Should scientific publications be publicly available?

What is considered a publication in this case? What not to count? Can you imagine the criteria for selecting a "real" publication from the text generated by the robot? And after all, such texts have already been published - Google them. Electronic publication is not a step forward, it is two steps back, because any (any!!!) a person who thinks of himself as a scientist can easily generate a pdf and put it on some (even his own) Internet resource, make it available for download. How do you imagine the mechanisms for dropping out such "publications"? Can you imagine the damage that such "scientific" creativity can cause? Any scientist will have to spend years just trying to separate the wheat from the chaff. This task is now being successfully solved by the editorial boards of journals. Who are the main subscribers? Not you and not me. These are libraries, institutes, academic centers, laboratories, etc. Go there, pay 2 rubles for a page of photocopying, and own it. Who's stopping you? Or is the price "unaffordable"?

I assume you've never done science. Here's a simple example to think about. Standard material for any group of living organisms should be publicly available a priori. But no one will bring you the Parnassius autocrator holotype from St. Petersburg to Zanzibar just because you want to see it. You will have to go to St. Petersburg personally, spending a certain amount of money on tickets, hotel, food and consumables. No one restricts access to the holotype-for God's sake, come and see. The same applies to publications. All articles are available in the libraries of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninke, and ZIN. Come and work. Books in the same place. Dissertations.

And electronic publications... I'm not a retrograde, but I'm totally against them. For in the near future, it will be unrealistic for a person to navigate what even now falls out on the Network. And what will happen in 5-10 years? Chaos. No one can organize such a mass of information.

  
It is necessary to create a database of scientific journals in electronic form, with all the technical costs of this database being sponsored, optimally-by the state, all publications in it should be publicly available free of charge.

Create it. We will say a big human thank you to you.

I understood. Articles will be requested. And they will be publicly available already in the sense of public domain. But even then, not " everyone doesn't care what we ate," because the present makes up tomorrow. Those who didn't eat didn't work. Those who did not go on expeditions when it was necessary for science did not have enough material, and their scientific works suffered from this, and this will not be corrected in a hundred or a thousand years, especially in entomological faunistics, which deals with very historically mobile material. Who will be better off in a hundred years, what scientists and what science? And in the absence of a material opportunity to provide their scientific work, a horde of parasites is wound up, which does not spend money on science and has something to eat, and which will make a dissertation on the same topic, collecting nothing and working nowhere, pushing aside the literate one with its elbows, but will do some terrible hack, and will be perpetuated by such publications that It's embarrassing. And what kind of science and in what 100 years will it be good? And many such considerations have already been expressed here.Something is on the page a-j-elez.narod.ru, section " Publications "(actually, except for this section, there is almost nothing there).If the works were not stolen by you, but were created by labor, if everyone you consider it necessary to give them in your own way has already been given them, then why not sell the rest, if, of course, there is a solvent demand for them? The example with the bus station I don't remember who turned against whom, and of course, a scientist also needs to eat. Therefore, without arguing with the indisputable phrase that publications are the bread of science, I ask you to remember that publications (although not only they) are the bread of a scientist, just as a statue is the bread of a sculptor. In private-owned conditions, this bread is not issued only by society, but consists, among other things, of what the private buyer pays for a book or magazine.Well, thank God.

Well, I just spent a lot of time in the fields, fed mosquitoes, etc. And it does not seem to have been perpetuated by stupid publications, even if not epochal.
It is incorrect to draw parallels between publications and sculptures. A sculptor does not need to know or even have copies of the sculptures of his "colleagues in the shop" in order to sculpt another masterpiece, which cannot be said about a researcher.

What is considered a publication in this case? What not to count? Can you imagine the criteria for selecting a "real" publication from the text generated by the robot? And after all, such texts have already been published - Google them. Electronic publication is not a step forward, it is two steps back, because any (any!!!) a person who thinks of himself as a scientist can easily generate a pdf and put it on some (even his own) Internet resource, make it available for download. How do you imagine the mechanisms for dropping out such "publications"? Can you imagine the damage that such "scientific" creativity can cause? Any scientist will have to spend years just trying to separate the wheat from the chaff. This task is now being successfully solved by the editorial boards of journals. Who are the main subscribers? Not you and not me. These are libraries, institutes, academic centers, laboratories, etc. Go there, pay 2 rubles for a page of photocopying, and own it. Who's stopping you? Or is the price "unaffordable"?

