chin J. M., Holcombe A., Pinfield S., Vazire S., Wilsdon J. MetaRoR – a new form of scholarly publishing and peer review for STS // EASST Review. 2023. Vol. 421. https://easst.net/easst-review/easst-review-volume-421-july-2023/metaror-a-new-formof-scholarly-publishing-and-peer-review-for-sts/Kochetkov, D. (2024, March 21). Evolution of Peer Review in Scientific Communication. SocArXiv Papers. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/b2ra3Karhulahti V.-M., Backe H.-J. Transparency of peer review: a semi-structured interview study with chief editors from social sciences and humanities // Research Integrity and Peer Review. 2021. Vol. 6. № 1. P. 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-021-00116-4Kovanis, M., Trinquart, L., Ravaud, P., & Porcher, R. (2017). Evaluating alternative systems of peer review: A large-scale agent-based modelling approach to scientific publication. Scientometrics, 113(1), 651–671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2375-1Keen S. Post Keynesian Theories of Crisis // The American Journal of Economics and Sociology. 2015. Vol. 74. № 2. P. 298–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12099Kronick, D.A. (1990). Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism. JAMA, 263(10), 1321–1322. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2406469Kochetkov D. Evolution of Peer Review in Scientific Communication // SocArXiv Papers. 2024. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/b2ra3McCook, A. (2006, February 1). Is Peer Review Broken? The Scientist. https://www.the-scientist.com/ispeer-review-broken-47872Kovanis M., Trinquart L., Ravaud P., Porcher R. Evaluating alternative systems of peer review: A largescale agent-based modelling approach to scientific publication // Scientometrics. 2017. Vol.113. № 1. P. 651–671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2375-1Neff, B.D., & Olden, J.D. (2006). Is Peer Review a Game of Chance? BioScience, 56(4), 333–340. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)56[333: IPRAGO]2.0.CO;2Kronick D. A. Peer review in 18th-century scientific journalism // JAMA. 1990. Vol. 263. № 10. P. 1321–2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2406469Ni, R., & Waltman, L. (2024). To preprint or not to preprint: A global researcher survey. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 75(6), 749–766. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24880McCook A. Is Peer Review Broken? // The Scientist. 2006. https://www.the-scientist.com/is-peer-reviewbroken-47872Parafonova, V.A. (2011). Development of scientific-popular journals in russia. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 10. Zhurnalistika, 6, 61–72. https://vestnik.journ.msu.ru/books/2011/6/stanovlenienauchno-populyarnykh-zhurnalov-v-rossii/(in Russ)Neff B. D., Olden J. D. Is Peer Review a Game of Chance? // BioScience. 2006. Vol. 56. № 4. P. 333– 340. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)56[333: IPRAGO]2.0.CO;2Rennie, D. (1999). Editorial peer review: Its development and rationale. In F. Godleeand & T. Jefferson (Eds.), Peer Review in Health Sciences (pp. 1–13). BMJ Books.Ni R., Waltman L. To preprint or not to preprint: A global researcher survey // Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2024. Vol. 75. № 6. P. 749–766. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24880Rühli, F.J., Finnegan, M., Hershkovitz, I., & Henneberg, M. (2009). Peer-review for the peer-review system. Human_ontogenetics, 3(1), 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/huon.200900004Rennie D. Editorial peer review: Its development and rationale / D. Rennie // Peer Review in Health Sciences / eds. F. Godleeand, T. Jefferson. London: BMJ Books, 1999. P. 1–13.Smart, P. (2022). The evolution, benefits, and challenges of preprints and their interaction with journals. Science Editing, 9(1), 79–84. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.269Rühli F. J., Finnegan M., Hershkovitz I., Henneberg, M. Peer-review for the peer-review system // Human_Ontogenetics. 2009. Vol. 3. № 1. P. 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/huon.200900004Smith, O.M., Davis, K.L., Pizza, R.B., Waterman, R., Dobson, K.C., Foster, B., Jarvey, J.C., Jones, L.N., Leuenberger, W., Nourn, N., Conway, E. E., Fiser, C. M., Hansen, Z. A., Hristova, A., Mack, C., Saunders, A.N., Utley, O.J., Young, M.L., & Davis, C.L. (2023). Peer review perpetuates barriers for historically excluded groups. