VAK List

I don't understand. hu from hu, hu from ebsent, hu from duty today.
So I write that it would be necessary to clearly register on the website of the Higher Attestation Commission how much, bandy. So that there are no discrepancies in St. Petersburg State University, Kyzyl and Syktyvkar. Are you against it? You know the depths of consciousness of the wise men from the WAKA, the pranks of the boys from the RSCI, read between the lines. We faunalists can't do that. And the topic of this branch is to understand what is in the WAC list and what is outside it. You didn't convince me, because You are anonymous. And on the SCOPUS database, no one gave an explanation - are those magazines included in the HAC list or not? And even if you know that they are included, show them the resource so that the scientific secretaries can convey this. Perhaps your formalities have already been completed, but this is a very wise situation for many. Confusion.
Here I am boiling

Yes - about work, projects, etc. For a couple of years now, the Ministry of Education and Science has been demanding that elibrary data be used in applications. And this is despite the fact that the elibrary database is a complete g-but, the data there is unverified and scanty.

"You don't like this" elibrary "list - ask another one on a nearby globe"
stout
23.19-21.03.2011

Damn, but I'm not from the Higher Attestation Commission, I'm a taxonomist - and I can read and analyze... Everything I said above is written in the documents of the Higher Attestation Commission. I repeat - there is no need to invent anything - in the documents of the Higher Attestation Commission (on the site) there is everything that you ask about.

now, by the way, the elibrary database has installed a service where you can add your own articles from those already published and included in the database, because they are automatically poorly distributed. This is a fairly normal option. In general, the resource is quite good. I like it because you can find a lot of literature.

For example, when voting in the dissertation Council, the phrase "Cross out what is "unnecessary" in the protocol"constantly causes a stupor. Dear all the people there, doctors, professors and all that, and some can not digest this phrase-bang, and a couple of black balls on a good defense And you say-the list of the Higher Attestation Commission is incomprehensible..
But seriously, it is much more important for young job seekers and their managers to know the rules of the game first. We need 1 article from such and such a list-we will work on it, we need 3 from another list-respectively. And if the secretaries of the Soviets erepenitsya they need a reasoned proof, attaching official documents, they can only agree in this way, because common sense for many, unfortunately, has long been no argument.

For example, when voting in the dissertation Council, the phrase "Cross out what is "unnecessary" in the protocol"constantly causes a stupor. Dear all the people there, doctors, professors and all that, and some can not digest this phrase-bang, and a couple of black balls on a good defense:)

Well, you don't have to take them for fools... This is quite a normal situation when, after a supposedly good defense, they start to find out who threw the black ball, and a member of the council, who was suspected, begins to deny, they say, got mixed up.

Yakovlev
We really have something that we deserve to some extent and even created ourselves. Some time ago, I was in ZINA just during an extraordinary recertification. An employee who did not have articles in a Russian - language journal from the WAKA list (the old list-without Tr.ZIN), but had articles in other journals, received a temporary certification with re-certification in a year. This was not lowered from the top - to certify only according to articles from the list of the Higher Attestation Commission, it was invented in the leadership of ZINA. That is, the zoologists themselves, who are at the helm, have complicated the lives of their colleagues. The same applies to Councils: secretaries, chairmen, and deputy chairmen are our colleagues. The Higher Attestation Commission also mostly consists of scientists.

But that's not true. Let me clarify about the ZIN - according to the decision of the Presidium, for that re-examination (in 2008), a certain number of articles in the reviewed journals were required over the past 5 years (the number, by the way, is small).
Yes, for Russian articles, journals from the WAKA list were considered. But at that time, the WAC list (April 2008) included both the Works of ZIN and Zoosyst.Rossica.

In general, the list causes a complaint. Why is the Caucasian Entomological Bulletin not included? But there are many reputable authors and works there. All paid Messengers are bullshit. If someone objects, I will respond in principle.

The Caucasian Entomological Institute is not included because the editorial board does not want to be included in the list. Boris Stradomsky wrote about this here.