Entomologist's salary

As an example - the payment principle in the Russian Academy of Sciences (for example, BPI).
The PO consists of 2 parts: permanent and premium (not grants).
Permanent:
1. Salary (sna-17240)
2. Salary coefficients (Far Eastern - 30%, district-20%)
3. Hazard surcharge (200)
4. Additional fee for the degree (kbn-3000, dbn-8000)
Premium version:
In turn, it consists of two components:: 1) one-time bonuses (for example, drawing up a review of a leading organization of 500-1000 rubles.or working as part of the institute's commissions - 1000-5000, etc.); 2) Rating. It is calculated based on the results of scientific work for the past 2 years in the form of points. There are many criteria there, for example, an article in a journal with an IF is worth IFx100, and according to the HAC list - 24 points; each external citation in SCI - 4 points, for the defense of a graduate student during graduate school-30 points, etc. In general, a certain amount of points is obtained for each employee, then this is summed up and the total number of institute points is calculated. The bonus fund is divided by the number of points and the cost of one point is calculated, which is multiplied by the number of points of each employee.
The bottom line is that the bonus fund is different every month, it depends on many circumstances, for example, on the number of graduates this month or God knows what else), so the cost of a point every month is also different - from 5 rubles to 30, for example. Accordingly, the premium allowance is also different. In any case, the more points, the bigger the bonus.
Well, and on all this 13% tax, damn it)))

5 with kopecks salary + superannuation + personal increasing coefficient + increasing coefficient for the position-clean hands get 8-9. thank God there is still a monthly bonus-another 5-7 to the salary.
Since this year, funding seems to be cut, most likely there will be no bonuses or they will be very tiny.

  
Please indicate the amount of your salary without grants and other irregular earnings - only what you get on hand at the university/institute / other cash register.

Entomologists in VIZRa (Saint Petersburg) receive:
Research associate without a degree - 5,5 thousand rubles.
Leading researcher, PhD - salary slightly more than 6 thousand rubles. + 3 thousand rubles. for the degree. Net of 13% taxes - on hands less than 10 thousand rubles

Our rating is paranoid... PRND that is. We have a list of the Higher Attestation Commission - 6 points, If-IF*30, but the execution of instructions from the management - 30 points! Well, the point is worth 2 rubles ...

IMHO, the problem is not so much in the salary, in the end you can earn extra money, but in the feeling of powerlessness and disenfranchisement. At any moment, another "comrade Vunyukov" can "spray this black box of yours or send it to kindergarten" (c) Strugatsky, I quote from memory.

For example - http://www.gazeta.ru/science/2012/01/13_a_3961297.shtml

The only thing: "The situation is different from what is happening in the Russian Academy of Sciences, where in recent years there has been a certain positive trend" - I do not notice this.

As an example - the payment principle in the Russian Academy of Sciences (for example, BPI).
The PO consists of 2 parts: permanent and premium (not grants).
Permanent:
1. Salary (sna-17240)
2. Salary coefficients (Far Eastern - 30%, district-20%)
3. Hazard surcharge (200)
4. Additional fee for the degree (kbn-3000, dbn-8000)
Premium version:
In turn, it consists of two components:: 1) one-time bonuses (for example, drawing up a review of a leading organization of 500-1000 rubles.or working as part of the institute's commissions - 1000-5000, etc.); 2) Rating. It is calculated based on the results of scientific work for the past 2 years in the form of points. There are many criteria there, for example, an article in a journal with an IF is worth IFx100, and according to the HAC list - 24 points; each external citation in SCI - 4 points, for the defense of a graduate student during graduate school-30 points, etc. In general, a certain amount of points is obtained for each employee, then this is summed up and the total number of institute points is calculated. The bonus fund is divided by the number of points and the cost of one point is calculated, which is multiplied by the number of points of each employee.
The bottom line is that the bonus fund is different every month, it depends on many circumstances, for example, on the number of graduates this month or God knows what else), so the cost of a point every month is also different - from 5 rubles to 30, for example. Accordingly, the premium allowance is also different. In any case, the more points, the bigger the bonus.
Well, and on all this 13% tax, damn it)))

