Konstantin V. Vodenko, Dr. Sc. (Philosophy), Professor, Head of the Department of Social Sciences and Humanities, Platov South Russian State Polytechnic University (NPI); Head of the scientific and educational school “Management of social processes in a multicultural region”, Novocherkassk city, Russia; https: //orcid.org/0000-0002-5283-0466, AuthorID RSCI: 289484, WoS ResearcherID: L-4112-2016, AuthorID Scopus: 56669747300, e-mail: vodenkok@mail.ru
Inna I. Salnikova, Postgraduate Student of the Department of Social Sciences and Humanities, Platov South Russian State Polytechnic University (NPI), Novocherkassk city, Russia; https: //orcid.org/0000-0002-8945-592X, AuthorID RSCI: 1068839, SPIN-code: 6089-4864
The article is devoted to the analysis of the evaluation of scientific data within the scientific activity of a modern scientist in the scientific and educational community. Reviewing, being a part of the researcher’s publication culture, becomes one of the key elements of the scientist’s professional culture. The purpose of the article is to study the current state and future prospects of applying various approaches to evaluating data that meet the specific requirements of research work while observing all the criteria of the professional culture of scientists. The research methodology is based on compliance with the principles of FAIR, which have an impact on increasing the scientific significance and reliability of data, while methods are proposed to improve the assessment process and the importance of introducing data assessment into the quality control system of scientific research is emphasized, which helps to strengthen confidence in data among scientists. The results of the work revealed the expediency of including the review of research data in a system-wide quality control mechanism in science and offers recommendations for organizing effective review processes in data repositories that confirm the quality of the publication culture of scientists. The perspective of the research is to establish a correlation between the data provided by the research conducted by modern scientists and open methods of reviewing their works. This is a promising direction to increase openness and integrity in the scientific work of scientists in order to evaluate and maintain their professional culture.
Keywords: professional culture, scientific data review, FAIR principles, data management, open science, quality of research data, data repositories, open review, crowd review
References
1. Baker, M.J. Selecting a research methodology // TERRA ECONOMICUS. 2014. No. 4. С. 137-156. (In Rus.)
2. Erkimbaev, A.O., Zitserman, V.Yu., Kobzev, G.A., Kosinov, A.V. International principles of publication and dissemination of scientific data. Scientific and Technical Information. Series 1: Organization and methodology of information work. 2022. No. 4. P. 7–18. DOI: 10.36535/0548-0019-2022-04-2
3. Dadalko, V.A. Modern approaches to the realization of scientometric research in scientific activity of the sphere of education. Economics and management: problems, solutions. 2018. Vol. 3. No. 12. P. 201-208.
4. Zasursky, I.I., Sokolova, D.V., Trishchenko, N.D. Open access repositories: functions and development trends. Scientific and Technical Libraries. 2020. No. 9. P. 121–142. DOI: 10.33186/1027-3689-2020-9-121-142
5. Ivanov, I.I., Sidorov, A.A. FAIR principles and their role in scientific data management. Vestnik nauchnykh resheniy. 2023. Vol. 12. No. 3. P. 24–35.
6. Kildeev, R.R. The concept of metadata and their constitutional protection. Izvestia vysshikh uchebnykh zavedeniy [Izvestia of higher educational institutions]. Volga region. Social Sciences. 2021. No. 3. P. 29–40. DOI:10.21685/2072-3016-2021-3-3
7. Krasnoperov. A.I. FAIR principles in scientific data management: prospects for Russia. Data Management. 2020. Vol. 8. No. 3. P. 45–53.
8. Mazov, N.A., Zhizhimov, O.L. Metadata and their role in distributed information systems based on the use of protocol Z39.50. Bibliosphere. 2006. No. 2. P. 51–59.
9. Novikov, D.D., Zaitseva, A.B. Innovations in reviewing scientific publications: from traditional models to crowd-review. Scientific Community. 2023. Vol. 11. No. 2. P. 89–97.
10. Salnikova, I.I. Publishing culture of a modern scientist: problem statement. Vestnik of South-Russian State Technical University (NPI). Series: Socio-economic sciences. 2023. Vol. 16. No. 1. P. 267–273. DOI: 10.17213/2075-2067-2023-1-267-273.
11. Smirnova, E.Yu., Vasiliev, R.K. Digital repositories in modern science: challenges and prospects. Digital Science. 2024. Vol. 5. No. 1. P. 102–110.
12. Petrova, M.V. Experience in the application of open peer review in international scientific journals. Science and Progress. 2022. Vol. 10. No. 4. P. 56–64.
13. Chernikova, T.A. The role of repositories in providing open access to scientific data in Russia. Information Technologies and Society. 2021. No. 2. P. 75–83.
14. Shishaev, M.G. Vitsentii, A.V. Kuprikov, N.M. Concept of the national data management system: modern context of realization. Information Technologies. 2019. No. 9 (10). P. 146–157 DOI: 10.25702/KSC.2307-5252.2019.9.146-157
15. Albert, T., Wager, E. How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers [Electronic resource]. The COPE Report. 2003. P. 32–34. URL: http://publicationethics.org/files/2003pdf12.pdf. (In Eng.)
16. Mohapatra, S., Samal, L. The ethics of self-plagiarism. Asian Journal of Psychiatry. 2014. No. 12. P. 147. (In Eng.)
17. Smith, R. The Trouble with Medical Journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2006. No. 99.3. P. 115–119. (In Eng.)
18. Wager, E., Kleinert, S. Cooperation between research institutions and journals on research integrity cases: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Maturitas. 2012. No. 72. P. 165–169. (In Eng.)
19. Wallace, M.B. et al. Ethics in publication. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2015. Vol. 82. Iss. 3. P. 439–442. (In Eng.)
20. Wilkinson, Mark D. (15 March 2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data (англ.). 3: 160018. Bibcode:2016NatSD...360018W. doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.18
.png)
