social services research journal

Journal of Social Service Research

Subject Area and Category

• Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
• Social Work
• Sociology and Political Science

Publication type

01488376, 15407314

Information

How to publish in this journal

The set of journals have been ranked according to their SJR and divided into four equal groups, four quartiles. Q1 (green) comprises the quarter of the journals with the highest values, Q2 (yellow) the second highest values, Q3 (orange) the third highest values and Q4 (red) the lowest values.

The SJR is a size-independent prestige indicator that ranks journals by their 'average prestige per article'. It is based on the idea that 'all citations are not created equal'. SJR is a measure of scientific influence of journals that accounts for both the number of citations received by a journal and the importance or prestige of the journals where such citations come from It measures the scientific influence of the average article in a journal, it expresses how central to the global scientific discussion an average article of the journal is.

Evolution of the number of published documents. All types of documents are considered, including citable and non citable documents.

This indicator counts the number of citations received by documents from a journal and divides them by the total number of documents published in that journal. The chart shows the evolution of the average number of times documents published in a journal in the past two, three and four years have been cited in the current year. The two years line is equivalent to journal impact factor ™ (Thomson Reuters) metric.

Evolution of the total number of citations and journal's self-citations received by a journal's published documents during the three previous years. Journal Self-citation is defined as the number of citation from a journal citing article to articles published by the same journal.

Evolution of the number of total citation per document and external citation per document (i.e. journal self-citations removed) received by a journal's published documents during the three previous years. External citations are calculated by subtracting the number of self-citations from the total number of citations received by the journal’s documents.

International Collaboration accounts for the articles that have been produced by researchers from several countries. The chart shows the ratio of a journal's documents signed by researchers from more than one country; that is including more than one country address.

Not every article in a journal is considered primary research and therefore "citable", this chart shows the ratio of a journal's articles including substantial research (research articles, conference papers and reviews) in three year windows vs. those documents other than research articles, reviews and conference papers.

Ratio of a journal's items, grouped in three years windows, that have been cited at least once vs. those not cited during the following year.

Evolution of the percentage of female authors.

Evolution of the number of documents cited by public policy documents according to Overton database.

Evoution of the number of documents related to Sustainable Development Goals defined by United Nations. Available from 2018 onwards.

Leave a comment

Name * Required

Email (will not be published) * Required

* Required Cancel

The users of Scimago Journal & Country Rank have the possibility to dialogue through comments linked to a specific journal. The purpose is to have a forum in which general doubts about the processes of publication in the journal, experiences and other issues derived from the publication of papers are resolved. For topics on particular articles, maintain the dialogue through the usual channels with your editor.

Follow us on @ScimagoJR Scimago Lab , Copyright 2007-2024. Data Source: Scopus®

Cookie settings

Cookie Policy

Legal Notice

Privacy Policy

Transformation of the rural settlement pattern and social services network in rural areas

• Rural Development
• Published: 18 September 2013
• Volume 3 , pages 221–233, ( 2013 )

Cite this article

• N. V. Zubarevich 1  

193 Accesses

14 Citations

Explore all metrics

The changes in the rural settlement structure in Russia from 1959 to 2010 are considered. The key trend, namely, polarization of the network, rapid growth in the number of the smallest settlements, and slight growth in the number of the largest ones, accompanied by the simultaneous erosion of small and medium settlements, is revealed. The effects of natural, economic, and migration factors, as well as the position relative to major cities, are shown. Six types of regions in terms of the rural settlement pattern are defined based on the parameters of the average population size, settlement structure by number of residents, and the dynamics of settlements. It is shown that the degradation of the system of local social services centers attached to agricultural enterprises, and the depopulation of rural settlements in many Russian regions lead to the inevitable adaptation to new conditions. The large number of people living in settlements with a population below 200 residents may be considered an indicator for determining regions, where the available network of social services (education and healthcare) institutions will transform faster. Calculations show that regional authorities generally tend to take into account the peculiarities of settlement patterns in the process of optimizing the social infrastructure; however, these processes are either unreasonably slow or extremely fast in a number of regions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Geographies of Marginality in Europe: Space, People, and Politics

The Impact of Road Infrastructure Development Projects on Local Communities in Peri-Urban Areas: the Case of Kisumu, Kenya and Accra, Ghana

Social Inequality and Spatial Segregation in Cape Town

Glezer, O.B., Borodina, T.L., and Artobolevskii, S.S., The reform of local self-government and administrative-territorial division of the Russian Federation, Izv. RAN, Ser.: Geogr. , 2008, no. 5, pp. 51–64.

