SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES IN THE DIGITAL AGE: PRODUCTION AND DISSEMINATION OF KNOWLEDGE

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The article presents an analysis of the current situation 12 years after the transfer in 2013 of academic institutions first to the Federal Agency for Scientific Organisations (FANO) and then to the

Ministry of Science and Higher Education, which led to the Russian Academy of Sciences effectively losing its status as a self-governing civil society organization, which affected the authority of the RAS. The focus is on researching current problems in the activities of the RAS's economic institutions and related copyright issues. In the context of seeking answers to questions related to scientific activity and the dissemination of knowledge, the opinion of professional economists is presented, obtained because of an online sociological survey conducted because of the NEA information system. An important feature of the dissemination of knowledge is conditioned by issues of intellectual property and copyright. The emergence of many pseudo-works and objects with a low level of creativity also affects the market for the dissemination of knowledge. In the context of a journal monopoly established for scientometric purposes, the models of relations between scientists and publishers today are distorted compared to fundamental legal approaches that traditionally give authors power over the results of their work, the right to inviolability and the right to remuneration. The use of new technologies in scientific activity carries both advantages and risks. Neural networks greatly simplify some routine operations, thus being an effective tool for intellectual work at certain stages of research. On the other hand, there is a possibility that the results of human reasoning will be replaced by conclusions generated by an algorithm based on the principles of word frequency and not free from flaws. From the point of view of copyright, the issues of ‘input’ and ‘output’ remain unresolved: to what extent is the use of protected works for machine learning legal, and who should own the rights to the generated content?

About the authors

Alexander Rubinshtein

Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Author for correspondence.
Email: arubin@aha.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0455-3879

Doctor of Philosophy, Head of the Theoretical Economics Research Division

Russian Federation, 32 Nakhimovskiy Prospekt, Moscow, Russia 117218

Catherine Chukovskaya

Scientific and Educational Centre for Intellectual Property and Digital Economy

Email: echukovskaya@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2715-761X

Ph.D., Director

Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia

References

  1. Adler R., Ewing J., Taylor P. (2011). Citation Statistics // The Numbers Game, or How the Work of Scientists is Now Evaluated. — M.: MCNMO. Рр. 5-34. (In Russ.).
  2. David P. (1993). Knowledge, Property and the System Dynamics of Technological Change // Proceedings of the World Bank Annual Conference on Development Economics 1992. – Washington, DC: World Bank. Pp. 215–248.
  3. Dumas R. (1989). Literary and Artistic Property. Copyright in France. – M.: Mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya (International relations). (In Russ.).
  4. Eidelman N. Ya. (1983). The Last Chronicler. – M.: Kniga. (In Russ.).
  5. Foray D. (2004). The Economics of Knowledge. – Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  6. Gavrilov E.P. (2004). Originality as a Criterion for Copyright Protection // Patenty i litsenzii (Patents and Licences). No. 6. Pp. 45-51. (In Russ.).
  7. Hayek F. A. (2001). Individualism and Economic Order. – M.: Izograf. (In Russ.).
  8. Jonas V.Ya. (1963). The Criterion of Creativity in Copyright Law and Judicial Practice. – M.: Yuridicheskaya literatura (Legal literature). (In Russ.).
  9. Kosyakov D.V. (2024). Myths and Legends of Generative AI // Universitetskaya kniga (University Book). No. 8. Pp. 38-45. (In Russ.).
  10. Machlup F. (1984). The Economics of Information and Human Capital. – Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  11. Ogorodnikova K.S. (2021). The Problem of Originality of a Work in Copyright // Voprosy rossiyskogo i mezhdunarodnogo prava (Issues of Russian and international law). Vol. 11. No. 11A. Pp. 60-67. (In Russ.).
  12. Rubinstein A.Ya., Burakov N.A. (2023). Journal Table of Ranks: Theory, Methodology, Bibliometrics // Ekonomicheskiye i sotsial'nyye peremeny: fakty, tendentsii, prognoz (Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecasts). Vol. 16. No. 6. Pp. 126-142. (In Russ.).
  13. Rubinstein A.Ya., Chukovskaya E.E. (2024). Science, Knowledge and Intellectual Property: Ten Years Later. P. 1 // Ekonomika i matematicheskiye metody (Economics and mathematical methods). Vol. 60. No. 1. Pp. 5–16. (In Russ.).
  14. Rubinstein A.Y., Chukovskaya E.E. (2025).Science and the Dissemination of Knowledge in the Mirror of Sociological Research: Preprint. – M.: Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. (In Russ.).
  15. Sviridova E.A. (2018).The Criterion of Originality of Copyright Objects in Russian and Foreign Judicial Practice. // Obrazovanie i pravo (Education and Law). No. 6. Pp. 140–144. (In Russ.).
  16. Taylor C. (2001). Indivisible social goods // The Inviolable Reserve. No. 4 (18). Pp. 7–18.
  17. Vitko V.S. (2017). On the Characteristics of the Concept of ‘Plagiarism’ in Copyright law. – M.: Statut. (In Russ.).
  18. Wittgenstein L. (2009).Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. – M.: Nauka. (In Russ.).

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.