In the footsteps of megagranes - 1

According to the wishes of the participants in the crowdfunding “Expert Corps” (KE) [ 1 ], we begin a series of publications based on the declared lots with the consideration of megagrators in physics and biology. The time is, since 2020 comes, and megagant “measures to attract leading scientists” were taken as part of the state program for the development of science and technology for 2013–2020 [ 2 ].

In the first part of the tour of the traces of megaggraants, we present some results of the systematization of the information available on the portal [ 2 ] about the allocated megaggrandi in physics and biology (1st-6th contests of 2010–2017), as well as the most general information about the publications that resulted in megagagant financing. In total, out of 236 megagrators of these competitions, we attributed to physics and biology 103 (Table 1). A detailed table with surnames, grant numbers, organizations and other information is available on the KE website [ 3 ].

Table 1. The number of megagrators in physics and biology

Number/year of the competition

1/2010

2/2011

3/2013

4/2014

5/2016

6/2017

All

Interdisciplinary projects were included in this sample if the physical or biological component dominated them. Of the projects in physics, approximately half (27) refers to the physics of the condensed state, the rest are more or less evenly distributed between quantum optics (7, often with a significant Cond-Mat component), high-energy physicist (7), purely applied physics (7) and plasma physics (5). Two more of the project included mainly to mathematical physics (in this area there are others, with a more pronounced mathematical component - they are not considered now). In biological projects, molecular biology clearly dominates, and other sections are mainly represented in combination with it (genetics - 7, medicine - 7, total biology - 5, organismal biology - 4).

A little less than a third of leading scientists - physicists and biologists - “real foreigners”, more than half represent the Russian scientific diaspora (Table 2). We attributed those who worked outside Russia for a long time and could, accordingly, bring some foreign experience to megagram laboratories (there are representatives of the diasporas that began parallel work in Russia before receiving a megaggrant within other projects). Two geographical differences between megagrators in physics and biology are presented significant: the latter is much more focused on the American continent and is less prone to the choice of leading scientists from among the constantly working in the Russian Federation.

Table 2. Where did the invited scientists come from

The estimated assessment of the age distribution (Table 3) shows that more than 2/3 of the invited scientists have not yet reached the age of Emeritus, that is, they inevitably combine the leadership of a megagraming laboratory with active work in another organization (often in another city, country). For comparison, the lower line of the table contains a similar distribution in the year of the first publication for our “active list” [ 4 ] - almost 8 thousand Russian and Russian -speaking scientists with the citation of the work of the last seven -year period at least 100. Regarding the distribution for the invited scientists, it is shifted in the “youngest” side. That is, for the invited leading scientists in Russia there is a younger, but already active contingent, there is someone to create laboratories from.

Table 3. The age of invited scientists for the year of the first publication. For comparison, the last line shows a similar age distribution (“Active List” [ 4 ])

Until 1965
(veterans)

1965-1974
(pensioners)

1975-1984
(young pensioners)

1985–1994
(Mature scientists)

1995 and later (young scientists)

For an approximate comparison with the geographical distribution of megagrators in physics and biology (Table 4), we used the distribution of the cited Russian scientists from the lists [ 4 ], see the last line of the table. And they were pleasantly surprised: the megagrators are shifted towards the capitals a little weaker than the permanent Russian science. According to the number of accumulated megagrators regarding physics and biology, Nizhny Novgorod (14) and Novosibirsk (11) are very noticeable. The prevailing “settlement” of megagrators at universities is probably reflecting the unkind memory of the ministerial slogan about the “transfer of science to universities”. Outside universities and institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences, only three grants in biology and one in physics are located.

Table 4. Accepting Russian organizations

1 Yekaterinburg, Kaliningrad, Kazan (2), Magnitogorsk, Nizhny Novgorod (10), Saratov, Togliatti, Ulyanovsk

2 Novosibirsk (5), Tomsk (3)

3 Kazan, Krasnodar, Nizhny Novgorod (4), Petrozavodsk, Saratov, Sevastopol

4 Vladivostok, Krasnoyarsk (3), Novosibirsk (6), Tomsk

The organizers of the megagram program did not hide from the public that they solve (including?) The task of increasing the number of Russian publications in WOS. We tried to imagine how the corresponding results from the outside are visible, that is, when searching for a grant number. The numbers are mainly available on the portal [2], the rest - except for one - are found in open sources. The unacceptable number, possibly, was not assigned, since in several articles of the invited scientist a reference to the megagant is given in the 220 Government of the Russian Federal format. It is not possible to find a single article on two grant numbers in WOS (including in any distorted spelling, when viewing all ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS in the articles of managers). In Fig. 1 Summarizes about the megaggrates of the 1st-5th competitions, for which a three-year period has already been completed. Many megagrators were extended, the most typical publication period is 5-6 years.

‌

The first impressions of these schedules are as follows.

1. High yields for the ministry (conditionally - more than 10 articles per year at the laboratory, which is not uncommon for ordinary strong Russian laboratories) were able to provide about 20% of megagrators.
2. About a quarter did not go beyond the conditional line of 5 articles per year on the laboratory (this is the average level of an effective Russian scientific group in many natural sciences). Some megagraman projects were discontinued ahead of schedule, in particular, cases of termination due to non-sequence by the Russian side of the contract terms are known. But many lean megagrators continued to be funded, and even with extension.
3. “Productivity in physics” is slightly higher than “Productivity in Biology” (Fig. 1a).
4. The special differences in the yields reached by leading scientists from different groups (foreigners, representatives of the diaspora and “local”) are not found (Fig. 1b).

In general, at first glance, nothing particularly fruitful. And for projects in physics and biology of the 6th competition, the situation is close. For 10 of them, publications have been discovered since 2018, for another 3 - since 2019. The number of articles over two years of these projects is from 2 to 32, it exceeds 10 articles/year in two megagers, below 5 articles/year of seven out of thirteen. Note: a very typically simultaneous indication in the articles of the megagaant in combination with other (sometimes even 5) sources of funds. That is, megagranes mainly fell into groups, successful in financing and not managing to ensure that they have obtained by various publications. Or the volume of megagrators is too small for the development of their expensive science - and you have to tighten other means. One way or another, those who wish to calculate the cost of a megagraman article should be normalized taking into account this parallel financing of the same studies.

But it is unlikely that the absolute number of articles can be measured by real benefits from megagrators, if any. The following useful results can be imagined:

• the emergence of new laboratories that continue to work after the completion of all extensions of megagrators;
• strengthening previously existing laboratories (for example, their conclusion to a new level of international cooperation);
• The rapid growth of young scientists under the wing of the invited.

We plan to tell about what signs of this positive in information about publications, we plan in the following materials of this series for the TRV-hobby. The subject of analysis is the collected information about the “contribution” of articles with the participation of an invited scientist to an array of “megagrators” articles, about joint publications with a leading scientist, supported by the following projects after megagrants, about the dynamics of the publications of key employees of megagraming laboratories before and after a megager. Continuation of the tour of the trail of megagrators-in the next issue of the TRV-hunger (January 14, 2020).

If readers have specific proposals, what to analyze in this context, we will definitely consider them - please send them to the email address
Corr.lists@gmail.com until January 5.

Galina Zirina, Mikhail Feigelman, Ekaterina Malinkina