Modern science, due to the high cost of its material and technical support (materials, tools, computer technology, etc.), is forced to be built on a collective basis. In this regard, the number of papers with a large number of co-authors is growing every year. There is a need to use data from other scientific groups or technical performers, unpublished information gleaned from the Internet and other information systems, consultations, etc. Therefore, the leaders of research work and persons preparing the publication of scientific information face the tasks associated with determining the contribution of certain co-executors of the work, i.e., in essence, they have to solve ethical problems.
In this article, we will look at how ethical standards affect scientific publications. In this regard, the ethics of co-authorship and the ethics of citation seem to be the most important. One of the possible goals of such consideration is to develop the norms of rational co-authorship and rational citation.
Scheme of the passage of a scientific publication
The process of writing and preparing a scientific article for publication is subject to formalization (as, indeed, works of any genre) . Despite the variety of forms of scientific written reports (reports, short communications, abstracts of speeches at conferences, regular and review articles, patents, special popular presentations of material, purely informational selections, etc.), the procedure for preparing articles can be represented as a general scheme, including a series of successive stages.
The most important ethical issues that arise at the stages of preparing an article are related to issues of co-authorship, namely: - choosing a leader for preparing an article, - determining the list of authors and their order, - choosing an author (authors) for correspondence. Among the secondary issues from the point of view of scientific ethics are: - the choice of a place (journal) for publication, - the decision on the further fate of the material in
if the editorial board concludes that the article is rejected, - the development of a decision on all critical remarks.
Scientific productivity
One of the results of the activity of a researcher is the publication, in particular, an article in an accessible and well-known scientific journal. However, here the question arises: how often should a researcher publish his results? This question has recently become widespread for assessing the productivity of scientific activity, which is facilitated by the fact that many questionnaires for scientific workers, as a rule, include a question on the number of publications, for example, in the last 5 years (the number of published works is used as a criterion for admission for a new job, awarding scientific degrees, elections to the academy, etc.). However, this usually leaves aside the question of the significance of the work performed, assessed, for example, by the citation index of the work, as proposed in the information model of science.
Scientometricians 20-30 years ago investigated the phenomenon of authors who had several hundred publications, to which, in particular, the physicist Lord Kelvin belonged - over 67 years of scientific activity, 660 of his works were published (i.e., about 10 works every year or one article per month) ). However, there are now many scientists who have published 1,000 papers or more (not counting preprints, abstracts, and other forms of preliminary written papers). Even a special club of "thousanders" has been established. The generally recognized champion here is the Soviet scientist, X-ray specialist Yu.T. Struchkov (corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR). According to available estimates, he published one article about a week and so for almost 40 years.
At the same time, there are examples of the extremely stingy productivity of scientists in publishing their work. The famous physicist P.L. Kapitsa, the Nobel Prize winner, published only a few dozen scientific papers, and in some years he did not submit his work to print at all. Nevertheless, Kapitsa's contribution to modern physics is enormous.
It is possible that the reason for scientific fertility may be associated with a simple desire to express themselves, with some kind of graphomania. The habit of writing, the art of working with texts, the love of language, probably have a certain meaning. It is known that the physicist L.D. Landau was a wonderful storyteller, dreamer and improviser, but he did not like to write. The famous multi-volume course by Landau and Lifshitz might not have been created if it were not for E.M. Lifshitz.
At one time, A. Molem expressed the idea of the expediency of singling out a separate profession - a writer, a processor of results, an interpreter. At some point, an ordinary scientist submits all his data to such a specialist who brings them to a public form: describes the problem statement, the course of the solution, draws conclusions, collects and cites bibliographic references. Of course, the direct author of this scientific work gets acquainted with the text being prepared, makes adjustments and additions, but now it does not take him much time. He uses developed technology.
The title information about the authors of the publication does not always unequivocally exhaust the list of all those persons who in one way or another caused the appearance of this work. The number of persons not usually included in the list of authors should include those who gave consultations, provided unpublished data, individual chemical compounds, expressed critical comments when reading the manuscript, etc., and the authors of the article officially express their gratitude to them. In many cases, it is difficult to draw a precise line between authors and those to whom gratitude is expressed. For example, gratitude is often given for the performance of certain sections of the work, for the formulation of this work, i.e. for what in most cases can be regarded as an undoubted co-authorship.
Another circle of persons adjacent to the co-authors is the technical executors of individual operations of the work. For example, in chemical research, these may be spectroscopists or analysts who check the purity of preparations or prove the structure of the compounds obtained. It can also be engineers, technicians and laboratory assistants who perform technically complex work steps.
In this regard, I would like to say a few words about the ratio of scientific and technical personnel. In Russian science, technical personnel are gradually disappearing, which is connected with the financial state of our economy. If the scientific employees in the performance of any work are guided by their own creative aspirations and goals related to scientific prestige, then the technical staff is primarily interested in a suitable pay for their work. It is known how important laboratory and engineering work was for many venerable scientists (see, for example, the memoirs of P.L. Kapitsa). Thus, the financial crisis in Russia should most sharply affect the state of experimental research, we can expect a sharp decline in the overall culture of the experiment, a gradual departure from setting up subtle experiments that require sophisticated equipment and precision instruments. We will remember such phenomena as, for example, the Karpov school of glassblowers, which provided half of Moscow's chemical science with amazing glass instruments.
There is an opinion that the problem of being an author or not being an author is not serious. The leaders of the publication during the preparation and design of the article, if possible, include in the list of authors all the executors of the work. Ethical problems in determining co-authorship usually arise among those persons who did not take part in the preparation of the article at the beginning, but joined at the second stage, when the article was already basically ready. Here the performer himself needs to assess the significance of his contribution to this work.
In some cases, the offer of co-authorship may look like a kind of bribe - we include you in the authors, and you will have to do this and that. Sometimes the offer to be a co-author is intended to share responsibility for questionable or weak parts of the work. In other cases, this may mean the special inclusion of a scientist with a big name to increase the prestige of the work.
In general, among scientific publications, there is a phenomenon of an increase in the number of papers with a large and even super-large list of co-authors, when the number of authors reaches a hundred. This is especially true for work in the field of high-energy particle physics and space research, where teams serving unique and complex installations include hundreds and thousands of specialists (for example, in the case of space or atomic and nuclear research). Even abbreviated, specially introduced names for such groups were born (in order not to download the formal titles of the work). Well-known, for example, is the case of cooperative authorship in mathematics (the famous, or rather famous Bourbaki). Of course, this phenomenon has a negative side - the author, as it were, disappears in such a team, and the contribution of an individual can be completely lost.
Undoubtedly, there is still an element of rivalry in science, individual scientists are interested in personal fame, awards, prizes, etc. Public institutions are preserved that specifically support these ambitions (first of all, this is the institution of the world-famous Nobel Prizes).
In the process of becoming an article, the initial stage is, of course, essential, when the idea of writing an article is formed and its first version is compiled. Most often, the idea to write an article comes at the beginning to one person, the true leader of the article, but it is possible that this idea arises from several people at once, who quickly take shape in the circle of publication leaders.
Another circle of co-authors is associated with the leaders or customers of the proposed scientific document. This may be the supervisor of a graduate student, the head of a laboratory, the head of a department, etc. Very often, leaders do not write articles and do not take part in writing them on a daily basis, however, they "record themselves" as authors for clan reasons, thereby designating their circle of influence.
A special place in the practice of Soviet (and now Russian) scientific publication is played by "Reports of the Academy of Sciences" (DAN). In order for an article to be published in this periodical, co-authorship with a full academician or corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences is required, or the article must be submitted by a full academician.
I recall the history of the publication in DAN of my first article "Molecular Mobilities in Latexes. NMR Study". I turned to my leader Vladimir Lvovich Karpov (son of the founder of the Karpov Institute - Lev Yakovlevich Karpov) with a proposal to send the prepared article to the DAN (section of chemistry). V.L. Karpov agreed and added that Academician V.A. Kargin, and that he (Karpov) would personally go to him to get an introduction. However, a certain time passed, and Vladimir Lvovich could not fulfill his promise, so I made an appointment with Kargin and asked for an introduction myself.
V.A. Kargin was a very authoritarian and surprisingly mesmerizing personality. Without reading the article, he only asked two questions. "Are you the first to pay attention to the mobility of polymers in latexes?" “Of course not,” I replied. - "So you have developed this method...how is it...nmr?" - "Yes, no, this method was invented by the Americans back in 45-46 years" - I said. - "Then I don't understand what you are talking about. You seem to have no subject of novelty, but according to the rules of DAN, papers presenting only new results are accepted there." Refuse!!!
When I told Vladimir Lvovich about this, he smiled - "You, Kolya, were in a hurry. Wait for me, I'll go to Kargin." After 10 minutes, he returned and said: "I helped Valya slightly reformulate the concept of novelty in science. Your article is accepted."
The list of co-authors in modern scientometrics is given some attention. The leading scientific citation publication, the Science Citation Index, is built on the principle of first-author citation. So, if you set out to find out all your publications for a certain period, you will be forced to find out the names of all the first authors of the articles in which you participated (and were not necessarily the first author).
In accordance with tacitly accepted ethical standards, the first place in the list of authors is usually occupied by the true leader of the publication. However, in some cases, the true leaders - the leading leaders of this scientific direction - prefer to take the last place in the list, patronizingly giving way to the first place to younger colleagues. Sometimes the leader (or all leaders) will look at the list of future co-authors and try to rank them according to their relative contribution to the work.