Google Scholar  

Kovalev, S.A., Sel’skoe rasselenie (geograficheskoe issledovanie) (Rural settlement pattern (Geographic Study)), Moscow: Mosk. Gos. Univ., 1963.

Nefedova, T.G., Sel’skaya Rossiya na pereput’e: geograficheskie ocherki (Rural Russia on the Cross-Roads: Geographic Essays), Moscow: Novoe Izd., 2003.

Nefedova, T.G., Main changes in social and economic space of rural Russia, Izv. RAN, Ser.: Geogr. , 2012, no. 3, pp. 5–21.

Sel’skie naselennye punkty RSFSR po dannym perepisi naseleniya 1989 g.: Statisticheskii Sbornik (Rural Settlements of RSFSR According to Census of 1989, Statistical Handbook), Moscow: Goskomstat, 1991. Itogi Vserossiyskoy perepisi naseleniya 2010 goda Tom 1. Chislennost’ i razmeshcheniye naseleniya (Results of 2010 All-Russia population census. Vol. 1. Size and location of the population), Rossstat ( http://www.gks.ru/free-doc/new-site/perepis2010/croc/perepis-itogi1612.htm ).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Geography, Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia

N. V. Zubarevich

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N. V. Zubarevich .

Additional information

Original Russian Text © N.V. Zubarevich, 2013, published in Izvestiya RAN. Seriya Geograficheskaya, 2013, No. 3, pp. 26–38.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Zubarevich, N.V. Transformation of the rural settlement pattern and social services network in rural areas. Reg. Res. Russ. 3 , 221–233 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079970513030118

Download citation

Received : 08 February 2013

Published : 18 September 2013

Issue Date : July 2013

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079970513030118

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• rural settlement pattern typology for Russia
• depopulation of rural areas
• polarization of the rural settlement network
• concentration of population
• optimization of social infrastructure
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• 31 May 2024

What is science? Tech heavyweights brawl over definition

• Fred Schwaller

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

X owner Elon Musk (left) and artificial-intelligence pioneer Yann LeCun sparred on the social-media platform about scientific publications. Credit: Slaven Vlasic/Getty for The New York Times, Benjamin Girette/Bloomberg via Getty

If you do research and don’t publish it, is it science? That’s the question at the heart of an ongoing debate on X between Elon Musk and pioneering computer scientist Yann LeCun. Over the past few days, the conversation sprawled into a brawl about the definition of science, attracting thousands of commentators including researchers of all stripes who offered their opinions.

The discussion started on 27 May after Musk posted on X , formerly Twitter: “Join xAI if you believe in our mission of understanding the universe, which requires maximally rigorous pursuit of the truth, without regard to popularity or political correctness.” (Musk founded the company xAI to build artificial intelligence (AI) capable of enhanced reason technologies. Its first product is called Grok.)

Thousands of scientists are cutting back on Twitter, seeding angst and uncertainty

LeCun, chief scientist at tech giant Meta who is known for his foundational work in deep learning and neural networks called out Musk’s post, saying that he “claims to want a “maximally rigorous pursuit of the truth” but spews crazy-ass conspiracy theories on his own social platform”. It escalated quickly , with Musk questioning what science LeCun had done in the past 5 years. LeCun, who also holds an academic post in AI at New York University in New York City, replied: “Over 80 technical papers published since January 2022. What about you?”

LeCun then posted saying “if you do research and don’t publish, it’s not Science”. He argued that research is only ‘science’ when it is collected as a body of knowledge, tested for correctness and reproducibility, and then published. “Technological marvels don’t just pop out of the vacuum. They are built on years (sometimes decades) of scientific research,” he said . Without sharing that scientific information, “technological progress would slow to a crawl”.

LeCun’s definition of science sparked a backlash. Some people criticized him for not mentioning that science is often considered a method . Another, tech entrepreneur Palmer Luckey who developed the virtual-reality headset Oculus, condemned the idea that “people who don’t publish their research for peer review will die bitter and forgotten”. Still others argued that scientific experiments done in companies are often kept private, and even outside of the private sector 40% of data from academic and government scientists goes unpublished, according to some estimates .

“LeCun still misses the very essence of how science works. Saying ‘science is only science if it is published’ gatekeeps the idea that science is a method of understanding that people can use in their daily lives,” says Peter Coveney, a computer scientist at University College London.

The importance of feedback

LeCun later clarified his definition, posting: “science progresses through the collision of ideas, verification, analysis, reproduction, and improvements. If you don’t publish your research *in some way* your research will likely have no impact.”

