Details

PDF BIBTEX RIS

Title

Negatywne oddziaływanie polityki ewaluacyjnej jednostek naukowych na jakość polskiej nauki. Perspektywa Mertonowskiego etosu naukowego

Journal title

Studia Socjologiczne

Yearbook

2024

Issue

No 1

Affiliation

Kulikowski, Konrad : Politechnika Łódzka

Authors

Kulikowski, Konrad

Keywords

socjologia nauki ; zarządzanie nauką ; etos naukowy ; normy w nauce ; ewaluacja jednostek naukowych

Divisions of PAS

Nauki Humanistyczne i Społeczne

Coverage

55-79

Publisher

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

Bibliography

  1. Adler, Nancy J., Anne-Wil Harzing. 2009. When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8, 1: 72-95. DOI: 10.5465/amle.2009.37012181.
  2. Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment. 2022. Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment. https://www.scienceeurope.org/our-resources/agreement-re- forming-research-assessment/ Dostęp: 22.06.2023.
  3. Aguinis, Herman, Chailin Cummings, Ravi S. Ramani, Thomas G. Cummings. 2020. “An A is an A”: The new bottom line for valuing academic research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 34, 1: 135-154. DOI: 10.5465/amp.2017.0193.
  4. Ajdukiewicz, Kazimierz. 2020. O wolności nauki. Nauka, 2: 7-24. DOI: 10.24425/ nauka.2020.132629.
  5. Alberts, Bruce. 2013. Impact factor distortions. Science, 340, 6134: 787-787. DOI: 10.1126/science.1240319.
  6. Amanatidis, Anestis. 2023. Research(er) assessment that considers open science. Leiden Madtrics. https://www.leidenmadtrics.nl/articles/researcher-assessment-that- considers-open-science.
  7. Anderson, Melissa S., Emily A. Ronning, Raymond De Vries, Brian C. Martinson. 2007. The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13, 4: 437-461. DOI: 10.1007/s11948-007-9042-5.
  8. Anderson, Melissa S., Emily A. Ronning, Raymond Vries, Brian C. Martinson. 2010. Extending the Mertonian norms: Scientists’ subscription to norms of research. The Journal of Higher Education, 81, 3: 366-393. DOI: 10.1080/0022 1546.2010.11779057.
  9. Antonakis, John, Rafael Lalive. 2008. Quantifying scholarly impact: IQp versus the Hirsch h. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 6: 956-969. DOI: 10.1002/asi.20802.
  10. Argento, Daniela, Dorota Dobija, Giuseppe Grossi. 2020. The disillusion of calculative practices in academia. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 17, 1: 1-17. DOI: 10.1108/QRAM-12-2019-0130
  11. Audretsch, David, Christian Fisch, Chiara Franzoni, Paul P. Momtaz, Silvio Vismara. 2023. Academic Freedom and Innovation: A Research Note. http://dx.doi. org/10.2139/ssrn.4384419.
  12. Baccini, Alberto, Giuseppe De Nicolao, Eugenio Petrovich. 2019.Citation gaming induced by bibliometric evaluation: A country-level comparative analysis. PLoS One, 14, 9: e0221212. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221212.
  13. Belluz, Julia, Steven, Hoffman. 2015. Let’s stop pretending peer review works. https:// www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9865086/peer-review-science-problems.
  14. Benjamin, Daniel J., James O. Berger, Magnus Johannesson, Brian A. Nosek, E-J. Wagenmakers, Richard Berk, Kenneth A. Bollen et al. 2018. Redefine statistical significance. Nature Human Behaviour, 2, 1: 6-10. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-017-0189-z.
  15. Bieliński, Jacek, Aldona Tomczyńska. 2019. Etos nauki we współczesnej Polsce. Nauka i Szkolnictwo Wyższe, 1, 53-54: 219-250. DOI: 10.14746//nisw.2019.1-2.7. 
  16. Bollen, Kenneth A., Judea Pearl. 2013. Eight myths about causality and structural equation models. Handbook of causal analysis for social research. In: S.L. Morgan, ed. Handbook of Causal Analysis for Social Research. Springer, 301-328.
  17. Brembs, Björn, Katherine Button, Marcus Munafo. 2013. Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7: 291. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291.
  18. Brembs, Björn. 2019. Reliable novelty: New should not trump true. PLoS Biology, 17, 2, e3000117. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000117.
  19. Brzeziński, Jerzy Marian. 2015. Jeżeli oceniać (jednostki naukowe i badaczy), to JAK oceniać? Przeciwko IF, a za peer review. Nowotwory. Journal of Oncology, 65, 6: 476-480. DOI: 10.5603MTO.2015.0093.
  20. Brzeziński, Jerzy Marian. 2021. Dysfunkcjonalne oddziaływanie państwa w nauce. Studia Socjologiczno-Polityczne. Seria Nowa, 2, 15: 73-92. DOI: 10.26343/0585556X21504.