We have already written that you can create peer-reviewed websites for scientific articles. Then there will be a high degree of trust in such articles. The cost of reviewing will still be there, but the cost of printing is no longer there. However, if you really want to, you can print out the downloaded pdf for yourself.
The question of the "lifting" of the price is a complex one. Someone and 200 rubles. - money, someone and 2 million-for pocket expenses. I think not everyone can afford to copy everything they need. And not everyone can come to a place where all this is available. Oh, and by the way, the author doesn't get anything for a photocopy. The library gets it.

I assume you've never done science. Here's a simple example to think about. Standard material for any group of living organisms should be publicly available a priori. But no one will bring you the Parnassius autocrator holotype from St. Petersburg to Zanzibar just because you want to see it. You will have to go to St. Petersburg personally, spending a certain amount of money on tickets, hotel, food and consumables. No one restricts access to the holotype-for God's sake, come and see. The same applies to publications. All articles are available in the libraries of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninke, and ZIN. Come and work. Books in the same place. Dissertations.

Yes? Do you think so? And you, then, are engaged in SCIENCE, and we just play biryulki? Well, I won't try to dissuade you, I don't want to waste any time.
Yes, I know that I can't afford to ride to watch standard material. But I also have a different profile - regional faunalism. Or is it not science, in your opinion?

And electronic publications... I'm not a retrograde, but I'm totally against them. For in the near future, it will be unrealistic for a person to navigate what even now falls out on the Network. And what will happen in 5-10 years? Chaos. No one can organize such a mass of information.

Chaos, then, in the library. I would look, for example, at some n. the current district library Aristotle-would be horrified by the volume. You are horrified by the volume of work on the Network. But this does not mean that this is a bad path; it means that it should be developed.

Create it. We will say a big human thank you to you.

Yes? What do you say?" And you won't shout that you were robbed?

It is interesting to observe the metamorphosis of the discussion. It has become a mythologeme. A set of postulates that are archaic in relation to consciousness. Which are irrefutable and unprovable.

Publishing or making public any information. The same word refers to a single work in form and content, devoted to publication (published).
Public , -th, -th; - pen, - mon. 1. Accessible to all at a price, if possible to use. Public prices. 2. Quite clear, simple in presentation. A public lecture. | / entities. public access, - i, g.
Library (Greek: βιβλιοθήκη, from βιβλίον "book" and θήκη "place of storage") — an institution that collects and stores printed and written works for public use, as well as performs reference and bibliographic work.

I don't see any contradictions here – either we didn't agree on the terms. It is obvious that some of the interviewees replace the concept of publication with the concept of received scientific materials or data, which is not the same thing.

I think that some things are more important than money . This is fame and respect , and the greatest fame will be given to the researcher whose publications will be read, and not lie on the shelf in the library. And to make them more readable, they should be more accessible to readers. And how many percent of the Russian population goes to the library at least once a year? Now let's compare this figure with those who read literature on the Internet. It seems to me that more people will read your article on the Internet than in the Library. This means that the author will have more respect and fame.
I am in favor of publishing publications both on the Internet and in the library.

What is considered a publication in this case? What not to count? Can you imagine the criteria for selecting a "real" publication from the text generated by the robot? And after all, such texts have already been published - Google them. Electronic publication is not a step forward, it is two steps back, because any (any!!!) a person who thinks of himself as a scientist can easily generate a pdf and put it on some (even his own) Internet resource, make it available for download. How do you imagine the mechanisms for dropping out such "publications"?

If this applies to me, then I have already written earlier that my" model " of publicly available scientific publications involves the availability of reviews, the preservation (even for the period of conservative necessity, so to speak) of paper versions of publications. In general, everything is normal, only the availability increases. So all the dropout mechanisms remain.
Here, after all, not about any printed products goovritsya. But the fact that anyone can create a website and publish anything on it, without any fuss with publishers and other "mediators", damn, so this is also a plus, no one forces you to read this site. Or do you lobby printing consortia

It is incorrect to draw parallels between publications and sculptures. A sculptor, in order to create another masterpiece, does not need to know and even have copies of the sculptures of his "colleagues in the shop", which can not be said about a researcher.

