In academic writing, citations are often used to confirm authenticity. The quote looks like one or more excerpts from the works of other scientists, based on which the researcher illustrates his theses, confirms his assumptions, criticizes or disputes the arguments with which he does not agree.
When writing essays, term papers, theses and dissertations, it is required to cite a large number of citations, and the larger the list of used literature, the more serious the work is considered and the higher the score received by its author.
The use of quotes requires compliance with certain requirements.
General requirements:
- Quoted text inside the main text must be enclosed in quotation marks without the slightest change. The quotation marks are necessary in order to show the boundaries of the quote - its beginning and end. It is unacceptable to skip words, sentences or paragraphs without indicating that such a gap is being made (the gap is replaced by a dot). Replacement of words is unacceptable, all the features of the author's spelling must be preserved.
- Quoting should be objective. It is unacceptable to tendentiously shorten quotations, leaving in them only some part of the reasoning, arguments needed by the author using the quotation.
- Cannot be merged in one quote there are several excerpts taken from different places in the source. Each excerpt is formatted as a separate quotation.
- For strengthening of individual places quotes use underlining or changing the font, indicating in parentheses the initials of your first and last name, for example: (underlined by us. - T.A.), (our italics. - T.A.), (our discharge. - T.A. ).
- All quotations must be accompanied by source references (links). This allows, if necessary, to check the correctness of the citation, increases the responsibility of the author for the accuracy of the citation.
- To link with the text in scientific papers, square brackets are most often used, inside which are the number of the document from the list of references and an indication of the page from which the quote was taken.
The concept of "citation" is used in the Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI) and serves to evaluate the work of a scientist, team, organization, the frequency of mentioning scientific works affects the Hirsch index, allows you to navigate what is new in world science. The impact factor and rating of the journal depend on the citation.
The rules for citing, references, and descriptions in the lists of references are set out in the RSCI Regulations on the NEB eLibrary website, as well as in GOSTs on the website of the Federal Agency for Technical Regulation and Metrology.
List of normative and regulatory documents:
- RSCI REGULATIONS. Appendix 2
The seventh edition of the Dictionary of Foreign Words, published by the Russian language publishing house in 1979, gives the following definition:
A quotation is an exact, literal excerpt from a text.
A necessary condition for any scientific work is citation. A quote from an authoritative scientist confirms the correctness of your point of view, makes the report, abstract, term paper more weighty and significant. But here it is important to observe the measure. The quote should support your point, not obscure it.
The quotation is introduced into the text and for its refutation.
A quotation can be put into context in a variety of ways: As the author writes; The author emphasizes, notes, etc.
General requirements for cited material.
The quotation must be inextricably linked with the text (to prove or confirm the author's provisions).
The quotation must be given in quotation marks, exactly in the text, with the same punctuation marks and in the same grammatical form as in the original source.
The omission of words, sentences, paragraphs when quoting is indicated by ellipsis.
When quoting, it is not allowed to combine several passages taken from different places in one quotation. Each such passage should be presented as a separate quotation.
When citing, each quotation should be accompanied by an indication of the source (bibliographic reference).
5 Question. Basic rules for quoting.
A quotation as a sentence in its own right (after a period ending the preceding sentence) must begin with an uppercase letter, even if the first word in the source begins with a lowercase letter.
A quotation included in the text after a subordinating conjunction is enclosed in quotation marks and is written with a lowercase letter, even if it begins with an uppercase letter in the cited source.
If the sentence is not fully cited, an ellipsis is used instead of the omitted text. Punctuation marks that precede omitted text are not preserved.
A word or phrase can be quoted. In this case, it is enclosed in quotation marks and introduced into the sentence.
When quoting not from the original source, you should indicate: “cit. on:". As a rule, this is done only if the source is difficult to access (rare edition).
If you want to convey the author's thought in your own words (indirect quotation), you need to do this quite accurately, not forgetting to refer to it, for example: Only those who decide to remain ignorant are ignorant (Plato).
Scientific citation rules: the more citations, the better
There are no abstract quotes. Any quotation has its own rules, since it is used to achieve any specific goals. You can do without quotes. But here scientific citation or the use of fragments of works by other authors in an article, monograph of a scientist is a mandatory requirement. Without citations from the works of the classics of one or another scientific school, without demonstrating that the author is aware of the achievements of their chosen field of science, not a single scientific work can be considered serious.
In scientific citation, a quotation looks like one or more excerpts from the works of other scientists, based on which the researcher illustrates his theses, confirms his assumptions, criticizes or disputes the arguments with which he does not agree.
