This article discusses the Polish Journal Ranking, which is used in the research evaluation system in Poland. In 2015, the ranking, which represents all disciplines, allocated 17,437 journals into three lists: A, B, and C. The B list constitutes a ranking of Polish journals that are indexed neither in the Web of Science nor the European Reference Index for the Humanities. This ranking was built by evaluating journals in three dimensions: formal, bibliometric, and expert-based. We have analysed data on 2035 Polish journals from the B list. Our study aims to determine how an expert-based evaluation influenced the results of final evaluation. In our study, we used structural equation modelling, which is regression based, and we designed three pairs of theoretical models for three fields of science: (1) humanities, (2) social sciences, and (3) engineering, natural sciences, and medical sciences. Each pair consisted of the full model and the reduced model (i.e., the model without the expert-based evaluation). Our analysis revealed that the multidimensional evaluation of local journals should not rely only on the bibliometric indicators, which are based on the Web of Science or Scopus. Moreover, we have shown that the expert-based evaluation plays a major role in all fields of science. We conclude with recommendations that the formal evaluation should be reduced to verifiable parameters and that the expert-based evaluation should be based on common guidelines for the experts.

We investigate the state of multilingualism across the social sciences and humanities (SSH) using a comprehensive data set of research outputs from seven European countries

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.

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.

No abstract

No abstract

W artykule omawiamy wzór na nowy polski wskaźnik bibliometryczny, tj. Polski Współczynnik Wpływu, z perspektywy nauk humanistycznych. Badaniom poddaliśmy dwa prestiżowe polskie czasopisma humanistyczne („Pamiętnik Literacki” i  „Diametros – An Online Journal of Philosophy”), aby sprawdzić poprawność założeń przyjętych dla Polskiego Współczynnika Wpływu. Przeanalizowaliśmy wszystkie artykuły opublikowane w latach 2004–2014 (odpowiednio: N = 850, N = 555) i wszystkie prace w nich zacytowane (odpowiednio: N = 21 805, N = 8 298). W interpretacji wyników przyjęliśmy założenie o odmiennej kulturze cytowań w różnych grupach nauk. Wyniki pokazują, że wzór na Polski Współczynnik Wpływu nie bierze pod uwagę najczęściej cytowanych źródeł w humanistyce, tj. książek i rozdziałów. Poza tym wiele cytowań nie zostanie uwzględnionych przy wyliczaniu Polskiego Współczynnika Wpływu ze względu na ich wiek, ponieważ będą brane pod uwagę prace co najwyżej pięcioletnie lub nowsze. Zbadaliśmy wiek cytowanych tekstów i pokazaliśmy, że większość z cytowań jest starsza niż 5 lat (odpowiednio: 84,2% oraz 73,2%). Nasza analiza pokazuje, że Polski Współczynnik Wpływu nie jest odpowiednim narzędziem do bibliometrycznej oceny czasopism humanistycznych w Polsce. Artykuł kończy dyskusja nad możliwościami ulepszenia tego nowego wskaźnika bibliometrycznego.

This article discusses the use of bibliometric indicators for the assessment of individual academics. We focused on national indicators for the assessment of productivity in Polish higher education institutions. We analysed whether institutions (N = 768) adopted national templates for their own sets of criteria for intra-institutional evaluations. This study combined an analysis of internal policy documents with semistructured interviews with deans from institutions in different fields of science. Our findings showed that, despite their high levels of institutional autonomy, the majority of institutions adopted the national criteria for the evaluation of individual academics. This article concludes with recommendations for reducing the negative consequences of local use of national indicators for the assessment of researchers.