You live well - the rate of a professor in Russian universities is about 10. Even less. Besides, he also gives lectures. Happy people are employees of the RAS system. No matter how "terribly poor" it is, I have not yet heard about mass dismissals from the BPI, ISEJ, and ZINA. Envy.
For the first time in a million years, we were awarded a prize at AltSU for scientific work (publications, grant applications, expeditions, international contacts, etc.). It's hard to say exactly what they thought, but a large CASE form was filled out, according to which I took 60th place in the university out of 1200 applicants. We paid according to the results for the year (I have 3 expeditions to 6 countries, one application failed - RANOVTSY took away-I think quite a lot of articles - 2 WOS magazines, 1 Scopus, 4 HAC lists, 2 articles in foreign publications, 1 solo monograph on 120 pages) Those who had more received the award 14 points (i.e. approximately 200 people). I was charged 14,200 rubles at a time for a year. We will keep silent about the rate of a researcher in the university system. But for employees (not faculty members) who belong to the practice bases (where I work), they don't even pay 3000 and 7000 for a degree.
RFBR grants have all been dismantled by the Russian Academy of Sciences, and integration is dead. All our comrades who are worth something are sitting in Brno, Tokyo or Halle to survive.
The division has several serious projects, but there is no question about them, so we will keep silent.
The situation is complicated - there is no question of living on the PO. This is ridiculous.

This post was edited by Yakovlev - 13.01.2012 17: 53

Salary at a university is, of course, a sore point. But there are still two disgusting harmful things - one for physical health, the other for spiritual harmony. The first one is overloading the clock. As far as I know, in no decent country does a teacher have an annual workload of 700 hours or more. With us , it's easy. The second is the quality and motivation of students, the quality of academic programs (including their insufficient volume and, to put it mildly, strange distribution by courses and semesters), and other things that together lead to a sense of meaninglessness of teaching activities. And when it all comes together...

Stanislav, sorry for the indiscreet question. And how do you manage to combine professional, essentially entomological research with completely non-free work in IT purely on time?

This post was edited by PVOzerski - 13.01.2012 20: 38

I once (at the very end of the 90s-the beginning of the "zero") tried to earn extra money - well, I planted my health and spent all my earnings on treatment... And this is back in the days when I worked at the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Small salaries in the field of entomology are probably caused by the fact that the state sees in this more satisfaction of curiosity at the state expense than applied benefits for society.

Now, as I understand it, expedients of forum participants are mostly held at their own expense.
But interseno, what was in Soviet times, was entomology held in high esteem by the state at that time? What was the salary then-enough to do entomology and not earn money? And what was it like with the expeditions then?

The Russian state, represented by many of its representatives (I can name the main persons involved, if anyone does not guess), has long spat on "applied benefits for society" and on "satisfying curiosity". They are only interested in loot. And our loot is made not on science or education, but on oil and gas. That's the whole mystery.

Stanislav, we found someone to send your wishes to. Did he fall off the moon, he doesn't know?

This post was edited by PVOzerski - 13.01.2012 22: 26

What was the salary then-enough to do entomology and not earn money? And what was it like with the expeditions then?

In general, in the mid-80s, as a student, I traveled to Armenia twice for my own money (well, rather, my parents ' money, despite the fact that my mother was a school teacher, and my father was a worker in a workshop at a design bureau). I don't even dream about it now.

For reference: the student's scholarship was from 40 to 50 rubles, and a loaf of bread cost from 14 to 20 kopecks (a white loaf - from 13 to 25). Somewhere 350 km by intercity bus - in my opinion, about 7 rubles.

This post was edited by PVOzerski - 13.01.2012 22: 33

Well, it is difficult to say from such examples, in Ukraine now the scholarship allows you to buy 233 loaves of good bread, however, now even with an income of 266 loaves of bread and working parents, it is better not to think about traveling to Armenia

But I would like to know how it was in classical science in these times.

Well, I found myself in classical science in 1989, when everything was falling apart vigorously-so I won't say anything useful

Although, in principle, I thought that having a scholarship of 233 loaves of bread and provided that you eat/dress at the expense of your parents - and provided that you have a certain dream, do not go on rygalovki, then it is quite possible to collect enough for a trip to Armenia, in theory, you can collect 1000 pupaars in a year. With this amount of money, you can fly back and forth to Yerevan by plane, and you will still have a third part, or you can buy Athos, to whom that is )

You can rent out the apartment. In the summer, live in a dacha (with your parents or on your own), in the winter, for example, go to Thailand. And do entomology for fun!

