Вестник Российской академии наукВестник Российской академии наук0869-5873The Russian Academy of Sciences1146010.31857/S0869-5873893270-278Research ArticleCareer path of researchers in relation to publication ethicsGureyevV. N.GureyevVN@ipgg.sbras.ruMazovN. A.MazovNA@ipgg.sbras.ruIlyichevA. A.ilyichev@vector.nsc.ruTrofimuk Institute of Petroleum Geology and Geophysics, Siberian Branch, RASState Public Scientific and Technological Library, Siberian Branch, RASVector State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology240320198932702782403201924032019Copyright © 2019, Russian Academy of Sciences2019<p>This paper describes the how the scholarly output of researchers impacts upon their career development. Bibliometric approaches were engaged to study the frequency of publications of prominent scientists from the Novosibirsk Scientific Center of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences during their career. This included their thesis defense, assignment to leading positions in research organizations, and election as members of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The highest correlation was between the growth in the number of papers and assignment to a position of leadership. A rapid growth in scholarly output, in this case, was achieved through co-authorship. Furthermore, the thematic diversity of papers was significantly enhanced during this period. Our investigation enabled us to detect cases of violation of publication ethics through the use of "guest" and "honorary" authorship.</p>career progressscholarly outputpublication ethicsco-authorshipкарьерный ростпубликациянаучная этикасоавторство[Colledge L., Verlinde R. SciVal Metrics Guidebook. Netherlands: Elsevier, 2014.][Mabe M. A., Amin M. Dr Jekyll and Dr Hyde: author–reader asymmetries in scholarly publishing // Aslib Proceedings. 2002. V. 54. № 3. P. 149 – 157.][Белая книга Совета научных редакторов о соблюдении принципов целостности публикаций в научных журналах. Екатеринбург: Изд-во Уральского ун-та, 2016.][Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors. 2018. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html (дата обращения 20.06.2018).][Rennie D., Yank V., Emanuel L. When authorship fails. A proposal to make contributors accountable // Jama. 1997. V. 278. № 7. P. 579 – 585.][Yank V., Rennie D. Disclosure of researcher contributions: A study of original research articles in the Lancet // Annals of Internal Medicine. 1999. V. 130. № 8. P. 661 – 670.][Gureev V. N., Mazov N. A. Citation analysis as a basis for the development of an additional module in antiplagiarism systems // Scientific and Technical Information Processing. 2013. V. 40. № 4. P. 264 – 267; Гуреев В. Н., Мазов Н. А. Анализ цитирования как основа для разработки дополнительного модуля в системах антиплагиата // Научно-техническая информация. Сер. 1: Организация и методика информационной работы. 2013. № 12. С. 12 – 15.][Mazov N. A., Gureev V. N., Kosyakov D. V. On the development of a plagiarism detection model based on citation analysis using a bibliographic database // Scientific and Technical Information Processing. 2016. V. 43. № 4. P. 236 – 240; Мазов Н. А., Гуреев В. Н., Косяков Д. В. О разработке модели определения плагиата на основе анализа цитирований с использованием библиографических баз данных // Научно-техническая информация. Сер. 1: Организация и методика информационной работы. 2016. № 11. С. 9 – 14.][Мазов Н. А., Гуреев В. Н. Публикации любой ценой? // Вестник РАН. 2015. № 7. С. 627 – 631.][Wislar J. S., Flanagin A., Fontanarosa P. B., DeAngelis C. D. Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: A cross sectional survey // BMJ (online). 2011. V. 343. № 7835.][Al-Herz W., Haider H., Al-Bahhar M., Sadeq A. Honorary authorship in biomedical journals: How common is it and why does it exist? // Journal of Medi cal Ethics. 2014. V. 40. № 5. P. 346 – 348.][Mirzazadeh A., Navadeh S., Rokni M. B., Farhangniya M. The prevalence of honorary and ghost authorships in Iranian bio-medical journals and its associated factors // Iranian Journal of Public Health. 2011. V. 40. № 1. P. 15 – 21.][Новосибирский научный центр Сибирского отделения РАН. 2018. https://www.sbras.ru/ru/orga-nization/2134 (дата обращения 27.06.2018).][Российский индекс научного цитирования. 2018. https://elibrary.ru/projects/citation/cit_index.asp (дата обращения 27.06.2018).][Библиотека диссертаций. 2018. http://diss.rsl.ru (дата обращения 27.06.2018).][Центральная научная медицинская библиотека. 2018. http://www.scsml.rssi.ru (дата обращения 27.06.2018).][Larsen P. O., von Ins M. The rate of growth in scientific publication and the decline in coverage provided by Science Citation Index // Scientometrics. 2010. V. 84. № 3. P. 575 – 603.][Bornmann L., Mutz R. Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references // Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2015. V. 66. № 11. P. 2215 – 2222.][Bornmann L., Daniel H. D. Multiple publication on a single research study: Does it pay? The influence of number of research articles on total citation counts in biomedicine // Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2007. V. 58. № 8. P. 1100 – 1107.][Kassirer J. P. Authorship criteria // Science. 1995. V. 268. № 5212. P. 785 – 786.][How to spot authorship problems // COPE Flowcharts. Committee on Publication Ethics, 2016. P. 12.][Changes in authorship // COPE Flowcharts. Committee on Publication Ethics, 2016. P. 7 – 10.][What to do if you suspect ghost, guest or gift authorship // COPE Flowcharts. Committee on Publication Ethics, 2016. P. 11.][Hvistendahl M. China’s Publication Bazaar // Science. 2013. V. 342. № 6162. P. 1035 – 1039.]