Is it worth teaching biology students the basics of scientometrics and the instructions for the design of scientific articles, and if so, why?

Over the past decades, the approaches to writing and formatting scientific articles, as well as to the choice of editions for publication by scientists of the results of their research (both experimental and theoretical) have changed dramatically. Much attention is now paid by most specialists to formal ratings of scientific journals, since it is they which determine mainly how great the chances of the scientists published in them are to get grants for their research. And without serious funding at the present stage, it is practically impossible to engage in not only applied, but also fundamental science. In particular, this has become especially important for biologists and biomedical specialists working in a wide variety of fields, because they tend to use expensive equipment, reagents and experimental animals in their work. In this regard, any scientists working in the field of Life Sciences must be able to choose the right journals for their publications, based on the scientometric indicators of the editions. No less important is the problem of formatting/designing scientific articles, since high ranked journals reject a significant percentage of manuscripts that do not meet the requirements, not only after peer-reviewing, but also before it (in the “rapid rejection” mode). The authors of this article consider it necessary to introduce appropriate courses of lectures into the curricula of students of biological and biomedical specialties. A list of issues that are proposed to be touched in such lectures is considered, including the basics of scientometrics, work on lists of references, search for possible borrowings in a manuscript, requirements for illustrations, compliance with ethical standards, determining whether a scientific publication is a “predatory” one, peer-reviewing scientific articles, their correct structuring, etc.

1. Khokhlov A.N., Wei L., Li Y., He J. Teaching cytogerontology in Russia and China // Adv. Gerontol. 2012. Vol. 25. N 3. P. 513–516.

2. Wei L., Li Y., He J., Khokhlov A.N. Teaching the cell biology of aging at the Harbin Institute of Technology and Moscow State University // Moscow Univ. Biol. Sci. Bull. 2012. Vol. 67. N 1. P. 13–16.

3. Khokhlov A.N., Klebanov A.A., Morgunova G.V. On choosing control objects in experimental gerontological research // Moscow Univ. Biol. Sci. Bull. 2018. Vol. 73. N 2. P. 59–62.

4. Morgunova G.V., Khokhlov A.N., Kirpichnikov M.P. To the 70th anniversary of the journal Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. News from biologists // Moscow Univ. Biol. Sci. Bull. 2016. Vol. 71. N 1. P. 1–3.

5. Kirpichnikov M.P., Morgunova G.V., Khokhlov A.N. Our journal–2020: what and how we publish // Moscow Univ. Biol. Sci. Bull. 2020. Vol. 75. N 1. P. 1–6.

6. Khokhlov A.N. How scientometrics became the most important science for researchers of all specialties // Moscow Univ. Biol. Sci. Bull. 2020. Vol. 75. N 4. P. 159–163.

7. Хохлов А.Н., Моргунова Г.В. Научные публикации – хорошие, плохие, за пригоршню долларов // Научный редактор и издатель. 2021. Т. 6. N 1. С. 59–67.

8. Moed H.F. Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals // J. Informetr. 2010. Vol. 4. N 3. P. 265–277.

9. Moed H.F. Comprehensive indicator comparisons intelligible to non-experts: The case of two SNIP versions // Scientometrics. 2016. Vol. 106. N 1. P. 51–65.

10. Bryant J, Baggott la Velle L. A bioethics course for biology and science education students // J. Biol. Educ. 2003. Vol. 37. N 2. P. 91–95.

11. Mandal J., Ponnambath D.K., Parija S.C. Bioethics: A brief review // Trop. Parasitol. 2017. Vol. 7. N 1. P. 5–7.

12. Chan A.H., Whitton B.A., Chan G.Y. The need for learning bioethics and law for biology students // J. Biol. Educ. 2020. DOI: 10.1080/00219266.2020.1841667.

13. Lakhani S. Early clinical pathologists: Edward Jenner (1749-1823) // J. Clin. Pathol. 1992. Vol. 45. N 9. P. 756–758.

14. Riedel S. Edward Jenner and the history of smallpox and vaccination. // Proc. (Bayl. Univ. Med. Cent.) 2005. Vol. 18. N 1. P. 21–25.

15. Jenner E. An inquiry into the causes and effects of variolae vaccinae, a disease discovered in some western counties of England. London: Sampson Low, 1798. 75 pp.

16. Altman D.G. Poor-quality medical research: what can journals do? // J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2002. Vol. 287. N 21. P. 2765–2767.

17. Хохлов А.Н., Клебанов А.А., Моргунова Г.В. Списки литературы в научных статьях: улучшить нельзя совсем отменить // Материалы 7-й Международной научно-практической конференции «Научное издание международного уровня - 2018: редакционная политика, открытый доступ, научные коммуникации», 24–27 апреля 2018 г. М.: ООО «Ваше цифровое издательство», 2018. С. 152–157.

18. Habibzadeh F., Shashok K. Plagiarism in scientific writing: words or ideas? // Croat. Med. J. 2011. Vol. 52. N 4. P. 576–577.

19. Fang F.C., Casadevall A. Retracted science and the retraction index // Infect. Immun. 2011. Vol. 79. N 10. P. 3855–3859.

20. Boschiero M.N., Carvalho T.A., de Lima Marson F.A. Retraction in the era of COVID-19 and its influence on evidence-based medicine: is science in jeopardy? // Pulmonology. 2021. Vol. 27. N 2. P. 97–106.

21. Bretag T., Mahmud S. Self-plagiarism or appropriate textual re-use? // J. Acad. Ethics. 2009. Vol. 7. N 3. P. 193–205.

22. Wager E. Defining and responding to plagiarism // Learn. Publ. 2014. Vol. 27. N 1. P. 33–42.

23. Beall J. Predatory publishers are corrupting open access // Nature. 2012. Vol. 489. N 7415. P. 179.

24. Beall J. What I learned from predatory publishers // Biochem. Med. (Zagreb). 2017. Vol. 27. N 2. P. 273–278.

25. Kendall G. Beall’s legacy in the battle against predatory publishers // Learn. Publ. 2021. Vol. 34. N 3. P. 379–388.

26. Calver M.C., Bradley J.S. Patterns of citations of open access and non-open access conservation biology journal papers and book chapters // Conserv. Biol. 2010. Vol. 24. N 3. P. 872–880.

27. Björk B.C., Solomon D. Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact // BMC Medicine. 2012. Vol. 10: 73.