Book contents
- The Evaluation Game
- The Evaluation Game
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- 1 Evaluation as Power
- 2 Economization and Metricization
- 3 Untold Histories of Research Evaluation
- 4 The Diversity of Evaluative Powers
- 5 Players and the Stakes
- 6 Playing the Evaluation Game
- Conclusions
- References
- Index
- References
References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 April 2023
Book contents
- The Evaluation Game
- The Evaluation Game
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- 1 Evaluation as Power
- 2 Economization and Metricization
- 3 Untold Histories of Research Evaluation
- 4 The Diversity of Evaluative Powers
- 5 Players and the Stakes
- 6 Playing the Evaluation Game
- Conclusions
- References
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Evaluation GameHow Publication Metrics Shape Scholarly Communication, pp. 197 - 220Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Aagaard, K. (2015). How incentives trickle down: Local use of a national bibliometric indicator system. Science and Public Policy, 42(5), 725–737. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu087Google Scholar
Aagaard, K. (2018). Performance-based research funding in Denmark: The adoption and translation of the Norwegian model. Journal of Data and Information Science, 3(4), 20–30. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2018-0018Google Scholar
Aagaard, K., & Schneider, J. W. (2017). Some considerations about causes and effects in studies of performance-based research funding systems. Journal of Informetrics, 11(3), 923–926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.05.018Google Scholar
Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Di Costa, F. (2016). The effect of a country’s name in the title of a publication on its visibility and citability. Scientometrics, 109(3), 1895–1909. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2120-1Google Scholar
Agar, J. (2019). Science policy under thatcher. UCL Press. https://doi.org/10.14324/111.9781787353411Google Scholar
Aitkenhead, D. (2013, December 6). Peter Higgs: I wouldn’t be productive enough for today’s academic system. The Guardian. www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/06/peter-higgs-boson-academic-systemGoogle Scholar
Allen, A. (2015). The fantastic laboratory of Dr. Weigl: How two brave scientists battled typhus and sabotaged the Nazis. W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Alrawadieh, Z. (2018). Publishing in predatory tourism and hospitality journals: Mapping the academic market and identifying response strategies. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 20(1), 72–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1467358418800121Google Scholar
Andersen, L. B., & Pallesen, T. (2008). “Not just for the money?” How financial incentives affect the number of publications at Danish research institutions. International Public Management Journal, 11(1), 28–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967490801887889Google Scholar
Andrés, A. (2009). Measuring academic research: How to undertake a bibliometric study. Chandos Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-84334-528-2.50013-8Google Scholar
Angermuller, J., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2019). On the social uses of scientometrics: The quantification of academic evaluation and the rise of numerocracy in higher education. In Scholz, R. (Ed.), Quantifying approaches to discourse for social scientists (pp. 89–119). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97370-8_4Google Scholar
Anisimov, E. V. (1997). Государственные преобразования и самодержавие Петра Великого в первой четверти XVIII века. Дмитрий Буланин.Google Scholar
Antonowicz, D., Kohoutek, J., Pinheiro, R., & Hladchenko, M. (2017). The roads of “excellence” in Central and Eastern Europe. European Educational Research Journal, 16(5), 547–567. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904116683186Google Scholar
Antonowicz, D., Kulczycki, E., & Budzanowska, A. (2020). Breaking the deadlock of mistrust? A participative model of the structural reforms in higher education in Poland. Higher Education Quarterly, 74(4), 391–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12254Google Scholar
Arnold, E., Simmonds, P., Farla, K., Kolarz, P., Mahieu, B., & Nielsen, K. (2018). Review of the research excellence framework: Evidence report. Technopolis Group. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/768162/research-excellence-framework-review-evidence-report.pdfGoogle Scholar
Aronova, E. (2011). The politics and contexts of Soviet science studies (Naukovedenie): Soviet philosophy of science at the crossroads. Studies in East European Thought, 63(3), 175–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-011-9146-yGoogle Scholar
Aronova, E. (2021). Scientometrics with and without computers: The cold war transnational journeys of the science citation index. In Solovey, M. & Dayé, C. (Eds.), Cold war social science (pp. 73–98). Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Avedon, E. M. (1981). The structural elements of games. In Furnham, A. & Argyle, M. (Eds.), The psychology of social situations (pp. 419–426). Pergamon. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-023719-0.50009-7Google Scholar
Axtell, J. (2016). Wisdom’s workshop: The rise of the modern university. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv7h0s90Google Scholar
Babones, S., & Babcicky, P. (2011, February 3–4). Russia and East-Central Europe in the modern world-system: A structuralist perspective [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the 10th Biennial Conference of the Australasian Association for Communist and Post-Communist Studies, Canberra, Australia. https://core.ac.uk/reader/41235980Google Scholar
Baccini, A., Nicolao, G. D., & Petrovich, E. (2019). Citation gaming induced by bibliometric evaluation: A country-level comparative analysis. PloS One, 14(9), e0221212. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221212Google Scholar
Bacevic, J. (2019). Knowing neoliberalism. Social Epistemology, 33(4), 380–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2019.1638990Google Scholar
Bak, H.-J., & Kim, D. H. (2019). The unintended consequences of performance-based incentives on inequality in scientists’ research performance. Science and Public Policy, 46(2), 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scy052Google Scholar
Baker, S. (2019, March 14). UK universities shift to teaching-only contracts ahead of REF. Times Higher Education. www.timeshighereducation.com/news/uk-universities-shift-teaching-only-contracts-ahead-refGoogle Scholar
Bal, R. (2017). Playing the indicator game: Reflections on strategies to position an STS group in a multi-disciplinary environment. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 3, 41–52. https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2017.111Google Scholar
Baldwin, M. (2018). Scientific autonomy, public accountability, and the rise of “peer review” in the Cold War United States. Isis, 109(3), 538–558. https://doi.org/10.1086/700070Google Scholar
Banaji, M. R. (1998). William J. McGuire: Remarks offered at the 1998 society of experimental social psychology convention. https://web.archive.org/web/20210803225509/http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~banaji/research/speaking/tributes/mcguire.htmlGoogle Scholar
Beall, J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, 489(7415), 179–179. https://doi.org/10.1038/489179aGoogle Scholar
Beall, J. (2013). Unethical practices in scholarly, open-access publishing. Journal of Information Ethics, 22(1), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.22.1.11Google Scholar
Beall, J. (2018). Scientific soundness and the problem of predatory journals. In Kaufman, A. B. & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.), Pseudoscience: The conspiracy against science. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10747.003.0018Google Scholar
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines (2nd ed.). The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.Google Scholar
Beck, M. T., & Gáspár, V. (1991). Scientometric evaluation of the scientific performance at the Faculty of Natural Sciences, Kossuth Lajos University, Debrecen, Hungary. Scientometrics, 20(1), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02018142Google Scholar
Beigel, F. (2021). A multi-scale perspective for assessing publishing circuits in non-hegemonic countries. Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society, 4(1), 1845923. https://doi.org/10.1080/25729861.2020.1845923Google Scholar
Bence, V., & Oppenheim, C. (2005). The evolution of the UK’s research assessment exercise: Publications, performance and perceptions. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 37(2), 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620500211189Google Scholar
Berman, E. P. (2014). Not just neoliberalism: Economization in US science and technology policy. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 39(3), 397–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243913509123Google Scholar
Bernal, J. D. (1939). The social function of science. George Routledge & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-1241.2008.01735.xGoogle Scholar
Bernal, J. D. (1971). Science in history: Vol. 2. The scientific and industrial revolutions. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bevan, G., & Hood, C. (2007). What’s measured is what matters: Targets and gaming in the English public health care system. Public Administration, 84(3), 517–538. https//doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2006.00600.xGoogle Scholar
Bhattacharjee, Y. (2011). Saudi universities offer cash in exchange for academic prestige. Science, 334(6061), 1344–1345. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.334.6061.1344Google Scholar
Blackmore, P., & Kandiko, C. B. (2011). Motivation in academic life: A prestige economy. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 16(4), 399–411. https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2011.626971Google Scholar
Blasi, B., Romagnosi, S., & Bonaccorsi, A. (2018). Do SSH researchers have a third mission (and should they have)? In Bonaccorsi, A. (Ed.), The evaluation of research in social sciences and humanities: Lessons from the Italian experience (pp. 361–392). Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Bocanegra-Valle, A. (2019). Building a reputation in global scientific communication: A SWOT analysis of Spanish humanities journals. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 44(1), 39–66. https://doi.org/10.29173/cjs28935Google Scholar
Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 342(6154), 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6154.60Google Scholar
Bonaccorsi, A. (Ed.). (2018a). The evaluation of research in social sciences and humanities: Lessons from the Italian experience. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68554-0Google Scholar
Bonaccorsi, A. (2018b). Towards an epistemic approach to evaluation in SSH. In Bonaccorsi, A. (Ed.), The evaluation of research in social sciences and humanities: Lessons from the Italian experience (pp. 1–29). Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Bonev, I. (2009). Should we take journal impact factors seriously? ParalleMIC. https://espace2.etsmtl.ca/id/eprint/9919Google Scholar
Bordons, M., Fernández, M. T., & Gómez, I. (2002). Advantages and limitations in the use of impact factor measures for the assessment of research performance in a peripheral country. Scientometrics, 53(2), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014800407876Google Scholar
Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410810844150Google Scholar
Bornmann, L., & Haunschild, R. (2018). Alternative article‐level metrics. EMBO Reports, 19(12), e47260–e47260. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201847260Google Scholar
Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2014). Scientometrics in a changing research landscape: Bibliometrics has become an integral part of research quality evaluation and has been changing the practice of research. EMBO Reports, 15(12), 1228–1232. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201439608Google Scholar
Bornmann, L., & Williams, R. (2017). Can the journal impact factor be used as a criterion for the selection of junior researchers? A large-scale empirical study based on ResearcherID data. Journal of Informetrics, 11(3), 788–799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.06.001Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Polity Press.Google Scholar
Bowman, J. D. (2014). Predatory publishing, questionable peer review, and fraudulent conferences. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 78(10), 176. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7810176Google Scholar
Braudel, F. (1958). Histoire et Sciences sociales: La longue durée. Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales, 13(4), 725–753. https://doi.org/10.3406/ahess.1958.2781Google Scholar
Brož, L., Stöckelová, T., & Vostal, F. (2017, January 26). Predators and bloodsuckers in academic publishing. Derivace. https://derivace.wordpress.com/2017/01/26/predators-and-bloodsuckers-in-academic-publishing/Google Scholar
Buranyi, S. (2017, June 27). Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? The Guardian. www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-scienceGoogle Scholar
Butler, L. (2003a). Explaining Australia’s increased share of ISI publications: The effects of a funding formula based on publication counts. Research Policy, 32(1), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(02)00007-0Google Scholar
Butler, L. (2003b). Modifying publication practices in response to funding formulas. Research Evaluation, 12(1), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154403781776780Google Scholar
Butler, L. (2017). Response to van den Besselaar et al.: What happens when the Australian context is misunderstood. Journal of Informetrics, 11(3), 919–922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.05.017Google Scholar
Cai, Y. (2010). Global isomorphism and governance reform in Chinese higher education. Tertiary Education and Management, 16(3), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2010.497391Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1979). Assessing the impact of planned social change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2(1), 67–90.Google Scholar
Chapelle, F. H. (2014). The history and practice of peer review. Groundwater, 52(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12139Google Scholar
Chapman, C. A., Bicca-Marques, J. C., Calvignac-Spencer, S., Fan, P., Fashing, P. J., Gogarten, J., Guo, S., Hemingway, C. A., Leendertz, F., Li, B., Matsuda, I., Hou, R., Serio-Silva, J. C., & Chr. Stenseth, N. (2019). Games academics play and their consequences: How authorship, h-index and journal impact factors are shaping the future of academia. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 286(1916), 20192047. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.2047Google Scholar
Chavarro, D., Tang, P., & Ràfols, I. (2017). Why researchers publish in non-mainstream journals: Training, knowledge bridging, and gap filling. Research Policy, 46(9), 1666–1680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.08.002Google Scholar
Chen, X. (2019). High monetary rewards and high academic article outputs: Are China’s research publications policy driven? The Serials Librarian, 77(1–2), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2019.1645793Google Scholar
Chung, A. (2018). Media probes raise questions over quality of conferences. University World News. www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20180922053255197Google Scholar
Cleere, L., & Ma, L. (2018). A local adaptation in an Output-Based Research Support Scheme (OBRSS) at University College Dublin. Journal of Data and Information Science, 3(4), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2018-0022Google Scholar
Cocka, P. M. (1980). Science policy: USA/USSR. Volume II, science policy in the Soviet Union. National Science Foundation. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED199102.pdfGoogle Scholar
Connelly, J. (2000). Captive university: The Sovietization of East German, Czech and Polish higher education, 1945–1956. University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Cooper, S., & Poletti, A. (2011). The new ERA of journal ranking: The consequences of Australia’s fraught encounter with “quality.” Australian Universities Review, 53(1), 57–65.Google Scholar
Crocker, J., & Cooper, M. L. (2011). Addressing scientific fraud. Science, 334(6060), 1182–1182. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1216775Google Scholar
Cronin, B. (2015). The need for a theory of citing. In Cronin, B. & Sugimoto, C. R. (Eds.), Scholarly metrics under the microscope: From citation analysis to academic auditing (pp. 33–44). Information Today. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026703Google Scholar
Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. R. (Eds.). (2014). Beyond bibliometrics: Harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dadkhah, M., Borchardt, G., Lagzian, M., & Bianciardi, G. (2017). Academic journals plagued by bogus impact factors. Publishing Research Quarterly, 33(2), 183–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-017-9509-4Google Scholar
Dahler-Larsen, P. (2014). Constitutive effects of performance indicators: Getting beyond unintended consequences. Public Management Review, 16(7), 969–986. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.770058Google Scholar
Dahler-Larsen, P. (2015). The evaluation society: Critique, contestability and skepticism. SpazioFilosofico, 1(13), 21–36. www.spaziofilosofico.it/numero-13/5241/the-evaluation-society-critique-contestability-and-skepticism/Google Scholar
Dahler-Larsen, P. (2022). Your brother’s gatekeeper: How effects of evaluation machineries in research are sometimes enhanced. In Forsberg, E., Geschwind, L., Levander, S., & Wermke, W. (Eds.), Peer review in an era of evaluation (pp. 127–146). Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Davis, K. E., Fisher, A., Kingsbury, B., & Merry, S. E. (Eds.). (2012). Governance by indicators: Global power through quantification and rankings. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, K. E., Kingsbury, B., & Merry, S. (2012). Introduction: Global governance by indicators. In Davis, K. E., Fisher, A., Kingsbury, B., & Merry, S. E. (Eds.), Governance by indicators: Global power through quantification and rankings (pp. 3–28). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, P. (2016, February 10). Citable items: The contested impact factor denominator. The Scholarly Kitchen. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2016/02/10/citable-items-the-contested-impact-factor-denominator/Google Scholar
De Bellis, N. (2009). Bibliometrics and citation analysis: From the science citation index to cybermetrics. The Scarecrow Press.Google Scholar
De Bellis, N. (2014). History and evolution of (biblio)metrics. In Cronin, B. & Sugimoto, C. R. (Eds.), Beyond bibliometrics: Harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact (pp. 23–44). The MIT Press.Google Scholar
De Jong, S. P. L., & Muhonen, R. (2018). Who benefits from ex ante societal impact evaluation in the European funding arena? A cross-country comparison of societal impact capacity in the social sciences and humanities. Research Evaluation, 29(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvy036Google Scholar
De Rijcke, S., & Stöckelová, T. (2020). Predatory publishing and the imperative of international productivity: Feeding off and feeding up the dominant. In Biagioli, M. & Lippman, A. (Eds.), Gaming the metrics: Misconduct and manipulation in academic research (pp. 101–110). MIT Press.Google Scholar
De Rijcke, S., Wouters, P. F., Rushforth, A. D., Franssen, T. P., & Hammarfelt, B. (2016). Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use: A literature review. Research Evaluation, 25(2), 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv038Google Scholar
Demir, S. B. (2018). Predatory journals: Who publishes in them and why? Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1296–1311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.10.008Google Scholar
Derrick, G. (2018). The evaluators’ eye: Impact assessment and academic peer review. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Desrosières, A. (2002). The politics of large numbers: A history of statistical reasoning (C. Naish, Trans.). Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Desrosières, A. (2013). Pour une sociologie historique de la quantification: L’Argument statistique I. Presses des Mines. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pressesmines.901Google Scholar
Dey, E. L., Milem, J. F., & Berger, J. B. (1997). Changing patterns of publication productivity: Accumulative advantage or institutional isomorphism? Sociology of Education, 70(4), 308–323. https://doi.org/10.2307/2673269Google Scholar
Dill, D. D. (2014). Evaluating the “evaluative state”: Implications for research in higher education. European Journal of Education, 33(3), 361–377.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101Google Scholar
Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. (2014). Innovation Union Competitiveness report: Commission Staff Working Document. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/799d9836-1333-4804-835a-6968b35ae619Google Scholar
Dmitriev, I. S. (2016). Академия благих надежд (эффективность научной деятельности Петербургской академии наук в XVIII столетии). Социология Науки и Технологий, 7(4). 9–31.Google Scholar
Dobija, D., Górska, A. M., & Pikos, A. (2019). The impact of accreditation agencies and other powerful stakeholders on the performance measurement in Polish universities. Baltic Journal of Management, 14(1), 84–102. https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-01-2018-0018Google Scholar
Dobrov, G. (1969a). Kryterium wyboru jako kompleksowy problem naukoznawstwa. Zagadnienia Naukoznawstwa, 5(4), 92–99.Google Scholar
Dobrov, G. (1969b). Wstęp do naukoznawstwa (J. Bolecki, Trans.). Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar
Donovan, C. (2008). The Australian research quality framework: A live experiment in capturing the social, economic, environmental, and cultural returns of publicly funded research. New Directions for Evaluation, 2008(118), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.260Google Scholar
Drabek, A., Rozkosz, E., & Kulczycki, E. (2017). Analiza opóźnień wydawniczych polskich czasopism naukowych (Report No. 3). https://doi.org/10.6084/M9.FIGSHARE.4578394Google Scholar
Dunleavy, P., & Hood, C. (1994). From old public administration to new public management. Public Money and Management, 14(3), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540969409387823Google Scholar
Eastwood, D. (2007). Goodbye to the RAE … And hello to the REF. Times Higher Education. www.timeshighereducation.com/news/goodbye-to-the-rae-and-hello-to-the-ref-david-eastwood/311322.articleGoogle Scholar
