Abstracts on entomology

In other words, do you think that a blatant falsification, but made at the level of the candidate (PhD), cannot be published in a "normal peer-reviewed publication" and in English?

You can, crap and in Nature periodically published. But in a" normal peer-reviewed publication", this is much more difficult to do.

By the way, is it possible to list at least a few "normal peer-reviewed publications" (entomology, ecology)?

You have to answer for your words - it's not so much about formalities as about the quality of publications.

ZIN works (I'm biased here, but we're trying), KMK magazines - I don't know about Kirill Mikhailov's formalities, but I didn't see any outright crap there. Paleontological Journal.

This post was edited by Zlopastnyi Brandashmyg - 06.11.2009 18: 53

Yes, you never know, what kind of losers there that signs! For example, I do not fully believe in the presence of Epicometis hirta in the Moscow region, which, according to the respected amara, is available in the student collections of the Moscow State University Department, from the Istra district, where it is collected by students in practice in entomology. Tell me why? Because no one else has collected a single copy of it in any district of the Moscow Region. Does this mean that Makarnik consists entirely of negligent forgers?

But this is a serious accusation. In addition to these barbels, can you give examples where it gives incorrect definitions? And how often? Is he almost always wrong?

This species is not found even in the forest-steppe south of the Tula region. And in Moscow it is unlikely, but only in the south-east and especially along the Oka River, where there are unique refugiums. In Istra, I believe, if the labels are correct, then O. funesta, and then, settled recently. If something like this is published by mistake, then this is not a fake, but a mistake. But it needs to be fixed urgently. And if the author stubbornly refuses to admit the mistake, then this is not yet falsification, but simply cowardice. But if the author from the ceiling "places" on some territory (in the Tula case, these were urban communities) many species that are not present there within a radius of more than 10 km (it's like an elk or wild boar "lives" in the city), and comes out with this for protection, then this is already falsification for selfish purposes. And if these selfish goals were not there, then it would be just nonsense for the sake of showing off.
As for the second point, I don't blame anyone, God forbid. All working specialists make mistakes in one way or another. I took one moth to ZIN 3 times to the coryphaeus who described it, but he could not determine it, and agreed with my erroneous definitions. It was only by the female that I was finally able to identify her. That's what specialization is for, to avoid mistakes. In our business, "monopolism" and a brew in its own juice can serve a bad purpose.

By the way, is it possible to list at least a few "normal peer-reviewed publications" (entomology, ecology)?

zoojournal (Moscow), bull MOIP (Moscow), EO (St. Petersburg), Ecology (Sverdlovsk), Zootaxa (New Zealand), Zool. J. Linn. Soc. (London), Entomologica Fennica (Finland), Entomol. Scand. (Sweden)
This is what the Higher Attestation Commission recognizes, as I understand it, for both pre-Turkish and candidate students

Zoosystematica Rossica

By the way, the question is: does this magazine function?
I know the rules for authors, but the question is-how long do articles stay there? I had a small note published there a hundred years ago.
By the way, it is very interesting, and articles that were published in the HAC publications before they became such are counted. I have published 6 articles in the Eurasian Economic Journal before it became a VAKOV journal. 4 right exactly on the topic... I hear very different answers from a direct yes to a confident no.
I will be very happy to explain?

And you think for yourself.

Until relatively recently, ALL the magazines were non-Russian :- )- and what now, all the old articles for the doctoral program are not suitable? :-)

Zoosystematica rossica is functioning. After Kerzhner's death, N. G. Bogutskaya took over the magazine. My last article was about six months old and was published this year.

I don't know about the WAKA rules about old articles. The situation may be interesting - for example, an article was submitted to the "Vak journal", and by the time of publication the journal dropped out of the list - what should I do?

