VAK List

Community and Forum → Other questions. Insects topics → VAK List

Yakovlev, 15.03.2011 9:49

I think there are often questions about the HAC list logs. Question to the enlightened, are the journals that are cited included in Scopus? Are all logs included in WOS enabled? Is the journal Neue Entomologische Nachrichten included in SCOPUS? Where can I view it? Thanks!

Comments

Pages: 1 2

15.03.2011 18:18, Yakovlev

Scientific periodicals that meet a sufficient condition and whose current issues or translated versions in a foreign language are included in at least one of the citation systems (bibliographic databases) Web of Science, Scopus, Web of Knowledge, Astrophysics, PubMed, Mathematics, Chemical Abstracts, Springer, Agris, GeoRef, are included in the List.

I read this phrase several times long before this discussion , but I didn't understand anything about it. Is a foreign magazine that is cited in Scopus included in the HAC list? And how to view this scopus list in general? I can't find it. For example, ZooKeys magazine, which was discussed a lot here, has WOS, but is it included in the WAC list? There is no such journal on the RSCI website at all, although this is the first class in the taxonomy now. Zootaxa is there, but I don't see ZooKeys. Fortunately, we all have the opportunity not to use such" fuzzy journals " for the Higher Attestation Commission, but we would like to develop both the RSCI and WOS in parallel. We are already paying a lot of attention to this.
My questions remained unanswered.
Where is the full list of journals included in Scopus?
Foreign magazines included in Scopus are Vakov's?
And the most important question for me.
Is the journal Neue Entomologische Nachrichten included in Scopus? I have a very large work coming out there within a month - you can say a monograph. And the question hangs. And the editor is inconvenient to ask - he will say-well, an idiot. But I can't find it...

15.03.2011 21:01, Yakovlev

Since I do not remember the explanations of Academician Kirpichnikov , I will clarify - there are a number of impacts!!! There is WOS, there is Scopus... there are other systems that have an impact factor. Take our RSCI as well. This is also an impact! Recently, I have been thinking about this problem and received a lot of responses, for example, the relatively good journal Nota Lepidopterologica, which is part of Scopus
1. Ne Vak Magazine
2.
VAK Journal 3. VAK Journal after 2008
, independent attempts to clarify this were not successful.
In addition, let's talk about WOS.
for example, ZooKeys! It has a pretty good WOS, but I can't find it anywhere as WOS, and on the RSCI website it doesn't exist at all, although the system positions itself as showing all the WOS and WOS logs.
Some kind of calcium gluconate...
I personally don't care, but I have young employees, I have plans, I need to know how to move correctly so as not to lose my job - and the feeling of complete confusion is on the list of the Higher Attestation Commission.

18.03.2011 12:08, stout

All journals included in the Scopus and WoS DATABASES are considered to be VAKOV's. Zoological Record has nothing to do with it. ZR indexes everything that is sent to them, while WoS and Scopus index only logs from their databases. You can Google the Scopus log database. It's easier with VOS magazines - see list of journals with the ISI impact factor. Not all journals included in the RSCI are VAKOV journals.
About the "Vak magazine after 2008" - this is nonsense. If you follow everything literally, it turns out that all the articles published before the appearance of the HAC list are now not HAC ones. If Nota Lepidopterologica is in the Scopusa database (and not just cited in its journals!), then it means Vak'skii.
Zookeys - VAK, as it is included in the WoS database and RSCI has nothing to do with it.

19.03.2011 5:17, Yakovlev

I know situations when the council (and a very respected one) took out one of the applicant's articles from the HAC list, because it was a " foreign article!!!". The Case of Solovyov, St. Petersburg State University Council, Journal of Insect Science.
There are no clear words on the HAC website - there are no clear actions of the councils. And the list of references is the most important point, taking into account the fact that for doctors they should raise to 15, and for candidates to 5. After all, they are already talking about this in the recommendation order. The mass of European journals cited in Scopus is an absolutely unclear situation, but the bulletin of the Altai University (with all due respect) there is. Rather, the rivers will flow backwards to force me to publish there.
If someone found a list of magazines from the Scopus list, please provide a link.

This post was edited by Yakovlev - 19.03.2011 05: 34

19.03.2011 10:09, stout

Why should I believe you? Where is the clear information on the HAC website about this? What information should dissertation councils rely on?

I don't believe it... That's up to you.
On the website of the Higher Attestation Commission there is clear information and you do not need to speculate and invent anything yourself. It is this information that the diss should rely on.tips.
We read:
"Scientific periodicals that meet a sufficient condition, the current issues of which or their translated versions in a foreign language are included in at least one of the citation systems (bibliographic databases) Web of Science, Scopus, Web of Knowledge, Astrophysics, PubMed, Mathematics, Chemical Abstracts, Springer, Agris, GeoRef, are included in the List. Journals that are not included in these citation systems (bibliographic databases) must meet all the necessary criteria for inclusion in the List." This is part of the List from 25.02.2011.

By the way, read on the website of the Higher Attestation Commission and explanations about the notorious 15 and 5 articles-this is all garbage (the letter, I think, is from January 2011).
A list of Scopus magazines can be found on the Scopus website (no subscription required). This is a rather heavy excel file.