We all receive a salary on a Sberbank card. I can't say for sure. I know that no one has indexed us since 2007. Since July 2011, salaries have been increased by 6.5%. In November, it was increased once again by 6.5%. Now I have a salary of a little more than 19 thousand plus 7 thousand for a doctor. There are never any regional, federal, municipal, etc.surcharges. Here are the cases. It's in Moscow. Yes, I am a leading researcher.

You live well - the rate of a professor in Russian universities is about 10. Even less. Besides, he also gives lectures. Happy people are employees of the RAS system. No matter how "terribly poor" it is, I have not yet heard about mass dismissals from the BPI, ISEJ, and ZINA. Envy.

We didn't complain, actually.
The current situation with salaries is a consequence of the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences, which took place not so long ago. Before that, too, from bread to water interrupted. However, not everything is so rosy. Approximately 60% of our employees work on a part-time basis, and in order to hire a new young specialist, you need to select rates from the rest, otherwise there is no way. Layoffs and layoffs were massive before, now they just offer you to switch to a part - time job and do something, and 0.7 or 0.5 rates are already 30% or 50% less money.
And then. In our country, for most university employees, it is not necessary to study science at all (a couple of articles in some collections per year do not count for a tick), their main occupation is teaching. Therefore, the comparison is somehow not very correct. In their case, the state rather does not pay extra not for science, but for their work as teachers.

  

And then. In our country, for most university employees, it is not necessary to study science at all (a couple of articles in some collections per year do not count for a tick), their main occupation is teaching. Therefore, the comparison is somehow not very correct. In their case, the state rather does not pay extra not for science, but for their work as teachers.

Well I do not know... Our university has reduced the number of years for which you are re-elected by competition. And in order to be re-elected, you must have a certain number of publications (different for an assistant, associate professor, or professor). Moreover, the usual articles in collections are not enough for a tick, you need a central print - in journals from the HAC list (for each position there is a different number)...

This post was edited by Morfey - 14.01.2012 06: 20

Moreover, the usual articles in collections are not enough for a tick, you need a central print - in journals from the HAC list (for each position there is a different number)...

The list of the Higher Attestation Commission is mostly profanity.
But still, it is interesting how many minimum articles are needed for posts and for what period.

I think that it is impossible to oppose science in higher education institutions to science in divisions of the Russian Academy of Sciences. There are university departments that work in the most efficient way, much more efficiently than the nearby institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences. There are departments where there is no scientific work at all. There is, understandably, the most powerful science in the RAS system. But, for strange reasons, there are almost no rewards for scientific work in the university system. Although, the situation described above by Morpheus is very pleasant to me. All of our contests to fill a vacant position are being held now just for show. But when a major university in Europe holds such a competition, documents are sent to up to 50 people per place. Imagine what kind of luggage you need to have in order to stay in your place. As for the workload at the university, it is quite large, but to face the truth, both the University and the RANOVSKY Institute are freemen in comparison with hospitals or schools. Seeing people waddle up to work at 11 o'clock and talk about the nightmare of their work is quite strange. The surgeon by this time manages to cut off a couple of limbs, smoke 6 times and listen to mats from the doctor. based on the report, which starts at 7.45. But this is by the way...
In general, the situation is very difficult. The state doesn't need us - that's a fact. Earnings only because of the initiative of your own or your immediate superiors. I.e., to sit only on 1 rate, as it is in the West and do only your work, we still clearly do not succeed. The rhythm of life is completely different.

in terms of time, it's hard. my trips abroad on business work according to the scheme - from morning to evening I'm in museums, in the evening and at night I'm at work. sleep 3-4 hours. it is easier at home - you can work at a convenient time, entomology - early in the morning, when the head works better, and in the evening, when you can do a routine that does not require brains (photographing, calculating matrices, etc.). and in the afternoon - earning money. I only get more than 5 hours of sleep on expeditions, which is why I look forward to them so much :D

Lucky - you sleep in the field.... I don't sleep in the field at all. Snatches of 3 hours and in the car. I really get enough sleep on business trips to improve my skills, where I read lectures, sat down, worked in silence and you can go to bed at 10 o'clock. Super.

