Doncho Donev

Bio: Doncho Donev is an academic researcher. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 13 citations.

New Developments in Publishing Related to Authorship

Abstract: AIM To present the inappropriate types of authorship and practice, and the most recent developments related to basic principles and criteria to a fair system for allocating authorship in scientific publications. METHODS An analysis of relevant materials and documents, sources from the internet and published literature and personal experience and observations of the author. RESULTS Working in multidisciplinary teams is a common feature of modern research processes. The most sensitive question is how to decide on who to acknowledge as author of a multi-authored publication. The pertinence of this question is growing with the increasing importance of individual scientists' publication records for professional status and career. However, discussions about authorship allocation might lead to serious conflicts and disputes among coworkers which could even endanger cooperation and successful completion of a research project. It seems that discussion and education about ethical standards and practical guidelines for fairly allocating authorship are insufficient and the question of ethical practices related to authorship in multi-authored publications remains generally unresolved. CONCLUSION It is necessary to work for raising awareness about the importance and need for education about principles of scientific communication and fair allocation of authorship, ethics of research and publication of results. The use of various forms of education in the scientific community, especially young researchers and students, in order to create an ethical environment, is one of the most effective ways to prevent the emergence of scientific and publication dishonesty and fraud, including pathology of authorship.

Plagiarism under a Magnifying-Glass.

Abstract: This-paper embodies the-findings from a-small-part, of a-larger-study on-plagiarism, at-the-School of Engineering (SOE) The-study is a-cross-sectional-survey, conducted in-an-institutional-setting 15 senior academic-members of staff (N=15), from SOE were-invited to-complete a-questionnaire The-questioner was pre-tested, to-ensure its-validity and reliability A trial-survey (pre-testing) was conducted, according to ISO 20252:2006 (E) The-Statistical-Package for Social-Sciences (SPSS-17, version 22)-computer software program was-used, to-compute the-Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, which demonstrated high-inter-item consistency, and, therefore, reliability (Cronbach’s a=0803 ) Descriptive-statistics was-used, to-analyze, both; qualitative and quantitative-data The-main-findings of the-study, revealed that, the-majority (60%) of the-respondents alleged, that plagiarism was-never-mentioned or explained, to-them, at- any -level; Overwhelming-majority, (90%) agreed that plagiarism is unfair to-the-original-author and to-the-colleagues; The-vast-majority, (90%) also-claimed that they never plagiarized, while 10% confessed that they-did-it one or two-times, in-the-past; majority (70%) also-agreed, that plagiarism is unfair to-oneself; and 60% agreed, it-is-unfair to-the-university The-analysis of the-plagiarism, from the-faculty-perspective, was-balanced, by-the rigorous-coverage, of the-following-issues: Historical background; Plagiarism’ extent; Quantification, for-plagiarism; Consequences of plagiarism: Retraction of publications, with selected global-illustrative-examples; Publishing-process: main-actors and their-roles, in-dealing with-plagiarism; Combating plagiarism, including detection and punishment; and Plagiarism, as just a-tiny-fraction of scientific-misconduct; among others This-study also-provides few-recommendations, on how to-improve the-current-situation, in-the absence of official-institutional Plagiarism-Policy The-findings, alongside-with the-theoretical coverage, will, expectantly, make a-contribution (in its-small-way), toward the-body of knowledge, on-the subject Keywords: retraction of publication, scientific, academic, faculty, quantification for plagiarism, questionnaire

Peer Review - Essential for Article and Journal Scientific Assessment and Validity.

Abstract: Peer review is at the heart of the processes of not just medical journals but of all of science. It is the method by which grants are allocated, papers published, academics promoted, and Nobel prizes won (1). Each article, which is submitted for publication in a particular journal, according to the ethical and the established standards of practice, must pass through a peer-review process (2-7). The articles go through a peer-review process, without the authors’ names, and this is essentially a blind process. Common practice is to peer-review an article by two experts, prominent enough for scholarly careers in the field from which the article comes. Through years-long experience of the editor, of several journals, I think that a search for an appropriate peer-reviewer is the most complex part in the scope of responsibilities of the editor. Theoretically, everyone wants gladly to review particular article. The higher the impact factor of the journal is, this desire grows. In practice, every fourth petition for review of a certain work is accepted (8-12). Editors are faced with many dilemmas and primarily, through the numerous e-mails, they reach a certain reviewer, after a period, which sometimes last up to a year. Sometimes this review contains only two sentences, and the editor is forced to look for new potential reviewer as a decision on the work cannot be made, on the basis of two sentences. Each reviewer receives copy of the journal, for which he/she writes its opinion on the above-mentioned work.

Unethical Behaviors of Authors Who Published Papers in the Biomedical Journals Became a Global Problem.

Abstract: Committee of Publishing Ethics (COPE) announced great problem with retraction of the papers published in journals which are cited in Web of Science data base, before and after retractions from the journals were papers published, because of unethical behaviours of the authors - https://retractionwatch.com/the-retraction-watch-leaderboard/top-10-most-highly-cited-retracted-papers/ (1).