In many cases, actual publication lead, i.e. formal responsibility for the passage of the article (contacts with the editorial board and with readers) is assumed by the true leader (or two leaders) of the publication. It is assumed that his personal interest will have a positive effect on the speed of passing the article to its publication and on the development of further contacts.
Finally, there is a certain democratic approach, according to which the names of the authors are placed alphabetically. However, there may be funny collisions associated with different alphabets. So, for example, Russian surnames starting with the letter "Ch" (for example, Chertkov or Cherepanov), in the English version will begin with the letter "C" (ie Chertkov or Cherepanoff).
All these approaches to the order in which authors are placed do not solve, however, the main problem - how to determine the true leader of the publication. In part, this issue is resolved by indicating in the information about the authors the address of one (sometimes two) of the co-authors with whom it is proposed to correspond (however, sometimes one or another addressee is suggested due to reasons of quick communication).
In scientometrics, the so-called Matthew effect is described - "For whoever has, to him it will be given and it will be multiplied, but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him." In other words, when the leadership is not clearly indicated, the priority in the publication is usually attributed to the most famous author.
It was suggested that a list of authors be given, with a brief indication of the role that each author played in the work. This would help to pinpoint who to contact for further clarification and would filter out those who are simply "attributed" to the publication. Note that this method is generally accepted in film distribution, where it is precisely indicated who is the director, who is the cameraman, who plays who and who is responsible for what.
In my opinion, the method of personal responsibility could greatly improve the quality of scientific publication. Unfortunately, in science, this method is difficult to implement, since the roles of performers can change in the course of work. In addition, the true creators of the publication (for example, the creators of the original idea) may not end up in the list of authors at all.
Choosing a place for publication
The discussion of the issue of choosing the place of publication deserves special attention. Of course, most authors dream of being published in a prestigious journal. These are journals with a high impact factor (average citation of articles in a given journal). In the field of chemical sciences, the Journal of American Chemical Society (JACS) is certainly considered prestigious, which holds the record not only in terms of volume (about 20,000 two-column pages per year), but also in terms of average citation of articles (the impact factor is about 5, t .e. each article is cited an average of five times in subsequent years). This is a fairly high level (for the vast majority of Russian scientific journals, the impact factor does not exceed one).
Of no small importance (including from an ethical point of view) is the issue of payment for publications. There is a point of view that the author of the publication should be paid a fee. Indeed, many editorial offices in the USSR paid royalties (for example, magazines with a production profile, such as Automation of Production, Butter Industry, etc.). As a rule, the editors of journals of academic subordination did not pay fees, although, for example, Uspekhi Khimii, which publishes review articles, paid quite decent fees. Moreover, since such review publications are usually translated into English, the authors receive an additional translation fee (in foreign currency).
In the editorial offices of American journals, in particular all journals of the American Chemical Society, there is a practice of payment for publication by the authors themselves.
Let me give you an example from my own practice. As a relatively young author (in the early 70s), I certainly dreamed of publishing in JACS. However, in Soviet times, publishing abroad was seen almost as a dissident undertaking. It was necessary to obtain special permission for such publication from the VAAP - the All-Union Agency for the Protection of Copyrights, for which it was required to submit an English version (sent abroad) and its Russian translation.
I must say that ambition made me study the question - do Soviet authors publish in JACS at all, and if they do, then what are the reasons for such publications. The painstaking research of this issue (i.e. careful reading of all the titles of articles with lists of authors and organizations where the authors work) took several months. These are countless issues of the magazine for the period 1918-1972, in which, as it turned out, "Soviet publications" occasionally slipped through. In total, I counted nine such publications over a period of 54 years.
I prepared, in my opinion, an interesting material on the proton spin-spin interaction constants in methylcyclopentadiene (the results were obtained jointly with my student V.A. Korenevsky) and, having received permission from the VAAP, sent the material to JACS, hiding the VAAP instruction to grant JACS the right to only one-time publication of this material.
The work received a positive review, and I thought that now it remains to wait for the prints. However, instead of them, I received a letter from which it was clear that my work was accepted for publication, and in accordance with the expected size, it would cost me about 70 US dollars.
Unfortunately, I did not have any dollars, and in complete hopelessness I began to carefully read the regulations on payment for publications. First, I learned that a similar fee system is common in the journals of the American Chemical Society and this determines the speed and high technical level of publications. Secondly, I was surprised to learn that many foreigners, like the Americans themselves, do not have the money to publish their materials.
At the same time, the editors reported that there are many sponsors willing to pay. To do this, just indicate which of them you choose. The letter offered a list, which, of course, included the Pentagon, the FBI, the CIA and some other organizations of an undoubtedly military or political profile, which, of course, caused me very negative emotions. However, at the end of the list, I found a modest postscript, from which it became clear that I could classify the country that I represent as an author as an underdeveloped and developing country, and then the funding would be purely charitable. I did just that, which resulted in the tenth Soviet article in the Journal of the American Chemical Society.
Ethics of quotation
In recent years, the literature cited in scientific publications (mainly due to the intensive practical work of Garfield and the theoretical developments of V.V. Nalimov) has become a very serious tool for studying science itself and has been used to study information flows in order to determine the rank of a journal, maps of science, and the level of citation. individual works and individual authors. Therefore, the analysis of the cited literature began to arouse great interest.
Regular scientific work is necessarily based on previous results, and the article, as a rule, contains bibliographic references as a documentary evidence of these results. In principle, most of the statements given in the work, one way or another, have a certain literary background. Therefore, almost every second phrase in a regular text could be supported by a corresponding link, which, naturally, would lead to an "overload" of the article.
As practice shows, there is one link for every 10-15 lines of text. Of course, there is no general recipe for how often to link. In view of the limited volume of the article, the authors have to carry out a certain selection of references. First of all, they try to give references to the most important works, and from the many references on one issue, the most significant are selected. In some cases, articles are cited from the most highly cited journal or a well-known author, without necessarily citing the original source. It is preferable to refer to publications where this problem (question) is described in the most detail (collection of reviews, monograph). Often the authors provide links to their own works, in which the issue under discussion has already been touched upon.
The deliberate suppression of the works of one or another author can be considered a standard ethical offense. This technique is used as a method of discrimination. The usual justification is that the work that could be cited is in the wrong language (for example, not in English) or is published in a hard-to-reach or low-citation journal.
Americans, for example, prefer to refer to works published in American journals, ignoring scientific publications in European countries. Indeed, the powerful economic and political potential of the United States now largely determines the level of standards and style of scientific research in the world. A single European country can hardly compete here.
A European Union initiative aimed at creating a sustainable alternative to American journals can play a certain role in supporting the prestige of European science. In recent years, new journals have appeared, such as the European Journal of Chemistry, and some old journals, such as Angewandte Chemie, have been transformed into new ones. However, the success of these journals, designed to unite European chemists into a single scientific community, has so far been hindered by language barriers, as well as national ambitions.
I must say that language barriers are a serious limitation in the development of science. In this regard, great changes have taken place in Russia in recent years. Journals began to appear only in English, for example Mendeleev Communications, and many journals now have parallel English counterparts.
Anomalies in citation should probably include the almost complete absence of bibliographic references in the published work, as well as excessive reliance on references to one's own works, although both have a right to exist.
Let us consider the problems of scientific ethics associated with the passage of an article in the editorial office, and, in particular, the issues of interaction "author-editor".
First of all, we will be concerned about the case associated with the rejection of this work. With the right choice of journal, with the understanding that your work satisfies the criteria (semantic and technical) required by this edition, you have almost 100% chance of being accepted. Deviation should be viewed not as luck or bad luck, but as a failure, as a signal that you do not understand something in the current state of this science. In this sense, it is very important in what form the refusal is sent. I would single out two forms of refusal - persuasive and unpersuasive.
Having received a convincing refusal, you will understand what your miscalculation is and what needs to be done next. With an unconvincing rejection, there is a danger of starting a correspondence with the editors, trying to accuse the editor or reviewers of bias, ignorance or bias, and, as a rule, such litigation does not work.
In my practice (60-80 years) the most convincing refusals were received from the journals of the American Chemical Society. In my opinion, a purely material principle worked here - the more expensive the magazine turned out to be, the more convincing the refusal was. As a rule, a high-value journal invites high-ranking experts, and at least two experts study this article. If there is a significant difference in their opinions, the article is sent to the third expert, who assists the editor-in-chief in preparing the final answer.
Rejection in all editions is seen as a kind of drama - the editors, of course, guess that the rejection will cause negative emotions among the authors, in some cases it is just a collapse of hopes. If the final review contains excerpts from the letters of all experts, the author, carefully reading the meaning of criticism and comments, discovers something new and significant for himself, the grounds for complaints, accusations, and insults disappear.
Reviewers in the editorial offices, as a rule, are involved on the basis of complete confidentiality. Although, perhaps, such an approach is "convenient" only for bad journals and uncivilized science, where tribalism flourishes, the scientific hierarchy dominates (for example, an influential academy). Having received a refusal, the author tries to guess who "flunked" his article and who needs revenge, etc. However, all this is unworthy of a scientist.
In the history of science, there are many cases of dramatic refusals to publish, which ended in the loss of national priorities, personal tragedies, delays in the development of entire areas. As an example, I will refer to the history of the refusal to publish the first article on modern NMR tomography, submitted to the editors of the Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics. In this work, for the first time, a method was presented for measuring NMR signals under conditions of a magnetic field gradient and the idea was expressed that the method could be used to detect water signals that are inaccessible for direct measurement. The article was rejected by the reviewer, so this case was repeatedly cited as an example of the irresponsibility of the editorial staff of the journal and as an example of the loss of Soviet priority in important scientific and technical developments. As you know, now Russia buys imported NMR tomographs in large quantities (spending millions of dollars a year).
