<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.3 20210610//EN" "JATS-journalpublishing1-3.dtd">
<article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.3" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xml:lang="ru"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">bibliosfera</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title xml:lang="ru">Библиосфера</journal-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="en"><trans-title>Bibliosphere</trans-title></trans-title-group></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="ppub">1815-3186</issn><issn pub-type="epub">2712-7931</issn><publisher><publisher-name>ГПНТБ СО РАН</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.20913/1815-3186-2020-4-11-20</article-id><article-id custom-type="elpub" pub-id-type="custom">bibliosfera-1701</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Research Article</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="section-heading" xml:lang="ru"><subject>МЕТОДОЛОГИЯ НИР</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="section-heading" xml:lang="en"><subject>METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH WORK</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>За пределами Хирш-индекса: статусные сигналы среди российских ученых</article-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="en"><trans-title>Beyond Hirsh-index: Status signals among Russian researchers</trans-title></trans-title-group></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes"><contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4102-7117</contrib-id><name-alternatives><name name-style="eastern" xml:lang="ru"><surname>Соколов</surname><given-names>М. М.</given-names></name><name name-style="western" xml:lang="en"><surname>Sokolov</surname><given-names>M. M.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><bio xml:lang="ru"><p>Соколов Михаил Михайлович – кандидат социологических наук, профессор факультета социологии</p><p>ул. Гагаринская, 6/1, литера А, Санкт-Петербург, 191187</p></bio><bio xml:lang="en"><p>Sokolov Mikhail Mikhailovich – Candidate of social sciences, Professor of the sociology faculty</p><p>Gagarinskaya str., 6/1a, Saint Petersburg, 191187</p></bio><email xlink:type="simple">msokolov@eu.spb.ru</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff-1"/></contrib></contrib-group><aff-alternatives id="aff-1"><aff xml:lang="ru"><institution>Европейский университет в Санкт-Петербурге</institution><country>Россия</country></aff><aff xml:lang="en"><institution>European University at St. Petersburg</institution><country>Russian Federation</country></aff></aff-alternatives><pub-date pub-type="collection"><year>2020</year></pub-date><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>04</day><month>12</month><year>2020</year></pub-date><volume>0</volume><issue>4</issue><fpage>11</fpage><lpage>20</lpage><permissions><copyright-statement>Copyright &amp;#x00A9; Соколов М.М., 2021</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2021</copyright-year><copyright-holder xml:lang="ru">Соколов М.М.</copyright-holder><copyright-holder xml:lang="en">Sokolov M.M.</copyright-holder><license xml:lang="ru" license-type="creative-commons-attribution" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" xlink:type="simple"><license-p>Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.</license-p></license><license xml:lang="en" license-type="creative-commons-attribution" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" xlink:type="simple"><license-p>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.</license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://www.bibliosphere.ru/jour/article/view/1701">https://www.bibliosphere.ru/jour/article/view/1701</self-uri><abstract><p>В статье представлены результаты исследования сигналов, на основании которых у российских обществоведов складываются положительные или отрицательные впечатления относительно коллег. Респондентов, входящих в число активно публикующихся российских социологов (N = 810), просили ответить на вопрос о гипотетической ситуации, в которой им надо было, ориентируясь на характеристики заявителей на грант, поддержать или не поддержать выделение исследовательского финансирования. Релевантные характеристики ученых значительно различаются как относительной важностью, так и степенью консенсуса по их поводу. Наиболее важным и общепризнанным символом академических заслуг является написанная без соавторов монография. Наименьший консенсус касается роли заслуг, связанных с международным признанием (преподавание в «известном европейском университете», публикаций в западных журналах) и участия в диссертационном производстве (научное руководство, оппонирование). Относительный вес заслуг различается в связи с (а) общей ориентацией респондента на стандарты глобальных vs. российских науки и (б) возрастом. В отношении атрибутов, порочащих ученого (плагиат, неоднократные публикации одного и того же текста и т. д.), наблюдается наибольший консенсус.</p></abstract><trans-abstract xml:lang="en"><p>The article presents the results of a study of signals conveying positive or negative messages about social scientists. We surveyed sociologists actively publishing in the Russian language (N = 810). Subjects were asked to respond to a hypothetical situation in which they were to assess CVs of a fictional applicant for a grant competition. Attributes of scholars comprising a standard academic biography differed markedly both in their salience and in the degree of consensus about their importance. A book written single-handedly was the most unanimously recognized symbol of academic merit among Russian sociologists. The least agreement was about the signals related to the presence at the international intellectual scene (teaching in a “well-known European university”, publishing in international periodicals) and to the participation in dissertation production (supervising or serving as a reviewer of many dissertations). Importance of these groups of signals depends on the overall orientation to the local or global audience and age. There were much more consensus about the attributes in different ways discrediting scientists, such as plagiarizing or multiple publications.</p></trans-abstract><kwd-group xml:lang="ru"><kwd>социология науки</kwd><kwd>социология оценивания</kwd><kwd>наукометрия</kwd><kwd>академическая репутация</kwd><kwd>академическая нечестность</kwd></kwd-group><kwd-group xml:lang="en"><kwd>sociology of science</kwd><kwd>sociology of evaluation</kwd><kwd>scientometrics</kwd><kwd>academic reputation</kwd><kwd>academic dishonesty</kwd></kwd-group><funding-group><funding-statement xml:lang="ru">Исследование было проведено Центром институционального анализа науки и образования совместно с компанией eLIBRARY.RU, создателем Российского индекса научного цитирования и сайта-библиотеки elibrary.ru. Авторы хотели бы персонально поблагодарить Виктора Алексеевича Глухова, благодаря деятельной помощи которого проект стал возможным.</funding-statement></funding-group></article-meta></front><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="cit1"><label>1</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Соколов М. (2020) Социология подозрительности. Теория рекомендательных отношений с примерами из академической жизни. Социологическое обозрение 19(1): 106–138.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Sokolov M (2020) Sociology of suspicion. Theory of recommendation relations with examples from academic life. Sociological Review 19(1): 106–138. (In Russ.).</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit2"><label>2</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Соколов М. М., Губа К. С., Зименкова Т. В., Сафонова М. А., Чуйкина С. А (2015) Как становятся профессорами: академические карьеры, рынки и власть в пяти странах. Москва : Новое литературное обозрение, 2015. 832 c.