The Declaration of Revolution
The Want, Will, and Hopes of the Truth-Finding Scientists
IN CYBERSPACE, March 15, 2007
The universal Declaration of Revolution in scientific publishing
When in the Course of Scientific Progress it becomes necessary for scientists to dissolve the traditional bands which have tied them to some outdated communication mechanisms and to find better ways of communicating scientific discoveries, a decent respect to humanity requires that an inevitable revolution is being justified.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that scientists are not equal with regard to their talents, yet they should be endowed with an Equal Right in the Process of Scientific Communication. − That to secure this equal right, scientific publishers should base their decision of publication on the soundness of the content of a submission, not the power and social status of a submitting author, − That to prevent abuse and misconduct, scientific publishers should keep records of their decision for future inquiry and should open these records to public review whenever necessary, − That to promote objectivity and ethical behavior, scientific evaluation and criticism should be made with tractable names so that individuals can be identified, if necessary, either for scientific praise or condemnation. However, the current scientific publishing system is just the opposite of these wishes or goals. To prove this, let Facts speak to a candid world.
It has been very obvious that many so-called “high impact factor” or, in other words, “top” journals are just some clubs for some “well-established” scientists, or, more correctly, some figure-heads who have been out of touch with front-line scientific research but have remained as authorities in some scientific organizations. These big shots often occupy valuable slots in publication space despite the fact that their high-profile publications are often just some spin-off statements or regurgitations of what was already known. In contrast, fresh ideas and truly ground-breaking discoveries made by “foot soldiers” in the very research frontlines are often rejected on the ground of the so-called “space limitation” due to their “nobody” status.
It has further been obvious that these “top” journals are just some trend-riders but true blockers for revolutionary scientific research. These “top” journals have repeatedly published those unscientific studies merely because those “hot” topics can capture most eyeballs. At the same time, these “top” journals have consistently rejected novel discoveries because they are not in line with the traditional view and/or mainstream thinking.
Moreover, it has been obvious that these “top” journals are also the strongest opponents to a due revolution in scientific publishing. They have looked down upon some new generation scientific journals which promote an open review process. They even ignored significant publications in these new journals despite the fact that their later publications actually just repeated some observations that were already published by these new journals.
It has also been true that many “top” journals are also the “top”-ranked journals in publishing retractions. The publication of these retractions is often the unavoidable end result of their failed attempts to suppress the expression of different opinions or even some direct criticisms and, as it is more often the case, the result of some exposed research scandals initiated through some grass root efforts outside of the stone-walled publishing houses.
It is perhaps the greatest scandal in science that some “top” journals are actually using some defective citation numbers and flawed impact factor values to boost their undeserved role in scientific communication. It is pure hypocrisy to condemn authors for their flawed publications, yet, at the same time, to collect a higher impact value significantly contributed by the double citations for these retracted publications.
It is equally noteworthy that the so-called “top” journals are also the very homes for many of the most spectacular scientific scandals in scientific history. The repeated high-profile publication of numerous obviously flawed and even fraudulent papers by these so-called “high quality” journals reveal the undeniable fact that their claimed tough pre-publication peer review does not work. However, these “top” journals not only refuse to reveal the shortcomings in their secret peer review system but are still using this falsely claimed assurance to solidify their standing in the competition for scientific publishing.
It is actually an unbelievable phenomenon that those journals who have sold to the general public the most deceptive products (the so-called “landmark” publications that in fact, as it turned out later, were not such) are still standing tall in scientific publishing arena only because their base of “impact factor” is raised even higher due to the stronger public curiosity in reading the scandals in these journals (the words “magazines” or even “tabloid” would be more appropriate since it is those news that are being read more, if not exclusively by the general public) and the need for responsible scholars to cite a retracted paper twice (one for the original publication and one for the retraction notice).
In many stages of this Deterioration of scientific publishing, We have Petitioned for Change in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated rejections and insults. It even came to such a stage that some “top” journals stated clearly that they may not answer our Petitions. A scientific journal, whose character is thus marked by every act which actually defines a Tyrant, is unfit to be a communication platform for honest scientists.
Thus, we, the “nobodies” of the virtual association for truth-finding scientists, a new “Invisible Society” (Isaac Newton sic!) to become someday the “Royal Society” of the 21st century whose “Royal” nature is reflected by granting equal right even to “plain cloth” scientists, assembled in Universal Cyberspace and appealing to the Supreme Heart of the global citizens, do, in the Name and by the Authority of the Good Scientists still alive and sincerely fighting against unfair competition and unethical selection, hereby solemnly declare a revolution in scientific publishing. That this revolution in scientific publishing is not just aimed at mending some tiny defects in the current scientific system, but at terminating its Abuse of Conferred Power and re-create that very honest and meritocratic Environment reflecting the genuine nature of the Scientific Enterprise instead.
Therefore, a new scientific publishing system shall now be established by the True Scientists for the entire Scientific Community to the benefit of all Human Beings.
* This
universal Declaration of Revolution has been inspired by the Declaration of
Independence of the
Document Originators:
Shi V. Liu,
Jing J. Zhang
Razvan T. Radulescu
Endorsing Followers:
True name and endorsing date (grouped in each country) will be added later continuously