In the text is analyzed the issue of the parametric evaluation of scientific journals. The author makes thesis (and justifies it), that the nature and methodological bases of this process will determine the quality of effects of works on the scientific journals evaluation and it’s further status. Whereas this evaluation has far-reaching consequences for the development of the science.

The paper formulates several critical observations about the official (established by Polish legal statutes) rules of evaluation scientific publications. These rules are based on so-called parameterization, that is, ascription of points to papers and books published by scientists. The criticism is made from the point of view of the humanities and social sciences, although some assertions have a more general character. Although the author shares the opinion that evaluation of science is necessary, he points out several disadvantages of parameterization. One of them consists in the fact that the ascription of points to publications uses a relatively weak scale, that is, based on the ordering relation. This feature essentially limits the range of mathematical operations admissible to results of measuring in such a way. This situation results in conventional character of parameterization, contrary to expectations that it successfully display the real value of scientific achievements. The paper illustrates this problem by concrete examples as well as shows that parameterization makes possible pathological cases stemming from political and world-view preferences.

Many millions of people around the world engage in science, so tools are necessary to support decisions about the directions of funding streams. In many countries bibliometric indicators are used for this purpose, which have become a practical "currency", enabling a simple and convenient valuation of a scientist or a scientific institution. Poland has a complicated system for evaluating, with weaknesses galore. Particular reservations concern the ranking list of scientific journals, which has been arbitrarily changed in 2021–2023 towards promoting domestic periodicals that do not stand international competition. Since December 2023 awareness of the cardinal weaknesses of the existing system of evaluating scientists has become widespread. A quick emergency solution was implemented to enable evaluation for the period 2022–2025 (as a result of mid-game rule modifications). However, rethinking of the future evaluation system is necessary. The author presents a roster of ideas related to the evaluation system and objective journal ranking (via bibliometric indices) in particular. A systematic measure reducing the probability of pathological development is badly needed.