Browsing by Author "Korytkowski, Przemysław"
Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Examining how country-level science policy shapes publication patterns: The case of Poland(2019-03-30) Korytkowski, Przemysław; Kulczycki, EmanuelThis country case study describes how science policy instruments are designed to shape publication patterns and identifies the changes in researchers’ productivity that can be observed over the period 2009–2016 in Poland by analysing data on 452,277 publications submitted to the country’s national research evaluation system. Our analysis reveals that policy instruments used in the country’s national research evaluation system, academic promotion procedures and competitive grants have increased the number of articles with an impact factor without compromising publication quality, as measured by a bibliometric indicator. Our findings highlight that only clear and stable incentives have influenced researchers’ publications. Therefore, patterns in scholarly book publications—for which regulations were not clear and stable—have not been significantly shaped by science policy.Item Publication counting methods for a national research evaluation exercise(2019) Korytkowski, Przemysław; Kulczycki, EmanuelIn this paper, we investigate the effects of using four methods of publication counting (complete, whole, fractional, square root fractional) and limiting the number of publications (at researcher and institution levels) on the results of a national research evaluation exercise across fields using Polish data. We use bibliographic information on 0.58 million publications from the 2013–2016 period. Our analysis reveals that the largest effects are in those fields within which a variety publication and cooperation patterns can be observed (e.g. in Physical sciences or History and archeology). We argue that selecting the publication counting method for national evaluation purposes needs to take into account the current situation in the given country in terms of the excellence of research outcomes, level of internal, external and international collaboration, and publication patterns in the various fields of sciences. Our findings show that the social sciences and humanities are not significantly influenced by the different publication counting methods and limiting the number of publications included in the evaluation, as publication patterns in these fields are quite different from those observed in the so-called hard sciences. When discussing the goals of any national research evaluation system, we should be aware that the ways of achieving these goals are closely related to the publication counting method, which can serve as incentives for certain publication practices.Item Redesigning the Model of Book Evaluation in the Polish Performance-based Research Funding System(2018) Kulczycki, Emanuel; Korytkowski, PrzemysławPurpose: This study aims to present the key systemic changes in the Polish book evaluation model to focus on the publisher list, as inspired by the Norwegian Model. Design/methodology/approach: In this study we reconstruct the framework of the 2010 and 2018 models of book evaluation in Poland within the performance-based research funding system. Findings: For almost 20 years the book evaluation system in Poland has been based on the verification of various technical criteria (e.g. length of the book). The new 2018 model is based on the principle of prestige inheritance (a book is worth as much as its publisher is) and is inspired by the publisher list used in the Norwegian Model. In this paper, we argue that this solution may be a more balanced policy instrument than the previous 2010 model in which neither the quality of the publisher nor the quality of the book played any role in the evaluation. Research limitations: We work from the framework of the 2018 model of book evaluation specified in the law on higher education and science from 20 July 2018, as implementation acts are not available yet. Practical implications: This study may provide a valuable point of reference on how structural reforms in the research evaluation model were implemented on a country level. The results of this study may be interesting to policy makers, stakeholders and researchers focused on science policy. Originality/value: This is the very first study that presents the new framework of the Polish research evaluation model and policy instruments for scholarly book evaluation. We describe what motivated policy makers to change the book evaluation model, and what arguments were explicitly raised to argue for the new solution.Item Researchers publishing monographs are more productive and more local‑oriented(2020) Kulczycki, Emanuel; Korytkowski, PrzemysławIn this study, we investigate what share of researchers publish monographs across fields, gender and seniority. We acquired data from the Polish current research information system (POL-on) containing metadata of about 1,031,141 peer-reviewed publications from 67,415 Polish researchers, including 30,185 monographs from 2013 to 2016. The data are aggregated at the researcher level, which allows us to shed new light on publication patterns in all fields. We show that scholars who publish monographs also publish journal articles at the same time. This pattern is observed in all dimensions, i.e. research fields, gender and seniority. However, substantial differences between the fields are observed. Moreover, we show that researchers who publish monographs are also more productive in terms of the number of publications than researchers who did not publish any monographs. This result is independent of the publication counting method, i.e. fractional or whole counting. At the same time, scholars who publish monographs are more local-oriented in terms of the publication channels they choose.Item What share of researchers publish monographs?(Edizioni Efesto, 2019) Kulczycki, Emanuel; Korytkowski, PrzemysławIn this study, we investigate what share of researchers publish monographs across fields, gender and seniority. We acquire data from the Polish current research information system, containing metadata about all publications by 67,415 Polish researchers, including 30,185 monographs and 638,779 articles from 2013-2016. The data are aggregated at the researcher level which allow us to shed new light on publication patterns in all fields, especially on monograph patterns which in previous studies have been investigated mostly in only the social sciences and humanities. The key finding of our study is twofold. Firstly, we show that scholars who publish monographs also publish journal articles at the same time. This pattern is observed in all dimensions, i.e. fields, gender and seniority. However, substantial differences between the fields are observed. Secondly, presenting the publication patterns at the researcher level allows us to argue that a monograph is the key publication channel for social sciences and humanities. The discussion summarizes our empirical findings and positions them in the light of other methods of data aggregation.Item 重新设计波兰基于绩效的科研资助体系中的 图书评价模型(2018) Kulczycki, Emanuel; Korytkowski, Przemysław摘要 目的:本研究旨在介绍专注于出版商列表的波兰图书评价模型的关键系统性变化， 该模型受到了挪威模型的启发。 方法:本研究在以绩效为基础的科研资助体系之内重建了波兰2010和2018图书评价 模型。 现实意义:近20年来，波兰的图书评价体系一直以核实各种技术标准(比如图书篇 幅)为基础。2018新模型基于声望继承原则(图书的价值与其出版商等同)，这种 做法受到了挪威模型中所使用的出版商列表的启发。本文认为相对于之前的2010模 型，本方案是一个更加平衡的政策工具，在2010模型中，出版商或图书的质量在评 价中没有发挥任何作用。 局限性:本研究从2018图书评价模型框架着手，该模型是2018年7月20日的高等教育 和科学法提出的，具体的实施法案尚未执行。 现实意义:本研究可以为国家层面实施的科研评价模型的结构性改革提供有价值的 参考。决策者、利益相关者以及关注科学政策的科研人员可能会对本研究成果感 兴趣。 原创性/价值:本研究首次展现了波兰科研评价模型的新框架以及学术图书评价的政 策工具。描述了促使决策者改变图书评价模型的动机，并介绍了针对新的方案进行 了哪些讨论。 关键词:图书评价;挪威模型;基于绩效的科研资助体系;波兰;出版商列表