Generate QR code
Open Access
Subscription Access
Academic reputations of Russian economists and their scientometric estimates
https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2022-11-117-135
Abstract
The article presents the results of an academic reputation survey of Russian economists (N = 6392). The resulting ranking is then compared with their scientometric indicators provided by the Russian Science Citation Index (citations in eLibrary and in RSCI core), as well as calculated by the authors (citations in the RSCI list of distinguished journals). The analysis demonstrates that a robust hierarchy of academic authority exists in Russia, which is, however, only moderately correlated with scientometric indicators. We can classify discrepancies into type I errors (researchers with high citation rates are not enjoying recognition by peers) and type II errors (recognized researchers have poor scientometric records). Type I errors mostly result from (1) misidentification of authors; (2) non-fractionalized authorship of collected volumes; (3) instrumental citing; (4) gaming the metrics. Type II errors arise from ambiguity of the disciplinary boundaries of economics and boundaries of national science, as well as from the ambiguous status of public intellectuals addressing economic issues and politicians responsible for economic policy. Overall, type II errors are less dramatic: it is hard for Russian economists to be widely influential, but little cited. Type I errors are much more widespread. Indicators based on the RSCI list of distinguished journals give the most accurate estimates.
Keywords
economic science in Russia,
sociology of economics,
scientometrics,
reputation surveys,
academic rankings,
academic reputations
JEL: A11, A14, B20
About the Authors
M. M. Sokolov
European University at St. Petersburg
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Mikhail M. Sokolov
St. Petersburg
E. A. Chechik
European University at St. Petersburg
Elena A. Chechik
St. Petersburg
References
1. Balatsky E. V., Ekimova N. A. (2015). Ranking the participants of economic studies market in Russia. Journal of Institutional Studies, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 102—121. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.17835/2076-6297.2015.7.3.102-121
2. Guba K. S. (2022). Scientometric indictors in the evaluation of Russian universities: A literature review. Universe of Russia, Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 49—73. (In Russian). https://doi.org/ 10.17323/1811-038X-2022-31-1-49-73
3. Dezhina I. G., Dashkeev V. V. (2008). Russia’s leading economists, and where to find them. Moscow: Institute for Transitional Economics. (In Russian).
4. Kovalev A. V. (2019). The community of Belarusian economists: Theoretical and methodological portrait in the light of sociology. Bankauski Vesnik, No. 8, pp. 3—14. (In Russian).
5. Maltsev A. А. (2016). Russian community of economists: Main features and perspectives. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 11, pp. 135—158. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2016-11-135-158
6. Moskovkin V. М., Xingyuan S. (2017). Economist rankings: Modern state and prospects for future studies. Nauchnaya Periodika: Problemy i Resheniya, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 20—45. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.18334/nppir.7.1.38336
7. Muravyev A. А. (2011). On the Russian economic science in the mirror of publications of Russian scientists in Russian and foreign journals in 2000—2009. HSE Economic Journal, No. 2, pp. 237—264. (In Russian).
8. Sokolov M., Guba K., Zimenkova T., Safonova M., Chuikina S. (2015). Becoming a professor: Academic careers, markets, and power in five countries. Moscow: Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie. (In Russian).
9. Titaev K. D. (2012). The academic collusion. Otechestvennye Zapiski, No. 2, pp. 184—194. (In Russian).
10. Braun D., Guston D. H. (2003). Principal-agent theory and research policy: An introduction. Science and Public Policy, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 302—308. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154303781780290
11. Carro F. R. (2021). What is a scientific article? A principal-agent explanation. Social Studies of Science, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 298—309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312720951860
12. Cozzens S. E. (1989). What do citations count? The rhetoric-first model. Scientometrics, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 437—447. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02017064
13. Cronin B. (1998). Metatheorizing citation. Scientometrics, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 45—55. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02458393
14. Gilbert N. (1977). Referencing as persuasion. Social Studies of Science, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 113—122. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631277700700112
15. Latour B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16. Merton R. K. (1988). The Matthew effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. Isis, Vol. 79, No. 4, pp. 606—623. https:// doi.org/10.1086/354848
17. Rees R. (1985). The theory of principal and agent. Part 1. Bulletin of Economic Research, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 3—25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8586.1985.tb00179.x
18. Rijcke S. D., Wouters P. F., Rushforth A. D., Franssen T. P., Hammarfelt B. (2016). Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use — a literature review. Research Evaluation, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 161—169. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv038
19. Sokolov M. (2021). Can Russian research policy be called neoliberal? A study in the comparative sociology of quantification. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 73, No. 6, pp. 989—1009. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2021.1902945
20. Travis G. D. L., Collins H. M. (1991). New light on old boys: Cognitive and institutional particularism in the peer-review system. Science, Technology, and Human Values, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 322—341. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399101600303
21. Van der Meulen B. (1998). Science policies as principal—agent games: Institutionalization and path dependency in the relation between government and science. Research Policy, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 397—414. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00049-3
22. Van Selm M., Jankowski N. W. (2006). Conducting online surveys. Quality and Quantity, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 435—456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1113500580818
Supplementary files
Review
For citations:
Sokolov M.M., Chechik E.A. Academic reputations of Russian economists and their scientometric estimates. Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2022;(11):117-135. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2022-11-117-135
Views:
824
Email this article 
