Mathematicians have doubted adequacy of an estimation of scientific works

Mathematicians from three large institutes have prepared the report in which have called in question relevance of an existing method of an estimation of the scientific works, based on them tsitiruemosti.

It is possible to familiarise with the report here. On a site of the International advice on the industrial and applied mathematics (International Council on Industrial and Applied Mathematics) its summary is presented.

The report has been prepared by Committee on a quantitative estimation of researches into which representative of the International union of mathematicians (International Mathematical Union entered), the International advice on the industrial and applied mathematics, and also Institute of mathematical statistics (Institute of Mathematical Statistics).

Now the standard estimations of scientific works and activity of scientists are the impakt-factor and index Hirsha. The impakt-factor fluctuates from shares of unit to 50 and settles up on the basis of statistical data about tsitiruemosti publications for the three-year period in certain editions. Index Hirsha depends on quantity of the works written by the researcher and quantity of references to them. Definition of index Hirsha is formal sounds so: the scientist has an index h, if h from it N articles are quoted at least h time each, while remained (N — h) articles are quoted less than h time each.

Authors of the report indicate, that one of principal causes of application the impakt-factor and index Hirsha is reliance of their accuracy, objectivity and simplicity. However as a result of the research of mathematics have revealed, that frequently these criteria are used incorrectly. Authors of the report have underlined the following: first, the statistics is not an exact method of valuation at its misuse. Secondly, objectivity of use of an index of citing for an estimation of scientific publications is conditional as many not up to the end understand the term "citing". In many cases citing is not similar to the impakt-factor. Thirdly, the desire to have one number as simple criterion of an estimation, is not justified for scientific publications. Difficult research works are difficult for evaluating, using such approach "in a forehead". It can damage to science development as a whole.

Mathematicians also indicate, that, in their opinion, the impakt-factor is too rough and average estimation of scientific publications. In particular, the journal impakt-factor is not an unequivocal indicator of that, how much tsenna the article published in it. Now it is the private rule.

Thus, the estimation of scientific works only on the basis of their citing, according to authors of the report, is partial. They consider, that it is necessary to develop the new, more adequate approach for the decision of this problem, the TAPE writes