KRN named after I. Susanin and her defenders

The discussion around the “map of Russian science”, which was begun in the Trv-hunger No. 143, continues the polemic article by the doctor. physical. sciences, deputy. Director of the Institute of Theoretical Physics. L.D. Landau RAS, Professor MIPT, member of the working group of the project “Corps of Experts” by Mikhail Feigelman .

The “map of Russian science” is intended to present the most complete data on individual researchers and scientific institutions of Russia, which, in turn, “can be used to assess the effectiveness and competitiveness of Russian science, to make managerial and financial decisions in relation to scientific organizations and collectives, as well as for the development of measures for the further development of scientific activity” (from the application for the competition won by the company "Prisovorkhaskupers Rasha B.V.").

An interesting phenomenon is a discussion about the “map of Russian science” (hereinafter referred to as the KRN), published in the TRV-NAUKA, No. 143 of December 3, 2013. When reading materials on this topic (there are quite a lot of them), a feeling of approximately from government Russian television of the early 2000s arises. This is not to say that completely one propaganda, as is adopted today. However, the displacement of accents from the discussion of reality to not entirely understandable private circumstances is evident. The ratio of the volume of materials “Pro et Contra” (p. 4-5) is about 3 to 1. The reader who “from the frost” undoubtedly gives the impression that the progressive scientific community “in general-for”, and all sorts of remarks about flaws and typos are trifles, well, of course, who does not have anything, only those who do nothing.

I will try to show that in reality the KRN directly falls under the formulation of Mikhail Bulgakov about the “so -called lies”, and very large -scale. However, I will begin with an almost ritual phrase from the statement of the Commission of Public Control over the progress and results of reforms in the field of science: “We do not deny the usefulness of the very idea of ​​creating a single information system for Russian science.” It turns out that to my surprise, there are people who deny "this idea itself." Sometimes they are even quite aggressive. However, below, we will not talk about these strange characters, but about the blessed attempts to reconcile us with the inevitability of lies.

Among the many comments on the topic of the KRN , the selection of the most important errors of the “map” , carefully systematized by archaeologist Irina Saprykina on behalf of the commission, is distinguished by its thoroughness. First, consider the list given at the beginning of the text (the procedure for listing!):

“ The“ map of Russian science ”, presented for open testing, due to the incorrect ideological basis adopted by the developers, contains the following system errors, which requires the work of highly qualified data analysis specialists for a long time:

1. the use of the classifier (rubricator) of scientific areas that are not applicable to existing areas in Russian science;
2. arbitrary selection (grouping) of scientific institutions for rubric;
3. lack of control by the level of random coincidences;
4. the inconsistency of the numerical indicators of the real values ​​(by the number of composition of scientific institutions, by the number of publications in WOS and RINC, patents, according to the citation index), errors when operators transfer data from one database to another;
5. incorrect selection of “leading” institutions or researchers (always 5), built on the use of arbitrary features that do not have a connection with each other (either data on WOS, or RINC, or alphabetical order, or rubricator, etc.);
6. The low quality of technical support for the site, the dependence of its work on the browser, the lack of data correlation. ”

We will still return to the discussion of these mistakes, but first we compare their list with comments, which quote as “basic”, and to which they answer O. Moskalev and A. Tsyganov in the mentioned number of the TRV-hunger:

Olga Moskaleva:

• a mismatch of information about the number of publications of the scientist in WOS or RINC with what can be seen in the “map of science”, as well as the incorrect “binding” of publications to scientists;
• Inappropriate information about organizations as a whole - the number of employees, the number of academicians, doctors, etc.;
• The emergence of non -core scientific areas in information about institutions.

Andrey Tsyganov:

• Different information about the number of publications and quotations of the scientist in WOS, RINC and the “map of science”;
• taking into account the Russian and translated version of the articles in the personal card of the scientist;
• incorrect information about organizations as a whole, for example, the number and composition of employees;
• The list of all, including non -core, scientific areas in information about institutions, etc. etc.

