Academic reputations of Russian economists and their scientometric estimates

Abstract

The article presents the results of an academic reputation survey of Russian economists (N = 6392). The resulting ranking is then compared with their scientometric indicators provided by the Russian Science Citation Index (citations in eLibrary and in RSCI core), as well as calculated by the authors (citations in the RSCI list of distinguished journals). The analysis demonstrates that a robust hierarchy of academic authority exists in Russia, which is, however, only moderately correlated with scientometric indicators. We can classify discrepancies into type I errors (researchers with high citation rates are not enjoying recognition by peers) and type II errors (recognized researchers have poor scientometric records). Type I errors mostly result from (1) misidentification of authors; (2) non-fractionalized authorship of collected volumes; (3) instrumental citing; (4) gaming the metrics. Type II errors arise from ambiguity of the disciplinary boundaries of economics and boundaries of national science, as well as from the ambiguous status of public intellectuals addressing economic issues and politicians responsible for economic policy. Overall, type II errors are less dramatic: it is hard for Russian economists to be widely influential, but little cited. Type I errors are much more widespread. Indicators based on the RSCI list of distinguished journals give the most accurate estimates.