Titles are power

Academic degrees: what should they be like in the 21st century?

Our era of nanotechnology and the Internet requires us to reconsider many familiar things. Academic degrees are no exception.

In the Soviet Union, two academic levels (degrees) were established: candidate and doctoral. In general, they corresponded to the system of organizing scientific research: monumental, unhurried, unshakable, in which people left the scientific team only for retirement or the next world, and the position held in the temple of science (as academic institutes were called, and not without reason, I should note!) was more unshakable than the position of the priest in the Greek temple.

At the same time, the name “candidate’s degree” did not seem inadequate (as in our time, when candidates for science increasingly remain for life, despite the fact that the candidate’s degree is equated to the highest scientific degree in the United States of America - Ph.D.): it it only meant that a learned man (as women were also called in the 20th century) should not stop at the level of a “candidate scientist.” Holders of the following academic degree—doctoral degree—were considered full-fledged scientific workers.

Writing a doctoral dissertation was a kind of sacred act. The fact that after the defense it was, as a rule, put on a shelf and not read by anyone, did not surprise anyone. Once protected, the doctoral manuscript was declared scientifically significant for all times - like the title of winner of the Olympic Games, which neither in antiquity nor in modern times receive the prefix "ex". It was precisely because of this timelessness and inevitability that academic degrees were coveted by all authorities, including the highest - members of the Politburo.

In the modern world, the system of academic degrees requires revision. The problem of revising the traditional system of academic degrees exists not only in Russia, but also in Europe, which observes centuries-old traditions much more conservatively than America and Russia. The problem breaks down into two: firstly, what kind of system to create, and secondly, how to change a time-tested one so that it does not have to be created anew, destroying the existing one?

Objectively speaking, the doctoral dissertation in its modern form is an anachronism. Spending a year (or years) writing a doctoral dissertation is wasteful for society (funding the work) and pointless for the scientist. And most often also for science. After all, no one reads the vast majority of dissertations after their authors have been awarded an academic title. The process of writing a doctoral dissertation interrupts the scientific process of its author and provides absolutely nothing in itself to society.

In addition, we should not forget that the doctorate, as it was conceived in the 18th and 19th centuries (just like membership in the academies of sciences), was given for individual achievements. To receive a doctorate, to be accepted into the Royal Society, to become an academician for an administrative position or as a result of the work of a team working for a boss was, unlike in our time, almost unthinkable.

In a system that meets the requirements of the third millennium, the needs of society and common sense must be decisive. What should be fixed first? What does not contribute to scientific progress is wasteful and does not meet the needs of society.

First, despite the sharp increase in the number of knowledge workers, the number of monographs, which are absolutely necessary in the era of technological progress in all fields, is catastrophically declining. Writing them is simply not profitable for the authors, the efforts and time are not financially remunerated, and the risk of being criticized is great.

Secondly, academic degrees should stimulate not only and not so much digging into the depths of the problem to which the specialist was assigned with scientific infatuation by the supervisor, but movement along the trajectory of knowledge. Climbing the ladder of recognition as a scientist should, in particular, encourage interdisciplinary research.

Third, academic degrees and titles should be awarded for individual, not collective achievements. There are things that cannot be done collectively.

In the twenties of the last century, the brigade method of passing exams at workers' schools was invented in the USSR, but it died out and was ridiculed. But isn't it absurd that in obtaining academic degrees, the team method (everyone works for one - one gets for everyone) is an increasingly widespread practice at a higher level than student dissertations. This immoral reality, which makes it meaningless to assess the scientific level of an individual, must be blocked.

Finally, fourthly, the new system must exist for some time in parallel with the old one - otherwise there is a risk of destroying something that will be practically impossible to restore. The system of academic titles and honors proposed in this article satisfies these criteria.

The problem of objective assessment of a scientist’s activities is not in the foreground. An administrator in science is an absolutely necessary and important profession, but it is different: the title of People's Artist is not awarded to theater directors and impresarios, and the title of world boxing champion is not awarded to the coaching team. Scientific administrators must have other titles and other criteria for their qualifications. The title “Honored Worker of Science” , similar to those awarded to cultural figures (figures, not creators, not actual creators!) for heads of institutes who are brilliant managers, but (if it so happens) mediocre scientists (I repeat: these are different professions) , seems optimal. The head of science is a multi-athlete. He must understand science, management, diplomacy, and finance, but it is not necessary (like all-around athletes in sports) to show the highest performance in all these events. Giving the highest scientific honors by position is worse than immoral: this practice creates in society an extremely disrespectful attitude towards titles, which is dangerous both for society and for science.

