Scientific Co-Authorship in Russian Mathematics in 2000–2020: A Study Based on the Example of Famous Russian Journals

Main Article Content

Ekaterina Aleksandrovna Znamenskaya
Andrey Anatolievich Pechnikov

Abstract

Scientific co-authorship is a direct reflection of scientific collaboration. There is empirical evidence of the value of co-authorship, for example, articles with a large number of authors tend to be cited more often, which is important for calculating various indexes. Many foreign studies show an increase in co-authorship both in general and in various scientific disciplines, however, it is quite difficult to judge the situation with co-authorship of Russian scientists based on research according to Web of Science or Scopus for a number of reasons. According to the portal Math-Net.Ru some issues of co-authorship in the field of mathematical and computer sciences in Russia are investigated. In particular, it shows a small but steady increase in the average number of co-authors per publication and an increase in the number of articles co-authored over the years 2000-2020.

Article Details

References

1. Beaver D., Rosen R. Studies in scientific collaboration: Part I. The professional origins of scientific co-authorship // Scientometrics. 1978. Vol. 1. No. 1. P. 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016840
2. Иванова Н.А. Социально-философские аспекты профессионализации науки // Научное мнение. 2022. № 12. С. 24–34. https://doi.org/10.25807/22224378_2022_12_24
3. Melin G. Pragmatism and self-organization: Research collaboration on the individual level // Research Policy. 2000. Vol. 29. No. 1. P. 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00031-1
4. CRediT – Contributor Roles Taxonomy. URL: https://casrai.org/credit.
5. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. URL: https://icmje.acponline.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf.
6. Larivière V. et. al. Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900 // Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2015. Vol. 66. No. 7. P. 1323–1332. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23266
7. Abramo G., D’Angelo C.A., Di Costa F. Research collaboration and productivity: Is there correlation? // Higher Education. 2009. Vol. 57. No. 2. P. 155–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9139-z
8. Гуськов А.Е., Косяков Д.В. Национальный фракционный счёт и оценка научной результативности организаций // Научные и технические библиотеки. 2020. № 9. С. 15–42. https://doi.org/10.33186/1027-3689-2020-9-15-42
9. Thelwall M., Maflahi N. Research coauthorship 1900–2020: Continuous, universal, and ongoing expansion // Quantitative Science Studies. 2022. Vol. 3. No. 2. P. 331–344. https://doi.org/10.33186/1027-3689-2020-9-15-42
10. Chebukov D., Izaak A., Misyurina O., Pupyrev Yu., Zhizhchenko A. Math-Net.Ru as a digital archive of the Russian mathematical knowledge from the XIX century to today // Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 2013. Vol. 7961. P. 344–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39320-4_26
11. Пресс-релиз Рабочей Группы по оценке качества и отбору журналов в Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI) о тематическом и сводном рейтинге журналов RSCI. URL: https://elibrary.ru/projects/rsci/rsci_raiting_22.asp.
12. «Белый список» научных журналов. URL: https://journalrank.rcsi.science/ru.
13. Research Co-authorship 1900-2020: Continuous, universal, and ongoing expansion. URL: https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Research_Co-authorship_1900-2020_Continuous_universal_and_ongoing_expansion/17064419.
14. Расширенный классификатор науки ОЭСР. URL: https://sudact.ru/law/metodicheskie-rekomendatsii-po-zapolneniiu-formy-monitoringa-mezhdunarodnoi/prilozhenie-n-3.
15. Печников А.А., Чебуков Д.Е. Структура графа цитирования журналов Math-Net.Ru // Труды XXIII Всероссийской научной конференции «Научный сервис в сети Интернет», онлайн, 20–23 сентября 2021 г. ИПМ им. М.В. Келдыша: 2021, С. 265-278. https://doi.org/10.20948/abrau-2021-2