In accordance with the “Standard Methodology for Assessing the Performance of Scientific Organizations,” the main criteria for assessing the effectiveness of research are the following indicators: compliance with the level of the world’s best analogues, publication activity, the presence of intellectual property objects and their legal protection, the level of commercialization of developments.
The economic efficiency of research work is determined by the ratio of the actual annual economic effect from the implementation of the results of research and development work to the costs of obtaining it. The amount of economic efficiency of research work for the accounting year is determined by the difference in the reduced costs of the basic and new options, taking into account the volumes and timing of implementation of the work into production according to well-known formulas of reduced costs.
The most difficult thing is to assess the economic efficiency of research work related to current practice through a number of links, the results of which do not find immediate and direct application in production. Such research work includes the discovery of new phenomena and principles that have important future implications for practice. These works can provide qualitative changes in production, enormous in scale, but only in a more or less distant future. They do not have as clear a practical perspective as everyday, ongoing research work that pursues a specific practical goal.
The development and application of methods for assessing the economic efficiency of research and development work is one of the most important levers for accelerating scientific and technological progress, concentrating scientific potential in the most important areas of national economic development and dispersing material, financial and human resources.
The economic efficiency of scientific research is determined at different stages:
– when planning research work, when the estimated economic effect is calculated, the magnitude of which can be used to judge the feasibility of the research work (calculated efficiency);
– after completion of the research work, taking into account the results of the research and implementation of the prototype, calculations of the expected economic effect are clarified;
– after implementation of research results into production. Here the actual economic effect is calculated, which is confirmed by enterprises using the results of research work.
Calculations of economic efficiency are carried out on those research projects that are aimed at creating new technological processes, machines and materials, increasing the level of economic organization, and on those research in the field of natural sciences that can be used to improve material production.
The following are accepted as a basis for comparison (standard): at the development stage - the highest level of technology implemented, designed or at the stage of completed scientific research in the country and abroad; upon implementation - the technical level that will be achieved by the time this research work is implemented in production.
The effect of scientific research and development manifests itself only as a result of its interaction with other factors of economic growth - capital investments, labor, education, organization of information services and networks, etc. And before the potential effect of scientific research and development becomes practice in production, a whole chain of costs and activities must be implemented.
The effectiveness of the implementation of scientific products is one of the main indicators of the feasibility of the practical application of the obtained research results, incl. and on a commercial basis, as well as the need and level of its replication.
Management of social systems, including science, is carried out using a decision-making mechanism. Decisions are made based on assessment (measurement) of various parameters of the system and, above all, the efficiency of its functioning. Efficiency is a generalized measure of the quality of systems and processes. Depending on the specific goals of assessment, various algorithms for calculating efficiency are used: result-target (comparing the result with a goal, plan, standard), result-cost (comparing the result with the costs of obtaining it), result-result (comparing the results with each other, subject to identity or similarity of costs) and others.
A justified choice of criteria for the effectiveness of research activities is possible only on the basis of the idea of science as a purposeful system that is in close connection with other subsystems of the real world and has its own hierarchy of goals, input, output and process. The main goal of science is the production of new scientific knowledge and its implementation in science and practice. The indicators of achieving the main goal are the results of the work of scientists. The direct product of scientific activity has an informational essence.
Many philosophers view cognition as a person’s reflection of the material world. Reflection is a universal property of matter, and information is an aspect of reflection, the reflected diversity of objects of the material world, their connections and relationships.
Progress in nature occurs through the accumulation (generation) of information by developing systems, and vice versa - regressive, entropic processes are characterized by the loss of information. On the scale of the Universe, these trends in the movement of matter are self-oscillatory in nature.
In the process of development, subsystems are formed in self-governing systems that specialize in the accumulation, storage and use of information. For example, the information necessary for self-reproduction of living organisms is encoded in DNA molecules. The most perfect information device of natural origin is the brain, and the highest form of reflection is consciousness. At the level of consciousness, matter has acquired the ability for double reflection, reflection of the reflection process itself. This qualitative leap in development made it possible to actively manage the process of cognition, the possibility of carrying out purposeful cognition and the effective use of objective laws of the material world in historical practice.
The cognitive activity of human society is aimed at extracting related information from objects of the material world and translating (recoding) it into free, ideal information. In an ideal form, information obtained by one individual becomes publicly available, suitable for dissemination in time and space, for general use.
For self-governing systems, it is important to accumulate not just any information, but only useful information, i.e. facilitating their more efficient functioning and development. The greatest value is the information that contributes to the generation of new information. From these positions, science can be considered as a specialized subsystem within the most highly developed system on Earth - human society, generating the most valuable information - scientific knowledge.
The process of producing scientific knowledge consists of two main operations: extracting new, hitherto unknown information from the object of research and theoretical (logical) processing of it. The value of the knowledge gained depends on the results of these operations. The more significant the contribution of acquired knowledge to the universal fund of science is, the more it differs from what is already known (novelty) and the higher its theoretical level (information capacity).
We have constructed an ordinal scale of five classes of scientific information, superior to each other in theoretical level - from the description of individual facts (things, properties and relationships) to the development of theory. The second scale covers five degrees of novelty of scientific results - from the necessary confirmation of known facts and ideas to the acquisition of fundamentally new knowledge. Using these two scales, authors and experts can quickly assess the scientific and information value of a scientific product. The scientific information criterion is the only universal criterion for the effectiveness of science, because it reflects what is essential that is inherent in every truly scientific result, regardless of whether it is obtained in the field of fundamental or applied research, whether it finds practical application or only adds to the treasury of human knowledge.
Each primary result of scientific research - scientific knowledge - being mastered by other subsystems of human society, as a rule, causes a chain reaction of secondary effects, described in the specific languages of these subsystems. The system-by-system distribution of effects serves as a natural basis for constructing a classification of criteria for the effectiveness of science. For example, the register of secondary effectiveness criteria (utility criteria) of scientific and medical achievements should include the following:
- engineering and technical (indicators of significant differences in a method, device, substance, indicators of the achieved technical or technological effect, complexity of the problem solved, and others);
- medical and biological (characteristics of the impact of innovation on the human body, on experimental animals, on pathogens);
- social and medical (indicators of morbidity, mortality, disability and others);
- defense (for example, the rate of return to duty of the wounded);
- socio-economic (indicators of saving resources, preventing damage to production due to, in the words of K. Marx, “repair of the workforce”);
- environmental and other criteria.
If the results of scientific research have an impact on material production through means and objects of labor, then the resulting economic effect is calculated in cost categories as the profit of an individual enterprise, the increase in net production in an industry or national income - on a national scale. Depending on the type of social consequences of the application of scientific achievements, different approaches to their assessment are possible. In some cases they can be measured directly (in natural or statistical units), in others - indirectly (for example, by the magnitude of the economic effect obtained). The more significant the social achievement and the greater the range of phenomena of social life it covers, the more difficult it is to give it an integral assessment in quantitative form. After all, to do this it would be necessary to summarize many effects, some of which have only qualitative characteristics, others are measured in incomparable systems of units. The real way to overcome these difficulties is to develop preference scales that cover the entire set of the most important indicators of social well-being.
In the value hierarchy of criteria for the secondary effectiveness of science, the highest level should be occupied by social efficiency, since the main goal of social production is to satisfy the material and spiritual needs of people.
The history of science shows that the applied usefulness of a scientific product is closely related to its scientific and information value: fundamentally new inventions and theoretical achievements lead to revolutionary transformations in socio-historical practice, and private innovations lead only to reforms. Distortion of the scale of preferences in the practice of science management can lead to undesirable disproportions and distortions in the distribution of resources for scientific research, to a slowdown in the pace of scientific and technological progress and the growth of the people’s well-being.
V.S.LIBENSON. THE CRITERIA OF EFFECIENCY IN SCIENCE.
8 INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF LOGIC, METHODOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE.
MOSCOW,1987, ABSTRACTS, VOL.4, PART 1, SECTION 6, P.360-363.