To Guest: but I don't advise you to think for yourself, because bureaucratic logic doesn't fit in with logic or common sense

This post was edited by Zlopastnyi Brandashmyg - 07.11.2009 00: 19

So thinking for myself, I ask people who know. When the question of fees was raised, people who know EVERYTHING and people who KNOW EVERYTHING immediately responded. And these are different categories.
Therefore, I duplicate my question.
We are not talking about consistently VAKOV publications (Zoozhurnal, EO), but about those publications that are about to become VAKOV, or dropped out of the list... Specific examples worthy of a comment
1. A person submits an article to the VAKOV journal, and it ceases to be such by the time of publication
2. ---------------, it ceases to be such by the time of publication, a year or two is not Vakov, then Vakov (example Byull. MOIP)
3. --------------- in a non-Russian magazine and actively published there, and then it becomes a VAKOV magazine to the delight of everyone (there are many examples, but the Eurasian EJ is relevant for me).
I asked two chairmen of different councils to comment on situation number 3. And I got two responses. YES and NO.
Here, Mr. Guest, and think for yourself.

It seems to me that this question should be addressed to the Higher Attestation commission

a prerequisite should be the publication of the results in normal peer-reviewed publications. Not to be confused with the list of the Higher Attestation Commission - there are successfully "rooters" publish. Yes, there must be publications in English.

I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to the fact that in Mamontov's thesis, which is so actively discussed, everything is in order: articles in the Zoojournal and in the EEA.

Articles are considered VAK if at the time of defending the dissertation, this journal is on the VAK list ("old" articles are also counted). The same situation applies to the compote factor. Its total number (the total impact of all articles in such journals) is calculated at the time of calculation.

By the way, almost all Councils overlook the fact that the MAIN results of the dissertation should be published in journals on the list of the Higher Attestation Commission. In fact, only one often only formal article is counted, which is not quite directly related to the dissertation itself.

It's still a new fashion right now. There are very few entomological councils left (Thank God), so people manage to share purely entomological works in Zoology Councils (for example, I know a similar council in Tomsk). And frankly weak from an entomological point of view, the works there are held as masterpieces of scientific thought.
It remains to add that time will judge everyone.

In fact, only one often only formal article is counted, which is not quite directly related to the dissertation itself.

For some reason, it seemed to me that there should be several articles, but in any case not one.

I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to the fact that this is all right in Mamontov's thesis, which is so actively discussed: articles in the Zoojournal and in the EEA.

First of all, everything that I wrote above has nothing to do with Mamontov's dissertation. I am not familiar with the author or the work.

And in the list of decent, IN MY OPINION, magazines I ZZH and did not include. I don't know about the EEA, I've never been published there.

This post was edited by Zlopastnyi Brandashmyg - 07.11.2009 16: 58

For a candidate's thesis, one article in a journal on the list of the Higher Attestation Commission, even a short message, is enough.

For a candidate's thesis, one article in a journal on the list of the Higher Attestation Commission, even a short message, is enough.

Prelestssst.

When I defended (2001), I think I needed 3 or even 5?

Prelestssst.

When I was defending (2001), do you think I needed 3 or even 5?

Unlikely. Rather, it was not necessary to observe this principle at all.

Et exactly :-)

The HAC list as such has existed for quite a long time - somewhere from about 2000.
But it did not start working immediately (specifically, for doctoral students-from July 1, 2004).
Later it was clarified that candidate dissertations - at least 1 article from the list (but (Lenya!) not just one! just the rest may not be from the list). In general, earlier (in Soviet times) it was considered that for a candidate's thesis you need at least 3 publications (including theses). Now it is decent to have 5-7 or more (from the lower level at least one (better-3-4) - Vak). For doctoral studies later (I think, since 2008), they specified-at least-7 Vakov articles (not just 7 articles : -). Moreover, dissertations filed in 2007, but defended in early 2008, were still held with a smaller number of Vakov articles, since they were declared for protection before this decision.

Obviously, you feel the same way about EO?

I tried to dodge, but I couldn't.

First of all, I am published in EO. Among the indisputable advantages of the magazine are the heroic work of editors (see below), translation into English and payment of royalties (last, but not least).

Secondly, the functioning of the EA has been preserved at the level of the previous era: only paper versions are accepted, while electronic versions are not accepted. As I was told, it is possible that this will change from this fall - I don't know if it has changed. It looks like this: the author brings verified and licked text and drawings, then this text is re-edited, and the drawings are scanned. And they do it absolutely mechanically*. Then the painful process of correcting newly created errors begins. The reason for all this outrage is not the editorial office, but the" prestigious " publishing house Nauka, which is firmly stuck in the last century.

