Pillar Universities in Russia: The Rise of "the Second Wave"
The problem of identifying the leading universities in a country is rather easy to solve, one may focus, for example, on highly cited papers (e.g. Tijssen, Visser & van Leeuwen, 2002; Pislyakov & Shukshina, 2014; Abramo & D’Angelo, 2015) or other indicators of excellence. Sometimes it is more challenging to find the universities of "the second wave" which deserve to receive additional governmental help and budget because then they may become the most prominent ones and, so to say, enter the “Eredivisie”, the highest football league. It is a more difficult task to find first among the seconds than to find the firsts among all.
This paper introduces a systematic technology trend monitoring (TTM) methodology based on an analysis of bibliometric data. Among the key premises for developing a methodology are: (1) the increasing number of data sources addressing different phases of the STI development, and thus requiring a more holistic and integrated analysis; (2) the need for more customized clustering approaches particularly for the purpose of identifying trends; and (3) augmenting the policy impact of trends through gathering future-oriented intelligence on emerging developments and potential disruptive changes. Thus, the TTM methodology developed combines and jointly analyzes different datasets to gain intelligence to cover different phases of the technological evolution starting from the ‘emergence’ of a technology towards ‘supporting’ and ‘solution’ applications and more ‘practical’ business and market-oriented uses. Furthermore, the study presents a new algorithm for data clustering in order to overcome the weaknesses of readily available clusterization tools for the purpose of identifying technology trends. The present study places the TTM activities into a wider policy context to make use of the outcomes for the purpose of Science, Technology and Innovation policy formulation, and R&D strategy making processes. The methodology developed is demonstrated in the domain of “semantic technologies”.
The New Flagship University provides an expansive vision for leading national universities and an alternative narrative to global rankings and World Class Universities that dominate the attention of many universities, as well as government ministries. The New Flagship model explores pathways for universities to re-shape their missions and academic cultures, and to pursue organizational features intended to expand their relevancy in the societies that give them life and purpose. In this quest, international standards of excellence focused largely on research productivity are not ignored, but are framed as only one goal towards supporting a university's productivity and larger social purpose—not as an end unto itself. Chapters by contributing authors detail the historical and contemporary role of leading national university in Asia, South America, Russia, and Scandinavia, and consider how the New Flagship model might be applied and expanded on.
Proceedings of the science and technology indicators conference 2018 Leiden.
Proceedings of the 21 International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators: Peripheries, frontiers and beyond.
14-16 September 2016
Universitat Politècnica de València
The chapter aims to explore the special model of flagship universities that emerged in the former socialist Soviet system and analyse their contemporary transition. A planned state economy requires the development of a sophisticated hierarchical typology of higher education institutions with flagship universities positioned at the top of the hierarchy. The Soviet higher education model was different from those found in other parts of the world because of its officially assigned special leadership roles. Soviet flagship universities provided support for other universities in national or regional contexts. This support included the training of teaching staff, curriculum development, and quality control. Flagship universities had exclusive opportunities to conduct research. The first part of the chapter highlights the differences between these flagship universities and the rest of the higher education system.
After the collapse of Soviet Union the hierarchical model of Russian higher education has changed under the influence of market forces, private education, and increasing competition between universities. These changes have affected flagship universities. The second part of the paper examines the reasons why some former flagship universities lost their special role, why some flagship universities managed to keep or strengthen their role, and, why several new leadership universities have emerged. The chapter describes the transformation, changes of internal features and attributes of former leading universities on the path to the contemporary models of flagship universities. The end of the paper discusses the basic factors that allow leading universities in Russia to become contemporary flagship universities.
An analysis of journals’ rankings based on five commonly used bibliometric indicators (impact factor, article influence score, SNIP, SJR, and H-index) has been conducted. It is shown that despite the high correlation, these single-indicatorbased rankings are not identical. Therefore, new approach to ranking academic journals is proposed based on the aggregation of single bibliometric indicators using several ordinal aggregation procedures. In particular, we use the threshold procedure, which allows to reduce opportunities for manipulations.
The material is presented as a conceptual article. The aim of the article is to define the development pattern of flagship universities that take particular place in the national system of higher education both in Soviet and post-Soviet times. The research design includes analysis of historic materials, regulative documents reflecting the peculiarities of higher education development in the Soviet times and in modern Russia. The research identifies three main stages of flagship university development. The first stage is characterized by flagship university development in the context of direct administration of the state whereas university «flagshipness» was restricted to a particular place in the educational system. The next stage suggested decreasing roles of flagship universities in the context of university autonomy and sharp decline of state involvement (1990s). At present flagship university development happens in the context of state participation with the aim of creating new educational network structure (2000 till present). At that moment two types of flagship universities are arising: multi-profile universities combining research mission with the mission of mega-region development and infrastructure universities driving regional development. In future it seems reasonable to conduct a series of interviews with representatives of flagship university administration in order to identify quality characteristics of these universities development in the context of national educational system development tasks.
At early 2016 the new index was launched on Web of Science platform — Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI). The database is free for all Web of Science subscribers except those from the former Soviet Union countries. This database includes publications from 652 best Russian journals and is based on the data from Russian national citation index — Russian Index of Science Citation (RISC). RISC was launched in 2005 but there is very limited information about it available in English-language scholarly literature by now. The aim of this paper is to describe the history, actual structure and user possibilities of RISC. We focus on the novel features of RISC which are crucial to bibliometrics and unavailable in international citation indices.