Competition of Economic Journals in Russia: Results of the Three Waves of Ranking[Конкуренция Экономических Журналов России: Итоги Трех Волн Рейтингования]

The article discusses the dynamics of the list of the leading economic journals of the country in the Ranking of the Leading Economic Journals in 2013–2015 created by the authors with the support of the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation in the framework of the annual monitoring and ranking of the market of economic research. The authors show instability of the market of economic journals and identify publications that consistently hold the leading position. There are several qualitatively heterogeneous groups of periodicals in the Russian market of trade magazines which include magazines-aggressors and stagnating periodicals. That allows us to make a conclusion about high intensity of the competitive struggle in the market of economic journals stabilization of which can be expected not earlier than in 3–4 years. The article also examines the struggle for international status which is unfolding parallel to the struggle for a place in the Russian magazines market. We trace connection between scientific quality and reputation of journals on the basis of external expert survey of the country’s leading economists held for the purpose of implementing a limited verification of the generated rating of the product. We draw a paradoxical conclusion that the scientific level of a journal depends on its reputation (popularity). The article gives an economic interpretation of the revealed connection and provides its illustrative examples; the distinction between the reputation of a magazine and people’s wishes to be published in it is also examined. The authors dwell on typical errors that impede the success of economic journals and reveal their nature and importance using specific examples. The most common mistakes are: ill-considered name of a magazine; disregard of academic aesthetics; failure to fulfill the criterion of an All-Russia periodical; shortcomings of the content-policy; failures in peer review.