Home Fruit trees Scientist identifier in the map of Russian science. Map of Russian science: a resonant or resonant project? What do scientists think?

Fruit trees

Scientist identifier in the map of Russian science. Map of Russian science: a resonant or resonant project? What do scientists think?

Why do you need a map?

“Today we want to arrange a public acceptance of the map of Russian science,” said Sergei Salikhov, director of the Department of Science and Technology, at a meeting at the Ministry of Education and Science. - In November-December 2013, the main results of the project were achieved. Several discussions of the map took place within the ministry, and off-site meetings were organized. We tried to take into account all the comments and wishes of scientists to finalize the map.”

When creating the map, the Ministry pursued several goals, said Andrey Polyakov, Deputy Director of the Department of Science and Technology of the Russian Ministry of Education and Science. The first is the definition of the landscape of Russian science, that is, the current state of scientific activity of scientists and organizations. The second is an understanding of the national characteristics of the development of the research and development sector in thematic, geographical and age sections. The third is informing the scientific and business community about the key competencies of scientists and organizations. The fourth is reducing the bureaucratic burden when organizing research activities due to the data on scientists presented in the map.

The map should help in creating targeted mechanisms for supporting scientists and strengthening the reputation of Russian science.

Since November last year, the map has been publicly available. A prototype of the system was presented then, and preparations are now underway for its normal launch. The work of two services has been launched - for technical support of the map (CITIS is responsible for this) and content support (SPNTB).

The map has already been loaded with data from Web of Science, Thomson Reuters, and RSCI. Scopus data will be available soon. All information was collected for the period from 2007 to 2012. Information for 2013 will be presented soon. In 2014, it is planned to update all data quarterly.

“Initially, we ruled out the possibility of using one source to generate a map,” Andrey Polyakov emphasized. - We took the position that data on publication activity is not self-sufficient. It is necessary to connect data on R&D, patents, monographs. We see the development of the map in the expansion of the composition and quality of the information presented in it.”

The customer of the card was the Russian Ministry of Education and Science, the direct executor was PwC, the company was involved in coordinating all participants in the project.

“Before starting work, we analyzed international experience in creating systems similar to the map of Russian science - in China, Brazil and other countries,” explained PwC manager Vasily Sadovsky. - All these systems, to one degree or another, represent scientometric indicators. But we decided not to limit ourselves to this data, but to present a wider range of information. When developing a prototype of the information system, we used a number of automated algorithms for loading and summarizing all data.”

The map represents an unbiased look at the state of Russian science, according to PwC.

The basic principles of creating a map of science: 1) integration of data from various sources and bringing them together under unified directories of unique objects; 2) ensuring maximum transparency of data - any Internet user can get acquainted with and check them.

Work on mistakes

The map became publicly available in the fall of 2013. From that moment on, the system is tested and errors are eliminated.

During the development of the map, there was a lot of discussion, in particular about the applicability of Web of Science data. But in the end it was decided to use them. The problem of the quality of WoS data for 2007 remains unresolved. About 30% of articles do not have affiliations, that is, their authors are not associated with any scientific organization. In addition, one of the suppliers of data on monographs, textbooks and teaching aids was the Russian Book Chamber, which, as it turned out, could not guarantee the completeness of the data. Therefore, not all books could be included on the map. But they found a way out - a tool appeared in the scientist’s card that allows you to send a request to add books and monographs by application.

Every day, the system is used by 500 to 1,000 users, said TsITIS director Pavel Starikov, who is responsible for information and technological support of the card.

The map contains information about almost 5 thousand organizations, 500 thousand scientists, about 2 million cross-references. There are 4600 registered users in the system.

A division was created at the State Public Library for Science and Technology, which is responsible for content support of the map. The main task is to eliminate inaccuracies that exist in the system.

Over the past period, 1,300 requests from users have been received. Most of them are associated with the inclusion of unaccounted articles in the cards of one or another scientist. And the second most popular request is the exclusion of some articles from the list. “This is quite understandable,” commented Vasily Mukasyan from the State Public Library for Science and Technology. - There are common surnames like Ivanov in the country. The system’s automated algorithms could incorrectly combine them together.”

The third most popular query is incorrect affiliation. Errors are corrected not only on the map, but also by the data providers themselves. The fourth is the incorrect calculation of citation indices, which is explained by the fact that the map presents data from 2007.

“We understand that Thomson Reuters and Scopus do not 100% cover specialized scientific areas that are developed in Russia. Therefore, we plan to expand the list of data sources,” said Vasily Mukasyan.

What do scientists think?

The developers are doing a lot of work to eliminate errors in the map, and many corrections are made thanks to scientists who are actively involved in using the resource and themselves report data inconsistencies. For example, the director of the Institute of Molecular Biology named after. Engelhardt Alexander Makarov noticed that the legal address of the institute was incorrectly indicated on the card. However, he emphasized that the data accumulated on the site helped him assess the overall picture of the state of scientific research in the field of biology.

“The science map helped us build a system of priorities. We didn’t look at which institute produces more publications, we looked at which science is more important, we, for example, found 19 thousand publications in the field of biological sciences, and only 119 in industrial biotechnologies,” said Alexander Makarov. “The map of science also made it possible to determine which institutions are offering projects to develop an already established team, or whether this is a project that claims to open new areas or new horizons.”

One of the main proposals of scientists is to give them the opportunity to edit the data in the map themselves. This idea, in particular, was proposed by the vice-rector of Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov Alexey Khokhlov: “The authors themselves should be allowed to edit information about their activities. And the project curators will then be able to check the posted information. This practice has been implemented in Istina MSU. Scientists themselves contribute their articles to the database. And we only check those that are in the top 25. As soon as the same approach is implemented in the science map, the effect will be immediately noticeable - the quality of the entire database will improve.”

While the developers are considering the option of two-stage verification, authors will be allowed to add missing articles, after which content operators will check the accuracy of the posted data. As a result, one of the main complaints against the map developers will be removed.

PERSONAL IDENTIFIERS OF SCIENTISTS

ResearcherID is your free, publicly accessible interactive space for creating an individual ResearcherID number and personal profile, identifier (ID). Each author is assigned a unique identification number (ID), which later makes it easy to find the published works of a particular author, in particular in the Web of Science database. Your ResearcherID profile may contain information about your institutional affiliations, research areas, and a list of publications. ResearcherID service from Thomson Reuters.

Instructions for registering with ResearcherID(Thomson Reuters video in Russian)
Guide to working with ResearcherID

ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID of ORCID company).

ORCID is a register of scientists' unique identifiers (IDs) and a way to associate research activities with these identifiers. Scientist IDs are used to verify the authorship of scientific papers in SCOPUS and Web of Science. ORCID is unique due to its independence from scientific disciplines and national boundaries, as well as its interaction with other identification systems. ORCID is a non-profit project whose goal is to assign each author of a scientific article his own personal code. The main task of the identification code is to eliminate discrepancies in the names of the author.

The similarity of common first and last names both in one country and in different ones creates confusion in identifying the authors of scientific articles, especially in large databases such as Scopus. Even for our RSCI database, indexing authors with common and therefore similar first and last names faces significant difficulties, primarily for the authors themselves. The same situation is observed with all namesakes in all countries.

The new identification system ORCID ID (read in Russian as “orkid”) assigns each scientist his own unique number (ID ORCID), similar to a barcode in a store. It is a 16-digit numeric code. The letters from the spelling of the first and last name are replaced with numbers, which immediately solves all problems: pronunciation and translation into other languages, the identification of the author and his connection with published articles are automated. Using this code, a scientist is easily identified by scientific organizations and communities, publishing houses, and foundations.

ORCID ID is a kind of business card that not only makes the owner recognizable, but also allows you to communicate with colleagues from all over the world. The ORCID database contains the following data about the author: first name, last name in different ways of writing them; name of the organization in which the author works; list of published articles; grants of the author himself, as well as those in which his participation is recorded.

The value of the ORCID ID code is to free the scientist from the need for routine work of filling out various forms when publishing articles. It is enough to indicate your ORCID ID code and personal information from your personal account will be automatically transferred to the forms.

To register ORCID ID you must:

You need to register on the official ORCID ID website. After this, you enter information about your publications. You must answer all questions on the survey. After filling out all the fields of the questionnaire, the author is assigned his own ID code, and from that moment on, he can use the ORCID system. When filling out your profile in your Personal Account, you can regulate your circle of communication with people, making it public, limited or only private at your discretion. Registration with an ORCID ID is free. To obtain information about authors, large publishers such as CrossRef, Elsevier, IEEE, ImpactStory, Thomson Reuters, Wiley and others cooperate with the ORCID system.

Instructions for registering with ORCID
ORCID Registration
Instructions for working with ORCID

Scopus AuthorID.

Scopus- one of the world's largest scientometric and information-analytical IT platforms, located at http://www.scopus.com. Such resources are designed to facilitate the work of a scientist associated with the search for new incoming information. As a rule, they are additionally equipped with powerful information and analytical tools.

How to find an account (scientist profile) in Scopus? To carry out a comparative analysis of scientific activity in scientometric databases (or IT platforms), each author is assigned his own personal identifier (ID). This information makes it easy to identify the scientist and find his account.

A scientist's profile in Scopus contains basic information about him: his full name (and various spellings), last place of work, email address, bibliographic description of the scientist's articles (which are included in Scopus), as well as scientometric indicators such as the H-index and the number of citations his articles (all data according to Scopus). In order to view an author's account in Scopus, you need to know the unique ID number - the scientist's Scopus identifier.

How to find a scientist's personal ID in Scopus?

To do this, type http://www.scopus.com, click on “ Author Preview» and search by full name or place of work (you can also search by ORCID identifier). If your organization does not subscribe to Scopus (which is a paid database), you will only see the first 20 search results for your query. Authors will be ordered by number of articles in Scopus. In other words, if you are looking for an author with a common last name and a small number of articles in Scopus, then most likely you will not be able to see the result of your query in the free version, i.e. it may be outside the first 20 available answers. In this case, it is recommended to simply complicate the search query, i.e. combine full name, place of work, or at least indicate the country in which the scientist works. After you have found the author, you need to click on his name (they are designed as hyperlinks) and you will be taken to his account. Here the scientist’s personal ID number is written next to “ Author ID».

Scopus creates an account (profile) for each author automatically. This leads to several important conclusions. First of all, you don't need to create your Scopus profile. If you have at least one article in a journal indexed by Scopus, then this has already been done for you. Let us remind you that some Russian journals are also indexed by Scopus. In other words, an article in Russian can also be included in this database. Secondly, it’s still worth looking at your Scopus account and “working out the mistakes,” since authors are identified automatically. Identification errors occur quite often. In order to adjust your account (scientist profile) in Scopus, you can use the following guide:

Unfortunately, due to the events surrounding the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences, this project somehow got lost and, in our opinion, did not receive due attention from the IT community. We offer you a short retrospective: the project’s path from concept to implementation.

The aimless path turns blue before me,
A long path, dug by streams,
And then - darkness; and hidden in this darkness,
The arbiter of fate soars.
Alexander Blok, October 1899

Part 1: competition

The “Map of Russian Science” project (http://mapofscience.ru/) was officially announced in December 2012. On the eve of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, a competition was held to carry out research on the topic “Formation of a system for assessing and monitoring the results of research activities of organizations and scientists for regular assessment of the state of the field of science.” The initial (maximum price) of the contract is 100 million rubles. Funding for the project was provided within the framework of the federal target program “Research and development in priority areas of development of the scientific and technological complex of Russia for 2007-2013” (Competition for 2012, Activity 2.1, Stage 11, Lot 1).

The following organizations took part in the competition:

Institute of System Analysis of the Russian Academy of Sciences;
PricewaterhouseCoopers Russia B.V. (hereinafter referred to as PwC);
Research Institute of Automatic Equipment named after. Academician V. S. Semenikhin;
Moscow State University of Instrument Engineering and Informatics;
Moscow State Technical University named after N. E. Bauman;
Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov;
INEC-Information Technologies.

Baumanka was not admitted for a formal reason: an outdated extract from the Ergul. Whether this was negligence in the preparation of documents, or whether some other factor played a role, is unlikely to be known.