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Sokolov MM, Guba KS, Zimenkova TV, Safonova MA and Chuikina SA (2015) How to become professors: academic careers, markets and power in five countries. Moscow: New Literary Review. (In Russ.).</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit3"><label>3</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Aksnes DW, Langfeldt L and Wouters P (2019) Citations, citation indicators, and research quality: an overview of basic concepts and theories. SAGE Open 9(1): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019829575.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Aksnes DW, Langfeldt L and Wouters P (2019) Citations, citation indicators, and research quality: an overview of basic concepts and theories. SAGE Open 9(1): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019829575.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit4"><label>4</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Beigel F, Gallardo O and Bekerman F (2018) Institutional expansion and scientific development in the periphery: the structural heterogeneity of Argentina’s academic field. Minerva 56(3): 305–331.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Beigel F, Gallardo O and Bekerman F (2018) Institutional expansion and scientific development in the periphery: the structural heterogeneity of Argentina’s academic field. Minerva 56(3): 305–331.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit5"><label>5</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Blank RM (1991) The effects of double-blind versus singleblind reviewing: experimental evidence from the American Economic Review. The American Economic Review 81(5): 1041–1067.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Blank RM (1991) The effects of double-blind versus singleblind reviewing: experimental evidence from the American Economic Review. The American Economic Review 81(5): 1041–1067.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit6"><label>6</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Bruner JS (1973) Beyond the information given: studies in the psychology of knowing. New York: WW Norton.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Bruner JS (1973) Beyond the information given: studies in the psychology of knowing. New York: WW Norton.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit7"><label>7</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Van Dalen HP and Henkens KN (2005) Signals in science on the importance of signaling in gaining attention in science. Scientometrics 64(2): 209–233.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Van Dalen HP and Henkens KN (2005) Signals in science on the importance of signaling in gaining attention in science. Scientometrics 64(2): 209–233.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit8"><label>8</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Espeland WN and Stevens ML (2008) A sociology of quantification. European Journal of Sociology 49(3): 401–436.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Espeland WN and Stevens ML (2008) A sociology of quantification. European Journal of Sociology 49(3): 401–436.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit9"><label>9</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Fleck C (2013) The impact factor fetishism. European Journal of Sociology 54(2): 327–356.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Fleck C (2013) The impact factor fetishism. European Journal of Sociology 54(2): 327–356.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit10"><label>10</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Gläser J (2004) Why are the most influential books in Australian sociology not necessarily the most highly cited ones? Journal of Sociology 40(3): 261–282.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Gläser J (2004) Why are the most influential books in Australian sociology not necessarily the most highly cited ones? Journal of Sociology 40(3): 261–282.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit11"><label>11</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Goffman E (1963) Stigma: notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York: Simon and Schuster.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Goffman E (1963) Stigma: notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York: Simon and Schuster.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit12"><label>12</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Lamont M (2009) How professors think. Inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Lamont M (2009) How professors think. Inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit13"><label>13</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Musselin C (2009) The market for academics. New York: Routledge.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Musselin C (2009) The market for academics. New York: Routledge.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit14"><label>14</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Najman JM and Hewitt B (2003) The validity of publication and citation counts for sociology and other selected disciplines. Journal of Sociology 39(1): 62–80.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Najman JM and Hewitt B (2003) The validity of publication and citation counts for sociology and other selected disciplines. Journal of Sociology 39(1): 62–80.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit15"><label>15</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Podolny JM (2005) Status signals: a sociological study of market competition. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Podolny JM (2005) Status signals: a sociological study of market competition. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit16"><label>16</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Porter TM (1997) Trust in numbers: the pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Porter TM (1997) Trust in numbers: the pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit17"><label>17</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Power M (1997) The audit society: rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Power M (1997) The audit society: rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit18"><label>18</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Sokolov M (2019) The sources of academic localism and globalism in Russian sociology: the choice of professional ideologies and occupational niches among social scientists. Current Sociology 67(6): 818–837.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Sokolov M (2019) The sources of academic localism and globalism in Russian sociology: the choice of professional ideologies and occupational niches among social scientists. Current Sociology 67(6): 818–837.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit19"><label>19</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Tahamtan I and Bornmann L (2018) Core elements in the process of citing publications: conceptual overview of the literature. Journal of Informetrics 12(1): 203–216.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Tahamtan I and Bornmann L (2018) Core elements in the process of citing publications: conceptual overview of the literature. Journal of Informetrics 12(1): 203–216.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit20"><label>20</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Tahamtan I and Bornmann L (2019) What do citation counts measure? An updated review of studies on citations in scientific documents published between 2006 and 2018. Scientometrics 121(3): 1635–1684.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Tahamtan I and Bornmann L (2019) What do citation counts measure? An updated review of studies on citations in scientific documents published between 2006 and 2018. Scientometrics 121(3): 1635–1684.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref></ref-list><fn-group><fn fn-type="conflict"><p>The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.</p></fn></fn-group></back></article>