I have a list for spring 2010 at hand - there is no Neue Entomologische Nachrichten and Nota Lepid.
About Zool.Record, as I said, forget it. You don't have to invent something for the WAC that she didn't say.

About the case of St. Petersburg State University-curious. M. B. was it an off-topic article?
The phrase "the council (and a very respected one) removed one of the applicant's articles from the HAC list" is incorrect. The HAC list is a HAC list, not a council list, and the council can't get anything out of it (well, in extreme cases, only with the help of Grubber

19.03.2011 12:19, Zlopastnyi Brandashmyg

Why should I believe you? Where is the clear information on the HAC website about this? What information should dissertation councils rely on?

As far as I understand, in the current situation, specific advice has the last word. The information on the WACA website is given in the best traditions of our bureaucracy-it requires an accredited interpreter.

Some time ago, I asked a question to quite official people (members of the Soviets). situation - at the time of publication, the journal was not included in the HAC list, later it was included in the list, and vice versa, at the time of publication, the journal was included in the list, then it was removed from it. Question: Can such publications be counted? I got 2 opposite answers.

PS. About Kirpichnikov's interview - it was published on polit.ru, for quite some time, but now, alas, I couldn't find it.

19.03.2011 12:31, stout

Right. I asked 2 questions and got 2 answers

In fact, as mentioned above, it turns out that all articles published before the HAC list appeared are not HAC articles? Clearly, this is nonsense.
And about the second question - on the website of the Higher Attestation Commission there were explanations about this (I couldn't find the link right away, but I definitely had information on this topic).

In general, you can include monographs and even collections of articles - if someone has a problem with normal articles.
Read the primary sources (i.e. documents of the Higher Attestation Commission), and you will be happy!
From the WAKA website:
"Please note that publications in scientific periodicals included in the List may include peer-reviewed monographs written based on the author's research materials, collections of articles, as well as diplomas for discoveries, author's certificates for inventions issued by the State Committee of the Council of Ministers of the USSR for Inventions and Discoveries, patents for Inventions. The decision on the possibility of attributing monographs and collections of articles to publications in scientific periodicals included in the List is made at meetings of the expert councils of the Higher Attestation Commission when considering dissertations received in accordance with the established procedure for the degree of doctor and candidate of Sciences."

19.03.2011 20:54, stout

I don't think that this is nonsense
Lists (in the sense of Vakov)- this is at least something. Previously, people generally defended themselves, sometimes without having a single article in the refereed journal (even if it was a domestic one), etc
.Although, yes - the list is far from ideal. Here somewhere they wrote about the magazine "South of Russia" or something like that-mda...
And of the more or less scientific journals of the CMC, only 2 are on the list...

I looked at Solovyov's abstract. All foreign articles, except J. Insect Sci., are not Vakov's. It is not clear why this information is not listed together with the ZJ. However, in this case, it does not matter - there are a couple of Vak's-for the candidate's more than enough. M. B. dissertant and did not know that this is also Vak's

20.03.2011 14:15, Juglans

I don't think that this is nonsense
Lists (in the sense of Vakov)- this is at least something. Previously, people generally defended themselves, sometimes without having a single article in the refereed journal (even a domestic one), etc.

The leadership of the Higher Attestation Commission has repeatedly justified that this list was introduced NOT for biologists, but rather for humanitarians, whose doctoral degrees were defended based on newspaper publications. We are also talking about "environmentalists". The list is complete nonsense in the sense that it includes more than dubious Russian-language journals and works. You see, Tijdschrift voor Entomologie is worse than the Bulletin of the Pomeranian University. The consequence of these lists was the "pro-payment" of an extraordinary publication - my colleague personally paid for the quick release of his articles in a Moscow magazine, because the queue was for 2 years. These are now included foreign journals, and a couple of years ago, people with 40 publications in leading foreign journals were forced to wait for the publication of articles in our "press".

Likes: 2

20.03.2011 15:45, Zlopastnyi Brandashmyg

The leadership of the Higher Attestation Commission has repeatedly justified that this list was introduced NOT for biologists, but rather for humanitarians, whose doctoral degrees were defended based on newspaper publications. We are also talking about "environmentalists". The list is complete nonsense in the sense that it includes more than dubious Russian-language journals and works. You see, Tijdschrift voor Entomologie is worse than the Bulletin of the Pomeranian University. The consequence of these lists was the "pro-payment" of an extraordinary publication - my colleague personally paid for the quick release of his articles in a Moscow magazine, because the queue was for 2 years. These are now included foreign journals, and a couple of years ago, people with 40 publications in leading foreign journals were forced to wait for the publication of articles in our "press".

This is also the story of the "grubber".

20.03.2011 16:27, stout

> illustration of a conversation in a nearby thread about Zookeys born with IF

Zookeys were NOT born with an impact, stop replicating nonsense. Zookeys started publishing almost three years ago. I got the impact last winter. To calculate the impact, normers are taken for 2 years. Can we count or what?

