Fleet of publication inflation

A private look at the global problem

(Comment by M.G. See below)

In 2016, the Council for Ethics of Scientific Publications was created at the Association of Scientific Editors and Publishers. His appearance was due not only to the fact that in the field of science there were violations, but also with the fact that after the famous “May decrees” they began to be massive and sophisticated. Over the three years of work, the Council was able to fully see the back of the publication race: a shaft of articles imitating scientific works; various kinds of falsification and factory; attributed authorship; The revival of the roles of "farm" (those who write articles) and the "owners" (those who are written) in the scientific arena.

To understand the situation, let's answer a few questions consistently.

1. Why do you need a large number of scientific articles? Scientific articles are an indicator of the situation in the field of science. There is science - there are scientific publications. A lot of scientific publications - it means that everything is in order with science, it lives.
2. Why does many low -quality articles appear? They appear where there is no space/resources for scientific activity, but there are bureaucratic reporting, setting the goal of showing that everything is in order with science, since we have many articles.
3. Why do you need control? The authoritarian and bureaucratic regulation of Russian science has led to an increase in simulations, imitation of scientific activity, the first way of aggressive players, the loss of the institution of reputations and a negative selection ... It would seem that it is worthwhile to stop and think about what has gone wrong ... You can even assume that science is one of those spheres that are not ideal and poorly tolerate bureaucracy (hectares To her face, for example, self -regulation and reputation mechanisms). But how to manage science if you are a manager and you do not have sufficient competencies? If you are not able to evaluate the quality of knowledge produced? All hope for sticks and ticks, quantitative indicators, all that can be easily and simply calculated.
4. Who else is beneficial for the shaft of publications? Let's argue logically: an excess number of articles is not needed, since good text, good research, and not creating information noise are important. All good time and resources are needed, but in most cases they are not.

University teachers often do not need publications at all, since not all of them engage in science and have a resource for these classes.

Readers of the article need an article, but not in the quantity in which they are produced today. Moreover, multiple quails do not need the same thought.

The bureaucrat of the article needs, because he (apparently using the low level of literacy and awareness) inspired that it was necessary to catch up and overtake America by the number of articles - and then the science in the country will rise, raising the country's prestige as a whole in the world arena. The bureaucrat not only does not think harmoniously, but with reality it corresponds only through reports (and in them the growth of indicators inspires optimism), so the fact that according to the results of such a managerial decision in the country has grown the level of fake science, it does not bother it. I will say more, the domestic manager, in principle, is not responsible for the consequences of his managerial decisions (by the way, now it’s even difficult to say who the main ideologist of the public race, everyone nods at each other and ackk their eyes).

But this is not the whole picture. The ambassadors of foreign bases of scientific information helped officials to make a strategic decision leading to the enrichment of WOS and Scopus, which put Russian magazines, scientists and universities into strict dependence on them. Here, of course, you can suspect the corruption moment, but we will believe in the official, in the sincerity and selflessness of his delusions, fidelity to science, burdened with a low level of literacy.

It should be noted that at all conferences it is the representatives of WOS and Scopus who promote the idea of ​​the importance of increasing the number of articles and invaluability of the citation indicator. Indeed, in the conditions of open science and well -working search engines, they may simply be out of work ...

5. And another flurry of low-quality articles is beneficial to someone? Many universities were able to enrich themselves, and some characters made a crazy career. Watch your hands: no matter what kind of fraud we observe - plagiarism, low -quality and pseudoscientific articles, attributed authorship, etc. - the result will be one - the university will receive subsidies, the “scientist” - the order; All together will be enriched. That is, the logic of this mechanism is organized in such a way that they are paying for fraud today. “Dissernet”, ONR, Henri Ethics Council and other organizations are trying to change this, meeting sustainable opposition and protecting the current order.
6. What is the problem with science? Ideally, from distortions and falsifications of different levels should protect the science, but it does not protect, because: (a) quantitative indicators are easily simulated (what one person came up with will always bypass the other); (b) science was originally transferred to domestic soil along with all the “holes” (the term “Christmas editions”, for example, was not invented by us and not with us); (c) initially such an important parameter was not laid as stability in relation to fraud (today the database of scientific information is trying to cope with this omission, but so far everything works only on limited segments); (d) The very idea is that the number of publications or the number of citation can become reliable indicators of scientific labor is somewhat utopian, because it does not always work correctly (it is worth recalling articles that physicists affectionately call “sleeping beauty”, such texts are ahead of time, begin to quote only a few decades after exit, when, for example, sufficient experimental opportunities appear; not to forget about the “effect. Matthew ”(according to Robert Mercnation): easily quoted“ branded ”scientists, and the valuable text written by an unknown author can be ignored by the scientific community; (e) a science bet today is akin to a provocation on a crime. Even the most honest scientist, set in the conditions of the publication race, reporting by the number of publications and citation, will sooner or later be forced to write garbage texts and agree on unscrupulous practices. If he does not do this, he will be on the sidelines and with a high probability will lose his job. Those who know how to negotiate, manipulate their quoting, make garbage and do not shy, are caught on falsification, because for this there is every chance of getting an increase and the order here is simple: universities are simple: universities receive subsidies for the number of articles, if the texts were unscrupulous, they are published in “garbage” editions; all the same there are excellent chances of reporting and getting financing university). Yes, and it is precisely such people who remain to teach students, explaining to them about the “permissible percentage of plagiarism”, instilling the skills of rewriting and the production of scientific articles in fast food mode ...

* * *