Essays by and in Honor of William Gehrlein and Dominique Lepelley
Presents recent research on the analysis of voting rules using the probability approach
This book includes up-to-date contributions in the broadly defined area of probabilistic analysis of voting rules and decision mechanisms. Featuring papers from all fields of social choice and game theory, it presents probability arguments to allow readers to gain a better understanding of the properties of decision rules and of the functioning of modern democracies. In particular, it focuses on the legacy of William Gehrlein and Dominique Lepelley, two prominent scholars who have made important contributions to this field over the last fifty years. It covers a range of topics, including (but not limited to) computational and technical aspects of probability approaches, evaluation of the likelihood of voting paradoxes, power indices, empirical evaluations of voting rules, models of voters’ behavior, and strategic voting. The book gathers articles written in honor of Gehrlein and Lepelley along with original works written by the two scholars themselves.
For the two-dimensional Downsian model the degree of manipulability of 16 known aggregation procedures, based on the majority relation, is evaluated using the Nitzan-Kelly index. Extended preferences for multi-valued choices are used to evaluate the fact of manipulation. Individual manipulability of agents is considered, when manipulating agent moves its ideal point over the plane. The range of possible manipulating positions of the agents is restricted to some rectangle on the two-dimensional coordinate space, within the feasible area of positions of alternatives and agents. The preferences of agents are assumed to be linear orders, constructed by the proximity of the alternatives to the agents, ordered according to Euclidean distance. The computer calculations, using Monte-Carlo simulations has been performed for 3, 4, and 5 alternatives and for even number of agents from 4 to 20. 100 thousands profiles were generated for each number of alternatives – number of agents case. The results of the simulations show that there are groups of procedures with relatively low degree of manipulability for all of the considered multiple-choice extensions.
The article is devoted to the study of evaluation in the project preferences of University students of IT specialties to MOOC aggregators when organizing and providing search results for relevant training courses. The main purpose of this work is to describe the MOOC market, strategies of aggregators’ behavior in the national online education market. Today, their role has increased due to the mass transfer of distance learning based on the spread of COVID-19. The understanding of free niches in the MOOC market and possible directions of activity of Russian providers in the educational space are emphasized. To implement MOOCs in the educational process of universities, we need to answer the following questions: how effective is it to use MOOCs to completely or partially replace full-time courses, and will this practice lead to a decrease in students’ educational results? what skills do students need to successfully complete the MOOC? This paper presents the results of an online survey of 1st and 3rd year students of Moscow State University of Food Production. Based on the survey, a number of advantages and disadvantages of popular aggregators at the University were identified, which allows us to start developing a cumulative axiological system of requirements for modeling the preferred MOOC aggregator in a distance learning situation.
A model of upper and lower bounds of weak manipulability of 13 known aggregation procedures, based on majority relation, is proposed. The modified Nitzan-Kelly index is used to evaluate the spread of the degree of manipulability for Kelly’s, Gardenfors, and Expected utility weak extensions of agent’s preferences over the sets of alternatives. The results are obtained via computer simulations.
Based on the theoretical and methodological foundations of state capacity proposed and substantiated in the previous article of this journal (No. 2-2019) and the corresponding set of indicators for studying the multidimensional nature of this concept (level of military expenditures and aggregated indicator of control over violence, government and tax revenues, as well as the institutional quality and the level of the legal economy), in this article the authors focus on empirical perspectives of measuring state capacity. They rely on the use of multidimensional statistical methods (hierarchical clustering) and critically analyze the shortcomings of other approaches (dimensionality reduction, aggregation, rating) in relation to the array of collected data. The researchers' contribution to the scientific discussion is one of the first attempts at alternative empirical testing of the state capacity index and the selection of eight stable structures typical for certain groups of countries, obtained as a result of the repeated application of the clustering procedure with the corresponding parameters (clusters “Successful development”, “Second echelon”, “Individual trajectories”, “The oil and gas needle”, “Outsiders”, “On the verge of failure”, “Rising Asian giants” and “Variations of the post-Soviet trajectories”). In conclusion, the authors emphasize that, despite the conventionality of the resulting clusters (due to the specificity of the method used, which allows the scales of such structures to be “tuned”), in general, they reveal typologically similar variants of state development, taking into account the specificity of historical circumstances, internal and external conditions, and strategic decisions made by national elites.
