I am satisfied with the Mr. Surya, but it is better to read highly peer-reviewed impact factor journal as they contain novelty and rationality in their papers. However there is large dump of trivial papers and these only provide you an overview of the topics. Today, only those papers are preferred which supports comprehensively review, focus, opinion, expert comments or perspectives. Papers must see, for their rationality and novelty before publishing the manuscript in the respective journal.

First of all, I want to thank John Tainer for raising this great question.

I just want to say that I was waiting this question to come and at last waited. A Chinese proverb may be a helpful analogy here: “if you wait patiently by the side of the river, the corpse of your enemy will pass you by”. Today's situatuition with scientific publications is in deep crizis and (in my opinion) this situation is like to the corpse. In particular, my opinion is based on the discussions:

1. Is modern research becoming more and more “publication oriented”?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_modern_research_becoming_more_and_more_publication_oriented

2. Black market for academic papers? Can this be true?

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Black_market_for_academic_papers_Can_this_be_true

I'm an optimist and I want to offer my view for the future of scientific publication. I want to make suggestions in my area of interest (Computer Science) to express my thoughts more clearly. Currently, the main problem is that there are a large Research-Practice gap. Please, have a look at the discussion "Why don't developers use the best research on software development?" on the link http://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_dont_developers_use_the_best_research_on_software_development

Let's take the best researches in Computer Science and listen opinions of developers about these researches. I want to cite some phrases:

a) Donald Norman: "... There is an immense gap between research and practice. I'm tempted to paraphrase Kipling and say "Oh, research is research, and practice is practice, and never the twain shall meet," but I will resist. The gap between these two communities is real and frustrating ... "

b) Amila Wilegoda-Wickramage: "... This is the most depressing issue in the industry today. Developers have been deviated from the industry floors. That makes them less aware of the user perspective and their requirements"

c) Milan Tair: "... Also, many researchers aren't developers and they ask research questions which answered in any way wouldn't really have value or practical use for developers"

d) John Sanders: "... The economic imperative dominates developers - computing researchers tend to concentrate on what is possible not what is viable" "anecdote: I recently threw away 10 years of Computing Journals - I had meant to read them. Through three house moves they went from loft to loft. In the end I had to admit that I would never find he time so they went for waste paper scrap - I bet I'm not the only one who has done that. The volume of research available obeys a kind of entropic analogy - as it expands its ability to be useful diminishes"

e) I. Gibbs: " How is a developer to know what the 'best' software development research is telling them? If I read published papers, they generally contain a lot of hand waving arguments, generalizations, personal anecdotes, and a lack of solid conclusions. So, first of all, the research papers generally don't help, so why would an overworked developer spend more of their free time to attempt to find a few gems in the morass of unhelpful papers? ... The ultimate conclusion I came to was that the cost of finding better methods by looking through IEEE or ACM magazines and research articles is larger than the actual benefits most of the time"

f) Robert Standefer: "In my experience, developers don't use the best research because there's a mismatch between the research and their day to day life. Developers with more autonomy may adopt practices and such from cutting-edge research, but for the most part, devs work for businesses, and businesses are more interested in ROI and such. There has to be a level of practicality in the research that will immediately and positively impact the developer's work"

g) Eoin Woods: "Most academic research is developed without reference to the problems that developers think they are facing; Little academic research is tested in realistic environments; A lot of research is abandoned in 3-5 years due to funding cycles whereas industrial adoption takes 5-10 years; Very very few researchers attempt to package their research so it's ready for real use; Very very few researchers put any serious attempt into communicating and marketing their research"

h) Ian Sommerville: "... vast majority of researchers do their research in order to write papers rather than contribute something useful to software development. They are forced into this by the metrics used in universities to assess ability i.e. papers published. Most research is never really tried n practice because this takes a long time and often generates negative results (ie this research doesn't really work). Not only does this depress the researchers, it also isn't that interesting for publication (though it should be). Researchers cannot be blamed for this - they are smart people who work within their system - it's just that the system is badly broken and does not reward or encourage work that is long-term and practically useful. I recently tried to apply software engineering research techniques on a large project (a system designed for > 1 million users). Not one of these techniques was useful in practice because they don't scale to large systems"

i) Nenad Tomašev : "... There is a large gap between research and practice in terms of the topics of interest and the types of methods that are being developed. The people that have a software engineering background might be keen to criticize researchers for doing work that it too 'theoretic' and not very applicable"

j) Ricardo Pérez-Castillo : "... the academic system is putrid in most cases, since it prioritize the number of papers (sometimes also quality) over any other thing such as soundness or impact of the contributions, technology transfer, etc. As a result, Academy meke it difficult to the Industry, which has other variables like time-to-market, closing budgets, etc"

k) Mudasir Kirmani: "... The gap between academicians and software developers is increasing with every passing day. The need of the hour is to have software developer, researcher and academician working in tandem for the betterment of the Industry which will help the Software Industry to adopt best research practices on software development".

How do to reduce the Research-Practice gap? One of ways is developing Online Tools that users could to solve their tasks from a server. Thus, this is my main proposal for the future of scientific publications. In my opinion, the future scientific publications must become Online Tools for all people (researchers, users, and practitioners). I take in account that:

a) Development is more important than Research

b) Research must be subordinated to.Development

c) Research must be integrated inside.Development

If this problem will be solved then (in my opinion) disappier all negative things that was discussed in the topics "Is modern research becoming more and more “publication oriented”?" amd "Black market for academic papers? Can this be true?". My answer is very simple: Online Tool can not be created only for publication. The publication must be subordinated and integrated inside Development. Online Tool should incorporate all the most useful features of modern Internet Technologies including blogs and internet postings.

Dear Gennady Fedulov, thanks for raising this important issue, and proposing a very useful solution. But don't you think your perspective is a little pragmatist? Research for the sake of research seems meaningless to many developers. Since I was one of those developers once, I can understand the concept very well. But science has its own ways of development and progress. Sometimes numerous researches are needed until one scientific idea could be put in action. Take a look at CERN Hadron Collider project. Science for the sake of better understanding the universe and ultimately transforming our knowledge to engineering solutions is the way of scientific progress for many years. I don't want and I do not have enough philosophical knowledge and capability to open a philosophy of science discussion here, I just want to look at your discussion from a different point of view. Although I should mention that I do agree with your opinion in many cases.

I am satisfied with the Mr. Surya, but it is better to read highly peer-reviewed impact factor journal as they contain novelty and rationality in their papers. However there is large dump of trivial papers and these only provide you an overview of the topics. Today, only those papers are preferred which supports comprehensively review, focus, opinion, expert comments or perspectives. Papers must see, for their rationality and novelty before publishing the manuscript in the respective journal.

Surya raised many interesting points that merit attention. One that captures my imagination is the development of online tools. This is something I can see being really useful and we are definitely working to do this as well as we can with the data and analysis methods from our synchrotron beamline, i.e. http://bioisis.net and http://sibyls.als.lbl.gov

Dear John, By Surya you mean Gennady Fedulov?

yes - thanks Gennady Fedulov