Suchergebnisse

The aim of this paper is twofold. Firstly, I present the scholarly book publications patterns of Polish scholars. Secondly, I show how scholarly book publications are assessed in various European research evaluation systems. Moreover, I argue that the diversity of evaluation models depends on the scientific policy aims in a given country. This presentation of European models allows me to discuss a new Polish science policy instrument, that is the list of publishers prepared for the upcoming evaluation exercise in 2021. In 2018, the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland implemented a new model of scholarly book publication assessment based on the list of publishers. On the one hand, such a scien- ce policy instrument might be a way to appreciate the best quality scholarly books and give them more points than articles in the evaluation exercise. On the other hand, it is a so far unknown instrument which differentiates publications that have been treated the same up to date. Additionally, this paper aims to shed some light on how the new Polish model was prepared.

The paper uses the concept of 'parametric game' to describe a strategy of academic work which has become wide-spread in Poland, due to the introduction of a particular policy of rewards. The 'parametric game' consists of doing research and publishing results in so as to enable fulfilling the requirements of a given research evaluation system. On the whole, researchers can use two main strategies in this game. The first strategy is 'Impactitis,' where only publications in journals with a high Impact Factor are acknowledged by a given scholarly community. The other strategy, whose definition and understanding are put forward in the present paper, is the so-called 'running for points' (the original Polish term being 'punktoza'). In this strategy, the most 'profitable' choice is to publish several articles in journals without any Impact Factor rather than one paper in a toptier journal. On the basis of the Polish system, I present the main mechanisms that produce the running-for-points strategy and several mechanisms that make it possible to reduce the negative consequences of playing the parametric game in this way. The article concludes with a discussion of the Polish system. It suggests how the system can be improved and what lessons can be learnt from it. The conclusions are relevant for both scholars and policy makers in other countries. ; W artykule stosuję pojęcie "gry parametrycznej", aby opisać strategię pracy akademickiej pojawiającej się w Polsce jako efekt wprowadzenia polityk punktowego nagradzania dorobku naukowego. "Gra parametryczna" oznacza realizowanie badań i publikowanie ich wyników w taki sposób, aby spełniać wymagania danego systemu ewaluacji nauki. W grze tej badacze mogą używać dwóch strategii. Pierwszą jest "impactitis", w ramach której tylko publikacje w czasopismach z wysokim Impact Factorem są uznawane w danej społeczności akademickiej. Drugą strategią jest "punktoza". Polega ona na tym, że bardziej opłacalne jest opublikowanie kilku artykułów w czasopiśmie bez Impact Factora niż opublikowanie jednego artykułu w wysoko punktowanym czasopiśmie. Na podstawie polskiego systemu ewaluacji nauki (parametryzacji) pokazuję główne mechanizmy wytwarzania punktozy oraz takie, które mają ograniczać negatywne konsekwencje grania w parametryczną grę. Tekst kończy się dyskusją na temat rozwiązań polskiego systemu oraz rekomendacjami, jak system ten można ulepszyć i jakie lekcje należy wyciągnąć z obecnej sytuacji. Przedstawione konkluzje są istotne zarówno dla badaczy, jak i decydentów z obszaru polityki naukowej z innych krajów.

Za lekturę i uwagi do pierwszej wersji tekstu dziękuję Anecie Drabek i Ewie Rozkosz. ; The article discusses the challenges of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education's programme in Poland, i.e. the National Programme for the Development of Humanities. It describes the regulations on the basis of which the programme has been conducted in 2015. In accord with the current form of the programme, the paper presents three issues that result from the research policy in Poland: (1) how disciplines in the humanities and in the social sciences can be differentiated, (2) how the output of the Principal Investigator in the humanities can be evaluated, and (3) how the term 'national' in the name of programme can be interpreted. The article concludes with a discussion of the consequences of financing research in the form of research projects rather than in the form of scholarships for research. ; W artykule omówione są wyzwania stojące przed realizacją programu Ministra Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego, czyli Narodowego Programu Rozwoju Humanistyki. Prezentowane zagadnienia odnoszą się do aktualnej edycji realizowanej w 2015 roku. Artykuł prezentuje trzy problematyczne kwestie, które wynikają z polityki naukowej realizowanej w Polsce: (1) sposób odróżniania dyscyplin humanistycznych od dyscyplin z nauk społecznych; (2) sposób oceny dorobku kierownika projektu w naukach humanistycznych oraz (3) interpretowanie terminu "narodowy" w nazwie ministerialnego programu. Zakończenie artykułu omawia konsekwencje polityki naukowej koncentrującej się na finansowaniu projektów a nie na finansowaniu długoletnich badań. ; Artykuł powstał w ramach prac grupy badawczej Scientometrics. Polish Research Group (http://scientometrics.amu.edu.pl) realizującej projekt pt. "Współczesna polska humanistyka wobec wyzwań naukometrii" finansowany ze środków Narodowego Programu Rozwoju Humanistyki, numer decyzji 0057/NPHR3/H11/82/2014.