In what I spent - correctly, and in more I did not spend. Just that everyone is fed from their own work. As the classic said, your father crushed the skin and ate bread from that, and I sell apples and eat bread from that. And the fact that the sculptor does not need to know (okay, what to have in a copy) the work of "colleagues in the shop", I suggest to announce on the forum of sculptors. Any professional sculptor has studied the history of sculpture at a school or academy and passed an exam. To get acquainted with the works of his predecessors and contemporaries, he had and still has in the future quite professionally. In art, no less than in science, they try not to fall into the position of inventors of the bicycle, and for this you need to keep your eyes open. And this applies not only to those who studied and received a diploma, but also to nuggets. Otherwise, art would still be hovering at the level of the Willendorf Venus.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 01.12.2010 21: 17

Yes? What do you say?" And you won't shout that you were robbed?

He'll scream if it's a stolen goods warehouse. And if it is purchased for the base legally-why shout something?

Chaos, then, in the library. I would look, for example, at some n. the current district library Aristotle-would be horrified by the volume. You are horrified by the volume of work on the Network. But this does not mean that this is a bad path; it means that it should be developed.

Indeed, there is chaos in the library as well. I'm not even talking about the Russian State Library, where every now and then one thing is in Khimki (without any logic of moving to these Khimki, even if not periodicals), the other is stablished in connection with the repair of the tier, etc., where the electronic catalog is simply incomplete, because it does not reflect the results of group processing and much more, but the reader's the catalog in the library building is also full of holes. But "they" also know how to hack. If you often looked in the archive.org, You would have noticed that there are often cases when a completely different publication is scanned under the same description in files (and in all formats for this position) (which, by the way, may not be listed on the server at all and may not be in search engines), but their content is scanned by highly reputable libraries.
And here we have already talked about the relationship between the reliability of a paper book distributed in dozens of libraries and a server that can fly off at the same time, with the facts in hand. They also talked about how risky it is for a scientist to refer to a site and then hear from critics a week later that he made up a quote, because there is no such site (and the site managed to disappear in a week). According to paper sources, you will not hear this when quoting in good faith. A virtual person is a virtual person. Of course, it is necessary to develop it, it helps us all, but it is dangerous to hope that one virtual basket is enough for all our scientific eggs.

In what I spent - correctly, and in more I did not spend. Just that everyone is fed from their own work. As the classic said, your father crushed the skin and ate bread from that, and I sell apples and eat bread from that.

I'm sorry, but this is all about who's talking about what, and I'm talking about the copperhead!
Interseno, how can a scientist feed himself by selling publications, and this is not about "Know how" and so on, but about selling replicated texts of articles?
Replicated texts of articles are sold by publishing houses(journals) The scientist does not receive anything from this, and sometimes even has to pay extra for publication.
And what can be analogies with sculptures and other "food from your work"???

I'm sorry, but this is all about who's talking about what, and I'm talking about the copperhead!
Interseno, how can a scientist feed himself by selling publications, and this is not about "Know how" and so on, but about selling replicated texts of articles?
Replicated texts of articles are sold by publishing houses(journals) The scientist does not receive anything from this, and sometimes even has to pay extra for publication.
And what can be analogies with sculptures and other "food from your work"???

If I mentioned somewhere about the private sale of the texts of my articles to scientists, you can delete it, I give you permission. I don't recall that. There are other forms of remuneration for publishing articles. Read Hierophis about salaries; they also say that there are grants for which published articles are reported, and collections published collectively "at their own expense", etc. That's what they call feeding on your own labor; but I don't think I've said anything about standing on the private market with articles. In this context, I prefer to talk about books.

However, if someone wants not to distribute their own articles (with their own copyright) for free, but to copy and push for money without asking your consent, then you can't do anything with them, but he can with you if you decide to do the same thing with his articles without his permission before your database bought the rights to the articles from him.

Analogies have already been mentioned. The truth is always concrete; if you extend what I say beyond the limits I have agreed upon, you can easily turn my words into nonsense, with which I will disagree as much as you do. I read your messages carefully and do not interpret your words about the lack of an analogy as, say, an indication that a scientist, unlike a sculptor, should not eat, since science, unlike art, is well done by the dead...

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 01.12.2010 22: 25

He'll scream if it's a stolen goods warehouse. And if it is purchased for the base legally-why shout something?