Elsaie, M., & Kammer, J. (2009). Impactitis: The impact factor myth syndrome. Indian Journal of Dermatology, 54(1), 83–86. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5154.48998Google Scholar
Else, H. (2019, April 11). Impact factors are still widely used in academic evaluations. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01151-4Google Scholar
Else, H. (2022, March 14). Journals under pressure to boycott Russian authors. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00718-yGoogle Scholar
Emysheva, E. M. (2008). Генеральный регламент 1720 года как опыт создания организационного документа. История и Архивы, 8, 248–261.Google Scholar
Enders, J. (2001). A chair system in transition: Appointments, promotions, and gate-keeping in German higher education. Higher Education, 41(1–2), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026790026117Google Scholar
Engels, T. C. E., & Guns, R. (2018). The Flemish performance-based research funding system: A unique variant of the Norwegian model. Journal of Data and Information Science, 3(4), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2018-0020Google Scholar
Engels, T. C. E., Istenič Starčič, A., Kulczycki, E., Pölönen, J., & Sivertsen, G. (2018). Are book publications disappearing from scholarly communication in the social sciences and humanities? Aslib Journal of Information Management, 70(6), 592–607. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-05-2018-0127Google Scholar
Erfanmanesh, M., & Pourhossein, R. (2017). Publishing in predatory open access journals: A case of Iran. Publishing Research Quarterly, 33(4), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-017-9547-yGoogle Scholar
Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1086/517897Google Scholar
Espeland, W. N., & Stevens, M. L. (2008). A sociology of quantification. European Journal of Sociology/Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 49(3), 401–436. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003975609000150Google Scholar
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “mode 2” to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4Google Scholar
Ezinwa Nwagwu, W., & Ojemeni, O. (2015). Penetration of Nigerian predatory biomedical open access journals 2007–2012: A bibliometric study. Learned Publishing, 28(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1087/20150105Google Scholar
Fernández, L. M., & Vadillo, M. A. (2019, June 19). Retracted papers die hard: Diederik Stapel and the enduring influence of flawed science. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/cszpyGoogle Scholar
Fochler, M., & De Rijcke, S. (2017). Implicated in the indicator game? An experimental debate. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 3(3), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2017.108Google Scholar
Frankel, M. S., & Cave, J. (Eds.). (1997). Evaluating science and scientists: An east-west dialogue on research evaluation in post-communist Europe. Central European University Press.Google Scholar
French, N. J., Massy, W. F., & Young, K. (2001). Research assessment in Hong Kong. Higher Education, 42, 34–46.Google Scholar
Frood, A. (2015, February 9). Death in academia and the mis-measurement of science. EuroScientist. www.euroscientist.com/death-academia-mis-measurement-science/Google Scholar
Fyfe, A., Squazzoni, F., Torny, D., & Dondio, P. (2019). Managing the growth of peer review at the Royal Society Journals, 1865–1965. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 45(3), 405–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243919862868Google Scholar
Galiullina, R. H., & Ilina, K. A. (2012). «Ученые записки» ученого сословия (первая половина XIX века). Препринты. Высшая Школа Экономики. WP6/2012/02 Серия WP6 Гуманитарные исследованияGoogle Scholar
Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122(3159), 108–111. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.122.3159.108Google Scholar
Garfield, E. (1964). Can citation indexing be automated? In Stevens, M. E., Giuliano, V. E., & Heilprin, L. B. (Eds.), Statistical association methods for mechanized documentation: Symposium proceedings (pp. 189–192). National Bureau of Standards.Google Scholar
Garfield, E. (1996). Significant scientific literature appears in a small core of journals. The Scientist, 10(17), 13–15.Google Scholar
Garfield, E. (2005, September 16). The agony and the ecstasy: The history and meaning of the journal impact factor [Paper presentation]. International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, Chicago, IL, United States. http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/jifchicago2005.pdfGoogle Scholar
Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA, 295(1), 90–93. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.1.90Google Scholar
Geuna, A., & Martin, B. R. (2003). University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison. Minerva, 41(4), 277–304. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:MINE.0000005155.70870.bdGoogle Scholar
Giménez Toledo, E. (2016). Malestar: Los investigadores ante su evaluación. Iberoamericana.Google Scholar
Gingras, Y. (1995, September 13–15). Performance indicators: Keeping the black box open [Paper Presentation]. Dans Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Research Funding, Ottawa, Canada. https://ost.openum.ca/files/sites/132/2017/06/proceedings_research_funding.pdfGoogle Scholar
Gingras, Y. (2014). Bibliometrics and research evaluation: Uses and abuses. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Glänzel, W., Moed, H. F., Schmoch, U., & Thelwall, M. (Eds.). (2019). Handbook of science and technology indicators. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3Google Scholar
Gläser, J., Lange, S., Laudel, G., & Schimank, U. (2010). Informed authority? The limited use of research evaluation systems for managerial control in universities. In Whitley, R., Gläser, J., & Engwall, L. (Eds.), Reconfiguring knowledge production: Changing authority relationships in the sciences and their consequences for intellectual innovation (pp. 149–183). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2007). The social construction of bibliometric evaluations. In Whitley, R. & Gläser, J. (Eds.), The changing governance of the sciences: The advent of research evaluation systems (pp. 101–123). Springer.Google Scholar
Godin, B. (2005). Measurement and statistics on science and technology: 1920 to the present. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.10.043Google Scholar
Godin, B. (2006). From eugenics to scientometrics: Galton, Cattell and men of science. Social Studies of Science, 37(5), 691–728. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312706075338Google Scholar
Godin, B. (2009). The value of science: Changing conceptions of scientific productivity, 1869 to circa 1970. Social Science Information, 48(4), 547–586. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018409344475Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1972). Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction. Penguin University Books.Google Scholar
Good, B., Vermeulen, N., Tiefenthaler, B., & Arnold, E. (2015). Counting quality? The Czech performance-based research funding system. Research Evaluation, 24(2), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvu035Google Scholar
Graham, L. R. (1964). Bukharin and the planning of Science. Russian Review, 23(2), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.2307/126518Google Scholar
Graham, L. R. (1967). The Soviet academy of sciences and the communist party, 1927–1932. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Graham, L. R. (Ed.). (1990). Science and the Soviet social order. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Graham, L. R. (1993). Science in Russia and the Soviet Union: A short history. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Graham, L. R., & Dezhina, I. (2008). Science in the new Russia: Crisis, aid, reform. Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Granovsky, Y. V. (2001). Is it possible to measure science? V. V. Nalimov’s research in scientometrics. Scientometrics, 52(2), 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017991017982Google Scholar
Grzechnik, M. (2019). The missing second world: On Poland and postcolonial studies. Interventions, 21(7), 998–1014. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369801X.2019.1585911Google Scholar
Guskov, A., Kosyakov, D., & Selivanova, I. (2016). Scientometric research in Russia: Impact of science policy changes. Scientometrics, 107(1), 287–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1876-7Google Scholar
Gutierrez, F. R. S., Beall, J., & Forero, D. A. (2015). Spurious alternative impact factors: The scale of the problem from an academic perspective. BioEssays, 37(5), 474–476. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201500011Google Scholar
Haddow, G. (2022). Research assessment in Australia: Journal ranking, research classification and ratings. In Engels, T. C. E. & Kulczycki, E. (Eds.), Handbook on research assessment in the social sciences (pp. 434–450). Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Haitun, S. D. (1980). Scientometric investigations in the USSR: Review. Scientometrics, 2(1), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016600Google Scholar
Hallonsten, O. (2021). Stop evaluating science: A historical-sociological argument. Social Science Information, 60(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018421992204Google Scholar
Hammarfelt, B. (2018). Taking comfort in points: The appeal of the Norwegian model in Sweden. Journal of Data and Information Science, 3(4), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2018-0023Google Scholar
Hammarfelt, B., & Åström, F. (2015, September 2–4). The multi-layered and multilevel use of bibliometric measures in Swedish universities: Isomorphism, translation and strategic choice [Paper Presentation]. The 20th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Lugano, Switzerland. http://hb.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:853400/FULLTEXT01.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hammarfelt, B., & Haddow, G. (2018). Conflicting measures and values: How humanities scholars in Australia and Sweden use and react to bibliometric indicators. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(7), 924–935. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24043Google Scholar
Hanley, H. J. M. (1975). Letters to the editor. Science, 188(4193), 1064. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.188.4193.1064-aGoogle Scholar
Hare, P. (1989). The economics of shortage in the centrally planned economies. In Davis, C. & Charemza, W. (Eds.), Models of disequilibrium and shortage in centrally planned economies (pp. 49–81). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0823-9_3Google Scholar
Hazelkorn, E. (2015). Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: The battle for world-class excellence (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hedding, D. W. (2019). Payouts push professors towards predatory journals. Nature, 565(7739), 267–267. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00120-1Google Scholar
Hicks, D. (2012). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy, 41(2), 251–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.007Google Scholar
Hicks, D. (2017). What year? Difficulties in identifying the effect of policy on university output. Journal of Informetrics, 11(3), 933–936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.05.020Google Scholar