The more citations are given and the larger the list of references required in scientific citation, the more seriously the work is considered and the higher the score is given to its author.
Writing scientific texts involves the use of citation.
Citation in scientific text- this is the transfer of someone else's speech through quotation marks in order to confirm any theoretical or practical data on the issue under study.
Basic rules for quoting are the following:
1. Quoted text should be given in quotation marks in the same grammatical form in which it is given in the source, and with the preservation of all punctuation marks. Punctuation marks are not preserved only when the sentence is not fully quoted. In this case, instead of the omitted text, an ellipsis is placed before the beginning of the quoted sentence, or inside it, or at the end.
For example: N. Berdyaev wrote: “The basis of the Slavic idea, as well as the basis of the Russian messianic idea in general, can only be Russian spiritual universalism, Russian all-humanity ... and not Russian national narrow-mindedness and complacency ...”.
2. A quotation placed after a colon usually begins with a capital letter.
For example: L. S. Vygotsky noted: “The thought itself is born not from another thought, but from the motivating sphere of our consciousness, which embraces our drives and needs, our interests and motives, our affects and emotions.”
However, if in the original source the first word of a quotation begins with a lowercase letter, then the quotation included in the text after the colon also begins with a lowercase letter. In this case, the quoted text must be preceded by an ellipsis.
For example: I. Ilyin emphasized: "... a mature philosophical experience, brought to the proper intensity, integrity and objectivity, informs the human spirit of a number of properties, traits and abilities that reveal the authenticity of its being."(In source: "... a mature philosophical experience ...").
3. If a quote is included in the text after a subordinating conjunction ( what, to, if, though, since etc.) or after introductory constructions like as he notes, as he points out, according to, in his opinion, then the first word of the quoted text is written with a lowercase letter, even if it begins with an uppercase letter in the source.
For example: P. Florensky noted that "scientific speech is a tool forged from everyday language, with the help of which we master the subject of knowledge."(In source: "Scientific speech...").
According to Vl. Solovyov, "the objective world contemplated by us is created through a priori forms of space, time and causality."(In source: “The objective world we contemplate…”).
4. A quotation that is included in the text as an independent sentence after a period ending the preceding sentence must begin with an uppercase letter, even if the first word in the source begins with a lowercase letter.
For example: The development of the surrounding world, the knowledge of scientific achievements is impossible without confidence in the need to acquire new knowledge, without awareness of the importance of one's own development. “Despondency is the enemy of every improvement. There can be no structure in doubt. There will be no learning in fear. Observation is a step towards justice” (N. Roerich).(In source: "...despondency is the enemy of every improvement...").
5. When quoting not from the original source, it is necessary to indicate " Cit. on:».
For example: V. O. Klyuchevsky rightly noted: “Time strengthens the assimilated heritage with a new moral connection, historical tradition, which, acting from generation to generation, transforms the covenants and blessings inherited from fathers and grandfathers into hereditary properties and inclinations of descendants” (Quoted by: Domnikov S. D. Mother Earth and Tsar City Russia as a traditional society / S. D. Domnikov.– M.: Aleteya, 2002.– 672 p.).
6. Each quotation included in the text of a scientific work must be accompanied by an indication of the source placed in the list of references.
Examples of designing a bibliographic footnote:
[Vinnikov 2003: 20]
(Vinnikov, 2003, p. 20)
In the list of references at number 5: Vinnikov A.Z. On the Roads of the Millennium: Archaeologists on the Ancient History of the Voronezh Territory /A. Z. Vinnikov, A. T. Sinyuk. - 2nd ed., Rev. and additional - Voronezh: Voronezh Publishing House. state un-ta, 2003. - 280 p.
Modern science, due to the high cost of its material and technical support (materials, tools, computer technology, etc.), is forced to be built on a collective basis. In this regard, the number of papers with a large number of co-authors is growing every year. There is a need to use data from other scientific groups or technical performers, unpublished information gleaned from the Internet and other information systems, consultations, etc. Therefore, the leaders of research work and persons preparing the publication of scientific information face the tasks associated with determining the contribution of certain co-executors of the work, i.e., in essence, they have to solve ethical problems.
In this article, we will look at how ethical standards affect scientific publications. In this regard, the ethics of co-authorship and the ethics of citation seem to be the most important. One of the possible goals of such consideration is to develop the norms of rational co-authorship and rational citation.