The private consulting company PricewaterhouseCoopers Russia B.V. won the competition, offering a contract value of 90 million rubles. and the deadline for its implementation is 90 days.

It should be noted that Moscow State University offered to develop a “Map of Science” at about half the price - for 50 million rubles, but received low points from the competition commission for quality and qualifications, taking second place. This looks strange, considering that the University has useful developments in this area: the “Science-MSU” information and analytical system was recently launched, with the help of which the publication activity of employees is collected and analyzed.

In the official press, the decision to choose PwC as the contractor was explained by the desire of the customer, represented by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, to conduct an “audit of Russian science” by an external organization that is in no way connected with the scientific community.

PwC spent 40 million on purchasing data from the Web of Science (hereinafter referred to as WoS) database from Thomson Reuters and 15 million on deploying technical infrastructure. Plus, the system requires, according to estimates from the performers, 10-15 million rubles. per year for support.

Unfortunately, we could not find in the public domain the government contract with the winner of the competition, as well as the terms of reference. (Attention, question: does this not contradict competition legislation?) I would really like to look at the amount of work that was declared on paper. Although from a formal point of view this is no longer so important, since the project is framed as research work: its result may simply be a report, the implementation of at least a prototype is not at all necessary.

Part 2: what did you want to do?

“Our goal is to identify by name those scientists and those small scientific teams (that is, laboratories, scientific groups) who are already working in Russia today at a high international level. We will do this project with one simple goal - to understand where Russia remains competitive today, what areas of science are promising for us today, where we have a chance to make a breakthrough in the future. And, most importantly, support - targeted - exactly those people, those scientists, those laboratories that deserve this support,” said Dmitry Livanov in his interview with the Prosveshcheniye TV channel.

In a document prepared by PwC, the project itself is described with the following thesis: “The Map of Russian Science” should become the basis for making informed management decisions in the field of research activities of scientists and organizations”; Specific goals have also been set:

“inventory” of the current state of Russian science;
quick access on demand to current and correct indicators of Russian science;
analytical tools for making informed management decisions;
identifying the most authoritative experts and scientific teams for their targeted support;
comparison of the level of development of science in Russia with other countries and identification of growth points;
ensuring transparency of management decisions.

The same document states three main pillars of the project: data coverage, data quality And functionality.

Data coverage was planned to be achieved through:

international sources: publications, reports at international conferences, patents, publications;
Russian sources: publications, patents, grants, R&D, publications;
indicators of both fundamental and applied science.

The result should have been “a database unique in scope, providing the most complete possible coverage of the results of research activities of Russian scientists.”

Data quality meant:

cleaning the source data to eliminate different spellings of proper names;
use of a data correction mechanism by scientists and organizations themselves;
use of unique identifiers of scientists and organizations.

As a result, it was expected to achieve "an unprecedented level of data accuracy that will help ensure the visibility of Russian science to the international community."

And finally, the functionality included:

tools for comparing and identifying growth areas in science;
generation of reports on specified parameters for scientists, organizations, scientific fields;
flexible search and filtering of data;
identification of informal teams of scientists.

This is “an improved set of analytical tools and their flexibility, providing solutions to management problems.”

And now non-professionals, probably, it will not be very interesting, but since Habr is a technology blog, we considered it necessary to show the work plan and the architecture of the system being built. Just three slides.

Barrels and arrows

Work plan

Architecture!

Part 3: what happened?

First of all, we invite Habr readers to evaluate for themselves whether the declared functionality corresponds to what was implemented. “Map of Russian Science” is available at this link http://mapofscience.ru/. Can this be considered a role model? Is this project unique not only in Russia, but also in the world? Try to answer these questions yourself.

Not long ago the main page of the Maps was updated. A red flashing block has been added telling us: “Attention! The system is in trial operation.” This probably happened due to the large number of negative reviews about the project. If you look at the application to the competition, you will notice that the deadline for this project is the end of 2013. Thus, anything radically corrected in this version for “trial operation” seems unlikely, and we can move on to evaluating the entire project.

