Advertisement

Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences

, Volume 89, Issue 5, pp 451–459 | Cite as

The Use of Scientometric Indicators to Evaluate Publishing Activity in Modern Russia

  • A. V. GrinevEmail author
Organization of Research
  • 4 Downloads

Abstract

The accounting of scientific publications using scientometric indicators is analyzed in the context of evaluating the performance of the academic staff of Russian universities and associates of RAS research institutes and the way in which it is used by state and administrative structures. The evolution of the country’s attitude to scientometric indicators in recent decades is shown, the main drawbacks of the use of scientometric criteria are identified, and possible solutions to this problem are proposed.

Keywords:

scientific publications scientific policy scientometrics SPI RSCI Web of Science Scopus Google Scholar 

Notes

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    V. V. Nalimov and Z. M. Mul’chenko, Scientometrics: The Study of Science As an Information Process (Nauka, Moscow, 1969) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    V. S. Libenson, “The scale to assess the relevance of scientific works,” in Problems of the Activity of a Scientist and Scientific Teams (Nauka, Leningrad, 1971), Vol. 4, pp. 300–304 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    I. D. Kotlyarov, “A new method to assess productivity and scientific activity,” Bibliosfera, No. 2, 60–66 (2010).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. G. Aref’ev, “Publishing activity, opportunities for scientific product growth, and the traditional Russian question ‘What is to be done?,’” Univ. Kniga, No. 10, 49–55 (2013).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    V. V. Arutyunov, “Specific characteristics of citation rating of Russian scientists as suggested by the Russian Science Citation Index,” Nauch. Tekh. Bib., No. 5, 29–44 (2015).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. I. Zemskov, “Bibliometrics: An overview of the problem: Comparing the citation level of articles in various countries,” Nauch. Tekh. Bib., No. 9, 22–44 (2014).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    N. V. Motroshilova, “Crooked mirrors, reflecting each other: Inferior segments of scientometrics,” in Science. Innovations. Education (Ross. Nauch.-Issled. Inst. Ekon., Polit. i Prava v Nauch.-Tekh. Sfere, Moscow, 2011), Vol. 10, pp. 93–112 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. Mongeon and A. Paul-Hus, “The journal coverage of bibliometric databases: A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science,” Scientometrics 106 (1), 213–228 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Report on the State of Basic Sciences in the Russian Federation and Major Scientific Achievements of Russian Scientists in 2016 (Moscow, 2017). https://roscongress.org/materials/doklad-o-sostoyanii-fundamentalnykh-nauk-v-rossiyskoy-federatsii-i-o-vazhneyshikh-nauchnykh-dostizhe/. Cited December 21, 2018.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    O. V. Pol’din, N. N. Matveeva, I. A. Sterligov, and M. M. Yudkevich, “Publication activity of higher education establishments: The effect of the 5–100 project,” Vopr. Obr., No. 2, 10–33 (2017).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. N. Kablov, “The right of rating: How to assess Russia’s intellectual resources?,” Poisk, Nos. 45–46, 11 (2014).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    K. A. Chrystal and P. D. Mizen, “Goodhart’s law: Its origins, meaning, and implications for monetary policy,” Essays Honour Charles Goodhart 1, 221–243 (2003).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    S. Shoaib and B. Mujtaba, “Perverse incentives and peccable behavior in professionals—A qualitative study of the faculty,” Public Org. Rev. 18 (4), 441–459 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    T. V. Zakharchuk, “Evaluation of scientific work in the library and information field,” Nauch. Tekh. Bib., No. 8, 18–27 (2017).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    L. A. Tsvetkova and A. V. Komarova, “New criteria for assessing efficiency of researchers and decision makers responsible for expenditure of state resources on research and development,” Ekon. Nauki, No. 4, 270–281 (2015).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. N. Gurov, Yu. G. Goncharova, and G. B. Bubyakin, “Open access to scientific knowledge: Status, problems, development prospects,” Nauch.-Tekh. Inf. Ser. 1: Org. Metod. Inf. Rab., No. 4, 10–16 (2016).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    T. E. Isaeva, M. P. Churikov, and Yu. Yu. Kotlyarenko, “The efficacy of assessing the activity of teachers of higher education establishments: A comparison of domestic and foreign methods,” Naukovedenie, No. 3, 1–20 (2015).