Controversial practice of rewarding for publications in national journals

Nazarovets, Serhii Controversial practice of rewarding for publications in national journals. Scientometrics, 2020, vol. 124, n. 1, pp. 813-818. [Journal article (Paginated)]

Preview

Text nazarovets_scientometrics_preprint.pdf - Submitted version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (234kB) | Preview

English abstract

The letter to the Editor refers to the controversial research evaluation practice in Ukraine and which is based on counting the number of publications in journals included in selected citation databases, for instance Scopus. I have selected fifty journals in which Ukrainian scholars have written the largest number of articles and reviews for 2015–2019 (Scopus data). I found that 78% of these titles are journals of Ukrainian publishers, or Ukrainian translated journals. Accordingly, current Ukrainian evaluation practice leads to the higher chances of state recognition and funding being received mainly by institutions whose journals are already presented in citation databases, without assessing the scientific impact of research outputs.

Item type:	Journal article (Paginated)
Keywords:	Science policy; Research evaluation; Research output; Scientific journal; Ukraine
Subjects:	B. Information use and sociology of information > BB. Bibliometric methods
Depositing user:	Serhii Nazarovets
Date deposited:	29 Apr 2020 13:29
Last modified:	24 Jun 2020 06:56
URI:	http://hdl.handle.net/10760/39918

References

Mryglod, O., & Nazarovets, S. (2019). Scientometrics and management of scientific activities: once again about the global and Ukrainian. Visnyk of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, (09), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.15407/visn2019.09.081

Guskov, A.E., Kosyakov, D.V. & Selivanova, I.V. (2018). Boosting research productivity in top Russian universities: the circumstances of breakthrough. Scientometrics, 117, 1053–1080. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2890-8

Curry, S. (2018). Let’s move beyond the rhetoric: it’s time to change how we judge research. Nature, 554(7691), 147–147. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-01642-w

Downloads

Actions (login required)

View Item