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/
On key performance indicators of scientific activity
Among the many pressing problems of science, we will consider methods for assessing the effectiveness and quality of a scientist’s work, the scientific activity of a department, organization, or journal. Indicators of the effectiveness of scientific activity are used as an important component in assessing universities, the innovative potential of enterprises, etc. To assess the effectiveness of scientific activity, it is natural to use intellectual tools that have proven themselves in other subject areas. Such tools include, in particular, the balanced scorecard system based on key performance indicators (hence the title of this article), as well as controlling, primarily controlling scientific activities. Two tools for assessing the effectiveness of scientific activity have been developed in detail and are widely used - scientometric indicators and expert assessments. This article is devoted to their critical analysis. Various options for manipulating the values of scientometric indicators in the Russian Federation, according to our assessment, are still used relatively rarely. Perhaps this is due to the relatively short period of their use in science management. Since such an indicator as the number of citations of a researcher’s work allows for an objective assessment of his contribution to science, the use of this scientometric indicator for science management is justified. At the same time, the number of publications and especially the H-index do not allow us to objectively assess the effectiveness of scientific activity, especially taking into account the properties of real bibliometric databases. Expert procedures have a number of disadvantages. In this article we will discuss the real effectiveness of expert procedures in such areas of their application as the awarding of academic degrees and elections to state academies of sciences (primarily in the Russian Academy of Sciences). The basic principles of expertise in the areas under consideration have remained unchanged over the past 70 years. Based on an analysis of practice, we have to state the insufficient effectiveness of expert assessments in these areas. The rationale for this is given in the article
Key words: science, management, applied science, fundamental science, decision making, expert assessments, forecasting, bibliometric databases, citation indices, scientometrics, globalization, scientific results, marketing in science
At the Academy of Sciences
Prince Dunduk is in session.
They say it's not appropriate
Dunduk is so honored;
Why is he sitting?
Because<...>There is.
A.S. Pushkin
Since the time of A.S. Pushkin's interest in the problems of science management grew noticeably. A fundamental advance in recent years is the emergence of publicly accessible bibliometric databases and citation indices. It is very important that high-level administrators began to use them to manage science. For employees of research organizations and higher educational institutions, the Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI) has become one of the most popular databases.
As a result, there has been a surge of publications on the issues of assessing the effectiveness of scientific activity. In our opinion, science studies as a scientific discipline is still in its infancy. The only thing new compared to the book published in 1969 is the appearance of the unsubstantiated H-index. Unfortunately, the attention of many authors is focused on discussing modifications of this medium-sized species, while fundamental issues remain in the shadows.
scientometric applied fundamental expert
This article is inspired by the remarkable work of E.V. Lutsenko "Hirshamania". Among the many pressing problems of science, we will consider methods for assessing the effectiveness and quality of a scientist’s work, the scientific activity of a department, organization, or journal. Indicators of the effectiveness of scientific activity are used as an important component in assessing universities, the innovative potential of enterprises, etc.
To assess the effectiveness of scientific activity, it is natural to use intellectual tools that have proven themselves in other subject areas. Such tools include, in particular, the balanced scorecard system, based on key performance indicators (hence the title of this article), as well as controlling, primarily controlling scientific activities.
Two tools for assessing the effectiveness of scientific activity have been developed in detail and are widely used - scientometric indicators and expert assessments. This article is devoted to their critical analysis.
I (and other authors) have criticized scientometric indicators in a number of publications. Of these, we highlight a special issue of the journal "Management of Large Systems", also published as a separate publication. Our seed article in this collection bore the characteristic title “Two types of methodological errors in the management of scientific activity.” The final article provided a critical review of several dozen materials from this collection. Publications are devoted to the further development of our ideas. In our works, following the classic monograph, we discussed the possibilities of manipulating scientometric indicators (number of publications, number of citations, Hirsch index, etc.). Similar considerations, as well as examples of real manipulations, are widely discussed in the literature (see, etc.). In a letter to the author of this article, A.S. Chuev noted that in order to increase the citation rates of employees of universities and research institutes, the leadership of such organizations is secretly instilling a vicious practice - to recommend for publication only those articles that contain references (requirement up to 30%) to publications by employees of their university or research institutes, preferably in third-party journals. As a practical recommendation, it was proposed to rely on the use of expert procedures to assess the effectiveness of scientific activity.
In 2014 - 2015 The author of this article analyzed the scientometric indicators of the RSCI for several hundred researchers. Specific results of the analysis are reflected in a number of topics on the Internet resource, mainly in the form of numerous tables tied to certain points in time.
It is necessary to clarify the previously stated provisions.
Firstly, various options for manipulating the values of scientometric indicators in the Russian Federation, according to our assessment, are still used relatively rarely. Perhaps this is due to the relatively short period of their use in science management. Since such an indicator as the number of citations of a researcher’s work allows for an objective assessment of his contribution to science, the use of this scientometric indicator for science management is justified. At the same time, the number of publications and especially the H-index do not allow us to objectively assess the effectiveness of scientific activity, especially taking into account the properties of real bibliometric databases.
Secondly, expert procedures have a number of disadvantages. In this article we will discuss the real effectiveness of expert procedures in such areas of their application as the awarding of academic degrees and elections to state academies of sciences (primarily in the Russian Academy of Sciences). The basic principles of expertise in the areas under consideration have remained unchanged over the past 70 years. Based on an analysis of practice, we have to state the insufficient effectiveness of expert assessments in these areas.
The rationale for this is given below. This article also contains a number of provisions that are new compared to our previous publications.
Fundamental science and applied science
We have shown the fundamental difference between fundamental science and applied science, which entails an equally fundamental difference between key performance indicators in these areas of activity. When conducting applied scientific research, the main thing for the contractor is the requests, requirements, preferences, and interests of the customer. The main result of such research is a complex technical system, a strategic development plan for the company, etc. - what the customer needs. Publications based on the results of applied scientific research are not mandatory; moreover, they are sometimes not permissible due to considerations of state or commercial secrets. Fundamental scientific research is aimed at obtaining new knowledge; the main result of such research is publication in scientific journals.
Of course, there is no insurmountable barrier between fundamental science and applied science.
Specialists in applied science often want to prove themselves in fundamental science. First of all, because when performing applied work, scientific results of a wider range of applications than the customer needs are obtained along the way, that is, new knowledge is obtained, as in fundamental scientific research. It is advisable to reflect this knowledge in publications. An example is a report devoted to new scientific results in the field of decision-making theory and expert assessments obtained during applied research in aviation and the rocket and space industry. It is also important for applied science specialists to strive for increased status, competitiveness in the labor market, and chances of receiving new profitable orders.
Specialists in fundamental science are usually interested in ensuring that the new knowledge they have acquired finds practical application, that is, they want to move towards applied science. In addition to moral satisfaction, this shift is stimulated by the desire to increase status, competitiveness in the labor market, and chances of receiving increased funding.
Regarding the relationship between applied science and fundamental science, Yu.V. Granovsky seems promising classification of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: pure fundamental research; oriented basic research; applied research in general; strategic applied research; specific applied research; experimental developments. For the purposes of this article, it is enough to limit ourselves to distinguishing fundamental science and applied science.
We will discuss key performance indicators of scientific activity in relation to fundamental science.
General ignorance of scientists and its consequences
The main problem of modern science is the general ignorance of scientists. This statement becomes obvious if we at least roughly estimate the volume of accumulated scientific results, and even more so, scientific works. Each specialist can get acquainted with no more than 2 - 5% of publications in his field.
Back in the 80s, during the scientometric analysis of data on the First World Congress of the Society of Mathematical Statistics and Probability Theory. We gave Bernoulli an estimate of the total number of current publications on the topics of the congress - 10 6 . For a specific area, for example, for regression analysis, it is an order of magnitude less - 10 5.
Let's see how many publications are cited by the most cited authors. The fundamental three-volume edition contains about 2000 references. The list of references for the seven-volume "New Chronology" includes 1492 references. The monograph contains 843 references. We observe a gap of two orders of magnitude - out of about 10 5 potential sources, references are given only to about 10 3 .