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/10.1038/520429aGoogle Scholar
Higher Education Funding Council for England. (2015). The metric tide: Correlation analysis of REF2014 scores and metrics (Supplementary Report II to the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management). Higher Education Funding Council for England. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3362.4162Google Scholar
Hilton, A. (2013, April 12). Honoris causa? Margaret Thatcher and the eternal shame of Oxford University. Mail Online. www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569–16572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102Google Scholar
Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.xGoogle Scholar
Horta, H., & Shen, W. (2020). Current and future challenges of the Chinese research system. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 42(2), 157–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2019.1632162Google Scholar
Howarth, P. (2022, March 4). Ukraine crisis: A message from THE’s chief executive. Times Higher Education. www.timeshighereducation.com/ukraine-crisis-message-thes-chief-executiveGoogle Scholar
Hrabak, M., Vujaklija, A., Vodopivec, I., Hren, D., Marusic, M., & Marusic, A. (2004). Academic misconduct among medical students in a post-communist country. Medical Education, 38(3), 276–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2004.01766.xGoogle Scholar
Huang, Y., Li, R., Zhang, L., & Sivertsen, G. (2020). A comprehensive analysis of the journal evaluation system in China. Quantitative Science Studies, 2(1), 300–326. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00103Google Scholar
Hur, J. D., & Nordgren, L. F. (2016). Paying for performance: Performance incentives increase desire for the reward object. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(3), 301–316. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000059Google Scholar
Hur, J., Lee-Yoon, A., & Whillans, A. V. (2018). Who is more useful? The impact of performance incentives on work and personal relationships. Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
Igami, M., & Nagaoka, S. (2014). Exploring the effects of the motivation of a research project on the research team composition, management, and outputs. In E. Noyons (Ed.), Proceedings of the science and technology indicators conference 2014 Leiden “Context Counts: Pathways to master big and little data” (pp. 290–294). Universiteit Leiden.Google Scholar
Ings, S. (2016). Stalin and the scientists: A history of triumph and tragedy 1905–1953. Grove Press.Google Scholar
Irwin, A. (2017). If the indicator game is the answer, then what is the question? Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 3, 64–72. https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2017.110Google Scholar
Jablecka, J. (1997). Peer review in Poland: Practical solutions and possible improvements. In Frankel, M. S., & Cave, J. (Eds.), Evaluating science and scientists (pp. 96–111). Central European University Press.Google Scholar
Jacques, T. S., & Sebire, N. J. (2010). The impact of article titles on citation hits: An analysis of general and specialist medical journals. JRSM Short Reports, 1(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1258/shorts.2009.100020Google Scholar
Jessop, B. (2002). Globalization and the national state. In Aronowitz, S. & Bratsis, P. (Eds.), Paradigm lost: State theory reconsidered (pp. 185–220). University of Minnesota Press. https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctttsh78Google Scholar
Jessop, B. (2005). Cultural political economy, the knowledge-based economy, and the state. In Barry, A. & Slater, D. (Eds.), Technological economy (pp. 144–165). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203022450Google Scholar
Jessop, B. (2017). Varieties of academic capitalism and entrepreneurial universities: On past research and three thought experiments. Higher Education, 73(6), 853–870. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0120-6Google Scholar
Jin, B., & Rousseau, R. (2005). Evaluation of research performance and scientometric indicators in China. In Moed, H. F., Glänzel, W., & Schmoch, U. (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems (pp. 497–514). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2755-9_23Google Scholar
Josephson, P. R. (1992). Soviet scientists and the state: Politics, ideology, and fundamental research from Stalin to Gorbachev. Social Research, 59(3), 589–614.Google Scholar
Jump, P. (2013, September 26). Twenty per cent contracts rise in run-up to REF. Times Higher Education. www.timeshighereducation.com/news/twenty-per-cent-contracts-rise-in-run-up-to-ref/2007670.articleGoogle Scholar
Jump, P. (2015, January 1). REF 2014 rerun: Who are the “game players”? Times Higher Education. www.timeshighereducation.com/features/ref-2014-rerun-who-are-the-game-players/2017670.articleGoogle Scholar
Kalfa, S., Wilkinson, A., & Gollan, P. J. (2018). The academic game: Compliance and resistance in universities. Work, Employment and Society, 32(2), 274–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017017695043Google Scholar
Kapitza, P. L. (1966). Scientific policy in the U.S.S.R.: The scientist and the plans. Minerva, 4(4), 555–560.Google Scholar
Kassian, A., & Melikhova, L. (2019). Russian science citation index on the WoS platform: A critical assessment. Journal of Documentation, 75(5), 1162–1168. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-02-2019-0033Google Scholar
Kehm, B. M. (2014). Global university rankings: Impacts and unintended side effects. European Journal of Education, 49(1), 102–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12064Google Scholar
Killian, J. R. (1977). Sputnik, scientists and Eisenhower: A memoir of the first special assistant to the president for science and technology. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kim, D. H., & Bak, H.-J. (2016). How do scientists respond to performance-based incentives? Evidence from South Korea. International Public Management Journal, 19(1), 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2015.1032460Google Scholar
King, R., Marginson, S., & Naidoo, R. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook on globalization and higher education. Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Kliucharev, G. A., & Neverov, A. V. (2018). Project “5–100”: Some interim results. RUDN Journal of Sociology, 18(1), 100–116. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2272-2018-18-1-100-116Google Scholar
Koçak, Z. (2020). Precise and immediate action against predatory conferences. Balkan Medical Journal, 37(1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.4274/balkanmedj.galenos.2020.2020.1.001Google Scholar
Kokowski, M. (2015). The science of science (Naukoznawstwo) in Poland: The changing theoretical perspectives and political contexts: A historical sketch from the 1910s to 1993. Organon, 47, 147–237.Google Scholar
Kokowski, M. (2016). The science of science (naukoznawstwo) in Poland: Defending and removing the past in the cold war. In Aronova, E. & Turchetti, S. (Eds.), Science studies during the cold war and beyond (pp. 149–176). Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55943-2_7Google Scholar
Korytkowski, P., & Kulczycki, E. (2019). Publication counting methods for a national research evaluation exercise. Journal of Informetrics, 13(3), 804–816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.07.001Google Scholar
Korytkowski, P., & Kulczycki, E. (2021). The gap between Plan S requirements and grantees’ publication practices. Journal of Informetrics, 15(2), 101156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2021.101156Google Scholar
Kosyakov, D., & Guskov, A. (2019). Research assessment and evaluation in Russian fundamental science. Procedia Computer Science, 146, 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.01.072Google Scholar
Koza, Z., Lew, R., Kulczycki, E., & Stec, P. (in press). Who controls the national academic promotion system: An analysis of power distribution in Poland.Google Scholar
Krawczyk, F., & Kulczycki, E. (2021a). How is open access accused of being predatory? The impact of Beall’s lists of predatory journals on academic publishing. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102271Google Scholar
Krawczyk, F., & Kulczycki, E. (2021b). On the geopolitics of academic publishing: The mislocated centers of scholarly communication. Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society, 4(1), 1984641. https://doi.org/10.1080/25729861.2021.1984641Google Scholar
Krawczyk, S., Szadkowski, K., & Kulczycki, E. (2021). Identifying top researchers in highly metricized academia: Two discursive strategies of senior officials in Poland. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2021.1993792Google Scholar
Krzeski, J., Szadkowski, K., & Kulczycki, E. (2022). Creating evaluative homogeneity: Experience of constructing a national journal ranking. Research Evaluation, rvac011. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvac011Google Scholar
Kulczycki, E. (2018). The diversity of monographs: Changing landscape of book evaluation in Poland. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 70(6), 608–622. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-03-2018-0062Google Scholar
Kulczycki, E. (2019). Field patterns of scientometric indicators use for presenting research portfolio for assessment. Research Evaluation, 28(2), 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvy043Google Scholar
Kulczycki, E., Engels, T. C. E., Pölönen, J., Bruun, K., Dušková, M., Guns, R., Nowotniak, R., Petr, M., Sivertsen, G., Istenič Starčič, A., & Zuccala, A. (2018). Publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities: Evidence from eight European countries. Scientometrics, 116(1), 463–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2711-0Google Scholar
Kulczycki, E., Guns, R., Pölönen, J., Engels, T. C. E., Rozkosz, E. A., Zuccala, A. A., Bruun, K., Eskola, O., Starčič, A. I., Petr, M., & Sivertsen, G. (2020). Multilingual publishing in the social sciences and humanities: A seven‐country European study. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 71(11), 1371–1385. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24336Google Scholar
Kulczycki, E., Hołowiecki, M., Taşkın, Z., & Doğan, G. (2022). Questionable conferences and presenters from top-ranked universities. Journal of Information Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515221087674Google Scholar
Kulczycki, E., Hołowiecki, M., Taşkın, Z., & Krawczyk, F. (2021a). Citation patterns between impact-factor and questionable journals. Scientometrics, 126(4), 8541–8560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04121-8Google Scholar
Kulczycki, E., Huang, Y., Zucalla, A. A., Engels, T. C. E., Ferrara, A., Guns, R., Pölönen, J., Sivertsen, G., Taşkin, Z., & Zhang, L. (2022). Uses of the Journal Impact Factor in national journal rankings in China and Europe. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 73( 12), 1741–1754. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24706Google Scholar
Kulczycki, E., & Korytkowski, P. (2018). Redesigning the model of book evaluation in the polish performance-based research funding system. Journal of Data and Information Science, 3(4), 60–72. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2018-0021Google Scholar
Kulczycki, E., Korzeń, M., & Korytkowski, P. (2017). Toward an excellence-based research funding system: Evidence from Poland. Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 282–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.01.001Google Scholar
