Challenges to develop scientometric studies

The authors  examine  the  key problems  inhibiting  scientometric studies and  scientific  communications. These  challenges call  for significant  efforts  and professional courage. Firstly, this is the need for open access to scientometric data and improvement of their  quality  and comprehensiveness, including  author  data, affiliations, citations  and meta  information.  The authors  emphasize the  necessity for large-scale introduction of technologies for identifying  objects  of science  information   (i.  e.  publications,  researchers,  organizations,  projects,  etc.),  which would enable  to decrease significantly the number of bibliographic  mistakes.

When projecting  scientometric studies, the  edge  of objects  and analysis  instruments have  to be defined  by the  goals  rather  than  by bibliometric  database limitations.  Indexing  of scientific  publications is among  the  key instruments. Its advancement is determined by emerging  and low-quality  classifications of bibliometric  databases, their  differences, and  changing  science  structure.  Finally, the propriety  of scientometric methods  and results  interpretation, in particular  that  of scientometric performance assessment, have to be controlled.    Meeting these challenges will enable  to provide  efficient  monitoring  of scientific  activity based on  operative  collection, processing  and  analysis  of scientific  information  flows rather  than  on annual  statistical surveys. This transfer  would improve monitoring significantly and expand  the spectrum  of solutions;  it would also enable  to reveal system changes  in research, to respond  to disparities  in development, and to make the solutions  in science management more efficient.

1. Zaharchuk T. V., Gruzova A. A. Nauchnaia kommunikatciia v bibliotechno-informatcionnoi` sfere // Nauchny`e i tekhnicheskie biblioteki. 2021. № 3. S. 71–94. doi: 10.33186/1027-3689-2021-3-71-94

2. Kononova E. V., Sukiasian E`. R. Publikatcii classifikatcionny`kh sistem v internete: osobennosti predstavleniia i ispol`zovaniia // Nauchny`e i tekhnicheskie biblioteki. 2021. № 2. S. 91–100. doi: 10.33186/1027–3689-2021-2-91-100

3. Volkova N. A., Hodanovich M. A. Classifikatciia gumanitarnogo znaniia v BBK: sostoianie i perspektivy` // Nauchny`e i tekhnicheskie biblioteki. 2021. № 3. S. 31–42. doi: 10.33186/1027-3689-2021-3-31-42

4. LC Bibliographic Framework Initiative Update Forum : presentation at Amer. Libr. Assoc. Midwinter conf. (Seattle, Jan. 27, 2013). 2013. URL: https://www.loc.gov/item/webcast-5789/ (data obrashcheniia: 12.08.2021 г.).

5. Van de Sompel H., Beit-Arie O. Open Linking in the Scholarly Information Environment Using the OpenURL Framework // D-Lib Magazine. 2001. Vol. 7. № 3.

6. Lutai` A. V., Liubushko E. E`. Sravnenie kachestva metadanny`kh v BD CrossRef, Lens, OpenAlex, Scopus, Semantic Scholar, Web of Science Core Collection. URL: https://podpiska.rfbr.ru/storage/reports2021/2022_meta_quality.html (data obrashcheniia: 18.01.2023).

7. Visser M., Van Eck N. J., Waltman L. Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, Crossref, and Microsoft Academic // Quantitative Science Studies. 2021. Vol. 2. № 1. P. 20–41.

8. Lapochkina V. V., Dolgova V. N., Dikusar K. S., Bogatov V. V. Metodicheskii` podhod k ocenke tcitiruemosti nauchny`kh statei` rossii`skikh zhurnalov v razreze oblastei` nauki po danny`m Web of Science Core Collection. Chast` 1 // Nauchny`e i tekhnicheskie biblioteki. 2021. № 4. S. 53–72. doi:10.33186/1027-3689-2021-4-53-72

9. Lapochkina V. V., Dolgova V. N., Dikusar K. S., Bogatov V. V. Metodicheskii` podhod k ocenke tcitiruemosti nauchny`kh statei` rossii`skikh zhurnalov v razreze oblastei` nauki po danny`m Web of Science Core Collection. Chast` 2 // Nauchny`e i tekhnicheskie biblioteki. 2021. № 5. S. 73–89. doi: 10.33186/1027-3689-2021-5-73-98

10. Mazov N. A., Gureev V. N. The role of unique identifiers in bibliographic information systems // Sci. Tech.Inf. Proc. 2014. Vol. 41. № 3. P. 206–210.

11. Haak L. L. et al. ORCID: a system to uniquely identify researchers // Learn. Pub. 2012. Vol. 25. № 4. P. 259–264.

12. Selivanova I. V. i dr. Vliianie oshibok v baze danny`kh Scopus na ocenku rezul`tativnosti nauchny`kh issledovanii` // Nauchno-tekhnicheskaia informatciia. Seriia 1: Organizatciia i metodika informatcionnoi` raboty`. 2019. № 9. P. 25–32.

13. Sokolov M. M., Titaev K. D. Provintcial`naia i tuzemnaia nauka // Antropologicheskii` forum. 2013. № 19. C. 239–275.

14. Eremenko T. V. Ocenka mezhdunarodnoi` nauchnoi` aktivnosti v sfere bibliotekovedcheskikh issledovanii` (2011–2020 gg.) na osnove onlai`n-platformy` SciVal // Nauchny`e i tekhnicheskie biblioteki. 2022. № 1. S. 35–56. doi: 10.33186/1027-3689-2022-1-35-56.

15. Van Eck N. J., Waltman L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping // Scientometrics. 2010. Vol. 84. № 2. P. 523–538.

16. Chen C. Science Mapping: A Systematic Review of the Literature // Journal of Data and Information Science. 2017. Vol. 2. № 2. P. 1–40.

17. Sterligov I. A. Rossii`skii` konferentcionny`i` vzry`v: masshtaby`, prichiny`, dal`nei`shie dei`stviia. Upravlenie naukoi`: teoriia i praktika. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/rossiyskiy-konferentsionnyy-vzryv-masshtaby-prichiny-dalneyshie-deystviya (data obrashcheniia: 18.01.2023).

18. Vanecek J., Pecha O. Fast growth of the number of proceedings papers in atypical fields in the Czech Republic is a likely consequence of the national performance-based research funding system: 3 // Research Evaluation. 2020. Vol. 29. № 3. P. 245–262.

19. Purnell P. J. Conference proceedings publications in bibliographic databases: a case study of countries in Southeast Asia // Scientometrics. 2021. Vol. 126. № 1. P. 355–387.

20. Bladek M. DORA: San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (May 2013) // College and Research Libraries News. 2014. Vol. 75. № 4. P. 191–196.

21. Hicks D. et al. Leiden manifesto for research Metrics // Leiden manifesto for research Metrics. URL: http://www.leidenmanifesto.org/ (data obrashcheniia: 29.06.2021).

22. Gus`kov A. E., Kosiakov D. V. Problemy` monitoringa nauchny`kh kadrov // Trudy` GPNTB SO RAN. 2019. № 1. S. 55–61.

23. Hicks D. Performance-based university research funding systems // Research Policy. 2012. Vol. 41. № 2. P. 251–261.

24. Guskov A., Kosyakov D., Selivanova I. Scientometric research in Russia: impact of science policy changes // Scientometrics. 2016. Vol. 107. № 1. P. 287–303.

25. Tcvetkova V. A., Mokhnacheva Iu. V. Rossii`skaia nauka i rossii`skoe knigoizdanie v tcifrakh i bibliometricheskikh ocenkakh // Nauchny`e i tekhnicheskie biblioteki. 2022. № 11. S. 29–56.