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    P. Yu. Chebotarev, “Scientometrics: How to cure and not to cripple using it?” in Management of Large Systems: A Collection of Works “Scientometrics and Examination in Science Management” (IPU RAN, Moscow, 2013), Vol. 44, pp. 14–31 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    O. V. Moskaleva, “Scientific publications as a means of communication, analysis, and assessment of scientific activity,” in A Manual in Scientometrics: Science and Technology Development Indicators (Izd. Ural’. Univ., Yekaterinburg, 2014), pp. 110–186 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    S. L. Parfenova, “Approaches to analysis of coauthored publications by Russian researchers,” in Proc. 5th International Scientific and Practical Conference “International-Level Scientific Publication 2016: Solutions to Problems of Publishing Ethics, Reviewing, and Preparation of Publications,” Moscow, May 17–20,2016 (Izd. Ural’. Univ., Yekaterinburg, 2016), pp. 225–236 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. B. Ivanov and V. G. Petrov, “Technologies to increase the Hirsch index and develop simulation science,” V Zashchitu Nauki, No. 17, 38–51 (2016).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    A. V. Grinev, “Scientific publications and scientometrics as an object of shady business,” Vestn. Ross. Akad. Nauk 88 (10), 908–917 (2018).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    J. B. Beall, “Predatory publishers threaten the integrity of research and scholarly communication,” in Proc. 5th International Scientific and Practical Conference “International-Level Scientific Publication 2016: Solutions to Problems of Publishing Ethics, Reviewing, and Preparation of Publications,” Moscow, May 17–20,2016 (Izd. Ural’. Univ., Yekaterinburg, 2016), pp. 20–24 [in Russian].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    O. V. Moskaleva, “RINTs and RSCI: An addition or replacement?,” in Proc. 5th International Scientific and Practical Conference “International-Level Scientific Publication 2016: Solutions to Problems of Publishing Ethics, Reviewing, and Preparation of Publications,” Moscow, May 17–20,2016 (Izd. Ural’. Univ., Yekaterinburg, 2016), pp. 195–201 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    N. A. Mazov, V. N. Gureev, and N. E. Kalenov, “Some assessments of the list of journals in the Russian Science Citation Index,” Herald Russ. Acad. Sci. 88 (2), 133–141 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    K. S. Fominykh, Extended Abstract of Cand. Sci. (Sociol.) Dissertation (Moscow, 2017).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    A. I. Krivichev and T. P. Smetanina, “Assessing a methodological approach to the rating of Moscow State University researchers,” Nauch. Issled. Ekon. Fakul’teta. Elektron. Zh. 7 (4), 80–95 (2016). https://istina.msu.ru/publications/article/27229347/.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    R. S. Gilyarevskii, “Publication activity as assessment of scientific achievements,” Nauch.-Tekh. Inf., No. 8, 1–9 (2014).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    E. D. Sverdlov, “Beware! High impact factor,” Vestn. Ross. Akad. Nauk 88 (6), 531–538 (2018).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    I. Zhengra, Errors in Science Assessment, or How to Use Bibliometrics Correctly (Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie, Moscow, 2018) [in Russian].Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    V. V. Bondar’, L. A. Grigoryan, L. N. Margolin, and V. V. Farafonov, “The completeness of scientific information reflection by international abstract systems,” in Proc. International Conference to the 65th Anniversary of VINITI RAN “Information in the Modern World,” Moscow, October 26–27,2017 (VINITI RAN, Moscow, 2017), pp. 54–61 [in Russian].Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    M. Pitsolanti, F. Papadopoulou, and N. Tselios, “A scientometric evaluation of 50 Greek science and engineering university departments using Google Scholar,” J. Scientometric 7 (1), 9–18 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    A. Martín-Martín, E. Orduna-Malea, M. Thelwall, and E. D. López-Cózar, “Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories,” J. Informetrics 12 (4), 1160–1177 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    V. A. Blaginin and D. S. Mironov, “Conceptual grounds for the development of qualitative scientometric indices,” Glob. Nauch. Potentsial, No. 12, 71–73 (2017).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    N. A. Mazov and V. N. Gureev, “Alternative approaches to assessing scientific results,” Herald Russ. Acad. Sci. 85 (1), 26–32 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnical UniversitySt. PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations