Nation-cultural aspects of scientific communication

S.M Govorushko

doi:10.24297/jssr.v9i3.3793

Abstract

The objective of this publication is to find out how the scientists of different countries and specialties feel about the problems of colleagues. The material was acquired on the basis of analysis of a great number of letters (more than 10 thousand ones to 2542 researchers from 83 countries) containing the different requests. Depending on the result, each answering letter was estimated by a certain score (grade). Further, the scores (grades) were summed for each country and each specialty, the corresponding mean score was determined and the ranking was carried out. The results showed the existence of large differences in response of respondents of different countries. To some extent, the â€œresponseâ€ of countries follows the geographic zonality. As a whole, the lower percentage of positive answers corresponds to decrease in the latitude in the Northern hemisphere. To the contrary, the relation between the specialties of respondents and number of positive answers is practically absent.

Highlights

This article is the secondary product of mypublishing activity
In the “precomputer and early computer era”, Ihave stored them into paper folders and each outgoing letter bears the end result
I determined the number of respondents by each ranking, summed up the achieved by them scores and calculated the mean score of respondents from the country under consideration

Summary

INTRODUCTION

As the researcher of the Pacific Geographical Institute (Vladivostok, Russia), I take up the problems of interaction of the humanity with the environment This subject is divided into three components : 1) effect of natural processes on the human activity; 2) effect of economic activity on the environment; 3) assessment of the nature and society interaction – environmental audit, environmental impact assessment (EIA) etc. I consider all of these subjects on the global scale In this regard, I carry on an active correspondence with the research scientists from many countries. In the “precomputer and early computer era”, Ihave stored them into paper folders and each outgoing letter bears the end result (author sent necessary article or photograph, sent his other publications , wrote back pretending the busyness , recommended other person, made no answer at all etc.). I got the impression that, after the appropriate processing of results of this intercourse in correspondence, one can acquire the interesting information about how the scientists of different countries and specialties respond to problems of colleagues

METHODOLOGY

Result

RESULTS

CONCLUSIONS