Capitalization of Russian science and its effect on productivity and effectiveness of research sector

Abstract

Bibliometric indicators of science allow assessing only facade of the scientific activity its efficiency as their real tasks is to make easier statistics service, rather than evaluate substantive aspects of scientific work. Accordingly, the implementation of methods for assessing the financing of research teams depending on the number of rating publishing actually increases the time which scientists to spend on different side-activity in relation to science work proper. Thus, in fact, there are two different types of scientific activity, and that requires distinguishing between classical academic science and modern partially capitalized science, which needs external assessment tools and indicators for its functioning. At the same time, as capitalized science has priority in funding, academic science has turned into a “depleting resource” for its functioning. That might lead to narrowed development of classical academic science. Yet, without it the capitalized science cannot live. Therefore, maintaining of classical academic science presupposes the task of improving the productivity of science, not its efficiency. Criteria for productivity can serve a share of researchers transferred from science in the sector of analytical services for state or business structures. In this paper all said problems are considered on the example of Russian science with some comparison of foreign countries.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 7 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.