This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright without restrictions for their published content in this journal. HSSR is a SHERPA ROMEO Green Journal.
Publishing License
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of 
FACTORS IN MANAGING PUBLICATION PRODUCTIVITY IN RUSSIAN UNIVERSITIES
Corresponding Author(s) : Gennady V. Osipov
Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews,
Vol. 8 No. 5 (2020): September
Abstract
Purpose of the study: Justification of the factors of effectiveness in managing publication productivity on the example of Russian universities. Specifically, this research focuses on Russia’s universities’ important role in the publication productivity development in these universities.
Methodology: The study’s methodological basis incorporated multivariate statistical analysis, clustering, and multifactor regression modeling. The methods used for aggregation and data transformation were graph theory and questionnaires.
Main findings: This research proved that the quality, not quantity, of Russian university scientific publications, contributes to their increased citations, which appears to influence determining a useful model for university publication productivity management. It also established that the fundamental factors of effective Russian university publication productivity management are an increase in the number of young teachers with academic degrees and the popularization of science as a prestigious sphere of professional activity in Russia.
Study applications: A reasonable system of factors may become the core for determining the priorities and unique mechanisms of transition from extensive to intensive development of publication productivity in Russian universities, taking into account individual characteristics of their research activities. This measure will prove beneficial to increasing the scientific potential of respective universities, which will, in turn, contribute to better ensuring the publication flow of quality research papers in universities.
Study novelty/originality: This study’s originality lies in providing an empirical assessment of university publication productivity factors, which enabled a more precise method to determine the most reliable balance between scientific publications’ quality and quantity. This balance also resulted in increased citations and stimulated Russian universities’ scientific activity.
Keywords
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)BibTeX
References
About KTH Royal Institute of Technology. (2019). Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/kth-royal-institute-technology
Akhmetova, Ya. M., & Mukhametzyanova, L. K. (2013). Youth in science: development of a young scientist. Theory and Practice of Social Development, 6, 48–50. http://teoria-practica.ru/rus/files/arhiv_zhurnala/2013/6/s%D0%BEci%D0%BEl%D0%BEgiy%D0%B0/akhmetova-mukhametzyanova.pdf
Analytical Center for the Government of the Russian Federation. (2014). Strategy for Russia’s innovative development up to 2020. http://ac.gov.ru/files/attachment/4843.pdf
Baker, S. (2019). Research publications: does piling them high sell them short? Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/research-publications-does-piling-them-high-sell-them-short?fbclid=IwAR240vJ_ylX1KSrp70RZD7W8XW1MxRonI7Afs-K1BFncmnpGOhtV7k6r6P4
Ball, P. (2005). Index aims for fair ranking of scientists. Nature, 436, 900. https://doi.org/10.1038/436900a
Becker, G. (2013). The economic approach to human behavior. University of Chicago Press.
Birkmaier, D., & Wohlrabe, K. (2014). The Matthew effect in economics reconsidered. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 880-889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.08.005
Bohdan, N. (2019). Education and science for innovative development of the Eurasian Economic Union countries (Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan). In B. Nchindila & T. Corrigan (Eds.), The essence of academic performance. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.84574
Bordons, M., Fernández, M. T., & Gómez, I. (2002). Advantages and limitations in the use of impact factor measures for the assessment of research performance. Scientometrics, 53(2), 195-206. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014800407876
Bornmann, L. (2019). Does the normalized citation impact of universities profit from certain properties of their published documents – such as the number of authors and the impact factor of the publishing journals? A multilevel modeling approach. Journal of Informetrics, 13(1), 170-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.12.007
Butler, L. (2005). What happens when funding is linked to publication counts? In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 389–405). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2755-9_18
Carayol, N., & Matt, M. (2006). Individual and collective determinants of academic scientists’ productivity. Information Economics and Policy, 18(1), 55-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoecopol.2005.09.002
Else, H. (2019). The 1 percent at the centre of research. Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/the-1-per-cent-at-the-centre-of-research/2014812.article
Erokhina, E. (2019). Russian science at Scopus and WoS: quantity or quality. Indicator. https://indicator.ru/article/2019/02/08/rossijskaya-nauka-v-scopus-i-wos-kolichestvo-ili-kachestvo/
Fox, M. F. (2005). Gender, family characteristics, and publication productivity among scientists. Social Studies of Science, 35(1), 131-150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312705046630
Hermanowicz, J. C. (2006). What does it take to be successful? Science, Technology, and Human Values, 31(2), 135-152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243905283637
Hesli, V. L., & Lee, J. M. (2011). Faculty research productivity: Why do some of our colleagues publish more than others? PS: Political Science and Politics, 44(2), 393-408. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096511000242
Hicks, D. (2012). Performance-based university research funding system. Research Policy, 41, 251-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.007
Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520, 429-431. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a
Jump, P. (2019). Metrics: how to handle them responsibly. Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/metrics-how-to-handle-them-responsibly
