Search results

Filters

  • Journals
  • Keywords
  • Date

Search results

Number of results: 11
items per page: 25 50 75
Sort by:
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

In the structure of cities functional and spatial transformations are constant and are reflected in their contemporary landscape. The enormous scale of present cities creates difficulties in managing their heterogeneous landscape. This city landscape is composition of a number of different landscape units with distinct characteristics and values. Identification and delimitation of those landscape units based on field and study research could therefore be the key for urban landscape management. The current administrative city districts do not include landscape in as material for administration. In one administrational city district even few landscape units can be found. The delimitation of city landscapes as a part of Local Spatial Development Plan may be the basis for setting detailed guidelines for landscape administration. Landscape units therefore could become efficient management tool for urban landscaping.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Paweł Nowak
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

W latach międzywojennych rozpoczęto twórcze poszukiwania rozwiązania problemu mieszkaniowego. Znajdujące się w kamienicach niewielkie pomieszczenia zostały uznane przez modernistów za niewystarczająco komfortowe środowisko do zamieszkania. W 1933 roku, podczas IV Kongresu CIAM2, przy wsparciu Le Corbusiera uchwalono Kartę Ateńską, w której znalazły się postulaty dotyczące nowoczesnej zabudowy powstającej w zdrowej, miejskiej przestrzeni. Odbywając podróże studialne po Europie, Le Corbusier pogłębiał swoje doświadczenie zawodowe, które wykorzystał w projekcie tzw. „Jednostki Mieszkaniowej” (Unite d’Habitation). Na bazie jego rozwiązań zaczęły powstawać podobne budynki. W Polsce była to Superjednostka w Katowicach zaprojektowana przez Mieczysława Króla. Przeprowadzona w artykule analiza stanowi próbę odnalezienia wpływu idei Le Corbusiera na projektowanie podobnych realizacji zabudowy mieszkaniowej.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Joanna Kania
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The article traces Bertrand Russell’s interest in anarchist thought. I take his The Roads to Freedom as the main reference point, because that was the book where Russell applied himself most consistently to the study of the ideas put forward by anarchist thinkers. Those ideas – as he points out – undertake to conceive more imaginatively a better ordering of the human society than one finds in ʻthe destructive and cruel chaos in which mankind has hitherto existed’. He emphasizes that across the ages individuals had to face harsh conditions in which state ensnared them. The conflict between freedom and enslavement was the most important aspect of that condition. Bertrand Russell i anarchizm 513
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Jacek Uglik
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Uniwersytet Zielonogórski, Instytut Filozofii, Al. Wojska Polskiego 71a, 65-762 Zielona Góra
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Henryk Elzenberg należy do najoryginalniejszych dwudziestowiecznych polskich myślicieli. Mniej znany za granicą niż Kołakowski czy Ingarden, miał za życia wiernych admiratorów i krąg starannie dobranych uczniów; jednym z nich był młody Zbigniew Herbert. Filozofia Elzenberga, asystematyczna, bardzo osobista i prezentowana w tekstach mających nieraz walory literackie (jego główne dzieło jest rodzajem filozoficznego dziennika prowadzonego przez ponad pół wieku), może być interpretowana na wiele sposobów. Autor artykułu usiłuje uchwycić jej ideę przewodnią i usytuować ją zarówno w kontekście specyficznie polskim, jak i w kontekście kultury współczesnej w ogóle. Utrzymuje, iż Elzenberg był przeświadczony o nieuchronności konfliktu między uduchowioną jednostką a społeczeństwem, jako że tylko jednostka może być nosicielem wartości wyższych. Oznacza to, że historia, będąca domeną walczących ze sobą wspólnot, na zawsze pozostać musi sferą absurdu i immoralizmu; najlepszym wyjściem dla wyrafinowanej jednostki jest więc życie aspołeczne, nastawione na moralne i intelektualne doskonalenie się. Stanowisko takie jest czymś wyjątkowym w kontekście kultury polskiej, zawsze ceniącej życie aktywne i podporządkowującej jednostkę celom wspólnoty. Co więcej, jest ono cennym ewenementem w kontekście współczesnego Zachodu, pozostającego we władzy kolektywistycznych w istocie ideologii, takich jak neoliberalizm (!) czy wszelkiego rodzaju dyskursy tożsamości.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Sławomir Mazurek
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The shifting attitudes to sources and traditional paradigms of social history and history of the early modern period culture, and to problems of individuals and groups, are considered here. The author indicates discussion fi elds and specifi c results of work carried out by research groups (mainly French and German ones). He indicates trends and tendencies in discovering individuals in presenting historical events from the perspective of a collective hero
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Stanisław Roszak
ORCID: ORCID
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

