Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From the Soviet Union to the Russian Federation: publication activity dynamics along the evolution of national science policies

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article seeks to provide a comprehensive overview of publication activity dynamics in the USSR and in the Russian Federation in the context of evolution of national economic and political systems and science policies. A broad set of bibliometric indicators derived from the Web of Science Core Collection database and InCites electronic analytical tool were used to assess the scientific output of the Soviet and Russian research establishments. Various aspects of path dependence of contemporary Russia’s patterns of publication activity on the earlier institutional models of the R&D sector established in the Soviet Union were considered. This path dependence may be clearly observed in the thematic structure of scientific publications (even more so in internationally collaborated papers), in the composition of partner countries for joint publications, and in citation indicators. The evolution of national science policies is tracked in the context of historical development of policy instruments and government actions intended to stimulate and support the publication activity of Russian (and Soviet) academics and maximize their potential effects upon the country’s key research performance indicators.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. No examination is performed here with regard to the variety of these indicators and their strengths and weaknesses. These issues have been widely discussed in the specialized literature: (Kostoff, 1997; Pendlebury, 2009; Gingras, 2014; Belter, 2015; Haustein and Larivière, 2015; Kosten, 2016; Rijcke et al., 2016).

  2. For example, in China in the last two to three years, the criteria for assessing the scientific productivity of national scientists have been significantly revised. If in the 2000s the Chinese government directly stimulated the PA of scientists, taking into account quantitative bibliometric indicators, now emphasis is placed upon the quality of publications, taking into account the national interests and needs of the country, increasing the availability of information on the results of R&D for the Chinese audience, etc. (Huang, 2020; Xu, 2020).

  3. Detailed information on the InCites is available via the URL-link: https://clarivate.com/products/incites.

  4. These types of publications are included in the analysis in addition to the three so-called cited document types (articles, proceedings papers, and reviews) to take into account the WoS CC-indexed publications of the USSR as fully as possible. In the USSR, other types of documents apart from articles, proceedings papers, and reviews make up quite a significant share of the country’s corpus of publications in the WoS CC: 16.7% for 1973-1992.

  5. The country “Russia” in the WoS CC had 1.5 ths. publications (of all types) in 1990, 2.1 ths. in 1991, 10.2 ths. in 1992, and 27,400 in 1993.

  6. The calculation of fractional count was not directly possible neither in Web of Science nor in InCites at the time when analysis was performed.

  7. See more on the methodology of calculation of this indicator in: http://help.prod-incites.com/inCites2Live/indicatorsGroup/aboutHandbook/usingCitationIndicatorsWisely/impactRelativeToWorld.html.

  8. Multiple editions of the annual statistical data books "National Economy of the USSR" (e.g. in editions of 1965, 1972, 1977, 1981, 1987) in a footnote to a table, which provided the data on R&D personnel in the USSR, stated invariably for many years that “the number of researchers in the USSR is one quarter of all researchers in the world”. Such rough estimates were quite typical for the Soviet statistical practice when comparing the USSR to the rest of the world or to so-called capitalistic (or Western Block) countries.

  9. Indicators (quantitative estimates) were calculated based on five-year periods. In total, three programmes were prepared (1981-2000, 1986-2005, 1991-2010).

  10. For China, the USSR and further Russia in 1980-1989 and 1990-1999 was a more important partner than China for a country (IRIR was 3.23 and 1.83 respectively). For 2000-2009, the average IRIR for China decreased to 0.77.

  11. For some partner countries of Russia with 100 + joint publications in 2019 the average IRIR for 2010-2019 was very high (20.9-55.6): Uzbekistan, Mongolia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Sri Lanka.

  12. Since one publication may belong to several fields of science the sum of publications by fields of science (on the level of broad OECD FOS classification as well as on the second level of this classification) exceeds 100%.

