Translated material
Not that steppe. On personal ratings of researchers of Moscow University
cand. chem. sciences, until April 2015 - scientific. sore. Khimfaka Moscow State University
In the last decade in Russian science, interest in the leakometric methods for evaluating the effectiveness of scientific research has increased. At Moscow University, after a long (several decades) glacial period, the initiative in this case came from the rector. It is worth recalling that one of the founders of the science of science, Professor V.V. Nalimov (1910–1997) worked at the Faculty of Biological Faculty of Moscow State University and has repeatedly addressed the leadership with a proposal for the deployment of scientific work. Such a time has come at the beginning of the second decade of this century. It was proposed during a competitive election to take into account indicators such as the number of publications in high -rated journals, the number of links, Hirsch index and other recognized world scientific standards.
The next step in this direction is the spring of 2015. In the order of the rector of Academician V. A. Sadovnichy for No. 136 dated March 2, 2015, the heads of structural units prescribed the development of the Regulation on the personal rating of a researcher (PRNS) of the structural unit [1] . During the initial election, the competition should be announced only if the candidate of the PRNS exceeds the average PRNS of the unit for this position. Upon repeated election, the term of conclusion of the contract (five years, three years, one year) depends on the values of the candidate PRNS and the values of the rating of the unit. By order of Rector No. 70 of April 1, 2015, the heads of structural units submitted threshold values of the rating in the posts of researchers to the Secretariat of the Scientific Council of Moscow State University. In the explanatory presentation, it is noted that each unit develops its own PNS and the way to calculate it according to the proposed formulas. The formulas include quantitative indicators of the effectiveness of scientific and academic work, attracted financing, etc. For a certain period of time taken into account when calculating the PRNS. Their weights and ratios are determined by the units themselves [2] .
A number of units submitted their proposals. They show the calculations of the number of points for each indicator, the summation of the points and the comparison of the amount with the threshold values of the PRNS for each position. For example, in the proposals of the Faculty of Mechanics and Mathematics, points for the monograph are determined by the work of 5 by the number of pages, the work is then divided by the number of co-authors.
In the proposals of the faculty of Ty-reading mathematics and cybernetics, an article in an international journal receives 3 points, a scientific monograph (educational and methodological manual) has 2 printed sheets. In the sentences of the Faculty of Chemistry, points for a scientific article are determined by the formula: points = IFX50/√n, where the IF is the Impact factor of the magazine, determined from the quotation databases of Web of Science or Scopus, n is the number of co-authors.
Thus, points are used here, quantitatively evaluating the effectiveness of the researcher. It is useful to consider the experience of using points in domestic science to solve the problem. In the late 1960s, in our country, an experiment was conducted on the application of methods for assessing the labor of scientists. The so-called Karpov system named its developers from the Physico-Chemical Institute named after L. Ya. Karpova. The system was called the "Karpov ladder", since researchers were moved in positions and salaries in accordance with the points exhibited by the expert commission. About 70 academic and industry research organizations took part in the experiment. The experiment showed that the use of points for arbitrarily selected criteria gives less reliable results compared to the use of conventional expert assessments. In points, the results, the same in publication form, are recognized as equivalent and are not determined by the quality of the information presented. Small grades “cut” outstanding achievements. The issues of highlighting individual deposits from collective achievements remain unclear. When considering deposits, a number of functions of researchers, performed in the interests of the entire team, fall out. This, for example, is a communicative function - the spread of new valuable information. An important role is played by researchers productive in the implementation of scientific criticism. We should not forget about scientists who help to overcome the “inhibitory field” that occurs when new ideas appear and spread. And this is only a part of criticism about the points. The results of the experiment with points did not receive approval of the scientific community, these works were not continued.
The introduction of ratings at Moscow University is essentially a return to the Karpov system. The unsystematic use of some scientific indicators (about them below) does not change this conclusion. Differences in the choice of indicators, formulas for calculating points, etc. show the absence of a unified methodological basis for assessing the effectiveness of scientific work. Maybe the “staircase” obtained is not as cool as Karpovskaya, but it is also able to cause many “injuries” of various severity to scientists.
We note some features of the use of PRNS. The most widespread options for impact factors of magazines from scientific quoting databases, as well as Hirsch index. The shortcomings of these indicators were not noted anywhere. But the really important indicator - the total citation of the publications of a researcher - met only in three of two dozen sentences.
The conceptual basis for the assessment of the effectiveness of scientific work is developed in the scientific. This is an information model of the development of science. In it, publications are carriers of information, magazines - communication channels, bibliographic links - a special language of scientific information showing the impact of cited work on the development of information flows.