The situation looks simpler if the article as a whole is accepted by the editors, however, critical remarks are made and certain corrections are required. Here you should try to meet the editorial requirements as much as possible. However, let's also allow a refusal to take into account some of the comments, which should be convincingly justified by the author. Sometimes, however, there are situations when an article is conditionally accepted, but the requirements put forward by the editors may be unacceptable to the authors (for example, changing the main conclusions, title, list of authors, etc.).
This paper does not purport to be an exhaustive exposition of the complex ethical issue of authorship and citation. For example, questions about links to private messages or unintentional suppression of the work of a certain author or group of authors turned out to be outside the scope of the article (which, by the way, can be considered as a way of "fighting competitors"). The existence of special magazines for a narrow circle of workers (having secrecy or confidentiality stamps) is not discussed either. Out of sight were such complex ethical and legal issues as copyright protection (Copyright system).
As a central idea, I would like to emphasize that ethical relationships in science, in particular those relating to authorship and citation, are based on universal human moral norms and values, such as openness, democracy, traditions, respect for the contribution of others, continuity, etc. . There are other factors that affect the harmony of authorship, such as the psychological aspect. However, perhaps the most serious is the economic factor, which dictates the rules for the rapid, economical and efficient dissemination of information.
Adjustment to the balance in the field of scientific ethics, in principle, can occur both at the expense of the economic factor and at the expense of moral norms. Considering moral norms to be deeper, one can only hope that in most cases such adjustment will occur with the help of flexible economic factors.
The seventh edition of the Dictionary of Foreign Words, published by the Russian language publishing house in 1979, gives the following definition:
A quotation is an exact, literal excerpt from a text.
A necessary condition for any scientific work is citation. A quote from an authoritative scientist confirms the correctness of your point of view, makes the report, abstract, term paper more weighty and significant. But here it is important to observe the measure. The quote should support your point, not obscure it.
The quotation is introduced into the text and for its refutation.
A quotation can be put into context in a variety of ways: As the author writes; The author emphasizes, notes, etc.
General requirements for cited material.
The quotation must be inextricably linked with the text (to prove or confirm the author's provisions).
The quotation must be given in quotation marks, exactly in the text, with the same punctuation marks and in the same grammatical form as in the original source.
The omission of words, sentences, paragraphs when quoting is indicated by ellipsis.
When quoting, it is not allowed to combine several passages taken from different places in one quotation. Each such passage should be presented as a separate quotation.
When citing, each quotation should be accompanied by an indication of the source (bibliographic reference).
5 Question. Basic rules for quoting.
A quotation as an independent sentence (after a period ending the preceding sentence) must begin with an uppercase letter, even if the first word in the source begins with a lowercase letter.
A quotation included in the text after a subordinating conjunction is enclosed in quotation marks and is written with a lowercase letter, even if it begins with an uppercase letter in the cited source.
If the sentence is not fully cited, an ellipsis is used instead of the omitted text. Punctuation marks that precede omitted text are not preserved.
A word or phrase can be quoted. In this case, it is enclosed in quotation marks and introduced into the sentence.
When quoting not from the original source, you should indicate: “cit. on:". As a rule, this is done only if the source is difficult to access (rare edition).
If you want to convey the author's thought in your own words (indirect quotation), you need to do this quite accurately, not forgetting to refer to it, for example: Only those who decide to remain ignorant are ignorant (Plato).
Scientific citation rules: the more citations, the better
There are no abstract quotes. Any quotation has its own rules, since it is used to achieve any specific goals. You can do without quotes. But here scientific citation or the use of fragments of works by other authors in an article, monograph of a scientist is a mandatory requirement. Without citations from the works of the classics of one or another scientific school, without demonstrating that the author is aware of the achievements of their chosen field of science, not a single scientific work can be considered serious.
In scientific citation, a quotation looks like one or more excerpts from the works of other scientists, based on which the researcher illustrates his theses, confirms his assumptions, criticizes or disputes the arguments with which he does not agree.
The more citations are given and the larger the list of references required in scientific citation, the more seriously the work is considered and the higher the score is given to its author.
Scientist monologue
Vestnik FEB RAS. 2008. No. 1
V. V. BOGATOV
Ethics in scientific activity
Topical issues of ethics in scientific activity are discussed: the value of truth, the relationship between science and society, setting up experiments on humans and animals, citation and co-authorship.
Ethics in scientific activity. V.V.BOGATOV (Institute of Biology and Soil Sciences, FEB RAS, Vladivostok).
In the given paper pressing issues of ethics scientific and the involved activities are discussed: the value of the truth, the relationship between science and society, conducting experiments on man and animals, citation and co-authorship.
Ethics (Greek etika, from ethos - custom, disposition, character) is a philosophical discipline that studies morality, morality. As a designation of a special field of study, the term "ethics" was first used by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC). In the field of modern scientific activity, ethics studies the specifics of moral relationships both within the scientific community itself and between science and society as a whole, defining a set of values, norms and rules in these areas.
In everyday life, ethics is basically understood as the principles that govern our behavior. The world famous Canadian physiologist Hans Selye (1907-1982) believed that scientists as a social group have good reason to worry about their ethics, their attitude to work and people. In particular, he wrote: “The great enthusiasm and desire to achieve excellence in any field is so all-consuming that a person risks turning into a highly specialized and directed by a single goal like a robot. That is why it is so natural for a scientist to ask himself from time to time whether his behavior is consistent with the goal and, more importantly, whether the goal is worthy of the efforts made to achieve it ”(quoted in:). Selye noted that “in everything that concerns work, scientists try to be scrupulously honest with themselves ...” (quoted from:). In his entire life, Hans Selye knew only two people who deliberately falsified their scientific results, but both were mentally unstable. However ". Diseases of one sort or another affect all professions. But most often it is the young scientist who, succumbing to his enthusiasm, wants to see only what he wants (hereinafter, it is highlighted by us. - Auth.). Here you should be on the lookout. The most wonderful theory is in danger of being destroyed by a single unfortunate fact - it is only a matter of correctly perceiving this situation. I know from experience that if a theory was really great, its destruction does not turn into a defeat, but into a victory. It will lead to an even more fruitful theory, without prejudice to the positive facts, which just came to light against the background of the devalued facts ”(quoted from:).
The value of scientific knowledge and truth
The most important principle of the ethics of the scientific community is designed to orient the researcher to the novelty of scientific knowledge. Indeed, science is developing
BOGATOV Viktor Vsevolodovich - Doctor of Biological Sciences (Biology and Soil Institute, Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Vladivostok).
continuous growth and renewal of knowledge. Defining the essence of scientific work, Max Weber (1864-1920)1 in his famous lecture "Science as a Vocation and Profession", read at the University of Munich (1918), said: "A perfect work of art will never be surpassed and never becomes obsolete... On the contrary, each of us knows that what he has done in the field of science will become obsolete in 10, 20, 40 years. Such is fate, moreover, such is the meaning of scientific work, to which it is subordinate and which it serves, and this is precisely what distinguishes it from all other elements of culture. Any perfect fulfillment of a plan in science means new “questions”, it essentially wants to be surpassed ... But to be surpassed scientifically is not only our common destiny, but also our goal. We cannot work without having hope that others will go further than us” (quoted from:).
The new knowledge obtained by scientists must be true. By and large, it is the value of truth2 that determines the essence of any scientific activity. All members of the scientific community, despite their merits and position in society, are equal before the truth. The disinterested search and upholding of the truth at all times belonged to the fundamental ethical norm of scientific work. Even David Hume (1711-1776)3 argued that “there is no scientist who is not at least an honest person” (cited in: ). There can be no other! After all, the scientific result is the same for everyone and we always check it. This is the essence of the scientific method of knowledge. That is why a scientist does not need any control over his activities, he is guided only by professional honor and conscience. According to Academician E.B. Alexandrova, "... the truth should be revealed in the course of many independently reproducible studies, experiments or observations and be compatible with those that were reliably established earlier." . And no matter how new or trivial, "expected" or "inconvenient" the truth discovered in the process of research turns out to be, it must be made public.
If the researcher's forecast was not justified during the scientific work, the scientist should in no case correct the results of the research to justify the initial hypothesis. You can't let your emotions or prejudices take precedence over your common sense. In this regard, I propose to evaluate the approach to this problem of one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century, Ernest Rutherford (1871-1937). His outstanding student and our compatriot P. L. Kapitsa (1894-1984) recalled: “Rutherford knew well the danger lurking in the biased interpretation of experimental data of a statistical nature, when a scientist wants to get the desired result. He handled statistical data very carefully; the method he used is interesting. The counting of scintillations (light flashes. - Auth.) was usually carried out by students who did not know what the experience was. Curves on the received points were carried out by people who did not know what was supposed to happen. As far as I remember, Rutherford and his students did not make a single erroneous discovery, while there were many of them in other laboratories.
In everyday scientific activity, it is sometimes difficult to immediately assess the truth of the result obtained. Constant doubt about the correctness of one's own conclusions and discoveries determines the responsibility of the scientist for the reliability of the data obtained, his conscientiousness. It is no coincidence that the skeptical character traits characteristic of scientists have long been elevated to the rank of an ethical norm. "The philosopher must
1 Max Weber is a German sociologist, historian, economist and lawyer.
2 In this case, by truth we mean a true, adequate reflection of objective reality by a cognizing subject, its reproduction as it exists in itself, outside and independently of a person and his consciousness.
