voprecotestВопросы экономикиVoprosy Ekonomiki0042-8736Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP10.32609/0042-8736-2022-12-137-150voprecotest-4244Research ArticleДИСКУССИОННЫЙ КЛУБDEBATING SOCIETYКризис научных публикаций в период неолиберальной научной политикиCrisis of scientific publications during the neoliberal science policy periodhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-0667-3391ТамбовцевВ. Л.TambovtsevV. L.

Тамбовцев Виталий, доктор экономических наук., профессор экономического факультета 

Москва

Vitaly L. Tambovtsev

Moscow

vitalytambovtsev@gmail.comМосковский государственный университет имени М. В. ЛомоносоваРоссияLomonosov Moscow State UniversityRussian Federation202206122022012137150Copyright © Voprosy Ekonomiki, NP, 20222022Voprosy Ekonomiki, NPVoprosy Ekonomiki, NPhttps://www.vopreco.ru/jour/about/submissions#copyrightNoticehttps://www.vopreco.ru/jour/article/view/4244

В статье сравнивается содержание феномена, получившего название «кризис научных публикаций», в мировой и отечественной экономической и социальных науках. Показано, что в мировой науке непропорциональный рост цен на подписные издания определяется рыночными причинами, а в российской сокращение спроса на традиционные журналы связано со снижением востребованности качественных научных знаний, что обусловлено, в свою очередь, применяемыми мерами неолиберальной научной политики. Предложены и оценены варианты развития ситуации с рецензируемыми отечественными экономическими журналами.

The purpose of the article is to compare the content of the phenomenon, called the crisis of scientific publications, in the world and domestic economic and social sciences. It is shown that in the world science the disproportionate increase in prices for subscription publications is determined by purely market reasons, while in Russian science the reduction in demand for traditional journals is associated with a decrease in demand for high-quality scientific knowledge, which, in turn, is due to the measures of neoliberal science policy applied. Scenarios for the development of the situation with peer-reviewed domestic economic journals are proposed and evaluated.

