{"title":"Do Russian journals need international experience?","authors":"O. Kirillova","doi":"10.24069/sep-22-59","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24069/sep-22-59","url":null,"abstract":"<jats:p>.</jats:p>","PeriodicalId":256387,"journal":{"name":"Science Editor and Publisher","volume":"94 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121983796","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The question of the possible influence of the number of views / downloads of scientific articles from journal websites, as well as the number of their mentions in social networks on the number of subsequent citations of these publications is considered. In particular, an analysis of some of such correlations is carried out on the example of 39 Russian translated journals of biological orientation distributed by the Springer Nature publishing house. Data from 2019–2021 was used regarding the number of article downloads, impact factors of editions, their SJR, CiteScore, SNIP, and usage factors. An analysis of the results obtained, as well as data available on the Internet, allowed the authors to conclude that the relationship between the number of downloads or altmetrics and the number of citations is not very strong, although it is quite reliable. It is emphasized that at present a large number of downloads / views of articles are carried out by users who are not engaged in science and, accordingly, do not write articles for academic journals. They are simply interested in scientific research results, and the Internet is now available to almost anyone. This also applies to the discussion of scientific publications in social networks. Apparently, the frequent mention of work in such networks really stimulates its downloads – however, this becomes obvious only if the article is an open access one, because the majority of “law-abiding” users of social networks do not have legal access to publications in subscription editions. The mentioned circumstances, according to the authors, will lead to a gradual weakening of the correlations considered in the article.
{"title":"And they try, and they praise, but they don’t marry: once again about the connection between downloads, views and citations","authors":"A. Khokhlov, G. Morgunova","doi":"10.24069/sep-22-47","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24069/sep-22-47","url":null,"abstract":"The question of the possible influence of the number of views / downloads of scientific articles from journal websites, as well as the number of their mentions in social networks on the number of subsequent citations of these publications is considered. In particular, an analysis of some of such correlations is carried out on the example of 39 Russian translated journals of biological orientation distributed by the Springer Nature publishing house. Data from 2019–2021 was used regarding the number of article downloads, impact factors of editions, their SJR, CiteScore, SNIP, and usage factors. An analysis of the results obtained, as well as data available on the Internet, allowed the authors to conclude that the relationship between the number of downloads or altmetrics and the number of citations is not very strong, although it is quite reliable. It is emphasized that at present a large number of downloads / views of articles are carried out by users who are not engaged in science and, accordingly, do not write articles for academic journals. They are simply interested in scientific research results, and the Internet is now available to almost anyone. This also applies to the discussion of scientific publications in social networks. Apparently, the frequent mention of work in such networks really stimulates its downloads – however, this becomes obvious only if the article is an open access one, because the majority of “law-abiding” users of social networks do not have legal access to publications in subscription editions. The mentioned circumstances, according to the authors, will lead to a gradual weakening of the correlations considered in the article.","PeriodicalId":256387,"journal":{"name":"Science Editor and Publisher","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123331474","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The article studies the issues related to the compilation of the Russian Journal Whitelist, which is intended to be used in research evaluation. Currently, this list has been approved and posted on the website of the Russian Center for Scientific Information. Building a hierarchy of journals within this list is still under discussion. A number of questions have been raised in the academic community about the composition and principle of compiling the whitelist, and an answer is required. In addition, there are a number of broader questions, in particular, to what extent journal publications are the best way to evaluate research and researchers. I have formulated a number of such questions, inviting readers to reflection and discussion. Despite the difficult situation that has now developed in international scientific communication, one should look at it not only as a crisis, but also as an opportunity to create one of the best systems for research assessment at the moment, free from accumulated bias.