Do you really think he reads them?

Of course, he does not read them, but "specially trained people" should submit a summary of issues and problems that concern the vile people.

Do you think that a person who saws SUCH money will spend time getting acquainted with all the issues and problems that concern the "vile people"?
Well they'll give him a summary like: 20% want an increase in wages, 21% want housing, 15% want it ... So what?
Here you are aware of the problems of homeless people at the Finnish railway station? Unlikely. You have more important things to do. And why should GDP care about yours? Remember this very well: Your problems are your problems.

Do you think that a person who saws SUCH money will spend time getting acquainted with all the issues and problems that concern the "vile people"?
Well they'll give him a summary like: 20% want an increase in wages, 21% want housing, 15% want it ... So what?
Here you are aware of the problems of homeless people at the Finnish railway station? Unlikely. You have more important things to do. And why should GDP care about yours? Remember this very well: Your problems are your problems.

You can't take care of yourself, no one can take care of you .I realized this when I retired from the band at 95.

To believe that in Russia, and in "fraternal countries", the authorities AT LEAST read these cases... Jae for me as a dreamer is very, very cool! ))))))))))

You can't take care of yourself, no one can take care of you .I realized this when I retired from the band at 95.

So always and everywhere.

Let him read it. After their speeches for fair elections, their ears began to hear a little better, maybe that will move. Moreover, I'm not the only one writing this there.

Will Putin read it?? The person who said that most institutes (and their employees) are engaged in unknown activities??Yes, this KGB officer does not understand what science is at all...

L. V. Bolshakov (Tula, Tula branch of REO): part 1.

"The head of a state where there is science should also take care of it. And how to do it? - it is very simple-1) leave those who are engaged in science in scientific structures and expel those who only imitate this business; 2) divide those who remain into more and less useful ones and set the salary no lower than that of other similarly useful employees.
If we talk specifically about entomological science, then its impact on the state of the state is very small. There is it-well (you can be proud), no - and it is not necessary (nature itself copes with insect pests better than we do). Therefore, any state (except for one where the "amateur" of a particular science is in power) minimizes funding for such low-utility industries, but cannot completely close already established research centers with their funds, as well as reduce the established amount of payments to "scientific personnel". At the same time, it is not able to control the "scientific nature" of the activities of a particular center, so it does not do it very effectively, financing some "imitation-bureaucratic ballast". Therefore, no state can finance anyone who wants and can do science, especially entomological science.
This was also the case in the USSR, but then the mechanisms of self-purification of the scientific environment worked better through the fear of condemnation at an open party meeting and the loss of well-paid, prestigious, relatively "warm" positions. At that time, "ballast" was moderate, but due to the state's monopoly on printing, the contribution of "amateur" entomology, if it got into scientific circulation, was only at the mercy of "staff", as an exception and subject to the decency of specific professionals (and how many examples were there of attributing the achievements of "amateurs"!).
The difference between the current situation in Russia is that 1) corruption is rampant, the level of public morals is lowered, the mechanisms of self-purification of the scientific environment are almost non-existent, "ballast" has generally become dominant; 2) BUT censorship has been abolished, any self-publishing is allowed, and "amateur" science gets the opportunity to demonstrate its achievements (or embarrassments). But mostly at their own expense and patrons, less often with the help of local government agencies, extremely rarely with the help of central ones (such as the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, etc.). As a result, over 20 years of democracy, Russian entomofaunistics has been revived - if earlier most regions of the USSR were a "white spot" in terms of insect distribution, now they are in many respects They are as well-researched as Z. Europe. And this is mainly the merit of "amateurs", but with the support of real professionals. And if a person from the "staff" does not consider entomofaunistics to be a science and does not support "amateurs", then this is no longer a professional, but a "professional" - at best a very narrow (and generally less valuable for science) specialist, at worst - an imitator who doesn't care."

Since the discussion "how do we set up entomology" has already begun...