  21. Buranyi, Stephen. 2017. Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/ jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science.
  22. Callaway, Ewen. 2016. Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against controversial metric. Nature, 535, 7611: 210-211. DOI: 10.1038/nature.2016.20224.
  23. Carlson, Kevin D., Jinpei Wu. 2012. The illusion of statistical control: Control variable practice in management research. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 3: 413-435. DOI: 10.1177/1094428111428817.
  24. CBOS. 2019. Które zawody poważamy?, Komunikat z badań, nr 157, Centrum Badania Opinii Społecznej, Warszawa. https://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.PO- L/2019/K_157_19.PDF.
  25. Chu, Johan, James Evans. 2021. Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118, 41: e2021636118. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2021636118.
  26. Cohen, Barak. 2017. How should novelty be valued in science?. eLife 6, e28699. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.28699.
  27. Coles Nicholas. 2020. The Red Team Challenge (Part 1): Why I placed a bounty on my own research. The 100% CI. https://www.the100.ci/2020/06/29/red-team-part-1/.
  28. Corneille, Olivier, Jo Havemann, Emma L. Henderson, Hans IJzerman, Ian Hussey, Jean-Jacques Orban de Xivry, Lee Jussim, Nicholas P. Holmes, Artur Pilacinski, Brice Beffara, Harriet Carroll, Nicholas Otieno Outa, Peter Lush, Leon D. Lotter. 2023. Beware ‘persuasive communication devices’ when writing and reading scientific articles. Elife, 12, e88654. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.88654.
  29. Cortina, Jose, Jennifer Green, Kathleen Keeler, Robert Vandenberg. 2017. Degrees of freedom in SEM: Are we testing the models that we claim to test?. Organizational Research Methods, 20, 3: 350-378. DOI: 10.1177/1094428116676345.
  30. Council of the European Union. 2023. Council conclusions on high-quality, transparent, open, trustworthy and equitable scholarly publishing. https://data.consilium. europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9616-2023-INIT/en/pdf. Dostęp: 22.06.2023 
  31. Curry, Stephen. 2018. Let’s move beyond the rhetoric: it’s time to change how we judge research. Nature, 554, 7690: 147-148. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-018-01642-w.
  32. Czarnik, Szymon, Jarosław Górniak, Magdalena Jelonek, Krzysztof Kasparek. 2022. Bilans Kapitału Ludzkiego 2022/2021 Raport z badania ludności w wieku 18-69 lat. Polska Agencja Rozwoju Przedsiębiorczości, Uniwersytet Jagielloński. https:// www.parp.gov.pl/storage/publications/pdf/12-BKL-WCAG_ost_08_02_2023.pdf. Dostęp: 20.01.2024.
  33. De Rond, Mark, Alan N. Miller. 2005. Publish or perish: bane orboon of academic life? Journal of Management Inquiry, 14, 4: 321-329. DOI: 10.1177/10564926052768.
  34. DORA. 2018. The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, https://sfdora. org/read/read-the-declaration-polish/ Dostęp: 22.06.2023.
  35. European Research Council. 2022. ERC plans for 2022 announced. https://erc.eu ropa. eu/news/erc-2022-work-programme Dostęp: 22.06.2023.
  36. Fang, Ferric, Arturo Casadevall. 2015. Competitive science: is competition ruining science? Infection and Immunity, 83, 4: 1229-1233. DOI: 10.1128/IAI.02939-14.
  37. Fazackerley, Anna. 2023. ‘Too greedy’: mass walkout at global science journal over ‘unethical’ fees. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/may/07/too-greedy- mass-walkout-at-global-science-journal-over-unethical-fees.
  38. Fong, Eric, Ravi Patnayakuni, Allen Wilhite, Allen. 2023. Accommodating coercion: authors, editors, and citations. Research Policy, 52, 5: 104754. DOI: 10.1016/j. respol.2023.104754.
  39. Frey, Bruno. 2003. Publishing as prostitution?-Choosing between one’s own ideas and academic success. Public Choice, 116: 205-223. DOI: 10.1023/A:1024208701874.
  40. Garfield, Eugene. 2006. The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. Jama, 295, 1: 90-93. DOI: 10.1001/jama.295.1.90.
  41. Groen-Xu, Moqi, Gregor Bös, Pedro A. Teixeira, Thomas Voigt, Bernhard Knapp. 2023. Short-term incentives of research evaluations: Evidence from the UK Research Excellence Framework. Research Policy, 52, 6: 104729. DOI: 10.1016/j. respol.2023.104729.
  42. Hansson, Sven Ove. 2021. Science and Pseudo-Science. In: E. N. Zalta, ed. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/ archives/fall2021/entries/pseudo-science/.
  43. Hicks, Diana, Paul Wouters, Ludo Waltman, Sarah de Rijcke, Ismael Rafols. 2015. Bibliometrics: the Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520, 7548: 429431. DOI: 10.1038/520429a.
  44. Huff, Tooby E. 2007. Some historical roots of the ethos of science. Journal of Classical Sociology, 7, 2: 193-210. DOI: /10.1177/1468795X07078037.
  45. Ioannidis, John, Angelo Maria Pezzullo, Stefania Boccia. 2023. The rapid growth of mega-journals: threats and opportunities. JAMA, 329, 15: 1253-1254. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.3212.
  46. Kerr, Steven. 1975. On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 4: 769-783.
  47. Kim, So Young, Yoonhoo Kim. 2018. The ethos of science and its correlates: An empirical analysis of scientists’ endorsement of Mertonian norms. Science, Technology and Society, 23, 1: 1-24. DOI: 10.1177/0971721817744438.
  48. Kisiel, Przemysław. 2011. Ethos nauki i uczonego w świetle koncepcji nauki J. Goćkowskiego. Zagadnienia Naukoznawstwa, 2, 188: 203-215.
  49. Knöchelmann, Marcel. 2023. Governance by output reduces humanities scholarship to monologue. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2023/07/03/ governance-by-output-reduces-humanities-scholarship-to-monologue/.
  50. Kulczycki, Emanuel, Ewa A. Rozkosz, Krystian Szadkowski, Kinga Ciereszko, Marek Hołowiecki, Franciszek Krawczyk. 2021. Local use of metrics for the research assessment of academics: The case of Poland. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 43, 4: 435-53. DOI: 10.1080/1360080X.2020.1846243.
  51. Kulikowski, Konrad, Emil Antipow. 2020. Niezamierzone konsekwencje punktozy jako wartości kulturowej polskiej społeczności akademickiej. Studia Socjologiczne, 238, 3: 207-236. DOI: 10.24425/sts.2020.132476.
  52. Kulikowski, Konrad, Sylwia Przytuła, Łukasz Sułkowski. 2023. Podsumowanie wyników badania „Jak pracownicy naukowi oceniają systemy oceny okresowej, którym podlegają”. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/6ebw2.
  53. Lorsch, Jon. 2017. Avoiding Hype and Enhancing Awareness in Science Communication NIGMS Feedback Loop Blog - National Institute of General Medical Sciences https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/2017/09/avoiding-hype-and-enhancing-awareness-in- science-communication/.
  54. Macfarlane, Bruce. 2023. The DECAY of Merton’s scientific norms and the new academic ethos. Oxford Review of Education. DOI: 10.1080/03054985.2023.2243814.
  55. Merton, Robert King. 1973. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press.
  56. Millar, Neil, Bojan Batalo, Brian Budgell. 2022. Trends in the Use of Promotional Language (Hype) in National Institutes of Health Funding Opportunity Announcements, 1992-2020. JAMA Network Open, 5, 11, e2243221-e2243221.
  57. Ministerstwo Edukacji i Nauki. 2020. Ewaluacja. https://www.gov.pl/web/edukacja-i- -nauka/ewaluacja Dostęp: 22.06.2023.
  58. Mitroff, Ian. 1974. Norms and counter-norms in a select group of the Apollo moon scientists: A case study of the ambivalence of scientists. American Sociological Review, 39, 4: 579-595. DOI: 10.2307/2094423.
  59. Muller, Jerry. 2018. The tyranny of metrics. Princeton University Press.
  60. Mulkay, Michael J. 1976. Norms and ideology in science. Social Science Information, 15, 4-5: 637-656. DOI: 10.1177/0539018476015004.
  61. Nosek, Brian, Jeffrey Spies, Matt Motyl. 2012. Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 6: 615-631. DOI: 10.1177/1745691612459058.
  62. Obwieszczenie Ministra Edukacji i Nauki. 2022. Obwieszczenie Ministra Edukacji i Nauki z dnia 23 lutego 2022 r w sprawie ogłoszenia jednolitego tekstu rozporządzenia Ministra Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego w sprawie ewaluacji jakości działalności naukowej. Dz.U. 2022 poz. 661. https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDe- tails.xsp?id=WDU20220000661. Dostęp: 22.06.2023.
  63. Paruzel-Czachura, Mariola, Lidia Baran, Zbigniew Spendel. 2021. Publish or be ethical? Publishing pressure and scientific misconduct in research. Research Ethics, 17, 3: 375- 397. DOI: 10.1177/1747016120980562. 
  64. Paulus, Frieder, Nicole Cruz, Soren Krach. 2018. The impact factor fallacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 9: 1487. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01487.
