SSOAR Logo
    • Deutsch
    • English
  • English 
    • Deutsch
    • English
  • Login
SSOAR ▼
  • Home
  • About SSOAR
  • Guidelines
  • Publishing in SSOAR
  • Cooperating with SSOAR
    • Cooperation models
    • Delivery routes and formats
    • Projects
  • Cooperation partners
    • Information about cooperation partners
  • Information
    • Possibilities of taking the Green Road
    • Grant of Licences
    • Download additional information
  • Operational concept
Browse and search Add new document OAI-PMH interface
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Download PDF
Download full text

(external source)

Citation Suggestion

Please use the following Persistent Identifier (PID) to cite this document:
https://doi.org/10.22394/2410-132X-2024-10-3-8-21

Exports for your reference manager

Bibtex export
Endnote export

Display Statistics
Share
  • Share via E-Mail E-Mail
  • Share via Facebook Facebook
  • Share via Bluesky Bluesky
  • Share via Reddit reddit
  • Share via Linkedin LinkedIn
  • Share via XING XING

Постпубликационное рецензирование: развитие научно-издательского процесса

Post-Publication Review: Evolution of the Scientific Publishing Workflow
[journal article]

Kochetkov, Dmitry M.

Abstract

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 ... view more

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.... view less

Keywords
publication; periodical; science; peer review; Russia

Classification
Sociology of Science, Sociology of Technology, Research on Science and Technology

Free Keywords
academic journal; scholarly communication; BPMN notation

Document language
Russian

Publication Year
2024

Page/Pages
p. 8-21

Journal
Ekonomika Nauki / Economics of Science, 10 (2024) 3

ISSN
2410-132X

Status
Published Version; reviewed

Licence
Creative Commons - Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0


GESIS LogoDFG LogoOpen Access Logo
Home  |  Legal notices  |  Operational concept  |  Privacy policy
© 2007 - 2025 Social Science Open Access Repository (SSOAR).
Based on DSpace, Copyright (c) 2002-2022, DuraSpace. All rights reserved.
 

 


GESIS LogoDFG LogoOpen Access Logo
Home  |  Legal notices  |  Operational concept  |  Privacy policy
© 2007 - 2025 Social Science Open Access Repository (SSOAR).
Based on DSpace, Copyright (c) 2002-2022, DuraSpace. All rights reserved.