The direct motivation for this article is the publication of two updates of the Polish Journal Rankings on 9 and 18 February 2021, which were prepared by the Minister of Education and Science and bypassed the Research Evaluation Commission. This article aims to characterize the changes made by the minister in relation to the draft ranking prepared by the commission. For providing a complete picture of the changes, I describe the main principles for building the ranking according to the new model implemented in 2018. Then, I characterize the minister's changes in terms of added journals and changing the points assigned to the journals. The analysis is provided through the lens of the universities publishing these journals and the disciplines assigned to the journals. The article concludes by identifying four main recommendations that should be implemented to restore the usefulness of the ranking as an instrument of science policy.

The aim of this paper is twofold. Firstly, I present the scholarly book publications patterns of Polish scholars. Secondly, I show how scholarly book publications are assessed in various European research evaluation systems. Moreover, I argue that the diversity of evaluation models depends on the scientific policy aims in a given country. This presentation of European models allows me to discuss a new Polish science policy instrument, that is the list of publishers prepared for the upcoming evaluation exercise in 2021. In 2018, the Ministry of Science and Higher Education in Poland implemented a new model of scholarly book publication assessment based on the list of publishers. On the one hand, such a science policy instrument might be a way to appreciate the best quality scholarly books and give them more points than articles in the evaluation exercise. On the other hand, it is a so far unknown instrument which differentiates publications that have been treated the same up to date. Additionally, this paper aims to shed some light on how the new Polish model was prepared.

This article discusses the challenges and problems caused by predatory journals in scholarly communication. By focusing on the editorial practices, I describe the case of Dr. Anna Fraud (Anna O. Szust in Polish): a bogus scientist created by four Polish scholars. Dr. Fraud became a member of editorial boards in over 40 scientific journals although she is a fake person and, obviously has no experience in journal editing. The present paper aims to show that scientist always have to care about a quality control and a peer review system. The article concludes with a presentation of the ‘Think. Check. Submit’ Initiative which provides useful and helpful tools for analysing journals by potential contributors.

The habilitation degree in Poland ends not with a bang but with a whimper: in spite of grandiloquent announcements from Minister Czarnek about restoring its due prestige and role, the increase in the number of schools entitled to grant habilitation leads to a hyperinflation of this degree, and in the long run – to its demise. In our article, we are discussing briefly the pros and cons of habilitation system, the status quo after most recent reforms, the quantitative analysis of the numbers of schools receiving the habilitation granting rights, and the consequences of the change. We end with a short description of possible scenarios of the current crisis.

The article presents the results of research on the impact of the Polish system of research evaluation on art universities and the scholarly (research and artistic) activity of their employees. The research is based on interviews conducted with 60 employees of public art colleges and art faculties operating at universities. The results suggest that the evaluation system has an impact on both the research and artistic activities of employees and the functioning of the university. This impact includes the use by academics and university managers of a variety of strategies and ways of ‘gaming’ undertaken to meet the requirements of the evaluation system. At the same time, our study showed that the impact of the evaluation system depends on the broader context of the functioning of art universities, which operate at the interface of two sectors: culture and science.

This article presents the results of a study on the process of creating evaluative homogeneity within the Polish performance-based research funding system. To achieve this, the creation process of the national journal ranking from 2019 was analysed in two scientific disciplines: biology and history. The selection of this case is motivated by its particular nature – the creation of the list using bibliometric indicators and expert input. Therefore, the following question was posed: What guided the actors participating in the process of creating the list using bibliometric indicators when introducing changes to its original form? To answer this question, mixed methods were applied. Firstly, a quantitative analysis was conducted on the changes introduced to the ranking during its various stages of creation. Secondly, a qualitative analysis was carried out on partially structured interviews regarding the motivations of the actors. Through qualitative and quantitative analysis, the study revealed the extent to which actors influence the form that evaluative homogeneity takes within the Polish system. Through qualitative analysis and quantitative results, the study revealed the extent to which actors influence the form that evaluative homogeneity takes in the Polish system. Furthermore, the article argues that the form that evaluative homogeneity takes is dictated by how actors position themselves in relation to two opposing forces: heterogeneity and homogeneity, and the practice and form of research quality evaluation as seen through their prism. The text concludes with a short epilogue, updating the findings of the study beyond its time frame.