In this article I present an outline of selected feminist critiques of John Rawls’s theory. I limit myself to four problems: the concept of the social contract and the individual (C. Pateman), the concept of moral development (C. Gilligan) and the critique of the concept of justice (M. Nussbaum, N. Fraser). I offer an opinion on the undiminished relevance of the problems posed by these feminists.
Go to article

Bibliography

Fraser N. (2014), Drogi feminizmu. Od kapitalizmu państwowego do neoliberalnego kryzysu, przeł. A. Weseli, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Krytyki Politycznej.
Freud Z. (1992), Kilka psychologicznych skutków anatomicznej różnicy płci, w: tenże, Życie seksualne, przeł. E. Abłamowicz, Warszawa: Fundacja Aletheia.
Gilligan C. (2015), Innym głosem. Teoria psychologiczna a rozwój kobiet, przeł. B. Szelewa, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Krytyki Politycznej.
Kymlicka W. (2009), Współczesna filozofia polityczna, przeł. A. Pawelec, Warszawa: Fundacja Aletheia.
MacKinnon C. (1987), Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Noddings N. (1984), Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Noddings N. (1989), Women and Evil, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Nussbaum M. (1988), Nature, Function, and Capability: Aristotle on Political Distribution, „Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy”, suppl. vol., s. 145–184.
Nussbaum M. (1990), Aristotelian Social Democracy, w: R.B. Douglass, G.M. Mara, H.S. Richardson (red.), Liberalism and the Good, New York – London: Routledge, s. 203–252.
Nussbaum M. (2000), Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach, Cambridge – New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nussbaum M. (2006), Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Nussbaum M. (2013), Political Emotions: Why Love Matters for Justice, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Nussbaum M. (2016), Gniew i wybaczenie, przeł. J. Kolczyńska, Warszawa: Zielone Drzewo.
Okin S.M. (1989), Justice, Gender and the Family, New York: Basic Books.
Pateman C. (2014), Kontrakt płci, przeł. J. Mikos, Warszawa: Czarna Owca.
Radcliffe Richards J. (1980), The Sceptical Feminist: A Philosophical Enquiry, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Rawls J. (1994), Teoria sprawiedliwości, przeł. M. Panufnik, J. Pasek, A. Romaniuk, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Rawls J. (1998), Liberalizm polityczny, przeł. A. Romaniuk, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Rawls J. (2001), Prawo ludów, przeł. M. Kozłowski, Warszawa: Fundacja Aletheia.
Wysobłocki T. (2014), Obywatelki. Kobiety w przestrzeni publicznej we Francji przełomu wieków XVIII i XIX, Kraków: Universitas.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Magdalena Środa
1
ORCID: ORCID