Well, of course: they will buy one copy for the database, scan it, and post it. Users will download it for free. Otherwise, every user would have to buy a book. Lost profit.

Indeed, there is chaos in the library as well. I'm not even talking about the Russian State Library, where every now and then one thing is in Khimki (without any logic of moving to these Khimki, even if not periodicals), the other is stablished in connection with the repair of the tier, etc., where the electronic catalog is simply incomplete, because it does not reflect the results of group processing and much more, but the reader's the catalog in the library building is also full of holes. But "they" also know how to hack. If you often looked in the archive.org, You would have noticed that there are often cases when a completely different publication is scanned under the same description in files (and in all formats for this position) (which, by the way, may not be listed on the server at all and may not be in search engines), but their content is scanned by highly reputable libraries.
And here we have already talked about the relationship between the reliability of a paper book distributed in dozens of libraries and a server that can fly off at the same time, with the facts in hand. They also talked about how risky it is for a scientist to refer to a site and then hear from critics a week later that he made up a quote, because there is no such site (and the site managed to disappear in a week). According to paper sources, you will not hear this when quoting in good faith. A virtual person is a virtual person. Of course, it is necessary to develop it, it helps us all, but it is dangerous to hope that one virtual basket is enough for all our scientific eggs.

Why should there be only one virtual shopping cart? There can be many mirrors. Now many very serious data is trusted by electronic databases. No accidents have happened yet because they sometimes fall. Or what, for greater peace of mind to carve everything in granite? Normal sites will not disappear.
I don't understand what the argument is about. The network will simply perform the function of the current regular libraries. All of it will not fly off at the moment.

The entire network may not fly off. But I do not know any links to the "whole" network. So far, I've only found links to specific Internet addresses in the scientific literature; I've only found links to mirrors on the web, where they provide an alternative file download option. In scientific papers, however, I did not see a variation of links to absolutely the same material at several Internet addresses (here, they say, if it flew off here, then poke around here or there). I don't expect catastrophes from the sporadic decline of electronic databases, but I don't expect catastrophes from paper books either. The point is not about catastrophes and other cosmology, but that every scientist strives to give a more reliable reference. That's why they refer to the web today, as a rule, when there is no way to refer to a paper edition. There will be websites and databases, no one argues, and it's good that there will be, but paper will either not have to be buried in the coming decades, or, if necessary, with noticeable losses for the quality of the scientific apparatus of publications.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 02.12.2010 00: 55

Well, of course: they will buy one copy for the database, scan it, and post it. Users will download it for free. Otherwise, every user would have to buy a book. Lost profit.

You are confusing the purchase of a book and the purchase of publishing rights (reissue). I will never shout - I don't feed on science, I don't have enough money.

Well, of course: they will buy one copy for the database, scan it, and post it. Users will download it for free. Otherwise, every user would have to buy a book. Lost profit.

Rights are not purchased for a copy, rhopalocera.com rights.

Let's be more serious. Recall Chekhov's financial relationship with Marx, which meant that from a certain point on, the classic artist had no rights (other than the right of authorship)to his own works. What will you do? He sold the rights of his own free will...

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 01.12.2010 21: 50

Yes, for the publication of an article, the work of a printer is a phenomenon that is an echo of the past. You don't need printers to publish on the Internet. Why should we feed parasites? It is better for a scientist to receive in the form of a salary what he has to spend on printing costs. Is not it so?

Oh, that would be nice. Only not all publications are good to watch on the monitor. And we haven't had a survey yet to find out the ratio of demand for printed versions and demand for online versions. So far, scientists do not seem to disdain paper publications, and paper scientific journals around the world continue to be published and distributed, despite the fact that readers have the opportunity to subscribe to online (cheaper) ones. And a purely online publication will be perceived as a toy for a long time, it will remain a paliative for poor people who do not have the opportunity, unlike more successful and more venerable colleagues, to break into paper magazines. After all, cheapness is usually called what is cheaper.