How do scientists cope with their ignorance in real scientific work? The answer is well known - the entire population of scientific workers is divided (fragmented) into groups (scientific teams, clans, scientific schools, communities). A group often consists of employees from one organization and individual researchers from other organizations joining them. The clan usually acquires an infrastructure (journal, periodic conference, dissertation council, scientific society, etc.) that allows its members to conduct long-term scientific activities. Within a clan, members are usually quite knowledgeable about each other's work, while scientific activities outside the clan are ignored.
What has been said has long been known. V.V. Nalimov wrote about “invisible groups”. S. Lem predicted the disintegration of a single science into “regional-scale sciences”, closed within individual regions. S. Lem's prediction is coming true - by now, in many regional centers, on the basis of several universities and research institutes, “regional science” with all the necessary infrastructure is taking shape.
Of course, one cannot fail to note the presence of connections between “neighboring” clans and friendly regions. There are analogues of the “matrix management system” - often the researcher is simultaneously part of two structures: he works at a university or research institute and is a member of the “invisible team”. At a university or research institute, he carries out current work among those who have other scientific specialties and/or interests, and in the “invisible team” he communicates with “like-minded” specialists.
The situation with the accumulation of knowledge is well described by V.V. Nalimov and Z.B. Barinova: “The desire to decompose the phenomenon being studied into its component parts and to carefully study the details continues to produce extraordinary results, but only in new areas of knowledge, say, in molecular biology. In old fields of knowledge, this approach leads to the accumulation of an incredible amount of private knowledge that remains unused: it does not end up in monographs and does not influence subsequent work. This is, if you like, the old age of science. Here, unlike biological organisms, when aging occurs, it is not the metabolism that becomes difficult, but the exchange of ideas. A multitude of private knowledge does not add up to knowledge about a large system.”
The next generation of researchers enters their field through learning. Consequently, what is not included in textbooks is almost certainly lost to future generations.
Currently, there is a fundamentally important transition from paper to electronic media. Sharply reduced circulations - to tens and hundreds of copies - lead to a change in the role of paper publications. Instead of disseminating information, their role becomes prestigious and gift-giving. However, when using the “book on demand” scheme, the very concept of circulation becomes a thing of the past.
On the one hand, publications in electronic publications (with open access) greatly facilitate the dissemination of scientific information (there is no need to contact central libraries). On the other hand, non-digitized publications are attracting less and less attention. To put it somewhat crudely, we can say: what is not on the Internet is almost certainly lost.
Let us move on to a discussion of expert procedures for assessing the effectiveness of scientific activity. Let's start with the awarding of academic degrees.
The need to change expert procedures for awarding academic degrees
The low quality of a significant number of dissertations and corruption in their preparation and defense have been discussed for quite some time.
Obviously, as long as there is a desire to acquire an academic degree, there will be a desire to achieve this with minimal effort. For example, by purchasing a finished dissertation. Currently, the Internet is teeming with offers of “custom dissertations.” In contrast, Dissernet works, which characterizes itself as “a free online community of experts, researchers and reporters who devote their work to exposing scammers, falsifiers and liars.” Dissernet detects plagiarism and direct borrowing of text.
But it cannot provide protection from “custom-made dissertations.” It is impossible to determine who actually wrote it by analyzing the text. Obviously, to reliably establish authorship, a detailed, thorough discussion of the dissertation with its author is necessary. But there is no such stage in the protection procedure. In the traditional 15 minutes of a report, it is impossible to delve deeply into the content of the work. Moreover, according to tradition, the dissertation candidate’s “unsuccessful” answers are interpreted in his favor and “written off” due to excitement.
You can look at the situation from the other side - from the positions of members of dissertation councils and authors of reviews of dissertations and abstracts. Such activities are considered social. Doctors of science spend their time free of charge (payment for the work of opponents is symbolic). There is a natural desire to reduce the loss of time by entrusting the preparation of the main content of the reviews to the dissertation candidates themselves. As anyone involved in the dissertation defense process knows, this practice is very common.
During the defense, a member of the dissertation council often reasons like this: “Since the work was allowed to be defended, it means that it meets the requirements; it must be supported.” From the point of view of saving effort, this position is completely justified. Speaking against a dissertation requires an investment of energy and mental effort.
Are degrees needed at all? They can be compared with military ranks. As is known, after their abolition in the Red Army in 1918, they were reintroduced. The reason is simple - the decision maker needs to know who you are dealing with, without delving into the details of this person's biography. Currently, information about the scientific activity of a scientist can be obtained from the RSCI, so the argument given in the previous phrase largely loses its meaning - the main well-presented information can be taken from the RSCI or another bibliometric database.
Let us summarize the preliminary results of the discussion of the problems of dissertation defenses. In the current procedure, a report on a large task takes only 15 minutes. (PhD thesis) or 30 min. (doctoral dissertation). It is impossible to hope that the members of the dissertation committee will deeply understand the work during the defense. We observe an unreasonable waste of time of a large number of qualified specialists - members of the dissertation council. The impossibility of finalizing the text of the dissertation in accordance with the comments, recorded in regulatory documents, deprives the discussion of the defense of impetus and makes the discussion largely aimless. Why identify shortcomings and formulate proposals for correcting them if no changes will be made to the text?
From the above it follows that the procedures for awarding academic degrees must be improved. For example, you can propose a sharp increase in time for defense (with a break for making corrections to the dissertation) with an adequate reduction in the number of members of the dissertation committee, whose work should be adequately paid.
It is possible to propose universal certification of scientific workers in order to confirm academic degrees. This is due not only to the need to clear out the “Augean stables” of the accumulated consequences of corruption, but also to the fact that many who have “settled down” for one reason or another stop doing science. It is advisable to award academic degrees only to those who actually work in science. It is advisable to conduct certification regularly, say, every five years. This procedure is facilitated by the availability of scientometric databases. Let us note that in research institutes and universities, in fact, such a procedure has long been provided for by current legislation. It is held through periodic competitions for positions of researchers and teaching staff. But it is often carried out formally. It is advisable to move on to certification on the merits, and in all sectors of the national economy. A simple add-on to the RSCI will allow each doctor and candidate of sciences to automatically generate a public summary of the work for the reporting period, to which the summary character will be able to add their comments.
Results of the application of expert procedures in the formation and work of the Russian Academy of Sciences
The procedure for electing academicians and corresponding members of the RAS is based on the use of expert technologies. The adequacy of the formation of the Russian Academy of Sciences can be checked using citation data. Among the most cited scientists, approximately half are included in the relevant sections of the Russian Academy of Sciences (our expert assessment based on the results of analysis in a number of specialties). On the one hand, this suggests that the contribution to science of many members of the RAS is great. On the other hand, approximately half of the most effective scientists are not members of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The well-known intrigues that accompany elections (see, for example, the memoirs of one of the most outstanding mathematicians of the twentieth century, L.S. Pontryagin) discourage many from participating in the elections.
