Vol 7, No 2 (2025)

Scientific production is a complex object of management due to its specific character. All the stages of the scientific cycle have specific features – the production, distribution, exchange and consumption of scientific knowledge. The production of scientific knowledge is not replication or scaling of the same product, but generation of necessarily new knowledge, i.e. a single and unique product. The distribution of scientific knowledge in the field of fundamental studies consists not in limiting access to knowledge, but in its wide dissemination (“visibility”, “citation”). The exchange of scientific knowledge does not imply its alienation from the author or the holder in favor of the recipient, since knowledge that the recipient acquires in the act of exchange remains with the former holder. The consumption of scientific knowledge does not imply its disappearance in the process of consumption; knowledge persists with an arbitrarily large number of acts of consumption. The organization of scientific production and the management of such a peculiar production, consistent to its nature, must inevitably differ from the organization of the production of material goods. This leads to many specific issues that need to be taken into account in the process of organizing scientific production.

In order to complete large-scale tasks, the implementation of which takes significant time periods, strategies and policies act as the main planning tools. Each of them has a strict scientific and managerial meaning, being an important component of the step-by-step process of decision-making and the formation of a rational system of actions. At the same time, the presented literature overview shows that the existing definitions of strategy, policy, conception, plan and program use the same basic concepts, being an example of cyclical definitions. This makes them indistinguishable from each other, ignoring their different ontology, instrumental specificity and place in the system of planning prospects development. The article proposes definitions of policy and strategy, on the basis of which an approach to delimiting their spheres of activity is formed, differences in functions in the strategizing system and methods of interactive interrelation in the process of achieving goals are shown. Policy deals with the structure of interests of subjects or actors of purposeful activity and the continuous alignment of this structure with the moving conditions of plan implementation. These conditions constantly change the assessments of the degree of complexity of goals accomplishment. Strategy is a set of decision-making rules under uncertainty. The author discusses the problem of developing decision-making rules within the strategy at the branching points of the directions of movement toward the goal under conditions of incomplete information and knowledge. The important role of development scenario options is pointed out. An analogy is drawn with the operation of evolutionary selection algorithms in the interpretations of W. Sellars and D. Dennet. The conditional space of causes, their selection in a certain value system and implementation of quality control are considered. Obviously, the spaces of policy and strategy are relevant to such an analysis and events in these spaces are proposed to be assessed using aggregate indexes in the form of indicators of the goal-implementation process. The analysis of such indicators does not determine, but helps to adjust the strategy for achieving a goal. The main theses of the article are accompanied by examples of the implementation of policy and strategy in the GOELRO plan, the program of industrial relocation to the east of the country during the Great Patriotic War and the Comprehensive Program of Scientific and Technological Progress and Its Socioeconomic Consequences developed in the USSR in the 1970s–1980s. The final part of the work examines the strategies for scientific, technological and innovative development of Russia, published in the period 2011–2024. It also highlights gaps in their development and indicates provisions for improving these documents.

Studies on cooperation between science and business often focus on the challenges of knowledge transfer, including assessing the effectiveness of this process. However, such works frequently fail to explicate the concept of knowledge transfer, even when conceptualizing or operationalizing it is essential. In Russian legislation, “knowledge transfer” is used as a stable term, although its interpretations remain ambiguous and vary depending on a theoretical framework applied. Diverse theoretical frameworks emphasize distinct aspects of knowledge transfer, ultimately forming a comprehensive understanding of the process. At the same time, discrepancies in underlying theoretical assumptions frequently result in inconsistencies across research findings and terminological confusion. Furthermore, the dominance of particular concepts at different stages in academia inevitably shapes not only researchers’ interpretations of results but also policy decisions. Undoubtedly, defining knowledge transfer is inherently complex, owing to the multifaceted and varied interpretations of the foundational concept of knowledge. Nevertheless, terminology must not be overlooked in research or regulatory documents, as ambiguity undermines both theoretical and practical conclusions. Unlike existing overviews of knowledge transfer approaches, this article analyze how differing theoretical assumptions influence the interpretation of the concept “knowledge transfer”. It incorporates firm-level approaches that treat organizations as sets of knowledge. The findings of this study may prove valuable for future research on knowledge transfer and for drafting policies that outline strategies for science–business collaboration, as well as the role of research organizations in the science and technology development of a country.

