Polityka ewaluacji jednostek naukowych – naprawiać czy wyrzucić? Odpowiedź na polemikę

• Authors: Kulikowski Konrad
• Languages of publication: PL
• Publisher: Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences
• Journal: Studia Socjologiczne
• Year: 2024
• Issue: 3
• Pages: 189–199

Contributors

author

Kulikowski Konrad

• Politechnika Łódzka

References

• Adler, N. J., Harzing, A. W. (2009). When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(1), 72–95. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2009.37012181
• Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment (2022). Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment. https://www.scienceeurope.org/our-resources/agreement-reforming-research-assessment/
• Aguinis, H., Cummings, C., Ramani, R. S., Cummings, T. G. (2020). “An A Is An A”: The New Bottom Line For Valuing Academic Research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34(1), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2017.0193
• Blom, R., Kruyen, P. M., Van der Heijden, B. I., Van Thiel, S. (2020). One HRM fits all? A meta-analysis of the effects of HRM practices in the public, semipublic, and private sector. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(1), 3–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X18773492
• Borrego, Á. (2023). Article processing charges for open access journal publishing: A review. Learned Publishing, 36(3), 359–378. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1558
• Buranyi, S. (2017). Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science
• Boulton, J., Koley, M. (2024). More is not better: the developing crisis of scientific publishing. International Science Council. https://council.science/blog/more-is-not-better-the-developing-crisis-of-scientific-publishing/
• Campbell, D. T. (1979). Assessing the impact of planned social change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2(1), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(79)90048-X
• Chu, J. S., Evans, J. A. (2021). Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(41), e2021636118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2021636118
• Curry, S. (2018). Let’s move beyond the rhetoric: it’s time to change how we judge research. Nature, 554(7690), 147–148. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-01642-w
• Curry, S., de Rijcke, S., Hatch, A., Pillay, D. (Gansen), van der Weijden, I., Wilsdon, J. (2022b). The changing role of funders in responsible research assessment: Progress, obstacles and the way ahead (RoRI Working Paper No.3) (s. 2449096 Bytes). Research on Research Institute. https://doi.org/10.6084/M9.FIGSHARE.13227914
• Curry, S., Gadd, E., Wilsdon, J. (2022a). Harnessing the Metric Tide: indicators, infrastructures & priorities for UK responsible research assessment. Report of The Metric Tide Revisited Panel, December 2022. ISBN 978-1-7397102-1-7. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21701624
• De Rijcke, S., Cosentino, C., Crewe, R., D’Ippoliti, C., Motala-Timol, S., Binti A Rahman, N., Rovelli, L., Vaux, D., Yupeng, Y. (2023). The Future of Research Evaluation: A Synthesis of Current Debates and Developments. Centre for Science Futures. https://council.science/publications/the-future-of-research-evaluation-a-synthesis-of-current-debates-and-developments/
• doRa (2012). San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. https://sfdora.org/read/
• Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., De Rijcke, S., Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429–431. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a
• Ioannidis, J. P., Pezzullo, A. M., Boccia, S. (2023). The rapid growth of mega-journals: threats and opportunities. Jama, 329(15), 1253–1254. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.3212
• Kairuz, T., Andriés, L., Nickloes, T., Truter, I. (2016). Consequences of KPIs and performance management in higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(6), 881–893. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-05-2015-0067
• Kallio, K.-M., Kallio, T. J., Tienari, J., Hyvönen, T. (2016). Ethos at stake: Performance management and academic work in universities. Human Relations, 69(3), 685–709. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715596802
• Kenny, J. (2017). Academic work and performativity. Higher Education, 74(5), 897–913. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0084-y
• Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management journal, 18(4), 769–783.
• Kulikowski, K. (2024). Negatywne oddziaływanie polityki ewaluacji jednostek naukowych na jakość polskiej nauki. Studia Socjologiczne, 252(1), 55–79. https://doi.org/10.24425/sts.2024.149316
• Kulikowski, K., Antipow, E. (2020). Niezamierzone konsekwencje punktozy jako wartości kulturowej polskiej społeczności akademickiej. Studia Socjologiczne, 238 (3), 207–236. https://doi.org/10.24425/sts.2020.132476
• Larivière, V., Sugimoto, C. R. (2019). The Journal Impact Factor: A Brief History, Critique, and Discussion of Adverse Effects. W: W. Glänzel, H. F. Moed, U. Schmoch, M. Thelwall (red.), Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators (s. 3–24). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_1
• Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press.
• Moher, D., Bouter, L., Kleinert, S., Glasziou, P., Sham, M. H., Barbour, V., Coriat, A.-M., Foeger, N., Dirnagl, U. (2020). The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity. PLOS Biology, 18(7), e3000737. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000737
• Nosek, B. A., Spies, J. R., Motyl, M. (2012). Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 615–631. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459058
• Ochsner, M., Kancewicz-Hoffman, N., Ma, L., Holm, J., Gedutis, A., Šima, K., Hug, S. E., Dewaele, A., Jong, S. D. (2020). ENRESSH Policy Brief Research Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12049314.v1
• Paulus, F. M., Cruz, N., Krach, S. (2018). The impact factor fallacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1487. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01487
• RADON (2024). Zgłoszenia publikacji z lat 2017–2021 do polskiej bibliografii naukowej https://radon.nauka.gov.pl/raporty/publikacje_zgloszenia_2017_2021
• Ramani, R. S., Aguinis, H., Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. (2022). Defining, measuring, and rewarding scholarly impact: Mind the level of analysis. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 21(3), 470–486.
• Sabel, B. A., Knaack, E., Gigerenzer, G., i Bilc, M. (2023). Fake publications in biomedical science: Red-flagging method indicates mass production. medRxiv, 2023– 05. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.05.06.23289563
• Science Europe. (2020). Position Statement and Recommendations on Research Assessment Processes. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4916156
• Shu, F., Liu, S., Larivière, V. (2022). China’s research evaluation reform: What are the consequences for global science?. Minerva, 60(3), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-022-09468-7
• Strathern, M. (1997). ‘Improving ratings’: Audit in the British University system. European Review, 5(3), 305–321. 3.0.CO;2-4"">https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1234-981X(199707)5:3305::AID-EURO184>3.0.CO;2-4
• The Cost of Knowledge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cost_of_Knowledge
• The International Network of Research Management (2023). The SCOPE Framework A five-stage process for evaluating research responsibly. University of Melbourne. https://doi.org/10.26188/21919527.V1
• Van Noorden, R. (2013). Open access: The true cost of science publishing. Nature, 495(7442), 425–429. https://doi.org/10.1038/495426a

Identifiers

DOI

doi: 10.24425/sts.2024.151939