The other side of the coin is that when distributing grants, an increasingly important role is played not by objective indicators of the level of research, but by belonging to one or another clan. Scientific gangs are no less dangerous and brazen than any other. All this makes the introduction of objective criteria for the level of achievements of a scientist (which the doctoral degree and even the title of academician in the public consciousness have ceased to be) absolutely necessary. But how to do this?

Recently, one of the outstanding Russian scientists expressed an interesting idea: in addition to the existing criteria for assessing the achievements of domestic scientists, when promoting careers, distributing grants, etc., take into account the citation index of their works in peer-reviewed journals. Brilliant idea! After all, you can increase your own citation index only by improving the quality of your publications and becoming a truly world-recognized scientist. Citation indices are published in the West; it is almost impossible to fake or organize them administratively. This is an objective indicator.

But in this case, it is natural to take one more step: to assign academic titles upon reaching a certain level in the citation index by one or another specialist. At the same time, gradations and adequate titles must be introduced, of which it seems optimal to make three: nationally recognized doctor , internationally recognized doctor , internationally recognized doctor . And they are awarded without protection at all - automatically, upon reaching a certain level. The establishment of appropriate badges with the presentation of corresponding diplomas seems natural.

It is reasonable to present the regalia solemnly, for example, the title of internationally recognized doctors can be awarded by the “doyen of science” - those who have the highest rating in a particular field in the country or in the world. Specialists who lead the rankings in a particular field should automatically be included in the commissions for distributing grants and identifying key areas of research both nationally and across research institutions. And one hundred (or, for example, 137 - world constant, Rydberg constant) scientists with the highest rating in Russia and in the world can form the Russian Academy of Knowledge (Honorary Legion of Knowledge) - while simultaneously receiving a purple robe, a badge of honor and a brocade ribbon over the shoulder.

This must be done in such a way that the ceremony is spectacular and broadcast to the whole world: for example, in the Constantine Palace, in the State Hermitage on the Longest White Night, or in the Kremlin. Such annual forums would not only serve the prestige of domestic science, but would also contribute to Russia’s return to the scientific and technological elite of the world. Organizational details can and should be discussed. But the feasibility of introducing an academic degree (or several degrees) in accordance with the citation index of a particular scientist seems simply necessary.

Now about other sad realities: the inconsistency of the “PhD” degree global standards, a sharp decrease in the number of monographs and the inefficiency of time spent on writing doctoral dissertations. These three problems can be solved simultaneously.

Firstly, I propose to rename the candidate's degree to doctorate. Secondly, in order to preserve respect for existing doctors of science, call them a little differently, but no less sonorously, for example, doctor-professor (double titles exist in some European countries). But further defense of doctoral dissertations, starting from a certain date, should be stopped.

Instead, it is advisable to introduce an expert academic degree for writing a monograph. The right to state-supported writing of a monograph with a guaranteed fee and circulation (for example, a thousand copies that will be distributed to libraries in all countries, and, therefore, the system will obviously pay for itself) should be granted to scientists who have achieved a certain rating in this field. At the same time, interdisciplinary research, as well as monographs in rapidly developing fields that become outdated in a few years, should be especially encouraged. The topic proposed by the applicant must be approved by one hundred scientists from the country or the world who have the highest rating in this field (if more than half of those who respond to the request speak positively).

Thus, the author truly declares himself to be an expert in a particular field: broad or narrow, traditional or interdisciplinary. “Expert studies” can be paid for in the same way as is done today in doctoral studies, but unlike the latter, such costs will be repaid a hundredfold. And for the scientist who thus declares himself as an expert, both for the country and for the world community.

The system for evaluating monographs can be made as objective as the citation index. An academic degree for writing it can be awarded not only and not so much by the academic council of the institute, but according to the reviews of colleagues at the top of the rating in the relevant field (an objective analogue of the Higher Attestation Commission).

Academic degrees based on citation indices (of which three are offered), and in parallel - an expert academic degree, will undoubtedly serve not only the interests of science, but also the interests of Russia. They do not infringe on the existing system in any way and do not destroy anything: for a certain time they can be awarded in parallel with doctoral dissertations in their current form, until the latter naturally die out, like dinosaurs.

An internationally organized system of “expertise” and the awarding of titles based on citation indices will help attract investments and grants, revive interest in Russian intellect, and increase the level of Russian science and technology. And ultimately, Russian intellectual and economic revival.

With the support of the Ministry of Education and Science, the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Russian Presidential Administration, with the participation of Russian scientists around the world and our non-Russian-speaking colleagues, the proposed system can be created and begin to function effectively within a year.

Yuri MAGARSHAK, professor, New York-Moscow