The apparent diversity of citation motivations and the idea of possible differences in citation functions led to the first attempts at scientometric classifications of citations as early as in the 1960s (i.e. at the dawn of the appearance of a toolkit called the Science Citation Index). These classifications were developed based on the assumption that their application would make it possible to obtain more accurate data on both characteristics of cited documents and the very nature of scientific citation. They were also supposed to help refine information retrieval. The creation of such classifications is considered here in the context of the need for a correct understanding of the reflection of the properties of scientific documents by their citedness. In this work, the Russian-language articles on this topic published since 1976 and onwards are analyzed.

The article examines the formation and development of standard models (SM) in elementary particle physics and cosmology (SM-1 and SM-2). SM-1 encompasses quantum chromodynamics and electroweak theory. It is the theoretical foundation of microphysics. Based on the theory of the expanding universe, SM-2 is the theoretical basis of relativistic cosmology. The combination of these models provides a fairly complete and empirically reasonable description of the physical world. Particular attention is paid to Russian researchers’ contribution to their creation. A chronology of the most important events in the formation and evolution of SM-1 and SM-2 was compiled: from 1954 to the mid-1970s in relation to the first one and from 1917 to the mid-1970s regarding the second one. The author has identified five main periods in the history under consideration, as well as a number of turning points. It is shown that by the mid-1970s both models were fully formed and that by that time their quite modest designation as “standard models” was established. The author notes the outstanding contribution of Russian scientists to the development of the cosmological standard model (SM-2), associated with the names of A. A. Friedman, G. A. Gamov and Ya. B. Zeldovich and his school of thought. In comparison with this contribution, Russia’s achievements in the field of SM-1 were quite modest. To a large extent, they are associated with early anticipations of some important discoveries and the phenomenon of missed opportunities.

One of the major problems related to issues of mutual influence and interaction between science and social institutions is the connection between physics and society. All phenomena of classical physics are determined by strict laws of nature. There is no such predictability in society and no canons of similar level. Nevertheless, there is undoubtedly some similarity in the physical concepts and trends of social life, if only because the laws of physics govern the entire material world.

On the basis of the analogy between thermodynamics, describing a non-equilibrium thermodynamic system, and the system of state governance, the characteristics of two extreme models of state structure – conservative and liberal – are discussed. The first model by its macroscopic properties approaches a closed non-equilibrium thermodynamic system, in which in the linear case, according to Onsager’s theory, the role of the governing principle is played by the maximum of entropy production (Ziegler’s principle). And the second one is an analogue of an open thermodynamic system, in which at large deviations from equilibrium inevitable nonlinearities in the interrelations of elements can initiate the emergence of a self-organizing dissipative structure. But in the linear case, the limiting principle characterizing its development to a stationary state is the minimum of entropy production (Prigozhin’s principle). The proposed models are far from the well-known theories of social entropy, which are aimed at describing the characteristics of social groups. The limited resources of the planet and the steady technological development of civilization suggest by analogy that, despite a number of advantages of the liberal mode of governing society, the future remains for the conservative mode of governance.

The problem of professional motivations of scientists’ activity, their style of behavior in science and the preceding choice of a life path is discussed from the perspective of the concept of invariance of psychobiological bases of behavior. The author substantiates the assertion that the nature of the scientist (their personality type, behavior style and motivational structure) is immutable and hereditarily determined. The article presents data based on empirical studies of behavior strategies and styles of academic researchers of several professional generations. A typology of the scientist’s personality is proposed. It is built on the grounds of (a) a motivation for scientific activity – “guild workers”, “presenters” or “superfluous people”, (b) psychophysiological traits inherent in the ideal scientist – “polymath” or “specialist”. An attempt is made to empirically substantiate the phenomenon of the involuntary choice of “path to science”, conditioned by the manifestation of certain traits of temperament and character.

The review notes the book’s volume, consistency and clarity in the narrative of the sections on mathematics and physics, which are used to model social systems, network structures, economic objects, collective actions of people and the collective intelligence of groups of people. The monograph can be considered as a large encyclopedia of examples of the use of mathematical modeling methods and physical analogies to describe social objects. The review highlights two large blocks of information: the first contains attempts at philosophical, historical and methodological generalizations; the second introduces the reader to the mathematical apparatus and physical analogies that serve as the basis for models of social systems of varying levels of complexity. It is noted that the degree of formalization of social objects for the application of mathematical methods and the principles of applying the mathematical apparatus to describe them remain controversial issues.