Эффект Матфея в цитировании статей российских ученых, опубликованных за рубежом
The scientificometric aspect of the “Matthews Effect,” i.e., the difference in the citations of the papers of Russian and foreign scientists published in the same publications, is studied. Publications in foreign journals on physics and chemistry are considered. The “Matthew Index,” which characterizes nonuniform distribution of citations over countries, is calculated. A conclusion on the poor “competitiveness” of Russian articles in chemistry and inadequate conformance of publications in physics to the world level is made.
Impact factors for 20 journals ranked first by Journal Citation Reports (JCR) were compared with the same indicator calculated on the basis of citation data obtained from Scopus database. A significant discrepancy was observed as Scopus, though results differed from title to title, found in general more citations than listed in JCR. This also affected ranking of the journals. More thorough examination of two selected titles proved that the divergence resulted mainly from difference in coverage of two products, although other important factors also play their part.
M. G. Seleznev. The Septuagint as it was understood by a Greek rhetorician: Pseudo-Longinus and στερέωμα. The paper deals with the first (and only) quotation from the Bible in the classical Greek literature: a quotation from the opening chapter of Genesis in a treatise on eloquence, Περὶ Ὕψους, written presumably in the first century CE by an anonymous Greek author, commonly referred to as Pseudo-Longinus. One can see at a gl ance that the wording of the quotation differs considerably from that of the Greek Genesis. We suggest that the difference is due to the wrong understanding of Gen 1:6 by the author of Περὶ Ὕψους. The present paper attempts to reconstruct how a Greek rhetorician, experienced in classical literature but not versed in the Bible, could understand and interpret the biblical account of the creation of the Heavens, especially the word στερέωμα “solid body” used in the Greek Bible (Gen 1:6) in the meaning “heaven”. This meaning is a neologism coined by the authors of the Septuagint. The paper shows, with a reference to the classical literature and Basil the Great (Hexaemeron), that the word στερέωμα would seem to a Greek rhetorician as a much more appropriate designation for the Earth than for the Heaven. It also shows that what was said about the στερέωμα in Gen 1:6 would also point in the same direction. The biblical Στερέωμα ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ ὕδατος – “a solid body in the midst of the waters” – could not have been understood by a Greek philosopher or rhetorician as “the Heaven”. One may rather suppose, it must have been understood as “the Earth”. If we assume that Pseudo-Longinus borrowed the quotation of Gen 1:6 from some source without knowing its wider context, we shall be able to explain how the wording of Περὶ Ὕψους emerged from that of the Septuagint: as a result of misreading caused by linguistic and cultural differences between the world of the Greek-speaking Jews and that of classical antiquity.
Three different approaches for evaluation of the research impact by a scientist are considered. Two of them are conventional ones, scoring the impact over (a) citation metrics and (b) merit metrics. The third one relates to the level of results. It involves a taxonomy of the research field, that is, a hierarchy representing its composition. The impact is evaluated according to the taxonomy ranks of the subjects that have emerged or have been crucially transformed due to the results by the scientist under consideration Mirkin (Control Large Syst Spec Issue 44:292–307, 2013). To aggregate criteria in approaches (a) and (b) we use an in-house automated criteria weighting method oriented towards as tight a representation of the strata as possible Orlov (Bus Inf, 2014). To compare the approaches empirically, we use publicly available data of about 30 scientists in the areas of data analysis and machine learning. As our taxonomy of the field, we invoke a corresponding part of the ACM Computing Classification System 2012 and slightly modify it to better reflect results by the scientists in our sample. The obtained ABC stratifications are rather far each other. This supports the view that all the three approaches (citations, merits, taxonomic rank) should be considered as different aspects, and, therefore, a good method for scoring research impact should involve all the three.
We consider the “Matthew effect” in the citation process which leads to reallocation (or misallocation) of the citations received by scientific papers within the same journals. The case when such reallocation correlates with a country where an author works is investigated. Russian papers in chemistry and physics published abroad were examined. We found that in both disciplines in about 60% of journals Russian papers are cited less than average ones. However, if we consider each discipline as a whole, citedness of a Russian paper in physics will be on the average level, while chemistry publications receive about 16% citations less than one may expect from the citedness of the journals where they appear. Moreover, Russian chemistry papers mostly become undercited in the leading journals of the field. Characteristics of a “Matthew index” indicator and its significance for scientometric studies are also discussed.
Several approaches to the concept of fatherhood present in Western sociological tradition are analyzed and compared: biological determinism, social constructivism and biosocial theory. The problematics of fatherhood and men’s parental practices is marginalized in modern Russian social research devoted to family and this fact makes the traditional inequality in family relations, when the father’s role is considered secondary compared to that of mother, even stronger. However, in Western critical men’s studies several stages can be outlined: the development of “sex roles” paradigm (biological determinism), the emergence of the hegemonic masculinity concept, inter-disciplinary stage (biosocial theory). According to the approach of biological determinism, the role of a father is that of the patriarch, he continues the family line and serves as a model for his ascendants. Social constructivism looks into man’s functions in the family from the point of view of masculine pressure and establishing hegemony over a woman and children. Biosocial theory aims to unite the biological determinacy of fatherhood with social, cultural and personal context. It is shown that these approaches are directly connected with the level of the society development, marriage and family perceptions, the level of egality of gender order.