  65. Prawo o szkolnictwie wyższym i nauce. 2018. Ustawa z dnia 20 lipca 2018 r. Prawo o szkolnictwie wyższym i nauce, Art.265, §4. Dz.U. 2018 poz. 1668. https://isap. sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20180001668 Dostęp: 22.06.2023.
  66. Royal Society. 2023. Résumé for Researchers. https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/ projects/research-culture/tools-for-support/resume-for-researchers/.
  67. Sabel, Bernhard, Emely Knaack, Gerd Gigerenzer, Mirela Bilc. 2023. Publications in Biomedical Science: Red-flagging Method Indicates Mass Production. medRxiv. DOI: 10.1101/2023.05.06.23289563.
  68. Severin, Anna, Michaela Strinzel, Matthias Egger, Tiago Barros, Alexander Sokolov, Julia Vilstrup Mouatt, Stefan Müller. 2022. Journal Impact Factor and Peer Review Thoroughness and Helpfulness: A Supervised Machine Learning Study. arXiv reprint. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2207.09821.
  69. Shore, Cris, Susan Wright. 2015. Audit culture revisited: Rankings, ratings, and the reassembling of socjety. Current Anthropology, 56, 3: 421-44. DOI: 10.1086/681534.
  70. Simons, Kai. 2008. The misused impact factor. Science, 322, 5899: 165-165. DOI: 10.1126/science.1165316.
  71. Smaldino, Paul, Richard McElreath. 2016. The natural selection of bad science. Royal Society Open Science, 3, 9: 160384. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.160384.
  72. Smith, Richard. 2006. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 99, 4: 178-182. DOI: 10.1177/ 014107680609900414.
  73. Stein, Carolyn, Ryan Hill.2021. Race to the bottom: How competition to publish first can hurt scientific quality. Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR), December 2021. https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/race-bottom- how-competition-publish-first-can-hurt-scientific-quality.
  74. Sztompka, Piotr. 2007. Trust in science: Robert K. Merton’s inspirations. Journal of Classical Sociology, 7, 2: 211-220. DOI: 10.1177/1468795X07078038.
  75. Sztompka, Piotr. 2014. Uniwersytet współczesny; zderzenie dwóch kultur. Nauka, 1: 7-18.
  76. Tiokhin, Leonid, Minhua Yan, Thomas Morgan. 2021. Competition for priority harms the reliability of science, but reforms can help. Nature Human Behaviour, 5, 7: 857-867. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-020-01040-1.
  77. Towpik, Edward. 2015. IF-mania: Journal Impact Factor is not a proper mean to assess the quality of research, individual researchers, nor scientific institutions. Nowotwory. Journal of Oncology, 65, 6: 465-475. DOI: 10.5603MTO.2015.0092.
  78. UK Research and Innovation. 2023. Early decisions made for REF 2028 https://www. ukri.org/news/early-decisions-made-for-ref-2028/.
  79. Van Dalen, Hendrik P. 2021. How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: The case of economists. Scientometrics, 126, 2: 1675-1694. DOI: 10.1007/s11192020-03786-x.
  80. Van Noorden, Richard. 2013. Open access: The true cost of science publishing. Nature, 495: 426-429. DOI: 10.1038/495426a. 
  81. Vinkers, Christiaan, Joeri Tijdink, Willem Otte. 2015. Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014: retrospective analysis. BMJ, 351. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h6467.
  82. Wang, Dashun, Chaoming Song, Albert-Laszló Barabasi. 2013. Quantifying long-term scientific impact. Science, 342, 6154: 127-132. DOI: 10.1126/science.1237825.
  83. Wang, Jian, Reinhilde Veugelers, Paula Stephan. 2017. Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators. Research Policy, 46, 8: 1416-1436. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2017.06.006.
  84. Wasserstein, Ronald L., Nicole A. Lazar. 2016. The ASA statement on p-values: context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician, 70, 2: 129-133. DOI: 10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108.
  85. Wróblewski, Andrzej Kajetan. 2011. Misja uniwersytetów: poszukiwanie prawdy czy pogoń za zyskiem? Nauka, 3: 51-59.
  86. Wysocki, Anna C., Katherine M. Lawson, Mijke Rhemtulla. 2022. Statistical control requires causal justification. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 5, 2. DOI: 10.1177/25152459221095823.

Date

2024.03.21

Type

Artykuły / Articles

Identifier

DOI: 10.24425/sts.2024.149316
×