3 David Hume is an English philosopher, historian and economist. Hume's doctrine is one of the sources of E. Kant's philosophy (positivism and neo-positivism).
listen to all sorts of hypotheses, - said Michael Faraday (1791-1867), - but he must be critical of them; he should not have favorite theories, schools, teachers. The truth should be his goal. If at the same time he is a good worker, he can hope for initiation into the secrets of nature ”(quoted from:). The ability to critically analyze the results of one's own research and unbiasedly assess the achievements of one's colleagues is the most distinctive feature of most modern scientists.
Undoubtedly, in any country adventurers, charlatans or persons with an inadequate psyche may appear, seeking to use science for selfish purposes. At the heart of their aspirations, as a rule, is not the search for truth, but personal or other interests. Speaking on behalf of science, such figures, in violation of all ethical principles, usually declare the limitations or inconsistency of traditional scientific views, attributing malice and ignorance to their opponents. They are always in a hurry to win the recognition of the general public in order to turn it against their "conservative colleagues", transferring purely scientific disagreements to the socio-political plane. The leaders of pseudoscientific movements often come out under the banner of some kind of "alternative", "unofficial" or "folk" science. At the same time, some of them can sincerely believe in their own rightness and the truth of their achievements.
The scientific method of cognition serves as an effective barrier against the activity of such pseudo-scientists. But truth can be powerless if power interferes in the struggle of scientific ideas. It is known, for example, that in the late 1920s and early 1930s in the USSR, Joseph Stalin unleashed a major wave of terror against many prominent Soviet scientists4. Not only scientists were subjected to repression, but also entire scientific areas: cybernetics, computer science, pedology (the science of children), many areas of biology, sociology and other important areas of scientific knowledge. The most difficult lot went to the main sections of biology - genetics, cytology, evolutionary theory, physiology, biochemistry. The tragedy that befell Russian biology was the result of its use by politicians as one of the most important tools in the ideological struggle against the so-called bourgeois science.
An ominous role in the defeat of Soviet biology was played by the future "People's Academician" Trofim Denisovich Lysenko (1898-1976). Having a great talent as an organizer and demagogue, he managed to make a dizzying career under the conditions of the Stalinist dictatorship5. This is how the well-known Soviet cytologist V.Ya. wrote about the reasons for the rise of Lysenko. Alexandrov: “Coming from the people, a young, enterprising, purposeful scientist impressed party and government leaders. Favored by specialists and superiors, intolerant of any criticism, overwhelmed by boundless ambition, Lysenko realized early on that instead of the role of an executive scientist, he could achieve the position of leader of science. However, in order to usurp power over scientists, it was necessary to create our own biology and eliminate those who would not accept it and
4 Russian authorities interfered in the work of scientists in the pre-revolutionary period as well. One can recall, for example, the great Ivan Mikhailovich Sechenov, whose book "Reflexes of the Brain" was arrested by the authorities for no less than "an attempt on the moral foundations of society and inciting the ideas of regicide ..."! For his scientific views, Ivan Mikhailovich almost ended up in hard labor!
5 In 1934, T.D. Lysenko became a full member of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR, in 1935 - a full member of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences named after V.I. Lenin, and in 1939 - its president, in 1939 - Member of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. In 1940, he took over as director of the Institute of Genetics of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Since 1940, Lysenko - Deputy Chairman of the Committee for the Stalin Prizes in the field of science and invention, and then - Deputy Chairman of the Higher Attestation Commission; from 1935 to 1937 - member of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR; from 1937 to 1966 - Deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, from 1937 to 1950 - Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. He is a Hero of Socialist Labor (1945), three times winner of the Stalin Prize (1941, 1943, 1949), awarded 8 Orders of Lenin, the Order of the Red Banner of Labor, a gold medal named after. I.I. Mechnikov.
will not be under his command. This could be achieved only by enlisting the decisive support of the party and state leadership. . While completely ignoring any moral prohibitions, Lysenko promised colossal material benefits for agriculture from his developments. According to the famous Soviet cytologist V.Ya. Aleksandrov, Lysenko managed to "convince the authorities that the biology he created6 is the only methodologically correct one, while classical biology, professed by scientists outside his camp, is methodologically vicious, idealistic, and hostile to dialectical materialism" .
From the mid-1930s, in the fight against their opponents, the Lysenkoites began to use measures of administrative-party pressure and slanderous denunciations, which often ended in arrests and the death of the slandered. In the conditions of the most severe repressions, many scientists were forced to retreat from moral norms and publicly acknowledge Lysenko's dogmas, the pseudoscientific nature of which was quite obvious to them. However, "... the fight against Lysenkoism also showed people who deserved admiration and admiration for their courage, adherence to principles and readiness to sacrifice their well-being in defense of true science."
Lysenkoism swept not only our country, but also went beyond its borders. As Aleksandrov notes: “It is difficult to explain this only by the extraordinary personality of Lysenko and his exceptional ability to keep the high party and Soviet authorities in continuous expectation of a miracle from the unsuitable measures he introduced into agriculture, despite the fact that they invariably failed one after the other.” Lysenko was organically incapable of perceiving any facts incompatible with his pseudoscientific ideas. Surprisingly, until the end of his days, this "people's academician" was unshakably convinced of the correctness of his teaching, of his integrity. Thus, in a letter to the President of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR M.V. Keldysh dated June 27, 1972, he wrote: “Scientifically, no matter how much anyone would like it, it is impossible to refute our theoretical biological concept. This can be done and has been done only by shameless lies and slander with a simultaneous administrative clampdown unprecedented in science ”(quoted from:). Paradoxical as it may seem, but at the end of his life, it was precisely the “administrative clamp” that the man who most recently organized and carried out the most severe administrative defeat of the whole science was indignant at.
The active intervention of the authorities in the struggle of scientific ideas continued in the post-Stalin period. A clear example here is the long-term rejection by party and state structures of such a science as cybernetics7, which affected the subsequent technological backwardness of the Soviet Union from the Western powers. In his book “History of Computer Technology in Faces”, B.N. Malinovsky describes the situation that still persisted in the late 60s and early 70s of the last century in the following way: “As you know, cybernetics, together with the theory of complex systems, from the first steps became claim the scientific substantiation of control processes not only in living organisms and machines, but also in society, and - oh horror! - not on the basis of Marxism-Leninism, but on the basis of the exact sciences - mathematics, automatic control, statistics, etc.
6 We are talking about the so-called "Michurin biology" created by Lysenko, which denied three main provisions of modern biology: 1) the laws of heredity discovered by Gregor Mendel; 2) the concept of August Weismann about the absence of inheritance of properties acquired during an individual life; 3) the chromosome theory of heredity, developed by the school of Thomas Morgan.
7 The Concise Philosophical Dictionary, published in the USSR in 1954, gave the following definition: “Cybernetics. -reactionary pseudoscience. form of modern mechanism. Cybernetics vividly expresses one of the main features of the bourgeois worldview - its inhumanity, the desire to turn the working people into an appendage of the machine, into an instrument of production and an instrument of war. Cybernetics is thus not only an ideological weapon of imperialist reaction, but also a means of carrying out its aggressive military plans.
This came into conflict with the long-established "methods" of management. Kirilenko, one of the secretaries of the Central Committee of the CPSU, once said to Glushkov8 about the use of computer technology to control technological processes: “Why is this? I come to the plant, speak, and the plant increases productivity by five percent! These are not your two! ”And Glushkov’s comrade-in-arms A.I. Kitov (for work carried out in the defense industry), one of the employees of the CPSU Central Committee apparatus said:“ Optimization methods and automated control systems are not needed, since the party has its own control methods: to do this, she consults with the people, for example, convenes a meeting of Stakhanovites or collective farmers-shock workers. A.N. Kosygin, D.F. Ustinov9, and a number of ministers who supported V.M. Glushkov were rather an exception to the rule.
In the book of the English scientist R A. Gregory, published back in the pre-Lysenko period under the editorship of the young N.I. Vavilov (1887-1943)10, the following was literally said: “When people believe that they have comprehended the truth, they begin to pursue freedom thoughts and those who disagree with their beliefs. Science, on the contrary, goes towards research, encourages criticism and rejoices in the discovery of new truths that expand or replace outdated views. As people work to study the forces of nature, they become accustomed to the idea that progress lies in correcting previous studies. Therefore, they appreciate criticism. Persecution for differences of opinion then falls away by itself. Science creates a common understanding between people of all countries. Scientific works bring people together, washing away borders and national prejudices. Science does not impose its views. it leaves everyone to seek their own truth, strengthening it with experience. Party spirit is alien to science. A few more years will pass and “party membership” in the USSR will be declared one of the most important organizational principles of “Soviet science”, and on August 12, 1940, our great compatriot Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov, with the active participation of T. D. Lysenko, will be arrested and on January 26, 1943 dies in the Saratov prison from dystrophy.
It would be useful for modern politicians to remember the lessons of recent history. According to V.Ya. Aleksandrova, “The main moral of Lysenko's epic is the inadmissibility of attempts by governing authorities of any level (highlighted by V.Ya. Aleksandrov. - Auth.), Standing above science, to interfere in the struggle of scientific ideas. The higher these instances, the more harmful the results of such interference can be. .
Relations between science and society
In the past few decades, one of the most serious ethical problems scientists have ever faced has emerged. This is the problem of the consequences of scientific work, which modern physicists (for example, the problem of using nuclear weapons), chemists (chemical weapons), biologists (genetic engineering, biological and bacteriological types of weapons, etc.), and specialists in other areas have faced with the need to solve. In his speech upon receiving the Nobel Prize, Pierre Curie said: “One can also imagine that in criminal hands radium can be very dangerous, and in this regard, one should ask the following question: is knowledge
8 VM Glushkov (1923-1982) - Soviet mathematician, academician of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, in 1962 organized the Institute of Cybernetics of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR.
