Beyond Hirsh-index: Status signals among Russian researchers
https://doi.org/10.20913/1815-3186-2020-4-11-20
Abstract
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.
About the Author
M. M. Sokolov
European University at St. Petersburg
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Sokolov Mikhail Mikhailovich – Candidate of social sciences, Professor of the sociology faculty
Gagarinskaya str., 6/1a, Saint Petersburg, 191187
References
1. Sokolov M (2020) Sociology of suspicion. Theory of recommendation relations with examples from academic life. Sociological Review 19(1): 106–138. (In Russ.).
2. 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.).
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Bruner JS (1973) Beyond the information given: studies in the psychology of knowing. New York: WW Norton.
7. 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.
8. Espeland WN and Stevens ML (2008) A sociology of quantification. European Journal of Sociology 49(3): 401–436.
9. Fleck C (2013) The impact factor fetishism. European Journal of Sociology 54(2): 327–356.
10. 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.
11. Goffman E (1963) Stigma: notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York: Simon and Schuster.
12. Lamont M (2009) How professors think. Inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.
13. Musselin C (2009) The market for academics. New York: Routledge.
14. 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.
15. Podolny JM (2005) Status signals: a sociological study of market competition. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.
16. Porter TM (1997) Trust in numbers: the pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.
17. Power M (1997) The audit society: rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
Review
For citations:
Sokolov M.M. Beyond Hirsh-index: Status signals among Russian researchers. Bibliosphere. 2020;(4):11-20. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20913/1815-3186-2020-4-11-20
Views:
926
Email this article 