Details

PDF BIBTEX RIS

Title

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

Journal title

Studia Socjologiczne

Yearbook

2024

Issue

No 3

Authors

Kulikowski, Konrad

Affiliation

Kulikowski, Konrad : Politechnika Łódzka

Divisions of PAS

Nauki Humanistyczne i Społeczne

Coverage

189-199

Publisher

Instytut Filozofii i Socjologii PAN ; Komitet Socjologii PAN ; Wydział Socjologii UW

Bibliography

  1. 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
  2. Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment (2022). Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment. https://www.scienceeurope.org/our-resources/agreement-reforming-research-assessment/
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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/
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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/
  14. doRa (2012). San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. https://sfdora.org/read/
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. Kenny, J. (2017). Academic work and performativity. Higher Education, 74(5), 897–913. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0084-y
  20. Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management journal, 18(4), 769–783.
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press.
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. RADON (2024). Zgłoszenia publikacji z lat 2017–2021 do polskiej bibliografii naukowej https://radon.nauka.gov.pl/raporty/publikacje_zgloszenia_2017_2021
  30. 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.
  31. 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
  32. Science Europe. (2020). Position Statement and Recommendations on Research Assessment Processes. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4916156
  33. 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
  34. Strathern, M. (1997). ‘Improving ratings’: Audit in the British University system. European Review, 5(3), 305–321. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1234-981X(199707)5:3305::AID-EURO184>3.0.CO;2-4
  35. The Cost of Knowledge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cost_of_Knowledge
  36. 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
  37. Van Noorden, R. (2013). Open access: The true cost of science publishing. Nature, 495(7442), 425–429. https://doi.org/10.1038/495426a

Date

2024.09.23

Type

Dyskuje, polemiki / Discussion

Identifier

DOI: 10.24425/sts.2024.151939
×