Institute day by day

Open science starts with each and every one of us

The future of platinum journals will largely be determined by the extent to which the scientific community is willing to support open access initiatives and to follow the principles of scientific ethics.

A year ago, an article about the initiative to introduce a new scientific journal at JINR was published in the JINR weekly (No. 13, 4 April, 2024). The Natural Science Review - an international peer-reviewed electronic journal with open access and full editorial support at all stages of preparation of an article for publication, without any payment from the authors or readers has being published already for half a year. The establishment of Natural Science Review is the Institute's contribution to development of an open and advanced system of scientific communication that provides free access to knowledge, supports high quality research, encourages discussion and promotes the development of a new generation of scientists.

The idea of establishing a new modern scientific journal has been brewing in the academic environment of JINR for a long time and has been perceived as an important task that was confirmed by the data of sociological surveys having been carried out in recent years. One of the issues concerned the degree of satisfaction with the opportunities for publishing scientific papers. In 2021-2023, there was a dynamic of a decrease in "quite satisfied" - with a simultaneous increase in the number of those that evaluated the situation as "rather satisfactory". While the proportion of "dissatisfied" was relatively small, the redistribution within the "satisfied" group may indicate that staff face some difficulties.

Possibility of publication activity according to annual sociological surveys in 2021-2023

Year of survey	Quite satisfied	Rather satisfied	Rather/not at all satisfied
2021	56,6%	35,0%	8,4%
2022	52,5%	34,4%	13,1%
2023	47,5%	42,9%	9,6%

In open comments, the staff criticized redundant procedures in the preparation of publications, long waiting times for the publication of submitted articles in JINR journals ("Particles and Nuclei" and "Particles and Nuclei, Letters"). Along with it, the issue of access to articles in leading scientific journals, as well as financial constraints for publications in open access journals were highlighted.

Given the importance of the scientific communication system for the Institute, we found it necessary to revisit this topic and get the opinion of young scientists and specialists through a small survey. In April 2025, AYSS members were asked to respond in writing to several questions. What, in your opinion, are the main problems in the scientific publication system? Have you personally encountered problems in publishing your scientific results? What kind of problems were they? What changes in the scientific publication system do you consider most important? Although the number of respondents was small and the data obtained cannot be considered representative of the entire Institute staff, the problems identified in them deserve focusing on them.

Vladislav Rozhkov, a researcher at DLNP, highlights: "Sometimes, the publications I need are behind the so-called 'walls' of paid access." Despite the expansion of the open access movement, it has only partially met the problem: the transition from a subscription model to an open access model has often been accompanied by the introduction of an article processing charge (APC) in journals that has shifted the financial burden from readers to authors and academic institutions. Pavel Maksimov, a senior researcher at BLTP, emphasizes: "The financial problem is the most important one. You can publish in subscription journals for free, yet access to their content requires payment that is difficult at the moment. And in open access journals, it costs money to publish that has to be budgeted for." Lal Mitu, a postdoc researcher at LRB, adds, "These costs are particularly hard on students and research staffs from underfunded countries." Thus, barriers for authors and readers persist in many cases.

Russian journals are criticized for excessive bureaucratic procedures. Alexey Lubashevsky, Head of Sector of DLNP, emphasizes, "Obtaining permission to publish in Russian journals is a useless and an annoying procedure, especially since it is not required when publishing in foreign journals." Sergey Merts, a leading researcher at VBLHEP, adds: "Filling out incomprehensible paperwork on ancient forms with one's passport data slows down the process." Veronika Smirnova, a junior researcher at FLNP, points to problems with review deadlines and difficulties in paying for publications from Russian organizations. Alexey Novoselov, a junior researcher at FLNR, points out the problem of reproducibility of results: "Often important details in publications are omitted."

Respondents are also concerned about the dependence of the estimation of scientific activity on publication activity, highlighting that the pressure of metrics encourages the publication of "passable" papers and shifts the focus from the quality and significance of scientific results to their quantity. Sergey Merts: "They publish all kinds of rubbish for the sake of Hirsch and VAK (yes, me, too)". "The system of estimation of scientific achievements should be focused primarily on the quality, not on the quantity of publications," Alexey Novoselov emphasizes.

In response to the last question about the required changes, almost all interviewees mentioned the international Open Access movement to make the scientific publishing system fairer and more accessible. Madelina-Michaela Miloy, a junior researcher at VBLHEP: "Since science is funded by people's taxes, everyone should have access to its results."

Supporting the development of scholarly journals carried out by scientists themselves as an integral part of the overall infrastructure of the scientific ecosystem was cited by respondents as an important strategy in this regard. These are so-called platinum journals that do not charge either authors or readers. Based on the estimates of the Open Access Diamond Journals Study, in 2021, there was between 17,000 and 29,000 of these journals worldwide, publishing about 8-9% of all scientific articles and 45% of all open access articles. Their further development requires systemic institutional support, including funding, infrastructure and recognition in the scientific estimation system. Editor-in-Chief of Natural Science Review Victor Matveev admits: "Like most new scientific journals, at the initial stage, we face difficulties in attracting a sufficient number of manuscripts. This is due to both the inertia of academic practices and the objective limitations inherent in any new publication - first of all, the lack of indexation of a new journal in international scientometric databases. In these conditions, the journal's reputation becomes not only the task of the editorial board, but also the shared responsibility of the scientific community, for the sake of which the journal is established. For our part, we strive to provide the most transparent reviewing system devoid of conflicts of interest and prompt editorial work."

For many scientists, publication in highly rated journals is perceived as a recognition of the quality of their paper and their high rejection rate only enhances their prestige. Publishers refer to the fact that articles from journals with a high impact factor are cited more often. However, there is a cumulative effect: articles that receive more citations are more likely to get into such journals - and at the same time they are cited more often precisely because of the prestige of the publication. As a result, the citation rate begins to depend not on the content of the article but on the status of the journal that makes it difficult to objectively evaluate scientific achievements.

There is therefore an increasing international movement against the use of indicators such as journal impact factors in evaluating the quality of individual publications, the scientific contribution of researchers and in hiring, promotion or funding decisions (such as, the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment DORA 2012). More and more researchers call for scientific papers to be evaluated on their merits, rather than by the name of the journal where they are published. "If a scientific paper contains significant and sought-after results, it will be found and cited regardless of the place of publication. It has already become a common practice: submitting articles in the form of preprints in international repositories like arXiv or INSPIRE even before they are published in journals," JINR Chief Scientific Secretary Sergey Nedelko says.

Changing approaches to the evaluation of scholarly activity, the expansion of open access to publications, the availability of open bibliometric systems such as OpenAlex, the proliferation of open repositories such as arXiv and the increase of platinum journals all aim at developing a more equitable, open and public interest-oriented system of scholarly communication. The system of domination by a few large commercial publishers that dates back to the last century and continues to this day, has long been criticized and seen as the root cause of many systemic problems in the field. These problems include limited access to research results (due to paid subscriptions and APCs), the clogging of scientific knowledge with "junk" publications and the exclusion from the scientific agenda of risky areas of research with uncertain results since they do not provide guaranteed publications. Gradually, there is increasing realization in the scientific community that the hierarchy of scientific journals is a threat to science. But systemic changes will only be possible when the efforts of open access enthusiasts are supported at the institutional level (by government agencies, funding organizations, research institutes, universities, others) and most importantly, by every scientist, who the principles of open science will be the deciding factor for in choosing a journal.

Olga KRUPA