The aim of the present article is to discuss several consequences of the Open Science from a perspective of science communication and philosophy of communication. Apart from the purely communicative and philosophical issues, the paper deals with the questions that concern the science popularization process through social media (especially Twitter and blogs). The article consists of three sections: the first one suggests a definition of science communication and social media, the second examines the transformation of science in the Age of the Internet and considers the influence of social media on science communication, the third and final one presents some case studies and philosophical observations. The most important conclusion to be reached here is that the social media have changed science and science communication. Twitter and blogs as novelty tools of science communication can be useful and meaningful for both science and society. Furthermore, social media can be used to facilitate broader involvement of citizens in the discussion about science.

This Handbook provides a comprehensive overview of current developments, issues and good practices regarding assessment in social science research. It pays particular attention to the challenges in evaluation policies in the social sciences, as well as to the specificities of publishing in the area.

Purpose: This study aims to present the key systemic changes in the Polish book evaluation model to focus on the publisher list, as inspired by the Norwegian Model. Design/methodology/approach: In this study we reconstruct the framework of the 2010 and 2018 models of book evaluation in Poland within the performance-based research funding system. Findings: For almost 20 years the book evaluation system in Poland has been based on the verification of various technical criteria (e.g. length of the book). The new 2018 model is based on the principle of prestige inheritance (a book is worth as much as its publisher is) and is inspired by the publisher list used in the Norwegian Model. In this paper, we argue that this solution may be a more balanced policy instrument than the previous 2010 model in which neither the quality of the publisher nor the quality of the book played any role in the evaluation. Research limitations: We work from the framework of the 2018 model of book evaluation specified in the law on higher education and science from 20 July 2018, as implementation acts are not available yet. Practical implications: This study may provide a valuable point of reference on how structural reforms in the research evaluation model were implemented on a country level. The results of this study may be interesting to policy makers, stakeholders and researchers focused on science policy. Originality/value: This is the very first study that presents the new framework of the Polish research evaluation model and policy instruments for scholarly book evaluation. We describe what motivated policy makers to change the book evaluation model, and what arguments were explicitly raised to argue for the new solution. ; This work was supported by the DIALOG Program [grant name "Research into Excellence Patterns in Science and Art"] financed by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland.

This article discusses the transformations of Polish journals caused by the Polish Journal Ranking evaluation system. We focused on the internationalization of journals in the social sciences and humanities (N = 801), with the goal of investigating how science policy has transformed editorial practices at Polish journals. We used a mixed-method approach involving both one-way analysis of variance, two-way mixed design analysis of variance, and semi-structured interviews. Our findings showed that science policy has transformed editorial practices, but that there is no actual internationalization in Polish social sciences and humanities journals. Rather, there is only the ostensible internationalization that manifests in "gaming" the journal evaluation system. We found that the editors of Polish journals do not discuss the challenges of internationalization, and implement only those internationalization practices that are explicitly required in the system regulations. We conclude with recommendations for how to motivate the internationalization of journals and stem the corruption of parameters measuring internationalization.

Jednym z problemów współczesnego środowiska akademickiego jest zrozumienie różnic pomiędzy uznanymi czasopismami naukowymi a tzw. czasopismami drapieżnymi. Podczas gdy osoby kształtujące politykę naukową i menedżerowie nauki uważają czasopisma indeksowane w popularnych indeksach cytowań, takich jak Web of Science czy Scopus, za rzetelne, to do identyfikacji drapieżnych czasopism używają dwóch czarnych list (tzw. lista Bealla i lista Cabell's), z których jedna nie jest aktualizowana od kilku lat. Głównym celem naszego artykułu jest pokazanie, jak czasopisma uznane za rzetelne podnoszą widoczność artykułów opublikowanych w czasopismach znajdujących się na czarnych listach. W tym celu przebadaliśmy 65 czasopism z nauk społecznych znajdujących się na czarnych listach oraz 2338 czasopism indeksowanych przez Web of Science, które cytowały te czasopisma. Przeanalizowaliśmy 3234 artykuły z czasopism znajdujących się na czarnych listach oraz 5964 artykuły (6750 cytowań) z czasopism indeksowanych w Web of Science. Nasze wyniki pokazują, że 13% artykułów z czarnych list było cytowanych przez czasopisma z Web of Science, a 37% cytowań pochodziło z czasopism z impact factor. Okazuje się, że nie ma istotnej zależności między impact factor a liczbą cytowań w czasopismach z czarnej listy, mimo że jest on jest wykorzystywany przez osoby kształtujące politykę naukową do określania poziomu czasopism. Z drugiej strony należy wziąć pod uwagę jako czynnik wyjaśniający kraj i praktyki autocytowania stosowane w czasopismach.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyze the evolution in terms of shares of scholarly book publications in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) in five European countries, i.e. Flanders (Belgium), Finland, Norway, Poland and Slovenia. In addition to aggregate results for the whole of the social sciences and the humanities, the authors focus on two well-established fields, namely, economics & business and history. Design/methodology/approach – Comprehensive coverage databases of SSH scholarly output have been set up in Flanders (VABB-SHW), Finland (VIRTA), Norway (NSI), Poland (PBN) and Slovenia (COBISS). These systems allow to trace the shares of monographs and book chapters among the total volume of scholarly publications in each of these countries. Findings – As expected, the shares of scholarly monographs and book chapters in the humanities and in the social sciences differ considerably between fields of science and between the five countries studied. In economics & business and in history, the results show similar field-based variations as well as country variations. Most year-to-year and overall variation is rather limited. The data presented illustrate that book publishing is not disappearing from an SSH. Research limitations/implications – The results presented in this paper illustrate that the polish scholarly evaluation system has influenced scholarly publication patterns considerably, while in the other countries the variations are manifested only slightly. The authors conclude that generalizations like "performance-based research funding systems (PRFS) are bad for book publishing" are flawed. Research evaluation systems need to take book publishing fully into account because of the crucial epistemic and social roles it serves in an SSH.Originality/value – The authors present data on monographs and book chapters from five comprehensive coverage databases in Europe and analyze the data in view of the debates regarding the perceived detrimental effects of research evaluation systems on scholarly book publishing. The authors show that there is little reason to suspect a dramatic decline of scholarly book publishing in an SSH. ; This work is conducted within the framework of the COST action "European Network for Research Evaluation in the Social Sciences and Humanities" (ENRESSH, CA15137, enressh.eu). Tim Engels thanks the Flemish Government for its financial support to the Centre for R&D Monitoring (ECOOM).

