The Scientific System of Collective Discussions and Evaluations
The main functions of scientific journals are to select the most interesting articles, establish the absence of errors in them, and publish them.
Editors select articles. Their interests do not quite coincide with the interests of publishers and even less with the interests of science. Even in their own interests, editors often make erroneous decisions due to their complexity.
Reviewers identify errors in articles. They, too, often make mistakes. If only because most reviews are written by young scientists and graduate students.
?
Today, the technical dissemination of information, i.e. publication, occurs on the Internet almost free of charge.
?
The basis of a modern effective system of scientific publications can be an Internet catalog in which authors will freely publish the details of their works, abstracts, links-addresses of archival storage of works, factual data, and discussion materials.
Such a system will provide users with the opportunity to participate in discussions of works and will store and publish the materials of these discussions.
It will accept readers' assessments of works by their significance, originality and correctness and calculate ratings of works and authors based on these assessments.
?
The main function of scientific discussions is to identify errors in works and in the arguments of the discussants – incorrect words, logical contradictions and inconsistencies with the facts.
Formalized discussions of works between their proponents and opponents identify errors in them much more effectively than reviews.
Therefore, such discussions will replace traditional peer review.
?
The basic principles of formalized discussions are described in my article ?Fundamental Discovery will Teach Elites to Think !?.
?
Formalized discussions of works are not only the most effective method of identifying errors, but also the best way to disseminate research results and theories in scientific communities.
?
Before publication, authors will discuss their works with opponents.
Discussion materials will be mandatory parts of publications.
After publication, any members of scientific communities in which the works have been published can participate in discussions.
?
In addition to discussions of identified errors, the discussants' recommendations for the development of projects and individual discussions of them can be presented in special discussion sections.
?
Based on the results of their discussions, opponents will rate the significance, originality, and accuracy of the works.
These ratings will be multiplied by the professional ratings of the opponents.
The resulting values and ratings will be published in the Catalogue along with the details of the works and will determine their initial ratings.
?
Identifying errors in scientific works is difficult, highly skilled, and expensive work. Therefore, the budgets of scientific projects must provide sufficient amounts for the fees of opponents. The influence of opponents' fees on identifying errors in works and on the ratings given will be offset by the influence of the adequacy of the ratings on the reputations and ratings of the opponents.
Members of scientific communities in which the works have been published can give their personal ratings to these works. These ratings can be added to the opponents' ratings and will be published in the work files in the Catalog. On their total basis, the System will calculate the ratings of the works.
Readers can also rate discussants, including opponents.
As a result of studying the materials of ongoing discussions, readers can change their ratings of works and discussants.
?
The cataloged System for assigning ratings to works based on collective assessments of scientific workers will inform scientific communities much more effectively than peer-reviewed journals.
?
The System will also calculate and publish current personal ratings of users.
They will include their ratings as authors of works, their ratings as discussants, and their ratings as readers-evaluators of works.
Author ratings will be calculated based on the sum of ratings of published works.
Discussant ratings will be calculated based on the sum of reader ratings.
According to the author's and discussion ratings, taking into account some coefficients, the current professional ratings of users will be calculated.
Ratings can accumulate over time, but the components of ratings of previous years can be reduced according to some formulas and past terms.
Formulas and coefficients for calculating ratings will be compiled and changed in the processes of creation, operation, and improvement of the System.
Scientific administrators can receive additional ratings based on user assessments for the results of the institutes, projects, research areas, etc. they manage.
?
The ratings of readers-evaluators can be determined by their professional ratings multiplied by, for example, ∑ ( 1 – | K – P | / K ) / N, where K is the average collective rating of an article or discussant, P is the personal rating of the reader, N is the number of articles and discussants assessed by the reader.
When calculating these ratings, the ratings for the previous 2-3 years will be taken into account.
Readers' ratings of works and discussants will be multiplied by the readers' ratings.
?
The ratings can replace scientific degrees, citation indices, the number of publications, etc.
?
The system of ratings of scientific workers can be the basis for self-government of scientific communities.
Scientific workers unite in local and network communities – teams of laboratories, departments, projects, institutes, virtual scientific schools, city, regional, interregional, industry, national, international communities.
When making decisions by the scientific community, the weight of each member's vote should be equal to his current rating.
I participated in discussions in the Association of Scientific Workers and published two articles on self-governance of fundamental science –
Science Management in the State of the 21st Century – 1
Science Management in the State of the 21st Century – 2
The main function of fundamental science management is the distribution of state funding by industries, institutes, regions, projects.
Self-governing scientific communities can optimally distribute resources, much more effectively than bureaucratic government bodies.
Distribution of resources by scientific communities at all levels will successfully replace the ineffective grant system.
The described System can be created and function on the basis of crowdsourcing and crowdfunding, under the auspices of an industry, national or international scientific community.
For several years, this System and several similar international systems will operate alongside traditional journals. Gradually, the number of users of these systems will increase, and the authors and subscribers of journals will thin out. In 2-3 years, almost all journals will go bankrupt, and these systems will provide scientific communications for the entire World.
E. Gershman
___
?