Universities, RAS and others. Biological series

Over a decade and a half in science, I somehow got used to the idea that science is done mainly in the institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences and, little by little, in other organizations. However, the article by M. Gelfand and D. Livanov [1] claims that this is not the case. Either my ideas are wrong, or this is an apparent contradiction. It is possible that different scientific disciplines are showing different trends. And what is true for science as a whole is not necessarily true for all its fields. For example, A. Kuleshov [2] argues that opposite trends take place in mathematics. As a biologist, it is logical for me to consider the situation in Russian biology.

The previous analysis showed that eight biological journals of MAIK-Nauka form a group of leaders [3]. Let’s take three of them out of the scope of analysis, in which the share of the host institute (naturally, RAS) is very large, and add two journals, the editorial board of which is not affiliated with any institute - “Biophysics” and “Human Physiology”. And let’s add two journals on “field” disciplines - “Ecology” and “Entomological Review”. A group of nine journals has emerged, representing leaders and laggards, laboratory and field disciplines studying the full spectrum of living organisms.

Let's divide scientific organizations into three groups: “Universities” (departments, faculties, research institutes, clinics, reserves - everything that is part of universities), “RAN” (institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences) and “Others” (institutes of “small” academies, departments and any other organizations) - and look at the publication activity of these groups in nine selected journals. We will analyze only original research articles, without considering reviews and articles devoted to events, persons, books, etc. To avoid the question of the contribution of different organizations to specific works, we will take into account only those articles in which all authors belong to the same category: only “ universities”, only “RAN” or only “Others”. Accordingly, we also do not consider articles with foreign co-authors. The sum of articles in three categories is taken as 100%. This approach reduces the number of analyzed works by approximately half and unevenly: almost 6 times in “Biochemistry” and only by a quarter in “Entomological Review”. However, it allows you to assess the capabilities of each group of organizations without “external help.” The results of the analysis are shown in the table. The table shows the names of the English-language versions of the journals, since they were analyzed (on the Springer website), and the content of the Russian-language versions may differ.

Share of articles by researchers from universities, Russian Academy of Sciences and other organizations in biological journals MAIK-Nauka

* Excluding No. 6, since at the time of writing this article (February 9, 2012) it was not yet available on the Springer website.

** Without taking into account thematic No. 7, in which % of the articles to be analyzed were written by authors from one institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. This structure of publications is completely atypical for other issues of this magazine.

According to the table, it can be seen that in seven of the nine journals, articles by RAS employees account for more than 50% (taking into account the 7th issue, the share of RAS would exceed 50% in “Human Physiology”). In general, RAS employees account for about 60% of the articles, and approximately 20% each were provided by university employees and researchers from other organizations. Noteworthy is the complete absence of independent articles by university staff in the journal Molecular Biology. Perhaps the staff of the NIIFChB MSU prefer to publish articles in this category in the journal Biochemistry.

In connection with the data presented in the article [1], it is interesting to see how the contribution of various groups of Russian biologists has changed over the past 5 years. This analysis is quite labor-intensive, so I limited myself to three journals. It is clear that if we take the journal Molecular Biology, then an increase in the share of publications by university researchers cannot be detected in principle. Probably, growth should be expected in those journals where the share of university publications is highest. These are the journals “Biophysics” (31.3%), “Biochemistry” (29.4%) and “Entomological Review” (26.5%). Data on the dynamics of the share of articles by researchers from universities, Russian Academy of Sciences and other organizations for 2006-2011 are shown in the figure. The principle of selecting articles is the same as for the table. Accordingly, 100% in these figures are only a portion of the articles published in these journals. Most are for EO, ​​about half are for Biophysics, and less are for Biochemistry.

It turns out that even in these journals we do not find an increase in the share of university publications over the past 5 years. All three journals describe the trend as very slightly decreasing. However, the decrease is not at all obvious. Rather, keeping it at the same level. But this is the dynamics in the most prosperous (according to 2011 data) journals. Let's compare with the dynamics of articles from other organizations. For RAS: in 2011 the average level was 61.5%, in Biophysics 46.3% was the result of a decline, in EO 61.2% was a maintenance of the level, and in Biochemistry 67.6% was the result of growth. For the “rest”: in 2011 the average level was 18.1%, in “Biochemistry” 2.9% was the result of a drop in share, in EO 12.2% was the result of a slight increase, in “Biophysics” 22.4% was the result stronger growth. Therefore, it is logical to assume that in journals with a high share of articles by university employees (>20%), their publication activity remains at the same level, and a low (<15-20%) share of articles in other journals is the result of a drop in their publication activity. The trend towards an increase in the publication activity of university biologists is invisible.