In any case, it is correct that you now limit these dreams to articles and specifically for those who work for a salary. For a self-published book, for example, this option would not work. There will be much more "salary" if the scientist sells his book (if there is a demand), and does not allow the aunt from the accounting department to transfer his money from the printing house (in connection with the transfer of the book online) to his salary card with a big loss on the way. No sane person will choose the second option, this is the deliberate feeding of banking and accounting parasites, just not for a well-published volume,but for pumping someone else's labor money. And who really will throw the saved money into the salary? The salary fund is one of the most protected from increase, otherwise we will live painfully well. How many academic institutions earn money by renting out premises, and are they allowed to add this income to their salary? So who told us that they would take what they saved on printing and distribute it to their personal wallets? Therefore, not all good dreams make sense to discuss. Anyone who works for, say, a state scientific institution and receives a grant from the outside knows the difference between the amount of the grant (which, unfortunately, is not supposed to include the cost of thieves in advance) and what the hard workers actually get. So where you can do without parasites and where there is a guaranteed demand, it is somehow safer for a scientist to publish a book normally and implement it normally, and if there is a grant for this, it does not interfere. But, alas, very often scientists just have to deal with a state-owned scientific institution, whether it is-as a rule-wrong with its quality of publication, and with its level of remuneration.

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 02.12.2010 02: 17

Here is an example of an electronic library link database. Download as much as you want..
http://rzblx1.uni-regensburg.de/ezeit/fl.p...tion=W&sc=Z&lc=

By the way, and the whole (already mentioned more than once) archive.org. We don't need to drag. But only what is there.

Today, on zomboyashchik, I briefly heard this news - in Britain, schools in some classes switched to" electronic textbooks", completely. After the previous experiments. They said that this will help save budget funds.

In principle, this is probably how everything will happen - there are unlikely to be initiative changes in the field of public science, where traditions are very strong and superconservative dominates. Most likely, the transition to fully electronic versions of magazines will occur against the general background-publishers will simply "die out" as a mass and relatively cheap way of replication. And then that...

However, the electronic version does not automatically mean free and shared access.

The main differences between paper and electronic publications are as follows. Although now there is no censorship and everyone can publish anything on paper or on the Internet, it is much more expensive on paper. In addition, publishing on paper is more accessible for reading - there are no screens yet that can be compared to a paper magazine in terms of ease and adaptability to any place. However, for publication in electronic form, there is no censorship yet, while in paper form it can be represented by the editorial board. Therefore, a purely electronic publication is not taken seriously, as raw material for discussion. In general, so it is - what I saw recently in purely electronic Western "magazines", made in this genre.
Before publishing a work on paper, the author, if he is published without a scientific editorial board, has to think that the costs of this would not be wasted. But paper publications are more amenable to control by the editorial staff, if there is one - and in a normal publication it is certainly there (another question is which one). From this, we can draw a conclusion. Until there are mechanisms for editorial control over electronic publications, they will never be taken seriously by the scientific community-except when such publications are made by large "authorities".
As for electronic textbooks for children, the big question is how useful they are for vision.

Lavr Bolshakov, you are not quite right, now there are so-called e-books, where the screen is essentially an analog of ordinary paper - that is, it does not glow, you need to read in reflected light.

Scientific editorial staff - it is not linked to paper journals in any way, it can be used for electronic journals, but not for paper ones.
You just have a conservative attitude to this - however, this is already considered the same reality as "economical" light bulbs, and at one time ballpoint pens also replaced inkwells

To: Lavr Bolshakov-Moreover, I have heard that these results are not published in a sufficiently authoritative publication. That is, published, but in an undignified magazine.

I haven't seen any e - books yet-but how much do they cost, and how accessible are they? How can I use them, for example, on public transport? How often should I recharge it?
As for the" authority " of publications, this is a very artificial concept. For example, in our VAK-Ran journals, you often see publications that got there either due to corruption schemes or editorial incompetence. Well, for example, in the EO to do the article " Insects of Kr. Books of the Russian Federation of the N-th Republic"??? This is a genre of regional local lore or a special "red book" collection (and if all more than 80 subjects of the Russian Federation submit similar articles to the EO? and with letters from governors-senators?). Or in another case, an obvious profanator for any expert (such as Mr. Timraleev from Mordovia) suddenly appears in the ZJ - and right after his complete lack of professionalism is shown "in all its glory". Moreover, with links to the help of a specialist who did not even see Timraleev in his eyes, did not define anything to him, but... he is one of the regular reviewers of ZZH. Of course, there are a lot of very illegible editorial offices in the provinces, but the quality of a publication is determined not by where it is published, but by what its content is.
Another issue is the "authority" in administrative and bureaucratic circles - but it is determined only by the departmental affiliation of the publication and its"VAK". This is absolutely not a scientific criterion, but a purely bureaucratic one.

