What, in your opinion, is a reliable, objective, professional and thus really contributing to the effective development of science reviewing of scientific papers, diploma theses, dissertations containing the results of scientific research, text proposals sent to the editorial office for publication as scientific publications, including scientific articles, scientific monographs, etc.?

The reviewing of scientific articles by scientists specialised in a particular field of knowledge, conducted in the editorial process, is essential for maintaining a high level of scientific publications and for the development of scientific journals. However, there are times when it can be problematic and cumbersome for scientists who work in narrow, specific specialisations, fields, scientific disciplines.

On the one hand, it is widely accepted that the evaluation of a scientific paper during the peer review process should take into account and usually does take into account at least a dozen factors concerning both substantive issues, research, reference to the literature, timeliness of research results, correctness of inference, editorial quality, effects on the development of science, etc. The assessment of a scientific work during peer review should be carried out objectively, independently, fairly, according to a high level of assessment standards. Therefore, editorial activity, proofreading, editorial correction, scientific reviews, etc. should be carried out according to the applicable standards in order to maintain a certain level of scientific quality of published scientific work.

On the other hand, on the discussion forum of this Research Gate portal, many questions arise regarding the issue of objectivity and fairness in reviewing scientific papers. Yes, the processes of reviewing scientific texts proposed for publication is a serious issue. The issue of the level of objectivity and independence of reviewing scientific papers can influence the direction of science in narrow specialisations and scientific disciplines. The significant variation in the standards of reviewing processes, editorial processes, etc. between different editors of journals and other types of scientific publications is an important factor in considering the issue of the level of objectivity and the problems that arise in this regard. In order for the editorial and reviewing process to be fully objective and independent, among other things, institutional affiliation should not influence the editors' decision to publish a scientific paper and the assessment in the review of the text, manuscript by the reviewers. Unfortunately, however, it sometimes happens that institutional affiliation is taken into account in such situations.

An important element of maintaining a certain level of objectivity in the reviewing process of scientific papers is the application of the model of more than one review in the editorial boards of scientific journals and editorial boards of book publications and monographs, i.e. the standard of min. Two reviews written independently by other researchers and scientists operating in a given discipline of knowledge and/or who are recognised experts in a given issue. Consequently, the multi-review model is important as it should contribute to the improvement of scientific texts. The double (two reviews) review process for scientific papers raises the issue of the objectivity of the review process and is an important element of the editorial process. In some editorial boards of scientific journals and editorial boards of book publications and monographs, the model of 3 reviews is also applied, in which the third review plays an auxiliary and sometimes a decisive role in relation to the previous two reviews written, in which significantly different assessments appeared, different points of view on the given issue described in the reviewed scientific work.

In addition, there are other factors that are important for researchers and scientists, such as the length of the review process of submitted text proposals for publication and the period after which they receive a response from the editorial office. Sometimes the review and editorial processes take a long time. This is determined by various factors. During the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic, organising conferences in a traditional, desktop format and post-referral publication processes were difficult. An important issue is the communication standards in place in a given scientific publication editorial board. These standards can also vary widely, as some editorial offices write back with an e-mail response regarding the results of an evaluation, a review conducted, an editorial correction or feedback confirming receipt of a text, etc., within a period of several days or so after the text has been sent to the editorial office publishing a particular scientific text. However, there are also editors who write back with a response much later. For scientists and researchers, waiting a long time for a reply can be problematic in a situation where they are continuing their research in a particular field of knowledge, they are receiving new, new research results and the field or scientific discipline in which they are conducting research is developing rapidly.

The issues of the length of the review process, the process of editing a manuscript proposal submitted for publication, the issue of communication between the editorial office and the manuscript author may also be related to the acceptance by authors of journals that are not highly ranked in terms of recognition, reputation, Impact Factor, etc. If journals with a high Impact Factor are difficult to access due to the long review process and high publication costs, some researchers and scientists who want to publish their research results quickly publish in journals without Impact Factor. In addition, some journals without Impact Factor have other positive features, such as the inclusion of published articles in many scientific publication indexing databases and all this under the open access formula without any payment.

In the context of the issue at hand, the editorial requirements set by the editors of scientific journals for the preparation of articles and other texts for publication are also relevant. On the one hand, the standards of reviewing and editorial requirements sometimes vary widely between journals. On the other hand, meeting all editorial requirements in full may limit the issue of innovation in terms of the research conducted and its description and presentation in scientific publications. This is a complex issue that affects many scientific fields, the research conducted and the description of its results in specific types of scientific publications written according to the editorial standards of specific editors and scientific publishers.

Another issue of discussion in the context of the reviewing process of scientific texts is the progressive digitisation of documents. This process should encourage remote communication via e.g. email, and should assist in the editorial process concerning preparatory work prior to the publication of scientific texts. The issue of the progressive digitisation of documents and their increasingly automated digital processing is linked to the use of new ICT information technologies and Industry 4.0, including artificial intelligence, e.g. technology similar to ChatGPT to improve computerised applications and Internet-connected anti-plagiarism platforms used to verify texts during the process of reviewing scientific texts. I wrote about this issue in one of the previously formulated questions on my discussion forum of this Research Gate portal.

Counting on your opinions, on getting to know your personal opinion, on an honest approach to the discussion of scientific issues and not the ready-made answers generated in ChatGPT, I deliberately used the phrase "in your opinion" in the question.

In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:

What, in your opinion, consists in a reliable, objective, professional and thus really contributing to the effective development of science reviewing of scientific works, theses, dissertations containing the results of scientific research, text proposals sent to the editorial office for publication as scientific publications, including scientific articles, scientific monographs, etc.?

In your opinion, what is a reliable, objective, professional review of scientific papers, theses, etc.?

What do you think about this topic?

What is your opinion on this subject?

Please respond,

I invite you all to discuss,

Thank you very much,

Best wishes,

Dariusz Prokopowicz