  13. Globally the “Humanities” (and to a lesser extent “Social sciences”) also shows much less intensity of international collaborations compared to other fields of science. In 2010-2019, the overall share of ICPs in the global number of publications in “Humanities” was 3.3-6.6%, in “Social Sciences” 10.9-19.8% vs. 16.2-22.4% for all fields of science and 21.6-27.6% in “Natural Sciences”.

  14. According to the journal citation report (JCR) in 2019, most Russian journals in the SCIE and SSCI (86%) were in Q4. There was only one Russian journal in Q1 and there were six in Q2 out of 150 of the country’s journals in the SCIE and SSCI. For comparison, China had 59.9% of domestic WoS CC-indexed journals in the Q1 and Q2, the USA – 58.9%.

  15. On the second level of classification the largest fields of science by number of publications in Q1 journals in 2019 are: ‘Physical sciences’ (25.0% of the total Russia’s number), ‘Clinical medicine’ (23.5%), ‘Chemical sciences’ (18.4%), ‘Biological sciences’ (12.8%), ‘Materials engineering’ (11.1%), ‘Basic medical research’ (10.3%).

  16. For explanation of the extremely low numbers of publications in Q1 journals in ‘Humanities’ see footnote to Fig. 5.

  17. In some comparatively large second-level fields of science, the share of Q1 journal publications was even higher in 2019: 52.0% in ‘Clinical medicine’; 43.4% in ‘Agricultural biotechnology’.

  18. In some second-level fields of science, this figure exceeded 75% in 2019: ‘Earth and related environmental science’ (78.6%); ‘Agriculture, forestry, fisheries’ (77.6%); ‘Other social sciences’ (77.4%).

  19. The key quantitative goal of the 5-100 Project is to ensure that in 2020 at least five of the 21 universities participating in the project, be among the top 100 universities in one of three international university rankings: Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Rankings, Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings and Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU).

  20. For detailed analysis of the impact of the 5-100 Project on Russia’s PA see (Turko et al., 2016; Guskov et al., 2017 and 2018; Matveeva and Ferligoj, 2020; Matveeva et al., 2021; Lovakov et al., 2021).

  21. The Russian Science Fund was established in 2014 to support ambitious scientific projects and scientists performing research at the highest international level.

  22. Some authors examined the situation with publications in the so-called potentially-predatory journals. E.g. (Marina and Sterligov, 2021) analyzed the Scopus database and showed that the share of publications in potentially predatory journals in Russia increased from 0.24% in 2010 to its maximum level of 8.41% in 2016 while in the USA, the UK, Germany, France, Canada and Spain it was lower than 1% in the period 2010-2018. (Guskov et al., 2018) show that some universities which participated in the 5-100 Project had extremely high share of publications in predatory journals.

  23. (Sterligov, 2021) calculated the share of conference papers in the total number of the so-called citable documents (conference papers, articles, and reviews) of Russia in the Web of Science (ESCI data is excluded). Median value of this indicator for top-55 countries by the number of WoS CC-indexed citable documents was 9.5% in 2019.

  24. To compare, in Japan the share of conference papers in 2019 was 12.6%, 11.1% in Germany, 10.2% in France, 10.0% in China, 8.8% in the USA, 6.8% in the UK.

  25. The volume of GERD in 2019 at constant prices of 1989 was 1.8 times higher than in 2000, but only at 61% of the 1989 level.

