/ 
Institute of Scientific Review to a Plurality of Modern Science: Need or Fiction?
Abstract
The current situation of plurality epistemological provokes distinct lack of clear criteria for scientific criticism humanities texts. This research raises the question of verification procedure for knowledge obtained humanities, its status and importance. Changes relate to the modern paradigm of scientific methodology in general, which involves switching from a focus on results orientation to the process of getting the truth (W.V.O. Quine, Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, Imre Lakatos, etc.). To determine the relationships with the text as a carrier of the alleged truth reception is off ered three formats of relations: Text – Author, Text – Reader and Text – Reviewer. The article stresses questions of general and specific objectives for the scientifi c peer review, as well as the problem of plagiarism and its ethical and legal consequences. It is proposed to consider plan algorithm scientific review of the 26 criteria for it, which will help to streamline Institute of scientific criticism. Recent cover content requirements (which include: the incorporation of a scientific context, the definition of methodological systems, structured research, avoiding plagiarism, there is a real «increase of knowledge» and applied significance, etc.) and technical design, the variable respectively specifi c edition. Compliance with a number of requirements set out will help improve the effi ciency and profitability of the humanities.
Keywords
ontological pluralism, epistemological pluralism, «existential relativity», verifi cation, academization of knowledge, «presumption of innocence», plagiarism, the criteria for science review, scientifi c criticism
References
1. Eco U. Kak napisat’ diplomnuju rabotu (How to write degree work). Saint Petersburg, 2004.
2. Fejerabend P. Izbrannye trudy po metodologii nauki (Selected works on the Scientific Method). Мoscow, 1986.
3. Lakatos I. Dokazatel’stva i oproverzhenija kak dokazyvajutsja teoremy (Method of Proofs and Refutations). Мoscow, 1967.
4. Muha O. Ja. 2012. Kriterii istinnosti i nauchnosti postmodernistskogo znanija (Criteria of the Varity and Scientific Character of the Postmodern Knowledge). Vestnik PSTGU І, vol. 1 (39), pp. 58–66.
5. Nikolaev E. Chto takoe plagiat, ili O zapadnyh standartah nauchnoj jetiki (What is Plagiarism, or on Western Scientific Ethics’ Standart) (URL: http://www.osvita.org.ua/articles/68.html)
6. Plagium vulgaris: kak predotvratit’ plagiat v nauke (How to avert Scientific Plagiarism) (http://www.ria.ru/ online/20110131/328762171.html#ixzz29a7MprUN)
7. Quine W. V. O. Ontological Relativity. The Journal of Philosophy, 1968, vol. 65, pp. 185-212.
8. Rorty R. 1998. Against Unity. The Wilson Quarterly, vol. 22 (1), рр. 28–38.
9. Vjatkin V. Ot plagiata k profanacijam (From Plagiarism to Profanation). Troickij variant (URL: http://trv-science.ru/2011/ 12/06/ot-plagiata-k-profanaci-yam/).