This article discusses the theoretical and methodological foundations of the state capacity, which is defined as the ability of a state to choose and effectively implement its own decisions, changing domestic and foreign policy. The authors emphasize that one of the distinctive features of the concept is its multidimensionality, which leads them to the idea of considering state capacity as a complex phenomenon, a set of interrelated “capacities” that a modern state possesses. In accordance with this assumption, the authors dwell on three main dimensions of state capacity: coercive (ensuring external security and internal order), extractive (financial resources available to the state) and administrative-bureaucratic (quality of administrative and bureaucratic institutions) capacities of the state. The choice of measurements was based primarily on the idea that any modern state has key (“umbrella”) functions, which in turn can serve as a criterion for comparative studies. During the process of operationalization, the authors emphasize the particular importance of striking a balance between “maximalist” and “minimalist” approaches to the selection of indicators. Within the framework of the study, some rationales for the use of a set of indicators of state capacity are given (data on military expenditures and an aggregate measure of control over violence for coercive capacity, tax extraction and total government revenues (both in percent of GDP) for extractive capacity and an aggregate indicator of governance and institutional quality and the level of shadow economy for administrative-bureaucratic capacity), and it will serve as the basis for conducting an empirical study and identifying the selection of stable structures typical for certain groups of countries.
At early 2016 the new index was launched on Web of Science platform — Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI). The database is free for all Web of Science subscribers except those from the former Soviet Union countries. This database includes publications from 652 best Russian journals and is based on the data from Russian national citation index — Russian Index of Science Citation (RISC). RISC was launched in 2005 but there is very limited information about it available in English-language scholarly literature by now. The aim of this paper is to describe the history, actual structure and user possibilities of RISC. We focus on the novel features of RISC which are crucial to bibliometrics and unavailable in international citation indices.
eLIBRARY.ru, а dominant regional bibliometric database, currently indexes 5279 scholarly journals, 4755 of them Russian. It is a vast universe of supposedly academic literature, largely unknown to those who do not understand Russian. In this paper I will provide a brief overview of the leading players in this field: 10 megajournals, which, taken together, annually publish much more articles than all Russian yearly output in the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection. I will utilize a set of various metrics to capture this remarkable phenomenon. All data is sourced from eLIBRARY.ru and journal websites, and none of these journals are indexed in the WoS or Scopus databases. At the same time, one should realize that these ten are just the tip of the iceberg.
The work is related to the detection of key international and Russian economic journals in cross-citation networks. A list of international journals and information on their cross-citations were taken from Web of Science (WoS) database while information on Russian journals was taken from Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI). We calculated classical centrality measures, which are used for key elements detection in networks, and proposed new indices based on short-range and long-range interactions. A distinct feature of the proposed methods is that they consider individual attributes of each journal and take into account only the most significant links between them. An analysis of 100 main international and 29 Russian economic journals was conducted. As a result, we detected journals with large number of citations to important journals and also journals where the observed rate of selfcitation is a dominant in the total level of citation. The obtained results can be used as a guidance for researchers planning to publish a new paper and as a measure of importance of scientific journals.
Metrics usage in higher education management has clearly become an issue of great importance. A recent high-profile policy report on this topic, commissioned by the Higher Education Funding Council for England, is aptly named The Metric Tide. It reiterates a number of basic principles like “don’t evaluate individuals using journal impact factors” or “peer review can’t be substituted by metrics,” and stresses that, “those involved in research assessment and management should behave responsibly, considering and preempting negative consequences [of metrics usage] wherever possible” (Wilson 2015). One of the obvious consequences is gaming with indicators, which comes in various types and level of severity. This paper deals with one particular technique centered around so-called “predatory” journals indexed in Scopus database. It is a part of a broader research on the impact of metrics-based policy measures on various university systems. See the introductory article about “predatory” publishing by the foremost authority on this topic prof. Jeffrey Beall, p. 07.
What happens with Russian mathematics in terms of metric parameters? Where do Russian mathematicians work, where do they publish, how well are they cited?
We continue a series of notes on scientometrics of the former Eastern Bloc member states, started in HERB №2 (see “25 years after the fall: indicators of postcommunist science” by Ivan Sterligov and Alfia Enikeeva). This essay compares publication output in broad subject fields for all ex-COMECON states, examining complex dynamics of transition across a wide range of different economies and cultures. Presented data highlights major differences between several subgroups of countries.