Проблемы наукометрии: индекс максимально цитируемой публикации как средство решения некоторых из них

UDC 001.89(045)

DOI 10.20339/AM.09-23.023

Leonid B. Ershteyn, Cand. Sci. (Pedagogy), Senior researcher at Glazov State Pedagogical Institute n.a. V.G. Korolenko; Associate Professor at Yaroslav-the-Wise Novgorod State University, ORCID: 0000-0003-2802-0727, e-mail: leoleo1972@mail.ru

The paper presents a critical analysis of scientometrics as an indicator of scientist’s effectiveness. Six points of criticism of the main scientometric indices clearly show that scientometrics cannot be an indicator of such efficiency. In particular, attention should be paid to the problems of accrual, PR, negative citation, citation of non-scientific publications, publication only in trend areas, co-authorship, and article lifetime. An empirical analysis of the effectiveness of scientometrics is conducted and its ineffectiveness is substantiated. It is explained why, despite all the shortcomings of scientometrics, it continues and is likely to be used in the assessment of scientific activity. It is argued that not many scientists in their lives separately make significant discoveries, most of them work in scientific teams and narrow areas of science. On this basis, the ‘maximum cited publication index’ — the MCP index — is introduced. This index is calculated as the number of citations of a maximally cited work divided by the number of its co-authors. It is proved that, on the one hand, the MCP index really better shows the scientist’s contribution to science, and, on the other hand, it will solve some problems of scientometrics, such as the problem of co-authorship and accrual. An empirical verification of the MCP index is given.

Keywords: scientometrics, effectiveness of scientists, criticism of scientometrics, specificity of science.

References

1. Bredihin, S.V., Kuznecov, A.Yu., Shcherbakova, N.G. The analyses of citing in the bibliometric. Novosibirsk: IVMiMG SO RAN, NEIKON, 2013. 344 p.
2. Tyurina, L.G. Theoretical-methodology basis of model of study books for professional education: auto abstract of the dis. of Dr. Sci. (Philology). Moscow, 2007. 46 p. 
3. Birzhenyuk, G.M., Efimova, T.V. The Hirsh index as the simulacrum or an equation the known and unknown. Vestnik CHGAKI. 2018. No. 1 (53). URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/indeks-hirsha-kak-simulyakr-ili-uravne... (accessed on: 13.04.2023).
4. Mihailov, O.V. The citing of scientist: is it most important indicator of quality of his scientific work. Mocow: Nauchnaya cifrovaya biblioteka PORTALUS.RU. Access date: 14 fevralya 2023. URL: http://www.portalus.ru/modules/philosophy/rus_readme.php?subaction=showf... (accessed on: 20.06.2023).
5. Sokolov, M. For citing indexes works [Electronic resource]. URL: http://polit.ru/article/2009/12/10/index1/ (accessed on: 20.06.2023).
6. Shipovalova, L.V. The index of citing and experts objectivity. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii. 2014. No. 2. P. 119–125.
7. Ershtejn, L.B. Index of citations as way to destroying the science in Russia and in the world. Influence on scientific administration and education. Alma Mater (Vestnik vysshey shkoly). 2016. No. 11. P. 97–101. DOI: 10.20339/AM.11-16.097
8. Garfield, E. (2007). The evolution of the science citation index. International microbiology, 10 (1): 65.
9. Li, J., Wang, M.H., & Ho, Y.S. (2011). Trends in research on global climate change: A Science Citation Index Expanded-based analysis. Global and Planetary Change, 77 (1-2): 13–20.
10. Egghe, L. (2010). The Hirsch index and related impact measures. Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol. 44 (1): 65–114.
11. Imaev, V. Technologies to increase the Hirsch index and the development of imitation science. In Defense of Science. Bulletin. No. 17. Мoscow, 2016. 113 p.
12. Suponina, E.A. The cheating of citing index as the demonstration of academical dishonesty (on example of MVD educational organization). Sinergiya. 2017. No. 6. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/nakruchivanie-indeksa-tsitirovaniya-ka... (accessed on: 13.04.2023).
13. Hirsch, J.E. (2019). h α: An index to quantify an individual’s scientific leadership. Scientometrics. 118 (2): 673–686.
14. Koltun, V., & Hafner, D. (2021). The h-index is no longer an effective correlate of scientific reputation. PLoS One. 16 (6): e0253397.
15. Loan, F.A., Nasreen, N., & Bashir, B. (2022). Do authors play fair or manipulate Google Scholar h-index? Library Hi Tech. 40 (3): 676–684.