Let us support what has been said with an analysis of RSCI data in mathematics and economics. In the “Author's Index” of the RSCI we select the topic “mathematics”. We sort by the number of citations (descending). Here is a list of the first 8 living researchers on the list (as of July 31, 2015, the number of publications, the number of citations, and the Hirsch index are indicated):
1. Novikov Dmitry Aleksandrovich (Institute of Management Problems named after V.A. Trapeznikov RAS (Moscow)) 300 - 9067 - 43
2. Faddeev Ludwig Dmitrievich (St. Petersburg Department of the V.A. Steklov Mathematical Institute RAS) 234 - 8362 - 36
3. Ibragimov Ildar Abdullovich (St. Petersburg Department of the V.A. Steklov Mathematical Institute RAS) 389 - 6930 - 33
4. Maslov Viktor Pavlovich (National Research University "Higher School of Economics" (Moscow)) 632 - 5756 - 20
5. Orlov Alexander Ivanovich (Moscow State Technical University named after N.E. Bauman) 356 - 5506 - 21
6. Georgy Gennadievich Malinetsky (M.V. Keldysh Institute of Applied Mathematics RAS (Moscow)) 346 - 5199 - 18
7. Nazarov Sergey Aleksandrovich (Institute of Problems of Mechanical Science RAS (St. Petersburg) 626 - 5023 -20
8. Sergey Petrovich Novikov (V.A. Steklov Mathematical Institute RAS (Moscow)) 200 - 4412 - 21
Of the 8 listed researchers, three belong to the section of mathematics of the Russian Academy of Sciences: L.D. Faddeev, I.A. Ibragimov and S.P. Novikov (three academicians out of 23 included in this section). Corresponding Member of the RAS D.A. Novikov and academician V.P. Maslov are not included in the section of mathematics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The list also included two employees of academic research institutes (not related to the mathematics section of the Russian Academy of Sciences) and a university professor. So, the profile section of the RAS is 3 out of 8 (37.5%), all members of the RAS are 5 out of 8 (62.5%).
We present similar data on the topic "Economics. Economic Sciences":
1. Kovalev Valery Viktorovich (St. Petersburg State University) 208 - 8111 - 27
2. Georgy Borisovich Kleiner (Central Economics and Mathematics Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow)) 287 - 7537 - 33
3. Sheremet Anatoly Danilovich (Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov) 111 - 7391 - 25
4. Gokhberg Leonid Markovich (National Research University Higher School of Economics (Moscow)) 216 - 6957 - 44
5. Ushachev Ivan Grigorievich (All-Russian Research Institute of Agricultural Economics (Moscow)) 350 - 6282 - 39
6. Raizberg Boris Abramovich (Institute of Macroeconomic Research (Moscow)) 52 - 5697 - 12
7. Orlov Alexander Ivanovich (Moscow State Technical University named after N.E. Bauman) 356 - 5506 - 21
8. Elena Borisovna Starodubtseva (Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation (Moscow)) 58 - 5212 - 12
9. Asaul Anatoly Nikolaevich (St. Petersburg State University of Architecture and Civil Engineering) 273 - 4945 - 32
10. Glazyev Sergey Yuryevich (State Duma of the Russian Federation (Moscow)) 266 - 4935 - 23
Of the 10 listed researchers, two belong to the section of economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences - corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences G.B. Kleiner and RAS academician S.Yu. Glazyev (the section of economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences includes 15 academicians and 23 corresponding members). In addition, full member of the Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences I.G. Ushachev, in connection with the reorganization of state academies of sciences, is an academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The list included 6 university teachers and one research institute employee. So, the profile section of the RAS is 2 out of 10 (20%), all members of the RAS are 3 out of 10 (80%).
Let's discuss strategies for replenishing the RAS staff, used by sections of mathematics and economics.
Of the 55 academicians and corresponding members of the mathematics section, 21 work at the Mathematical Institute. V.A. Steklov RAS (Moscow), 8 - at the Institute of Mathematics of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Novosibirsk), 6 - at the St. Petersburg Branch of the Mathematical Institute. V.A. Steklov RAS, 5 - at Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov. There are 40 section members working in the listed 4 organizations, i.e. 73%. The isolation of this group and its separation from the bulk of Russian mathematicians is obvious. The citation rate of the majority of members of the RAS Mathematics Section is quite modest.
The Economics Section (38 members) attracted representatives of many organizations and various academic centers scattered throughout the country. The number of section members from one organization does not exceed 3 (Central Economics and Mathematics Institute (CEMI) RAS, Institute of Economics RAS), maximum 4 (Institute of Economics and Organization of Industrial Production of the Siberian Branch of the RAS). However, the scientific activity of the majority of the section members is clearly inferior to the scientific activity of leading institutes, for example, CEMI, and universities.
To summarize, based on RSCI data, it can be stated that among the leading (in terms of the number of citations) domestic scientists, only a minority are included in the sections of mathematics and economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. It follows, firstly, that at present the RAS is not the center of scientific life, and secondly, that the expert procedures for replenishing the RAS staff have not coped with the task of selecting the most productive scientists.
However, let us remember that in the 19th century. The greatest contribution to Russian science was made by D.I. Mendeleev and N.I. Lobachevsky. Neither one nor the other were members of the Academy, and D.I. Mendeleev was scandalously voted out.
The separation of RAS members from the bulk of scientific workers can also be stated from personal experience. The author of this article does not have any references to the works of members of the current section of mathematics and section of economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. They didn't do anything of value to me. But I refer to the works of many who are not members of the RAS. And we are talking not only about academicians and corresponding members, but also about the institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences. I think the situation is the same for many of my colleagues.
In January 2006, the Internet resource “Are Academics Useful?” was created. . At the beginning, the question was posed: “Let’s conduct a thought experiment. Let’s imagine that all the mathematicians listed below, members of the section of mathematics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, disappeared 30 years ago. What would have changed? Of course, the fate of their families, students and employees would have changed. But for You, reader, what would change?" As of 08/01/2015, this resource was viewed more than 20 thousand times. But none of the readers gave a single example of the benefit for their professional activities of at least one scientific publication of a member of the section of mathematics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. We read the textbooks, we are talking about using the results of scientific activity.
This situation is natural. Academic research institutes are moving into their own areas. According to Parkinson's Law, a sufficiently large organization can isolate itself from the outside world and work for itself - some departments write documents for other departments. In the case of research institutes, they publish articles.
The result is sad - there is CEMI, but the scientific results obtained by the overwhelming majority of its employees are unknown to me, an economist - researcher and teacher, and therefore are not used. If, of course, they (real scientific results, not articles and books) exist. Similarly for the Mathematical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Or take the Institute of Management Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Management in the socio-economic field and management are practically synonymous. But there has been no cross-fertilization of ideas for decades. The Institute of Management Problems is in itself, management as one of the economic sciences is in itself.
The organization and tasks of the RAS and its predecessors have changed over time. The feasibility of performing basic scientific research in specially created academic institutes with tens of thousands of employees requires discussion. Maybe they should be included in universities? The spontaneous practice is that employees of academic research institutes are engaged in teaching part-time.
The problem of rational organization of science requires a separate discussion. In this article we will limit ourselves to the comments made.
Scientometric indicators and dogmas associated with their use
The number of citations to a researcher's work is an objective assessment of his contribution to science. If a work is cited, it means that it was needed and was used to obtain new scientific results. But the number of publications and the Hirsch index are relative indicators. This statement becomes obvious if we analyze the work of the RSCI and the technology for generating these indicators.
RSCI takes into account references as they are given in the lists of references in publications. If an article by a particular author is described in different ways, it is included in the list of his works several times. Once you open this list, it's easy to see duplicates. Therefore, the number of publications is exaggerated. The RSCI has a system of “internal publications” - those that are available in the RSCI electronic library. It is from them that the number of citations of certain articles and the H-index are calculated. In this case, inaccurate bibliographic descriptions are ignored. As a consequence, the citation rate of individual publications and the H-index are underestimated.
According to the above, a key indicator of the effectiveness of scientific activity is the number of citations. And not other scientometric (number of publications, Hirsch index) or expert (academic degrees, titles, positions, membership in academies) indicators.
The incompleteness of bibliometric databases has a strong impact on scientometric indicators. This is especially true for scientific works published on paper. They are not digitized - and therefore do not seem to exist.