References

  • Almqvist, R., Grossi, G., van Helden, G. J., & Reichard, C. (2013). Public sector governance and accountability. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24(7–8), 479–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: on doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review, 40(1), 39–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, L. B., & Pallesen, T. (2008). “Not just for the money?” How financial incentives affect the number of publications at danish research institutions. International Public Management Journal, 11(1), 28–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anninos, L. N. (2014). Research performance evaluation: some critical thoughts on standard bibliometric indicators. Studies in Higher Education, 39(9), 1542–1561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archibugi, D., & Pianta, M. (1992). The technological specialization of advanced countries: A report to the EEC on international science and technology activities. NY: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Balassa, B. (1965). Trade Liberalisation and “Revealed” comparative advantage. The Manchester School, 33(2), 99–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balzer, H. D. (1989). Soviet Science on the Edge of Reform. Westview Press, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belter, C. W. (2015). Bibliometric indicators: Opportunities and limits. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 103(4), 219–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernanke, B. S. (2011). Promoting research and development the government’s role. Issues in Science and Technology, 27(4), 37–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besir Demir, S. (2018). A mixed-methods study of the ex post funding incentive policy for scholarly publications in Turkey. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 49(4), 453–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair, P. (1997). The evolving role of government in science and technology. Engineering Evolving, 27(3), 31–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordons, M., Fernández, M., & Gómez, I. (2002). Advantages and limitations in the use of impact factor measures for the assessment of research performance. Scientometrics, 53(2), 195–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L. (2011). Peer Review and Bibliometric: Potentials and Problems. In J. C. Shin, R. K. Toutkoushian, & U. Teichler (Eds.), University Rankings Theoretical Basis, Methodology and Impacts on Global Higher Education. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, L. (2003a). Explaining Australia’s increased share of ISI publications—the effects of a funding formula based on publication counts. Research Policy, 32(1), 143–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, L. (2003b). Modifying publication practices in response to funding formulas. Research Evaluation, 12(1), 39–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, L. (2004). What happens when funding is linked to publication counts? In handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 389–405). Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chankseliani, M., Lovakov, A., & Pislyakov, V. (2021). A Big picture: Bibliometric study of academic publications from post-Soviet countries. Scientometrics, 126(10), 8701–8730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dill, D. D. (2018). Can Public Policy Promote Academic Quality? An Assessment of Policy Instruments for Instruction and Research. In Research Handbook on Quality, Performance and Accountability in Higher Education. Edward Elgar Publishing.

  • Drucker, P. F. (1964). Managing for results. Economic tasks and risk-taking decisions. Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • EC (2016a). Research and Innovation Futures 2030: Exploring the Future of Research. Trends and Drivers in Doing and Governing Research. European Commission. Brussels.

  • EC (2016b). Realising the European Open Science Cloud. Publishing Office of the European Union. Luxembourg

  • Flanagan, K., Uyarra, E., & Laranja, M. (2010). The 'Policy Mix' for Innovation: Rethinking Innovation Policy in a Multi-Level, Multi-Actor Context. Manchester Business School Working Paper Series, Working paper No 599.

  • Freeman, C. (1994). Critical survey: The economics of technical change. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 18(5), 463–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabrys, B. J., & Langdale, J. A. (2011). How to Succeed as a Scientist: From Postdoc to Professor. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science. Science, 122(3159), 108–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilyarevskii, R. S., Libkind, A. N., & Markusova, V. A. (2019). Dynamics of Russia’s Publication activity in 1993–2017 based on web of science data. Automatic Documentation and Mathematical Linguistics, 53(2), 51–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gingras, Y. (2014). Criteria for evaluating indicators. In B. Cronin & C. R. Sugimoto (Eds.), Beyond bibliometrics: harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact (pp. 109–125). MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godin, B. (2009). The Making Science, Technology and Innovation Policy: Conceptual Frameworks as Narratives, 1945–2005. Centre Urbanisation Culture Société. Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique. Montréal (Québec).

