Abstract and keywords
Abstract (English):
Topical problems of domestic and foreign science studies associated with the contradictions in evaluating the contribution of domestic scientists to the world science are considered. The erroneousness of the approaches caused by the priority evaluation of the scientific activity effectiveness of Russian scientists based on using international scientometric ratings and databases is shown. The main tools of traditional scientometrics are presented, methodological approaches to determining the researchers’ ratings based on scientometric indicators are shown. Various options for modifying the calculations of the Hirsch index values for different numbers of publications are described. It is shown that, on the basis of the considered indices, it becomes possible to evaluate a scientist’s publication activity by three ratings, namely: rating of significant works; rating of work intensity; a complex rating, including both ones. When establishing a rating, it is advisable to give preference to the index of basic publications. As a result of a comparative analysis of domestic and foreign studies, it is revealed that scientometrics is a real tool for analyzing and evaluating scientists’ activities, scientific organizations and educational institutions.

science studies, scientometrics, management of scientific activity, publication activity, scientometric indicators, labour psychology, engineering psychology, cognitive ergonomics, world science

1. Arustamov, E. A. On the Analysis of the University Teaching Staff Publication Activity. Vestnik Moskovskogo go-sudarstvennogo oblastnogo universiteta [Bulletin of Moscow Region State University]. Series: Economics, 2020, no. 2, pp. 131-137. DOI: 10.18384 / 2310-6646-2020-2-131-137.

2. Vikulov, S. F., Khrustalev, E. Yu. The Concept of Train-ing and Certification of the Scientific-teaching Staff. Natsion-al'nyye interesy: prioritety i bezopasnost' [National Interests: Priorities and Security], 2012, no. 14, pp. 10-17.

3. Gerasimenko, P. V. Modification of Hirsch h-index. Bul-letin of Trans-Dniester State University. Series “Physical, Ma-thematical and Technical Sciences”, 2019, no. 3 (63), pp. 52-54.

4. Gerasimenko, P. V. Modifications of the H-index for Differentiated Assessment of the Results of the Scientists’ Creative Activity Upravleniye naukoy i naukometriya [Management of Science and Scientometrics], 2020, vol. 15, no. 1. pp. 55-71. DOI:

5. Dadalko, V. A., Dadalko, S. V. Scientometrics in the Context of Science Studies and Modern Education. Znaniye. Ponimaniye. Umeniye [Knowledge. Understanding. Skill], 2020, no. 1, pp. 149-159.

6. Erokhin, D. V., Spasennikov, V. V. Economic-psychological Principles and Methods of Marketing Research. Vestnik Bryanskogo gosudarstvennogo tekhnicheskogo universi-teta [Bulletin of Bryansk State Technical University], 2013, no. 1 (37), pp. 102-110.

7. Levin, V. I. Hirsch Index and Evaluation of Researcher’s Contribution to Science. Alma Mater [Higher school Herald], 2016, no. 4, pp. 9-13.

8. Lutsenko, E. V., Loiko, V. I., Laptev, V. N. Management in Social and Economic Systems: a training manual for graduate students of the specialty 05.13.10 – Management in social and economic systems. Krasnodar, KubSAU, 2015, 634 p. Available at:

9. Makrusova, V. A. Information Resources for Monitoring the Russian Science. Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2005, vol. 75, no. 7, pp. 607-612.

10. Makrusova, V. A., Ivanov, V. V., Varshavsky, A. E. On the issue of an Adequate Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Scientific Activity. Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2011, vol. 81, no. 7, pp. 587-593.

11. Mikhailov, O. V. Need a Modification of the Most Popular Citation Index. Vestnik rossiyskoy akademii nauk [Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences], 2013, no. 10, pp. 943-944.

12. Mikhailov, O. V. Citation Paradoxes. Vestnik ros-siyskoy akademii nauk [Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences], 2018, vol. 88, no. 3, pp. 268-271.

13. Nalimov, V. V., Mulchenko, Z. M. Scientometrics. Study of the Development of Science as an Information Process. Moscow, Nauka, 1969, 192 p.

14. Novikov, D. A., Orlov, A. I., P. Yu. Chebotarev. Two Types of Methodological Errors in the Management of Research Activities. Naukometri I expertiza v upravleniyi naukoi [Scien-tometrics and Expertise in Science Governance]. Moscow, Insti-tute of Control Sciences RAS, 2013, pp. 32-54.

15. Orlov, A. I. About the Indicators of Scientific Activity. Ekonomicheskiy analiz: Teoriya i praktika [Economic Analysis: Theory and Practice], 2014, no. 7 (358), pp. 21-29.

16. Orlov, A. I. Forward to Aristotle: Freeing Economic Theory from Perversions. Nauchnyy zhurnal KubGAU [Scientif-ic Journal of KubGAU], Krasnodar, KubGAU, 2017, no. 03 (127), pp. 478-500. IDA [article ID]: 1271703033. Available at:

17. Parshin, A. N. Science or Bibliometry: Who will Win? Vestnik rossiyskoy akademii nauk [Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences], 2018, vol. 88, no. 11, pp. 982-991.

18. Rosenberg, G. S. “Hirshness” of Science and the Half-Life of Citation of Scientific Ideas. Ekosfera [Ecosphere], 2018, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 56-62.

19. Sapozhnikov, V. V., Efanov, D. V. A New approach to Calculating Scientists’ Performance Indicators. Avtomatika na transporte [Automation in transport], 2019, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 505-514.

