State Paternalism: from Science to Scientometrics

The article presents the results of the study of public opinion in the context of science reforming. The adoption of the Law on the Russian Academy of Sciences has in fact liquidated academic freedoms and consolidated state interference into scientific life by simultaneously escalating the use of Scientometrics. Respondents' assessments of the use of Scientometric indicators and journal rankings indicate that most economists do not trust the Scientometric tools. Based on the results of a sociological survey of the community of economists in 2020, the article concludes that there is a "managerial failure" of the paternalistic state. An analysis of the Scientometric indicators used in Scopus is also presented, including three well-known metrics: CiteScore", SNIP, and SCImago (SJR). In addition to the description of the sample of journals and the scale of monitoring, the author presents the criterion of ranking the journals MWR and the algorithm of its definition in comparison with the SJR indicator in Scopus. The final part of the paper discusses the econometric model based on the hypothesis that there are links between the ranking of journals, obtained on the basis of a sociological survey of economists, and the estimates of the "usefulness" of the introduction of relevant Scientometric indicators by the same respondents. The calculations performed have confirmed the formulated hypothesis and allowed to quantitatively measure the impact of the respondents' attitude to Scientometric indicators on the value of private ratings reflecting the Scientific level of the journal, the public prestige of the journal and Interest in the journal publications.

Journal rankings and publication strategy

We study the impact of journal ranking systems on publication outlet choice. We investigate the publication behavior of UK-based scholars registered on IDEAS/RePEc and analyze the publication outcomes of their academic work uploaded to the repository. Our estimates suggest that authors strategically choose outlets to maximize their publication scores. Our identification strategy is based on exploiting the change in the British ABS journal ranking in 2015. Working papers written before the 2015 ABS journal ranking change are significantly less likely to be published in ex-post downgraded journals. The effect cannot be attributed to the overall change in journal quality.

Measuring Monsters, Academic Subjectivities, and Counting Practices

In this paper, we explore the online academic research platforms we are entangled with as tenure-track faculty members in the neoliberal university. We are so embedded in these systems that the assumptions and constructions inherent in practices of counting are often lost, wrapped in the coils of counting practices—a becoming with algorithm. Though academic platforms are intricately enmeshed in our research and lives, they have been operating as “onto-epistemological blind spots” (Sweet et al., 2020, p. 2). And yet, the numbers they produce and rely on (H-scores, impact factors, citation counts, and journal rankings) matter and are “promiscuous and inventive in [their] agential wanderings” (Barad, 2015, p. 487), offering possibilities for intimacy and response-ability to what we are and might become. In other words, attending to the monstrous qualities of counting practices offers an entry point for re-thinking the relational, ethical, and affective aspects of academic subjectivity. So, we attend tothese qualities to become with the neoliberal counting and control mechanisms in innovative ways. Through this paper, we open ourselves to the wild possibilities of academic algorithms, working within and thinking with counting practices to intimately understand the ontologies of number at work in these platforms and how they work on our subjectivities. As we consider how our futures are being modelled and pre-empted, we think the algorithms in relation to feminist new materialist philosophers, Rosi Braidotti and Karen Barad. We ask: ‘what if?’ we were to think ontologies of number with these theories and see what possibilities emerge. We entangle Braidotti and Barad with Deleuzoguattarian philosophies to imagine different relational becomings; to construct new ways of attending to our monstrous potentials and possibilities.

A társadalomföldrajzi folyóiratok rangsorának alakulása a Scimago adatbázisa alapján

One of the main consequences of the neoliberalization of scientific life is the growing demand for measurement and comparability of scientific achievements, not only by the academia but also by society as a financier and the economy as a customer. Thus, more and more attention is being paid to journal rankings created by prestigious (and generally Anglo-Saxon-dominated) reference databases (Web of Science or Scimago) that make this possible. They play a key role in the allocation of research resources; the promotion of researchers thus also influences the publication strategies. The study aims to explore the changes and certain spatial aspects in rankings within the Geography, Planning and Development category. The research is based on the analysis of the quartile classification of human geography journals indexed in the Scimago database. Our results show what are the factors that influence the relative position of a particular journal, and through this, the indicators of researcher success.

Ewolucyjna transformacja czasopisma. Część 8

Naszkicowano ósmy etap rozwijania czasopisma Studia Historiae Scientiarum (wcześniejsza nazwa Prace Komisji Historii Nauki PAU). Podano m.in. informacje o ewaluacji czasopisma w „ICI Master Journal List 2019” (koniec 2020 r.), przez MEiN (9 lutego / 18 lutego 2021 r.), w Scopus (6 kwietnia 2021 r.) oraz w SCImago Journal Rankings 2020 (17 maja 2021 r.; dane dotyczące czasopisma są niezgodne ze stanem faktycznym: pominięto większość cytowalnych tekstów tomu z 2020 r., które są indeksowane w Scopus) oraz liczbie zagranicznych autorów i recenzentów bieżącego tomu czasopisma. Od tomu 21(2022) czasopismo Studia Historiae Scientiarum wdroży dodatkowe rozwiązania organizacyjne: licencję CC BY dla tekstów artykułów (zachowując możliwość innych licencji dla ilustracji), usługę CrossMark oraz opcję wydawniczą, tzw. „Artykuły FirstView”.

Evolutionary transformation of the journal. Part 8

The article outlines the eighth phase of the development of the journal Studia Historiae Scientiarum (previous name Prace Komisji Historii Nauki PAU / Proceedings of the PAU Commission on the History of Science). Information is provided on the following matters: the journal’s evaluation by the “ICI Master Journal List 2019” (released at the end of 2020), by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Polish Republic (released on February 9 / 18, 2021), by Scopus (released on 6 April 2021), and by the SCImago Journal Rankings 2020 (released on May 17, 2021; unfortunately, the journal data in Scimago website are inconsistent with the Scopus data, e.g. most of the 2020 volume’s citable texts that are indexed in Scopus have been omitted). Additionally, the number of foreign authors and reviewers of the current volume of the journal is quoted. From volume 21 (2022), the journal Studia Historiae Scientiarum will implement additional organizational solutions: a CC BY license for the texts of articles (retaining the possibility of other licenses for illustrations), the CrossMark service and the publishing option, the so-called FirstView Articles.