  • Gokhberg, L. (1990). Scientific Potential of the USSR [Nauchnyj Potentsial SSSR]. All-Russian Institute for Scientific and Technical Information.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gokhberg, L. (1997). Transformation of the Soviet R&D System. In L. Gokhberg, M. J. Peck, & J. Gacs (Eds.), Russian applied research and development: Its problems and its promise (pp. 9–33). Laxenburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gokhberg, L. (1999). The transformation of R&D in the post-socialist countries: Patterns and trends. innovation and structural change in post-socialist countries: A quantitative approach (pp. 153–172). Springer, Netherlands.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gokhberg, L. (2003). Statistics of science [Statistika Nauki]. TEIS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gokhberg, L., & Kuznetsova, T. (2015). Russian Federation. UNESCO science report: Towards 2030. UNESCO Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gokhberg, L., & Kuznetsova, T. (2021). Russian Federation. In S. Schneegans, J. Lewis, & T. Straza (Eds.), UNESCO Science report: The race against time for smarter development (pp. 347–365). UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gokhberg, L., & Mindeli, L. (1996). Research and development in Russia: trends of the 1990s. Centre for Science Research and Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gokhberg, L., & Sagieva, G. (2007). Russian Science: Bibliometric indicators [Rossiyskaya Nauka: Bibliometricheskie Indikatory]. Foresight-Russia, 1(1), 44–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorodnikova, N. (1997). Methodological Notes and Statistical Tables. In L. Gokhberg, M. J. Peck, & J. Gacs (Eds.), Russian applied research and development: Its problems and promise (pp. 161–188). Laxenburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grančay, M., Vveinhardt, J., & Šumilo, Ē. (2017). Publish or Perish: How central and Eastern European economists have dealt with the ever-increasing academic publishing requirements 2000–2015. Scientometrics, 111(3), 1813–1837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guskov, A., Kosyakov, D., & Selivanova, I. (2017). Strategies to improve publication activities of the universities participating in project 5–100. Scientific and Technical Libraries, 12, 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guskov, A. E., Kosyakov, D. V., & Selivanova, I. V. (2018). Boosting research productivity in top Russian universities: The circumstances of breakthrough. Scientometrics, 117(2), 1053–1080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haustein, S., & Larivière, V. (2015). The Use of Bibliometrics for Assessing Research: Possibilities, Limitations and Adverse Effects. In I. M. Welpe, J. Wollersheim, S. Ringelhan, & M. Osterloh (Eds.), Incentives and performance (pp. 121–139). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Henriksen, D., & Schneider, J. W. (2014). Is the Publication Behavior of Danish Researchers Affected by the National Danish Publication Indicator? A Preliminary Analysis. In Proceedings of the Science and Technology Indicators Conference (pp. 273–275).

  • Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., De Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The leiden manifesto for research metrics. Nature News, 520(7548), 429–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • “Historical Materials” web-portal. Collection of various issues of statistical digests “The National Economy of the USSR” and “Scientific and Technical Progress of the USSR” issued by State Committee of Statistics of the USSR (Goskomstat). Available at: https://istmat.org/node/21341

  • HSE. (2020). Science and technology indicators in the russian federation: 2020: Data book. HSE.

    Google Scholar 

  • HSE. (2021). Science and technology indicators in the russian federation: 2021: Data book. HSE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, F. (2020). China is Choosing its Own Path on Academic Evaluation. University World News, 26. URL: https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20200226122508451

