Get published or you won't become a doctor.

On April 8, 2011, at the Presidium of the Higher Attestation Commission, the expert councils were instructed to discuss the draft decision by the end of April, according to which, from January 1, 2012, to defend a doctoral dissertation, applicants will be required to have at least 15 articles in journals included in the List of the Higher Attestation Commission, and from applicants to candidate's degree - 3 articles. The mathematical community has engaged in an active discussion on this matter. Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Chairman of the Expert Council on Mathematics and Mechanics Viktor Vasiliev spoke out on the Polit.ru website against such a decision of the Higher Attestation Commission1. We are publishing the final version of proposals from the Expert Council of the Higher Attestation Commission on Mathematics and Mechanics2, which was the result of discussions in the mathematical community.

Recommendations for publishing the results of dissertation research in the field of mathematics and mechanics

1. All results of dissertation research in the field of mathematics and mechanics submitted for defense must be published in journals or serial publications that practice mandatory peer review of published articles and are included in the leading international citation databases: for mathematical specialties - MathSciNet, as well as Web of Science and Scopus.

A work is considered published from the moment its paper version is published or its electronic version becomes available to subscribers on the publisher’s website.

2. In the case of doctoral dissertations, these publications must necessarily contain evidence of all the main provisions and results submitted for defense, sufficient for their unhindered verification. In the case of excessively cumbersome intermediate layouts, graphic material and other technical details that are unattractive for high-level publications, it is allowed to post these fragments in the public domain on the electronic network with the obligatory indication of proper references to them in these publications. In addition, full evidence may be published in monographs published by well-known international or national scientific publishers that have a scientific editorial board or similar body, subject to independent review by the publisher.

Candidate's dissertations can be accepted for defense on the basis of brief publications that do not contain detailed evidence in publications that meet the conditions of clause 1, if complete evidence is available on the electronic network.

3. Remind applicants for academic degrees and dissertation defense councils that, in accordance with clause 3.6.2 of the Regulations on the Council for the Defense of Doctoral and Candidate's Dissertations, when accepting a dissertation for consideration, the dissertation council creates a commission from among the council members - specialists in the profile of the dissertation - for familiarization with the dissertation and submitting a conclusion to the council, including the completeness of the presentation of the dissertation materials in the works published by the author, as well as its compliance with the specialty according to the Higher Attestation Commission classifier. Failure to comply with the requirements for complete publication of the main results of the dissertation serves as grounds for refusal to accept the dissertation for defense by the dissertation council. To increase the responsibility of dissertation councils, send to the Expert Council of the Higher Attestation Commission reprints or photocopies of published articles and/or fragments of monographs that present the main results of dissertations.

4. When deciding whether to fulfill the above requirements, dissertation councils take into account, first of all, the quality, completeness, clarity and detail of presentation in publications, as well as the global status and prevalence of relevant journals and serial publications; One of the most important indicators of prevalence is the presence of these publications in English (for example, translated) versions.

5. Taking into account the significant public response caused by scientometric data, welcome the increase in the number of publications to the extent that this does not lead to a deterioration in their quality and unnecessary cluttering of the journal space (for example, to the artificial fragmentation of the presentation of an integral study into separately published parts, to duplication of presentation the same results, etc.). The number of publications in itself cannot serve as a criterion for the required completeness of publication of the results of a dissertation.

Chairman of the Expert Council on Mathematics and Mechanics
V.A. Vasiliev

* * *

We also publish reflections on the relationship between the number of articles and the quality of scientific work with the kind permission of the author of the text, 2010 Fields Medal winner Stanislav Smirnov.

Dear Viktor Anatolyevich!

I read with interest and concern your article about the project to reform the requirements of the Higher Attestation Commission1.

I completely share your concerns. For mathematics (and many other fields) the requirement of 15 papers on a PhD topic is impossibly high and counterproductive.

In my experience, a high-level mathematician who is clearly deserving of a PhD in some field often has only 3-6 publications in that field. Often after this he becomes bored and goes to another area. Therefore, setting unreasonably high demands will primarily hit leading scientists, forcing them to cut their results into articles, like salami, instead of doing scientific work. The result is wasted time, publications in lower-level journals, and the contemptuous attitude of foreign colleagues.

