FROM DIGITIZED SCIENCE TO DIGITIZED SOCIETY

Introduction. Along with other innovations, in recent years, scientometric methods for measurement of scientists’ and research teams’ results in the scientific sphere have been widely adopted. The Russian practice of application of those methods to determine the degree of academics’ performance isn't unambiguous and eventually can have negative, destructive consequences for domestic science. In this regard, this very burning issue is required for urgent thorough public discussion by scientific community.

The aim of the article is a critical analysis of the topical problems of science reform in the light of the law “On the Russian Academy of Sciences, the reorganization of state academies of sciences and amendments to certain legislative acts of theRussian Federation” (№ 253-RF, 27 September, 2013). Also, the author notes the importance of methods for evaluating the effectiveness of scholarly endeavor.

Results and scientific novelty. On the example of the system of digital indicators operating in the Russian Academy of Education, formed on the basis of the requirements of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation and Federal Agency of Scientific Organizations, it is shown that it is impossible to evaluate the scientific result objectively.

It is clearly proved that the indicators used, primarily the number of publications and the citation index, in modern conditions give distorted landmarks, become a brake on science, reduce its ability to self-development. The image of scientists and whole institutions is formed on false indicators.

Academic and many scientific journals have acquired a commercial nature; there is no real evaluative analysis of the manuscripts, which have been submitted into the editorial office; there is no selection according to relevance and significance of the submitted material. Real examples, provided in the article, demonstrate frequent violations of ethical principles when forming authorial collectives of publications of scholarly journals; as a consequence, artificial increase of citation indexes and x-index.

In addition, the formalized digitized indicators become the basis for automatic, “fair”, according to officials, distribution of resources and material rewards for scientific research. It is highlighted that digitization of science and quantitative indicators based on grant financing can not replace basic funding of science. Grants become a task not for research, but for the result formulated by the official, on loyalty to the state management.

The policy of nationalization and administration of science has led to a prolonged confrontation between the academies and the authorities. In the long term, it is possible to transfer the digitized principles of science management to the management of society as a whole.

Practical significance. The author puts forward a number of recommendations and suggestions how to objectify the evaluation system of scientific research effectiveness. That would, however, require substantial restructuring of the scientific sphere itself, its denationalization and return to the principle “science should be managed by scientists”. Thus, science funding must not be focused on the basis of digitized indicators. It is necessary to withdraw the status “Higher Attestation Commission of the RF” (VAK RF) from all commercial journals, to remove state academies from their founders.

1. Abramo G., D’Angelo C. Evaluating research: From informed peer review to bibliometrics. Scientometrics. 2011; 87 (3): 499–514.

2. Price Derek J.de Solla. Quantitative Measures of Development of Sciences. Archives Internationales d' Histoire des Sciences. 1951; 14: 85–93.

3. Price D. de Solla A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 1976; 27 (5–6): 292–306.

4. Gordukalov G. F. Bibliometrics, scientometrics and webometric – the number of rows in the works of Aristotle. Nauchnaja periodika: problemy i reshenija = Scientific Periodicals: Problems and Solutions. 2014; 4, 2: 40–46. DOI: 10.18334/np42127 (In Russ.)

5. Chebotarev P. Yu. Scientometrics: How to cure, not maim? Upravlenie bol'shimi sistemami. Special'nyj vypusk. Naukometrija i jekspertiza v upravlenii naukoj = Managing Large Systems. Special Issue. Scientometrics and Expertise in Science Management [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2015 July 13]; 44: 14–31. Available from: http://www.ubs.mtas.ru/upload/library/UBS4401.pdf (In Russ.)

6. Gusejnov A., Motroshilova N., Ogurcov A., Rubcov A., Judin B., Baranov A. Idei i chisla = Ideas and numbers. Osnovanija i kriterii ocenki rezul'tativnosti filosofskih i sociogu-manitarnyh issledovanij = The grounds and criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of philosophical and socio-humanitarian research. Moscow: Publishing House Progress-Tradicija; 2016. 272 р. (In Russ.)

7. Sverdlov E. D. Mirages of the citation. Bibliometric assessment of importance of scientific publications of individual studies. Vestnik Rossijskoj akademii nauk = Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2006; 76 (12): 1073–1085. (In Russ.)

8. Motroshilova N. V. The real factors of the research work and measure citation. Upravlenie bol'shimi sistemami. Special'nyj vypusk. Naukometrija i jekspertiza v upravlenii naukoj = Managing Large Systems. Special Issue. Scientometrics and Expertise in Science Management [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2015 July 13]; 44: 453–475. Available from: http://www.ubs.mtas.ru/upload/library/ UBS4426.pdf (In Russ.)

9. Campbell Philip. Escape from the impact factor. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics. 2008; 8: 5–7. DOI: 10.3354/esep00078

10. Lawrence P. А. Lost in publication: How measurement harms science. Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics. 2008; 8: 9–11.

11. Lawrence P. A. The mismeasurement of science. Current Biology. 2007; 17: 583–585.

12. Adler R., Ewing J., Taylor P. Citation statistics. Statistical Sciences. 2009; 24: 1–14. DOI:10.1214/10.1214/09-STS285

13. Seglen P. O. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research, BMJ. 1997; 314: 498–502.

14. Golubic R., Rudes M., Kovacic N., Marusic M., Marusic A. Calculating impact factor: how bibliographical classification of journal items affects the impact factor of large and small journals. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2008; 14: 41–49.

15. Oleynikova O. N., Zolotareva N. M. International trends in the development of modern vocational education in the context of integration and globalization. Kazan Pedagogical Journal. 2016; 6: 9.