Scheme of the passage of a scientific publication
The process of writing and preparing a scientific article for publication is subject to formalization (as, indeed, works of any genre) . Despite the variety of forms of scientific written reports (reports, short communications, abstracts of speeches at conferences, regular and review articles, patents, special popular presentations of material, purely informational selections, etc.), the procedure for preparing articles can be represented as a general scheme, including a series of successive stages.
The most important ethical issues that arise at the stages of preparing an article are related to issues of co-authorship, namely: - choosing a leader for preparing an article, - determining the list of authors and their order, - choosing an author (authors) for correspondence. Among the secondary issues from the point of view of scientific ethics are: - the choice of a place (journal) for publication, - the decision on the further fate of the material in
if the editorial board concludes that the article is rejected, - the development of a decision on all critical remarks.
Scientific productivity
One of the results of the activity of a researcher is the publication, in particular, an article in an accessible and well-known scientific journal. However, here the question arises: how often should a researcher publish his results? This question has recently become widespread for assessing the productivity of scientific activity, which is facilitated by the fact that many questionnaires for scientific workers, as a rule, include a question on the number of publications, for example, in the last 5 years (the number of published works is used as a criterion for admission for a new job, awarding scientific degrees, elections to the academy, etc.). However, this usually leaves aside the question of the significance of the work performed, assessed, for example, by the citation index of the work, as proposed in the information model of science.
Scientometricians 20-30 years ago investigated the phenomenon of authors who had several hundred publications, to which, in particular, the physicist Lord Kelvin belonged - over 67 years of scientific activity, 660 of his works were published (i.e., about 10 works every year or one article per month) ). However, there are now many scientists who have published 1,000 papers or more (not counting preprints, abstracts, and other forms of preliminary written papers). Even a special club of "thousanders" has been established. The generally recognized champion here is the Soviet scientist, X-ray specialist Yu.T. Struchkov (corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR). According to available estimates, he published one article about a week and so for almost 40 years.
At the same time, there are examples of the extremely stingy productivity of scientists in publishing their work. The famous physicist P.L. Kapitsa, the Nobel Prize winner, published only a few dozen scientific papers, and in some years he did not submit his work to print at all. Nevertheless, Kapitsa's contribution to modern physics is enormous.
It is possible that the reason for scientific fertility may be associated with a simple desire to express themselves, with some kind of graphomania. The habit of writing, the art of working with texts, the love of language, probably have a certain meaning. It is known that the physicist L.D. Landau was a wonderful storyteller, dreamer and improviser, but he did not like to write. The famous multi-volume course by Landau and Lifshitz might not have been created if it were not for E.M. Lifshitz.
At one time, A. Molem expressed the idea of the expediency of singling out a separate profession - a writer, a processor of results, an interpreter. At some point, an ordinary scientist submits all his data to such a specialist who brings them to a public form: describes the problem statement, the course of the solution, draws conclusions, collects and cites bibliographic references. Of course, the direct author of this scientific work gets acquainted with the text being prepared, makes adjustments and additions, but now it does not take him much time. He uses developed technology.
The title information about the authors of the publication does not always unequivocally exhaust the list of all those persons who in one way or another caused the appearance of this work. The number of persons not usually included in the list of authors should include those who gave consultations, provided unpublished data, individual chemical compounds, expressed critical comments when reading the manuscript, etc., and the authors of the article officially express their gratitude to them. In many cases, it is difficult to draw a precise line between authors and those to whom gratitude is expressed. For example, gratitude is often given for the performance of certain sections of the work, for the formulation of this work, i.e. for what in most cases can be regarded as an undoubted co-authorship.
Another circle of persons adjacent to the co-authors is the technical executors of individual operations of the work. For example, in chemical research, these may be spectroscopists or analysts who check the purity of preparations or prove the structure of the compounds obtained. It can also be engineers, technicians and laboratory assistants who perform technically complex work steps.
In this regard, I would like to say a few words about the ratio of scientific and technical personnel. In Russian science, technical personnel are gradually disappearing, which is connected with the financial state of our economy. If the scientific employees in the performance of any work are guided by their own creative aspirations and goals related to scientific prestige, then the technical staff is primarily interested in a suitable pay for their work. It is known how important laboratory and engineering work was for many venerable scientists (see, for example, the memoirs of P.L. Kapitsa). Thus, the financial crisis in Russia should most sharply affect the state of experimental research, we can expect a sharp decline in the overall culture of the experiment, a gradual shift away from fine experiments that require complex equipment and precision instruments. We will remember such phenomena as, for example, the Karpov school of glassblowers, which provided half of Moscow's chemical science with amazing glass instruments.
There is an opinion that the problem of being an author or not being an author is not serious. The leaders of the publication during the preparation and design of the article, if possible, include in the list of authors all the executors of the work. Ethical problems in determining co-authorship usually arise among those persons who did not take part in the preparation of the article at the beginning, but joined at the second stage, when the article was already basically ready. Here the performer himself needs to assess the significance of his contribution to this work.
In some cases, the offer of co-authorship may look like a kind of bribe - we include you in the authors, and you will have to do this and that. Sometimes the offer to be a co-author is intended to share responsibility for questionable or weak parts of the work. In other cases, this may mean the special inclusion of a scientist with a big name to increase the prestige of the work.
In general, among scientific publications, there is a phenomenon of an increase in the number of papers with a large and even super-large list of co-authors, when the number of authors reaches a hundred. This is especially true for work in the field of high-energy particle physics and space research, where teams serving unique and complex installations include hundreds and thousands of specialists (for example, in the case of space or atomic and nuclear research). Even abbreviated, specially introduced names for such groups were born (in order not to download the formal titles of the work). Well-known, for example, is the case of cooperative authorship in mathematics (the famous, or rather famous Bourbaki). Of course, this phenomenon has a negative side - the author, as it were, disappears in such a team, and the contribution of an individual can be completely lost.
Undoubtedly, there is still an element of rivalry in science, individual scientists are interested in personal fame, awards, prizes, etc. Public institutions are preserved that specifically support these ambitions (first of all, this is the institution of the world-famous Nobel Prizes).
In the process of becoming an article, the initial stage is, of course, essential, when the idea of writing an article is formed and its first version is compiled. Most often, the idea to write an article comes at the beginning to one person, the true leader of the article, but it is possible that this idea arises from several people at once, who quickly take shape in the circle of publication leaders.
Another circle of co-authors is associated with the leaders or customers of the proposed scientific document. This may be the supervisor of a graduate student, the head of a laboratory, the head of a department, etc. Very often, leaders do not write articles and do not take part in writing them on a daily basis, however, they "record themselves" as authors for clan reasons, thus designating their circle of influence.
A special place in the practice of Soviet (and now Russian) scientific publication is played by "Reports of the Academy of Sciences" (DAN). In order for an article to be published in this periodical, co-authorship with a full academician or corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences is required, or the article must be submitted by a full academician.
I recall the history of the publication in DAN of my first article "Molecular Mobilities in Latexes. NMR Study". I turned to my leader Vladimir Lvovich Karpov (son of the founder of the Karpov Institute - Lev Yakovlevich Karpov) with a proposal to send the prepared article to the DAN (section of chemistry). V.L. Karpov agreed and added that Academician V.A. Kargin, and that he (Karpov) would personally go to him to get an introduction. However, a certain time passed, and Vladimir Lvovich was never able to fulfill his promise, so I made an appointment with Kargin and asked for an introduction myself.
V.A. Kargin was a very authoritarian and surprisingly mesmerizing personality. Without reading the article, he only asked two questions. "Are you the first to pay attention to the mobility of polymers in latexes?" “Of course not,” I replied. - "So you have developed this method...how is it...nmr?" - "Yes, no, this method was invented by the Americans back in 45-46 years" - I said. - "Then I don't understand what you are talking about. You seem to have no subject of novelty, but according to the rules of DAN, papers presenting only new results are accepted there." Refuse!!!
When I told Vladimir Lvovich about this, he smiled - "You, Kolya, were in a hurry. Wait for me, I'll go to Kargin." After 10 minutes, he returned and said: "I helped Valya slightly reformulate the concept of novelty in science. Your article is accepted."
The list of co-authors in modern scientometrics is given some attention. The leading scientific citation publication, the Science Citation Index, is built on the principle of first-author citation. So, if you set out to find out all your publications for a certain period, you will be forced to find out the names of all the first authors of the articles in which you participated (and were not necessarily the first author).
In accordance with tacitly accepted ethical standards, the first place in the list of authors is usually occupied by the true leader of the publication. However, in some cases, the true leaders - the leading leaders of this scientific direction - prefer to take the last place in the list, patronizingly giving way to the first place to younger colleagues. Sometimes the leader (or all leaders) will look at the list of future co-authors and try to rank them according to their relative contribution to the work.
In many cases, actual publication lead, i.e. formal responsibility for the passage of the article (contacts with the editorial board and with readers) is assumed by the true leader (or two leaders) of the publication. It is assumed that his personal interest will have a positive effect on the speed of passing the article to its publication and on the development of further contacts.
