National Academic Journal at the International Crossroads
The Journal of Economic Sociology (Ekonomicheskaya Sotsiologiya) (http://ecsoc.hse.ru/en) was established in 2000. It was one of the first academic e-journals in Russia at the time when only 3.6% of Russians had Internet access, uploading a 1Mb file took up to 10 minutes on average, and 56% of urban residents in Russia did not have an idea what the Internet meant.
This study examines the latest tendencies in Russian research on public administration (2010–14) as it appears in Russian academic journals. The study considers the subjects of articles, their methodological features, and the characteristics of contributors. Revealing problems in public administration research in Russia contributes both to the development of Russian science and to the ongoing international discussion regarding the need for better research on public administration and state policy. By drawing attention to the shortcomings and weaknesses of Russian public administration research, the study is meant to advance the current discussion on ways to strengthen the quality of policy research around the world.
Psychology is a discipline standing at the crossroads of hard and social sciences. Some of psychology journals are attributed to SCIE in Web of Science database while others to SSCI (and some to both). So it is especially interesting to study bibliometric characteristics of psychology journals. We study not the citedness itself (IF etc.) but the citation distribution across papers within psychology publications. This is, so to say, “indicators of the second order” which measure the digression of the citations received by individual papers from the journal’s average. This also influences the publication strategies of the authors. Some journals guarantee to the author receiving of the mean number of citations while others have much more “All or Nothing” grade when any individual paper may have many cites or not have them at all. We also define four different types of psychology journals and explore their characteristics separately.
This paper focuses on the development of scholarly reviews in the nineteenth century. Nowadays Russian reviews are passing through a grave crisis caused by the loss of professionalism in the humanities. It goes without saying that this situation needs a proper decision. One of them might be connected with the historical background of the full-fledged scholarly review that should be revealed and used as driving force for further development of the genre. The paper studies the key points of the scholarly review historical development using example of the debates arround mythology and symbolism studies. The central aspects of the research are: social and professional background of reviewers, narrative coherence of reviews, argumentation strategies and rhetorical forms of shaping concepts and theories. The results of this study are supposed to be considered starting points in the process of professionalizing contemporary Russian reviews and adapting them to the present academic standards, which includes critical reading, analytical and interpretive potential, evaluation, contextualization.
University Geralds (Vestniki) are the most rapidly growing segment of the academic periodicals in contemporary Russia. However, their academic quality has repeatedly been questioned. The aim of the article is to describe the ways of the representation of academic community and organization of a publication flow, as well as to analyze the functioning of these periodicals in the context of post-Soviet university culture.
Studies of post-war Soviet historiography are heavily concentrated around the issues of party control in and resistance of intellectuals. Giving an account of the historical periodicals author seeks to correct this approach in the perspective of the history of science, sociology of culture and cultural policy studies . The article addresses 1) the problem of definition and characteristics of the transformation of the corpus of historical periodicals in the 1950s - 1960s, and 2) interrelation of the new political, economical and media conditions and changes in the management practices and communication strategies of the academic periodicals .
This study attempts to map out the subject field of accounting as academic discipline in Russian and English-language journals. Sampling was carried out on the basis of academic journals’ ratings in elibrary.ru and SCImago Journal & Country Rank, among items whose names included «accounting» term, papers from 2009 to 2013. We allocated the main topics and scopes of papers by the content-analysis method. Authors’ interest to various components of accounting domain is revealed by methods of descriptive statistics. The main purpose of this paper is to reveal similarities and differences between the features of accounting domain in Russian and international academic papers. Comparison of authors’ interests showed both similarities and considerable distinctions in understanding of a subject field of accounting and interest in its various components research. The common features are the high interest in methodical aspects of accounting and rather low number of papers in all sections of analysis. Qualitative distinctions in the maintenance of the discipline subject field are revealed: the interpretation of the nature of the accounting in the international journals is broader than in domestic ones, and the understanding of the contents of some analytical sections also considerably differs. Specific features of Russian papers are the microeconomic nature of research objects (the single entity, special type of economic operations and so on), static approaches and the perception of accounting as a practice. The specific of the international papers are large-scale objects (social practices, financial institutions, the historical periods, etc.), the consideration of accounting as knowledge, dynamical approach. The strongest quantitative distinctions of interests between domestic and international authors are noted in scopes of audit, history and prospects of accounting. Finally, we draw conclusions about the causes of these differences. The further directions of scientometric researches in the accounting domain are offered.