Science can be considered as a process of obtaining new information. It is represented as a self -organizing system, the development of which is controlled by its information flows. External conditions - allocations released for the development of science, organizational forms, ideological pressure, secrecy - these are elements of the environment in which science develops. The environment can be favorable or unfavorable for the development of science, but it cannot force science to develop in some kind of alien direction. The choice of the model determines the setting of the problem and the main methodological problem is solved: what and how to measure and from what positions to interpret the results.
V.V. Nalimov argued that the appeal to science focus becomes possible after clarifying the structure of science. Its structure is set by a system of bibliographic links. Links connect publications among themselves and thus structure the information flow. Therefore, in the science, analysis of bibliographic links occupies a special place. Since science is immersed in social structures, such factors that distort it as linguistic, ideological and political barriers noticeably affect the system of bibliographic links. But these factors still do not destroy the system of internal connections between publications.
The authors of the world's first science books V.V. Nalimov and Z. M. Mulchenko believed that the collection of information for evaluating citation should be approached very thoughtfully and quantitative estimates should be supplemented with semantic analysis [3] .
In foreign work on the effectiveness of scientific work, a substantive examination prevails with a support of scientific indicators [4] . Scientific data is supplemented by information on obtaining prestigious prizes, titles, membership in academies, expert councils, editorials of magazines, custom -made reports at wide conferences, etc.
Despite the successes in solving the problem under discussion, there are issues that require comprehension. One of them is the allocation of individual deposits from collective achievements. This may be useful to the presentations of modern management. One of its provisions - the result of any work is equal to the potential minus intervention. Intervention includes checks, control, orders, etc. This is how this is stated in the publication [5] : “ Contrary to the widespread opinion, they, it turns out, do not help the performance of work, but significantly interfere with its success. Intervention undermines trust, provokes fears, moreover, it inevitably causes resistance . ” Thus, the issue of individual deposits is not considered and the main attention is paid to the assessment of the effectiveness of research of scientific groups. At the same time, it is important to preserve their creative microclimate.
Naturally, with the widespread deployment of scientific research, when assessing the effectiveness of scientific work, cases of lack of information for making reasonable decisions will be found. Here, the representations of one of the areas of modern management are applicable - the so -called alternative management (AM). One of the main provisions of AM is the ratio of “98/2”, put forward by the American specialist in the quality management of Deming. The ratio shows that 98% of the problems of the organization of work depend on the system - the environment in which employees work and in accordance with which they perform their functions. And only 2% of the problems are associated with unsuccessful actions of the staff. Therefore, the main efforts should be aimed at improving the system in order to obtain additional information. This case refers to management function.
Another important position of AM is the refusal of punishment in any form, which is significantly when interpreting the results of the use of science focus. The success of the organization is determined by the involvement of all employees in improving affairs, and the fear of punishment for inept actions, making mistakes, etc. Makes such an involvement problematic. The punishment for failures and errors is associated with humiliation of a person, and the refusal of punishment leads to an improvement in the microclimate in the team, to increase the creative return of employees.
This is how the authors of the book on alternative management G. N. Fidelman, S. V. Dedikov, Yu. P. Adler evaluate the situation: “ ... we all came out of this world of repressive management. We absorbed its principles, techniques and methods with mother’s milk, they have grown in us, have become an integral part of our worldview, our psychology, our behavior. The vast majority of managers and ordinary workers do not even imagine that another system of relations in companies based on fundamentally new approaches is possible ” [6, p. 9] .
From the above it follows that the use of points in assessing the effectiveness of scientific labor will not be able to lead to good results. The faster the refusal of the proposed personal ratings of researchers of Moscow University, the better. Approaches should be used with the widespread use of a variety of leakometric indicators adopted in the advanced countries of the science of countries. It is useful to combine these approaches with the ideas of modern management.
3. Nalimov V.V., Molochenko Z. M. Scamometry. The study of the development of science as an information process. - M.: Science, 1969.
4. Guideline Guide: Indicators of the Development of Science and Technology: [Monograph] / Akoev M.A., Markusova V.A., Moskaleva O. V., Pislyakov V. century.; [Ed. Akoeva M.A.]. -Yekaterinburg: Publishing House of the Urals. University, 2014.
5. Adler Yu. P. Ozifed scientist (in print).
6. Fidelman G.N., Dedikov S.V., Adler Yu. P. Alternative management. - M.: Alpina Business Books, 2005, p. 9.