Generate QR code
Open Access
Subscription Access
Crisis of scientific publications during the neoliberal science policy period
https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2022-12-137-150
Abstract
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.
Supporting agencies: A19, I23, L82
About the Author
V. L. Tambovtsev
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Vitaly L. Tambovtsev
Moscow
References
1. Balutkina 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-2022-71-2-193-206
2. Gaydin 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.2022.4.3.4
3. 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).
4. Gureyev 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.2022.4.3.2
5. Ivanov 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/10.31992/0869-3617-2020-29-7-75-79
6. Minakir 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/10.31737/2221-2264-2019-44-4-8
7. Tambovtsev 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.2022.4.2.14
8. Tambovtsev 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/10.32609/0042-8736-2014-5-97-108
9. Abeles T. P. (2003). The myth of the crisis in academic publishing. On the Horizon, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 3—5. https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120310508019
10. Altbach P. G., Rapple B. (2012). Anarchy, commercialism and “publish or perish”. International Higher Education, No. 67, рр. 5—7.
11. Beall J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, Vol. 489, article 179. https://doi.org/10.1038/489179a
12. Bennion B. (1994). Why the science journal crisis? Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 25—26.
13. 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.x
14. Björk 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.2021.0010
15. Boyd 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.html
16. Card 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/w18665
17. Case C. M. (1928). Scholarship in sociology. Sociology and Social Research, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 323—340.
18. 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/10.1177/002224378402100402
19. Doyle C. C., Mieder W., Shapiro F. R. (eds.) (2012). The dictionary of modern proverbs. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
20. 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/S0025727300003288
21. Franck G. (1999). Scientific communication — A vanity fair? Science, Vol. 286, No. 5437, pp. 53—55. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.286.5437.53
22. Franck 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:1016059402618
23. Gans 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.8.1.165
24. Goldstein 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/10.2307/2983325
25. Hamermesh 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.51.1.162
26. Hattie 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/10.3102/00346543066004507
27. Huisman 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/s11192-017-2310-5
28. Larivière 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.0127502
29. Mouton 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.2017/20170010
30. Nwagwu 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.2015.06.005
31. Osterloh 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_19
32. Oswald 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.x
33. Perlin 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/s11192-018-2750-6
34. Roberts P. (1998). The crisis in scholarly publishing: Exploring electronic solutions. Access: Contemporary Issues in Education, Vol. 17, No. 1, рр. 1—13.
35. 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.1418218112
36. Siow 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-X
37. Starbuck 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.1040.0107
38. Stoller 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_09
39. Teixeira 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.v5n3p13
40. Van Noorden R. (2013). Open access: The true cost of science publishing. Nature, Vol. 495, No. 7442, рр. 426—429. https://doi.org/10.1038/495426a
41. Woods 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.17715.1
42. Yurevich 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
Review
For citations:
Tambovtsev V.L. Crisis of scientific publications during the neoliberal science policy period. Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2022;(12):137-150. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2022-12-137-150
Views:
766
Email this article 