A wish or requirement to use Western citation indexes (SCOPUS, WOS) makes you remember the words "What is this - stupidity or treason?" (a famous expression by P.N. Milyukov from his speech at a meeting of the State Duma of the Russian Empire on November 1, 1916). (As A.S. Chuev rightly noted, these words can also be attributed to the Unified State Exam, to the requirement that articles must be accompanied by an annotation in English, Hirshamania, and to many other things happening in our time.) Let us quote the summary dated February 10, 2015: "According to the most comprehensive catalog of periodicals Ulrichsweb, 34,585 peer-reviewed scientific journals are currently published in the world, more than 80% of them (28,134) are in English... Database SCOPUS selects for indexing more than 21 thousand scientific journals from the entire list, of which about 21% are publications not in English, and 406 are Russian. Database Web of Science(WOS) approaches the selection of its sources more selectively and indexes only 8539 journals in the natural sciences (of which 149, that is, less than 2%, are Russian) and 3080 journals in the social sciences (of which only 3, that is, less than 0. 1% - Russian). The RSCI database covers 10,343 Russian scientific journals, but indexes less than half of them (4879). But even of this number, only 2,269 journals are included in the Higher Attestation Commission list... Only 394 Russian journals from the Higher Attestation Commission list (17%) are indexed in international databases.”
Thus SCOPUS and WOS indexes only a very small part of Russian journals. Perhaps those who advocate the use of these indices are unfamiliar with the facts presented. Then their speeches are not qualified and do not comply with the norms of scientific ethics, which require proceeding from verified facts. If the above statistics are familiar to such an agitator, then his actions are deliberately aimed at causing harm to domestic science.
"World science" is a myth. As S.N. convincingly showed. Grinchenko, world science is not an “organism”. Domestic science (like the domestic national economy) is self-sufficient. There is no need for close contacts with foreign countries; it is enough to have information about the promotions of competitors. However, every independent scientist is well aware that research can (and often is most advisable) begin before becoming familiar with the works of predecessors. This topic is discussed in more detail in the article “On the construction of science in a single country.”
World (global) science S.N. Grinchenko compares the “organ” of the unified system of Humanity with other such “organs” - “world production”, “world education”, etc. The organization of future economic management (i.e., the future global and regional economy, economics and organization of production at enterprises and their associations) is devoted to the functionalist-organic information economy, based on the views of Aristotle (it is also called the solidary information economy or the informal information economy of the future). It develops procedures for making agreed decisions. Similar procedures can be used, tested and implemented to solve various problems of science management.
Who benefits from domestic researchers publishing articles in foreign journals? To the leaders of these countries, briefly, to the West. They receive information about our research. Translation - in English. Well prepared (according to the rules of foreign journals). For free. And not only is it free, but they also charge our researchers a fee for publication and for preparing manuscripts for publication. At the same time, significantly reducing the availability of domestic results for domestic scientists. For example, why should I get acquainted with foreign magazines when I don’t have enough time for my own?
As shown in detail in , you cannot limit yourself to only analyzing articles in scientific journals. Other types of publications are no less important; they are now indexed in the RSCI, but some administrators of science and education still focus on articles in journals.
There is currently a struggle between two types of magazines. Some completely or temporarily block access to scientific materials, trying to get a subscription fee. Others, primarily electronic journals, post articles freely online. There are also non-journal services on which the author himself can post his works. This is exactly what the most famous mathematician of the 21st century did. G.Ya. Perelman. Let us note that the RSCI recorded 343 citations of his works (as of 08/01/2015). Thus, solving difficult problems may not have a noticeable impact on the development of science.
Paper magazines are losing circulation. Thus, the circulation of the journal “Uspekhi Matematicheskikh Nauk” is 232 copies, i.e. for 38 mathematicians registered in the RSCI (as of 08/01/2015, a total of 8844) there is 1 copy of the journal. The situation is similar with paper books. Their function is changing - they become not a means of disseminating scientific information, but “scientific gifts” that scientists exchange during meetings.
In the future, we expect the extinction of paper scientific publications. Only publications on the Internet will remain. Anyone can print out the materials they need and bind them. Currently, there is already a “book on demand” service (a book is printed for a specific customer in one copy).
What will be the functions of the journals? Firstly, a magazine is a means of grouping related people (like-minded people dealing with similar topics, or working in the same organization, etc.). Roughly corresponds to an Internet forum and a group on social networks. Secondly, the journal is a tool for reviewing materials. Both do not require the existence of journals as independent structures. Any user can group (select) works on the Internet according to the basis of interest. How to apply for a review.
We need to pay special attention to reviewing. People often rely on the words “peer-reviewed journals.” At the same time, everyone knows that reviews are often written by the author himself. And the “reviewer” signs, his role is reduced to approving the article. All this is reminiscent of the situation when defending dissertations (see the above discussion of the problems of awarding academic degrees in this article), but on a small scale.
Of course, conscientious peer review is necessary. Each work must be read by at least one specialist. Highlight any shortcomings that the author can correct. But there is also a danger - glib editors can introduce errors. As a result of the intervention of the technical editor, errors were introduced into 2 of my articles (out of 75) in the journal "Factory Laboratory. Diagnostics of Materials", and in one of the cases the meaning of the main statement of the article was changed to the opposite.
The main function of the reviewer is to support the author. Advanced publications provide information about reviewers. For example, on the back of the title page of a book. It would be advisable to make it mandatory to publish information about reviewers along with the article. About reviewing, A.S. Chuev wrote to the author of this article: “... I vote with both hands for the abolition of anonymous reviewing. In essence, this is illegal censorship (censorship is prohibited by the Constitution of the Russian Federation). In addition, editorial offices should widely use the practice of joint publication of articles and negative reviews."
There are problems with selecting reviewers (and for reviewers with allocating time for reviewing) and paying for reviewing.
Strange is the negative attitude towards self-citation of individual authors who publish on issues of assessing the effectiveness of scientific activity. An analysis of predecessors may be needed at the beginning of a research cycle, when there are no own publications and, as a result, self-citation is impossible. After obtaining new independent results, the researcher (or research team) is ahead of others, and his new works are based on the base he previously created, and not on the work of others. In other words, there are simply no “extraneous predecessors” for further articles. But there are objectively a lot of references to my own previous works. It is necessary to indicate the connections between new results and those previously obtained by the same author.
So self-citation is good. This means that the scientist is building his field. And the lack of self-citation means that for the author this article is the first on a new topic for him. Either he is a beginner, or he is “picking apples from other people’s orchards.” A typical situation is to take someone else's work and study it, take notes on it - you get your own work. As an example, consider the article on choosing means according to measurement scales. It systematizes the publications generated by our work in the 70s. But it was unclear from the review which papers obtained fundamental results and which publications were just comments. I had to publish a separate article on this topic. The second example is an article. Its authors took my article, replaced the condition of differentiability with the condition of continuity - and obtained a new scientific result. Let us explain the established tradition in simple and understandable terms: one person built the house, another painted the door in it. And now we must refer to the second of them, at best adding “which developed (or improved) the original considerations of the first.”
Criticizing a scientific journal for self-citation is especially ironic because it goes against the natural process of scientific research. It is quite natural that authors working on the same topic tend to publish in the same journal and refer to each other.
An important problem is the classification of sciences and scientific specialties. There are no “Statistical Sciences” in the lists at the top level of the hierarchy, on a par with mathematics and economic sciences, and the works of the author of this article have no place in official scientific structures (for more details, see). The Mathematics Section of the Russian Academy of Sciences consists of employees of only a few organizations - academic institutes of mathematics in Moscow, St. Petersburg and Novosibirsk and Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov, and mathematics in the RAS is presented one-sidedly. The Section of Mathematics of the Russian Academy of Sciences ignores the work of mathematicians from other organizations and/or from other areas. Economic sciences are also presented one-sidedly - we see an unjustified bias towards macroeconomics, and the role of enterprise economics is downplayed.
Promoting a scientific result can be compared to conquering the market, and the market of the capitalist type. Marketing in this market can be carried out by special structures separated from the researcher, as proposed in.
The commercial basis of many popular slogans and decisions taken under their influence is obvious. The requirement for the initial publication in Russian journals of the results of research carried out with the money of Russian taxpayers is indisputable. Whoever makes the first publication abroad causes economic damage to our country.
The shortcomings of official statistics and accounting cause great harm to the effective management of scientific activities. According to Rosstat’s approach, a university professor is not a scientific worker, since he occupies a teaching position rather than a scientific one. As a result, Rosstat reports repeatedly downplay the scientific activity of universities. In Russia, R&D expenses are not allowed to be included in the cost of production, but in Germany they can; as a result, domestic enterprises spend R&D expenses on other items, and Rosstat reports sharply underestimate the volume of domestic scientific research. Etc.