I meant" authoritative publication " in an international sense. This is usually equal to the impact factor, although not absolutely. It is clear that this has nothing to do with the Vakov list.

There are quite good e - books-I've been using them since the fall of 2011, so far I'm very happy. I bought it just because of the constant need to work with e-books, despite the fact that my vision has already begun to set. If you are interested, I can advise you in a personal account, although I do not pretend to special knowledge in IT in any way - only personal experience and advice from well-known IT specialists.

This post was edited by Zlopastnyi Brandashmyg - 05.02.2012 17: 27

I am also not an expert in this business - what is better there, I did not delve into the modern diversity of these devices ,I repaired e - books-I was not impressed.

Now the cost of them is relatively high compared to the functionality of devices with a conventional LCD screen, as on mobile phones-from $ 100 and above.
The software installed on them is very poor, except for their main purpose, you can listen to music, that's probably all. I didn't see any chess or even a calculator there. It is almost impossible to view photos due to the fact that the image is black and white and because of the technology features it has the appearance of an "impression".
It charges like a regular mobile phone, and works on a single charge for a little longer. It has dimensions like a Cornelio butterfly identification atlas - so you can't stick it in a caraman. As for reading in transport, the level of illumination should be sufficient as for reading ordinary books, if there is no own illumination, and I came across just such.
This is a big plus of devices with LCD screens like PDAs, which I use

But if it takes root - all these features will be removed, and these books will cost much less than phones - and functionality will be added, and size categories.

The question is very strange: SHOULD WE ??? Then there is a discussion about the" freebie " of public access... Something turned everything upside down.
Scientific publications SHOULD NATURALLY BE publicly available to all comers - which is often not the case in reality. Another thing is books - in our time, as a rule, authors are forced to publish them at their own expense, of course, the publication should at least pay off and all rights to it (in any form) belong to the author. Another thing is that books in our time are becoming the lot of rich lay people, who are often given a clumsy clarity and solidity on the bookshelf in his office.

Or in another case, an obvious profanator for any expert (such as Mr. Timraleev from Mordovia) suddenly appears in the ZJ - and right after his complete lack of professionalism is shown "in all its glory". Moreover, with links to the help of a specialist who did not even see Timraleev in his eyes, did not define anything to him, but... he is one of the regular reviewers of ZZH.

Can I tell you more about Mr. Timraleev? He taught me if anything. Therefore it is interesting

Willingly. See on this Forum , the website of "Eversmannia". There is a separate article in the "Library": Bolshakov, Ruchin, Kurmaeva et al. 2010."To the knowledge of the lepidopteran fauna of the Republic of Mordovia". An overview of all found publications by family is given. It is also written about the more than strange instructions of Mr. Tmraleev - at that time we still thought that Mr. Tmraleev either mistakenly defined the material, or in the form of "extrapolation" attributed to the fauna of Mordovia everything that is already in the more southern steppe regions of the Volga region, or the Determinants indicated for the forest-steppe in general. This includes beetles (there is a link to one of the reviews), and especially butterflies - one motley summer in the Mordovia CC is worth a lot. At the same time, he completely ignored the publications of other authors (including his colleagues at the university) on the fauna of Mordovia, where there are additions. And after this publication - in the "Zool. Zhurnal" we see - again Mr. Timraleev (with a student who is certainly not responsible for the decisions of the associate professor) came out with another list of diaries. But in this list already (but without comments and attempts to somehow "justify") there is nothing that is extremely doubtful, but there is also nothing that reliably complements the fauna of other authors. That is, the list of species defined "according to Cornelio" remains emasculated. And most importantly, he writes that Sviridov defined something for him. I asked Sviridov, but he had never seen this Timraleyev or his messengers. I have only seen those authors who write reliable articles on Mordovia, whom Timraleev allegedly "does not know". I ask Sviridov - but how do reviewers skip this in the ZJ? He is at a loss - it remains to think that something passes in the ZZH and without peer review by specialists. These are the pies.

It's clear. Thank you. I thought that only Alexander Borisovich (he is my teacher. head) about Timraleev is not a high opinion, and it turns out that he is also not much respected on the side.
P.S. And what article in the ZJ are you talking about? Can I check it out?