As you can see, Mrs. Moskaleva and Mr. Tsyganov identify mainly private manifestations of the only system error (clause 4), ignoring other substantive points. In the last place, each of these colleagues mentions a circumstance associated with the most important systemic error (clause 1), pretending that this is one of the private and fixable remarks.

It is more convenient for them to answer questions about the privileges, and they do it in a rather general form. Olga Moskaleva’s main answer to her claims: “All these mistakes are completely inevitable and easily explained.” This reminds me of the answer of the next police chief to the question of the next atrocity of his subordinates: "We have this society." This association is not random: O. Moskaleva is a member of the working group formed by the Ministry of Education and Science to solve the methodological issues of the project. We will return to this. The whole commentary of O. Moskaleva proceeds from the logic of the “domestic producer” - we will not compare the goods with the terms of reference to it, we will better explain why it was impossible to do anything else in this heavy climate.

Andrei Tsyganov has even better: “The matter is not in the data, but in the rules for processing and evaluating information ...” Think, ladies and gentlemen! It would be okay if the representative of Artbogema wrote it, otherwise-Dr. Fiz.-Mat. Sciences and member of OHR. It is good that not all members of the OHR use this logic: there is a clear comment by the geochemist Alexei Ivanov, and he is much shorter (not by chance) of the materials of the working group quoted above.

Let's get back to the point. If paragraphs 1-6 are too much for these members to perceive them, indicating three systemic problems. The first (and key) is formulated in paragraph 1 above: the use of the classifier (rubricator) of scientific areas that are not applicable to existing areas in Russian science. I will add from myself: not only this “classification” is not applicable to Russian science, but also to science.

Distraction of a historical nature. I participated in one of the first public meetings in the Ministry of Education and Science on the topic of “maps of Russian science” in late autumn 2012. The meeting was led by the deputy. Minister Igor Fedyukin, about 30 people participated, of which there were no more than five scientists representing natural or technical sciences (including Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences A. Khokhlov). The discussion was very active, the main speaker was the representative of the Prisvoterkhaskupers Rasha B.V. ”, either I. Fedyukin or S. Salikhov answered the questions addressed to the speaker.

The question of the classification scheme, which is supposed to be used when creating a “card”, was raised many times. The explanations of that obvious (for scientists) fact that the Web of Science classification scheme is not used here, because it is not intended for the purpose of magazines, not areas of scientific research). The answers of I. Fedyukin were reduced to the promises "take into account the wishes of scientists."

At the end of the meeting, it was promised to summarize its results and send a detailed discussion protocol. This has never been done, and quite consciously (I myself reminded the organizers
About the promised protocol and received in response, ministerial unsubscribes by e-mail). Already at this stage it became clear to me that the leaders of the Ministry of Education and Science planned not “discussion with the scientific community”, but an imitation of such a discussion. Their plan was already ready, and he did not imply discussions on the merits. As a result, this was exactly what happened (see the commentary of A. Ivanov).

Many of my colleagues, following the call to participate in the announced “discussion”, subsequently came to meetings in the Ministry of Education and Science, found that they were going to keep them for “fools in the Forest”, and left. This is a natural reaction of scientists engaged in their real business. You can distract from him for a while for the sake of participating in an important public initiative, but certainly not for the sake of imitation controlled by bureaucrats.

The incorrect classification of scientific disciplines automatically leads to most of the fatal consequences for KRN. In particular, the specified in paragraphs are also associated with it. 2 and 5 system errors. No activity of individual scientists to put the data on their own publications can correct the initial structural defects of the structure. In my opinion, the call of the ONR Council “Register on the KRN website in order to take an active part in testing the project and in developing proposals for its improvement” - this is a call for an urgent overpass of wallpaper in the apartments of the house, which is built in a swamp on a rotten foundation.

