Compliance of New Scientific Platforms with Formal Requirements for Scientific Publications
https://doi.org/10.24108/2658-3143-2020-3-2-3-207-218
Abstract
As a result of the development of the electronic environment, new actors appear in the scientific communication system, including repositories, mega-journals, and open peer review platforms, all of which operate in accordance with the open science paradigm. At the same time, the results of the work of scientists are still being assessed by traditional databases and scientometric services based mostly on the citation counts, which is often irrelevant for the new projects due to non-compliance with formal criteria of such services. This article discusses the requirements of the Web of Science, Russian Science Citation Index, Scopus, and the Higher Attestation Commission (VAK) for the sources of scientific information, and analyzes 25 projects for compliance with these requirements. It was revealed that some of the new projects do not meet the criteria due to the lack of traditional markers of the scientific publication. Based on the results obtained, a number of recommendations were formulated that will allow to adjust the requirements to reflect the new realities.
About the Authors
A. S. Gorbunova
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Lecturer of the Department of New Media and Communication Theory, Faculty of Journalism
Leninskie Gory, GSP-1, Moscow, 119991, Russia
I. I. Zassoursky
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Cand. Sci. (Philology), Head of the Department of New Media and Communication Theory, Faculty of Journalism
Leninskie Gory, GSP-1, Moscow, 119991, Russia
N. D. Trishchenko
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation
Cand. Sci. (Philology), Department of New Media and Communication Theory, Faculty of Journalism
Leninskie Gory, GSP-1, Moscow, 119991, Russia
Russian Federation
Cand. Sci. (Philology), Department of New Media and Communication Theory, Faculty of Journalism
Leninskie Gory, GSP-1, Moscow, 119991, Russia
References
1. Koizumi S. The Light and Shadow of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. In book: Innovation Beyond Technology. 63-86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9053-1_4
2. Caruso L. Digital innovation and the fourth industrial revolution: epochal social changes? AI & Society. 2017; 33(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-017-0736-1
3. Zavera I.C. The analysis of the response from tertiary education programs to the challenges of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. 2019; 13: 1261-1266. DOI: 10.2478/picbe-2019-0111
4. Scepanovic S. The Fourth Industrial Revolution and Education. 8th Mediterranean Conference on Embedded Computing (MECO). 2019: 1-4. DOI: DOI: 10.1109/MECO.2019.8760114
5. Nagano A. Thinking About Industrial Revolutions in Systems Theory - Moving Towards the Fourth Industrial Revolution. ICEGOV2019: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance. 2019. P. 470–471. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3326365.3326429
6. Kang J., Kim J., Seol S. The prioritization of technologies and public R&D roles between the manufacturing and service industries in the fourth industrial revolution. Foresight. 2019; 21(6): 680-694. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-03-2019-0021
7. Shastitko A.E., Zyubina A.L. [Management of Economic Research in Russian Universities: Scientometrics and International Rankings. The world of new economy. 2019; 3(3): 112-126. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26794/2220-6469-2019-13-3-112-126. (In Russ.)]
8. Yurevich A., M. [Rankings of Research Organizations. Sociology of Science& Technology. 2018; 9(4): 66-79. (In Russ.)]
9. Vorobyeva, E.S., & Krakovetskaya, I.V. (2017) Promotion of Russian universities in world competitiveness rankings: is the target close? Kreativnaya ekonomika. 11(5), 521-552. DOI: 10.18334/ce.11.5.37857 (in Russ.)].
10. Vyalkov A.I., Martynchik S.A., Glukhova E.A., Orlova N.A. [Evolution of system and methodology of international university rankings. Social aspects of population health. 2015; 41(1): С. 1-12. (in Russ.)].
11. Kurakova N. G., Tsvetkova L.A. Evaluating the perspectives for development of scientific journals, published in Russian Science Citation Index on the Web of Science platform. Physicians and informational technologies. 2016; 1: 6-12. (in Russ.)].
12. Panin B. S. Modern Scientometric Systems «WoS» and «Scopus»: Publishing Problems and New Guidelines for Russian University Science. Humanitarian Studies in Central Russia. 2019; 3(12): 51-65. (in Russ.)].