{"title":"Russian Journal Whitelist: Questions to be answered","authors":"Dmitry Kochetkov","doi":"10.24069/sep-22-48","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24069/sep-22-48","url":null,"abstract":"The article studies the issues related to the compilation of the Russian Journal Whitelist, which is intended to be used in research evaluation. Currently, this list has been approved and posted on the website of the Russian Center for Scientific Information. Building a hierarchy of journals within this list is still under discussion. A number of questions have been raised in the academic community about the composition and principle of compiling the whitelist, and an answer is required. In addition, there are a number of broader questions, in particular, to what extent journal publications are the best way to evaluate research and researchers. I have formulated a number of such questions, inviting readers to reflection and discussion. Despite the difficult situation that has now developed in international scientific communication, one should look at it not only as a crisis, but also as an opportunity to create one of the best systems for research assessment at the moment, free from accumulated bias.","PeriodicalId":256387,"journal":{"name":"Science Editor and Publisher","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125094860","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As companies advance policies pertaining to social reform, including diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), the issue of protocol, and how those objectives are being achieved, invites debate. In particular, methods that infringe on authors’ rights or freedoms need to be scrutinized. Online submission systems (OSSs) are typically – and often exclusively – used by authors for submitting their papers. The present paper documents the use of OSSs by 33 journals published by Elsevier to harvest authors’ responses to issues and policies related to DEI. This is achieved via a mandatory survey prior to accessing the OSS. Here, a major concern is the violation of authors’ rights due to the presence of a barrier to entry to the OSS, which prevents them from submitting a paper and thus contravenes a core principle of DEI. Results of an investigation into the transparency of Elsevier’s 33 journals with regard to the same DEI principles that they require of their contributing authors revealed four main findings with regard to the gender diversity of their editorial boards: 1) in only six journals (18%) did 100% of the editors indicate their gender; 2) in 14 journals (42%), the editorial board page of the journal did not carry any statistics related to gender; 3) in five journals (15%), some editors preferred not to disclose their gender (in the case of Discourse, Context & Media, 33% of the responding editors preferred not to disclose their gender); 4) in all journals for which gender statistics were supplied (19, or 58%), none of the responding editors indicated a “non-binary or gender diverse” status. This paper suggests that Elsevier needs to revisit and reform its DEI policies related to editorial boards, as well as to rethink the current mandatory survey for authors using its journals’ OSSs.
{"title":"Should publishers use online submission systems to harvest authors’ responses to diversity, equity and inclusion?","authors":"J. A. Teixeira da Silva","doi":"10.24069/sep-22-43","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24069/sep-22-43","url":null,"abstract":"As companies advance policies pertaining to social reform, including diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), the issue of protocol, and how those objectives are being achieved, invites debate. In particular, methods that infringe on authors’ rights or freedoms need to be scrutinized. Online submission systems (OSSs) are typically – and often exclusively – used by authors for submitting their papers. The present paper documents the use of OSSs by 33 journals published by Elsevier to harvest authors’ responses to issues and policies related to DEI. This is achieved via a mandatory survey prior to accessing the OSS. Here, a major concern is the violation of authors’ rights due to the presence of a barrier to entry to the OSS, which prevents them from submitting a paper and thus contravenes a core principle of DEI. Results of an investigation into the transparency of Elsevier’s 33 journals with regard to the same DEI principles that they require of their contributing authors revealed four main findings with regard to the gender diversity of their editorial boards: 1) in only six journals (18%) did 100% of the editors indicate their gender; 2) in 14 journals (42%), the editorial board page of the journal did not carry any statistics related to gender; 3) in five journals (15%), some editors preferred not to disclose their gender (in the case of Discourse, Context & Media, 33% of the responding editors preferred not to disclose their gender); 4) in all journals for which gender statistics were supplied (19, or 58%), none of the responding editors indicated a “non-binary or gender diverse” status. This paper suggests that Elsevier needs to revisit and reform its DEI policies related to editorial boards, as well as to rethink the current mandatory survey for authors using its journals’ OSSs.","PeriodicalId":256387,"journal":{"name":"Science Editor and Publisher","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116961858","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
India continues to account for a large share not only in publishing predatory journals but also in publishing papers in such journals. The sheer number of academics in India, the continued pressure on them to publish, and the country’s capabilities in information technology are the driving forces. Despite sporadic attempts to find acceptable alternatives to using publication metrics for evaluating scientists and academics, the number of papers published by them in journals, a metric usually refined by introducing some measures of the quality of the journals in which the papers are published, continues to be the most widely used criterion for evaluating research performance. This emphasis favours predatory or deceptive journals because they offer rapid publication and usually have more modest article-processing charges. To prospective authors, such journals often appear indistinguishable from legitimate scholarly journals. This article (1) seeks to bridge that gap in knowledge by suggesting some ways of choosing the right journals and pointing out a number of features of predatory or deceptive journals to help authors to identify and avoid those journals; (2) offers a brief overview of measures taken by the authorities in India to curb predatory journals and the practice of publishing papers in such journals; and (3) suggests some novel ways other than publication metrics of assessing researchers.
