Publication Activity of a Scientist – Dr. habil. in Philology: Criteria for the Intensification and Reduction of Citations (retrospective of the specialty 10.02.04 – Germanic languages)

Introduction. The article discusses the criteria for the intensification and reduction of citations of publications for the Dr. habil. in Philology. The intensification of citations may be influenced by the choice of a peer-reviewed journal for publishing the results of their research, the choice of the type of publication, the choice of a coauthor and the relevance of the topic. The frequency of publications, low visibility of publications in the scientific community, the quality of publications and the type of access to them (open or not open) affect the decrease in the citation of works. In general, the intensification and decrease in publication citations of the Dr. habil. in Philology demonstrate the importance of the research to the scientific community.

Materials and methods. The study is based on data from the Scientific Electronic Library on the publication activity of 15 scientists who defended their doctoral dissertations in philological sciences (10.02.04 – Germanic languages) in 2014-2015. The methods of the search of dissertations, analysis, synthesis, data synthesis, comparison, ranking and interpretation were used to explain the influence of the selected criteria on the change in the citation level of publications.

Analysis. Several criteria have been proposed for the study. The first criterion is the availability of scientific articles written by Dr. habil. in Philology solo and with co-authors in journals included in the List of the Higher Attestation Commission and publications in other journals to determine which type of publications is actively cited by others. The second criterion is acting as a scientific advisor for the students including preparation of their scientific articles and PhD theses. The third criterion is the availability of intellectual property results (data bases, computer programmes) registered by Rospatent.

Results. Each of the criteria considered had a different impact on the publication activity of the Dr. habil. in Philology. The criteria for a long-term intensification of citations turned out to be publications in journals from the List of the Higher Attestation Commission and other scientific, educational and reference editions prepared both with co-authors and solo. The criterion of «acting as a scientific advisor» has a weaker effect on the intensification of citations, but it does not affect the decrease in citations. This is due to the peculiarity of taking into account citations of students’ works in the scientific electronic library in the author’s profile of the Dr. habil. in Philology. Finally, the type of publications «results of intellectual activity» (registration of data bases and computer programmes) has virtually no effect on the intensification of citations, in other words, it is a criterion for reducing citations, since this type of publication is less popular among philologists considering citations.

1. Avdeeva NV, Ledovskaya VM. Incorrect borrowings in dissertations: ways to detect them. Bulletin of the Chelyabinsk State Academy of Culture and Arts. 2015;3(43):16-20. (In Russ.).

2. Zemlyanoi VP, Sigua BV, Melnikov VA, Lyubimov NG. Is Scientometry a necessity or a fashionable trend? Bulletin of the I. I. Mechnikov Northwestern State Medical University. 2020;12(3):5-10. https://doi.org/10.17816/mechnikov34248. (In Russ.).

3. Kalgin AS, Kalgina OV, Lebedeva AA. Evaluation of publication activity as a way to measure the effectiveness of scientists' work and its relationship to motivation. Education issues. 2019;(1):44-86. (In Russ.).

4. Kirillova OV. The significance and basic requirements for the representation of authors' affiliation in scientific publications. Scientific editor and publisher. 2016;1(1-4):32-42. (In Russ.).

5. Kozitsyn AS, Afonin SA, Shachnev DA. Citation indexes and evaluation of authors' publication activity. Electronic libraries. 2023;26(5):629-645. (In Russ.).

6. Lambowska MR, Raitskaya LK. High-quality publications in Russia: a review of the literature on instruments of influence on university teachers. Integration of education. 2022;26(2(107)):312-330. https://doi.org/10.15507/1991-9468.107.026.202202.312-330. (In Russ.).

7. Lukyanenko VP. Publication ethics, plagiarism, the relationship between science and journalism in articles on educational issues. Pedagogy. 2021;85(1):35-47. (In Russ.).

8. Malyuga EN, Grishechko EG. How to build the foundation of a successful scientific journal: the experience of Training, Language and culture. Scientific editor and publisher. 2021;6(1):48-58. https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2021-1-48-58. (In Russ.).

9. Mikryukov VA, Mikryukova GA. The phenomenon of retraction of a scientific article in the civil law dimension. Intellectual property. Copyright and related rights. 2020;(12):46-51. (In Russ.).

10. Ochkov VG. The reverse side of the Hirsch index. Perspectives of science and education. 2015;2(14):191-194. (In Russ.).

11. Pakhomov SI, Shchegoleva LV, Gurtov VA. Increasing the preparation time for a PhD thesis and the “aging” of young scientists. Higher education in Russia. 2025;34(4):33-47. https://doi.org/10.31992/0869-3617-2025-34-4-33-47. (In Russ.).

12. Raitskaya LK, Lambowska MR. Prospects of using ChatGPT for higher education: an overview of international studies. Integration of education. 2024;28(1(114)):10-21. https://doi.org/10.15507/1991-9468.114.028.202401.010-021 (In Russ.).

13. Tikhonova EV. Academic search engine optimization: improving the visibility and accessibility of scientific publications. Scientific editor and publisher. 2023;8(1):8-27. https://doi.org/10.24069/SEP-23-15. (In Russ.).

14. Tikhonova EV, Kosycheva MA. Retractions in academic discourse: from stigma to a culture of scientific responsibility. Health, Food & Biotechnology. 2024;6(2):6-15. https://doi.org/10.36107/hfb.2024.i2.s236. (In Russ.).

15. Tikhonova EV, Raitskaya LK. Reviewing as a tool for ensuring effective scientific communication: traditions and innovations. Scientific editor and publisher. 2021;6(1):6-17. https://doi.org/10.24069/2542-0267-2021-1-6-17. (In Russ.).

16. Dien J. Editorial: Generative artificial intelligence as a plagiarism problem. Biological Psychology. 2023;(18):108621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2023.108621.

17. Lambovska M., Yordanov K. Motivation of Researchers to Publish in High-quality Journals: A Theoretical Framework. TEM. 2020;9(1):188-192. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM91-27.

18. Ponomarev IV, Williams DE, Hackett CJ Schnell JD, Haak LL. Predicting highly cited papers: A method for early detection of candidate breakthroughs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2014;81(С):49-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.09.017.

19. Yang S, Xiao A, Nie Y, Dong J. Measuring coauthors’ credit in medicine field – Based on author contribution statement and citation context analysis. Information Processing & Management. 2022;59(3):102924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2022.102924.