  1. Uniwersytet Warszawski, Wydział Filozofii, ul. Krakowskie Przedmieście 3, 00‑927 Warszawa
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Roger Scruton refers to Thomas Stearns Eliot in almost every one of his books, but despite the undoubtedly fundamental influence, which Eliot had exerted on the development of Scruton’s outlook, apart from a short article entitled Eliot and Conservatism, Scruton did not devote a separate work to Eliot’s thought. As I try to show this is due to the fact that Scruton was not so much a scholar of Eliot, as a continuator of his thought – not merely an expert on his philosophy and poetry, but an inheritor of his spiritual legacy. Both Eliot and Scruton belong to a current, which may rightly be called conservative philosophy of culture. In this paper I outline the conception of culture advanced by Eliot, and show how Scruton draws on this conception in his own spiritual development.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Mikołaj Sławkowski-Rode
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Główne pytanie badawcze prezentowanego artykułu brzmi: czy polska polityka ewaluacji jednostek naukowych wpływa na podnoszenie poziomu nauki w polskich instytucjach naukowych? Przyjęto założenie, iż warunkiem jakości nauki jako działalności ukierunkowanej na generowanie nowej wiedzy jest etos naukowy oparty na czterech imperatywach Roberta K. Mertona: uniwersalizmie, wspólnotowości, bezinteresowności i zorganizowanym sceptycyzmie. Polityka, która za cel stawia sobie podnoszenie jakości nauki, powinna promować i wzmacniać postępowanie zgodne z normami etosu naukowego. Przeprowadzona analiza porównawcza pomiędzy normami Mertona a normami postępowania, które wymusza polityka ewaluacji, ujawniła, iż zasady ewaluacji jednostek naukowych nie sprzyjają kształtowaniu się norm etosu naukowego, a często są z nimi sprzeczne. Paradoksalnie, procedury ewaluacji stworzone do promowania jakości polskiej nauki prowadzą do obniżania jakości działalności naukowej. Jeśli celem polskiej nauki ma być generowanie nowej wiedzy, a nie tylko zapewnienie awansu społecznego, należy przeformułować zasady polityki ewaluacji jednostek naukowych tak, aby zwiększyć ich zgodność z normami etosu naukowego.
Go to article

Bibliography

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

Authors and Affiliations

Konrad Kulikowski
1

  1. Politechnika Łódzka
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to discuss selected formal and pragmatic aspects of the Austro-Hungarian military name policy in the last quarter of the 19th and in the early 20th century. In the introductory section the proprial status of the names of military units (which constitute a part of military chrematonymy) is discussed. An attempt is made to outline the location of these names on the classificatory map of chrematonomastics as well. A brief discussion of the historical and terminological background of the Austro-Hungarian military unit names follows. The most important concepts of the theory of name and naming policy are outlined. The presentation of the analysed onymic material covers unit names included in the officer lists (Schematismen) of the Austro-Hungarian forces as well as names present in the paper seals (Verschlussmarken). On the basis of the material, polymorphism of the discussed names is shown in the sense that obligatory and facultative elements of the names may appear in different ways and within various syntactic name models, depending on the context (including continuous text within which a name is used). Two main syntactic models of the discussed names are proposed. The orthographic and syntactic rules of unit numbering and the ways of embedding geographical names and names of patrons and honorary regiment owners (Inhaber) into unit names are outlined. The meaning and spelling of the expressions imperial-royal (k.k. = kaiserlich-königlich) and imperial and royal (k.u.k. = kaiserlich und königlich) are explained.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Wojciech Włoskowicz
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

In education, information and Communications Technologies mostly play the role of a medium of communication, as well as a means of imparting knowledge. ICT, however, is used less as a subject for student activity, i.e. a subject for students to learn, where they can operate the technology, as in robotics or mechantronics. Information technologies are also very rarely implemented in education as a way for students to build their identity and shape their attitudes towards their outside and inside worlds. In spite of this, in the history of educational technology there have been a number of researchers and educators who have promoted interesting ideas for implementing technologies as tools for human cognitive, affective, psychomotor and moral empowerment. Today such people are also present in education, however, they play unimportant roles on the periphery of formal education. This paper is a reminder of a number of ideas by theorists and researchers concerning the implementation of ICT, but mainly highlights the empowerment it gives students and its humanizing/humanitarian role.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Stanisław Dylak

This page uses 'cookies'. Learn more