My last article was not only large in volume, but also with a lot of terminology, like:"...sclerites L3 (L2d) and L4U (L3d)". Only thanks to a lot of effort was it possible to catch most of the beetles. It took a lot of time and nerves, not only for me, but also for the editors. I am extremely grateful to B. A. Korotyaev for his efforts and help!

* I remember how in the Zoological Journal (also in the last century, or not anymore? It has not been printed there for a long time) throughout the text, "parameters "were changed to"parameters". "The parameters are elongated, notched on the inner edge..."

 
Failed – so please answer: should I publish the results of my dissertation in the EA? Is it a decent enough magazine?

If my opinion is so important to you ( ), then you should. But be prepared for serious work with the manuscript.

... Do you consider the EEA to be part of the CMC's journals?

You probably meant to the WAC list logs?

No, I meant exactly what I wrote.

The question of criteria is complicated. In my humble opinion, the necessary condition should be the publication of the results in normal peer-reviewed publications. Not to be confused with the list of the Higher Attestation Commission - there are successfully "rooters" publish. Yes, there must be publications in English. You may or may not like it, but English is the international language of science.

As for "dissection", I was unclear - I encourage authors to post their own abstracts for discussion. In this case, I am willing to participate in the discussion to the best of my ability. If you look at the beginning of the topic, that's why I suggested it.

My humble opinion boils down to the fact that this (mandatory publication in English) is "tinsel".
Europeans don't always publish in English themselves. I constantly meet works in various European languages. There is nothing wrong if an Englishman needs my Russian-language work, for example ... orders the work itself and translates it or entrusts it to professionals. They still have exits.
Yes, and dissertations can be different, and the requirement is yours, for everyone. And how much do Europeans need to know about the beetles of some zaseka of the Tula region? Ours-stronger!

As for banning dissertations, this is an unproductive event. You won't do anything anyway. Job seekers are "tops". It is necessary to mark in the roots. In the fact that it is possible to do this in our country, i.e. such works are accepted at the VAC, they are protected at the department, articles are written with the head, and they are accepted in journals. etc.
Why all these "thresholds"??? Why don't they (falsifiers) get eliminated?

By the way, is "Soil Science" a KMK?
If so, I've seen such things on entomology there that, ... like everywhere else…

Yes, and the work (I don't remember the last name) about "False repetitions" immediately came to mind…

Taxonomic (nomenclatural) journals, of course, will look stricter because of their specifics, but there are very few dissertations with such specifics, and then what should we do?


So... I think that it is quite possible to create a topic with a general purpose "on scientific criticism of works". Where not only abstracts and dissertations can be dissected, but also articles.

This post was edited by Adamov - 08.11.2009 09: 26

I also thought about what would happen if all our graduate students and applicants rush to publish at least 1 (and preferably 3) articles in English-language journals?
The remaining forests will be cut out for paper!

EO. Is this a decent enough magazine?

In Russia, you will not find it more decent (at least because of its statute of limitations and authority). The biggest disadvantage is the publication time (by the way, they are finally moving to electronic versions of articles), the article can lie for more than one year, especially if there is no one who can push it through faster. It is much more efficient to publish taxonomic articles in electronic English-language journals (such as Zootaxa, for example). If you submit an article of good quality, it will be published within 3-4 months (compote factor 0.74, 4 times more than that of the Zoological Journal, the only possible compote among entomological journals in Russia).
Another thing is when you have 8-10 decent articles, then after sending them to different magazines, you just need to wait until autumn to count the chickens.
What I wish everyone.

My humble opinion boils down to the fact that this (mandatory publication in English) is "tinsel".
Europeans don't always publish in English themselves. I constantly meet works in various European languages.

It depends on what level of work. In my field, only very parochial works are published in non-English languages. Even the French (well-known nationalists!) in my area recently printed in English.

There is nothing wrong if an Englishman needs my Russian-language work, for example ... orders the work itself and translates it or entrusts it to professionals. They still have exits.