The goal of the project (if anyone doesn’t remember) was to “identify by name those scientists and those small scientific teams (that is, laboratories, research groups) that are already working in Russia today at a high international level.” In our opinion, it is impossible to do this using the proposed tools.

Data coverage

It didn't work out more than it did. The two main databases - the Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI) and Web of Science (WoS) - are presented in the range of 2007–2012, and even with a reservation regarding WoS. The data is simply not of current interest(top of the year) and incorrect(lower bar of the year) for the stated main goal. And this despite the fact that access to the WoS database (its part related to Russian scientists) cost the state 40 million rubles (virtually without the right to transfer data to the Ministry of Education and Science).

For the other sources of data stated in the project, there is also, to put it mildly, some incompleteness. After a lengthy search of leading Russian scientists, we were unable to find their books, monographs, or information about participation in R&D and grants. It can be assumed that this data was either simply not provided in the science map, or they could not be prepared.

Data quality

In our opinion, this task was key in the implementation of the “Map of Russian Science”; this was exactly what technological part, which was the main difficulty and should have taken up the main effort and time. Simply put, the task of the entire “Map” was to consolidate, clean and correctly link the data. Or, as follows from the transcript of the inaugural meeting of expert groups on the implementation of the “Map of Russian Science” project, the key block of work was “cleaning and integrating data from various sources.” And, unfortunately, this part didn’t work out at all. The data has not been compiled at all: we are offered either the RSCI or WoS. In fact, we are presented with just an interface to these two databases, with not very clear functionality. It so happened that the scientific community had most of the complaints about the quality of the data. We tried to put them together (but we probably missed something - there are a lot of complaints):

use of a classifier (rubricator) of scientific areas that is not applicable to current areas in Russian science;
random selection (grouping) of scientific institutions according to headings;
lack of control over the level of random matches;
discrepancy between numerical indicators and real values (by the number of staff of scientific institutions, by the number of publications in WoS and RSCI, by the number of patents, by citation index), errors when operators transfer data from one database to another;
incorrect selection of “leading” institutions or researchers (top 5), based on the use of arbitrary characteristics that have no connection with each other (either data from WoS, or RSCI, or alphabetical order, or a rubricator, etc.);
incorrect (incorrect) spelling of full name. researcher in both Russian and English writing systems;
incorrect (incorrect) affiliation of the researcher;
lack of separation of namesakes and their correct correlation with the scientific direction and scientific institution;
lack of information about departments of organizations (including faculties of large universities, such as Moscow State University and St. Petersburg State University).

Functional

Not everything is good with functionality either. For example, here is how the data correction mechanism is implemented: “The correction of technical errors noticed by users occurs through the provision of a paper version of the comments, certified by the seal of the organization in which the user works.” Meanwhile, the above-mentioned transcript states: “The main principle of the project is to minimize efforts on the part of scientists. It is expected that most of the information in personal accounts will be filled out automatically.”

Until now, not a single person has been found who can clearly explain what information the so-called “heat map” carries. The only interesting feature, in our opinion, is the “collapse map” link at the bottom right; its functionality is, at least, extraordinary and contains the lion’s share of self-irony.

We tried to register in the system to see what it looks like from the inside. We were lucky enough to create an account about a month before writing this review, because currently registering new users for some reason no longer works (it looks like all the polymers were lost).

To register, the scientist must provide his full name, year of birth and email, and then go through the “verification” procedure. This can be done in two ways: by mail or through the so-called SPIN code.

Verification by mail is carried out through a “manual loop”. To avoid this, we decided to develop an innovative SPIN code. Most likely, not every reader is familiar with this concept (there were some among us too), so let’s break it down.

SPIN code is the personal identification code of the author in SCIENCE INDEX, an information and analytical system built on the basis of data from the Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI).

We submitted an application for a SPIN code by filling out a huge form on the RSCI website with several dozen fields and classifiers (in just 20 minutes), and successfully received the code after two weeks of waiting. Rejoicing at our achievements, we entered the SPIN code in the scientist’s profile, after which “Map” informed us that this information requires verification (not again!). Two weeks have passed since the entry, and the account has still not been verified.

If you have enough patience, then you have reached your personal account.

