Czy (i komu) potrzebne są czasopisma naukowe? Kontekst nauk społecznych

Badacze zajmują się: (1) prowadzeniem badań naukowych oraz (2) upowszechnianiem ich wyników. Badacze zatrudnieni na uniwersytetach podejmują jeszcze dodatkową aktywność – (3) przekazują intersubiektywną wiedzę naukową (sprawdzone teorie i metody pozyskiwania tej wiedzy) swoim studentom i młodym badaczom, przygotowującym pod ich kierunkiem dysertacje doktorskie. Głównym kanałem przekazywania naukowych treści (wypełnianie przez badaczy obowiązku poddawania społecznej kontroli wytworów ich umysłów) są czasopisma naukowe. Tak jest w matematyce, fizyce, chemii, biologii, naukach medycznych czy w naukach inżynierskich. Tak też – w interesujących autora naukach społecznych – jest w psychologii. Z kolei w naukach humanistycznych (filozofia, historia, literaturoznawstwo itp.) duże znaczenie przypisuje się monografiom naukowym. Autor rozpatruje problem publikowania osiągnięć naukowych badaczy z obszaru nauk społecznych (ale jego rozważania mają też znaczenie dla klasycznych nauk humanistycznych) w czasopismach i w monografiach na tle dokonanych w Polsce – jego zdaniem - nieudolnie i bez należytego poszanowania tradycji, reform w obszarze nauki i szkolnictwa wyższego (tzw. ustawa Jarosława Gowina, ministra ds. nauki szkolnictwa wyższego, autoryzującego krytykowaną ustawę). Autor krytycznie odnosi się do negatywnych konsekwencji społecznych – zwłaszcza dla rozwoju nauki i studiów wyższych w Polsce. Autor krytycznie odnosi się do: (1) uznaniowego (bez racjonalnego uzasadnienia!) wyróżnienia listy wydawców książek naukowych, (2) stworzenia, bez należytej wnikliwości, listy czasopism. Te dwa wykazy stanowią podstawę do przeprowadzanych ewaluacji dorobku naukowego instytucji naukowych i pojedynczych badaczy. To nie mogą być rzetelne oceny. Zdaniem autora przeliczanie publikacji na punkty prowadzi do zjawiska depersonalizacji ocen osiągnięć naukowych (w wymiarze indywidualnym i instytucjonalnym). Prowadzi też do udziału, zwłaszcza młodych badaczy, w „wyścigu szczurów” (formuła: Publish or Perish) oraz rodzi zjawiska patologiczne w nauce: ghostwriting, guest authorship, plagiarism, self-plagiarism, falsification of data, fabrication of data, publikowanie w predatory journals, publication bias. Środkiem zaradczym może być tylko odejście od „punktowania” publikacji i dokonywanie ocen metodą peer review.

Vectors of Evolution of Political Reflection and Рolitainment

The development of political science in Russia largely reflects global trends. The transition to the methodology of quantitative analysis, the increasing role of large interdisciplinary projects with large transnational research teams, the increase in the number of co-authors, the avalanche of publication activity, and the extreme democratization of scientific life are among them. The principle of publish-or-perish, which dominates the education and scientific policies, provokes an exponential growth of publications and a number of negative effects: "salami publications", "guest authorship" , etc. In response to these effects, the ideas of "slow science" in the West and active public discussion in the Russian scientific environment develop. At the same time, the generation of meanings and narratives takes place in journalism and politainment - a sphere where politics and entertainment interact and intertwine, creating a new reality. At this point, political theory is becoming more and more elitist. At the same time, metaphor as a tool of theoretical knowledge is becoming increasingly important. Today, political knowledge is a system of hierarchically constructed interacting and interrelated metaphorical concepts. In this context, the abilities of metaphor are important: not only to describe reality more or less accurately, but also to model it. There are two ways to reflect on the political: the professional community, in the context of mass education and science, moves towards detailing knowledge about a narrow subject, while broader political contexts are reflected by society and its intellectual and creative elites through the narratives of mass culture expressed in metaphorical language.

Co-authorship in the context of academic integrity

To find out how Ukrainian scholars view co-authorship, a Google form was posted on Facebook in professional communities. The survey was filled out by 198 scholars representing 24 fields. Among the main reasons for co-authorship, respondents identified the following: possibility of intellectual development, establishment of professional contacts, opportunity to save time, material rewards as a result of such publication, pressure of a manager who wants to have a publication but does not actually participate in the research, access to expensive equipment and materials, ability to share costs with all co-authors, bad English language skills, increased likelihood of being published with co-author authority, and more. We managed to get numerous answers illustrating the difficulties of preparing scientific publications in co-authorship: delays by other authors, reluctance of collaborators to take into account the comments of reviewers, the low requirements of some collaborators to itself, when they allow themselves to be published in “predatory journals”, problems during interpersonal communication, the need to include in the list of authors the people who did not participate in the writing of the article, long-term text alignment by co-authors, plagiarism, language problems, conflicting views on the results. Ethical problems arising from the co-authorship are revealed: the order of authors, distribution of scientific contribution, authorship of the administrative director, authorship of works performed under scientific supervision, etc.The article also addresses the problem of gift and guest authorship and elucidates the attitude of Ukrainian scientists to the services of companies that “guarantee” the publication of articles in international peer-reviewed journals.

Authorship, plagiarism and conflict of interest: views and practices from low/middle-income country health researchers

ObjectivesTo document low/middle-income country (LMIC) health researchers’ views about authorship, redundant publication, plagiarism and conflicts of interest and how common poor practice was in their institutions.DesignWe developed a questionnaire based on scenarios about authorship, redundant publication, plagiarism and conflicts of interest. We asked participants whether the described practices were acceptable and whether these behaviours were common at their institutions. We conducted in-depth interviews with respondents who agreed to be interviewed.ParticipantsWe invited 607 corresponding authors of Cochrane reviews working in LMICs. From the 583 emails delivered, we obtained 199 responses (34%). We carried out in-depth interviews with 15 respondents.ResultsSeventy-seven per cent reported that guest authorship occurred at their institution, 60% reported text recycling. For plagiarism, 12% of respondents reported that this occurred ‘occasionally’, and 24% ‘rarely’. Forty per cent indicated that their colleagues had not declared conflicts of interest in the past. Respondents generally recognised poor practice in scenarios but reported that they occurred at their institutions. Themes identified from in-depth interviews were (1) authorship rules are simple in theory, but not consistently applied; (2) academic status and power underpin behaviours; (3) institutions and culture fuel bad practices and (4) researchers are uncertain about what conflict of interests means and how this may influence research.ConclusionsLMIC researchers report that guest authorship is widely accepted and common. While respondents report that plagiarism and undeclared conflicts of interest are unacceptable in practice, they appear common. Determinants of poor practice relate to academic status and power, fuelled by institutional norms and culture.

Authorship in Medical Literature

Scientific paper publication has an important role in the academic filed. Being an author of such paper based on the research or other scholarly activity is associated with many benefits such as peer recognition, financial gain, promotion, job appointment, and fellowship and research awards. The race to increase the quantity rather than the quality of manuscript among the researchers has made the researchers being involved in an unethical practice. To be included as an author one must fulfill the authorship criteria developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). One shouldn’t be given credit for authorship who can’t defend the published work. Authorship misuse in the form of gift authorship, guest authorship or ghost authorship is not uncommon these days. To reduce the authorship conflicts many journals have set strict policy to mention about the nature of the contribution made by each “author” and that information is available to the readers.