20. Spasennikov, V. V., Kirichek, A. V., Morozova, A. V. Review as a Procedure of Expert Evaluation of the Quality of Scientific Articles. Ergodizayn [Ergodesign], 2018, no. 2 (2), pp. 3-7. DOI: 10.30987 / article_5bf98b622928e6.08038377.

21. Spasennikov, V. V., Molchanova, N. V., Skantsev, V. M. Discussion Issues of Evaluation of the Scientific Activity’s Effectiveness Using Citation Indices (review of domestic and foreign publications). Ergodizayn [Ergodesign], 2019, no. 4 (6), pp. 186-195. DOI: 10.30987 / 2619-1512-2019-2019-4-186-195.

22. Spasennikov, V. V., Kirichek, A. V., Morozova A. V. Structuring of Scientific Articles Taking into Account the Re-quirements of International Scientometric Databases. Ergodizayn [Ergodesign], 2019, no. 3 (5), pp. 99-105. DOI: 10.30987 / article_5d25e4dca69026.89907731.

23. Spasennikov, V. V. Scientific article as a Means of Ef-fective Communication: Recommendations for Writing and For-matting. Ergodizayn [Ergodesign], 2020, no. 2 (8), pp. 51-57. DOI: 10.30987 / 2658-4026-2020-2-51-57.

24. Kholodov, A. S. On the Citation Indices of Scientific Works. Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2015, vol. 85, no. 4, pp. 310-320.

25. Shtovba, S. D. Shtovba, E. V. A Survey on Scientometric Indicators for Assessment of Researcher’s Publication Activity. Upravlenie bol'shimi sistemami [Large-Scale Systems Control], 2013, vol. 44, pp. 262-278.

26. Yurevich, A. V., Tsapenko, I. N. Efficiency of National Social Science and Humanities: Scientometrics approach. In Novikov D.A., Orlov A.I., Chebotarev P.Yu. (ed.) Naukometri I expertiza v upravleniyi naukoi [Scientometrics and Expertise in Science Governance]. Moscow, Institute of Control Sciences RAS, 2013, pp. 408-420.

27. Yurevich, A. V., Tsapenko, I. N. The Fetishism of the Statistics: a Quantitative Assessment of the Contribution of Rus-sian Social Sciences and Humanities to the World. Sotsiologiya nauki i tekhnologii [Sociology of Science and Technology], vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 7-23.

28. Yagudina L. R., Yagudin, I. N. Efficiency of University Rankings: Implementation of Informational and Motivational Functions. Vyssheye obrazovaniye v Rossii [Higher Education in Russia], 2016, no. 11 (206), pp. 66-71.

29. Alimova, N. K. Russia and post-Soviet countries com-pared: coverage of papers by Scopus and Web of Sciences, Lan-guages and productivity of researchers / N. K. Alimova, Y. Brumstein // European Science Editing 46:e53192. – April 2020. – doi:10.3897/ese.2020.e53192.

30. Abramo, G. Measuring institutional research productivi-ty for the life sciences: the importance of accounting for the order of authors in the bvline / G. Abramo, C. A. D’Angelo, F. Rosati // Scientometrics. – 2013. – v.97. -№3. – P. 779-795.

31. Braun, T. A. Hirsh-type index for journals / T. Braun, W. Glanzel, A. Shubert // Scientometrics. – 2006. – v.69. -№1. – P. 169-173.

32. Bornmann, L. Are There Better Indices for Evalution Purposes than the h Index? A Comprasion of Nine Different of the h-Index Using Data from Biomedicine / L. Bornmann, R. Mutz, H-D. Daniel // Journal of the American Society for Infor-mation Science and Technology. – 2008. – 59 (5). – 830-837. – doi: .

33. Bosquet, C. Are academics who publish more also more cited? Individual determinants of publication and citation records / C. Bosquet, P. P. Combes // Scientometrics. – 2013. – v.97. -№3. – P. 831-857.

34. Czellar, J. Quality of research: which underlying values? / J. Czellar // Problems of scientometry: state and prospects of development: sat. tez. dokl. International Conference (Moscow, October 10-12, 2013). - M., 2013. - P. 20-22.

35. Egghe, L. Theory and practice of the g-index / L. Egghe / / Scientometrics. - 2006. - v. 69. - No. 1. - P. 131-152.

36. Egghe, L. Mathematical theory of the h- and g-index in-dex in case of fractional counting of authorship / L. Egghe // Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. – 2008. – 59 (10). – 1608-1616. – doi: .

37. Hirsch, J. E. An index to quantify an individual’s scien-tific research output / J. E. Hirsch // Proc.Nat.Sci. – 2005. - Vol.102. – no.46. – P. 16569-16572. – doi: .

38. Hirsch, J. E. An index to quantify an individual’s scien-tific research output / J.E. Hirsch // Scientometrics. – 2010. – v.85. -№3. – P. 741-754. - doi: .

39. Hu, X. Describing the development of molecular research in the context of nervous system diseases using year-based h-cores / X. Hu // J.Inf. Science. – 2014. – Vol.40, #1. – P. 107-114.

40. Spasennikov, V. Ergonomic factors in patenting computer systems for personnel's selection and training / V. Spassenikov, K. Androsov, G. Golubeva // CEUR Workshop Proceedings. 30. Ser. "GraphiCon 2020 - Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Computer Graphics and Machine Vision" 2020.