P.S. And what article in the ZJ are you talking about? Can I check it out?

Timraleev Z. A., Susarev S. V., 2011. Mace-whiskered lepidoptera (Lepidoptera, Diurina) of the Republic of Mordovia // Zoological Journal, Vol. 90, Issue 5, pp. 559-567.
Abstract

It is because of such peppers as Mr. Timraliev, who wrote a horseradish to know that the Red Book of Mordovia (volume Animals, 2005) on insects discredits the very concept of CC and the species introduced into it. It seems that he went out on the outskirts of the village-wandered around, wandered through the woods, collected everything/different-came home picked up the" corpses " of insects, estimated what is the least here ... and he sprinkled a list. Ugh - a good publication (other groups were written by good specialists) discredited in the eyes of THINKING entomologists, well, just to no avail... It is necessary to drive such "specialists" with a filthy stick!!!

This post was edited by Penzyak - 06.02.2012 12: 45

The main differences between paper and electronic publications are as follows. Although now there is no censorship and everyone can publish anything on paper or on the Internet, it is much more expensive on paper. In addition, publishing on paper is more accessible for reading - there are no screens yet that can be compared to a paper magazine in terms of ease and adaptability to any place. However, for publication in electronic form, there is no censorship yet, while in paper form it can be represented by the editorial board. Therefore, a purely electronic publication is not taken seriously, as raw material for discussion. In general, so it is - what I saw recently in purely electronic Western "magazines", made in this genre.
Before publishing a work on paper, the author, if he is published without a scientific editorial board, has to think that the costs of this would not be wasted. But paper publications are more amenable to control by the editorial staff, if there is one - and in a normal publication it is certainly there (another question is which one). From this, we can draw a conclusion. Until there are mechanisms for editorial control over electronic publications, they will never be taken seriously by the scientific community-except when such publications are made by large "authorities".
As for electronic textbooks for children, the big question is how useful they are for vision.

Before carving your article on a marble stele, the author will think even more than before publishing it on paper. => Posting on stelae?!
The issue of reviewing in the case of electronic publications is solved very simply - the article is posted on the site in the "Preparation" section and everyone who wants (who has a sufficient rating) writes a review. Voting puts everything in its place. This eliminates the possibility that the article will be reviewed only by "your" reviewer.
About e-books. First of all, there are already such tablets. Full-color, with good resolution, etc. The so-called flexible screens are already being released, i.e. you can simply roll it into a tube and lay it out where it is convenient.
In addition, I think that reading ordinary books under certain conditions can cause vision problems.

Timraleev Z. A., Susarev S. V., 2011. Mace-whiskered lepidoptera (Lepidoptera, Diurina) of the Republic of Mordovia // Zoological Journal, Vol. 90, Issue 5, pp. 559-567.
Abstract

79 species for Mordovia... I think someone just made a Vakov article for their dissertation. 79 types... And it should be at least 100.

rhopalocera.com
Regular member
NiNo
today, 19: 35 URL #156

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Shoffer @ 06.02.2012 13: 06)
Timraleev Z. A., Susarev S. V., 2011. Mace-whiskered lepidoptera (Lepidoptera, Diurina) of the Republic of Mordovia // Zoological Journal, Vol. 90, Issue 5, pp. 559-567.
Abstract
79 species for Mordovia... I think someone just made a Vakov article for their dissertation. 79 types... And it should be the smallest 100
-------------------------------------------------------
-There, in 2010, we counted 112 species (several based on old, 1930s, but plausible indications)+1 species listed for the first time (navzitous) + 9 not considered as very old or not very likely - pandora (migrant, but old), erebia medusa (1901) and melas (???), satyrs semele, phages, alcyone (???), ferula, dove bawii and hylas (???), It would be fine in the steppe, and then in the taiga, and not in the collections.
BUT they obviously got into the ZJ without waiting in line not for a dissertation (there was another graduate student on bulavousy then), but to show that since they were "passed" here, it means they are right. But at least all the old nonsense was well removed - what remains is almost plausible.

Timraleev Z. A., Susarev S. V., 2011. Mace-whiskered lepidoptera (Lepidoptera, Diurina) of the Republic of Mordovia // Zoological Journal, Vol. 90, Issue 5, pp. 559-567.

