Paradoxes of Publication Activity in the Field of Contemporary Russian Science: Genesis, Diagnosis, Trends

Abstract

As a result of permanent institutional transformations (as well as a response to them), the past two decades have been marked by the appearance of various practices, in particular new publication practices, among Russian researchers. Implementation of the May decrees legitimized the spread of successes and failures of the foreign scientometrics facilitating further managerization, bureaucratization and Mc- Donaldization of the Russian science. It gave rise to the predatory science journals, „black” and „white” journal lists and led to the retraction of the journals which violated the publication ethics; the overall number of articles has increased, while the boundary between science and simulation has wiped out. Academic papers published by Russian authors, as well as their quality and number, point to general and specific problems in the academic community and can be considered as a sign of decay of the traditional system of social „recognition” of scientific paper and the related reputation mechanisms. At a certain point, ethical behavior in the academic field turned out to be unnecessary. The article is predominantly descriptive and outlines the complex and multifaceted topic that needs a detailed study. The authors examine the situation through the prism of „disease phenomenology” highlighting its structural, institutional and cultural context. The article argues that the main publication problems are bureaucratization of the publication activity, changing temporal strategies in researchers’ lives, new challenges not typical of the scientific activity, the decline of reputation mechanisms, forced simulation of scientific production and the use of modern resources (including technological resources) to facilitate this simulation, the shift in value priorities and the erosion of motivation in academic learning.

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 — 38 citations exist upstream.