{"title":"The challenge of predatory publishing in India and steps taken to prevent it","authors":"Y. Joshi","doi":"10.24069/sep-22-41","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24069/sep-22-41","url":null,"abstract":"India continues to account for a large share not only in publishing predatory journals but also in publishing papers in such journals. The sheer number of academics in India, the continued pressure on them to publish, and the country’s capabilities in information technology are the driving forces. Despite sporadic attempts to find acceptable alternatives to using publication metrics for evaluating scientists and academics, the number of papers published by them in journals, a metric usually refined by introducing some measures of the quality of the journals in which the papers are published, continues to be the most widely used criterion for evaluating research performance. This emphasis favours predatory or deceptive journals because they offer rapid publication and usually have more modest article-processing charges. To prospective authors, such journals often appear indistinguishable from legitimate scholarly journals. This article (1) seeks to bridge that gap in knowledge by suggesting some ways of choosing the right journals and pointing out a number of features of predatory or deceptive journals to help authors to identify and avoid those journals; (2) offers a brief overview of measures taken by the authorities in India to curb predatory journals and the practice of publishing papers in such journals; and (3) suggests some novel ways other than publication metrics of assessing researchers.","PeriodicalId":256387,"journal":{"name":"Science Editor and Publisher","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116312336","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A convenient tabular format for the description of statistical methods and software in scientific publications is proposed. It is recommended to include the name of the software, its version or update date, the name of the procedures used and their intent, obligatory references, and URL.
{"title":"Tabular form of description of statistical methods and programs in scientific publications","authors":"N. Khromov-Borisov","doi":"10.24069/sep-22-40","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24069/sep-22-40","url":null,"abstract":"A convenient tabular format for the description of statistical methods and software in scientific publications is proposed. It is recommended to include the name of the software, its version or update date, the name of the procedures used and their intent, obligatory references, and URL.","PeriodicalId":256387,"journal":{"name":"Science Editor and Publisher","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132037985","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The authors divided scientific journals into two main categories – “herbivore journals” (subscription journals that do not charge authors for the publication of their articles) and “predatory journals” – paid journals that adhere to unscrupulous editorial and ethical policies. Accordingly, “predatory publishers” are those companies that publish “predatory journals”. As a rule, articles by these publishers are published in the open access mode. The criteria by which scientific publications are classified as “predatory” are considered. It is emphasized that the “charging” nature of the publication does not necessarily make it “predatory”, but creates a situation in which the publisher using the “gold” open access is almost always interested in the maximum number of published works with a significant reduction in the quality requirements for manuscripts sent to the editorial office. The situation with the Jeffrey Beall’s list is briefly considered – the history of its appearance, the criteria for including publishers and some individual journals in it, possible reasons for the abolition, access to the list today. The possible reasons are analyzed why scientists publish in paid journals instead of submitting their articles to free subscription editions, the rating of which, as a rule, is even higher. Considerations of the authors of this article regarding the clear non-obviousness of the advantages of publications in the open access mode for a lot of money are outlined. The current situation with the MDPI publisher, which is very popular among modern scientists and which Jeffrey Bill (and not only him) nevertheless refers to as “predatory” is considered in detail. It is emphasized that the established principles of the existence of “predatory journals” primarily satisfy the authors of the articles themselves, who are attracted by both the speed and the “high guarantee” of the publication process.
