V. V. Brinza, Dr. Eng., Independent Researcher, e-mail: viachbrinza@mail.ru

The article presents a rationale for scientometric assessments of scientists’ performance over a long period of their activity. The aim of the work was to determine the ability of representatives of the scientific community to successfully operate within the framework of the scenario of advanced innovative development. A review of the most popular approaches used to determine the effectiveness of scientists’ activities is provided, which include expertise, scientometrics, and scientific communication networks. The advantages and disadvantages of each approach are highlighted. The article substantiates a methodology for comparing time series of significant publications by authors with global knowledge flows characterizing the external environment and the process of changing technological paradigms. A group of scientometric indicators is proposed that generally characterize the effectiveness of long-term activities of scientists based on the results of attracting scientometric information. The application of the procedure is demonstrated by the example of analyzing the achievements of V. N. Brinza, a prominent metallurgist, professor, and doctor of engineering sciences. In 2024, it will be 100 years since his birth. During his scientific activity from 1957 to 1990, he successfully realized his potential in solving problems for more than 10 scientific areas in the theory and technology of rolling processes, as well as labor protection in ferrous metallurgy. The scientist’s pronounced abilities to foresee the prospects of alternative thematic areas, the ability to develop several thematic areas in parallel, the speed of changing target priorities, the significance of the results obtained against the background of global thematic knowledge flows, and the high intensity of elaboration of thematic areas have been confirmed. The methodology is recommended for assessing the effectiveness of scientists and preserving the unique experience of previous generations of researchers.

1. Kydland F. E., Prescott. E. C. Business cycles: Real facts and a monetary myth. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review. 1990. Vol. 14, Iss. 2. pp. 3–18.
2. Available at: data.oecd.org/rd/gross-domestic-spending-on-r-d.htm (accessed: 21.02.2024)
3. Available at: data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.SCIERD.RP6?view=chart (accessed: 25.04.2024)
4. Litvak B. G. Expert assessments and decision making. Moscow : Patent, 1996. 271 p.
5. Yakushev A. Zh. Modeling the system of factors forming the scientific potential of a modern research scientist. Ekonomicheskaya teoriya. 2017. Vol. 3. No. 9. pp. 3–11.
6. Brinza V. V., Ilyichev I. P., Ugarova O. A., Loginova V. V. Prognostic simulation of external economic activity for an industrial company. CIS Iron and Steel Review. 2015. Vol. 10. pp. 27–39.
7. Brinza V. V., Ilyichev I. P., Perk O. N. External economic complex of enterprise: reserves forecasting of efficiency increase. Metallurg. 2017. No. 5. pp. 9–16..
8. Brinza Viacheslav, Aleksakhin A. V., Travyanova Maria. External economic activity of an industrial company: Predictive simulation. Progress in Economics Research. 2019. Vol. 43. pp. 1–54.
9. Nalimov V. V., Mulchenko Z. M. Scientometrics. Study of the development of science as an information process. Moscow : Nauka, 1969. 192 p.
10. Khaytun S. D. Scientometrics: state and prospects. Moscow : Nauka, 1983. 344 p.
11. Garfield E. Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics. 1979. No. 4. pp. 359–375.
12. Karpushin E. S. Methods of assessing the effectiveness and professionalism of Russian scientists. Vestnik IE RAN. 2016. No. 1. pp. 148–157.
13. Hirsch J. E. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. PNAS. 2005. Vol. 102. Iss. 46. pp. 16569–16572. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0507655102
14. Scientometrics and expertise in science management: preface. Large systems management. Special issue 44. Scientometrics and expertise in science management. Moscow : IPU RAN, 2013. 568 p.
15. Weizhang Liang, Bing Dai, Guoyan Zhao, Hao Wu. A scientometric review on rockburst in hard rock: two decades of review from 2000 to 2019. Geofluids. 2020. Vol. 2020, Iss. 12. 8763283. DOI: 10.1155/2020/8763283
16. Sjögårde P. Mapping the structure of science through clustering in citation networks: granularity, labeling and visualization.Thesis. Stockholm : Karolinska Institutet, 2023. 82 p.
17. Erlsteyn L. B. Problems of scientometrics, index of the most cited publication, as a means of solving some of them. Vestnik vysshey shkoly. 2023. No. 9. pp. 23–28. DOI: 10.20339/AM.09-23.023
18. Levin V. I. Mathematical methods for assessing a scientist’s contribution to science. Sistemy upravleniya, svyazi i bezopasnosti. 2017. No. 1. pp. 160–174.
19. Kalachikhin P. A. Interdependence of research performance indicators. Scientific and Technical Information Processing. 2023. Vol. 50, Iss. 3. pp. 203–210. DOI: 10.3103/S0147688223030103
20. Karpushin E. S. Methods of assessing the effectiveness and professionalism of Russian scientists. Vestnik IE RAN. 2016. No. 1. pp. 148–157.
21. Idlis G. M. Mathematical theory of scientific organization of labor and optimal structure of research institutes. 2^nd edition. Moscow : Izdatelstvo LKI, 2007. 368 p.
22. Brinza V. V. An innovation factory in metallurgy. Stal. 2014. No. 9. pp. 37–45.