Anti-Armenian publications in the Russian academic journal Sovremennaya Nauchnaya Mysl (Modern Scientific Thought): An investigation by the “Geghard” Foundation
2025-08-11
The Geghard Scientific Analytical Foundation has submitted a complaint to the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation, and the editorial board of the journal Sovremennaya Nauchnaya Mysl (Modern Scientific Thought) regarding violations of academic and scholarly ethics in the journal.
COMPLAINT
On works published in the Russian journal Sovremennaya Nauchnaya Mysl (2022–2024) containing anti-Armenian content, vivid cases of historical falsification, and elements of Azerbaijani propaganda.
Below are critical observations concerning the following articles published in Sovremennaya Nauchnaya Mysl:
Khalilov, E. Sh. Caucasian Policy of Russia: Historiosophical Reflections (2022, No. 3).
Akhmedova, N. A. Issues of the History of Azerbaijan in Russian Historiography of the Second Half of the 19th – Early 20th Century (2023, No. 6).
Gyuntekin Najafli. Catherine The Second’s Policy in the East and Attempts of Armenian State Building in the South Caucasus in 60–80IES of 18TH CENTURY (2023, No. 3).
Ismayilov, G. N. On the Characteristics of Agriculture in Irevan Province at the Beginning of the XX Century (2024, No. 5).
The examination of these articles shows that all four publications contain distorted and politically motivated materials typical of Azerbaijani propaganda, aimed at neutralizing or diminishing the historical presence of Armenians in the region.
In this respect, the article by Gyuntekin Najafli, a leading researcher at the Institute of History of the National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan, is particularly striking, as it contains clear falsifications of historical realities and gross violations of academic ethics. For example:
The author deliberately ignores the rich source base of diplomatic correspondence between Armenian and Russian political actors.
Intentionally avoids mentioning the Armenian origin of the meliks of Artsakh, presenting them instead simply as “Christian meliks.”
Liberation programs developed by Armenian political and cultural figures are presented in a simplistic and mocking manner, with the clear aim of discrediting Armenians (e.g., “The Armenian archbishop presented a fabricated map of Armenian lands…”).
The literature used is limited: of 17 sources, half are Azerbaijani, including self-citations to his own articles, which violates scholarly integrity.
It is noteworthy that alongside the Ottoman and Iranian states in the 18th century and early 19th century, the author mentions the political entity “Azerbaijan,” which did not exist in that period.
In N. A. Akhmedova’s article, the method of toponym substitution is applied—deliberately and retroactively introducing Turkic place names for the indigenous Armenian territories of Eastern Armenia. Credible historical sources (Russian, Armenian, European, Arab, Georgian, Byzantine, etc.) testify to the Armenian presence in these territories. Moreover, the use of the term “Western Azerbaijan” for historical Armenian lands is unacceptable.
Similar narratives are also found in E. Sh. Khalilov’s article. For example, he claims that as a result of the Russo-Iranian wars “the historical territory of Azerbaijan was finally divided into two parts.”
An obvious falsification is also the claim about the existence in Artsakh of so-called “Albanian-Turkic tribes” who allegedly inhabited the region since ancient times. This is a historical oxymoron (from Greek—sharply foolish): Caucasian Albania, as a political entity, ceased to exist in the 8th century, while Turkic tribes appeared in the region only in the mid-11th century as a result of the Seljuk invasions. This false thesis, developed by F. Mamedova during the Soviet period, is purely political in nature and lacks even basic source-based foundations.
In addition, the analysis of the bibliography of Khalilov’s article also indicates non-compliance with academic standards: of 18 sources, 11 are Azerbaijani publications, Armenian sources are absent, Western historiography is almost absent and outdated and politically motivated works are used (e.g., V. L. Velichko’s writings).
The same pseudo-scholarly Azerbaijani narratives are also present in the work of G. N. Ismailov, which is based on only 9 publications, some of which are Azerbaijani. The article lacks essential archival sources, and its conclusions rely on politicized interpretations, including factually baseless claims that in the early 20th century “Azerbaijanis” lived in the Erivan Province. In reality, such an ethnonym did not exist at that time; in official documents, the Turkic-speaking Muslim population of the Caucasus was referred to simply as “Muslims” or “Caucasian Tatars.”
The author’s another claim that “after the Treaty of Turkmenchay (1828) and the Treaty of Adrianople (1829), the Tsarist government purposefully resettled Armenians from the Qajar state and the Ottoman Empire in order to reduce the proportion of Azerbaijanis in these territories and later Armenianize Yerevan,” is also baseless.
We strongly believe that the editorial board of the journal should have sufficient knowledge to know that Yerevan is a historical Armenian city with an indigenous Armenian population.
Based on the above, we demand:
To conduct a scholarly double peer review of the aforementioned publications.
To retard these and similar articles from the journal’s website.
To make more rigorous the review procedures for articles concerning the South Caucasus.
To ensure compliance with proper academic standards for scholarly journals.
Respectfully,
Geghard Scientific Analytical Foundation
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia 24 Marshal Baghramyan Ave., Yerevan 0019, Armenia +374-77-978895 [email protected]