Scientific studies, scientometrics, issues of performance assessment and management of scientific activities require further development. Let us indicate one of the promising approaches. As K.S. writes Khrutsky, in general, the Triadological approach precisely asserts the equality (meaning the Trinity) of all Three main (super) systems of cognition: the opposite Positivism (mathematical physicalism) and Organicism (functionalist anthropocosmism); and intermediate (and axial) Integralism (systemic and holistic knowledge). In relation to the topic under discussion, we observe a trinity in which Global Science and the Scientist creating new knowledge oppose each other, and the intermediate Integral System corresponds to their interaction. This metaphor (verbal model) deserves detailed development.
Many provisions of this article are close to the position of Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, General Director of VIAM E.N. Kablova.
Literature
1. Orlov A.I. Science as an object of management // Polythematic network electronic scientific journal of the Kuban State Agrarian University. 2014. No. 101. pp. 1243 - 1273. URL: http://ej.kubagro.ru/2014/07/pdf/11.pdf (date accessed 08/11/2015).
2. Nalimov V.V., Mulchenko Z.M. Scientometrics. Studying the development of science as an information process. - M.: Nauka, 1969. - 192 p.
3. Lutsenko E.V. Hirshamnia when assessing the results of scientific activity, its negative consequences and an attempt to overcome them using a multi-criteria approach and information theory // Polythematic network electronic scientific journal of the Kuban State Agrarian University. 2015. No. 108. P. 1-29. URL: http://ej.kubagro.ru/2015/04/pdf/01.pdf (accessed 08/11/2015).
4. Lutsenko E.V. Synthesis and verification of the multi-criteria system-cognitive model of the Guardian university rating and its application for a comparable assessment of the effectiveness of Russian universities, taking into account the direction of training // Polythematic network electronic scientific journal of the Kuban State Agrarian University. 2015. No. 107. P. 1-62. URL: http://ej.kubagro.ru/2015/03/pdf/01.pdf (accessed 08/11/2015).
5. . Kaplan R., Norton D. Balanced Scorecard. From strategy to action. 2nd ed., rev. and additional - M.: JSC "Olymp-Business", 2008. - 320 p.
6. Orlov A.I., Lutsenko E.V., Loiko V.I. Promising mathematical and instrumental methods of controlling. Under scientific editorship. prof. S.G. Falco. Monograph (scientific publication). - Krasnodar, KubSAU. 2015. - 600 p. URL: http://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=23209923 (date accessed 08/11/2015).
7. Orlov A.I. On the development of controlling scientific activities // Controlling in small and medium-sized enterprises ((Prague, April 25, 2014, Higher School of Finance and Management). Collection of scientific papers of the IV International Congress on Controlling. Scientifically edited by Doctor of Economics, Professor Falko S.G. - Prague - Moscow, NP "Association of Controllers", 2014. - P. 227 - 231. URL: http://controlling.ru/files/56.pdf (access date 07/30/2015).
8. Mukhin V.V., Orlov A.I. On controlling scientific activity // Polythematic network electronic scientific journal of the Kuban State Agrarian University. 2014. No. 100. pp. 1222-1237. URL: http://ej.kubagro.ru/2014/06/pdf/13.pdf (accessed 07/30/2015).
9. Mukhin V.V., Orlov A.I. Improving organizational structures and controlling personnel at enterprises such as the "Research Institute" of the rocket and space industry // Polythematic network electronic scientific journal of the Kuban State Agrarian University. 2015. No. 109. pp. 265-296. URL: http://ej.kubagro.ru/2015/05/pdf/16.pdf (accessed 07/30/2015).
10. Management of large systems / Collection of works. Special issue 44. Scientometrics and expertise in science management / [ed. YES. Novikova, A.I. Orlova, P.Yu. Chebotarev]. M.: IPU RAS, 2013. - 568 p. URL: http://ubs.mtas.ru/archive/index.php?SECTION_ID=685 (accessed 07/30/2015).
11. Scientometrics and expertise in science management: collection of articles / Ed. YES. Novikova, A.I. Orlova, P.Yu. Chebotareva. - M.: IPU RAS, 2013. - 572 p.
12. Orlov A.I. Two types of methodological errors in the management of scientific activities // Management of large systems / Collection of works. Special issue 44. Scientometrics and expertise in science management / [ed. YES. Novikova, A.I. Orlova, P.Yu. Chebotarev]. M.: IPU RAS, 2013. - P. 32 - 54. URL: http://ubs.mtas.ru/archive/search_results_new.php?publication_id=19050 (access date 07/30/2015).
13. Orlov A.I. Scientometrics and management of scientific activities // Management of large systems / Collection of works. Special issue 44. Scientometrics and expertise in science management / [ed. YES. Novikova, A.I. Orlova, P.Yu. Chebotarev]. M.: IPU RAS, 2013. - P.538 - 568. URL: http://ubs.mtas.ru/archive/search_results_new.php?publication_id=19078 (access date 07/30/2015).
14. Orlov A.I. On some methodologically erroneous methods of analyzing and assessing the results of scientific activity // Russia: trends and development prospects. Yearbook. Vol. 8. / RAS. INION. Dept. scientific cooperation and international connections; Rep. ed. Yu.S. Brewers. - M., 2013. - Part 2. - P.528 - 533.
15. Orlov A.I. Examples of methodological errors in the management of scientific activities // Problems of scientometrics: status and development prospects. International Conference. - M.: Institute for Problems of Science Development RAS, 2013. - P.107 - 109.
16. Orlov A.I. Criteria for choosing indicators of the effectiveness of scientific activity // Controlling. - 2013. - No. 3(49). - P.72-78.
17. Orlov A.I. On indicators of the effectiveness of scientific activity // Economic analysis: theory and practice. - 2014. - No. 7 (358). - P.21-29.
18. Orlov A.I. On indicators of the effectiveness of scientific activity // Digest Finance. 2014. No. 2. P.50 - 56.
19. Orlov A.I. On the construction of science in a single country // Biocosmology - neo-Aristotelism. 2014, Summer. Vol.4. No. 3.Pp. 203 - 223. URL: https://sites.google.com/site/biocosmologyneoaristotelism/home/1 (accessed 07/30/2015).
20. The game of numbers, or how the work of a scientist is now assessed (collection of articles on bibliometrics). - M.: Moscow Center for Continuing Mathematical Education, 2011. - 72 p.
21. Chudova N.V. Compare the “Hirschs”, or about a new civilizational challenge // Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2014. T.84. No. 5. P.462 - 464.
22. Bugachenko A.L. Why is Hirsch bad? // Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2014. T.84. No. 5. P.461 - 461.
23. Mirkin B.G. On the concept of scientific contribution and its measures // Management of large systems. 2013. No. 44. pp. 292 - 307. URL: http://ubs.mtas.ru/archive/search_results_new.php?publication_id=19064 (date accessed 07/30/2015).
24. Forum of the site "High statistical technologies". Access mode: http://forum.orlovs.pp.ru/ (access date 07/30/2015).
25. Orlov A.I. Decision making and expert assessments in aviation and the rocket and space industry // Theory of active systems: Proceedings of the international scientific and practical conference (November 17-19, 2014, Moscow, Russia). General edition - V.N. Burkov, D.A. Novikov. - M.: IPU RAS, 2014. P. 81 - 82. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: http://www.mtas.ru/upload/library/tas2014/S2-PDF/2-10.pdf (access date 07/30/2015).
26. Orlov A.I. First World Congress of the Society for Mathematical Statistics and Probability. Bernoulli // Factory laboratory. Diagnostics of materials. 1987. T.53. No. 3. P.90 - 91.
27. Orlov A.I. World Congress of the Society named after. Bernoulli // Standards and quality. 1987. No. 5. P. 105 - 106.
28. Orlov A.I. First World Congress of the Society for Mathematical Statistics and Probability. Bernoulli // Reliability and quality control. 1987. No. 6. P. 54 - 59.