Personal Area

There is nothing special to edit in your personal account, since it contains only the data that you entered during registration. The authors of the system mean that the scientist will tell everything else about himself, filling out a considerable number of fields. Note that in Western systems (ResearchGate, Academia.edu, Google Scholar), after registration, the user receives an almost ready-made profile that the system prepared for him, automatically collecting data from various sources. All he has to do is confirm them and, if necessary, supplement them.

It is doubtful that scientists will willingly use a system that takes more than 4 weeks just to register. One thing is obvious - “minimizing efforts on the part of scientists” did not work.

The official rating of the project as unsatisfactory is also consistent with our findings. “This is a model, it’s not even a pilot project,” noted Deputy Minister of Education and Science of the Russian Federation Lyudmila Ogorodova (model for 90 million).

Part 4: reaction from the scientific community

This will be the most concise part of our story. The reaction from the scientific community was sharply negative.

Part 5: reasons for failure

As follows from the official position of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation and numerous reviews from the expert scientific community, the “Map of Science” turned out to be unsatisfactory. We will not discuss whether it corresponds to the goals of the completed government contract due to the lack of information about it. Another thing is important - how could such a situation be avoided? In our opinion, the key point in this story is that all the data on which this public information system was built is not open.

And here we would like to touch on the very pressing problem of open data in science. They simply don't exist. But if they were open, perhaps there would be no need for such a government order. The Science Map could be implemented by any professional developer interested in open data and science. Moreover, with appropriate demand from the state and the scientific community, there would be several such “maps”.

Let's look at the list of supposed Russian sources for the "Map of Science":

articles in Russian and foreign journals (NEB);
Russian and foreign patents (FIPS);
grants (FGBNU Scientific Research Institute RINCCE, RFBR, RGNF);
reports on research and development (CITS);
dissertations and abstracts (CITS);
book publishing (Russian Book Chamber);
information about scientific organizations and their departments (including universities and their faculties).

The vast majority of the above sources were generated from the state budget and it is not clear why these data are not public.

Part 6: how to fix the situation?

06/29/2018, Fri, 16:14, Moscow time , Text: Valeria Shmyrova

The Accounts Chamber found that the Ministry of Education and Science and the State Public Scientific and Technical Library committed numerous violations when creating the “Map of Russian Science” information system. As a result, the system stopped working in February 2017. The contract for its creation, which was claimed by prominent government contractors, at one time went to a private company with a staff of 5 people.

Why the “Map of Russian Science” does not work

The information system “Map of Russian Science,” created by the Ministry of Education and Science, has not been working since February 2017 due to “numerous deficiencies,” as reported by the Accounts Chamber based on the results of a corresponding audit. To create this system in 2012-2016. The ministry spent almost 450 million rubles. budget funds. The supervisory authority indicates that the location of the “Map” is not documented, and the system is not listed either on the balance sheet of the ministry or on the balance sheet of the State Public Scientific and Technical Library.

Based on the results of the inspection, submissions will be sent to the Ministry of Education and Science and the library, as well as an appeal to the Prosecutor General's Office and a report to the chambers of the Federal Assembly. The inspection materials will be submitted to the Federal Security Service (FSB).

Let us remind you that the “Map of Russian Science” is an information system that contains automatically updated data about scientists and scientific organizations. The “Map” presents data for the period from 2007 to 2016. In February 2017, the Science Council under the Ministry of Education and Science stated that during the 4 years of its existence the system worked unsatisfactorily and asked users not to use it anymore, switching instead to separate databases for different areas.

How did the tender take place?

The Accounts Chamber reports that the competition to create the “Map” received applications from seven organizations, including proposals from Moscow State University, Moscow State Technical University. Bauman, Moscow State University of Instrument Engineering and Informatics, Semenikhin Research Institute of Automatic Equipment and Institute of System Analysis of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

However, by decision of the commission of the Ministry of Education and Science, the winner was the private company PricewaterhouseCoopers Russia B.V. It is a branch of another company registered in the Netherlands. The branch staff consists of five employees.