экономические журналыкризис научных публикацийнаучная политика.economic journalscrisis of scientific publicationsscience policyA19, I23, L82ReferencesБалуткина Н. А., Стукалова А. А. (2022). Институциональные репозитории в России и за рубежом: обзор публикаций // Библиотековедение. Т. 71, № 2. С. 193—206. https://doi.org/10.25281/0869-608X-2022-71-2-193-206Balutkina N. A., Stukalova A. A. (2022). Institutional repositories in Russia and abroad: Review of publications. Russian Journal of Library Science, Vol. 71, No. 2, pp. 193—206. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.25281/0869-608X-2022-71-2-193-206Гайдин Б. Н. (2022). Российские научные журналы в новых геополитических условиях: сложности и перспективы развития // Управление наукой: теория и практика. Т. 4, № 3. С. 44—52. https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2022.4.3.4Gaydin B. N. (2022). Russian academic journals in new geopolitical conditions: Difficulties and prospects of development. Science Management: Theory and Practice, Vol. 4, No. 3, рр. 44—52. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2022.4.3.4Гумеров Р. Р. (2017). Вновь о научной значимости российских экономических журналов, или Что стоит за попытками их ранжирования // ЭКО. № 7. С. 146—161.Gumerov R. R. (2017). The scientific significance of Russian economic journals revisited, or What lies behind the attempts to rank them. EKO, No. 7, pp. 146—161. (In Russian).Гуреев В. Н., Мазов Н. А., Метелкин Д. В. (2022). О некоторых причинах перехода российских авторов в зарубежные журналы // Управление наукой: теория и практика. Т. 4, № 3. С. 20—34. https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2022.4.3.2Gureyev V. N., Mazov N. A., Metelkin D. V. (2022). Some reasons for the Russian authors transition to foreign journals. Science Management: Theory and Practice, Vol. 4, No. 3, рр. 20—34. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2022.4.3.2Иванов Д. Ю., Дмитриев П. А. (2020). Исследование динамики некоторых показателей рынка «платных» научных публикаций // Высшее образование в России. Т. 29, № 4. С. 75—79. https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-7-75-79Ivanov D. Y., Dmitriev P. A. (2020). The dynamics of some market indicators of “paid” scientific publications. Higher Education in Russia, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 75—79. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-7-75-79Минакир П. А. (2019). Экономические журналы в интерьере конкурентного рынка // Журнал НЭА. № 4. С. 210—216. https://doi.org/10.31737/2221-2264-2019-44-4-8Minakir P. A. (2019). Economic journals in the interior of a competitive market. Journal of the New Economic Association, No. 4, рр. 210—216. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.31737/2221-2264-2019-44-4-8Тамбовцев В. Л. (2022). Конкуренция: условие или барьер роста научного знания? // Управление наукой: теория и практика. Т. 4, № 2. С. 143—168. https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2022.4.2.14Tambovtsev V. L. (2022). Competition: Provision or barrier for the growth of scientific knowledge? Science Management: Theory and Practice, Vol. 4, No. 2, рр. 143—168. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.19181/smtp.2022.4.2.14Тамбовцев В., Рождественская И. (2014). Реформа высшего образования в России: международный опыт и экономическая теория // Вопросы экономики. № 5. С. 97—108. https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2014-5-97-108Tambovtsev V., Rozhdestvenskaya I. (2014). Higher education reform in Russia: International experience and economics. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 5, pp. 97—108. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2014-5-97-108Abeles T. P. (2003). The myth of the crisis in academic publishing. On the Horizon, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 3—5. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120310508019Abeles T. P. (2003). The myth of the crisis in academic publishing. On the Horizon, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 3—5. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120310508019Altbach P. G., Rapple B. (2012). Anarchy, commercialism and “publish or perish”. International Higher Education, No. 67, рр. 5—7.Altbach P. G., Rapple B. (2012). Anarchy, commercialism and “publish or perish”. International Higher Education, No. 67, рр. 5—7.Beall J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, Vol. 489, article 179. https://doi.org/10.1038/489179aBeall J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, Vol. 489, article 179. https://doi.org/10.1038/489179aBennion B. (1994). Why the science journal crisis? Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 25—26.Bennion B. (1994). Why the science journal crisis? Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 25—26.Bird S. M., Cox D., Farewell V. T., Goldstein H., Holt T., Smith P. C. (2005). Performance indicators: Good, bad, and ugly. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), Vol. 168, No. 1, pp. 1—27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2004.00333.xBird S. M., Cox D., Farewell V. T., Goldstein H., Holt T., Smith P. C. (2005). Performance indicators: Good, bad, and ugly. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), Vol. 168, No. 1, pp. 1—27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-985X.2004.00333.xBjörk B. C. (2021). Why is access to the scholarly journal literature so expensive? Libraries and the Academy, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 177—192. https://doi.org/10.1353 pla.2021.0010Björk B. C. (2021). Why is access to the scholarly journal literature so expensive? Libraries and the Academy, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 177—192. https://doi.org/10.1353 pla.2021.0010Boyd S., Herkovic A. (1999). Crisis in scholarly publishing: Executive summary. A summary of discussions of a subcommittee of the Stanford Academic Council Committee on Libraries, May 18. https://web.stanford.edu/~boyd/papers/html/schol_pub_crisis.htmlBoyd S., Herkovic A. (1999). Crisis in scholarly publishing: Executive summary. A summary of discussions of a subcommittee of the Stanford Academic Council Committee on Libraries, May 18. https://web.stanford.edu/~boyd/papers/html/schol_pub_crisis.htmlCard D., DellaVigna S. (2013). Nine facts about top journals in economics. Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 144—161. https://doi.org/10.3386/w18665Card D., DellaVigna S. (2013). Nine facts about top journals in economics. Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 144—161. https://doi.org/10.3386/w18665Case C. M. (1928). Scholarship in sociology. Sociology and Social Research, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 323—340.Case C. M. (1928). Scholarship in sociology. Sociology and Social Research, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 323—340.Churchill G. A., Jr., Peter J. P. (1984). Research design effects on the reliability of rating scales: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 360—375. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378402100402Churchill G. A., Jr., Peter J. P. (1984). Research design effects on the reliability of rating scales: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 360—375. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378402100402Doyle C. C., Mieder W., Shapiro F. R. (eds.) (2012). The dictionary of modern proverbs. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Doyle C. C., Mieder W., Shapiro F. R. (eds.) (2012). The dictionary of modern proverbs. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Editorial (2009). Journals under threat: A joint response from history of science, technology, and medicine editors. Medical History, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 1—4. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025727300003288Editorial (2009). Journals under threat: A joint response from history of science, technology, and medicine editors. Medical History, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 1—4. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025727300003288Franck G. (1999). Scientific communication — A vanity fair? Science, Vol. 286, No. 5437, pp. 53—55. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.286.5437.53Franck G. (1999). Scientific communication — A vanity fair? Science, Vol. 286, No. 5437, pp. 53—55. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.286.5437.53Franck G. (2002). The scientific economy of attention: A novel approach to the collective rationality of science. Scientometrics, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 3—26. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016059402618Franck G. (2002). The scientific economy of attention: A novel approach to the collective rationality of science. Scientometrics, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 3—26. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016059402618Gans J. S., Shepherd G. B. (1994). How are the mighty fallen: Rejected classic articles by leading economists. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 165—179. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.8.1.165Gans J. S., Shepherd G. B. (1994). How are the mighty fallen: Rejected classic articles by leading economists. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 165—179. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.8.1.165Goldstein H., Spiegelhalter D. J. (1996). League tables and their limitations: Statistical issues in comparisons of institutional performance. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society), Vol. 159, No. 3, pp. 385—443. https://doi.org/10.2307/2983325Goldstein H., Spiegelhalter D. J. (1996). League tables and their limitations: Statistical issues in comparisons of institutional performance. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society), Vol. 159, No. 3, pp. 385—443. https://doi.org/10.2307/2983325Hamermesh D. S. (2013). Six decades of top economics publishing: Who and how? Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 162—172. https://doi.org/10.1257/ jel.51.1.162Hamermesh D. S. (2013). Six decades of top economics publishing: Who and how? Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 162—172. https://doi.org/10.1257/ jel.51.1.162Hattie J., Marsh H. W. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: A metaanalysis. Review of Educational Research, Vol. 66, No. 4, pp. 507—542. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066004507Hattie J., Marsh H. W. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: A metaanalysis. Review of Educational Research, Vol. 66, No. 4, pp. 507—542. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066004507Huisman J., Smits J. (2017). Duration and quality of the peer review process: The author’s perspective. Scientometrics, Vol. 113, No. 1, pp. 633—650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2310-5Huisman J., Smits J. (2017). Duration and quality of the peer review process: The author’s perspective. Scientometrics, Vol. 113, No. 1, pp. 633—650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2310-5Larivière V., Haustein S., Mongeon P. (2015). The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PloS One, Vol. 10, No. 6, article e0127502. https://doi.org/journal.pone.0127502Larivière V., Haustein S., Mongeon P. (2015). The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PloS One, Vol. 10, No. 6, article e0127502. https://doi.org/journal.pone.0127502Mouton J., Valentine A. (2017). The extent of South African authored articles in predatory journals. South African Journal of Science, Vol. 113, No. 7/8, article 9. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2017/20170010Mouton J., Valentine A. (2017). The extent of South African authored articles in predatory journals. South African Journal of Science, Vol. 113, No. 7/8, article 9. https://doi.org/10.17159/sajs.2017/20170010Nwagwu W. E., Onyancha B. (2015). Back to the beginning — The journal is dead, long live science. Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 41, No. 5, pp. 669—679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.06.005Nwagwu W. E., Onyancha B. (2015). Back to the beginning — The journal is dead, long live science. Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 41, No. 5, pp. 669—679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2015.06.005Osterloh M., Kieser A. (2015). Double-blind peer review: How to slaughter a sacred cow. In: I. Welpe, J. Wollersheim, S. Ringelhan, M. Osterloh (eds.). Incentives and Performance. Cham: Springer, pp. 307—321. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09785-5_19Osterloh M., Kieser A. (2015). Double-blind peer review: How to slaughter a sacred cow. In: I. Welpe, J. Wollersheim, S. Ringelhan, M. Osterloh (eds.). Incentives and Performance. Cham: Springer, pp. 307—321. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09785-5_19Oswald A. J. (2007). An examination of the reliability of prestigious scholarly journals: Evidence and implications for decision-makers. Economica, Vol. 74, No. 293, pp. 21—31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0335.2006.00575.xOswald A. J. (2007). An examination of the reliability of prestigious scholarly journals: Evidence and implications for decision-makers. Economica, Vol. 74, No. 293, pp. 21—31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0335.2006.00575.xPerlin M. S., Imasato T., Borenstein D. (2018). Is predatory publishing a real threat? Evidence from a large database study. Scientometrics, Vol. 116, No. 1, pp. 255—273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2750-6Perlin M. S., Imasato T., Borenstein D. (2018). Is predatory publishing a real threat? Evidence from a large database study. Scientometrics, Vol. 116, No. 1, pp. 255—273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2750-6Roberts P. (1998). The crisis in scholarly publishing: Exploring electronic solutions. Access: Contemporary Issues in Education, Vol. 17, No. 1, рр. 1—13.Roberts P. (1998). The crisis in scholarly publishing: Exploring electronic solutions. Access: Contemporary Issues in Education, Vol. 17, No. 1, рр. 1—13.Siler K., Lee K., Bero L. (2015). Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping. PNAS, Vol. 112, No. 2, рр. 360—365. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1418218112Siler K., Lee K., Bero L. (2015). Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping. PNAS, Vol. 112, No. 2, рр. 360—365. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1418218112Siow A. (1997). Some evidence on the signalling role of research in academia. Economics Letters, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp. 271—276. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(97)00030-XSiow A. (1997). Some evidence on the signalling role of research in academia. Economics Letters, Vol. 54, No. 3, pp. 271—276. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(97)00030-XStarbuck W. H. (2005). How much better are the most-prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication. Organization Science, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 180—200. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0107Starbuck W. H. (2005). How much better are the most-prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication. Organization Science, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 180—200. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0107Stoller M. A., Christopherson R., Miranda M. (1996). The economics of professional journal pricing. College & Research Libraries, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 9—21. https:// doi.org/10.5860/crl_57_01_09Stoller M. A., Christopherson R., Miranda M. (1996). The economics of professional journal pricing. College & Research Libraries, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 9—21. https:// doi.org/10.5860/crl_57_01_09Teixeira da Silva J. A. (2015). Debunking post-publication peer review. International Journal of Education and Information Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 34—37. https://doi.org/10.5901/jesr.2015.v5n3p13Teixeira da Silva J. A. (2015). Debunking post-publication peer review. International Journal of Education and Information Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 34—37. https://doi.org/10.5901/jesr.2015.v5n3p13Van Noorden R. (2013). Open access: The true cost of science publishing. Nature, Vol. 495, No. 7442, рр. 426—429. https://doi.org/10.1038/495426aVan Noorden R. (2013). Open access: The true cost of science publishing. Nature, Vol. 495, No. 7442, рр. 426—429. https://doi.org/10.1038/495426aWoods H. B., Brumberg J., Kaltenbrunner W., Pinfield S., Waltman L. (2022). Innovations in peer review in scholarly publishing: A meta-summary [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved. Wellcome Open Research, Vol. 7, article 82. https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17715.1Woods H. B., Brumberg J., Kaltenbrunner W., Pinfield S., Waltman L. (2022). Innovations in peer review in scholarly publishing: A meta-summary [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved. Wellcome Open Research, Vol. 7, article 82. https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17715.1Yurevich A. V., Yurevich M. A. (2021). Rubbish in science. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Vol. 91, No. 4, pp. 445—453. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1019331621040158Yurevich A. V., Yurevich M. A. (2021). Rubbish in science. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Vol. 91, No. 4, pp. 445—453. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1019331621040158

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.