There are many more expressive examples when even one or two publications are clearly enough. (For example, Lennart Carleson, winner of the Great Lomonosov Gold Medal of the Russian Academy of Sciences and one of the greatest mathematicians of our time, wrote only two articles on smooth dynamical systems, together with Benedix. But the existence of strange attractors was proven there! So, is this not worthy of a doctorate?! ) Therefore, I would not set clear restrictions, but would introduce recommendations on the number of articles depending on the quality.

What are the best rules to set?

In an ideal world, I would recommend paying attention to the quality of articles and journals rather than the quantity of publications. If numbers are needed, for mathematicians I would recommend at least 2-3 articles for a candidate’s thesis and 4-6 articles for a doctorate with the possibility of defending with a smaller number (yes, in mathematics one article is often sufficient for a doctorate!) In this case, emphasis should be placed on, if possible, publication of at least half of the results in prominent Western journals. This would raise the level of dissertations, increase the visibility of Russian mathematics abroad (and - as a result - strengthen international cooperation).

What happens if you decide on 15 articles?

Or mathematicians will waste time and reputation on cutting the results into small pieces, and this will lower the level of Russian science. Or the truly good scientists will stop defending their dissertations, and our degree system will become meaningless. I don't know which of the two possibilities is better.

Sincerely,
Stanislav Smirnov,
Professor, University of Geneva,
g.s.s. St. Petersburg
state university

* * *

TrV-Nauka asked a number of scientists to share their thoughts on how the introduction of new requirements of the Higher Attestation Commission would be reasonable for the scientific discipline in which the researcher works; whether it will contribute to improving the quality of dissertations in this and neighboring fields. We publish the comments received.

Sergey Popov, Ph.D. physics and mathematics Sciences, senior researcher State Astronomical Institute named after. PC. Sternberg Moscow State University:

— I am opposed to maintaining the doctorate as such. Especially based on writing a lengthy dissertation. If we are talking about assessing the contribution of a mature scientist, then a council consisting of experts is able to do this on already published works. Maintaining a doctorate in some sense suggests that the various boards are unable to provide an expert assessment of the scientist's research level, and therefore are forced to accept someone else's assessment, expressed in terms of the doctorate.

All special recommendations, lower limits, etc. from the side of the Higher Attestation Commission they only say that a very large number of dissertation councils, in the opinion of the Higher Attestation Commission, cannot be trusted. Therefore, if we are still talking about how you can defend against weak doctoral dissertations without canceling your degree altogether, then you need to apply measures to advice, and not to dissertations. But, apparently, the Higher Attestation Commission cannot or does not want to do something about weak (or corrupt) advice.

It’s strange to me that the Higher Attestation Commission sets some unified requirements and recommendations for dissertations in different fields. The specificity of different areas of activity is such that the use of a single quantitative criterion simply looks ridiculous.

In our field, what we call weak doctoral dissertations obviously pass the stated criteria. In our country, it is typical for a doctoral dissertation to have about 20 articles not just in “journals included in international databases,” but in journals with an average impact higher, say 0.5-1. But this does not guarantee quality at all. But now the council will more easily overlook weak work, because “even the new toughened formal requirement of the Higher Attestation Commission will be met.” In general, it is clear that the final decision on awarding a doctorate is so “distributed” that no one bears responsibility, and only a few of the council members held the dissertation in their hands, let alone read it. An increase in the number of additional conditions that are, in principle, easily fulfilled only reduces the motivation of the council to provide an adequate expert assessment of the work.

However, it is clear that the Higher Attestation Commission is primarily fighting not with weak doctorates in the field of astrophysics, but with a murky stream of works in economics, political science, pedagogy, etc. and so on. But even here it is important to influence the councils, and not to increase the income of journals that are included in the databases and publish any nonsense for a small share. The indicative dissolution of several dozen councils with a ban on their chairmen joining any councils in the future might have had some effect. But it would be more useful to simply cancel the Ph.D. In the end, if a person is hired as a serious-level researcher or professor, the academic council or its equivalent still votes on his candidacy. That is, a decision is made by a council of experts who, theoretically, are interested in adequately assessing the level of the applicant.

