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.

This article uses the model of dependency between centers and peripheries of scientific knowledge production to create a theoretical framework for investigating predatory journals. The framework is presented as an alternative to the dominant ways of the problem's characterization. Predatory journals are so far described mostly as a newly emerging phenomenon strongly connected with publishing in Open Access and fraudulent publishers. In this article, I argue that predatory publishers are recognized as illegitimate by the center of knowledge production. This geopolitically situated approach let me look more critically on the ways of assigning this illegitimacy. It also allows me to define the ostensible center and reveal a mechanism for functioning many journals accused of being predatory. The ostensible center is understood as an institution disseminating knowledge that is invisible or illegitimate to the center. However, at the same time some actors see an ostensible center as belonging to the center. The presented terms are analytical tools for further research that might enable us to get a wider picture of a modern global system of knowledge production and point out its antiegalitarian mechanism.