16. Pislyakov V. V. Methods of an assessment of scientific knowledge based on citation metrics. Sociologicheskij zhurnal = Sociological Journal [Internet]. 2007 [cited 2015 Sep 18]; 1: 128–140. Available from: http://library.hse.ru/science/papers/bibliometrics.pdf (In Russ.)

17. Garfield Eu. Citation indexes for science. Science. 1955; 122 (3159): 108–111.

18. Slastenin V. A., I. F. Isaev, E. N. Shiyanov. Pedagogika = Pedagogy. Ed. by V. A. Slastenin. Moscow: Publishing House Akademija; 2002. 576 p. (In Russ.)

19. Slastenin V. A., Mischenko A. I. Celostnyj pedagogicheskij process kak ob#ekt profes-sional'noj dejatel'nosti uchitelja = Complete pedagogical process as the object of professional activity of a teacher. Moscow: Publishing House Prometej; 1997. 200 р. (In Russ.)

20. Rubtsov A. Specifika sociogumanitarnogo znanija s tochki zrenija analiza ego cenno-sti i ocenki rezul'tativnosti issledovanij = Specificity of socio-humanitarian knowledge from the point of view of analysis of its values and performance studies. Idei i chisla. Osnovanija i kriterii ocenki rezul'tativnosti filosofskih i so-ciogumanitarnyh issledovanij = Ideas and numbers. The grounds and criteria for evaluating the impact of philosophical and socio-humanitarian studies. Moscow: Publishing House Progress-Tradicija; 2016. p. 25. (In Russ.)

21. Bornmann L., Daniel H. D. The state of h index research. Is the h index the ideal way to measure research performance? EMBO Reports. 2009; 10 (1): 2–6. DOI: 10.1038/embor.2008.233

22. Bornmann L. The problem of citation impact assessments for recent publication years in institutional evaluations. Journal of Informetrics [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2015 Sep 18]; 7 (3): 722–729. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.joi.2013.05.002

23. Waltman L., Van Eck N. J. The inconsistency of the h-index. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2012; 63 (2): 406– 415.

24. Pozdnyakov A. V. The role of science in government. Democracy and noocracy. In: Strategii dinamicheskogo razvitija Rossii: edinstvo samoorganizacii i upravlenija: materialy pervoj Mezhdunarodnoj nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii = Strategy of Dynamic Development of Russia: The Unity of Self-Organization and Management. Proceedings of the 1st International Scientific-Practical Conference; 2004 June 16–18; Moscow, Russian Academy of Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation. Moscow: Publishing House Prospect; 2004. V. 2. Part 2. p. 230–235. (In Russ.)

25. Prangishvili I. V. Jentropijnye i drugie sistemnye zakonomernosti, voprosy upravlenija slozhnymi sistemami = Entropy and other system laws, management of complex systems. Moscow: Publishing House Nauka; 2003. 428 p. (In Russ.)

26. Hegel G. Nauka logiki = Science of logic. St.-Petersburg: Publishing House Nauka; 1997. p. 117. (In Russ.)

27. Vedeneeva N. The circulation of science. Moskovskij komsomolec = Moscow Komsomolets [Internet]. 2017 Sep 26. [cited 2017 Oct 10]. Available from: http://www.mk.ru/science/2017/06/20/akademik-ran-sergeev-rasskazal-kakostanovit-utechku-mozgov.html (In Russ.)

28. Ogurtsov A. P. Idei i chisla = Ideas and numbers. Osnovanija i kriterii ocenki rezul'tativnosti filosofskih i sociogu-manitarnyh issledovanij = The grounds and criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of philosophical and socio-humanitarian research. Moscow: Publishing House Progress-Tradicija; 2016. Chapter 3, Boi za dostoinstvo filosofii = Fighting for the dignity of philosophy. p. 88. (In Russ.)

29. Motroshilova N. Idei i chisla = Ideas and numbers. Osnovanija i kriterii ocenki rezul'tativnosti filosofskih i sociogu-manitarnyh issledovanij = The grounds and criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of philosophical and socio-humanitarian research. Moscow: Publishing House Progress-Tradicija; 2016. Chapter 8, O real'nyh faktorah, ob’jasnjajushhih neopravdannost' istolkovanija pokazatelej citi-rovanija kak tochnyh instrumentov ocenki jeffektivnosti issledovanij = About the real factors explaining incorrectness of interpretation of indicators of citing as exact tools of assessment of research efficiency. p. 121. (In Russ.)

30. Yudin B. G. Idei i chisla = Ideas and numbers. Osnovanija i kriterii ocenki rezul'tativnosti filosofskih i sociogu-manitarnyh issledovanij = The grounds and criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of philosophical and socio-humanitarian research. Moscow: Publishing House Progress-Tradicija; 2016. Chapter 5, Rezul'tativnost' i dobrosovestnost' v issledovanijah: istoki protivostojanija = The performance and integrity in research: The origins of the confrontation. p. 153. (In Russ.)

31. Guseinov A. A., Rubtsov A. V. Idei i chisla = Ideas and numbers. Osnovanija i kriterii ocenki rezul'tativnosti filosofskih i sociogu-manitarnyh issledovanij = The grounds and criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of philosophical and socio-humanitarian research. Moscow: Publishing House Progress-Tradicija; 2016. Chapter 2, Mozhet li filosofija byt' neaktual'noj? = Could philosophy be irrelevant? p. 68. (In Russ.)

32. Kovachich L. The Big Brother 2.0. How China is building a digital dictatorship. Moskovskij centr Karnegi = The Carnegie MoscowCenter [Internet]. 2017 July 18 [cited 2017 Aug 20]. Available from: http://carnegie.ru/commentary/71546 (In Russ.)