9A.N. Kosygin: in 1964-1980. - Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, D.F. Ustinov: in 1965-1976. - Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, in 1976-1980. - Minister of Defense of the USSR
10 N.I. Vavilov - Soviet scientist, founder of the modern theory of the biological foundations of breeding and the theory of the centers of origin of cultivated plants, Academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences (1929), Academician (1929) and the first president of the All-Union Agricultural Academy of Agricultural Sciences (1929-1935). ).
secrets of nature beneficial to humanity, is humanity mature enough to derive only benefit from it? In this regard, the example of Nobel's discoveries is very characteristic: powerful explosives made it possible to produce amazing work. But they also turn out to be a terrible instrument of destruction in the hands of criminal politicians who draw peoples into wars. I personally share the opinion of Nobel, who said that humanity will derive more good from new discoveries than evil ”(quoted from:). Hans Selye, in connection with Curie's statement, remarked: “I hope that the great French physicist was right. Unfortunately, those who use discoveries do not always have the wisdom of their creators. But be that as it may, it would be humiliating for Homo sapiens to pay for their survival with self-imposed ignorance. There is no doubt that the salvation of mankind should be sought not in the darkness of ignorance, but on the bright path of further development and dissemination of culture, knowledge and enlightenment.
World War II accelerated the unification of scientists in search of new forms of organization of science and the application of scientific discoveries for peaceful purposes. Already in 1946, the World Federation of Scientists was established in London, which called on scientists to achieve the most effective use of science to ensure the peace and well-being of mankind. Among the main documents, the Federation adopted the "Charter of Scientists" (1948), "Declaration of the Rights of Scientists" (1969), "Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Scientists" (1990).
As a result of the scientific community's concern about the creation of a hydrogen bomb and the consequences of radioactive fallout from the explosion on the island of Bikini on March 1, 1954, the Pugowsh movement arose11. The call for the first meeting was issued in the form of a declaration on behalf of Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell and eight other scientists in July 1955. The first paragraph of the declaration stated: “In the tragic situation facing humanity, we believe that scientists should come together to a conference to assess the threat posed by the creation of weapons of mass destruction, as well as to discuss a resolution in the spirit of the attached draft” (cited in: ). In recent decades, the Pugowsh movement has increasingly paid attention to the problems of the social function of science and the social responsibility of scientists, although the nuclear threat and the problem of disarmament continue to be the main item on the agenda.
Questions about the practical application of many scientific discoveries often focus on the problem of moral responsibility not only of scientists, but of society as a whole. The interconnection, interaction and mutual responsibility of science and society became especially evident in the second half of the 20th century. It was during this period that the understanding of the state significance of science came, and state scientific and scientific-technical programs began to appear. The concept of "scientific and technological progress" was formed. The advanced countries have taken a course towards building a "knowledge-based society". Modern science has become a powerful transformative force, and the number of specialists employed in it turned out to be comparable to the number employed in other sectors of the economy12. At the same time, science turned out to be not so omnipotent as to effectively promote the development of civilization where ignorance and disorder reign. No one, for example, argues with the fact that scientific developments that affect the state of the natural environment require extreme caution, especially in habitats of rare and endangered species of flora and fauna. However, it is not the fault of scientists that the environment in places
11 Canadian-American industrialist Cyrus Eaton offered to pay for the movement's travel expenses and provide a venue for the conference if it were to be held at his family home in Pagos, Nova Scotia, where the movement's name came from.
12 According to the Institute for Statistics, at the end of 2004 there were 5 million 521.4 thousand scientists in the world, i.e. 894 researchers per 1 million inhabitants of the Earth. Russian scientists accounted for 8.9% of this number, significantly behind the United States (22.8%), China (14.7%) and Japan (11.7%).
oil and gas fields or the concentration of large chemical industries becomes lifeless. This is the misfortune of a society that is not able to put a stop to the destructive use of natural resources in the name of extracting superprofits by those who have access to them.
In the modern public consciousness, science is not only the engine of progress, but also the judge of the highest category. At the same time, observance of the principles of ethics in scientific activity is a necessary condition for maintaining public confidence in scientific achievements. Among the areas of scientific knowledge in which the issues of social responsibility of a scientist and the moral and ethical assessment of his work are most acutely and intensely discussed today, genetic engineering occupies a special place. The rapid development of this scientific direction led to a unique event in the history of science, when in 1975 the world's leading scientists voluntarily entered into a moratorium, temporarily suspending a number of studies that were potentially dangerous not only for humans, but also for other life forms on our planet.
Of no small importance in shaping public confidence in science is the constant educational and popular science activities of the scientists themselves, but without the support of the state, it is ineffective. Unfortunately, in the 90s of the last century, due to economic and social turmoil, the profession of a scientist in Russia ceased to be prestigious, although until that time most parents dreamed of seeing their children as scientists and astronauts. The new reformers felt that there were "too many scientists" in our country. The humiliation and discrediting of scientists immediately affected the mass public consciousness. It is no coincidence that at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries. Pseudoscience has become increasingly popular in Russia. According to some estimates, the number of palmists, fortune-tellers, psychics, etc. during this period in Russia reached no less than 300 thousand, while about 400 thousand scientists remained. Many scientists went abroad in the 1990s, others went to other sectors of the economy. At the same time today , degrees have become very popular among businessmen and politicians . The Internet is now full of advertisements offering paid dissertation defenses on a turnkey basis, which is extremely discrediting Russian science and the education system.
It is difficult to say what will happen to domestic science next. In an interview with the Poisk newspaper, Andrei Yurevich, Deputy Director of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, noted the following on this occasion: on knowledge." Most of the respondents answered in the negative, and some noted that in our country with raw materials this is a utopia, reminiscent of the myth of communism. But faith in the bright future of domestic science is still not alien to Russian scientists ”(quoted from:).
Experiments on animals and humans
Scientific progress in the field of medicine and the protection of human health is impossible without research, which includes experiments involving animals and humans. Biomedical laboratory research contributes not only to the development of scientific knowledge, but also to the alleviation of human suffering. And yet, many of my senior colleagues remember a phrase from a mid-1970s biology school textbook: "Scientists have done a witty experiment: a dog's hind leg has been amputated." (quoted from:). Then came the text, which spoke of unconditioned reflexes, phantom states - and not a word about the fate of the unfortunate dog. Indeed, the most unexplored and dangerous experiments are carried out by experimental animals. This is reality. But the scientist should never forget that our "little brothers" used by him for scientific work are living beings. In particular, according to the well-known
German-French thinker Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965), it is in the relation of man to animal that one can judge the level of spiritual and cultural development of the individual.
Any experiment on animals should be carried out in such a way as to alleviate the suffering of animals as much as possible. The organization of such research must comply with the principles of humanity, national laws, the recommendations of the national research council, as well as the rules adopted by the scientific institution where the experiment is carried out.
The most complex ethical issues arise in the final phase of biomedical research, when animal experiments are transferred to humans. Under what conditions can this be done? Does a scientist have a moral right to experiment on a person if there is no complete certainty in its positive outcome? How should experimenters proceed in such situations? After all, even with the most favorable results obtained in animals, there is always a certain amount of risk for humans.
Let's try to turn to history. For example, the great Russian surgeon Nikolai Ivanovich Pirogov (1810-1881) was the first physician to study the analgesic effect of ether. It is known that before the work of our compatriot, all surgical operations were performed without anesthesia. The patient was held tightly by the hefty paramedics, and the operation itself was accompanied by screams and groans of the operated ones. After conducting successful experiments on animals, Pirogov had to move on to experiments on humans. But with whom to start such risky experiments? And Nikolai Ivanovich began with himself. Only having established a safe concentration of ether, Pirogov applied his discovery in the clinic, and then, having achieved a business trip to the army in the Caucasus (July-September 1847), in a combat situation, in the theater of operations. Here Nikolai Ivanovich performed about 700 operations on soldiers under general anesthesia. Thousands of similar operations followed. The pain was finally conquered.
Another outstanding Russian scientist Nikolai Dmitrievich Zelinsky (1861-1953) began working on the creation of a gas mask as early as 1915 - after the Germans used poison gases on the Russian front near Warsaw. More than 9 thousand soldiers and officers received various degrees of defeat then, of which about 2 thousand died in the next day. In a matter of weeks, Zelinsky found an ingenious solution, proposing to use activated charcoal as a universal poison gas absorber. Zelinsky also conducted the first experiments on himself. He took a handkerchief, poured finely ground activated birch charcoal into it, covered it with another handkerchief on top, pressed it tightly to his nose and mouth, and entered the room, where there was already a mixture of chlorine and phosgene. Zelinsky was able to take 2-3 breaths, which made it possible to prove the correctness of the method. Millions of soldiers' lives were saved thanks to the gas mask developed by Zelinsky, which was subsequently in service with the Russian and Soviet armies during two world wars.