Kulczycki, E., & Rotnicka, S. (2022, September 7–9). Consequences of participating in questionable academia: A global survey of authors of journal articles and conference presentations [Paper Presentation]. 26th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Granada, Spain. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6960060Google Scholar
Kulczycki, E., & Rozkosz, E. A. (2017). Does an expert-based evaluation allow us to go beyond the Impact Factor? Experiences from building a ranking of national journals in Poland. Scientometrics, 111(1), 417–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2261-xGoogle Scholar
Kulczycki, E., Rozkosz, E. A., & Drabek, A. (2015). Publikacje polskich badaczy w czasopismach z list ERIH w kontekście ewaluacji jednostek naukowych. Kultura i Edukacja, 24(1), 149–172. https://doi.org/10.15804/kie.2015.01.08Google Scholar
Kulczycki, E., Rozkosz, E. A., & Drabek, A. (2019a). Internationalization of Polish journals in the social sciences and humanities: Transformative role of the research evaluation system. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 44(1), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.29173/cjs28794Google Scholar
Kulczycki, E., Rozkosz, E. A., Engels, T. C. E., Guns, R., & Hołowiecki, M. (2019b). How to identify peer-reviewed publications: Open-identity labels in scholarly book publishing. PLoS ONE, 14(3), e0214423. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214423Google Scholar
Kulczycki, E., Rozkosz, E. A., Szadkowski, K., Ciereszko, K., Hołowiecki, M., & Krawczyk, F. (2021b). Local use of metrics for the research assessment of academics: The case of Poland. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 43(4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2020.1846243Google Scholar
Kurt, S. (2018). Why do authors publish in predatory journals? Learned Publishing, 31(2), 141–147. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1150Google Scholar
Kuzhabekova, A. (2019). Invisibilizing Eurasia: How north–south dichotomization marginalizes post-Soviet scholars in international research collaborations. Journal of Studies in International Education, 24(1), 113–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315319888887Google Scholar
Lakhotia, S. C. (2017). Mis-conceived and mis-implemented academic assessment rules underlie the scourge of predatory journals and conferences. Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy, 83(3), 513–515. https://doi.org/10.16943/ptinsa/2017/49141Google Scholar
Lang, R., Mintz, M., Krentz, H. B., & Gill, M. J. (2018). An approach to conference selection and evaluation: Advice to avoid “predatory” conferences. Scientometrics, 118(2), 687–698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2981-6Google Scholar
Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015a). Big publishers, bigger profits: How the scholarly community lost the control of its journals. MediaTropes, 5(2), 102–110.Google Scholar
Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015b). The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PLOS ONE, 10(6), e0127502–e0127502. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502Google Scholar
Lemke, T. (2002). Foucault, governmentality, and critique. Rethinking Marxism, 14(3), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/089356902101242288Google Scholar
Levine, H. S. (1967). Economics. In Fischer, G. (Ed.), Science and ideology in soviet society 1917–1967 (pp. 107–138). Atherton Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. M. (2015). The politics and consequences of performance measurement. Policy and Society, 34(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.03.001Google Scholar
Lewis, R. (1979). Science and industrialisation in the USSR. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-03786-5Google Scholar
Leydesdorff, L., Wagner, C. S., & Bornmann, L. (2019). Diversity measurement: Steps towards the measurement of interdisciplinarity? Journal of Informetrics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.03.016Google Scholar
Li, L. (2009). Research priorities and priority-setting in China. Vinnova. www.vinnova.se/contentassets/44b342da5cdd4c4082b51c391d4ee423/va-09-21.pdf?cb=20170915134441Google Scholar
Lin, J. (2020). Altmetrics gaming: Beast within or without? In Biagioli, M. & Lippman, A. (Eds.), Gaming the metrics: Misconduct and manipulation in academic research (pp. 213–227). MIT Press.Google Scholar
Liu, X., & Chen, X. (2018). Journal retractions: Some unique features of research misconduct in China. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 49(3), 305–319. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.49.3.02Google Scholar
Liu, Y. (2012). Strategies for developing Chinese university journals through a comparison to western academic journal publishing. Serials Review, 38(2), 76–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2012.10765432Google Scholar
López Piñeiro, C., & Hicks, D. (2015). Reception of Spanish sociology by domestic and foreign audiences differs and has consequences for evaluation. Research Evaluation, 24(1), 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvu030Google Scholar
Lovakov, A., Panova, A., Sterligov, I., & Yudkevich, M. (2021). Does government support of a few leading universities have a broader impact on the higher education system? Evaluation of the Russian university excellence initiative. Research Evaluation, 30(3), 240–255. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvab006Google Scholar
Lowe, T., & Wilson, R. (2017). Playing the game of outcomes-based performance management. Is gamesmanship inevitable? Evidence from theory and practice. Social Policy and Administration, 51(7), 981–1001. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12205Google Scholar
Lucas, L. (2006). The research game in academic life. The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.Google Scholar
Luczaj, K. (2020). Foreign-born scholars in Central Europe: A planned strategy or a ‘dart throw’? Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 6(42), 602–616. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2019.1682955Google Scholar
Luo, Y. (2013). Building world-class universities in China. In Shin, J. C. & Kehm, B. M. (Eds.), Institutionalization of world-class university in global competition (pp. 165–183). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4975-7Google Scholar
Macháček, V., & Srholec, M. (2017). Predatory journals in Scopus. Institute for democracy and economic analysis. https://idea-en.cerge-ei.cz/files/IDEA_Study_2_2017_Predatory_journals_in_Scopus/files/downloads/IDEA_Study_2_2017_Predatory_journals_in_Scopus.pdfGoogle Scholar
Marcella, R., Lockerbie, H., & Bloice, L. (2016). Beyond REF 2014: The impact of impact assessment on the future of information research. Journal of Information Science, 42(3), 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551516636291Google Scholar
Marewski, J. N., & Bornmann, L. (2018). Opium in science and society: Numbers. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1804.11210Google Scholar
Marginson, S. (1997). Steering from a distance: Power relations in Australian higher education. Higher Education, 34(1), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003082922199Google Scholar
Marginson, S. (2018). The new geo-politics of higher education: Global cooperation, national competition and social inequality in the World-Class University (WCU) sector [Working Paper, no. 34]. www.researchcghe.org/perch/resources/publications/wp34final.pdfGoogle Scholar
Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education, 43(3), 281–309. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014699605875Google Scholar
Mari, L., Maul, A., & Wilson, M. (2019). Can there be one meaning of “measurement” across the sciences? Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1379(1), 012022. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1379/1/012022Google Scholar
Marini, G. (2018). Tools of individual evaluation and prestige recognition in Spain: How sexenio “mints the golden coin of authority.” European Journal of Higher Education, 8(2), 201–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2018.1428649Google Scholar
Martin, A., & Martin, T. (2016). A not-so-harmless experiment in predatory open access publishing: An experiment in predatory open access publishing. Learned Publishing, 29(4), 301–305. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1060Google Scholar
Martin, B. R. (1996). The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research. Scientometrics, 36(3), 343–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02129599Google Scholar
Marzolla, M. (2016). Assessing evaluation procedures for individual researchers: The case of the Italian National Scientific Qualification. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 408–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.01.009Google Scholar
Mayer, I. S. (2009). The gaming of policy and the politics of gaming: A review. Simulation and Gaming, 40(6), 825–862. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878109346456Google Scholar
Mazov, N. A., Gureev, V. N., & Kalenov, N. E. (2018). Some assessments of the list of journals in the Russian Science Citation Index. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 88(2), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1019331618020053Google Scholar
McCrostie, J. (2018). Predatory conferences: A case of academic cannibalism. International Higher Education, 2(93), 6–8. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.0.93.10415Google Scholar
McCulloch, S. (2017, February 9). The importance of being REF-able: Academic writing under pressure from a culture of counting. The London School of Economics and Political Science. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/02/09/the-importance-of-being-ref-able-academic-writing-under-pressure-from-a-culture-of-counting/Google Scholar
McKiernan, E. C., Schimanski, L. A., Muñoz Nieves, C., Matthias, L., Niles, M. T., & Alperin, J. P. (2019). Use of the journal impact factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations. eLife, 8, e47338. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.47338Google Scholar
Mead, G. H. (1934). Play, the game, and the generalized other. In Mead, G. H. (Ed.), Mind, self and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist (pp. 158–159). University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Meho, L. I. (2020). Highly prestigious international academic awards and their impact on university rankings. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(2), 824–848. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00045Google Scholar
Mennicken, A., & Espeland, W. N. (2019). What’s new with numbers? Sociological approaches to the study of quantification. Annual Review of Sociology, 45(1), 223–245. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073117-041343Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. (1936). The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological Review, 1(6), 894–904. https://doi.org/10.2307/2084615Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159(3810), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (Storer, N. W., Ed.). The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego. (2018). Ewaluacja jakości działalności naukowej: Przewodnik. Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego. www.gov.pl/attachment/c28d4c75-a14e-46c5-bf41-912ea28cda5bGoogle Scholar