29. Kendall M.J., Stewart A. Theory of distributions. - M.: Nauka, 1966. -588 p.
30. Kendall M.J., Stewart A. Statistical inference and connections. - M.: Nauka, 1973. - 896 p.
31. Kendall M.J., Stewart A. Multivariate statistical analysis and time series. - M.: Nauka, 1976. - 736 p.
32. Seven-volume book "New Chronology". [Electronic resource]. Access mode: http://chronologia.org/lit7a.html (access date 07/30/2015).
33. Nalimov V.V., Barinova Z.B. Sketches on the history of cybernetics // Philosophy of science. 2000. No. 1 (7). pp. 55-78.
34. Lem S. Sum of technology: Collection. Op. T.13 (additional). - M.: Text, 1996. - 463 p.
35. Orlov A.I. Management: organizational and economic modeling. - Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 2009. - 475 p.
36. Dissernet [Electronic resource]. Access mode: http://www.dissernet.org/about/ (access date 07/30/2015).
37. Pontryagin L.S. Biography of L.M. Pontryagin, mathematics, compiled by himself. Born 1908, Moscow. - M.: Prima V, 1998. - 340 p.
38. Are academics useful? [Electronic resource]. Access mode: http://forum.orlovs.pp.ru/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=270 (date accessed 07/30/2015).
39. Parkinson S.N. Parkinson's Laws: Collection: Trans. from English / Comp. and ed. preface V. S. Muravyov.-- M.: Progress, 1989.-- 448 p.
40. Khromov G.S. Science that we are losing. - Moscow: Kosmosinform, 1995. - 104 p.
...Similar documents
Analysis of the reform of the education system and monitoring the effectiveness of secondary vocational educational institutions in the Russian Federation. Features of educational services. Experience in carrying out quality assessment with the participation of consumers and the difficulties of the subjects of assessment.
course work, added 02/04/2014
The concept of scientific and innovation policy in the education system of the Russian Federation. The main goal of scientific policy is legislative regulation. Diagram of the structure of research units, sources of financing their activities.
course work, added 09/16/2015
course work, added 01/19/2012
Sources of information, their classification. Methods of searching, modeling, processing and storing information, its systematization and analysis. Principles of reading scientific literature and keeping working notes; preparation of information for the defense of a scientific hypothesis.
presentation, added 03/19/2013
The problem of developing the need for a healthy lifestyle (HLS) in the scientific literature. Creating conditions for the formation of ideas about healthy lifestyle for younger schoolchildren. Analysis of the effectiveness of the activities of teachers and students in forming ideas about a healthy lifestyle.
thesis, added 11/27/2008
Theoretical organization of aesthetic and pedagogical conditions for the development of creative thinking. Organization of artistic and design activities in technology lessons. Methodology for the formation of interior design elements, indicators for assessing its effectiveness.
thesis, added 05/29/2015
The significance of the research work of students in the system of higher military professional education. Development of general cultural and professional competencies among cadets through military scientific work. Analysis of forms of military scientific work.
article, added 08/10/2017
Social project "Our City" in a secondary school. Goal: development of methods of scientific work among students aimed at studying history; education formation of a creative, versatile personality; developing a sense of patriotism among young people.
scientific work, added 03/10/2008
course work, added 11/08/2009
Development of a system for assessing the quality of education. Creation of educational infrastructure in the Russian Federation. Self-assessment model of “University Excellence.” The general structure of OSOKO and the model of its interaction with the external environment. Current changes in legislation.
Scientific research, especially of an applied nature, is carried out with the aim of developing new technologies, equipment, organizing production and labor and, on this basis, obtaining a reduction in material and labor costs, improving the quality of products and services, and increasing the profits of entrepreneurs.
The transition of the economy to market relations creates a social need for the latest achievements of science, since they mainly ensure an increase in labor productivity and an increase in the volume of competitive products.
Manufacturers are beginning to understand that in the new socio-economic conditions only those enterprises that create the best conditions for the development of science and quickly master its achievements in production practice can survive. Therefore, the concept of “implementation of scientific research” is gradually filled with new meaning. It is classified according to two criteria: the form of material implementation and the working function of the implemented object.
Implementation– is the transfer to production or use of scientific products that provide a technical, economic or social effect. This process consists of stages: research and production implementation and mass production.
The first is due to the fact that no matter how carefully the recommendations of scientific research work are worked out, they cannot take into account various, including random, factors that operate in the actual production conditions in general and at a specific enterprise in particular. This applies to the same extent to new materials and technological processes. The implementation stage requires large financial costs; it is very labor-intensive in the production of research samples, which often require modification and processing.
Based on the results of research production testing, the technical and economic efficiency of the introduced samples is assessed. At the same time, special attention is paid to the operational indicators of their quality, reliability, durability, cost, manufacturability and operation, the need to re-equip production plants and the possibility of mass production. The test results are documented in a document.
After the completion of the first stage, the second stage begins - mass production.
The state implementation system includes three levels: state, industry, and production organizations.
On state level Legislative acts are being developed to use the results of research and protect the rights of creators of new equipment, technology, and materials, registration of discoveries and inventions is carried out both in the country and abroad, and the issue of renewing licenses and patents is being resolved.
Industry ministries and departments play the role of planning and controlling bodies for the work of industry research institutes, laboratories, implementation organizations and departments at enterprises.
There are scientific and production associations and educational, research and production complexes based on program-target method organizing and planning research according to the scheme: problems – goals – programs – resources – final result.
To speed up the practical use of research results, developers enter into agreements with organizations and enterprises business contracts for their implementation, provide designer's supervision, and participation of developers in design and technological refinement.
According to some foreign researchers, out of a hundred fundamental developments, one tenth of the work ends with a clearly positive result, half of the research work, and no more than 20% of the applied and design work. Nevertheless, investments (innovations) in science are approximately three times more effective than investments in simple reproduction.
There are economic, scientific-technical, defense and social effects from the implementation of research work.
Economic characterized by savings in living and embodied labor expressed in cost terms in social production, which are obtained from the implementation of research results, compared with the costs of research.
Under scientific and technical The effect is understood as the expansion of knowledge about the environment: the identification of new facts, connections, patterns, the discovery of laws, the development of new materials, equipment, technologies that contribute to the further development of science and technology.
Defense the effect is the creation of new technical, technological and organizational systems that increase the security of the state.
Social the effect is manifested in changing the content, nature and conditions of work, increasing the level and quality of life of the people, their general educational and professional level, in the development of culture, science, health and labor protection, safety precautions, improving environmental conditions, etc.
For applied sciences, as a rule, the determining effect is the economic effect, which is determined by the reduction in the total costs of production in the industry where the completed scientific research is being implemented.
Depending on the stages of work execution The following types of economic effect are distinguished:
· previous– at the stage of feasibility study of the feasibility of the study. It is calculated in general terms for a certain volume of implementation;
· expected– at the stage of scientific research. It is calculated based on forecasting the time of implementation of the results obtained into production for the period of use of the results obtained (up to 10 years from the start of their implementation);
· actual– after the implementation of scientific results into production and has a specific result. Its calculation is based on the actual costs of research and implementation, taking into account the economic indicators of the industry where these scientific developments will be introduced.
The potential economic effect is determined by general indicators for the possible volume of implementation. It serves as information and justification for the feasibility of widespread implementation of the results in production.
The expected economic effect is calculated when choosing the prospects of a research topic using mathematical and expert methods.
Mathematical method is based on the use of a system of indicators that determine the prospects of the study. In applied topics, the expected economic effect is calculated using the formula:
Where V– volume of production after implementation of the topic results;
C – cost of a unit of production, UAH;
R n – probability of scientific success in developing the topic;
R c – probability of implementation of scientific development;
T– duration of production implementation in years;
Zn, Zd, Zr – costs, respectively, for scientific research, for research and industrial development, annual costs for production, UAH.