13. Kirillova O.V., Dimentov A.V. [Scopus Citation Index: Journal Selection Criteria and Russian Economic Periodicals Selection Prospects. Bulletin of the Financial University. 2013; 4: 90-106. (in Russ.)].
14. Privalova V. M. International Scientific Journal: Strategy of Development Izvestiya of the Samara Russian Academy of Sciences scientific center. Social, humanitarian, medicobiological sciences. 2016; 1(18): 5-9. (in Russ.)].
15. Kirillova O.V. [Editorial preparation of scientific journals according to international standards. Recommendations of Scopus database. M., 2013. Part 1. (in Russ.)].
16. Kassian A., Melikhova L. Russian Science Citation Index on the WoS platform: a critical assessment. Journal of Documentation. 2019; 75(5): 1162-1168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-02-2019-0033
17. Funk D. A. [Scientometrics and Evaluation of Publications in Social Sciences and Humanities. Siberian Historical Research. 2016; №1: 8-26. DOI: 10.17223/2312461X/11/2. (in Russ.)].
18. Tret’yakova O.V. Economic Journal in Russia: Quality Assessment Issues. Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast. 2016; 2(44): 211-223. DOI: 10.15838/esc.2016.2.44.13. (in Russ.)].
19. Buchanan R.A. Accuracy of cited references: The role of citation databases. College & Research Libraries. 2006; 67(4): 292–303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.67.4.292
20. Olensky M., Schmidt M., Van Eck N. J. Evaluation of the citation matching algorithms of CWTS and iFQ in comparison to Web of Science. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2016; 67(10:2550-2564. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23590
21. van Eck N. J., Waltman L. Accuracy of citation data in Web of Science and Scopus. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics. 2019: 1087-1092. URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.07011.pdf
22. Valderrama-Zurián J.C., Aguilar-Moya R., Melero-Fuentes D., Aleixandre-Benavent, R. A systematic analysis of duplicate records in Scopus. Journal of Informetrics. 2015; 9(3): 570–576. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.05.002
23. Krauskopf E. Missing documents in Scopus: the case of the journal Enfermeria Nefrologica. Scientometrics. 2019; 119: 543–547. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03040-z
24. Demetrescu C., Ribichini A., Schaerf M. Accuracy of author names in bibliographic data sources: An Italian case study. Scientometrics. 2018; 117(3): 1777-1791. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2945-x
25. Selivanova I. V., Kosyakov D. V., Guskov A. E. The Impact of Errors in the Sсopus Database on the Research Assessment. Scientific and Technical Information Processing. 2019; 46(3): 204–212. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3103/S0147688219030109
26. Filyushkin A. I. [Russian Historical Journals in Scopus and WoS: Problems of Citation. Nauchnoe izdanie mezhdunarodnogo urovnya - 2016: reshenie problem izdatel'skoj etiki, recenzirovaniya i podgotovki publikacij. 2016: 269-282. (in Russ.)].
27. Mussard M., James A. P. Boosting the ranking of a university using self-citations. Current Science. 2017; 113(10): 1827-1827.
28. Shehatta, I., Al-Rubaish, A.M. Impact of country self-citations on bibliometric indicators and ranking of most productive countries. Scientometrics. 2019; 120: 775–791. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03139-3
29. Wilhite A., Fong E. A., Wilhite S. The influence of editorial decisions and the academic network on self-citations and journal impact factors. Research Policy. 2019; 48(6): 1513-1522. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.03.003
30. Wakeling S., Spezi V., Fry J. et al. Academic communities: the role of journals and open-access mega-journals in scholarly communication. Journal of Documentation. 2019; 75 (1):120-139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-05-2018-0067
31. Ross-Hellauer T., Deppe A., Schmidt B. Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers. PLoS ONE. 2017; 12(12): e0189311. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189311
Supplementary files
Review
For citations:
Gorbunova A.S., Zassoursky I.I., Trishchenko N.D. Compliance of New Scientific Platforms with Formal Requirements for Scientific Publications. Scholarly Research and Information. 2020;3(2-3):207-218. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24108/2658-3143-2020-3-2-3-207-218
Views:
1743
Email this article 