As for candidate's degrees, the requirements of the Higher Attestation Commission look different, but no better. You can write a very good dissertation based on three strong journal publications (and the journals will be of a high world level). But according to the new rules, this will not work, but 5 articles in the “Murzilka” “from the database” with an impact of 0.01 will be just right.

It's quite strange.

If I were the Higher Attestation Commission, I would work more actively with the councils. I would apply strict measures to those who missed weak or questionable work. I would encourage the strong and strict, for example, by financing the possibility of paying for business trips to opponents, paying for travel for dissertation candidates (this would be quite reasonable: giving a little money so that a person goes to defend himself before a council that makes more stringent demands), etc. It would also be worth thinking about how to more actively use representatives of the diaspora and simply foreign scientists as opponents (to do this, it is necessary to make the procedure for writing dissertations in English simpler and more accessible).

Vladimir Gelman, Ph.D. watered Sciences, Professor of the European University in St. Petersburg:

— Regarding the first part of the question, I can say briefly: if we are talking about the international databases Web of Science and Scopus, then not a single Russian political science journal is included there. If the recommendation of the Higher Attestation Commission is implemented, then in Russia doctoral dissertations in political sciences will probably not be defended in the coming years, since the number of Russian political scientists who have more than 5 publications in journals included in the Web of Science and Scopus lists is extremely small, and it is unlikely to increase quickly.

Regarding the second part: two years ago I answered questions in some detail about the reorganization of the graduate school system ( www.polit.ru/science/2009/07/21/aspirantura.html ). My then answer to the last question - about the role and place of the Higher Attestation Commission in science according to James Scott - I am ready to repeat again.

Yakov Gilinsky, Dr. legal sciences, head Department of Criminal Law, Faculty of Law, Russian State Pedagogical University named after. A.I. Herzen, prof. Department of Criminal Law of the St. Petersburg Law Institute (branch) of the Academy of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation, Dean of the Faculty of Law of the Baltic Institute of Ecology, Politics and Law:

— A good knowledge of our criminal statistics, medical statistics, and, obviously, other departmental statistics indisputably indicates that in the conditions of a totally corrupt Russia that has not freed itself from its Soviet past (“There are three types of lies: lies, blatant lies and statistics,” so one wise person characterized this) no quantitative indicators can serve as a more or less reliable means of characterizing anything. They will “chase the linden” according to any quantitative indicator proposed for evaluating activities!

The more Vakov articles are demanded, the more of them will be published for money or “through connections.” Yes, perhaps, their quality will be lower and lower (the pursuit of quantity always has a negative impact on quality...). Requiring some minimum may be appropriate (for example, 3 for candidates and 5 for doctors), but it also very relatively determines the quality of the dissertation.

Dissertations, especially doctoral ones (!), are of terrible quality. I know this well as a real or potential opponent, scientific consultant, scientific supervisor.

There are no ways to improve the quality of dissertations “baked” in an incredible number of dissertations, except for the conscientiousness of scientific supervisors, scientific consultants, and opponents. But how can you hope for this?? (Of course, I do not exclude such conscientious participants in the dissertation process, but “they are terribly far from the people”...).

I repeat, in conditions of total corruption in Russia in all spheres and levels of life, in conditions of mandatory commands “from above” (including decisions of dissertation councils and the Higher Attestation Commission), in conditions of “everything is for sale” (after all, many “offices “guarantee the writing of high-quality dissertations on a turnkey basis with the provision of the “necessary” opponents and dissertation councils - look on the Internet!) nothing can be done.

Prepared by Natalia Demina

1 April 20, 2011 www.polit.ru/science/2011/04/20/vasilyev_vak.html “Away from the lists, ”

2 First published on www.polit.ru/dossie/2011/05/13/math_vak.html