The French scientist Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) put himself at great risk when vaccinating against cholera, anthrax and rabies. Undoubtedly, Pasteur's most famous victory was his work on vaccination against rabies, an infection at that time absolutely incurable. In 1885, after a series of successful experiments on animals, Pasteur wrote to his friend Jules Vercel: “I still hesitate to try to treat people. But that time is not far off. I want to start with myself, that is, first infect myself with rabies, and then stop the development of this disease - so great is my desire to verify the results of my experiments. At the moment of the highest doubts, Pasteur was helped by the case when, on July 6, 1885, a 9-year-old boy, Joseph Meister, was brought to his laboratory. He was so bitten that no one, including his mother, believed in recovery. Pasteur's method was the last straw. Lucky boy
fully recovered, which brought Pasteur a truly worldwide fame. Victims of rabid animals were drawn to his laboratory not only from France, but from all over Europe.
Examples of selfless service to science can be cited innumerable. The readiness of outstanding scientists for self-sacrifice is amazing. And at the same time, we know, for example, cases of the use of prisoners of German concentration camps for deadly experiments during the Second World War. The savage experiments on prisoners of war by the Japanese military are widely known. The world community rightly classifies such "research" among the most heinous crimes against humanity.
The duty of a medical scientist is to take care of people's health. The knowledge and conscience of the researcher must be subordinated to this task. For the successful development of medical science, it is essential that the results of experimental work be applicable to man and make his life easier. As a methodological guide for scientists and doctors of all specialties conducting biomedical research on humans, the World Medical Association prepared recommendations that were enshrined in the 18th World Medical Assembly in the Declaration of Helsinki in 1964, as well as in its revised versions of 1975 and 1983 gg. In particular, the text of the Declaration states that biomedical research, the object of which is a person, must comply with generally accepted scientific principles and be based on a sufficient amount of laboratory research and animal experiments, as well as on a comprehensive knowledge of the scientific literature. These studies should only be carried out by qualified scientists and under the direction of a competent clinician, and the responsibility for the individuals - the subjects of the study - should always be assigned to the doctor. When conducting experiments on humans, the interests of science and society should never prevail over considerations related to the well-being of the person who is subjected to biomedical surveillance.
The general scheme and plan for conducting each stage of a human study are recorded in a protocol, which is submitted for consideration and approval by a special commission, whose members must be independent of the persons conducting and financing the study. The composition of the commission is formed in accordance with the legislation of the country in which the scientific work is carried out. The research protocol should always include an indication of the compliance of the experiment with the principles proclaimed in the Declaration of Helsinki. When publishing research results, a scientist must be honest. The results of experiments not carried out in accordance with the principles of the declaration should not be published.
Ethics of quotation
Regular scientific work, the need to obtain new facts and knowledge are always based on previous results, which, on the one hand, determines the obligatory awareness of the scientist about earlier developments, and on the other hand, the inclusion of used publications in the list of cited literature. Ideally, the author should reflect all such publications in his article. However, only a small part of them is actually cited, which is primarily due to the limited amount of space in scientific periodicals. The need to choose references gives rise to specific ethical problems, which, by the way, arise not only in the preparation of journal articles, but also monographic publications. For example, the influential publishing house "Nedra" some time ago required a minimum number of references in monographs from its authors-geologists.
Thus, when preparing a new scientific work, any scientist faces a difficult choice of references. In this case, a subjective assessment inevitably arises.
the significance of previously published information. Recently, this problem has become even more acute due to the active use of citation indicators (the so-called citation numbers, i.e. the average number of citations per article) to evaluate and compare the performance of scientists and scientific institutions13.
Undoubtedly, the vast majority of specialists understand the extremely limited possibilities of bibliometric data in assessing the contribution of scientists to world science. In particular, Academician E.D. Sverdlov rightly points out that “... any bibliometric data, including the citation of individual articles as a measure of assessing the scientific effectiveness of a scientist’s work, can only be presented in conjunction with other data with a strict analysis of each work and contribution to it by a particular specialist. However, in recent years, citation indices have become widely used by science officials without any critical analysis of them. For example, today in the Russian Federation, government agencies solve many issues of funding research, scientific schools, evaluation of work and encouragement of scientists solely on the basis of the citation index.
This practice of the administrative apparatus affects not only the career and work of a scientist, but also his ethical attitudes. As a result, in the hands of individual specialists, science began to turn from a method of research into a method of “winding up” its own citation index. At the same time, the practice of deliberately suppressing (actually appropriating) the scientific results of one's colleagues is becoming more widespread. It is no secret that similar "symptoms" are already being observed in some areas of science in the West. According to academician G.P. Georgiev, “often, when a Russian author is a leader and innovator, it is not his work that is cited, but the work of a Western author following him. The reception here is standard. The Western author in the introduction ignores his predecessor, and quotes him briefly in the discussion, as having obtained similar results. Further, all dividends go to secondary work ”(quoted from:). Academician Georgiev gives an example from his own practice, when his pioneering work with Academician V.A. Gvozdev, Yu.V. Ilyin and others on the mobility of repeats in the genome, published in Science, Cold. Spring. harbor. Symp. quant. Biol. "Chromosoma", were accurately repeated by the Americans in a year and a half. They referred to us, but in discussion. As a result, then mainly their work was cited. There are many such examples. One of the methods of appropriation is the renaming of a gene or protein ”(cited in:). Another illustrative example was given by Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences B.F. Vanyushin: “... one of the first works in the world on DNA hydrazinolysis belongs to Buryanov and me. When I gave a seminar at Harvard, Gilbert (Nobel Prize winner. - Auth.) came to him, it turned out that he was well aware of our work, but, as he said, quoting them is not profitable for him, because this is not accepted in the USA: you won’t get a grant ”(quoted from:).
It is clear that such discrimination against domestic scientists is the result of many years of citation practice that developed during the Cold War. So, for the most part, foreign and especially American specialists are not accustomed to reading Russian journals, even those that are translated into English. If you analyze all American publications, and they are the vast majority in the SCI database, then, according to a long tradition, you will find almost no references to Russian works in them. In addition, many English-speaking scholars hardly notice publications if they are not written in English. In Russian publications, starting from the mid-80s of the last century, it is considered good form to quote
13 The world's leading Science Citation Index (SCI), published by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) in Philadelphia (USA), provides the most comprehensive assessment of citation scores.
foreign, mainly English-language works, including those with a significant proportion of American authors.
Among the common ethical shortcomings in quoting is also excessive reliance on references to one's own work. However, it should be borne in mind that moderate self-citation in scientific works is considered the norm, since very often a new article continues the previous work of a scientist. It is hardly possible to significantly overestimate one's own citation rates in articles prepared for the world's leading journals. It's too conspicuous. A sufficiently reliable barrier here is provided by peer review accepted in leading scientific journals. According to Dr. Eugene Garfield, founder of the Institute for Scientific Information, self-citation is quite justified and acceptable within 10-15% (see:). Thus, the system for introducing references to one's own publication reflects not only the professional outlook of the researcher, but also his scientific culture, and in some cases even elementary decency.
One of the most serious ethical offenses in the field of copyright is considered plagiarism (from the Latin plagio - I steal) - the deliberate appropriation of authorship for someone else's work of science, literature, art, invention or rationalization proposal (in whole or in part). Among professional scientists, plagiarism is not so widespread. For example, out of approximately 35,000 dissertations defended in Russia every year, only about 10 are rejected by the Higher Attestation Commission for plagiarism. Moreover, in such cases, mostly either people who are far from science, or creatively unsuccessful individuals try to get a degree. This is understandable. After all, scientists constantly monitor publications in their field of knowledge, and against this background it is very difficult to appropriate someone else's works or ideas. In addition, the accusation of plagiarism can cause irreparable damage to scientific reputation.
However, it should be noted that in recent years plagiarism has become more widespread among students, both in Russia and abroad. Performing independent creative, including scientific tasks, many unscrupulous young people copy author's works and abstracts posted on the Internet and then pass them off as their own. According to experts, about 80% of Russian students at least once handed over to a teacher a term paper or a thesis downloaded from the Internet under the guise of their own.
It is clear that online plagiarism has nothing to do with the educational process. A person in such cases only robs himself, because he voluntarily refuses to develop his abilities for independent thinking and, in the end, simply gets used to cheating. It is unlikely that graduates of this level will have a chance to find a decent job. In addition, young lovers of other people's thoughts when entering adulthood should remember that the appropriation of someone's work is not only a violation of fundamental ethical standards, but also a gross violation of the law "On Copyright and Related Rights" - regardless of which medium the work was published, or even if it was not published at all. A victim of plagiarism, the author may resort to civil law measures to protect the infringed copyright. In addition, in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, copyright infringement (including if the infringer did not aim to make a profit) entails criminal liability under Art. 146 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
Understanding the social danger of the spread of online plagiarism, the leading scientific powers are taking appropriate measures to identify negligent students. In particular, in the UK relatively recently a universal computer system "Plagiarism Detector" was developed, which since 2002 began to serve teachers and lecturers free of charge. In Russia, through the efforts of scientists, there has also recently been
Internet service AntiPlagiat.ru was created. Now just a few minutes are enough to identify the authorship of any student work. The introduction of the "Anti-plagiarism" system is also provided for in the Higher Attestation Commission.
Specific ethical issues may arise in determining the co-authors of a scientific publication. It is generally accepted that the right to authorship of a printed work is based on the obligatory observance of three conditions: 1) a significant contribution to the concept and structure of the study or to the analysis and interpretation of data; 2) writing the text of the article or making fundamental changes to it; 3) approval of the final version, which is submitted for printing. However, the title information about the authors of some scientific papers does not always correctly (fairly) illuminate the list of those scientists who actually provided the study. In many cases, it is very difficult to draw a precise line between the authors and those who are acknowledged in a special section of the publication for their help in the work. Often, in the text of a printed work, one can find gratitude for the completion of certain sections of the study or its formulation, i.e. for what in most cases is regarded as an undoubted co-authorship. When determining the composition of the team of authors, it must be borne in mind that at least one of the authors should be responsible for each part of the article that is decisive for its main conclusions. That is, the contribution of each of the co-authors to the work should be sufficient to take responsibility for the content of the publication. At the same time, the participation of colleagues, which consists in providing funding or selecting material for an article, is not a basis for their inclusion in the group of authors.