Finally, there is a certain democratic approach, according to which the names of the authors are placed alphabetically. However, there may be funny collisions associated with different alphabets. So, for example, Russian surnames starting with the letter "Ch" (for example, Chertkov or Cherepanov), in the English version will begin with the letter "C" (ie Chertkov or Cherepanoff).
All these approaches to the order in which authors are placed do not solve, however, the main problem - how to determine the true leader of the publication. In part, this issue is resolved by indicating in the information about the authors the address of one (sometimes two) of the co-authors with whom it is proposed to correspond (however, sometimes one or another addressee is suggested due to reasons of quick communication).
In scientometrics, the so-called Matthew effect is described - "For whoever has, to him it will be given and it will be multiplied, but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him." In other words, when the leadership is not clearly indicated, the priority in the publication is usually attributed to the most famous author.
It was suggested that a list of authors be given, with a brief indication of the role that each author played in the work. This would help to pinpoint who to contact for further clarification and would filter out those who are simply "attributed" to the publication. Note that this method is generally accepted in film distribution, where it is precisely indicated who is the director, who is the cameraman, who plays who and who is responsible for what.
In my opinion, the method of personal responsibility could greatly improve the quality of scientific publication. Unfortunately, in science, this method is difficult to implement, since the roles of performers can change in the course of work. In addition, the true creators of the publication (for example, the creators of the original idea) may not end up in the list of authors at all.
Choosing a place for publication
The discussion of the issue of choosing the place of publication deserves special attention. Of course, most authors dream of being published in a prestigious journal. These are journals with a high impact factor (average citation of articles in a given journal). In the field of chemical sciences, the Journal of American Chemical Society (JACS) is certainly considered prestigious, which holds the record not only in terms of volume (about 20,000 two-column pages per year), but also in terms of average citation of articles (the impact factor is about 5, t .e. each article is cited an average of five times in subsequent years). This is a fairly high level (for the vast majority of Russian scientific journals, the impact factor does not exceed one).
Of no small importance (including from an ethical point of view) is the issue of payment for publications. There is a point of view that the author of the publication should be paid a fee. Indeed, many editorial offices in the USSR paid royalties (for example, journals with a production profile, such as Automation of Production, Butter Industry, etc.). As a rule, the editors of journals of academic subordination did not pay fees, although, for example, Uspekhi Khimii, which publishes review articles, paid quite decent fees. Moreover, since such review publications are usually translated into English, the authors receive an additional translation fee (in foreign currency).
In the editorial offices of American journals, in particular all journals of the American Chemical Society, there is a practice of payment for publication by the authors themselves.
Let me give you an example from my own practice. As a relatively young author (in the early 70s), I certainly dreamed of publishing in JACS. However, in Soviet times, publishing abroad was seen almost as a dissident undertaking. It was necessary to obtain special permission for such publication from the VAAP - the All-Union Agency for the Protection of Copyrights, for which it was required to submit an English version (sent abroad) and its Russian translation.
I must say that ambition made me study the question - do Soviet authors publish in JACS at all, and if they do, then what are the reasons for such publications. A painstaking study of this issue (i.e., carefully reading all the titles of articles with lists of authors and organizations where the authors work) took several months. These are countless issues of the magazine for the period 1918-1972, in which, as it turned out, "Soviet publications" occasionally slipped through. In total, I counted nine such publications over a period of 54 years.
I prepared, in my opinion, an interesting material on the proton spin-spin interaction constants in methylcyclopentadiene (the results were obtained jointly with my student V.A. Korenevsky) and, having received permission from the VAAP, sent the material to JACS, hiding the VAAP instruction to grant JACS the right to only one-time publication of this material.
The work received a positive review, and I thought that now it remains to wait for the prints. However, instead of them, I received a letter from which it was clear that my work was accepted for publication, and in accordance with the expected size, it would cost me about 70 US dollars.
Unfortunately, I did not have any dollars, and in complete hopelessness I began to carefully read the regulations on payment for publications. First, I learned that a similar fee system is common in the journals of the American Chemical Society and this determines the speed and high technical level of publications. Secondly, I was surprised to learn that many foreigners, like the Americans themselves, do not have the money to publish their materials.
At the same time, the editors reported that there are many sponsors willing to pay. To do this, just indicate which of them you choose. The letter offered a list, which, of course, included the Pentagon, the FBI, the CIA and some other organizations of an undoubtedly military or political profile, which, of course, caused me very negative emotions. However, at the end of the list, I found a modest postscript, from which it became clear that I could classify the country that I represent as an author as an underdeveloped and developing country, and then the funding would be purely charitable. I did just that, which resulted in the tenth Soviet article in the Journal of the American Chemical Society.
