IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/6ebw2_v1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Podsumowanie wyników badania „Jak pracownicy naukowi oceniają systemy oceny okresowej, którym podlegają”

Author

Listed:
  • Kulikowski, Konrad
  • Przytyła, Sylwia
  • Sułkowski, Łukasz

Abstract

Raport przedstawia podsumowanie odpowiedzi na pytania zadane podczas badania dotyczącego tego, jak pracownicy naukowi oceniają system oceny okresowej, której podlegają. W badaniu wzięło udział 1191 naukowców. Pytania dotyczyły trzech zasadniczych kwestii. Po pierwsze, odnosiły się do napięć pomiędzy oceną ilościową a jakościową pracy naukowej. Badano zjawisko tzw. „punktozy” na polskich uczelniach, analizując w jakim stopniu kryteria systemu oceny okresowej naukowców bazują na liczbie ministerialnych punktów zdobytych za publikacje, a w jakim na ocenie innych aspektów pracy naukowej. Po drugie, pytania odnosiły się do tego, w jakim stopniu system oceny okresowej naukowców generuje wymagania pracy utrudniające pracę (ang. job demands), a w jakim zasoby pracy (ang. job resources), które motywują i dostarczają energii do pracy. Po trzecie badanie zawierało pytania odnoszące się do poziomu zaangażowania w pracę i wypalenia zawodowego naukowców.

Suggested Citation

  • Kulikowski, Konrad & Przytyła, Sylwia & Sułkowski, Łukasz, 2023. "Podsumowanie wyników badania „Jak pracownicy naukowi oceniają systemy oceny okresowej, którym podlegają”," OSF Preprints 6ebw2_v1, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:6ebw2_v1
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/6ebw2_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/63ea5885cb544b03859e5ee0/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/6ebw2_v1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Diana Hicks & Paul Wouters & Ludo Waltman & Sarah de Rijcke & Ismael Rafols, 2015. "Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics," Nature, Nature, vol. 520(7548), pages 429-431, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bryce, Cormac & Dowling, Michael & Lucey, Brian, 2020. "The journal quality perception gap," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(5).
    2. Domingo Docampo & Lawrence Cram, 2019. "Highly cited researchers: a moving target," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 1011-1025, March.
    3. Sten F Odenwald, 2020. "A citation study of earth science projects in citizen science," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-26, July.
    4. Alexander Kalgin & Olga Kalgina & Anna Lebedeva, 2019. "Publication Metrics as a Tool for Measuring Research Productivity and Their Relation to Motivation," Voprosy obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow, National Research University Higher School of Economics, issue 1, pages 44-86.
    5. Ramón A. Feenstra & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2022. "Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 2085-2103, April.
    6. Lin Hu & Qinghai Chen & Tingting Yang & Chuanjian Yi & Jing Chen, 2024. "Visualization and Analysis of Hotspots and Trends in Seafood Cold Chain Logistics Based on CiteSpace, VOSviewer, and RStudio Bibliometrix," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-22, July.
    7. Frederique Bordignon, 2020. "Self-correction of science: a comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(2), pages 1225-1239, August.
    8. Marco Cozzi, 2020. "Public Funding of Research and Grant Proposals in the Social Sciences: Empirical Evidence from Canada," Department Discussion Papers 1809, Department of Economics, University of Victoria.
    9. Alexandre López-Borrull & Mari Vállez & Candela Ollé & Mario Pérez-Montoro, 2021. "Publisher Transparency among Communications and Library and Information Science Journals: Analysis and Recommendations," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-12, November.
    10. Shahd Al-Janabi & Lee Wei Lim & Luca Aquili, 2021. "Development of a tool to accurately predict UK REF funding allocation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 8049-8062, September.
    11. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Flavia Costa, 2023. "Correlating article citedness and journal impact: an empirical investigation by field on a large-scale dataset," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1877-1894, March.
    12. Wildgaard, Lorna, 2016. "A critical cluster analysis of 44 indicators of author-level performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1055-1078.
    13. Zhang, Lin & Qi, Fan & Sivertsen, Gunnar & Liang, Liming & Campbell, David, 2023. "Gender differences in the patterns and consequences of changing research directions in scientific careers," SocArXiv ep5bx_v1, Center for Open Science.
    14. Cristiano Varin & Manuela Cattelan & David Firth, 2016. "Statistical modelling of citation exchange between statistics journals," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 179(1), pages 1-63, January.
    15. Lanu Kim & Jason H. Portenoy & Jevin D. West & Katherine W. Stovel, 2020. "Scientific journals still matter in the era of academic search engines and preprint archives," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(10), pages 1218-1226, October.
    16. Erich Battistin & Marco Ovidi, 2022. "Rising Stars: Expert Reviews and Reputational Yardsticks in the Research Excellence Framework," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 89(356), pages 830-848, October.
    17. Sergio Copiello, 2019. "Research Interest: another undisclosed (and redundant) algorithm by ResearchGate," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(1), pages 351-360, July.
    18. Ana Teresa Santos & Sandro Mendonça, 2022. "Do papers (really) match journals’ “aims and scope”? A computational assessment of innovation studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7449-7470, December.
    19. Antonin Mac'e, 2017. "The Limits of Citation Counts," Papers 1711.02695, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2023.
    20. Branca Barbosa & José Duarte Santos, 2023. "Bibliometric Study on the Social Shopping Concept," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-21, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:6ebw2_v1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.