IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/abz/journl/y2024id470.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Post-Publication Review: Evolution of the Scientific Publishing Workflow

Author

Listed:
  • D. M. Kochetkov

Abstract

For a considerable period of time, peer review has been regarded as the cornerstone of academic journals and scientific communication, ensuring the high quality and reliability of published materials. However, in the early decades of the 21st century, a growing number of scholars began to challenge the traditional peer review procedure, questioning its efficacy. This study aims to provide a fresh perspective on the peer review mechanism, with the objective of enhancing the implementation of scientific communication's functionalities. The research employs historical analysis techniques and modelling methods based on Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) to compare diverse review models in terms of their influence on scientific communication. BPMN is a conventional tool employed for modelling and describing business processes. The evolution of the peer review procedure is explored, encompassing an examination of the factors contributing to current and future transformations in the publishing realm. The author refers to the crisis of the conventional peer review system and the growing prevalence of preprints, serving as exemplars of these transformations. Finally, suggestions for the implementation of the post-publication review workflow in Russia are provided.

Suggested Citation

  • D. M. Kochetkov, 2024. "Post-Publication Review: Evolution of the Scientific Publishing Workflow," Economics of Science, Delo Publishing house, vol. 10(3).
  • Handle: RePEc:abz:journl:y:2024:id:470
    DOI: 10.22394/2410-132X-2024-10-3-8-21
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ecna.elpub.ru/jour/article/viewFile/470/271
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22394/2410-132X-2024-10-3-8-21?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:abz:journl:y:2024:id:470. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Кочетков Дмитрий Михайлович (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://delo.ranepa.ru/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.