L. V. Bolshakov (Tula, Tula branch of REO): part 1.
- " The head of a state where there is science should also take care of it. And how to do it? - it is very simple-1) leave those who are engaged in science in scientific structures and expel those who only imitate this business; 2) divide those who remain into more and less useful ones and set the salary no lower than that of other similarly useful employees.

Absolutely, absolutely agree. But! Who and how will determine the greater or lesser utility of an employee and, most importantly, the size of his salary. You know what this will lead to.

This was also the case in the USSR, but then the mechanisms of self-purification of the scientific environment worked better through the fear of condemnation at an open party meeting and the loss of well-paid, prestigious, relatively "warm" positions. At that time, "ballast" was moderate, but due to the state's monopoly on printing, the contribution of "amateur" entomology, if it got into scientific circulation, was only at the mercy of "staff", as an exception and subject to the decency of specific professionals (and how many examples were there of attributing the achievements of "amateurs"!).

I can't agree! I strongly disagree! If the disastrous 90's had a plus, it was the cleansing of science from idlers. In Soviet times, the position of a research assistant was a sinecure and provided a happy opportunity to do nothing for a very decent salary up to retirement (quite decent, by the way!), and in many institutions they only brought out "feet first". Currently, there are still people in science who want to do it, ideologically motivated, and those who simply have nowhere else to go. The latter die out naturally. There are, of course, "Skolkovo" and other places where they saw bablos, but for us, entomologists, they are not relevant.

The danger is that money-sawing jobs compete and competitively displace real-world scientists.

This post was edited by Zlopastnyi Brandashmyg - 18.01.2012 13: 01

Zlopastnyi Brandashmyg, about your last paragraph, even if in Soviet times science was saturated with idlers, but I just want to ask, I have at home almost all books on entomology, herpetology, and even more so in the electronic version, which are "ours" - it is the Soviet time, well, or the beginning of the 90s, I have in view of not only the most popular books, but also publications of nature reserves, biological encyclopedias, determinants, where did all this come from, if there were so many idlers

Hierophis, you don't have anything to argue with Leonid about in this case. One does not exclude the other. Books were written by far from everyone, but mostly by those who later did not run away from science. However, it probably happened in different ways. Judging the departed (and departed) it can be difficult. I know a terrible story about how a well-known insect researcher, a doctor of science, in her old age fed on garbage from the garbage dump (in the 90s).

But this is the 90 years, not the USSR.

The reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences was aimed at getting rid of ballast and saving money+additional funding to increase the PO for others. That's what happened, at least for us. The remaining people are divided into "less and more useful" according to the results of their scientific activities (articles, monographs, citations, etc.), i.e. they take into account those indicators by which the institute is evaluated. The amount of your monthly bonus directly depends on how many articles you have published (and where). Of course, due to the fact that the bonus fund is not always sufficient, the size of this award (even for those with high labor productivity) sometimes leaves much to be desired, but at least this award is there, those who do not have articles (and other things) and will not receive this money. All this (plus the constant threat of getting demoted and transferred to a part-time position for poor results) forces people to work intensively, and not just come to the institute once a month on payday, as it was a few years ago.
There are still problems (including corruption, etc.) in the current situation, but it is too early to say that the state has abandoned science (entomology). And now there are the same social elevators, when after UNI you can come to a research institute, go to graduate school, show yourself and then work in science. It has become more difficult in everyday life, there is no housing, a small salary at first, etc., but it is possible, there would be a desire.
And even now there are a lot of books on entomology published, one of our laboratories is 1-2 per year.

In technical universities (at least in mine) with better funding for science. In general, everything depends on the manager. Our rector (Livanov) 3 years ago set the minimum level for the volume of scientific research per year for the department - 5 million rubles. This is certainly not a lot, but at that time not all departments had such a large amount of scientific funding. They tensed. Completed. Except for a few that were restructured in this regard. Of course, the financial requirements applied only to the graduate departments. At the departments of general education institutions, the salary of the entire staff of teaching staff was raised twice.
The salary of teaching staff and research staff of graduate departments is formed precisely at the expense of the funding for science that the department has obtained for itself. These are mainly grants from the Federal Target Program Personnel and Federal Target Program Research and Development. 15-20 percent of the contract. For reference , the total amount of funding for my university in science in 2011 is approximately 1bn. 200 million rubles. The number of teaching staff is about 600 people, scientific and engineering staff is about 300 people.

