Involving Ukrainian early career scientists in publishing practices and their attitudes to scholarly communication
Open Access
- 8 July 2021
- journal article
- Published by LLC CPC Business Perspectives in Knowledge and Performance Management
- Vol. 5 (1), 38-49
- https://doi.org/10.21511/kpm.05(1).2021.04
Abstract
This paper highlights the authorship, co-authorship, and peer review experience of Ukrainian early career scientists to see their attitudes to scholarly communication. A questionnaire was distributed through Facebook groups and university networks all over Ukraine. Results from 630 respondents demonstrated contradictory tendencies of Ukrainian early scientists’ publication activity. Most respondents try to gain recognition, adhere to high standards, and improve their writing skills. Meanwhile, there is a problem of low motivation, violations of academic integrity, detachment from the international scientific community, etc. 5.6% of respondents admitted that they wrote articles where they substituted the results without conducting experiments, deliberately distorted the results of research, and forged experimental data. Above a half of the respondents (52.9%) have experience of reviewing and consider it to improve their authorship skills, engage in scientific dialogue, cope with new methods and theories, etc. But 95.0% of reviewers had problems, for example obviously poor-quality articles for review (47.5%), a request for a review when the article does not match the reviewer’s qualifications (32.5%), no access to data to check dubious results (15.0%), lack of instructions for reviewers (10.0%), ignoring significant remarks by authors (7.5%). The survey showed a significant predominance of co-authored articles. Among the main motives for publishing co-authored articles, respondents highlighted the following: saving time, intellectual development, co-payment of publications, access to expensive equipment, the chance of being quoted, and cooperation.Keywords
This publication has 19 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Game Between a Biased Reviewer and His EditorScience and Engineering Ethics, 2017
- Difficulty of recruiting reviewers predicts review scores and editorial decisions at six journals of ecology and evolutionScientometrics, 2017
- Why do peer reviewers decline to review manuscripts? A study of reviewer invitation responsesLearned Publishing, 2016
- Trouble in Paradise: Problems in Academic Research Co-authoringScience and Engineering Ethics, 2015
- Reviewer Fatigue? Why Scholars Decline to Review their Peers’ WorkPS: Political Science and Politics, 2015
- Emerging trends in peer review—a surveyFrontiers in Neuroscience, 2015
- How are collaboration and productivity correlated at various career stages of scientists?Scientometrics, 2014
- Scientific collaborationAnnual Review of Information Science and Technology, 2007
- Scientific Collaboration Results in Higher Citation Rates of Published ArticlesPharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy, 2006
- Learning from Collaboration: Knowledge and Networks in the Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical IndustriesCalifornia Management Review, 1998