He also hinted in his posts that there is need for more openness in AI research, in particular the source code underlying networks. Coveney and philosopher of science Janet Stemwedel agree with LeCun on this point, especially amid criticisms that AI algorithms such as ChatGPT, Sora and AlphaFold3 are being developed and launched without the publication of their code.

“The big issue is that you need to expose your knowledge claims to rigorous examination, and you need to be responsive to the feedback that emerges from that,” says Stemwedel, who is at San José State University in California. She added that philosophers of science now see responsivity to feedback as a cornerstone of modern definitions of science, alongside principles such as the utility of science to make predictions and provide explanations.

Coveney pointed to the development of generalist AI tools, which aim to interpret data and produce advanced reasoning abilities . “At the heart of it is a large language model like ChatGPT, but they implement what’s called foundation models to solve problems.” He says that it’s questionable how scientific their methods are, even when their processes can be scrutinized by scientists.

Twitter changed science — what happens now it’s in turmoil?

xAI, for instance, is making its AI development open source. “Musk argues that we can provide scientific explanations by using explainable AI like xAI, thereby replacing conventional ways of doing science,” says Coveney. “The problem is that a machine ingesting scientific literature and then creating statistical inferences does not confer understanding to the machine. It’s not an objective and rational way of creating scientific theories.”

Debated definition

The definition of science will always be contentious, says Stemwedel, who has studied how scientists use Twitter and X. Pre-Musk Twitter has had a beneficial role in overall discussions about science, where people showed that science could be responsive to feedback. “Early discussions showed objectivity is not a property of individual scientists, but rather of the collective efforts of a knowledge-building community. In the Musk era , I’m afraid things have gotten less responsive to reason.”

Amid the debates, Coveney says that it’s crucial to maintain the fundamental ideas of science that stem from the Enlightenment.

“The central element is if you can’t have an objective discussion then you’re not doing science, because you’re just articulating your opinions,” he says. The irony, adds Coveney, is that this is exactly what was happening on X.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01626-z

Reprints and permissions

Related Articles

• Scientific community

We pulled together for ocean science

Career Feature 03 JUN 24

How I run a virtual lab group that’s collaborative, inclusive and productive

Career Column 31 MAY 24

Biomedical paper retractions have quadrupled in 20 years — why?

News 31 MAY 24

Harassment of scientists is surging — institutions aren’t sure how to help

News Feature 21 MAY 24

Mount Etna’s spectacular smoke rings and more — April’s best science images

News 03 MAY 24

How I harnessed media engagement to supercharge my research career

Career Column 09 APR 24

Multi-Disciplinary Studies of Biomolecular Condensates

Dallas, Texas (US)

The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (UT Southwestern Medical Center)

Research assistant (Postdoc) (m/f/d) - Department of Biology, Chemistry, Pharmacy - Institute of Bio

Department of Biology, Chemistry, Pharmacy - Institute of Biology Plant Physiology Research assistant (Postdoc) (m/f/d) full-time-job limited for u...

14195, Berlin Dahlem (DE)

Freie Universität Berlin

Global Faculty Recruitment of School of Life Sciences, Tsinghua University

The School of Life Sciences at Tsinghua University invites applications for tenure-track or tenured faculty positions at all ranks (Assistant/Ass...

Beijing, China

Tsinghua University (The School of Life Sciences)

Dr. Rolf M. Schwiete Professor (W2) of Translational Pediatric Oncology

The Faculty of Medicine of the Goethe University Frankfurt am Main and the University Hospital Frankfurt, in the Department of Pediatrics (Chairman...

Frankfurt am Main, Hessen (DE)

Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt

Nanjing Forestry University is globally seeking Metasequoia Scholars and Metasequoia Talents

Located next to Purple Mountain and Xuanwu Lake, Nanjing Forestry University (NJFU) is a key provincial university jointly built by Jiangsu Province

Nanjing, Jiangsu, China

Nanjing Forestry University (NFU)

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

HIV knowledge, self-perception of HIV risk, and sexual risk behaviors among male Tajik labor migrants who inject drugs in Moscow

Center for clinical and translational science award u54 | funder: national institutes of health (national center for advancing translational sciences) | grant id: ul1tr002003, maslihat intervention for tajik male migrants who inject drugs | funder: national institutes of health (national institute on drug abuse) | grant id: r01da050464, usage metrics.

• Health sciences
• Public health
• Health services and systems
• Epidemiology