  • Ingwersen, P., & Larsen, B. (2014). Influence of a performance indicator on danish research production and citation impact 2000–12. Scientometrics, 101(2), 1325–1344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen, C. B., & Andersen, L. B. (2014). Performance management for academic researchers: How publication command systems affect individual behavior. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 34(2), 84–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joint Economic Committee. (1990). Measures of soviet gross national product in 1982 prices. US Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kallio, K. M., & Kallio, T. J. (2014). Management-by-results and performance measurement in universities-implications for work motivation. Studies in Higher Education, 39(4), 574–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, D. H., & Bak, H. J. (2016). How do scientists respond to performance-based incentives? Evidence from South Korea. International Public Management Journal, 19(1), 31–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, J. (1987). A review of bibliometric and other science indicators and their role in research evaluation. Journal of Information Science, 13(5), 261–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirchik, O., Gingras, Y., & Larivière, V. (2012). changes in publication languages and citation practices and their effect on the scientific impact of Russian science (1993–2010). Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(7), 1411–1419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koenig, M. E. (1983). Bibliometric indicators versus expert opinion in assessing research performance. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 34(2), 136–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korytkowski, P., & Kulczycki, E. (2019). Examining how country-level science policy shapes publication patterns: the case of poland. Scientometrics, 119(3), 1519–1543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosten, J. (2016). A classification of the use of research indicators. Scientometrics, 108(1), 457–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostoff, R. N. (1997). Use and misuse of metrics in research evaluation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3(2), 109–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosyakov, D., & Guskov, A. (2019). Impact of national science policy on academic migration and research productivity in Russia. Procedia Computer Science, 146, 60–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosyakov, D., & Guskov, A. (2022). Reasons and consequences of changes in Russian research assessment policies. Scientometrics, 127(8), 4609–4630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotsemir, M. N. (2012). Publication activity of Russian researches in leading international scientific journals. Acta Naturae, 4(2), 14–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonelli, S., Spichtinger, D., & Prainsack, B. (2015). sticks and carrots: Encouraging open science at its source. Geo: Geography and Environment, 2(1), 12–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L. (2008). Caveats for the Use of Citation Indicators in Research and Journal Evaluations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(2), 278–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linton, J. D., Tierney, R., & Walsh, S. T. (2011). Publish or perish: how are research and reputation related? Serials Review, 37(4), 244–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovakov, A., Panova, A., Sterligov, I., & Yudkevich, M. (2021). Does government support of leading universities affect the entire higher education system? Evidence from the Russian University Excellence Initiative. Research Evaluation.

  • Marina, T., & Sterligov, I. (2021). Prevalence of potentially predatory publishing in scopus on the country level. Scientometrics, 126(6), 5019–5077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markusova, V. A., Jansz, M., Libkind, A. N., Libkind, I., & Varshavsky, A. (2009). Trends in Russian research output in post-Soviet Era. Scientometrics, 79(2), 249–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marnick R. (2015). Four reasons why the government needs to keep spending money on science. https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2015/09/08/four-reasons-why-the-government-needs-to-keep-spending-money-on-science

  • Martin, B. R. (2012). The evolution of science policy and innovation studies. Research Policy, 41(7), 1219–1239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B. (2016). R&D policy instruments—a critical review of what we do and don’t know. Industry and Innovation, 23(2), 157–176.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Matveeva, N., & Ferligoj, A. (2020). Scientific collaboration in Russian universities before and after the excellence initiative project 5–100. Scientometrics, 124(3), 2383–2407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matveeva, N., Sterligov, I., & Lovakov, A. (2022). International scientific collaboration of post-soviet countries: a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 127(3), 1583–1607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matveeva, N., Sterligov, I., & Yudkevich, M. (2021). The effect of Russian university excellence initiative on publications and collaboration patterns. Journal of Informetrics, 15(1), 101110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melo, A. I., Sarrico, C. S., & Radnor, Z. (2010). The influence of performance management systems on key actors in universities: The case of an english university. Public Management Review, 12(2), 233–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mindeli, L. (Ed.). (1992). Science in the USSR: Analysis and Statistics [Nauka v SSSR: Analiz i Statistika]. Centre for Science Research and Statistics, Moscow. [in Russian].

    Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F., Burger, W. J. M., Frankfort, J. G., & Van Raan, A. F. (1985). The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance. Research Policy, 14(3), 131–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moed, H. F., Markusova, V., & Akoev, M. (2018). Trends in Russian research output indexed in scopus and web of science. Scientometrics, 116(2), 1153–1180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F., Olivastro, D., & Stevens, K. A. (1994). Bibliometrics/Theory. Practice and Problems. Evaluation Review, 18(1), 65–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (1981). Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys of Research and Experimental Development: Frascati Manual 1980, The Measurement of Scientific and Technical Activities Series. OECD, Paris.