This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland (https://www.gov.pl/nauka/) within the DIALOG Programme: the project title 'Research into Excellence Patterns in Science and Art'. Tim Engels and Raf Guns thank the Flemish government for its funding of the Center for R&D Monitoring (ECOOM). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. ; This article discusses the open-identity label, i.e., the practice of disclosing reviewers' names in published scholarly books, a common practice in Central and Eastern European countries. This study's objective is to verify whether the open-identity label is a type of peer-review label (like those used in Finland and Flanders, i.e., the Flemish part of Belgium), and as such, whether it can be used as a delineation criterion in various systems used to evaluate scholarly publications. We have conducted a two-phase sequential explanatory study. In the first phase, interviews with 20 of the 40 largest Polish publishers of scholarly books were conducted to investigate how Polish publishers control peer reviews and whether the open-identity label can be used to identify peer-reviewed books. In the other phase, two questionnaires were used to analyze perceptions of peer-review and open-identity labelling among authors (n = 600) and reviewers (n = 875) of books published by these 20 publishers. Integrated results allowed us to verify publishers' claims concerning their peer-review practices. Our findings reveal that publishers actually control peer reviews by providing assessment criteria to reviewers and sending reviews to authors. Publishers rarely ask for permission to disclose reviewers' names, but it is obvious to reviewers that this practice of disclosing names is part of peer reviewing. This study also shows that only the names of reviewers who accepted manuscripts for publication are disclosed. Thus, most importantly, our analysis shows that the open-identity label that Polish publishers use is a type of peer-review label like those used in Flanders and Finland, and as such, it can be used to identify peer-reviewed scholarly books.

Acknowledgement: This article is based on work from COST Action 15137 European Network for Research Evaluation in the SSH (ENRESSH) and supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology). In this paper, we pursue two main objectives. First, we review the relevant literature and present it according to a theoretical framework that combines structural perspectives and consideration for individual agency, to allow us a better understanding of the role played by senior academics in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) in the implementation of the different policies that concern the production, the dissemination and the evaluation of research, including impact related policies. Indeed the academics' negotiating power of the impact agenda – as it is currently promoted by European policy makers (see e.g. European Commission 2018) and encompasses the impact on policy making, economy as well as the environment and society – cannot be understood in isolation of their perception and attitudes towards the broader political changes that affect the practice of academic research. Secondly we discuss some preliminary results from the interviews we have conducted in the context of the COST ENRESSH action with 16 European senior sociologists active in eight European countries, focusing here on their perceptions and attitudes towards the impact agenda. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/published

This article is based on work from COST Action 15137 European Network for Research Evaluation in the SSH (ENRESSH) and supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology). ; In this paper, we pursue two main objectives. First, we review the relevant literature and present it according to a theoretical framework that combines structural perspectives and consideration for individual agency, to allow us a better understanding of the role played by senior academics in the social sciences and humanities (SSH) in the implementation of the different policies that concern the production, the dissemination and the evaluation of research, including impact related policies. Indeed the academics' negotiating power of the impact agenda – as it is currently promoted by European policy makers (see e.g. European Commission 2018) and encompasses the impact on policy making, economy as well as the environment and society – cannot be understood in isolation of their perception and attitudes towards the broader political changes that affect the practice of academic research. Secondly we discuss some preliminary results from the interviews we have conducted in the context of the COST ENRESSH action with 16 European senior sociologists active in eight European countries, focusing here on their perceptions and attitudes towards the impact agenda.