National fractional calculations and evaluating organization’s science efficiency

Russian science policy in 2012–2018 appeared to be efficient which is proved by increased number of Russian publications indexed by Web of Science and Scopus. Dubious publication practices on and out of the fringes of science ethics is the other side of the coin. One cannot deny the scale of these practices while it is hard to be estimated. This scientometric challenge may be met through the transfer from integer calculation to fractional one. The authors introduce the term “national fractional calculation” which enables to estimate objectively organizations’ and researchers’ contributions into national science while not to demotivate participation in international collaborations. Based on the example of three groups, i. e. research organizations, Project 5-100 universities and other universities, the integer and fractional calculations are compared in detail for the 2018 as well as in the dynamics for the period 2000–2018 and for different disciplines. The authors show that, moving forward, fractional calculations increasingly differ from the integer ones. The largest differences are characteristic for the group of leading universities of Project 5-100 group being “scientometrically pressurized” within the framework of the national science policy.

1. Kuleshova A. V., Podvoyskiy D. G. Paradoxes of Publication Activity in the Field of Contemporary Russian Science: Genesis, Diagnosis, Trends. Monitoring of Public Opinion : Economic and Social Changes. – 2018. – № 4. – P. 169–210. – URL: https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2018.4.10.

2. Tambovtsev V. L. O nauchnoy obosnovannosti nauchnoy politiki v RF // Vopr. ekonomiki. – 2018. – № 2. – S. 5–32. – URL: https:// www.vopreco.ru/jour/article/view/375.

3. Turko T., Bakhturin G., Bagan V. et al. Influence of the program “5-top 100” on the publication activity of Russian universities // Scientometrics. – November 2016. – Vol. 109. – Iss. 2. – P. 769–782. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2060-9.

4. Poldin O., Matveeva N. N., Sterligov I. A., Yudkevich M. M. Publication activity of universities: the effect of the project “5-100” // Educational Studies. – 2017. – № 2. – P. 10–35.

5. Ivanov V. V., Markusova V. A. & Mindeli L. E. Government investments and the publishing activity of higher educational institutions: Bibliometric analysis // Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences. – 2016. – Vol. 86 (4). – P. 314–321. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1134/S1019331616040031.

6. Mazov N. A. & Gureev V. N. Bibliometric analysis of the flow of publications by novosibirsk state university in collaboration with the RAS Siberian branch // Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences. – 2017. – Vol. 87 (5). – P. 445–453. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1134/S1019331617050057.

7. Kosyakov D. V., Guskov A. E. Research assessment and evaluation in Russian fundamental science // Procedia Computer Science. – 2019. – Vol. 146. – P. 11–19. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.01.072.

8. Aldieri L., Kotsemir M., Vinci C. P. The impact of research collaboration on academic performance: An empirical analysis for some european countries // Socio-Economic Planning Sciences. – 2018. – Vol. 62. – P. 13–30. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2017.05.003.

9. Moed H. F., Markusova V. & Akoev M. Trends in Russian research output indexed in Scopus and Web of Science // Scientometrics (2018) August 2018. – Vol. 116. – Iss. 2. – Р. 1153–1180. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2769-8.

10. Pislyakov V. & Shukshina E. (2014). Measuring excellence in Russia: Highly cited papers, leading institutions, patterns of national and international collaboration // Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. – 65 (11). – 2321–2330. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23093.

11. Guskov A. E. Rossiyskaya naukometriya: obzor issledovaniy // Bibliosfera. – 2015. – № 3. – S. 75–86.

12. Kosyakov D., Guskov A. Research assessment and evaluation in Russian fundamental science // Procedia Computer Science. – 2019. – Vol. 146. – P. 11–19. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.01.072.

13. De Solla Price D. J., de Beaver D. Collaboration in an invisible college // American Psychologist. – 1966. – 21 (11). – P. 1011–1018.

14. Egghe L., Rousseau R., Van Hooydonk G. Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries: Consequences for evaluation studies // Journal of the American society for information science. – 2000. – Vol. 51. – Iss. 2. – P. 145–157.

15. Huang M. H., Lin C. S., Chen D. Z. Counting Methods, Country Rank Changes, and Counting Inflation in the Assessment of National Research Productivity and Impact // Journal of the American society for information science and technology. – 2011. – Vol. 62. – Iss. 12. – P. 2427–2436.

16. Moed Henk F. Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. – Springer, 2005. – ISBN 978-1-4020-3714-6.

17. Waltman L., Eck N. Field-normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an a ppropriate c ounting m ethod / / J ournal of Informetrics. – 2015. – Vol. 9. – Iss. 4. – P. 872–894. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2015.08.001.

18. Waltman L., Calero-Medina C., Kosten J., Noyons E. et al. The Leiden ranking 2011/2012: Data collection, indicators, and interpretation // Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. – 2012. – Vol. 63. – Iss. 12. – P. 2419–2432.

19. Parfenova S. L., Grishakina E. G., Zolotarev D. V., Bogatov V. V. Publikatsionnyy landshaft rossiyskoy nauki // Upravlenie naukoy i naukometriya. – 2017. – № 1 (23). – URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/publikatsionnyy-landshaft-rossiyskoy-nauki.

20. 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. – 1 July 2019. – Vol. 46. – Iss. 3. – P. 204–212. – URL: https://doi.org/10.3103/S0147688219030109.

21. Manganote E. J. T., Schulz P. A., de Brito Cruz C. H. Effect of high energy physics large collaborations on higher education institutions citations and rankings // Scientometrics. – 2016. – Vol. 109 (2). – P. 813–826. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2048-5.

22. Guskov A. E., Kosyakov D. V. Problemy monitoringa nauchnyh kadrov // Tr. GPNTB SO RAN. – 2019. – № 1. – S. 55–61. – URL: https://doi.org/10.20913/2618-7515-2019-1-55-61.

23. Franceschini F., Maisano D. Critical remarks on the Italian research assessment exercise VQR 2011-2014 // Journal of informetrics. – May 2017. – Vol. 11. – Iss. 2. – P. 337–357. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.02.005.

24. Monastersky R., van Noorden R. 150 years of Nature: a data graphic charts our evolution // Nature. – 06 November 2019. – Vol. 575. – P. 22–23. – URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03305-w.

25. Larivière V., Gingras Y., Sugimoto C., Tsou A. Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900 // Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. – 1 July 2015. – Vol. 66. – Iss. 7. – P. 1323–1332. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23266.

26. Guskov Andrey, Kosyakov Denis (2020): Comparison of article count and fractional count of publications of leading Russian organizations in 2018 figshare. Dataset. – URL: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12348218.v1.