We can count. I repeat for those who are in the tank. From the moment of inclusion in the WoS database, two years of preliminary calculation of IF passes, then (in two years-I repeat for those who DO NOT"write nonsense") The log file appears in the official release.
That is, Zookeys, as mentioned, was included in the WoS database immediately after birth. If you've ever had to deal with applying for a magazine to register with WoS, you'll understand what this is all about. Applications to WoS (and Scopus, too) are considered for a long time (if at

all ).
For example, the journal Zoology in the Middle East, published since 1986, was published only a few years ago. Adding a newly discovered log to the WoS database is not a trivial event.

20.03.2011 20:11, Yakovlev

I looked at Solovyov's abstract. All foreign articles, except J. Insect Sci., are not Vakov's. It is not clear why this information is not listed together with the ZJ. However, in this case, it does not matter - there are a couple of Vakov's-for the candidate's more than enough. M. B. dissertant and did not know that this is also Vakov's

M. B. is a dissertation candidate, and M. B. is not a dissertation candidate. and to be precise, not a dissertation student. the guy who published in Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, zoojournal, note-knows where wos is. And all formulations such as "Scientific periodicals that satisfy a sufficient condition, the current issues of which or their translated versions in a foreign language are included in at least one of the citation systems" are created so that there are more M. B.'s, and those who publish their articles in the journal of the Altai or Pomor University are more numerous, than those who are published in serious journals.
when the applicant is told-remove this article - it is foreign, and he shows that this article is included in the VOS - and this is also not an argument. That's what it's all about.

This post was edited by Yakovlev - 21.03.2011 06: 15

Likes: 1

Likes: 2

21.03.2011 15:35, Yakovlev

why not use simple Russian literature and write:
The HAC list includes
1. Journals included in the WOS
2/--- Scopus
3...
4...
5 and domestic magazines listed below...
Why don't you have the energy to write this, and not "Scientific periodicals that meet a sufficient condition, the current issues of which or their translated versions in a foreign language are included in at least one of the citation systems"? I have worked in psychiatry long enough to understand where the text is written by a person suffering from reasonableness. The desire for scientific similarity leads to the fact that the journals entered in Scopus are respected by the secretaries of the dissertation councils:
a) include in the list of Vakov magazines
b) do not include in it
c) include by some years
d) think that Russian magazines are included, whose translated versions are included in Scopus.
With WOS-everything is in order, except for St. Petersburg State University. And this is not the fault of St. Petersburg State University!!! This is a consequence of the terrible WAKA texts, which some of our anonymous colleagues interpret as transparent and understandable. And they call for trust in their anonymous projections (possibly correct).
it seems that VAKA does not have specialists in pedic sciences to distort the text and meaning in this way. Why is there any ambiguity initially laid down - if even at St. Petersburg State University people are not able to understand that the magazine of the WOS list is somewhat cooler than the magazine Concrete and reinforced Concrete, or the bulletin of the Adyghe University.
And how is this list understood in Kyzyl, and in Omsk, and Khabarovsk??? Why is there no conciseness in important documents? Why can't our colleague Academician Kirpichnikov just solve this issue - he believes that all journals with IF are included. And the secretaries of academic councils in Moscow (15 m away) or in St. Petersburg (a little further away) muddy the waters as they think is right.
I read Kupriyanov's articles-exclusively!!!

This post was edited by Yakovlev - 21.03.2011 18: 08

Likes: 2

21.03.2011 20:45, Yakovlev

not everything is measured by WOS. And I won't believe that Moscow is worse than Taiwan. Here we are not talking about scientometric indicators and their pros and cons. and about the list of the Higher Attestation Commission, which should be clear to Russian specialists. Now China is dumbfounded and rushing a huge amount of horrifying gibberish, including in zootaxa. Some articles are sent to me and my colleagues for review. Horror. Therefore, it is too early to compare the scientific school of St. Petersburg and Urumqi on the basis of WOS data, but ours can really give Urumqi or Bishkek leadership if they do not learn how to translate their articles into accessible files, make PDF files and do a lot of other things. As one very respected and well-known editor here wrote to me, " I just don't have time to deal with contracts right now, etc.and we don't have a legal address. Therefore, with the Internet, we will postpone for now, who needs to let them buy and exchange collections, I have packs at home on the aisle." People are used not to live and work, but to survive. And the editor doesn't have time to break through an elementary log in elibrary! and this is nonsense. The editor does not want the journal to be in the RSCI system at least to begin with. And I get sad

21.03.2011 22:14, Yakovlev

And I'm not fuming, Stout!
I like the list when it is clear to everyone, not when it is not clear to anyone. I ask for accuracy, not for myself, because I have OK. It's just that there are people, young people, and we need to focus on how to work properly. To avoid flying out the door. WOS is good. And correctly. And we try to work there. They threw all their feet in there. About Cyril, I do not la-la, because he is not the only one with us-faunists in correspondence. And, as you put it, magazines that knowingly don't play by the rules "become problematic". The difference between RSCI and WOS will be solved over time, it is even interesting and generally very appealing to me. It seems to me that we are playing at the same gate, and you are quarreling, and the opposition of those who make faunal lists or describe new taxa to those who look at nucleotide sequences seems to me a little bad form, especially from anonymous people.

Pages: 1 2