This article presents the results of a retrospective qualitative analysis of scientific article titles published in the journal General Reanimatology, aiming to identify and prevent typical discrepancies with the scientific and methodological recommendations for the titles formulation. Typical discrepancies include excessive length, suboptimal positioning of key terms, substitution of the research objective with descriptions of routine procedures, exaggeration or misrepresentation of the study’s scope, structural mimicry of previously published titles, use of colloquial or popular-science language, and stylistically inappropriate promotional elements. These flaws can negatively impact the perception and citation of scientific material. The cases report examines the cause-and-effect relationships between flaws in title wording and the potential of the article underestimation by expert’s and bibliometric analysis. Ways for improving the titles formulation included the principles of KISS (Keep It Short & Simple) and Less is More. Their use restores the accuracy of the title’s correspondence to the scope of the study and increases the scientific recognition of the publication. The results can be used by authors in preparing articles for biomedical journals; by reviewers and editors in internal review of manuscripts and the development of editorial standards for scientific biomedical journals; and in teaching academic writing.

Introduction. Open access to scholarly knowledge is a core element of contemporary scholarly publishing policy and is actively promoted at both international and national levels. At the same time, empirical research shows that principled support for open access is not always accompanied by a uniform interpretation or consistent institutional implementation. In this context, the position of journal editors is of particular interest, as they are the actors who directly shape editorial policy and the dissemination practices of scholarly publications.

Purpose. To identify which definitions and key features of open access dominate in the perceptions of editors of Russian scholarly journals, and how these perceptions are reflected in stated editorial policies and in journals’ actual practices.

Materials and Methods. The study draws on data from an online survey of editors of Russian scholarly journals (N = 138) representing a range of subject areas and serving as editors-in-chief, deputy editors, managing editors, and scientific editors. The questionnaire included closed- and open-ended items designed to elicit normative orientations and practices related to open access. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis of open-ended responses.

Results. According to the survey (N = 138), most respondents declare support for open access, yet their understanding of it is heterogeneous: responses to the question about the definition of open access were distributed almost evenly between interpreting open access as free access to the full text and understanding it as a regime that entails additional reuse rights/licensing. At the level of implementation, the study identifies a persistent gap between the declared access model and its institutional articulation: although 89.9% of editorial teams characterize their content dissemination as immediate open access, 18.8% of journals provide no information about open access on their websites. Conceptual ambiguity is also evident in the classification of open access models: about one third of respondents do not distinguish the typology, which correlates with fragmented licensing and contractual practices and limited digital infrastructure. Publication fees are not the dominant mechanism and are generally viewed critically by editors.

Conclusion. The findings suggest that within the Russian editorial community, open access functions primarily as a normative orientation rather than as a fully institutionalized journal model. The study highlights the need to shift discussions of open access from declarative support toward the operationalization of legal, infrastructural, and organizational mechanisms that ensure the sustainability and reproducibility of open scholarly dissemination practices.

This paper presents the results of a thematic analysis of Russian academic journals that are founded by Federal, National Research, and supporting universities and indexed in the list of the Higher Attestation Commission (HAC). This official list comprises peer-reviewed journals approved for publishing the core findings of dissertations for the Candidate of Sciences and Doctor of Sciences degrees. Using the State Rubricator of Scientific and Technical Information (GRNTI), we classified the journals by subject area. We compared the thematic profiles of journals across the three types of founding universities and against the overall thematic distribution of all Russian HAC-indexed journals. Furthermore, to identify the research fields where Russian university journals have the strongest international presence, we analyzed their thematic distribution in Scopus using the All Science Journal Classification (ASJC). Data from the Using Russian Index of Science Citation (RISC) reveal a general predominance of university journals in the Social Sciences and Humanities at the national level, a trend reflected in their strong coverage in Scopus. In the Natural and Exact Sciences, only journals from specific sub-disciplines are well-represented in both RISC and Scopus. Journals in the Life Sciences show low visibility, while Russian university journals in Medicine and Health Sciences are almost absent from Scopus, as publications in these fields in Russia are dominated by research centers and commercial publishers. A detailed analysis at the level of individual journals and university publishing centers can provide valuable insights for journal founders and editorsin-chief considering adjustments to a journal's thematic scope or the launch of new titles.

Author keywords, unlike terms assigned by professional indexers, are not regulated by normative documents or controlled by special dictionaries. The aim of this study is to identify statistical differences between two sets of keywords (KWs): those assigned by authors, on the one hand, and those assigned by editors of abstract database of VINITI RAS, on the other. It is believed that confirming and understanding these differences may be useful for more rational use of keywords obtained from various sources. A comparative analysis of quantitative indicators of the novelty and lexical diversity of author and editorial KWs was conducted for the first time in this study. A comparison of the inclusion measures of author and editorial KWs in other metadata elements was conducted for the first time on several independent thematic samples. The methodological basis of the study is generalization—the identification and quantitative analysis of common features inherent in the studied data arrays. The empirical base of the study consisted of five independent statistical samples, the size of which varied from 10.40 thousand to 18.97 thousand articles. The topics of the samples corresponded to five headings of the State Rubricator of Scientific and Technical Information: 52. Mining; 53. Metallurgy; 55. Mechanical Engineering; 61. Chemical Technology. Chemical Industry; 73. Transport. We selected Russian-language articles uploaded to the VINITI abstract database in 2021–2024 and simultaneously containing the following non-empty metadata elements: title, author’s keywords, author’s abstract, editor’s keywords, and an abstract specially prepared for the VINITI abstract database. For each sample and separately for author’s and editor’s KWs, point statistical estimates of the identified common features were obtained: lexical diversity, novelty, and inclusion of keywords in other metadata elements (title and abstract). Similar statistical differences of author’s and editor’s KWs were observed across all five thematic collections: the degree of lexical diversity in author-generated KWs is higher than that of editor-generated terms; the novelty coefficient of author-generated KWs is higher than that of editor-generated terms; the novelty coefficient of author-generated annotations is higher than that of abstracts; and the degree of inclusion of author-generated KWs in article titles is lower than the degree of inclusion of editor-generated terms. Replication of the identified differences across five independent thematic samples, corresponding to randomly selected fields of knowledge, suggests the statistical stability of these differences. The vocabulary of author KWs is more variable over time compared to the more stable vocabulary of editor-generated terms, which may be useful for the rapid identification of new terminology and scientific frontiers. Unlike editor-generated KWs, author-generated KWs cannot independently express the main themes and concepts of a document, as they supplement the terms that can be extracted from publication titles.