  • OECD. (1994). The oecd review of science, technology and innovation policies: Russian Federation. OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2010). OECD science, technology and industry outlook 2010. OECD Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2015). Frascati manual 2015: guidelines for collecting and reporting data on research and experimental development. OECD Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2016). OECD science, technology and innovation outlook 2016. OECD Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2019). Perspectives on global development 2019: Rethinking development strategies. OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2021). OECD science, technology and innovation outlook 2021: Times of crisis and opportunity. OECD Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Paul-Hus, A., Bouvier, R. L., Ni, C., Sugimoto, C. R., Pislyakov, V., & Larivière, V. (2015). Fourty years of gender disparities in russian science: A historical bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 102, 1541–1553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13(6), 343–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pendlebury, D. A. (2009). The use and misuse of journal metrics and other citation indicators. Archivum Immunologiae Et Therapiae Experimentalis, 57(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pouris, A. (2003). South Africa’s research publication record: the last ten years: science policy. South African Journal of Science, 99(9), 425–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rijcke, S. D., Wouters, P. F., Rushforth, A. D., Franssen, T. P., & Hammarfelt, B. (2016). Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use—a literature review. Research Evaluation, 25(2), 161–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shibayama, S., & Baba, Y. (2015). Impact-oriented science policies and scientific publication practices: The case of life sciences in Japan. Research Policy, 44(4), 936–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snieder, R., & Larner, K. (2009). The art of being a scientist: A guide for graduate students and their mentors. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sousa, C. A., de Nijs, W. F., & Hendriks, P. H. (2010). Secrets of the Beehive: Performance management in university research organizations. Human Relations, 63(9), 1439–1460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterligov, I. A. (2021). The Russian Conference outbreak: Description, causes and possible policy measures. Science. Management: Theory and Practice, 3(2), 222–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tassey, G. (1997). The economics of R&D policy. Quorum Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tassey, G. (2004). Policy issues for R&D investment in a knowledge-based economy. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(2), 153–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, J., & Taylor, R. (2003). Performance indicators in academia: An X-efficiency approach? Australian Journal of Public Administration, 62(2), 71–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, S. (1992). The evaluation of Plant Biomass Research: A case study of the problems inherent in bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 23(1), 149–167.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Todeschini, R., & Baccini, A. (2016). Handbook of bibliometric indicators: Quantitative tools for studying and evaluating research. Wiley.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Turko, T., Bakhturin, G., Bagan, V., Poloskov, S., & Gudym, D. (2016). Influence of the program “5-top 100” on the publication activity of Russian universities. Scientometrics, 109(2), 769–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dalen, H. P., & Henkens, K. (2012). Intended and unintended consequences of a publish-or-perish culture: a worldwide survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(7), 1282–1293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Raan, A. F. (2005). Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 62(1), 133–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, P. (2005). Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences? Scientometrics, 62(1), 117–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westney, D. E. (1991). Country patterns in R&D organization: The United States and Japan. The MIT Japan program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/17089.

  • Wien, C., Dorch, B. F., & Larsen, A. V. (2017). Contradicting incentives for research collaboration. Scientometrics, 112(2), 903–915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wildgaard, L., Schneider, J. W., & Larsen, B. (2014). A review of the characteristics of 108 author-level bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 101(1), 125–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, C. S., & Markusova, V. A. (2004). Changes in the Scientific Output of Russia from 1980 to 2000, as Reflected in the Science Citation Index, in relation to national politico-economic changes. Scientometrics, 59(3), 345–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, J. (2020). Guest post — How china’s new policy may change researchers' publishing behavior. The scholarly kitchen: What’s hot and cooking in scholarly publishing. Available at https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2020/03/03/guest-post-how-chinas-new-policy-may-change-researchers-publishing-behavior

  • Zuin, A. A., & Bianchetti, L. (2015). Productivism in the Age of the" Publish, Appear or Perish": A ZLANCE. Cadernos De Pesquisa, 45(158), 726–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This article is based on the study funded by the Basic Research Program of the HSE University.