Ethical problems in determining co-authorship usually also arise among those persons who joined the preparation of the article at the second stage, when the initial version of the manuscript is already ready. Often proposals for co-authorship come to prominent scientists who did not participate in this development. In this case, the true authors of the article usually pursue the goal of sharing their responsibility for the weak parts of the work performed with scientific "luminaries". In addition, the inclusion of a well-known scientist among the co-authors can also be aimed at increasing the prestige of the publication.
Another circle of problematic co-authors is associated with the heads of scientific departments, who, without taking a direct part in the preparation of the material, “include” themselves among the authors, thereby designating their sphere of influence. However, the general administrative direction of the research team is not recognized by the scientific community as sufficient for authorship.
The norms of ethics are of paramount importance in the interaction of the heads of scientific teams with "graduate students" and other young scientists. It is no secret that the scientific youth perceives the unfair actions of senior colleagues very painfully. Especially unacceptable are cases when individual scientific supervisors publish materials received by graduate students under their own names and do not include their young wards among the co-authors (it should be noted that such cases are extremely rare in the scientific community). It is probably appropriate here to quote a few more lines from the memoirs of P. L. Kapitsa about Ernest Rutherford: “Rutherford always made sure that everything that his man had was noted. He himself always did this in his lectures and works. If someone, when publishing his work, forgot to stipulate that the idea was, in fact, not his, Rutherford immediately drew the attention of the author to this. Once, in one of his frank conversations, Rutherford told me that the most important thing for a teacher is to learn not to envy the success of his students, and this becomes difficult over the years! This profound truth made a great impression on me.
The main attribute of a teacher should be generosity. Undoubtedly, Rutherford knew how to be generous, this, apparently, is the main secret of the fact that so many great scientists came out of his laboratory, it was always free and good to work in his laboratory, there was a good business atmosphere.
Among the most "sensitive" ethical issues is also the order of distribution of co-authors. The complexity in this situation is usually due to the fact that the roles of individual performers of the work sometimes change in the course of its implementation. At the same time, the true creators of the publication (for example, the authors of a new idea) may not appear in the list of authors at all. In accordance with tacitly accepted ethical standards, the leader of the joint publication in the list of authors takes the first place. The order of other co-authors is usually distributed according to the degree of decrease in their contribution to the overall work. Given this circumstance, the Science Citation Index was built on the principle of accounting for citations of publications that are not included in the SCI database, only by the first author. It is clear that using such an information base, for example, as one of the criteria for assessing the role of scientists in the flow of scientific information, is very difficult, and most often impossible. This is especially true of publications where the co-authors, having approximately equal contribution to the development, arranged their names in alphabetical order. For example, many tens of thousands of references made to the ten-volume Landau-Lifshitz, according to SCI, refer only to Landau, but not to Lifshitz. In Russia, at the beginning of the new millennium, the situation became more complicated with the introduction of a new bibliographic GOST 7.1-2003, the recommendations of which limit the ability to take into account the contribution of scientists involved in large-scale complex research and development. In particular, in the bibliographic description of a publication with more than 3 authors, it is recommended to limit the indication of only the first author with the addition of the abbreviation “and others” in square brackets. . The problem of reflecting the contribution to science of a large army of co-authors remained out of sight of the GOST developers. The trouble is that many Russian publishing houses, universities, scientific institutions and libraries immediately transformed these recommendations into direct rules for the design of bibliographic references. It is obvious that such a situation can lead (and, in our opinion, is already leading) to a decrease in the assessment and, consequently, the prestige of complex developments, including those in breakthrough areas of research.
In general, the order in which authors are listed should always be determined by their joint decision. However, the order in which co-authors are listed may depend on a variety of reasons, and its meaning often remains unclear until the members of the group of authors themselves provide an appropriate explanation. At the request of the co-authors, these explanations can be given in a note. In the absence of such explanations, the editors of the printed edition have the right to find out the contribution of each of the co-authors to the preparation of the manuscript.
Summing up the discussed problems of co-authorship, I would like to turn again to the opinion of Hans Selye, who, relying on his richest experience, argued that “Most scientists are completely honest with themselves regarding the authorship of their discoveries. The difficulty lies in the fact that, working intensively on the solution of certain issues, they tend to exaggerate their own contribution in comparison with the contribution of others. Temperamental scientists - and such, alas, the majority - are extremely upset if the rest of the world sees things differently than they do. And this is also very unfortunate, because it leads to endless controversy that destroys objectivity and kills the spirit of science. I urge you to look into your soul from time to time to see if there are traces of this ulcer: it has a treacherous habit of hiding behind the venerable mask of “defending justice.”
1. Aleksandrov V.Ya. Difficult years of Soviet biology: Notes of a contemporary. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1992. 262 p.
2. Aleksandrov E.B. Temptation by mysticism // Search. 2003. No. 19-20.
3. Belyaeva S. Terrible on the face // Search. 2007. No. 5 (923).
4. O. Bogatikov, “There is nothing secondary in the work of the Higher Attestation Commission,” Ros. gas. 2007. No. 4350. - http://www.rg.ru/gazeta/rg/2007/04/25.html#rg-4350.
5. Bogatov V.V. Can the Science Citation Index be trusted? // Vestn. FEB RAN. 2006. No. 6. S. 149-157.
6. Burop E.G.S. Scientist and political activity // Science of Science: Sat. articles / trans. from English. M.: Progress, 1966. S. 32-45.
7. Valleri-Rado R. Life of Pasteur. M.: Izd-vo inostr. lit., 1950. 423 p.
8. Weimarn A., Mitrofanov K. Turnkey smart heads // Polit. magazine 2006. No. 37/38 (132/133). pp. 104-107.
9. Vikentiev I.L. Why plagiarism is unprofitable, or five advantages of correct citation // TRIZ-SHENS Expert Systems. 2005. - http://triz-chance.ru/citirovanie.html.
10. Gregory RA. Discoveries: goals and meaning of science / transl. from English. ed. prof. N.I.Vavilova. Pg.: Publishing House of M. and S. Sabashnikovs, 1923. 167 p.
11. Drize Yu. Know what to shout. It would not be bad for those who save science to remember the advice of Khoja Nasreddin // Poisk. 2007. No. 9 (927).
12. Kant E. From the "Lectures on Ethics" (1780-1782) // Ethical Thought: scientific and journalistic readings / transl. with him. V.V. Krylova. M.: Politizdat, 1990. S. 297-322.
13. Kapitsa P.L. My memories of Rutherford // Experiment, theory, practice. Articles, appearances. M.: Nauka, 1981. S. 288-316.
14. Malinovsky B.N. The history of computing technology in faces. Kyiv: KIT: A.S.K., 1995. 384 p.
15. Markusova V. A. Information resources for monitoring Russian science // Vestn. RAN. 2005. V. 75, No. 7. S. 607-612.
16. Mogilevsky B. Life of Pirogov. Rostov n / a.: Rostov book. publishing house, 1951. 292 p.
17. Science of the world. Washington Profile - Intern. News & Inform. Agency, 2001-2007. - http://www.washprofile. org/ru/node/5164.
18. Norms of scientific ethics (adopted by the Senate of the Max Planck Society on November 24, 2000) / transl. V. Terekhova. -http://www.sbras.ru/HBC/2002/n04-05/f17.html.
19. Fundamentals of scientific ethics: a manual for students, graduate students, junior researchers, and maybe not only for them. Ural State ped. un-t, 1999-2007. - http://www.uspu.ru/new.
20. Popovsky M. Case of Academician Vavilov. M.: Book, 1990. 303 p.
21. Sverdlov E.D. Citation mirages. Bibliometric assessment of the significance of scientific publications of individual researchers // Vestn. RAN. 2006. V. 76, No. 12. S. 1073-1085.
22. Selye G. From dreams to discovery: how to become a scientist / transl. from English; under total ed. M.N. Kondrasheva, I.S. Khorola. M.: Progress, 1987. 368 p.
24. Tips for a young scientist: a methodological guide for students, graduate students, junior researchers and, perhaps, not only for them. Ed. 2nd. Yekaterinburg: IERiZh URO RAN, 2005. 79 p.
25. What is plagiarism? // Vseobuch [materials provided by the Internet service AntiPlagiat.ru]. ILOSVET, 2003-2007. - http://www.edu-all.ru/pages/zamet/pub_190306.asp.
26. Schweitzer A. Culture and ethics: for scientific libraries / trans. with him. N.A. Zakharenko and T.V. Kolshansky. M.: Progress, 1973. 340 p.
General rules
What is a citation? A citation is:
borrowing a fragment of the author's text;
borrowing formulas, provisions, illustrations,
tables and other elements;
non-verbatim, translated or paraphrased
reproduction of a fragment of text;
analysis of the content of other publications in the text
work.
The most important quoting rule is
accompanied by a quote with a reference to a specific
source from the list of references.
Absence of reference in citation or absence of citation
if there is a link is rude
workflow error. For example, in
publishing house "Young scientist" it can become
a reason to return your article for revision.
authors? You need to adhere to the following
rules:
Be sure to put quotation marks when verbatim
rewriting the source text. Otherwise
In this case, such a quote will become plagiarism.