Mirskaya, E. Z. (1995). Russian academic science today: Its societal standing and the situation within the scientific community. Social Studies of Science, 25(4), 705–725. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631295025004006Google Scholar
Mishler, W., & Rose, R. (1997). Trust, distrust and skepticism: Popular evaluations of civil and political institutions in post-communist societies. The Journal of Politics, 59(2), 418–451. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381600053512Google Scholar
Moed, H. F. (2017). A critical comparative analysis of five world university rankings. Scientometrics, 110(2), 967–990. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2212-yGoogle Scholar
Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Cobey, K. D., Lalu, M. M., Galipeau, J., Avey, M. T., Ahmadzai, N., Alabousi, M., Barbeau, P., Beck, A., Daniel, R., Frank, R., Ghannad, M., Hamel, C., Hersi, M., Hutton, B., Isupov, I., McGrath, T. A., McInnes, M. D. F., Page, M. J., Pratt, M., Pussegoda, K., Shea, B., Srivastava, A., Stevens, A., Thavorn, K., Van Katwyk, S., Ward, R., Wolfe, D., Yazdi, F., Yu, A. M., & Ziai, H. (2017). Stop this waste of people, animals and money. Nature, 549(7670), 23–25. https://doi.org/10.1038/549023aGoogle Scholar
Moore, P. V. (2017). The quantified self in precarity: Work, technology and what counts. Routledge.Google Scholar
Moosa, I. (2018). Publish or perish. Perceived benefits versus unintended consequences. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786434937Google Scholar
Mouritzen, P. E., & Opstrup, N. (2020). Performance management at universities: The Danish bibliometric research indicator at work. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21325-1Google Scholar
Moxham, N., & Fyfe, A. (2018). The royal society and the prehistory of peer review, 1665–1965. Historical Journal, 61(4), 863–889. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X17000334Google Scholar
Müller, M. (2018). In search of the Global East: Thinking between North and South. Geopolitics, 25(3), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2018.1477757Google Scholar
Müller, R., & De Rijcke, S. (2017). Exploring the epistemic impacts of academic performance indicators in the life sciences. Research Evaluation, 26(3), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx023Google Scholar
Münch, R. (2013). Academic capitalism: Universities in the global struggle for excellence. Routledge.Google Scholar
Musselin, C. (2014). Towards a European academic labour market? Some lessons drawn from empirical studies on academic mobility. Higher Education, 48(1), 55–78.Google Scholar
Musselin, C. (2018). New forms of competition in higher education. Socio-Economic Review, 16(3), 657–683. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwy033Google Scholar
Nabout, J. C., Parreira, M. R., Teresa, F. B., Carneiro, F. M., Da Cunha, H. F., De Souza Ondei, L., Caramori, S. S., & Soares, T. N. (2014). Publish (in a group) or perish (alone): The trend from single- to multi-authorship in biological papers. Scientometrics, 102(1), 357–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1385-5Google Scholar
Nalimov, V. V., & Mulchenko, Z. M. (1969). Naukometrija: Izučenie razvitija nauki kak informacionnogo processa. Nauka.Google Scholar
Nature. (2020). China’s research-evaluation revamp should not mean fewer international collaborations. Nature, 579(7797), 8. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00625-0Google Scholar
Nazarovets, S. (2020). Controversial practice of rewarding for publications in national journals. Scientometrics, 124(1), 813–818. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03485-7Google Scholar
Neal, H. A., Smith, T. L., & McCormick, J. B. (2008). Beyond Sputnik: U.S. science policy in the twenty-first century. University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Neave, G. (1998). The evaluative state reconsidered. European Journal of Education, 33(3), 265–284. www.jstor.org/stable/1503583Google Scholar
Neave, G. (2012). The evaluative state, institutional autonomy and re-engineering higher education in Western Europe: The prince and his pleasure. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Neff, M. W. (2018). Publication incentives undermine the utility of science: Ecological research in Mexico. Science and Public Policy, 45(2), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scx054Google Scholar
Noga-Styron, K. E., Olivero, J. M., & Britto, S. (2017). Predatory journals in the criminal justices sciences: Getting our cite on the target. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 28(2), 174–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2016.1195421Google Scholar
Nolting, L. E. (1978). The planning of research, development, and innovation in USSR. US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.Google Scholar
Ochsner, M., Kulczycki, E., & Gedutis, A. (2018, September 12–14). The diversity of European research evaluation systems [Paper presentation]. 23rd International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Leiden, The Netherlands. http://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl:8080/bitstream/10593/24096/1/STI2018_paper_204.pdfGoogle Scholar
O’Connell, B. T., De Lange, P., Martin-Sardesai, A., & Agyemang, G. (2020a). Measurement and assessment of accounting research, impact and engagement. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 33(6), 1177–1192. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-05-2020-4560Google Scholar
O’Connell, B. T., De Lange, P., Stoner, G., & Sangster, A. (2020b). Impact of research assessment exercises on research approaches and foci of accounting disciplines in Australia. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 33(6), 1277–1302. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-12-2019-4293Google Scholar
OECD. (2015). Frascati manual 2015: Guidelines for collecting and reporting data on research and experimental development. OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
Olechnicka, A., Ploszaj, A., & Celi, D. (2019). The geography of scientific collaboration. Routledge.Google Scholar
Olssen, M., & Peters, M. A. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: From the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy, 20(3), 313–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930500108718Google Scholar
Omenn, G. S. (2006). Grand challenges and great opportunities in science, technology, and public policy. Science, 314(5805), 1696–1704. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1135003Google Scholar
Omobowale, A. O., Akanle, O., Adeniran, A. I., & Adegboyega, K. (2014). Peripheral scholarship and the context of foreign paid publishing in Nigeria. Current Sociology, 62(5), 666–684. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392113508127Google Scholar
Önder, Ç., & Erdil, S. E. (2017). Opportunities and opportunism: Publication outlet selection under pressure to increase research productivity. Research Evaluation, 26(2), 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx006Google Scholar
Oppenheim, C. (2008). Out with the old and in with the new: The RAE, bibliometrics and the new REF. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 40(3), 147–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000608092550Google Scholar
Ossowska, M., & Ossowski, S. (1964). The science of science. Minerva, 3(1), 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01630150Google Scholar
Osuna, C., Cruz-Castro, L., & Sanz-Menéndez, L. (2011). Overturning some assumptions about the effects of evaluation systems on publication performance. Scientometrics, 86(3), 575–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0312-7Google Scholar
Pace, I. (2018, April 3). The RAE and REF: Resources and critiques. Desiring progress. https://ianpace.wordpress.com/2018/04/03/the-rae-and-ref-resources-and-critiques/Google Scholar
Pan, R. K., & Fortunato, S. (2014). Author impact factor: Tracking the dynamics of individual scientific impact. Scientific Reports, 4(1), 4880. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep04880Google Scholar
Pardo Guerra, J. P. (2020). Research metrics, labor markets, and epistemic change: Evidence from Britain 1970–2018. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/yzkfuGoogle Scholar
Parr, C. (2014, December 3). Imperial College professor Stefan Grimm “was given grant income target.” Times Higher Education. www.timeshighereducation.com/news/imperial-college-professor-stefan-grimm-was-given-grant-income-target/2017369.articleGoogle Scholar
Parsons, T. (1987). On institutions and social evolution: Selected writings (Mayhew, L., Ed.) (3rd ed.). University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pecorari, D. (2021). Predatory conferences: What are the signs? Journal of Academic Ethics, 19, 343–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09406-4Google Scholar
Perlin, M. S., Imasato, T., & Borenstein, D. (2018). Is predatory publishing a real threat? Evidence from a large database study. Scientometrics, 116(1), 255–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2750-6Google Scholar
Perry, J. L., & Engbers, T. A. (2009). Back to the future? Performance-related pay, empirical research, and the perils of persistence. Public Administration Review, 69(1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.01939_2.xGoogle Scholar
Petr, M., Engels, T. C. E., Kulczycki, E., Dušková, M., Guns, R., Sieberová, M., & Sivertsen, G. (2021). Journal article publishing in the social sciences and humanities: A comparison of Web of Science coverage for five European countries. PLOS ONE, 16(4), e0249879. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249879Google Scholar
Pielke, R. (2014). In retrospect: The social function of science. Nature, 507(7493), 427–428. https://doi.org/10.1038/507427aGoogle Scholar
Pisár, P., & Šipikal, M. (2017). Negative effects of performance based funding of universities: The case of Slovakia. NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 10(2), 171–189. https://doi.org/10.1515/nispa-2017-0017Google Scholar
Plane, B. (1999). The “Sputnik myth” and dissent over scientific policies under the new economic system in East Berlin, 1961–1964. Minerva, 37(1), 45–62.Google Scholar
Platonova, D., & Semyonov, D. (2018). Russia: The institutional landscape of Russian Higher education. In Huisman, J., Smolentseva, A., & Froumin, I. (Eds.), 25 years of transformations of higher education systems in post-Soviet countries (pp. 337–362). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52980-6_13Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1962). The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva, 1(1), 54–73.Google Scholar
Pollitt, C. (2013). The logics of performance management. Evaluation, 19(4), 346–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389013505040Google Scholar
Pölönen, J. (2018). Applications of, and experiences with, the Norwegian model in Finland. Journal of Data and Information Science, 3(4), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2018-0019Google Scholar
Pölönen, J., Guns, R., Kulczycki, E., Sivertsen, G., & Engels, T. C. E. (2020). National lists of scholarly publication channels: An overview and recommendations for their construction and maintenance. Journal of Data and Information Science, 6(1), 50–86. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2021-0004Google Scholar
Pölönen, J., Pylvänäinen, E., Aspara, J., Puuska, H.-M., & Rinne, R. (2021). Publication Forum 2010–2020: Self-evaluation report of the Finnish quality classification system of peer-reviewed publication channels. Helsinki: Federation of Finnish Learned Societies. https://doi.org/10.23847/isbn.9789525995442Google Scholar
Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Power, M. (1999). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Power, M. (2004). Counting, control and calculation: Reflections on measuring and management. Human Relations, 57(6), 765–783. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726704044955Google Scholar
Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010, October 26). Altmetrics: A manifesto. Altemetrics. http://altmetrics.org/manifestoGoogle Scholar
Pusser, B., & Marginson, S. (2013). University rankings in critical perspective. The Journal of Higher Education, 84(4), 544–568. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2013.0022Google Scholar
Quan, W., Chen, B., & Shu, F. (2017). Publish or impoverish: An investigation of the monetary reward system of science in China (1999–2016). Aslib Journal of Information Management, 69(5), 486–502. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0014Google Scholar
Radosevic, S. (2003). Patterns of preservation, restructuring and survival: Science and technology policy in Russia in post-Soviet era. Research Policy, 32(6), 1105–1124.Google Scholar
Reale, E., Avramov, D., Canhial, K., Donovan, C., Flecha, R., Holm, P., Larkin, C., Lepori, B., Mosoni-Fried, J., Oliver, E., Primeri, E., Puigvert, L., Scharnhorst, A., Schubert, A., Soler, M., Soòs, S., Sordé, T., Travis, C., & Van Horik, R. (2017). A review of literature on evaluating the scientific, social and political impact of social sciences and humanities research. Research Evaluation, 27(4), 298–308. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx025Google Scholar
Reitz, T. (2017). Academic hierarchies in neo-feudal capitalism: How status competition processes trust and facilitates the appropriation of knowledge. Higher Education, 73(6), 871–886. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0115-3Google Scholar
Reuveny, R. X., & Thompson, W. R. (2007). The North-South divide and international studies: A symposium. International Studies Review, 9(4), 556–564. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2486.2007.00722.xGoogle Scholar
Reymert, I. (2020). Bibliometrics in academic recruitment: A screening tool rather than a game changer. Minerva, 59, 53–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-020-09419-0Google Scholar
Ridgway, V. F. (1956). Dysfunctional consequences of performance measurements. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1(2), 240–247.Google Scholar
Rochmyaningsih, D. (2019). How to shine in Indonesian science? Game the system. Science, 363(6423), 111–112. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.363.6423.111Google Scholar
Rodriguez Medina, L. (2014). Centers and peripheries in knowledge production. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Rose, N. (1991). Governing by numbers: Figuring out democracy. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16(7), 673–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(91)90019-BGoogle Scholar
Rosli, A., & Rossi, F. (2016). Third-mission policy goals and incentives from performance-based funding: Are they aligned? Research Evaluation, 25(4), 427–441. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvw012Google Scholar
Rousseau, S., & Rousseau, R. (2017). Being metric-wise: Heterogeneity in bibliometric knowledge. El Profesional de La Informacion, 26(3), 480–487. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2017.may.14Google Scholar
Rowlands, J., & Gale, T. (2019). National research assessment frameworks, publication output targets and research practices: The compliance-habitus effect. Beijing International Review of Education, 1(1), 138–161. https://doi.org/10.1163/25902547-00101011Google Scholar
Rowlands, J., & Wright, S. (2019). Hunting for points: The effects of research assessment on research practice. Studies in Higher Education, 46(9), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1706077Google Scholar
Rowlands, J., & Wright, S. (2020). The role of bibliometric research assessment in a global order of epistemic injustice: A case study of humanities research in Denmark. Critical Studies in Education, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2020.1792523Google Scholar
Rozkosz, E. A. (2017). Polskie czasopisma pedagogiczne w “Wykazach czasopism punktowanych” w latach 2012, 2013 i 2015. In Kulczycki, E. (Ed.), Komunikacja naukowa w humanistyce (pp. 153–173). Wydawnictwo Naukowe Instytutu Filozofii UAM.Google Scholar
Salager-Meyer, F. (2015). Peripheral scholarly journals: From locality to globality. Ibérica, 30(2015), 15–36.Google Scholar
Sandoval-Romero, V., & Larivière, V. (2019). The national system of researchers in Mexico: Implications of publication incentives for researchers in social sciences. Scientometrics, 122(1), 99–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03285-8Google Scholar
Sauder, M., & Espeland, W. N. (2009). The discipline of rankings: Tight coupling and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400104Google Scholar
Schaff, A. (1956). Nauki Filozoficzne. In Suchodolski, B., Michajłow, W., Olszewski, E., Sosnowski, L., & Żółkiewski, S. (Eds.), Dziesięć lat rozwoju nauki w Polsce Ludowej (pp. 87–110). Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar
Schneider, J. W. (2009). An outline of the bibliometric indicator used for performance-based funding of research institutions in Norway. European Political Science, 8(3), 364–378. https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2009.19Google Scholar
Schneider, J. W., Aagaard, K., & Bloch, C. W. (2016). What happens when national research funding is linked to differentiated publication counts? A comparison of the Australian and Norwegian publication-based funding models. Research Evaluation, 25(3), 244–256. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv036Google Scholar
Scopus. (2014, November 19). Times higher education choose scopus data for its world university ranking. Blog Scopus. https://blog.scopus.com/posts/times-higher-education-choose-scopus-data-for-its-world-university-rankingGoogle Scholar
Serger, S. S., & Breidne, M. (2007). China’s fifteen-year plan for science and technology: An assessment. Asia Policy, 4(1), 135–164. https://doi.org/10.1353/asp.2007.0013Google Scholar
Shapin, S. (2012). The ivory tower: The history of a figure of speech and its cultural uses. The British Journal for the History of Science, 45(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007087412000118Google Scholar
Sharma, Y. (2010, May 16). Asia: Governments should ignore rankings: Quacquarelli. University World News. www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20100514204441858Google Scholar
Shaw, M. A. (2019). Public accountability versus academic independence: Tensions of public higher education governance in Poland. Studies in Higher Education, 44(12), 2235–2248. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1483910Google Scholar
Shen, C., & Björk, B.-C. (2015). “Predatory” open access: A longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 230. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2Google Scholar
Shore, C., & Wright, S. (2003). Coercive accountability: The rise of audit culture in higher education. In Strathern, M. (Ed.), Audit cultures: Antropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy (pp. 69–101). Routledge.Google Scholar
Shu, F., Quan, W., Chen, B., Qiu, J., Sugimoto, C. R., & Larivière, V. (2020). The role of web of science publications in China’s tenure system. Scientometrics, 122(3), 1683–1695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03339-xGoogle Scholar
Sīle, L., Pölönen, J., Sivertsen, G., Guns, R., Engels, T. C. E. E., Arefiev, P., Dušková, M., Faurbæk, L., Holl, A., Kulczycki, E., Macan, B., Nelhans, G., Petr, M., Pisk, M., Soós, S., Stojanovski, J., Stone, A., Šušol, J., & Teitelbaum, R. (2018). Comprehensiveness of national bibliographic databases for social sciences and humanities: Findings from a European survey. Research Evaluation, 27(4), 310–322. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvy016Google Scholar
Sivertsen, G. (2014). Scholarly publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities and their coverage in Scopus and Web of Science. In E. Noyons (Ed.), Proceedings of the science and technology indicators conference 2014 Leiden “Context counts: Pathways to master big and little data” (pp. 598–604). Universiteit Leiden.Google Scholar
Sivertsen, G. (2018a). Balanced multilingualism in science. BiD: Textos Universitaris de Biblioteconomia i Documentació, 40. https://doi.org/10.1344/BiD2018.40.25Google Scholar
Sivertsen, G. (2018b). The Norwegian model in Norway. Journal of Data and Information Science, 3(4), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2018-0017Google Scholar
Skalska-Zlat, M. (2001). Nalimov and the Polish way towards science of science. Scientometrics, 52(2), 211–223. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017911722525Google Scholar
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, P. (1995). On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 18(2–3), 277–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900699508525011Google Scholar
Smolentseva, A. (2017). Where Soviet and neoliberal discourses meet: The transformation of the purposes of higher education in Soviet and post-Soviet Russia. Higher Education, 74(6), 1091–1108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0111-7Google Scholar
Smolentseva, A. (2019). Field of higher education research, Russia. In Teixeira, P. N. & Shin, J. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of international higher education systems and institutions (pp. 1–8). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9553-1_189-1Google Scholar
Sokal, A. (1996). A physicist experiments with cultural studies. Lingua Franca, 6(4), 62–64.Google Scholar
Sokolov, M. (2016). Can efforts to raise publication productivity in Russia cause a decline of international academic periodicals? Higher Education in Russia and Beyond, 7(1), 16–18.Google Scholar
Sokolov, M. (2020). A story of two national research evaluation systems: Towards a comparative sociology of quantification. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/6r85mGoogle Scholar
Sokolov, M. (2021). Can Russian research policy be called neoliberal? A study in the comparative sociology of quantifica. Europe-Asia Studies, 73(3), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2021.1902945Google Scholar
Sorokowski, P., Kulczycki, E., Sorokowska, A., & Pisanski, K. (2017). Predatory journals recruit fake editor. Nature, 543(7646), 481–483. https://doi.org/10.1038/543481aGoogle Scholar
Stöckelová, T., & Vostal, F. (2017). Academic stratospheres-cum-underworlds: When highs and lows of publication cultures meet. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 69(5), 516–528. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0013Google Scholar
Stockhammer, E., Dammerer, Q., & Kapur, S. (2021). The research excellence framework 2014, journal ratings and the marginalisation of heterodox economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 45(2), 243–269. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/beaa054Google Scholar
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)5:3<305::AID-EURO184>3.0.CO;2-4Google Scholar
Strielkowski, W. (2018a). Predatory publishing: What are the alternatives to Beall’s list? The American Journal of Medicine, 131(4), 333–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.10.054Google Scholar