Katchanov, Y. L., & Shmatko, N. A. (2014). Complexity-based modeling of scientific capital: An outline of mathematical theory. International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences, 2014, 785058. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/785058
Klein, P. G., & Cook, M. L. (2006). T.W. Schultz and the human-capital approach to entrepreneurship. Review of Agricultural Economics, 28(3), 344-350. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9353.2006.00297.x
Kolesnikov, S., Fukumoto, E., & Bozeman, B. (2018). Researchers’ risk-smoothing publication strategies: Is productivity the enemy of impact? Scientometrics, 116(3), 1995-2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2793-8
Kosyakov, D., & Guskov, A. (2019). Impact of national science policy on academic migration and research productivity in Russia. Procedia Computer Science, 146, 60-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.01.080
Kühn, D., Osthus, D., Townsend, T., & Zhao, Yi. (2017). On the structure of oriented graphs and digraphs with forbidden tournaments or cycles. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series B, 124, 88-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jctb.2016.12.008
Larivière, V., & Costas, R. (2016). How many is too many? On the relationship between research productivity and impact. PLoS ONE, 11(9). e0162709. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162709
Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673-702. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312705052359
Matthews, D. (2019). Academics who publish frequently ‘have more highly cited articles’. Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/academics-who-publish-frequently-have-more-highly-cited-articles
Menke, W. (2018). Factor analysis. In Geophysical data analysis (pp. 207–222). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813555-6.00010-1
Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation. (2019a). Draft order “On the approval of performance indicators for federal budget and autonomous educational institutions of higher education, subordinate to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation, and the work of their leaders”. https://regulation.gov.ru/projects#npa=93569
Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation. (2019b). Publication productivity in Russia: what do Scopus and Web of Science say? https://www.5top100.ru/en/news/100908/
Moed, H. F. (2009). New developments in the use of citation analysis in research evaluation. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, 57, 13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00005-009-0001-5
Mongardini, C., & Tabboni, S. (Eds.). (2018). Robert K. Merton and contemporary sociology. Routledge.
Osipov, G., Karepova, S., Ponkratov, V., Karaev, A., Masterov, A., & Vasiljeva, M. (2020). Economic and mathematical methods for ranking Eastern European universities. Industrial Engineering & Management Systems, 19(1), 273-288. https://doi.org/10.7232/iems.2020.19.1.273
Pavelieva, T. Yu. (2016). About the prestige of a scientist profession. Socio-Political Sciences, 3, 145–147.
Podtserob, M. (2017). Why Russian universities do not raise high in international rankings. Vedomosti. https://www.vedomosti.ru/management/articles/2017/10/17/738144-vuzi-ne-podnimayutsya
Presidium of the Presidential Council for Strategic Development and National Projects. (2018). National Project “Science”. http://www.rshu.ru/university/science/documents/get_file.php?id=59
QS rating: 10 Russian universities entered the top 100 in selected specializations. (2019). Indicator. https://indicator.ru/news/2019/02/26/rejting-qs-2019/
Reid, N. (2015). Statistical sufficiency. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 418–422). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.42178-1
Roshchina, Ya. M., & Yudkevich, M. M. (2009). Factors of research activities of university teachers: administration policy, contract incompleteness or environmental impact? Education Issues, 3, 203–228.
Rousseau, R., Egghe, L., & Guns, R. (2018). Statistics. In: R. Rousseau, L. Egghe & R. Guns (Eds.), Becoming metric-wise (pp. 67–97). Chandos Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102474-4.00004-2
Ryan, J. C., & Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (2016). Motivational recipes and research performance: A fuzzy set analysis of the motivational profile of high performing research scientists. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 5299-5304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.128
Rybakov, A. V. (2012). The role of young scientists in strengthening the scientific potential of the academy. Scientific and Educational Problems of Civil Security, 1, 1–3.
Sathianathen, N. J., Lane, R. III, Murphy, D. G., Loeb, S., Bakker, C., Lamb, A. D., & Weight, C. J. (2020). Social media coverage of scientific articles immediately after publication predicts subsequent citations - #SoME_Impact Score: observational analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(4), e12288. https://doi.org/10.2196/12288
Scimago Journal & Country Rank. (2019). https://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php
Silman, F. (2014). Work-related basic need satisfaction as a predictor of work engagement among academic staff in Turkey. South African Journal of Education, 34(3), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.15700/201409161119
Stephan, P. (2012). Perverse incentives. Nature, 484, 29-31. https://doi.org/10.1038/484029a
Van Norman, G. A., & Eisenkot, R. (2017). Technology transfer: From the research bench to commercialization: Part 2: The commercialization process. JACC: Basic to Translational Science, 2(2), 197-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacbts.2017.03.004
Weingart, P. (2005). Impact of bibliometrics upon the science system: Inadvertent consequences? Scientometrics, 62, 117-131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0007-7
Yusuf, F. N., Omolayo, B. O., & Azikiwe, J. C. (2015). Influence of gender, work environment, length of service and age of academic staff on attitude to work. People: International Journal of Social Sciences, 2(1), 1481-1489. https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2016.s21.14811489
Zhang, M., Zhang, G., Liu, Y., Zhai, X., & Han, X. (2020). Scientists’ genders and international academic collaboration: An empirical study of Chinese universities and research institutes. Journal of Informetrics, 14(4), 101068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2020.101068