В данной статье рассматриваются методологические подходы к сопоставлению критериев российских научных журналов, входящих в перечень ВАК, и китайской системы оценки академических публикаций. В основе исследования лежит эмпирический анализ, направленный на выявление особенностей и различий в оценке научных трудов, определяемых культурными и институциональными факторами национальных систем научного контроля. Введение статьи обосновывает актуальность межкультурного сравнения, учитывая возрастающую глобализацию науки и необходимость адаптации методов оценки научных публикаций в условиях дифференцированных национальных стандартов. Обоснование выбора ВАК как представителя российской системы и сравнительного анализа с китайской моделью позволяет глубже понять различия критериев, влияющих на качество, престиж и видимость научного издания. Методология исследования опирается на сравнительный анализ, включающий контент-анализ нормативных документов, регулирующих научную деятельность, и применение междисциплинарного подхода к интерпретации полученных данных. Использование как качественных, так и количественных методов синтеза информации позволило выявить устойчивые системные паттерны, а также акцентировать внимание на ключевых различиях в оценочных механизмах обеих систем. Результаты исследования демонстрируют, что российская и китайская системы оценки научных публикаций обладают как общими чертами, так и специфическими компонентами, обусловленными историко-культурными и институциональными особенностями. Обнаружено, что подходы к оценке научной деятельности существенно различаются в отношении применяемых критериев, выделения приоритетных направлений и механизмов верификации качества публикаций. Обсуждение результатов акцентирует внимание на необходимости дальнейших исследований в целях гармонизации национальных систем оценки и формирования универсальных методологических основ. Таким образом, результаты исследования служат основой для разработки унифицированных подходов к оценке научного вклада, способствуют межкультурному обмену опытом и стимулируют дальнейшие исследования в данной области. Эти выводы имеют практическое значение для науки.
This article discusses methodological approaches to comparing the criteria of Russian scientific journals included in the list of the Higher Attestation Commission and the Chinese academic publication evaluation system. The research is based on an empirical analysis aimed at identifying the features and differences in the evaluation of scientific papers determined by cultural and institutional factors of national scientific control systems. The introduction of the article substantiates the relevance of cross-cultural comparison, taking into account the increasing globalization of science and the need to adapt methods for evaluating scientific publications in the context of differentiated national standards. The rationale for choosing the Higher Attestation Commission as a representative of the Russian system and comparative analysis with the Chinese model allows for a deeper understanding of the differences in criteria affecting the quality, prestige and visibility of a scientific publication. The research methodology is based on comparative analysis, including content analysis of regulatory documents regulating scientific activity, and the application of an interdisciplinary approach to the interpretation of the data obtained. The use of both qualitative and quantitative methods of information synthesis made it possible to identify stable system patterns, as well as to focus on key differences in the evaluation mechanisms of both systems. The results of the study demonstrate that the Russian and Chinese systems for evaluating scientific publications have both common features and specific components due to historical, cultural and institutional characteristics. It has been found that approaches to evaluating scientific activity differ significantly in terms of the criteria used, the allocation of priority areas and mechanisms for verifying the quality of publications. The discussion of the results focuses on the need for further research in order to harmonize national assessment systems and form universal methodological foundations. Thus, the results of the research serve as the basis for the development of unified approaches to the assessment of scientific contributions, promote the intercultural exchange of experience and stimulate further research in this field. These findings have practical implications for science.
This article discusses methodological approaches to comparing the criteria of Russian scientific journals included in the list of the Higher Attestation Commission and the Chinese academic publication evaluation system. The research is based on an empirical analysis aimed at identifying the features and differences in the evaluation of scientific papers determined by cultural and institutional factors of national scientific control systems. The introduction of the article substantiates the relevance of cross-cultural comparison, taking into account the increasing globalization of science and the need to adapt methods for evaluating scientific publications in the context of differentiated national standards. The rationale for choosing the Higher Attestation Commission as a representative of the Russian system and comparative analysis with the Chinese model allows for a deeper understanding of the differences in criteria affecting the quality, prestige and visibility of a scientific publication. The research methodology is based on comparative analysis, including content analysis of regulatory documents regulating scientific activity, and the application of an interdisciplinary approach to the interpretation of the data obtained. The use of both qualitative and quantitative methods of information synthesis made it possible to identify stable system patterns, as well as to focus on key differences in the evaluation mechanisms of both systems. The results of the study demonstrate that the Russian and Chinese systems for evaluating scientific publications have both common features and specific components due to historical, cultural and institutional characteristics. It has been found that approaches to evaluating scientific activity differ significantly in terms of the criteria used, the allocation of priority areas and mechanisms for verifying the quality of publications. The discussion of the results focuses on the need for further research in order to harmonize national assessment systems and form universal methodological foundations. Thus, the results of the research serve as the basis for the development of unified approaches to the assessment of scientific contributions, promote the intercultural exchange of experience and stimulate further research in this field. These findings have practical implications for science.