The second problem is clearly indicated in clause 3: in the KRN, the separation of namesakes is absent, as by many, even if both initials differ. The volume of misunderstandings arising in this case is that no local editing on statements by scientists (and even in writing and with the seal of the organization) is incomplete for a reasonable time. The CRN customers and developers obviously never thought about the scale of the problem that they had taken up to solve.

It was not that this problem was insurmountable in principle - let’s say, it was resolved in the “Expert Corps” base, which now has more than 12 thousand representatives of natural science specialties (five people have been made without any budget financing). To solve such problems, as when selecting a classification scheme, a “systematic approach” is necessary - that is, first to think tightly, and then do it. But there is no time for Russian officials to think, they are always “in a fire” - only they are not the fireworks.

Finally, the errors indicated in the "main comments" of paragraphs. 4 and 6 , are originating from the third problem - inherent in the bureaucracy of a deep and sincere disrespect for the people with whom she “leads”. Paragraph 4 means this: in the database of the RINC , in your last name, for example, there are 17 articles for such and such five years, and in the KRN it is reported that according to the RINC, you have no articles during this period at all.

I advise you to re -read the previous phrase again, because from the first reading its meaning may remain inaccessible. As for clause 6, he tells you sincerely on behalf of the KRN-developers: “Well, try to fix this nonsense, so you run away, you are tormented by the dust to swallow.”

Summary: if the KRN can be considered a card, then only for the purposes of the next Ivan Susanin, so that our vigors are irrevocably brought into the swamps (and that the abyss in the same place is not a misfortune).

What is the origin of the comments of citizens from the academic environment expressed in the spirit of the above O. Moskaleva and A. Tsyganov? Of course, in reality there are noticeably fewer than colleagues expressing various kinds of indignation and fears about KRN, however, it would be wrong to neglect the existence of these “progressists”. The ordinary representative of the “Russian scientific community” often firmly knows that the bosses of his institution are busy with the devil know what, and if it is higher in the boss hierarchy - it will only be worse. The Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences also tried a lot in this regard over the past twenty years. The ordinary representative is tired of all this, he finally wants a ray of light in such a musty kingdom. In order not to solve the “official” (as said by A. Tsyganov in a cited text), but somehow, probably, everything was formed on the tablecloth-samobrand, and in the best possible way. And here the magnificent project “Map of Russian Science” begins. The heads of the Ministry of Education and Science invite scientific people with large crowds to discussions, write them in “expert groups” ... Honor has been provided, attention to the working people has been manifested, and it will not be on mind that all this is one swindle. “Ah, it’s not difficult to deceive me, I myself am glad to be deceived.”

Time passes, people spent many days/hours of life on discussions, the meaninglessness of which they did not realize. The holiday is coming to an end - the product of collective works is carried out to God's light and recognized as a scientific community unfit for use. And here the “corporate solidarity” of the creators of the KRN was in some cases stronger than the general scientific conscientiousness.

In my opinion, there is a simple and rude reality: the “map of Russian science” is no good and the correction by amendments from individual scientists and even entire institutions is not subject to correction. The funds invested in its creation are wasted without any benefit, to minimize harm. As it turned out the other day, viewing access to the KRN is closed. However, the problem remained: the real map of the scientific area is really necessary for making meaningful management decisions.

A priori is not obvious whether to radically process the KRN to create a real card or will have to start with a clean sheet. In any case, the first step should be an honest and public analysis of the existing “product”, organized not by those who participated in its creation . It is necessary to attract both scientists of various specialties and experts to create databases to such an analysis. And do not have Abrala - at least now you should do without haste.

In conclusion - since the number of the newspaper is a premium - I offer a toast: “We will drink for navigators and explorers, because they know how important it is to have the right cards - and how difficult and interesting to create them!”

1. Www.rascommission.ru/index.php/documents/statements/57-zamechaniya-k-karte-rossiyskoy-nauk