Establishing evaluative homogeneity: conflicts around the 2019 List of scientific journals

Abstract

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