Beyond simple calculations: Lessons from an empirical study on national integration into the global scientific landscape. (Part 1)

The paper addresses the methodological problems of evaluating the processes and outcomes of the international integration of national science, using the case of Russian research in the field of media and communication. Within the study, several questions emerge that, while looking seemingly simple and straightforward under formal approaches, in fact call for detailed and critical examination. In particular, the working definitions for the concepts “international integration,” “article on media,” “international journal,” “Russian author,” and “Russian article” had to be developed to ensure accurate data interpretation.
To select integration parameters, quantitative data from the Web of Science (WoS) were used. However, the analysis went beyond standard indicators of publication activity and citation. Combinations of different indicators were applied, e. g. differences in citation between all journals and foreign journals indexed in the core WoS databases, the ratio of publications in formally versus genuinely international journals, the pool of sources cited by Russian authors, and others.
The authors propose solutions to the key methodological challenges: refining publication selection criteria through combined search strategies and manual filtering; developing journal classification system to distinguish between formally and actually international publications; and creating typology of formally Russian authors based on their actual geographical affiliation. Several additional methodological issues were also addressed to obtain tangible results in the analysis of international ties, including authors chronological clusterization and countries grouping.
This part of the article focuses on the key methodological problems mentioned above, excluding the differentiation between formally and factually Russian authors and articles.
The findings demonstrate that without in-depth analysis of these methodological issues, relying on the indicators of international databases may lead to significantly distorted representation of reality. The proposed approaches can be adapted to refine scientometric assessments in other academic fields, particularly in the social sciences and humanities.

1. Pravitel'stvo RF. Ukaz prezidenta RF № 599 “O merah po realizacii gosudarstvennoj politiki v oblasti obrazovanija i nauki”. 2012. URL: http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/15236.

2. Zhang L., Shang Y., Huang Y., Sivertsen G. Toward internationalization: A bibliometric analysis of the social sciences in Mainland China from 1979 to 2018 // Quantitative Science Studies. 2021. Vol. 2. No 1. P. 376–408. DOI 10.1162/qss_a_00102.

3. Shaposhnik S. B. Mezhdunarodnoe nauchnoe sotrudnichestvo i publikatsionnaya aktivnost' rossiyskikh uchenykh v Computer Science v 1993–2017 godakh: mezhdistsiplinarnyy i mezhstranovoy sravnitel'nyy analiz // Informatsionnoe obshchestvo. 2021. No 6. P. 39–45. URL: http://infosoc.iis.ru/article/view/153.

4. Kademani B., Sagar A., Kumar V., Gupta B. Mapping of Indian Publications in S&T: A Scientometric Analysis of Publications in Science Citation Index // DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology. 2007. Vol. 27. No 1. P. 17–34. DOI 10.14429/djlit.27.1.120.

5. Cano V. Bibliometric overview of Library and Information Science Research in Spain // Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 1999. Vol. 50. No 8. P. 675–680.

6. Kirchik O. I. “Nezametnaya” nauka: patterny internatsionalizatsii rossiyskikh nauchnykh publikatsiy // Forsayt. 2011. No 5 (3). P. 34–42.

7. Murav'ev A. A. O rossiyskoy ekonomicheskoy nauke skvoz' prizmu publikatsiy rossiyskikh uchenykh v otechestvennykh i zarubezhnykh zhurnalakh za 2000–2009 gg. // Ekonomicheskiy zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki. 2011. Vol. 15. No 2. P. 237–264.

8. Mikhaylov O. V. Tsitiruemost' i bibliometricheskie pokazateli rossiyskikh uchenykh i nauchnykh zhurnalov // Problemy deyatel'nosti uchenogo i nauchnykh kollektivov. 2017. No 3 (33). P. 152–170.

9. Rawat S., Meena S. Publish or perish: Where are we heading? // Journal of Research in Medical Sciences. 2014. Vol. 19. No 2. P. 87–9. URL: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3999612/.

10. Van Dalen H. P., Henkens K. Intended and unintended consequences of a publish-orperish culture: A worldwide survey // Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2012. Vol. 7. No 63. DOI 10.1002/asi.22636.

11. Butler L. Modifying Publication Practices in Response to Funding Formulas // Research Evaluation. 2003. Vol. 1. No 12. Pp. 39–46. DOI 10.3152/147154403781776780.