L. V. Bolshakov (Tula) Message # 2 and 3.

About those who consider themselves "professional entomologists" and think that the state should support them all. There are mainly 2 large groups - university teachers and employees of scientific institutions (among the latter, those who should be engaged in "pure science", without distraction to museum and educational work, stand out especially).

The work of teachers in higher education institutions is difficult and responsible, and requires higher pay, but ONLY if they meet their official requirements. At the same time, it is difficult to consider teachers as "professionals" in a narrow scientific field. Now their responsibility is the educational process in the volume of the curriculum, with a steadily increasing bureaucracy - and rarely has a university teacher been able to put himself in such a way that he can engage in science as a professional. And the indicator of the" scientific professionalism "of a university teacher is not the hours of lectures or other classes, but rather his" off-duty " scientific products, and in the future-the products of his students.

With greater success, you can work as a security guard with a "day - three" schedule, with the same salary, you will have many times more time for your personal life, including science.

I remember that in the 80s I was a laboratory assistant at the Department of Radio Electronics at the Tula Polytechnic Institute. There were about 20 associate professors, of whom only about 5 defended on topics close to REO. Among the rest, there were those who defended themselves even in metallurgy and mining. There were also people from the part-Komsomol active, and thug children who defended themselves unknown how. At that time, it was prestigious to be an associate professor - the salary was 320 rubles. Such salaries were rare for workers, and a young specialist received about 100-120 rubles. So they went to associate professors for a large relatively easy salary. But what could such a fake associate professor give to a student who went to this specialty not just for a float, but to gain knowledge? Yes, amateur radio students sometimes just laughed at what other associate professors said in class! Especially helpless were such associate professors as senior research assistants (with the then additional half-rates of 85-125 rubles. per month) on work on contractual topics - students often worked for them for the salaries of laboratory assistants (35-45 rubles.per month). Moreover, the most competent radio electronics engineer at our department was not an associate professor at all, but a technician who was a retired military officer with the rank of petty officer - a specialist in REO. In second place was the "eternal" M. N. S., an advanced amateur radio operator.

Since then, the situation with the qualification of teachers in higher education institutions has not improved. Perhaps, somewhere after the collapse of the state and the fall of docent salaries to the level of workers of the 3rd-4th category (which REALLY REFLECTED the AVERAGE SCIENTIFIC QUALIFICATIONS OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS AND "SCIENTISTS"), random people left in the 90s and enthusiasts remained. But in most cases, these random people, who are not good for anything other than cramming lectures and imitating scientific work, were able to organize and "enslave" enthusiasts or displace them. And establish corrupt "dissertation pipelines" that supply an average of 5 charlatans with a float for each specialist. Many "with a float"have not learned anything, but apply for the same places as specialists, while they are smarter in everything that concerns careers and earnings.

A striking example is the Tula State Pedagogical University( TSPI), where almost all zoologists (starting with useful laboratory assistants) were ousted in the late 80s, the last normal associate professor lasted until the early 90s, and now, with the connivance of the Ministry of Education and the Higher Attestation Commission, there is a school of near-entomological quackery, attempts are not abandoned to launch the " dissertation pipeline"- only the local youth are not interested in entomology now, and there is no one to drag in the degree.

Or, for example, look at Voronezh State University, where Prof. Negrobov on lepidopters recently defended at least 2 people, and both are pronounced charlatans, whose works cause homeric laughter - some Dubrovsky and Vodianov. Fortunately, they don't hold doctoral studies there, otherwise they would have stamped out scoundrels with claims to departments and laboratories.

About the courtesanized Moscow and there is nothing to say, there recently all doctoral dissertations of entomologists were at the level of candidates. This is the main forge of relatively scientific, but especially unscrupulous and therefore dangerous for science and education personnel.

And in snobbish Novosibirsk recently dragged a doctor's degree (a certain Bondarenko), quite funny, at the level of a kindergarten. And even in St. Petersburg: recently, doctoral studies on lepidopters are still quite normal, but among the candidates every now and then there is a clear mess.