Strielkowski, W. (2018b). Setting new publishing standards after the Beall’s list. The International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 9(2), 108–110. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijoem.2018.1314Google Scholar
Strielkowski, W., & Gryshova, I. (2018). Academic publishing and «predatory» journals. Science and Innovation, 14(1), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.15407/scine14.01.005Google Scholar
Suits, B. (1967). What is a game? Philosophy of Science, 34(2), 148–156. https://doi.org/10.1086/288138Google Scholar
Sum, N.-L., & Jessop, B. (2013). Competitiveness, the knowledge-based economy and higher education. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 4(1), 24–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-012-0121-8Google Scholar
Swinnerton-Dyer, P., & Major, L. E. (2001, October 30). Living with RAEs. The Guardian. www.theguardian.com/education/2001/oct/30/researchassessmentexercise.highereducationGoogle Scholar
Szasz, T. S. (1974). The myth of mental illness: Foundations of a theory of personal conduct. Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., Sorooshian, S., & Al-Khatib, A. (2017). Cost-benefit assessment of congresses, meetings or symposia, and selection criteria to determine if they are predatory. Walailak Journal of Science and Technology, 14(4), 259–265.Google Scholar
Tenopir, C., & King, D. W. (2014). The growth of journals publishing. The Future of the Academic Journal, 159–178. https://doi.org/10.1533/9781780634647.159Google Scholar
Teodorescu, D., & Andrei, T. (2009). Faculty and peer influences on academic integrity: College cheating in Romania. Higher Education, 57(3), 267–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9143-3Google Scholar
Thompson, J. W. (2002). The death of the scholarly monograph in the humanities? Citation patterns in literary scholarship. Libri, 52(3), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1515/LIBR.2002.121Google Scholar
Tollefson, J. (2018, January 18). China declared largest source of research articles. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-00927-4Google Scholar
Tonta, Y. (2018). Does monetary support increase the number of scientific papers? An interrupted time series analysis. Journal of Data and Information Science, 3(1), 19–39. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2018-0002Google Scholar
Townsend, R. B. (2003, October 1). History and the future of scholarly publishing. Perspectives. www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/october-2003/history-and-the-future-of-scholarly-publishingGoogle Scholar
Tuszko, A., & Chaskielewicz, S. (1968). Organizowanie i kierowanie. Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar
UHR. (2004). A bibliometric model for performance-based budgeting of research institutions. Norwegian Association of Higher Education Institutions.Google Scholar
Umut, A., & Soydal, İ. (2012). Dergi Kendine Atıfının Etkisi: Energy education science and technology Örneği. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 26(4), 699–714.Google Scholar
Van den Besselaar, P., Heyman, U., & Sandström, U. (2017). Perverse effects of output-based research funding? Butler’s Australian case revisited. Journal of Informetrics, 11(3), 905–918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.05.016Google Scholar
Vanclay, J. K. (2011). An evaluation of the Australian Research Council’s journal ranking. Journal of Informetrics, 5(2), 265–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.12.001Google Scholar
Vavilov, S. I. (1948). Soviet science: Thirty years. Marxists. www.marxists.org/archive/vavilov/1948/30-years/x01.htmGoogle Scholar
Vera, H. (2008). Economic rationalization, money and measures: A Weberian perspective. In Chalcraft, D., Howell, F., Lopez Menendez, M., & Vera, H. (Eds.), Max Weber matters: Interweaving past and present (pp. 135–147). Routledge.Google Scholar
Vernon, M. M., Balas, E. A., & Momani, S. (2018). Are university rankings useful to improve research? A systematic review. PLOS ONE, 13(3), e0193762. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193762Google Scholar
Vishlenkova, E. (2018). Education management as an exact science (Russia, First Half of the Nineteenth Century). Kwartalnik Historii Nauki i Techniki, 63(4), 93–114. https://doi.org/10.4467/0023589XKHNT.18.028.9519Google Scholar
Vishlenkova, E., & Ilina, K. A. (2013). Университетское делопроизводство как практика управления. Опыт России первой половины XIX в. Вопросы Образования, 1, 232–255.Google Scholar
Visser, M., Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2021). Large-scale comparison of bibliographic data sources: Web of Science, Scopus, Dimensions, Crossref and Microsoft Academic. Quantitative Science Studies, 2(1), 20–41. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00112Google Scholar
Vitanov, N. K. (2016). Science dynamics and research production: Indicators, indexes, statistical laws and mathematical models. Springer.Google Scholar
Vostal, F. (2016). Accelerating academia: The changing structure of academic time. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wainwright, M. (1985, January 30). Oxford votes to refuse Thatcher degree. The Guardian. www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/jan/30/thatcher-honorary-degree-refused-oxfordGoogle Scholar
Wallerstein, I. (2004). World-systems analysis: An introduction. Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Warczok, T., & Zarycki, T. (2016). Gra peryferyjna: Polska politologia w globalnym polu nauk społecznych. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.Google Scholar
Warren, J. (2019). How much do you have to publish to get a job in a top sociology department? Or to get tenure? Trends over a generation. Sociological Science, 6(7), 172–196. https://doi.org/10.15195/v6.a7Google Scholar
Watermeyer, R. (2019). Competitive accountability in academic life. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788976138Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wieczorek, O., & Schubert, D. (2020). The symbolic power of the research excellence framework: Evidence from a case study on the individual and collective adaptation of British Sociologists. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/wda3jGoogle Scholar
Wilbers, S., & Brankovic, J. (2021). The emergence of university rankings: A historical-sociological account. Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-00776-7Google Scholar
Williams, G., Basso, A., Galleron, I., & Lippiello, T. (2018). More, less or better: The problem of evaluating books in SSH research. In Bonaccorsi, A. (Ed.), The evaluation of research in social sciences and humanities: Lessons from the Italian experience (pp. 133–158). Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Williams, K., & Grant, J. (2018). A comparative review of how the policy and procedures to assess research impact evolved in Australia and the UK. Research Evaluation, 27(2), 931–105. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx042Google Scholar
Wilsdon, J., Allen, L., Belfiore, E., Campbell, P., Curry, S., Hill, S., Jones, R., Kain, R., Kerridge, S., Thelwall, M., Tinkler, J., Viney, I., Wouters, P., Hill, J., & Johnson, B. (2015). The metric tide: Report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363Google Scholar
Wilson, J. (2016). The white cube in the black box: Assessing artistic research quality in multidisciplinary academic panels. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(8), 1223–1236. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1075190Google Scholar
Wilson, M., Mari, L., & Maul, A. (2019). The status of the concept of reference object in measurement in the human sciences compared to the physical sciences. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1379(1), 012025. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1379/1/012025Google Scholar
Wincewicz, A., Sulkowska, M., & Sulkowski, S. (2007). Rudolph Weigl (1883–1957): A scientist in Poland in wartime plus ratio quam vis. Journal of Medical Biography, 15(2), 111–115. https://doi.org/10.1258/j.jmb.2007.06-19Google Scholar
Woelert, P., & McKenzie, L. (2018). Follow the money? How Australian universities replicate national performance-based funding mechanisms. Research Evaluation, 27(3), 184–195. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvy018Google Scholar
Wouters, P. (1999). The Citation Culture [PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam]. http://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.163066Google Scholar
Wouters, P. (2017). Bridging the evaluation gap. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 3, 108–118. https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2017.115Google Scholar
Wroński, M. (2021, February). Jak zapełnić sloty. Forum Akademickie, 2. https://miesiecznik.forumakademickie.pl/czasopisma/fa-2-2021/jak-zapelnic-sloty%e2%80%a9/Google Scholar
Xia, J. (2017). Assessment: Which? In Xia, J. (Ed.), Scholarly communication at the crossroads in China (pp. 139–155). Chandos Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100539-2.00006-8Google Scholar
Xia, J., Harmon, J. L., Connolly, K. G., Donnelly, R. M., Anderson, M. R., & Howard, H. A. (2015). Who publishes in “predatory” journals? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(7), 1406–1417. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23265Google Scholar
Xu, X. (2020). China “goes out” in a centre–periphery world: Incentivizing international publications in the humanities and social sciences. Higher Education, 80, 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00470-9Google Scholar
Xu, X., Rose, H., & Oancea, A. (2021). Incentivising international publications: Institutional policymaking in Chinese higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 46(6) 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1672646Google Scholar
Yan, J. R., Baldawi, H., Lex, J. R., Simchovich, G., Baisi, L.-P., Bozzo, A., & Ghert, M. (2018). Predatory publishing in orthopaedic research: The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 100(21), e138. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.17.01569Google Scholar
Yang, M., & Leibold, J. (2020). Building a “Double First-class University” on China’s Qing-Zang Plateau: Opportunities, strategies and challenges. The China Quarterly, 244, 1140–1159. doi:10.1017/S030574102000106XGoogle Scholar
Yang, X., & You, Y. (2018). How the world-class university project affects scientific productivity? Evidence from a survey of faculty members in China. Higher Education Policy, 31(4), 583–605. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-017-0073-5Google Scholar
Yudkevich, M., Altbach, P. G., & Rumbley, L. E. (Eds.). (2016). The global academic rankings game. Changing institutional policy, practice, and academic life. Routledge.Google Scholar
Zacharewicz, T., Lepori, B., Reale, E., & Jonkers, K. (2019). Performance-based research funding in EU Member States: A comparative assessment. Science and Public Policy, June, 46(1), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scy041Google Scholar
Zastrow, M. (2019, November 6). South Korea clamps down on academics attending “weak” conferences. Nature. https://10.1038/d41586-019-03372-z/Google Scholar
Zhang, L., & Sivertsen, G. (2020). The new research assessment reform in China and its implementation. Scholarly Assessment Reports, 2(1), 3. www.scholarlyassessmentreports.org/articles/10.29024/sar.15/Google Scholar
Zsindely, S., Schubert, A., & Braun, T. (1982). Editorial gatekeeping patterns in international science journals: A new science indicator. Scientometrics, 4(1), 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02098006Google Scholar