Article
XI Астаховские чтения
Highly cited scientific papers by Russian authors are studied. A definition of highly cited papers based on the interpretation provided by the Essential Science Indicators database is presented; the number of highly cited Russian papers is analyzed against the background of global indices and the disciplinary distribution of these papers is explored. It is shown that in all scientific areas the share of Russian papers that become highly cited is below world average. The impact of coauthorship with foreign scientists on the creation of highly cited papers is investigated. It is concluded that international collaboration has a key role in the related process.
Paying the due respect to the historical importance of the intellectual revolution caused by Ch. Darwin and his «Origin of species» (1859) one should not misunderstand its place in our current scholarly life. The complex development of science is based on production of new facts and theories in the course of negotiations allowing us to tell facts from their interpretations, «real» facts from systematic observational errors, to formulate, test and reshape theories, etc. Darwin is a wrong partner for this negotiation process. One can not any longer force him to accept the current standards of scientific validity, to reconsider his views, or to put them into other words. The whole world of facts and theories changed over the past 150 years. Some scientific concepts taking their origin from the works of Darwin are present in the now current theories of evolution in such a form that would not be intelligible and, perhaps, even agreeable for Darwin and his contemporaries. The notions of selection and competition attained a far higher degree of counterintuitivity and mathematical sophistication than one could imagine in the nineteenth century. Some ideas, e. g., Darwin's vague views of heredity, were completely rejected. Two principal fallacies in the treatment of Darwin's heritage are thus identified: the dogmatic literalism infollowing his views, and the readiness to engage in a scholarly debate with «Darwinism» by criticising or denigrating Darwin's original ideas. The dogmatic literalism in following Darwin's views on heredity was characteristic, e. g., for the infamous Trofim Lysenko and his adherents. On the other hand, those who are now seriously involved with criticising Darwin are performing their scholarly duties poorly. Darwin's works should remain where they are, in the history of science, situated in the culture of the nineteenth century. The current debate should be centered upon the current theoretical problems. What is no less important is that the scientists should play a more active role in reshaping the public understanding of science, introducing the increasingly complex new World to the general public.
In 2006, Russia amended its competition law and added the concepts of ‘collective dominance’ and its abuse. This was seen as an attempt to address the common problem of ‘conscious parallelism’ among firms in concentrated industries. Critics feared that the enforcement of this provision would become tantamount to government regulation of prices. In this paper we examine the enforcement experience to date, looking especially closely at sanctions imposed on firms in the oil industry. Some difficulties and complications experienced in enforcement are analysed, and some alternative strategies for addressing anticompetitive behaviour in concentrated industries discussed.