Involving Ukrainian early career scientists in publishing practices and their attitudes to scholarly communication

  • 422 Views
  • 68 Downloads

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

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.

view full abstract hide full abstract
    • Figure 1. Percentage of scientists who have articles in Ukrainian scientific journals not indexed by Web of Science and (or) Scopus
    • Figure 2. Percentage of scientists who have articles in Ukrainian scientific journals indexed by Web of Science and (or) Scopus
    • Figure 3. Reasons why 32.9% of respondents have no articles in journals indexed in Web of Science and (or) Scopus
    • Figure 4. Comparing the reasons for the rejection of articles by journals editors indexed and not indexed by Web of Science and (or) Scopus
    • Figure 5. Roles of early career scientists as co-authors
    • Figure 6. Motives and stimulus for publishing co-authored articles
    • Figure 7. Conflicts or other issues related to co-authored publishing
    • Figure 8. Reviewers’ comments in the case of a positive review
    • Figure 9. Reviewers’ comments in the case of a negative review
    • Figure 10. Pros and cons of communication between authors and reviewers
    • Conceptualization
      Svitlana Fiialka
    • Data curation
      Svitlana Fiialka
    • Formal Analysis
      Svitlana Fiialka
    • Funding acquisition
      Svitlana Fiialka
    • Investigation
      Svitlana Fiialka
    • Methodology
      Svitlana Fiialka
    • Project administration
      Svitlana Fiialka
    • Resources
      Svitlana Fiialka
    • Software
      Svitlana Fiialka
    • Supervision
      Svitlana Fiialka
    • Validation
      Svitlana Fiialka
    • Visualization
      Svitlana Fiialka
    • Writing – original draft
      Svitlana Fiialka
    • Writing – review & editing
      Svitlana Fiialka