The Ministry of Education and Science committed numerous violations during the creation of a large information system

Auditor Vladimir Katrenko noted at a meeting of the Board of the Accounts Chamber that Pricewaterhouse offered to implement the contract for 90 million rubles, and this application became the most expensive in the tender, since other competitors were ready to complete the work for 50-60 million rubles.

Pricewaterhouse did not independently develop the information system, but attracted A.T. Consulting LLC as a co-executor, which actually created Maps, receiving 27 million rubles for this. The library was involved in entering databases into the system and updating them; two contracts with a total value of almost 275 million rubles were concluded with it for this work.

An audit by the Accounts Chamber showed that the Ministry of Education and Science accepted works of inadequate quality from Pricewaterhouse that did not meet the requirements of the technical specifications. This entailed the risk of causing damage to the federal budget in the amount of more than 125 million rubles.

“The developed “Map” did not allow automatic updating of the database and contained functional errors. However, the Ministry of Education and Science did not take advantage of Pricewaterhouse’s warranty obligations to eliminate the deficiencies. As a result, the modification of the “Map” was carried out by the library and additionally cost the federal budget 79 million rubles,” Katrenko said.

Other violations

The audit of the Accounts Chamber concerned the expenditure of funds by the Ministry of Education and Science on the state program “Development of Science and Technology for 2013-2020”, and specifically the activities of the library were checked. The period under review covers 2016-2017. In 2016, the Ministry received 46.6 billion rubles from the state to implement the program, which is almost 32% of the total program budget. In 2017, more than 55 billion rubles were received, that is, 34.5% of the program cost. Of these, 2.1 billion rubles were sent to the library. and 1.5 billion rubles.

As a result of the audit, violations amounting to over 1 billion rubles were identified, both on the part of the Ministry of Education and Science and on the part of the library. During the implementation of the state program, state tasks with a total value of more than 143 million rubles were incorrectly formed and fulfilled. In addition, a subsidy of 80 million rubles. was spent on purposes not related to government assignments.

The audit also found that in 2017, expenses for the maintenance of property and its rental were included in the work on state orders, and these expenses exceeded the real needs of the library. As a result, the amount of funding was unreasonably increased by more than 54 million rubles.

Also, during the implementation of the state program, violations in the field of public procurement were identified. The Ministry of Education and Science and the library accepted works of poor quality that did not meet the technical specifications. In addition, the library received money for work that it did not actually perform. The Ministry of Education and Science paid for some work twice. The risks to the budget associated with these violations are estimated at almost 116 million rubles.

It also turned out that the State Public Scientific and Technical Library maintains its collection in unsatisfactory conditions. As of the beginning of 2018, its library collection consisted of more than 8 million titles with a total value of 152.2 million rubles. But the library building is designed to store only 3 million books, and another 5.6 million are stored in basements and semi-basements, and such premises occupy more than 83% of the total storage area. The library uses some repositories without concluding appropriate agreements with organizations. Risks for the state budget associated with the possible loss of the library collection due to incorrect storage are estimated at 127 million rubles.

On May 21, 2012, Dmitry Livanov was appointed Minister of Education and Science of the Russian Federation. In his first public speech, he voices the intention of the Ministry of Education and Science (MES RF) to conduct a comprehensive audit of the research and development sector, including RAS institutes, state scientific organizations and higher education institutions. This statement can be called the birth of the “Map of Russian Science.” Unfortunately, amid the events surrounding the reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences, this project somehow got lost and, in our opinion, did not receive due attention from the IT community. We offer you a short retrospective: the project’s path from concept to implementation.

The aimless path turns blue before me,
A long path, dug by streams,
And then - darkness; and hidden in this darkness,
The arbiter of fate soars.

Alexander Blok, October 1899

Part 1: competition

Part 5: reasons for failure

Let's look at the list of supposed Russian sources for the "Map of Science":

articles in Russian and foreign journals (NEB);
Russian and foreign patents (FIPS);
grants (FGBNU Scientific Research Institute RINCCE, RFBR, RGNF);
reports on research and development (CITS);
dissertations and abstracts (CITS);
book publishing (Russian Book Chamber);
information about scientific organizations and their departments (including universities and their faculties).

The vast majority of the above sources were generated from the state budget and it is not clear why these data are not public.