The indicator of the prospects of a scientific topic can also be determined by the formula
, (4.2)
Where E o – total expected economic effect, UAH;
R p – probability of risk.
Quantities R n , R V , R p are set on the basis of forecasting.
Fundamental research begins to have an effect only after a certain period after the start of work. Their result can be used in various sectors of social production, even in those where the effect was not expected. Therefore, fundamental research is assessed on the basis of qualitative indicators:
· the possibility of widespread use of research results in various sectors of social production;
· novelty of phenomena, which promotes fundamentally relevant research;
· contribution to the security and defense capability of the country;
· environmental conservation;
· priority of domestic science and its international recognition.
When conducting scientific research, the economic effect is calculated in the following areas:
· creation of new technologies, means of production, a set of machines for branches of social production;
· improving the level of organization, management and production;
· study of social problems.
The time factor is of great importance in determining the effect of scientific research - from its beginning to the use of the results in production.
To assess the effectiveness of scientific research it is necessary scorecard which includes:
· representativeness(representativeness) – the number of indicators should be sufficient to describe scientific activity, and each of them should most fully reflect the work in this direction;
· additivity– indicators must be consistent with each other and mutually independent;
· unambiguity– indicators should be expressed in such a way as to avoid double interpretation and reduce the likelihood of errors;
· comparability– indicators should provide the possibility of their objective comparison over time and with indicators of other scientific departments;
· controllability– indicators must be calculated based on statistical data that are subject to control.
The effectiveness of research work, a team (research institute, design bureau, department, department of a university) can be assessed:
§ the number of introduced scientific topics;
§ the number of licenses sold and the amount of revenue from them;
§ labor productivity, determined from the ratio of the cost of research for the year to the average number of employees of the main and auxiliary personnel.
One of the indicators for assessing the effectiveness of scientific works and authors, especially in the West, is their citation rate, i.e. the number of references to these works and their authors in the works of other researchers. In our country, this indicator is used very rarely, but in the future it should become one of the main ones, since it characterizes the result obtained, even if it is negative.
A great contribution to scientific research should and can be made by scientific and pedagogical workers of universities of III and IV accreditation levels, which currently house more than two-thirds of the country’s total scientific personnel. Carrying out research work at the expense of state budget or economic contract funding, they are not only able to successfully solve major scientific problems, but also use them in the educational process, attract senior students to this work, instilling interest and developing abilities for scientific research, preparing their replacements .
The effectiveness of scientific research largely depends on the professional training of scientists and their optimal placement on the topics of their research work. Therefore, re-certification of scientific workers should be periodically carried out in order to establish the degree of compliance of the actual level of professional qualities with the requirements determined by the position held. For this purpose, a special commission is created, which works according to clearly developed criteria for assessing the work of those being certified.
Scientific effectiveness of the study determined by the increase in knowledge in a particular area that has occurred as a result of research.
It can be expressed in the number of patents obtained as a result of the research, copyright certificates, publications, citation ratings, etc.
To characterize applied research, the concept is more often used practical effectiveness of the research.
The scientific effectiveness of research turns into practical effectiveness in the process of implementing scientific knowledge obtained through research. The implementation of research results is an important element in the development of society and the organizational and production system.
In a market economy, the main driver of applied research (namely, most problems in the study of economic systems belong to this category) is a practical problem and the need to solve it at a level that ensures competitiveness.
Effective Research- this is a study that achieves its goals within a certain time, while the consumption of resources and risks do not exceed the planned volumes.
In a broader sense, the effectiveness of research is one of its characteristics, which shows how the costs of effort (or resources) to conduct it and the result (or the degree of achievement of the goal) correlate.
The effectiveness of research depends on research capacity factors.
Research potential reflects the ability to use resources and the degree to which a goal has been achieved.
Research potential factors are presented in three groups:
1) methodology;
2) resources;
3) organizational capabilities.
The methodological readiness of research potential is manifested in the presence of the purpose and mission of the research, the presence of concepts for the development of the company, research experience and the ability to use the necessary research methods and appropriate technical means.
The resource factor consists in the availability of the necessary personnel resources, economic, material and technical, information, and time resources.
The research potential of management includes the organizational capabilities of its implementation. They are manifested in the presence of organizational culture and type of organization, and the intellectual potential of management systems researchers.
The effectiveness of research depends on the principles of its design and implementation:
1) Principle of objectivity. According to this principle, in any study it is necessary to look for objective factors, connections, dependencies. This determines the success of the study. But using this principle does not mean that everything subjective must be excluded. Much in research is determined by intuition, its inexplicable influence on human behavior and the search for truth. The principle of objectivity is the principle of commensurate, comparison of factors with objective reality, this is a return to the objective, as the final result of reflection, analysis of ideas, thoughts, positions.
2) Systematic principle- this is the principle of searching and determining connections, integrity, comparing properties, finding the boundaries of the internal and external environment. This principle makes it possible to concentrate research on the main thing, evaluate connections, distinguish them into external and internal, and understand a property as a manifestation of the whole in one case and as a manifestation of a separate one in another.
3) The principle of consistency requires research using a specific, pre-developed technology. In using this principle, the answer to the question is of great importance: where to start and how to move towards the result?
4) The principle of determination means that any research must have a very specific goal. Research is not only the resolution of the problem that has arisen, but also the determination of what goal this resolution can lead to, and to what extent it contributes to the achievement of the goal. The goal determines the choice of solutions and the sequence of their development; the goal integrates activities in its most complex variants: multidimensionality, joint research, ramifications of research, complexity of the problem, etc.
5) The principle of freedom of thought determines the need to remove restrictions on the flight of thought, fantasy, imagination, ideas. The principle of thinking control suggests that thinking, like any process, should not be sporadic. It leads to research efficiency. This can be the management of the process of individual thinking or the process of group mental activity. Like any activity, research is based on the use of certain resources, the size and structure of which largely determine its effectiveness. Resources cannot be used thoughtlessly, but in an effort to obtain the desired result, one cannot thoughtlessly limit research to the necessary resources, hence the important principle of flexible resource saving. In some studies, it is very difficult to foresee and calculate quite accurately in advance how many resources will be needed to achieve the desired result. Therefore, the calculation of resources must be done with a reserve, understanding that the result of the study is not always quite predictable, sometimes it can be more significant than expected. Then, even if resources are overspent, the effectiveness of the research will still be high.
6) The principle of qualitative and quantitative certainty of research lies in the fact that, if possible, research should be carried out based on quantitative measures of parameters, indicators, but at the same time not losing the quality of the phenomena being studied, i.e. the totality of those properties that determine their essence and features.
7) The principle of providing research with facts is that research must be based on facts and select facts accordingly. This is the basis for the objectivity of the study, its success, and ultimately its effectiveness.
8) The principle of assessing labor intensity. Its essence lies in the fact that any research must be calculated according to the labor intensity of its implementation. Its organization, rational use of all resources, and, consequently, efficiency depend on this.
When assessing the effectiveness of a study performance criterion defined as a quantitative reflection of the degree to which the system achieves its goals.
In research management, it is more convenient to consider a criterion as a rule for selecting a preferred solution from a number of alternative ones.
In accordance with the predicted efficiency, the following options for solutions for the study of control systems can be distinguished:
1) ineffective, not allowing to solve the problem;
2) rational, i.e. allowing you to solve the problem;
3) optimal solution option - an option that allows you to solve the research problem in the best way, in the sense defined by the criterion, to build the best research system.
While there can be many ineffective and rational solutions, there is only one optimal solution.
Self-test questions
1. For what purpose and how is a scientific research hypothesis developed?
2. List the stages of the “research” stage
3. What is the purpose of a feasibility study?
4. List the main forms of presenting the results of scientific research.
5. List the main forms of testing the results of scientific research.
6. What is the difference between an abstract and an annotation?
7. What types of abstracts are there?
8. What is the practical effectiveness of research?
9. Criteria for scientific effectiveness of research?
- In contact with 0
- Google+ 0
- OK 0
- Facebook 0