Thus, the analysis of this sample of articles leads to the conclusion that Russian biologists from universities make a significantly smaller contribution to publications than their colleagues from the Russian Academy of Sciences (3 times, according to this sample), and approximately the same as biologists from other organizations. not belonging to the Russian Academy of Sciences and universities. And over the past 5 years, the relative contribution of university biologists has not increased; it is quite possible that it has decreased. An analysis of publications from laboratories of our institute (IFR RAS) showed a very weak positive relationship between the number of articles published over the years in MAIK-Science journals and in international journals (not shown). Therefore, the explanation: they began to publish less here because they publish more “in the West” - has not yet been confirmed.

Now from the results to the discussion. I don’t yet understand exactly what advantages and changes in universities should have led to an increase in the number of publications. I periodically observe my native university, which has now been turned into a Federal University. In my opinion, the degradation of science there is faster than in the institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences that I know. The leaders are gone, qualified performers are at retirement age, but young people... somehow have no idea about “serious science.” There was an infusion of money. The professors were able to improve their living conditions, switch from trolleybuses to cars and engage in “scientific tourism”. We bought super-devices that almost no one could use, and restored the fleet of devices for routine work. Made repairs. The salary remained meager. A professor can get settled in life, especially if he has business acumen and is not burdened by thoughts about knowledge. I don’t know whether a higher proportion of young people and middle-aged employees is an advantage in such conditions ([1], Chart 4). Maybe. Does this advantage outweigh other disadvantages?

For example, it is from university employees that we hear complaints about excessive bureaucracy and the fact that “it is impossible to buy paper.” Our IFR is an example of a small institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences (about 150 research staff positions). Buying paper, reagents, and average equipment is not a problem, if only you had the money. The procurement department handles routine purchases; in the case of rare goods, there is a person who draws up contracts. Getting to the director is not at all difficult. There is a small but normally working group of the chief engineer. Help with housework. Everyone knows everyone. The laboratories actively cooperate with each other.

There are also problems - students. The most powerful laboratories do not have this problem. The problem is to retain a person after protection. The majority do not have their own housing in Moscow. But this is a Moscow-wide problem. Therefore, the rising cost of publications - maybe this is not so bad? More money for reagents, equipment, expeditions and salaries could mean a shift to more evidence-based work and a better standard of living for researchers. And this process is taking place both in the RAS and in universities, and universities are catching up with the RAS. Thus, in 2005, the difference in the price of one article between the Russian Academy of Sciences and universities was threefold, and in 2009 it decreased to twofold ([1], graph 2).

Universities, the Russian Academy of Sciences and other scientific organizations have many problems. Some are the same, others are different. It seems to me that the presence of different forms of organization of research science in our country is its advantage. Among other things, this is an opportunity for greater independence for ordinary researchers, an incentive for competition, and the opportunity to test different approaches.

Of the measures proposed in the article by M. Gelfand and D. Livanov [1], I would first of all support the involvement of smart employees of the Russian Academy of Sciences and other research organizations in teaching at universities. By the way, I recently heard from a Moscow State University employee that they are ready to give any lecture completely free of charge, as long as they are allowed to see the students. And stimulating laboratory mobility can also be very useful. Moreover, in any direction (why turn universities into traps for laboratories?): from academic/departmental institutes to universities and, conversely, from one university to another, etc.

Eukaryotes have shown that compartmentalization with active exchange of information and products allows for a huge variety of processes to occur within a single cell. Therefore, I believe that success awaits us not on the path of merger, but on the path of more effective integration of different things.

Evgeniy Lysenko,
Institute of Plant Physiology RAS

1. M. Gelfand, D. Livanov. Bring action back to science. Expert No. 38 (771), September 26 - October 2, 2011, p. 58-61 ( http://expert.ru/forum/expert-articles/17000/ ).

2. A. Kuleshov. A case of so-called lies. TrV-Nauka No. 21 (90), October 25, 2011, p. 6-7 ( http://trv-science.ru/2011/10/25/sluchajj-tak-nazyvaemogo-vranya/ ).

3. E. Lysenko. Biological journals of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Russian or international? TrV-Nauka No. 70, p. 8-9, January 18, 2011 ( http://trv-science.ru/2011/01/18/biologicheskie-zhurnaly-ran/ )