Academic titles are completely devalued! On average, every second PhD dissertation in entomology is at best a work at the level of a major article in a journal, and a doctoral dissertation is at the level of a candidate's thesis. In the worst case, disers are outright compilations, or even plagiarism. And since there are too many native speakers, they are very much in the way of all those who are really engaged in science. Russian science is sinking with a" ballast " of imitators and bureaucrats circulating back and forth!


\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\


And looking at our employees of scientific institutions, it sometimes seems to me that they should generally be paid a minimum to maintain their pants and transferred to piecework. Like a factory worker. Scientific products include books, articles, informative reports, and staged and documented collections. If the publication has received several negative reviews, then a fine for trafficking is imposed. If the report is fake, then return the money for the work. And those "ratings" that are now-pure fraud. Especially in terms of publications in the "VAKOV" journals, most of which do not have competent editorial boards, and in the rest these editorial boards clearly do nothing and are simply written for show.

A huge evil for creative people and natural sciences, one of the most odious remnants of the command and administrative system is the approval of academic degrees in the civil sphere through the Higher Attestation Commission. This system justifies itself in the military industry, with the development of powerful design bureaus and to maintain unity of command. But at least in the biological sciences, it has become a mafia of sorts! Quite often, honest people are "asked" to write positive reviews to plagiarist applicants who are "led" by well-known professional compilers who hold high positions in universities and academic institutions. In the same Moscow-many good professionals do not get academic degrees, because they "do not like" the group of senile and schizophrenics who run the Higher Attestation Commission, and obvious incompetents who are not able to connect two words (like Mamontov from TSPU, we recently discussed) - get them with extraordinary ease! Probably not just for the pretty eyes!

When I talk about these topics with professionals, they howl-they say, " don't touch this shit, you need to do your job." This is the "silence of the lambs" effect in action. And the ballast from the "shit" is steadily increasing. The best ones leave, and the worst ones often take their place.

It is necessary, if anything, to ask Medvedev for something/If not the entire Higher Attestation Commission, then at least its department of Medical and Biological sciences; 2) the resignation of a number of "famous" heads of biological institutes, departments and laboratories (with the loss of regalia of many of them); 3) 5-6-year rotation of personnel in these positions, dismissal at the same time the first signs of insanity and schizophrenia; 4) the abolition of state surcharges to holders of academic degrees with their transfer to piecework, as I wrote above.

Only after the destruction of these remnants of the command-and-control system will real professionals prevail in biological and, in particular, entomological science.

Perhaps dear Lavr Valeryevich went too far in some places, but I would also subscribe to the last two paragraphs (only, of course, neither Putin nor Medvedev is at all interested in this - they are busy with much more important things than our showdown in the sandbox).

This post was edited by kovyl - 19.01.2012 17: 42

The reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences was aimed at getting rid of ballast and saving money+additional funding to increase the PO for others. That's what happened, at least for us.

How good it feels to you! You can just get jealous.

In my opinion, the cuts in the Russian Academy of Sciences (which, in fact, the reform was reduced to) were carried out in the most destructive way. Sabotage in the Stalinist sense of the word.

Let me explain. It's no secret that there are quite a few half-dead/completely dead laboratories and even institutes in the RAS system. It is not uncommon for employees who do not have a single publication in a year! Humanitarians are particularly distinguished. This is even if you consider the publication of abstracts submitted in absentia to an unknown conference. At the same time, there are laboratories/research groups that conduct work at the highest scientific level. So, the reduction was the same everywhere - please reduce, for example, 20% of bids. In dead offices, it was possible and necessary to reduce everything 100%. And in working groups, it was necessary to "cut to the quick". Including in Zina. Again, the crazy idea of "rejuvenation of personnel" is to reduce an actively working specialist who is "over 70" in order to take a young "unknown person". Smart administrators tried to split bids just to save frames. I've heard about 1/8 and 1/16 bets. And the point of such a "uniform reduction" is to preserve the structure. I often hear about such preservation as a merit! After all, "dead" institutes and laboratories, by the way, which receive money, are the boss's rates.