12. Beall J. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access // Nature. 2012. No 489. P. 179. DOI 10.1038/489179a.

13. Guba K. Resursnaya zavisimost' nauchnykh zhurnalov: avtorskie vs chitatel'skie zhurnaly // E'konomicheskaya sotsiologiya. 2018. No 4. P. 73–100. DOI 10.17323/1726-3247-2018-4-73-100.

14. Sokolov M. Can the Russian Research Policy be Called Neo-Liberal? A Study in the Comparative Sociology of Quantification // Europe-Asia Studies. 2021. Vol. 6. No 73. Pp. 989–1009. DOI 10.1080/09668136.2021.1902945.

15. Narin F., Stevens K., Anderson J., Collins P., Irvine J., Isard Ph., Martin B. On-line approaches to measuring national scientific output: a cautionary tale // Science and Public Policy. Vol. 15. No 3. P. 153–161. DOI 10.1093/spp/15.3.153.

16. Chubin D. E., Moitra S. D. Content Analysis of References: Adjunct or Alternative to Citation Counting? // Social Studies of Science. 1975. Vol. 5. No 4. P. 423–441. DOI 10.1177/030631277500500403.

17. Moravcsik M., Murugesan J. P. Some Results on the Function and Quality of Citations // Social Studies of Science. 1975. Vol. 5. No 1. P. 86–92.

18. Li N. Evolutionary patterns of national disciplinary profiles in research: 1996–2015 // Scientometrics. 2017. Vol. 111. No 1. P. 493–520. DOI 10.1007/s11192-017-2259-4.

19. Patelli A., Cimini G., Pugliese E., Gabrielli A. The scientific influence of nations on global scientific and technological development // Journal of Informetrics. 2017. Vol. 11. No 4. P. 1229–1237. DOI 10.1016/j.joi.2017.10.005.

20. Sandström U., Van den Besselaar P. Funding, evaluation, and the performance of national research systems // Journal of Informetrics. 2018. Vol. 12. No 1. P 365–384. DOI 10.1016/j.joi.2018.01.007.

21. Lancho Barrantes B. S., Guerrero Bote V. P., Rodríguez Z. C., de Moya Anegón F. Citation flows in the zones of influence of scientific collaborations // Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 2012. Vol. 63. P. 481–489. DOI 10.1002/asi.21682.

22. Wagner C. S, Whetsell T., Baas J., Jonkers K. Openness and Impact of Leading Scientific Countries // Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics. 2018. Vol. 3. No 10. DOI 10.3389/frma.2018.00010.

23. Adams J., Szomszor M. National research impact is driven by global collaboration, not rising performance // Scientometrics. 2024. No 129. P. 2883–2896. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05010-6.

24. Adams J., Szomszor M. A converging global research system // Quantitative Science Studies. 2022. Vol. 3. No 3. P. 715–731. DOI 10.1162/qss_a_00208.

25. Wagner C. S., Leydesdorff L. Mapping the network of global science: comparing international co-authorships from 1990 to 2000 // International Journal of Technology and Globalisation. 2005. Vol. 1. No 2. P. 185–208.

26. Wagner C. S., Park H. W., Leydesdorff L. The Continuing Growth of Global Cooperation Networks in Research: A Conundrum for National Governments // PLoS ONE. 2015. Vol. 10. No 7. DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0131816.

27. Okamura K. A half-century of global collaboration in science and the “Shrinking World”. Quantitative Science Studies. 2023. Vol. 4. No 4. P. 938–959. DOI 10.1162/qss_a_00268.

28. Coccia M., Wang L. Evolution and convergence of the patterns of international scientific collaboration // Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2016. Vol. 113. No 8. P. 2057–2061, DOI 10.1073/pnas.1510820113.

29. Vera-Baceta M., Thelwall M., Kayvan K. Web of Science and Scopus Language Coverage // Scientometrics. 2019. Vol. 121. P 1803–1813. DOI 10.1007/s11192-019-03264-z.

30. Marginson S., Xu X. Hegemony and Inequality in Science: Problems of the Center-Periphery Model // Comparative Education Review. 2023. Vol. 67. No 1. DOI 10.1086/722760.

31. Bradford S. C. Sources of information on specific subjects // Engineering. 1934. Vol. 137. P. 85–6.