Ethics of quotation
In recent years, the literature cited in scientific publications (mainly due to the intensive practical work of Garfield and the theoretical developments of V.V. Nalimov) has become a very serious tool for studying science itself and has been used to study information flows in order to determine the rank of a journal, maps of science, and the level of citation. individual works and individual authors. Therefore, the analysis of the cited literature began to arouse great interest.
Regular scientific work is necessarily based on previous results, and the article, as a rule, contains bibliographic references as a documentary evidence of these results. In principle, most of the statements given in the work, one way or another, have a certain literary background. Therefore, almost every second phrase in a regular text could be supported by a corresponding link, which, naturally, would lead to an "overload" of the article.
As practice shows, there is one link for every 10-15 lines of text. Of course, there is no general recipe for how often to link. In view of the limited volume of the article, the authors have to carry out a certain selection of references. First of all, they try to give references to the most important works, and from the many references on one issue, the most significant are selected. In some cases, articles are cited from the most highly cited journal or a well-known author, without necessarily citing the original source. It is preferable to refer to publications where this problem (question) is described in the most detail (collection of reviews, monograph). Often the authors provide links to their own works, in which the issue under discussion has already been touched upon.
The deliberate suppression of the works of one or another author can be considered a standard ethical offense. This technique is used as a method of discrimination. The usual justification is that the work that could be cited is in the wrong language (for example, not in English) or is published in a hard-to-reach or low-citation journal.
Americans, for example, prefer to refer to works published in American journals, ignoring scientific publications in European countries. Indeed, the powerful economic and political potential of the United States now largely determines the level of standards and style of scientific research in the world. A single European country can hardly compete here.
A European Union initiative aimed at creating a sustainable alternative to American journals can play a certain role in supporting the prestige of European science. In recent years, new journals have appeared, such as the European Journal of Chemistry, and some old journals, such as Angewandte Chemie, have been transformed into new ones. However, the success of these journals, designed to unite European chemists into a single scientific community, has so far been hindered by language barriers, as well as national ambitions.
I must say that language barriers are a serious limitation in the development of science. In this regard, great changes have taken place in Russia in recent years. Journals began to appear only in English, for example Mendeleev Communications, and many journals now have parallel English counterparts.
Anomalies in citation probably include the almost complete absence of bibliographic references in the published work, as well as excessive reliance on references to one's own works, although both have a right to exist.
Let us consider the problems of scientific ethics associated with the passage of an article in the editorial office, and, in particular, the issues of interaction "author-editor".
First of all, we will be concerned about the case associated with the rejection of this work. With the right choice of journal, with the understanding that your work satisfies the criteria (semantic and technical) required by this edition, you have almost 100% chance of being accepted. Deviation should be viewed not as luck or bad luck, but as a failure, as a signal that you do not understand something in the current state of this science. In this sense, it is very important in what form the refusal is sent. I would single out two forms of refusal - persuasive and unpersuasive.
Having received a convincing refusal, you will understand what your miscalculation is and what needs to be done next. With an unconvincing rejection, there is a danger of starting a correspondence with the editors, trying to accuse the editor or reviewers of bias, ignorance or bias, and, as a rule, such litigation does not work.
In my practice (60-80 years) the most convincing refusals were received from the journals of the American Chemical Society. In my opinion, a purely material principle worked here - the more expensive the magazine turned out to be, the more convincing the refusal was. As a rule, a high-value journal invites high-ranking experts, and at least two experts study this article. If there is a significant difference in their opinions, the article is sent to the third expert, who assists the editor-in-chief in preparing the final answer.
Rejection in all editions is seen as a kind of drama - the editors, of course, guess that the rejection will cause negative emotions among the authors, in some cases it is just a collapse of hopes. If the final review contains excerpts from the letters of all experts, the author, carefully reading the meaning of criticism and comments, discovers something new and significant for himself, the grounds for complaints, accusations, and insults disappear.
Reviewers in the editorial offices, as a rule, are involved on the basis of complete confidentiality. Although, perhaps, such an approach is "convenient" only for bad journals and uncivilized science, where tribalism flourishes, the scientific hierarchy dominates (for example, an influential academy). Having received a refusal, the author tries to guess who "flunked" his article and who needs revenge, etc. However, all this is unworthy of a scientist.