{"title":"Herbivore journals vs predatory journals – the battle is already lost, what’s next?","authors":"A. Khokhlov, G. Morgunova","doi":"10.24069/sep-22-18","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24069/sep-22-18","url":null,"abstract":"The authors divided scientific journals into two main categories – “herbivore journals” (subscription journals that do not charge authors for the publication of their articles) and “predatory journals” – paid journals that adhere to unscrupulous editorial and ethical policies. Accordingly, “predatory publishers” are those companies that publish “predatory journals”. As a rule, articles by these publishers are published in the open access mode. The criteria by which scientific publications are classified as “predatory” are considered. It is emphasized that the “charging” nature of the publication does not necessarily make it “predatory”, but creates a situation in which the publisher using the “gold” open access is almost always interested in the maximum number of published works with a significant reduction in the quality requirements for manuscripts sent to the editorial office. The situation with the Jeffrey Beall’s list is briefly considered – the history of its appearance, the criteria for including publishers and some individual journals in it, possible reasons for the abolition, access to the list today. The possible reasons are analyzed why scientists publish in paid journals instead of submitting their articles to free subscription editions, the rating of which, as a rule, is even higher. Considerations of the authors of this article regarding the clear non-obviousness of the advantages of publications in the open access mode for a lot of money are outlined. The current situation with the MDPI publisher, which is very popular among modern scientists and which Jeffrey Bill (and not only him) nevertheless refers to as “predatory” is considered in detail. It is emphasized that the established principles of the existence of “predatory journals” primarily satisfy the authors of the articles themselves, who are attracted by both the speed and the “high guarantee” of the publication process.","PeriodicalId":256387,"journal":{"name":"Science Editor and Publisher","volume":"78 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125038204","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The peer review process is an extremely important and time-consuming step in preparing a manuscript for publication. It often takes longer than all other stages of article processing. Due to the complexity of peer reviewing, it becomes necessary to analyze it and determine the key points that you should pay attention to when planning the work of the editorial office. In this study, the authors used data obtained in the process of work with reviewers of the journals “Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriya 16. Biologiya” and “Moscow University Biological Sciences Bulletin” in 2017–2021, as well as information on articles received by the editorial office in the same period time. The sample of peer reviewers consisted of 319 specialists from various fields of biology and related disciplines. The results of the analysis showed that the average time spent on the primary review was about 11 days, and the average time during which experts respond to the invitation was about 2 days. Reviews received by the editors over five years, on average, contain a little less than 3 000 characters, the volume of reviews does not correlate with the timing of the reviews and their quality. In recent years, the editorial office has managed to reduce the proportion of formal uninformative reviews to 6 %. Both women and men, employees of both universities and research institutes, scientists with candidate and doctoral degrees are equally involved in the work on articles. The important role of reviewers in improving the article and at the same time insufficient encouragement of this important work are emphasized. The results obtained can be useful to the editors of scientific journals when they plan the stages of reviewing articles.