Blessed is he who believes. As experience shows , they don't read it.

 
Yes, and dissertations can be different, and the requirement is yours, for everyone. And how much do Europeans need to know about the beetles of some zaseka of the Tula region? Ours-stronger!

I agree. But, in my opinion, it was about the publication of the main provisions of the dissertation?

 
As for banning dissertations, this is an unproductive event. You won't do anything anyway. Job seekers are "tops". It is necessary to mark in the roots. In the fact that it is possible to do this in our country, i.e. such works are accepted at the VAC, they are protected at the department, articles are written with the head, and they are accepted in journals. etc.
Why all these "thresholds"??? Why don't they (falsifiers) get eliminated?

I already wrote that I'm not a hero! And not a brawler. I am a supporter of small things that we can all do.

 
By the way, is "Soil Science" a KMK?
If so, I've seen such things on entomology there that, ... like everywhere else…

Yes, and the work (I don't remember the last name) about "False repetitions" immediately came to mind…

I also know examples of hackery published by the KMK. But who is without sin? In my opinion, KMK looks very decent against the background of, for example, Science that publishes Fomenko and astrology.

 
Taxonomic (nomenclatural) journals, of course, will look stricter because of their specifics, but there are very few dissertations with such specifics, and then what should we do?
So... I think that it is quite possible to create a topic with a general purpose "on scientific criticism of works". Where not only abstracts and dissertations can be dissected, but also articles.

agree

I also thought about what would happen if all our graduate students and applicants rush to publish at least 1 (and preferably 3) articles in English-language journals?
The remaining forests will be cut out for paper!

And how many percent of them will be printed there? With a really tough review.

It depends on what level of work. In my field, only very parochial works are published in non-English languages. Even the French (well-known nationalists!) in my area recently printed in English.

There are many" areas "of entomology, but we need to come up with one "measure of good work". And I come across five languages in "my area" (not counting "small-town jobs", there are still 3-4).
Therefore, I consider publication in English not mandatory.

No, this is MAIK Nauka/Interperiodika", as well as ZZH, PzH, Journal of General Biology, Ecology, etc.

And then what are the logs in KMK?

Russian Entomological Journal, Acarina, Arthropoda Selecta, Russian Journal of Theriology, Eurasian Entomological Journal, Caucasian Entomological Bulletin. Like everything.

CAB already year 3 as itself.

You just need to understand the difference between those who work in the RAS system and others. For RAS, only articles from the HAC list and impact factors are included in the report, all the rest are just tinsel in whatever magazines it is and no matter what grandiose things you publish there. It turns out that one short message, for example, in the Bulletin of the Krasnoyarsk (Buryat, etc., etc.) University at the end of the year pulls more than 10 (15-20, etc., etc.) articles in very good (but not Vakov) including foreign (but not impact) journals. That's the arithmetic...

It's a pity, so from the point of view of Zlopastnyi Brandashmyg, it is no longer among the" decent " ones.

In general, let Zlopastnyi Brandashmyg himself clarify what he meant by the term "KMK magazines", as well as which of them are decent and which are not.

In my opinion, I have already indicated that all this is my personal and biased opinion. I do not pretend to be an objective assessment.

I have nothing against the CAB, but I have never been published in it, and consequently I have no PERSONAL opinion of it.

You just need to understand the difference between those who work in the RAS system and others. For RAS, only articles from the HAC list and impact factors are included in the report, all the rest are just tinsel in whatever magazines it is and no matter what grandiose things you publish there. It turns out that one short message, for example, in the Bulletin of the Krasnoyarsk (Buryat, etc., etc.) University at the end of the year pulls more than 10 (15-20, etc., etc.) articles in very good (but not Vakov) including foreign (but not impact) journals. That's the arithmetic...

A small correction - for a real researcher (I don't like the word "scientist"), it is important that his work is read and known. From this point of view, publication in an English-language journal, even if not in a VAKOV/impact journal, is an order of magnitude more important than publication in a VAKOV journal, which no one in the world knows and will never know.

I "bite my elbows", one important and good article was published in Russian in the collection. no one knows it, and they won't read it in Russian.