In the history of science, there are many cases of dramatic refusals to publish, which ended in the loss of national priorities, personal tragedies, delays in the development of entire areas. As an example, I will refer to the history of the refusal to publish the first article on modern NMR tomography, submitted to the editors of the Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics. In this work, for the first time, a method was presented for measuring NMR signals under conditions of a magnetic field gradient and the idea was expressed that the method could be used to detect water signals that are inaccessible for direct measurement. The article was rejected by the reviewer, so this case was repeatedly cited as an example of the irresponsibility of the editorial staff of the journal and as an example of the loss of Soviet priority in important scientific and technical developments. As you know, now Russia buys imported NMR tomographs in large quantities (spending millions of dollars a year).
The situation looks simpler if the article as a whole is accepted by the editors, however, critical remarks are made and certain corrections are required. Here you should try to meet the editorial requirements as much as possible. However, let's also allow a refusal to take into account some of the comments, which should be convincingly justified by the author. Sometimes, however, there are situations when an article is conditionally accepted, but the requirements put forward by the editors may be unacceptable for the authors (for example, changing the main conclusions, title, list of authors, etc.).
This paper does not purport to be an exhaustive exposition of the complex ethical issue of authorship and citation. For example, questions about links to private messages or unintentional suppression of the work of a certain author or group of authors turned out to be outside the scope of the article (which, by the way, can be considered as a way of "fighting competitors"). The existence of special magazines for a narrow circle of workers (having secrecy or confidentiality stamps) is not discussed either. Out of sight were such complex ethical and legal issues as copyright protection (Copyright system).
As a central idea, I would like to emphasize that ethical relationships in science, in particular those relating to authorship and citation, are based on universal human moral norms and values, such as openness, democracy, tradition, respect for the contribution of others, continuity, etc. . There are other factors that affect the harmony of authorship, such as the psychological aspect. However, perhaps the most serious is the economic factor, which dictates the rules for the rapid, economical and efficient dissemination of information.
Adjustment to the balance in the field of scientific ethics, in principle, can occur both at the expense of the economic factor and at the expense of moral norms. Considering moral norms to be deeper, one can only hope that in most cases such adjustment will occur with the help of flexible economic factors.
1. A scientist is the subject of scientific work. The ethics of scientific research covers problems related to a) the motivation for entering science, b) the choice of research topic, c) the choice of methods and means of research, verification, examination, i.e. with the main stages of the study.
a). Moral situations of moral choice, dilemmas already arise because of the imbalance of what a person comes with and what real values and norms of scientific communication he finds within a particular scientific institution or research team. Most often, the adaptation of a specialist to new functional roles, to a new microenvironment requires a significant change in his attitudes, personality restructuring. The degree of painfulness of the adaptation process largely depends on the coincidence of attitudes, personal interests with the plans of a scientific institution, firm, as well as on the availability of reserve attitudes formed in the course of professional training at a university.
b). When choosing a direction and topic, the behavior of a scientist’s research is to a large extent a consequence of the choice of profession already made once, as well as the manner in which he entered science: “from the front door” or “from the back door”.
in). The choice of methods and means of research and verification is regulated by the logical-technological and methodological norms of knowledge derivation, but this is the subject of a special science - the methodology of science. These are such norms and principles as, for example: “seek the truth”, “avoid nonsense”, “state clearly”, “look for interesting hypotheses”, “try to test hypotheses as thoroughly as possible”, “be ready to start all over again”, etc. .d.
2. Ethics of scientific communication.
Scientific communication occurs both directly and indirectly through scientific publications.
Ethics of scientific publication
is the most important component of the ethics of scientific communication. The fact is that the publication is a unit of disciplinary knowledge, evidence of the author's belonging to this scientific community. It is precisely because of this that the moral guarantees of the process and stages of publication are important, which require the mandatory passage of professional control (examination, review, written review of an official opponent when defending a dissertation).
A scientific publication is subject to certain norms, deviation from which is very often a deviation from the truth, as well as from the rule of law. Only what is really checked, tested, confirmed by experiment, archival materials, survey, etc. should be published. Here, in the first place, such norms as a conscientious attitude to the results obtained, scientific honesty are in the first place. And the desire for the honor of the discoverer (for priority reasons) should not conflict with morality.
It is important to keep in mind here that scientific activity is competitive. Because of this, the mechanisms of self-organization of the scientific community in some essential moments resemble the mechanisms of the market, with the fundamental difference, however, that the role of capital in science is played by confession colleagues. This form of capital, of course, is not as easily quantifiable as money, but like the amount of money in a country's economic system, the "total amount of recognition," so to speak, is limited, which creates competition among scientists. In recent decades, a form of its calculation has also been found, although not always fair and often criticized, but it has proven its effectiveness - the "currency unit" of recognition is the citation of an article by scientist A in an article by scientist B. The more such units A receives, the higher the level of his recognition. This symbolic capital materializes in various forms, but primarily in the form of a rating in science, which affects the likelihood of receiving a grant.
