Russian science and the outside world: Questionable openness, unquestionable dependence

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Based on the sociological surveys “Scientific Policy of Russia,” conducted in 2021 and 2022, widespread opinions in the scientific community regarding the external openness of Russian civil science are analyzed. It is noted that the sustainable vector of state policy to maintain a high level of integration of domestic science into the international scientific space was suddenly called into question after the start of the special military operation of the Russian Federation in Ukraine. The decades-long Western-oriented course of Russian science has formed strong support among researchers, which, as it turned out, is very difficult for scientists to abandon abruptly even in the new conditions. It has been established that the sanctions imposed against Russian science turned out to be quite painful, and their consequences can only be overcome in the long term. 

About the authors

A. B. Gusev

OOO Casting Vote Sociological Service

Email: vestnik.ran@yandex.ru
Moscow, Russia

M. A. Yurevich

Financial University, Government of the Russian Federation

Author for correspondence.
Email: vestnik.ran@yandex.ru
Moscow, Russia

References

  1. Boselli B., Galindo-Rueda F. Drivers and implications of scientific open access publishing: Findings from a pilot OECD international survey of scientific authors. 2016. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/5jlr2z70k0bx-en.pdf?expires=1662968122&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=B7C3E0234CC96E301E9C23A49C88EADB
  2. Bello M., Galindo-Rueda F. The 2018 OECD International Survey of Scientific Authors. 2020. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/18d3bf19-en.pdf?expires=1662968227&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=5B90F26364F0F42E5715A37208A40E02
  3. OECD. ISSA 2021: science in society in times of crisis. https://www.oecd.org/science/survey-of-scientific-authors.htm
  4. Survey reveals highs and lows of a life in science // Nature. 2018. № 562. P. 459-459.
  5. Funk C., Rainie L., Page D. Public and scientists’ views on science and society / Pew Research Center. 2015. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2015/01/PI_ScienceandSociety_Report_012915.pdf
  6. NewScientistsJobs. 2020 STEM Survey report. https://jobs.newscientist.com/en-gb/article/2020-stem-survey-report-/
  7. Scellato G., Franzoni C., Stephan P. Migrant scientists and international networks // Research Policy. 2015. № 1 (44). P. 108–120.
  8. Meyer D. Opinion poll: young scientists’ survey gets the dirt on life at the coal face // The ELSO Gazette. 2003. № 13. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 272510911_Opinion_poll_young_scientists'_survey_ gets_the_dirt_on_life_at_the_coal_face
  9. DAMVAD. Sharing and archiving of publicly funded research data. Report to the Research Council of Norway. 2014. http://docplayer.net/1769604-11-04-14-sharing-and-archiving-of-publicly-funded-research-data-report-to-the-research-council-of-norway.html
  10. Taylor & Francis Group. Researcher Survey. 2019. https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Taylor-and-Francis-researcher-survey-2019.pdf
  11. Pyne R. et al. The future of open access books: Findings from a global survey of academic book authors. 2019. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1114&context=scholcom
  12. Bauer M.W., Jensen P. The mobilization of scientists for public engagement // Public understanding of science. 2011. № 1 (20). P. 3–11.
  13. Rose K.M., Markowitz E.M., Brossard D. Scientists’ incentives and attitudes toward public communication // Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2020. № 3 (117). P. 1274–1276.
  14. Myers K.F. et al. Consensus revisited: quantifying scientific agreement on climate change and climate expertise among Earth scientists 10 years later // Environmental Research Letters. 2021. № 10 (16). P. 104030.
  15. Verheggen B. et al. Scientists’ views about attribution of global warming // Environmental science & technology. 2014. № 16 (48). P. 8963–8971.
  16. Cressey D. et al. Scientists say ‘no’ to UK exit from Europe in Nature poll // Nature. 2016. № 7596 (531). P. 559–559.
  17. НИУ ВШЭ. Мониторинг рынка труда научных кадров высшей квалификации. https://www.hse.ru/monitoring/mnk
  18. Лутай А.В., Любушко Е.Э. Выбор российских исследователей между Scopus и Web of Science: результаты опроса РФФИ. https://podpiska.rfbr.ru/ storage/rfbr_survey1.html
  19. Лутай А.В., Любушко Е.Э. Обеспеченность доступом к полнотекстовым информационным ресурсам: результаты опроса РФФИ. https://podpiska.rfbr.ru/news/361/
  20. Научная Россия. Результаты опроса академиков, членов-корреспондентов и профессоров РАН, проведённого 18–22 декабря 2020 г. https://scientificrussia.ru/articles/rezultaty-oprosa-akademikov-chlenov-korrespondentov-i-professorov-ran-provedennogo-18-22-dekabrya-2020g
  21. Юревич А.В., Юревич М.А. Мусор в науке // Вестник Российской академии наук. 2021. № 8 (91). С. 724–733.
  22. Гусев А.Б., Юревич М.А. Научная политика России – 2021. М.: Буки Веди, 2021. http://www.spsl.nsc.ru/FullText/DOR/scipol2021cf.pdf
  23. Гусев А.Б., Юревич М.А. Научная политика России – 2022: профессия не дороже родины. М.: Издательство “Перо”, 2022.
  24. Holdren J. et al. Let’s not abandon Russian scientists // Science. 2022. № 6590 (376). P. 256–257.
  25. Коммерсантъ. Клеточная терапия осталась без технологий. https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/5283357
  26. MK. “Расприглашение” российской науки: как санкции Запада ударили по учёным. https://www.mk.ru/science/2022/03/03/raspriglashenie-rossiyskoy-nauki-kak-sankcii-zapada-udarili-po-uchenym.html
  27. Forbes. Научная база данных Web of Science стала недоступна в России. https://www.forbes.ru/society/464725-naucnaa-baza-dannyh-web-of-science-stala-nedostupna-v-rossii
  28. Brainard J. Few journals heed calls to boycott Russian papers // Science. 2022. https://www.science.org/content/article/few-journals-heed-calls-boycott-russian-papers#:~:text=At%20the%20moment%2C%20the%20Journal,of%20the%20University%20of%20Coimbra
  29. Орлов А.И. Вред ориентации на базы данных Scopus и Web of Science // Россия: тенденции и перспективы развития. 2021. № 16-1. С. 835–840.
  30. Иванчик А.И. Особенности оценки исследователей и исследовательских программ в гуманитарных науках // Вестник Российской академии наук. 2018. № 11 (88). С. 985–991.
  31. Балацкий Е.В., Екимова Н.А. Глобальные рейтинги университетов: проблема манипулирования // Журнал Новой экономической ассоциации. 2012. № 1 (13). С. 126–146.
  32. Кузьминов Я.И. Вызовы и перспективы развития университетов в России // Университетское управление: практика и анализ. 2018. № 4 (116). С. 5–8.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download
2.

Download (490KB)
Indexing metadata

Copyright (c) 2023 А.Б. Гусев, М.А. Юревич