- CAREFULLY studied (sometimes I wanted to give one of the authors an elementary punch in the face) - studied THIS publication (SCIENTIFIC and even more so an ARTICLE-this can NOT be called!!). The game is full - at the level of a three-year student's term paper!!! Just the list of "Russian" names in the SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL that we consider ZOOLOGICAL JOURNAL to be means a lot!? Looking at the paucity of points (well, if 2/3 of the districts) where the authors collected (?) material and carefully studied the DECLARED points found a lot of discrepancies-especially touched by the banal species phrase - "Distributed in all regions of the republic".... The history of studying bulavousyh in the territory of modern Mordovia according to the authors began in 1964... (Popov (1901) probably turned over in his grave...) and the COMPLETE absence of references to our research:

Ruchin A. B., Kurmaeva D. K., Polumordvinov O. A. 2008. Materials for the study of mace-whiskered Lepidoptera (Lepidoptera, Rhopalocera) of the Smolny National Park / Materials of reports of the I All-Russian Youth Scientific Conference "Youth and Science in the North" / / Volume III. XV All-Russian Youth Scientific Conference " Actual Problems of Biology and Ecology "(Syktyvkar, Republic of Tatarstan). Komi, April 14-18, 2008). Syktyvkar: Inst. Biology of the Komi Scientific Center of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. pp. 254-256.

Ruchin A. B., Kurmaeva D. K., Polumordvinov O. A., Bugaev K. E. 2008. Higher mace-moustaches (Rhopalocera) and mixed sawyers (Macroheterocera excl. Noctuidae, Geometridae) butterflies of the Mordovian Nature Reserve (based on the materials of collections) / / Scientific works of the Smolny National Park. Issue 1. Saransk-Smolny, pp. 187-190.

Bolshakov L. V., Ruchin A. B., Kurmaeva D. K., Semishin G. B., Polumordvinov O. A. 2010. Towards a better understanding of the Lepidoptera fauna Republic of Mordovia / / Caucasian Entomological Bulletin. Volume 6. Issue 1. Rostov-on-Don, pp. 71-84.

For a number of species, full game is written, for example, for black lygia-it is written ..."It is found in almost all areas where there are woodlands" (!!?). Gibberish-the species is found only on the territory of the Mordovian Nature Reserve and it seems to be about a ch. Ethiopian...
Of the whiteflies, they have only synapis - as much as 130 copies... STONE Age damn...
For what x... collect-179 copies. daytime peacock's eye...or 202 operants each ... or 204 lycaons each... or urticaria - 264 copies... did the authors have nothing to eat...?
In general, I have no words... and about this WORK of thought all obscenities!!!

I believe (after analyzing a bunch of publications on the faunistics of bulavousykh of the Russian Federation and the former USSR) that for a normal article in the middle band there should be 140-150 species of diaries, more to the south... less to the north...

This post was edited by Penzyak - 07.02.2012 14: 12

2 O. Sanych
In vain so boiled))

Skipping "other people's" works when making a generalizing article for a particular region, especially recent ones (and especially in publications such as " scientific tr. National Park...) business as usual. However, there are such omissions in various versions: 1) simply did not know about the existence of such work; 2) knew, but do not trust the data: 2a) ideally, you need to refer to this work and justify its non-inclusion in the analysis; 2b) forget about its existence, which most often happens; 3) knew, and deliberately did not include, because the content is too much different, which means better 2b.
The reviewer of this article could (most likely, except that a more accessible CAB) and do not know about your work (therefore, in decent journals they give 2-3 specialists for review), and the content, as uv. L. Bolshakov noted, is quite acceptable ("close to the truth"), so it was missed (plus, as it was hinted here, the "pushing through" factor could have played a role).
For such creativity, it is hardly necessary to "give in the face", but to denounce in subsequent publications is quite appropriate, reasoned and unappetizing))

Well, this goose T.-as they say, "you can't teach an old dog new tricks"! Yes, he knows everything about our work on lepidoptera in Mordovia...
And this S. "collects" butterflies for several years (and such a modest result of 75 species...), Ruchin brought him to us in the Penza Department of REO, I already heard that he was going to graduate school to V. V. Anikin (Saratov) I wonder on what topic? It's terrible where we're going...