同行评议过程是准备发表稿件的一个极其重要和耗时的步骤。它通常比文章处理的所有其他阶段都要长。由于同行评议的复杂性，有必要对其进行分析，确定在规划编辑部工作时应注意的重点。在本研究中，作者使用了与Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta期刊审稿人合作过程中获得的数据。Seriya 16。“Biologiya”和“Moscow University Biological Sciences Bulletin”(2017-2021年)，以及同期编辑部收到的文章信息。同行评审的样本包括来自生物学和相关学科各个领域的319名专家。分析结果表明，初审的平均时间约为11天，专家回复邀请的平均时间约为2天。五年来，编辑收到的评论平均少于3000字，评论的数量与评论的时间和质量无关。近年来，编辑部已设法将正式的非信息性评论的比例降低到6%。女性和男性，大学和研究机构的雇员，具有候选人和博士学位的科学家都平等地参与文章的工作。强调了审稿人在文章改进中的重要作用，同时也强调了对这一重要工作的鼓励不足。所得结果可为科学期刊编辑在规划文章审稿阶段时提供参考。
{"title":"Use of peer reviewing indicators for planning the work of the editorial office of a scientific edition (on the example of a biological journal)","authors":"G. Morgunova, A. Khokhlov","doi":"10.24069/sep-22-17","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24069/sep-22-17","url":null,"abstract":"The peer review process is an extremely important and time-consuming step in preparing a manuscript for publication. It often takes longer than all other stages of article processing. Due to the complexity of peer reviewing, it becomes necessary to analyze it and determine the key points that you should pay attention to when planning the work of the editorial office. In this study, the authors used data obtained in the process of work with reviewers of the journals “Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriya 16. Biologiya” and “Moscow University Biological Sciences Bulletin” in 2017–2021, as well as information on articles received by the editorial office in the same period time. The sample of peer reviewers consisted of 319 specialists from various fields of biology and related disciplines. The results of the analysis showed that the average time spent on the primary review was about 11 days, and the average time during which experts respond to the invitation was about 2 days. Reviews received by the editors over five years, on average, contain a little less than 3 000 characters, the volume of reviews does not correlate with the timing of the reviews and their quality. In recent years, the editorial office has managed to reduce the proportion of formal uninformative reviews to 6 %. Both women and men, employees of both universities and research institutes, scientists with candidate and doctoral degrees are equally involved in the work on articles. The important role of reviewers in improving the article and at the same time insufficient encouragement of this important work are emphasized. The results obtained can be useful to the editors of scientific journals when they plan the stages of reviewing articles.","PeriodicalId":256387,"journal":{"name":"Science Editor and Publisher","volume":"75 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125903941","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The article discusses the place of social sciences and humanities in the system of scientific knowledge in modern Russia, and shows on the example of historical memory, and how their importance to ensure national security and development of society as a whole, especially emphasizing the predictive function, has increased in the current context. The problem of the transition from old forms of scientific communication to new ones: from printed publications to digital tools of production, storage and distribution of scientific knowledge is considered. Drawing historical parallels, the author explains how important to maintain the position of domestic science and our country in the world to make this transition, and emphasizes the role of the editors and editorial boards in solving this problem.
{"title":"Prospects for scientific communications in social sciences and humanities sphere in current conditions","authors":"D. Fomin-Nilov","doi":"10.24069/sep-22-09","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24069/sep-22-09","url":null,"abstract":"The article discusses the place of social sciences and humanities in the system of scientific knowledge in modern Russia, and shows on the example of historical memory, and how their importance to ensure national security and development of society as a whole, especially emphasizing the predictive function, has increased in the current context. The problem of the transition from old forms of scientific communication to new ones: from printed publications to digital tools of production, storage and distribution of scientific knowledge is considered. Drawing historical parallels, the author explains how important to maintain the position of domestic science and our country in the world to make this transition, and emphasizes the role of the editors and editorial boards in solving this problem.","PeriodicalId":256387,"journal":{"name":"Science Editor and Publisher","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116597998","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Конференция была направлена на обсуждение актуальных вопросов развития российских научных журналов в современных условиях, достижения ими более высокого национального и международного уровней, определения места в решении задач популяризации и продвижения результатов научной деятельности, в создании национальной системы оценки результативности научных исследований и разработок, сохранения и повышения позиций в международных информационных системах.
{"title":"Resolution of the 10th International Scientific and Practical Conference “World-Class Scientific Publication – 2022: from the present to the future”, Moscow, 26-29 April 2022","authors":"А. О. Евграфова, О. О. Медведева","doi":"10.24069/sep-22-07","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.24069/sep-22-07","url":null,"abstract":"Конференция была направлена на обсуждение актуальных вопросов развития российских научных журналов в современных условиях, достижения ими более высокого национального и международного уровней, определения места в решении задач популяризации и продвижения результатов научной деятельности, в создании национальной системы оценки результативности научных исследований и разработок, сохранения и повышения позиций в международных информационных системах.","PeriodicalId":256387,"journal":{"name":"Science Editor and Publisher","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128204510","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：