The text of the quote must be complete. Arbitrary
shortening of the text is not allowed.
When citing the author, indicate his last name and
initials. Initials are placed before
last name, for example, “M.T. Kalashnikov" or "S.
Hawking. You do not need to write the names of the authors in full,
even if they are well known,
enough initials.
Do not start a paragraph with a quote, initials, or
author's surname.
All references in the work are made in the same style. AT
scientific papers, this type is common
quoting as a paraphrase. So
is called retelling a quote by one's own
words. In this case, the link to the author
is also required, as well as saving
meaning in retelling. The paraphrase is appropriate for
following cases:
provision of generalized information
when referring to several sources;
summary of the voluminous
theoretical concept;
voluminous quotes, inapplicable for
direct mention. Quote changes are allowed only in special cases. how
this rule is undesirable, but there are cases when GOST
R 7.0.5_2008 "Bibliographic reference" and
methodological manuals allow the introduction of copyright
quote changes:
When expanding abbreviated words into full ones. In this
case it is necessary to take the complemented part of the word in
square brackets.
When changing the case of words in a quote. Change allowed
only if the quote obeys
syntactic structure of the phrase in which it is included.
When citing works published before the reform of the Russian
spelling 1918
When designating typos and errors in the text of the document.
The error is not corrected, but the correct spelling is put
a word in square brackets or a question mark in
brackets.
Despite the conciseness and unambiguity of citation rules,
From time to time, the authors of scientific papers make mistakes. Let's
Let's see how the most common errors occur.
Lack of reference in the list of references. Such a mistake
may be the result of simple inattention, but at the same time
considered as a serious defect.
Links to popular publications or authors who do not have proper
scientific qualifications. The qualifications of the authors must be checked,
based on the style of work and the information found about the author and the
publications. In the event that, regarding the qualifications of the author
if in doubt, it is best to avoid quoting him.
Lack of links when placing graphic materials. At
borrowing graphic materials (for example, diagrams, diagrams,
figures), as well as tables, you must provide a link to the source
information. Such information without reference to the source will be
copyright infringement.
Verbatim rewriting of the text and "queues" of quotations. In order to
to keep the narrative alive, it is necessary to use
quotes within reasonable limits, as well as vary the form of quoting.
For example, use a paraphrase.
Violation of the rules of secondary quoting. Authors quite often
cite information as if they themselves found it in the original source or
as if it belonged to the author of the secondary source.
The use of quotations with unverified authorship, as well as quotations,
containing banal or erroneous statements.
And finally, the most unforgivable and unethical mistake: the lack of
quotation marks and links to the source of information. In this case, the quote
considered plagiarism. Common quoting mistakes
Despite the brevity and unambiguity of the rules
citations, periodically the authors of scientific papers allow
errors. Let's see how the most
common mistakes.
Lack of reference in the list of references.
This error can be the result of a simple
inattention, but it is considered as
serious flaw.
Links to popular publications or authors who do not have
proper scientific qualifications. Author Qualifications
must be checked based on the style of work and the found
information about the author and the publication itself. In that case,
if there is any doubt about the qualifications of the author,
it is best to avoid quoting him.
Lack of links when placing graphic materials.
When borrowing graphic materials (for example, diagrams,
diagrams, figures), and tables, you must specify
link to source of information. Such information without
links to the source will be a violation of copyright
rights.
ellipsis. In this case, it is necessary to check whether the meaning of the quote is distorted.
For example:
cut…"
he loves Peter's work).
10.
Basic rules for quoting:The quoted quotation must accurately reproduce the cited fragment of the text.
Punctuation marks in the quote must be reproduced accurately. If at hand
there is no text of the work (examination to the university), then you should place the signs in
according to the rules of punctuation.
If you do not quote all the words of the passage, then in place of the missing words is put
ellipsis. In this case, it is necessary to check whether the meaning is not distorted.
quotes.
Options for including a quote in the text of an essay can be different:
“I know only two real misfortunes in life: remorse
and illness," says Prince Andrei to Pierre.
- Prince Andrei tells Pierre that he knows in life "only two
real misfortunes: remorse and sickness.
In this case, direct speech must be converted into indirect, and
quoted text is capitalized.
Punctuation in prose quotations is the same as punctuation in direct speech.
After a colon, before a quote that is not written from the beginning, an ellipsis is placed,
For example:
Raskolnikov himself says to Luzhin about his reasoning: "... bring to
consequences of what you preached just now, and it will turn out that people can
cut…"
You cannot retell a poetic text in your own words (Pushkin writes that
he loves Peter's work).
11.
poeticways:
the text can be quoted in two
A. Observing the graphic appearance of the stanza,
For example:
"Wonderful picture..." A. Fet - winter landscape.
This poem conveys feelings
poet, caused by contemplation
beautiful nature:
wonderful picture,
How are you related to me?
white plain,
Full moon…
In this case, the text is given without quotes.
12.
If athe work is about one author or
quotes the name of the author and the title of the poem are not
indicated. No need to give a name
poet and in the case when it precedes a quotation
or named after it, for example:
A. Fet writes:
wonderful picture,
How are you related to me?
white plain,
Full moon…
13.
If the work is about one author orone piece of poetry
quotes the name of the author and the title of the poem
not indicated. No need to specify
the poet's name, and when it precedes
quote or is called after it, for example:
A. Fet writes:
wonderful picture,
How are you related to me?
white plain,
Full moon…
14.
If the works of different poets are quoted,in brackets after the quote should put the name
author, for example:
In both poems, a winter
landscape:
wonderful picture,
How are you related to me?
white plain,
Full moon…
(A. Fet)
The clouds are rolling
clouds swirl;
Invisible moon
Illuminates the flying snow;
The sky is cloudy, the night is cloudy ...
(A. Pushkin)
15.
If the works of different poets are quoted, inparentheses after the quote should put the name of the author,
For example:
Both poems depict a winter landscape:
wonderful picture,
How are you related to me?
white plain,
Full moon…
(A. Fet)
The clouds are rolling
clouds swirl;
Invisible moon
Illuminates the flying snow;
The sky is cloudy, the night is cloudy ...
(A. Pushkin)
Writing scientific texts involves the use of citation.
Citation in scientific text- this is the transfer of someone else's speech through quotation marks in order to confirm any theoretical or practical data on the issue under study.
Basic rules for quoting are the following:
1. The cited text should be quoted in quotation marks in the same grammatical form in which it is given in the source, and with the preservation of all punctuation marks. Punctuation marks are not preserved only when the sentence is not fully quoted. In this case, instead of the omitted text, an ellipsis is placed before the beginning of the quoted sentence, or inside it, or at the end.
For example: N. Berdyaev wrote: “The basis of the Slavic idea, as well as the basis of the Russian messianic idea in general, can only be Russian spiritual universalism, Russian all-humanity ... and not Russian national narrow-mindedness and complacency ...”.
2. A quotation placed after a colon usually begins with a capital letter.
For example: L. S. Vygotsky noted: “The thought itself is born not from another thought, but from the motivating sphere of our consciousness, which embraces our drives and needs, our interests and motives, our affects and emotions.”
However, if in the original source the first word of a quotation begins with a lowercase letter, then the quotation included in the text after the colon also begins with a lowercase letter. In this case, the quoted text must be preceded by an ellipsis.
For example: I. Ilyin emphasized: "... a mature philosophical experience, brought to the proper intensity, integrity and objectivity, informs the human spirit of a number of properties, traits and abilities that reveal the authenticity of its being."(In source: "... a mature philosophical experience ...").
3. If a quote is included in the text after a subordinating conjunction ( what, to, if, though, since etc.) or after introductory constructions like as he notes, as he points out, according to, in his opinion, then the first word of the quoted text is written with a lowercase letter, even if it begins with an uppercase letter in the source.
For example: P. Florensky noted that "scientific speech is a tool forged from everyday language, with the help of which we master the subject of knowledge."(In source: "Scientific speech...").
According to Vl. Solovyov, "the objective world contemplated by us is created through a priori forms of space, time and causality."(In source: “The objective world we contemplate…”).
4. A quotation that is included in the text as an independent sentence after a period ending the preceding sentence must begin with an uppercase letter, even if the first word in the source begins with a lowercase letter.
For example: The development of the surrounding world, the knowledge of scientific achievements is impossible without confidence in the need to acquire new knowledge, without awareness of the importance of one's own development. “Despondency is the enemy of every improvement. There can be no structure in doubt. There will be no learning in fear. Observation is a step towards justice” (N. Roerich).(In source: "...despondency is the enemy of every improvement...").
5. When quoting not from the original source, it is necessary to indicate " Cit. on:».
For example: V. O. Klyuchevsky rightly noted: “Time strengthens the assimilated heritage with a new moral connection, historical tradition, which, acting from generation to generation, transforms the covenants and blessings inherited from fathers and grandfathers into hereditary properties and inclinations of descendants” (Quoted by: Domnikov S. D. Mother Earth and Tsar City Russia as a Traditional Society / S. D. Domnikov.– M.: Aleteya, 2002.– 672 p.).
6. Each citation included in the text of a scientific work must be accompanied by an indication of the source placed in the list of references.
Examples of designing a bibliographic footnote:
[Vinnikov 2003: 20]
(Vinnikov, 2003, p. 20)
In the list of references at number 5: Vinnikov A. Z. Along the Millennium Roads: Archaeologists on the Ancient History of the Voronezh Territory /A. Z. Vinnikov, A. T. Sinyuk. - 2nd ed., Rev. and additional - Voronezh: Voronezh Publishing House. state un-ta, 2003. - 280 p.