As in a market economy, the normative-value system of the scientific community not only allows but also stimulates competition between scientists. And at the same time, he is trying to establish the rules of fair competition and ensure the consolidation of the scientific community. In what way? Competing with colleagues in the struggle for recognition, each scientist realizes his individual interest. This interest, however, can only be pursued within the framework of the scientific community. And this encourages the scientist to treat colleagues with respect, to recognize the contribution to science of each of them and to maintain a climate of mutual trust.
Therefore, another group of scientific publication norms refers to co-authorship and citation. As a rule, gratitude and mention of all those who in one way or another helped in the implementation of this study is the most common form of correctness, tribute to helpers. It is better to thank a specific person for a specifically named contribution, and not be limited to the abstract “thank you to those who helped with the advice to bring this work to light.”
Ethical aspects of co-authorship arise due to the fact that modern science is dominated by a collective, group form of research. And sometimes it is difficult to determine the size of the personal share of each participant. Is there a moral right to co-authorship in the implementation of a joint experiment or project? To “weigh” this share or find an algorithm for such a right in each case, sometimes special studies are needed. Therefore, it is advisable to point out certain moral rules in solving the problems that arise in this case.
When there is no reason to doubt such a right, the spirit of equal cooperation with co-authorship is usually expressed by the list of authors of publications in alphabetical order. More complex are the moral issues that arise with the co-authorship of representatives of various scientific generations, as well as a subordinate and a leader. In any case, it can be firmly said that the moral duty of the older comrade is to help the younger, but in such a way that would not infringe on his pride and dignity. The moral rule is that a high position in the administrative and service hierarchy does not give an automatic right to co-authorship with their subordinates.
With regard to the ethics of citation, it should be recalled that knowledge is a gradual, often imperceptible advance in each narrow field of science, which would be impossible without the knowledge and use of everything achieved by predecessors in this field. Scientific progress is unthinkable without the cumulation and assimilation of existing ideas. Therefore, the norm of obligatory reference to the source of the idea, to the predecessor, is important.
The citation rules express not only the requirements of logic or "technique of presentation", they also act as ethical and aesthetic norms, being a reflection of the general and professional culture, the moral character of the author. The specificity of scientific communication lies in the fact that communication mainly occurs without personal acquaintance, it is impersonal. Having become the value of science, knowledge, as it were, loses its “paternity”, therefore the theft of ideas can also occur in a depersonalized form, by “collecting” orally expressed ideas at symposiums and conferences. Here, the limits of what is permitted are determined only by the conscience of scientists. The meaning of citation is not only the search for an argument in one's favor, but also the correct consideration of the opinions and use of the results of other scientists working in the same field.
Citations and references to other authors, inclusion of their works in the bibliography should be justified by the content of the work, and not serve as a “curtsey” just in case to possible future opponents, reviewers, etc. The moral duty of the researcher is to cite strictly semantic and logical necessity.
A deviation from the moral norms of citation is the deliberate suppression of the work of some predecessors or the achievements of like-minded people. In this case, a dismissive or negative attitude towards the personality of the researcher, as a rule, is unjustifiably transferred to knowledge, to scientific results. Lack of reference to known results is also an expression of disdain for both the author and his work. It gives reason to think about insufficiently high qualifications, the general culture of the author, and even suggests that this author is simply not familiar with the works of scientists, whose alternative opinion he did not present in the introductory part of his work.
Another group of moral situations that arise in the course of scientific publication is related to the reviewing and performance by scientists of an expert function. At the same time, ethical problems arise from the fact that in reality the most competent, real experts are a very narrow circle of specialists who have the professional and moral right to judge this work. Meanwhile, peer-reviewed work is not always sent to these specialists. With the existence of such an “invisible college” (as a group of specialists constantly informing each other working in the same narrow field is usually called in the scientific community), there is a problem of trust in the peer-reviewed-reviewer relationship if the work is in the wrong place.
The objectivity and impartiality of the reviewer is a mandatory requirement of the ethics of science, which implies the awareness of one's responsibility to the scientific community and to the reviewed author. Reviewing should be aimed at maximizing the solution of the scientific problem, carried out without regard to the personality and status of the author or the authority of the institution where he works. It should always be remembered that the maximum objectivity of a review is an assessment of the moral reputation of the reviewer himself.
