Russian Authors in Leading International Journals in Psychology: A Bibliometric Analysis
Keywords:
leading journals, bibliometric analysis, Russian academic society
Abstract
The article presents the results of the bibliometric analysis of the Russian articles and their authors, published in the leading international psychological journals (with the highest impact-factor) in the years 2000-2015. The sample consisted of 482 articles of the Russian authors. The analysis showed that in the last years there is a growth of the amount of the Russian publications in the leading international psychological journals. But the rate of this growth in Russia is lower than in other countries with similar elements of academic system. The notable position among the Russian publications of the recent years hold the publications of the scientists of the laboratories, created under the program of “megagrants” (almost each fifth article in 2015). The natural-scientific part of the Russian psychology and the related fields are better represented in the leading international psychological journals than the social and applied parts. In the recent years there is also a noted growth of the amount of publications in this thematic area. Many authors, who have the biggest amount of publications in the leading international psychological journals, are foreigners or have a second place of employment in a foreign organization. Very little amount of authors systematically publish articles in the leading journals from year to year. Only 6 authors systematically published articles in the leading journals in the period 2008-2015. But in the last 5 years there is a growth in the amount of the Russian authors (up to 29 people), who systematically publish articles in the leading journals.Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
1. Abbott, A., & Schiermeier, Q. (2014). After the Berlin Wall: Central Europe up close. Nature, 515(7525), 22-25. https://doi.org/10.1038/515022a
2. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Solazzi, M. (2011). The relationship between scientists’ research performance and the degree of internationalization of their research. Scientometrics, 86(3), 629-643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0284-7
3. Global Deception Res Team. (2006). A world of lies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(1), 60-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105282295
4. Hu, Z., Chen, C., & Liu, Z. (2014). How are collaboration and productivity correlated at various career stages of scientists? Scientometrics, 101(2), 1553-1564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1323-6
5. Kwiek, M. (2016). The European research elite: a cross-national study of highly productive academics in 11 countries. Higher Education, 71(3), 379-397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9910-x
6. Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Science, 16, 317-323.
7. Massarani, L. (2013, July 13). Brazil’s science investment reaches record high. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2013.13495
8. Mingers, J., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). A review of theory and practice in scientometrics. European Journal of Operational Research, 246(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.04.002
9. O’Boyle Jr., E., & Aguinis, H. (2012). The best and the rest: Revisiting the norm of normality of individual performance. Personnel Psychology, 65(1), 79-119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01239.x
10. Pislyakov, V. V. (2007). Metody otsenki nauchnogo znaniya po pokazatelyam tsitirovaniya [Methods of assessment of the scientific knowlegde according to the citation index]. Sotsiologicheskii Zhurnal, 1, 128-140.
11. Pislyakov, V. V. (2014). Bibliometricheskie indikatory v resursakh Thomson Reuters [Bibliometric indicators in the resources Thomson Reuters]. In M. A. Akoev (Ed.), Rukovodstvo po naukometrii: indikatory razvitiya nauki i tekhnologii [A handbook in scientometrics: indicators of development of science and technology] (pp. 75-109). Ekaterinburg: Ural University.
12. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P., & Bachrach, D. G. (2008). Scholarly influence in the field of management: a bibliometric analysis of the determinants of university and author impact in the management literature in the past quarter century. Journal of Management, 34(4), 641-720. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308319533
13. Ruiz-Castillo, J., & Costas, R. (2014). The skewness of scientific productivity. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 917-934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.09.006
14. Rupp, D. E., Hoffman, B. J., Bischof, D., Byham, W., Collins, L., Gibbons, A., … Thornton, G. (2015). Guidelines and ethical considerations for assessment center operations. Journal of Management, 41(4), 1244-1273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314567780
2. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Solazzi, M. (2011). The relationship between scientists’ research performance and the degree of internationalization of their research. Scientometrics, 86(3), 629-643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0284-7
3. Global Deception Res Team. (2006). A world of lies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(1), 60-74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105282295
4. Hu, Z., Chen, C., & Liu, Z. (2014). How are collaboration and productivity correlated at various career stages of scientists? Scientometrics, 101(2), 1553-1564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1323-6
5. Kwiek, M. (2016). The European research elite: a cross-national study of highly productive academics in 11 countries. Higher Education, 71(3), 379-397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9910-x
6. Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Science, 16, 317-323.
7. Massarani, L. (2013, July 13). Brazil’s science investment reaches record high. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2013.13495
8. Mingers, J., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). A review of theory and practice in scientometrics. European Journal of Operational Research, 246(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.04.002
9. O’Boyle Jr., E., & Aguinis, H. (2012). The best and the rest: Revisiting the norm of normality of individual performance. Personnel Psychology, 65(1), 79-119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01239.x
10. Pislyakov, V. V. (2007). Metody otsenki nauchnogo znaniya po pokazatelyam tsitirovaniya [Methods of assessment of the scientific knowlegde according to the citation index]. Sotsiologicheskii Zhurnal, 1, 128-140.
11. Pislyakov, V. V. (2014). Bibliometricheskie indikatory v resursakh Thomson Reuters [Bibliometric indicators in the resources Thomson Reuters]. In M. A. Akoev (Ed.), Rukovodstvo po naukometrii: indikatory razvitiya nauki i tekhnologii [A handbook in scientometrics: indicators of development of science and technology] (pp. 75-109). Ekaterinburg: Ural University.
12. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P., & Bachrach, D. G. (2008). Scholarly influence in the field of management: a bibliometric analysis of the determinants of university and author impact in the management literature in the past quarter century. Journal of Management, 34(4), 641-720. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308319533
13. Ruiz-Castillo, J., & Costas, R. (2014). The skewness of scientific productivity. Journal of Informetrics, 8(4), 917-934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2014.09.006
14. Rupp, D. E., Hoffman, B. J., Bischof, D., Byham, W., Collins, L., Gibbons, A., … Thornton, G. (2015). Guidelines and ethical considerations for assessment center operations. Journal of Management, 41(4), 1244-1273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314567780
Published
2018-11-04
How to Cite
ЛоваковА. В. (2018). Russian Authors in Leading International Journals in Psychology: A Bibliometric Analysis. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 14(4), 657-678. https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8918-2017-4-657-678
Issue
Section
Articles section