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 7(4), 512–523. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-01999-wSmart P. The evolution, benefits, and challenges of preprints and their interaction with journals // Science Editing. 2022. Vol. 9. № 1. P. 79–84. https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.269Steinhauser, G., Adlassnig, W., Risch, J.A., Anderlini, S., Arguriou, P., Armendariz, A.Z., Bains, W., Baker, C., Barnes, M., Barnett, J., Baumgartner, M., Baumgartner, T., Bendall, C.A., Bender, Y.S., Bichler, M., Biermann, T., Bini, R., Blanco, E., Bleau, J., … Zwiren, N. (2012). Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 33(5), 359–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-012-9233-1Smith O. M., Davis K. L., Pizza R. B., Waterman R., Dobson K. C., Foster B., Jarvey J. C., Jones L. N., Leuenberger W., Nourn N., Conway E. E., Fiser C. M., Hansen Z. A., Hristova A., Mack C., Saunders A. N., Utley O. J., Young M. L., Davis C. L. Peer review perpetuates barriers for historically excluded groups // Nature Ecology & Evolution. 2023. Vol. 7. № 4. P. 512–523. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-01999-wStoddard, B.L., & Fox, K.R. (2019). Editorial: Preprints, citations and Nucleic Acids Research. Nucleic Acids Research, 47(1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky1229Steinhauser G., Adlassnig W., Risch J.A., Anderlini S., Arguriou P., Armendariz A. Z., Bains W., Baker C., Barnes M., Barnett J., Baumgartner M., Baumgartner T., Bendall C. A., Bender Y. S., Bichler M., Biermann T., Bini R., Blanco E., Bleau J., … Zwiren N. Peer review versus editorial review and their role in innovative science // Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. 2012. Vol. 33. № 5. P. 359–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-012-9233-1Stoddart, C. (2016). Is there a reproducibility crisis in science? Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00067-3Stoddard B. L., Fox K. R. Editorial: Preprints, citations and Nucleic Acids Research // Nucleic Acids Research. 2019. Vol. 47. Editorial. № 1. P. 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky1229Sukharev, O.S. (2020). Topos of Russian peer review. Investments in Russia, 10, 43–48.Stoddart C. Is there a reproducibility crisis in science? // Nature. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00067-3Tambovtsev, V.L. (2021). Peer reviewing in the contemporary academic communications. Science Management: Theory and Practice, 3(1), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2021.3.1.2 (in Russ)Tite L., Schroter S. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey // Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. 2007. Vol. 61. P. 9–12.Tikhonova, E.V., & Raitskaya, L.K. (2021). Ensuring effective scholarly communication: traditions and innovations of peer review. Science Editor and Publisher, 6(1), 6–17. https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2021-1-6-17Waltman L., van Eck, N. J. The preprint revolution – Implications for bibliographic databases // Upstream. 2023. https://doi.org/10.54900/fk7p22x-xydnebdTite, L., & Schroter, S. (2007). Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 61, 9–12.Williams J. B., McNeill J. M. The Current Crisis in Neoclassical Economics and the Case for an Economic Analysis Based on Sustainable Development // SSRN Electronic Journal. 2005. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1606342Waltman, L., & van Eck, N.J. (2023, February 21). The preprint revolution – Implications for bibliographic databases. Upstream. https://doi.org/10.54900/fk7p22x-xydnebdWillis M. Why do peer reviewers decline to review manuscripts? A study of reviewer invitation responses // Learned Publishing. 2016. Vol. 29. № 1. P. 5–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1006Williams, J.B., & McNeill, J.M. (2005). The Current Crisis in Neoclassical Economics and the Case for an Economic Analysis Based on Sustainable Development. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1606342Funders support use of reviewed preprints in research assessment // eLife. 2022. https://elifesciences.org/for-the-press/e5423e39/funders-support-use-of-reviewed-preprints-in-research-assessmentWillis, M. (2016). Why do peer reviewers decline to review manuscripts? A study of reviewer invitation responses. Learned Publishing, 29(1), 5–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1006

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.