Funding

National Research University Higher School of Economics

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. HSE University, 9-11 Myasnitskaya Street, 101000, Moscow, Russian Federation

    Leonid Gokhberg, Tatiana Kuznetsova & Maxim Kotsemir

Authors
  1. Leonid Gokhberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tatiana Kuznetsova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maxim Kotsemir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maxim Kotsemir.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interests

We have no conflicts of interest as well as no competing interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 7, 8, 9, 10.

Table 7 Key indicators of publication activity in leading countries in the web of science core collection in 1980–2019
Full size table
Table 8 Key indicators of mutual importance of the USSR/Russia and its partner countries in joint publications in the web of science core collection in 1980–2019
Full size table
Table 9 Key citation indicators in the USSR/russia and selected countries in the web of science core collection in 1980–2019
Full size table
Table 10 Effect of international research collaboration on key indicators of publication activity of Russia and selected countries in the web of science core collection for 2015–2019
Full size table

See Figures

Fig. 5
figure 5

Structure of Internationally Collaborated Publications (ICPs) of the USSR/Russia in the Web of Science Core Collection in 1973–2019 by Partner Countries. For 2005–2019, data from the ESCI database were taken into account. Sources: Authors' calculations based on the Web of Science Core Collection (for 1973–1979, updated May 3, 2019) and InCites (for 1980–2019, based on the Web of Science Core Collection content indexed through June 30, 2020)

Full size image

5,

Fig. 6
figure 6

Source: authors’ calculations based on the InCites (based on the Web of Science Core Collection content indexed through June 30, 2020)

Thematic Structure of Publications of the USSR/Russia in the Web of Science Core Collection in 1980–2019 by the OECD fields of science. 1. The sum of shares of all fields of science exceeds 100% given that one publication can be attached to several OECD fields of science. 2. For 2005–2019, data from the ESCI database were taken into account.

Full size image

6,

Fig. 7
figure 7

Source: authors’ calculations based on the InCites (based on the Web of Science Core Collection content indexed through June 30, 2020)

Key Indicators of International Research Collaboration of the USSR/Russia in the Web of Science Core Collection by the OECD fields of science in 1980–2019. For 2005–2019, data from the ESCI database was taken into account.

Full size image

7,

Fig. 8
figure 8

Source: authors’ calculations based on the InCites (based on the Web of Science Core Collection content indexed through June 30, 2020)

Key Citation Indicators of Publications of the USSR/Russia in the Web of Science Core Collection by the OECD fields of science in 1980–2019. For 2005–2019, data from the ESCI database were taken into account.

Full size image

8,

Fig. 9
figure 9

Source: authors' calculations based on the InCites (based on the Web of Science content indexed through June 30, 2020)

Key Indicators of Publication Activity of Russia in the First Quartile Journals (Q1) in Web of Science Core Collection in 1997, 2005, 2015 and 2019 by the OECD Fields of Science. 1. Data rows start from 1997 since 1997—is the earliest year for which data on distribution of publications in SSCI and SCIE by journal quartiles data is available in the Incites. 2. Sum of the shares of all fields of science in the total number of publications in Q1 exceeds 100% since some publications are attributed to several fields of science. 3. Extremely low numbers of publications in Q1 journals in “Humanities” are explained by the fact that for Arts & Humanities Index (A&HCI) journal impact factors are not calculated by Clarivate Analytics. Therefore, only those journals (quite small number) from A&HCI that are indexed also in the Social Sciences Index (SSCI) and Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) receive journal impact factors.

Full size image

9.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gokhberg, L., Kuznetsova, T. & Kotsemir, M. From the Soviet Union to the Russian Federation: publication activity dynamics along the evolution of national science policies. Scientometrics 128, 6195–6246 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04838-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04838-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation