Aagaard, K. (2015). How incentives trickle down: Local use of a national bibliometric indicator system. Science and Public Policy, 42(5), 725–737. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu087Google Scholar

Aagaard, K. (2018). Performance-based research funding in Denmark: The adoption and translation of the Norwegian model. Journal of Data and Information Science, 3(4), 20–30. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2018-0018Google Scholar

Aagaard, K., & Schneider, J. W. (2017). Some considerations about causes and effects in studies of performance-based research funding systems. Journal of Informetrics, 11(3), 923–926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.05.018Google Scholar

Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Di Costa, F. (2016). The effect of a country’s name in the title of a publication on its visibility and citability. Scientometrics, 109(3), 1895–1909. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2120-1Google Scholar

Agar, J. (2019). Science policy under thatcher. UCL Press. https://doi.org/10.14324/111.9781787353411Google Scholar

Aitkenhead, D. (2013, December 6). Peter Higgs: I wouldn’t be productive enough for today’s academic system. The Guardian. www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/06/peter-higgs-boson-academic-systemGoogle Scholar

Allen, A. (2015). The fantastic laboratory of Dr. Weigl: How two brave scientists battled typhus and sabotaged the Nazis. W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar

Alrawadieh, Z. (2018). Publishing in predatory tourism and hospitality journals: Mapping the academic market and identifying response strategies. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 20(1), 72–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1467358418800121Google Scholar

Andersen, L. B., & Pallesen, T. (2008). “Not just for the money?” How financial incentives affect the number of publications at Danish research institutions. International Public Management Journal, 11(1), 28–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967490801887889Google Scholar

Andrés, A. (2009). Measuring academic research: How to undertake a bibliometric study. Chandos Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-84334-528-2.50013-8Google Scholar

Angermuller, J., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2019). On the social uses of scientometrics: The quantification of academic evaluation and the rise of numerocracy in higher education. In Scholz, R. (Ed.), Quantifying approaches to discourse for social scientists (pp. 89–119). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97370-8_4Google Scholar

Anisimov, E. V. (1997). Государственные преобразования и самодержавие Петра Великого в первой четверти XVIII века. Дмитрий Буланин.Google Scholar

Antonowicz, D., Kohoutek, J., Pinheiro, R., & Hladchenko, M. (2017). The roads of “excellence” in Central and Eastern Europe. European Educational Research Journal, 16(5), 547–567. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904116683186Google Scholar

Antonowicz, D., Kulczycki, E., & Budzanowska, A. (2020). Breaking the deadlock of mistrust? A participative model of the structural reforms in higher education in Poland. Higher Education Quarterly, 74(4), 391–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12254Google Scholar

Arnold, E., Simmonds, P., Farla, K., Kolarz, P., Mahieu, B., & Nielsen, K. (2018). Review of the research excellence framework: Evidence report. Technopolis Group. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/768162/research-excellence-framework-review-evidence-report.pdfGoogle Scholar

Aronova, E. (2011). The politics and contexts of Soviet science studies (Naukovedenie): Soviet philosophy of science at the crossroads. Studies in East European Thought, 63(3), 175–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-011-9146-yGoogle Scholar

Aronova, E. (2021). Scientometrics with and without computers: The cold war transnational journeys of the science citation index. In Solovey, M. & Dayé, C. (Eds.), Cold war social science (pp. 73–98). Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Avedon, E. M. (1981). The structural elements of games. In Furnham, A. & Argyle, M. (Eds.), The psychology of social situations (pp. 419–426). Pergamon. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-023719-0.50009-7Google Scholar

Axtell, J. (2016). Wisdom’s workshop: The rise of the modern university. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv7h0s90Google Scholar

Babones, S., & Babcicky, P. (2011, February 3–4). Russia and East-Central Europe in the modern world-system: A structuralist perspective [Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the 10th Biennial Conference of the Australasian Association for Communist and Post-Communist Studies, Canberra, Australia. https://core.ac.uk/reader/41235980Google Scholar

Baccini, A., Nicolao, G. D., & Petrovich, E. (2019). Citation gaming induced by bibliometric evaluation: A country-level comparative analysis. PloS One, 14(9), e0221212. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221212Google Scholar

Bacevic, J. (2019). Knowing neoliberalism. Social Epistemology, 33(4), 380–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2019.1638990Google Scholar

Bak, H.-J., & Kim, D. H. (2019). The unintended consequences of performance-based incentives on inequality in scientists’ research performance. Science and Public Policy, 46(2), 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scy052Google Scholar

Baker, S. (2019, March 14). UK universities shift to teaching-only contracts ahead of REF. Times Higher Education. www.timeshighereducation.com/news/uk-universities-shift-teaching-only-contracts-ahead-refGoogle Scholar

Bal, R. (2017). Playing the indicator game: Reflections on strategies to position an STS group in a multi-disciplinary environment. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 3, 41–52. https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2017.111Google Scholar

Baldwin, M. (2018). Scientific autonomy, public accountability, and the rise of “peer review” in the Cold War United States. Isis, 109(3), 538–558. https://doi.org/10.1086/700070Google Scholar

Banaji, M. R. (1998). William J. McGuire: Remarks offered at the 1998 society of experimental social psychology convention. https://web.archive.org/web/20210803225509/http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~banaji/research/speaking/tributes/mcguire.htmlGoogle Scholar

Beall, J. (2012). Predatory publishers are corrupting open access. Nature, 489(7415), 179–179. https://doi.org/10.1038/489179aGoogle Scholar

Beall, J. (2013). Unethical practices in scholarly, open-access publishing. Journal of Information Ethics, 22(1), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.3172/JIE.22.1.11Google Scholar

Beall, J. (2018). Scientific soundness and the problem of predatory journals. In Kaufman, A. B. & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.), Pseudoscience: The conspiracy against science. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10747.003.0018Google Scholar

Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines (2nd ed.). The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.Google Scholar

Beck, M. T., & Gáspár, V. (1991). Scientometric evaluation of the scientific performance at the Faculty of Natural Sciences, Kossuth Lajos University, Debrecen, Hungary. Scientometrics, 20(1), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02018142Google Scholar

Beer, D. (2016). Metric power. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Beigel, F. (2021). A multi-scale perspective for assessing publishing circuits in non-hegemonic countries. Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society, 4(1), 1845923. https://doi.org/10.1080/25729861.2020.1845923Google Scholar

Bence, V., & Oppenheim, C. (2005). The evolution of the UK’s research assessment exercise: Publications, performance and perceptions. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 37(2), 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620500211189Google Scholar

Berman, E. P. (2014). Not just neoliberalism: Economization in US science and technology policy. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 39(3), 397–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243913509123Google Scholar

Bernal, J. D. (1939). The social function of science. George Routledge & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-1241.2008.01735.xGoogle Scholar

Bernal, J. D. (1971). Science in history: Vol. 2. The scientific and industrial revolutions. The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bevan, G., & Hood, C. (2007). What’s measured is what matters: Targets and gaming in the English public health care system. Public Administration, 84(3), 517–538. https//doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2006.00600.xGoogle Scholar

Bhattacharjee, Y. (2011). Saudi universities offer cash in exchange for academic prestige. Science, 334(6061), 1344–1345. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.334.6061.1344Google Scholar

Blackmore, P., & Kandiko, C. B. (2011). Motivation in academic life: A prestige economy. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 16(4), 399–411. https://doi.org/10.1080/13596748.2011.626971Google Scholar

Blasi, B., Romagnosi, S., & Bonaccorsi, A. (2018). Do SSH researchers have a third mission (and should they have)? In Bonaccorsi, A. (Ed.), The evaluation of research in social sciences and humanities: Lessons from the Italian experience (pp. 361–392). Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar

Bocanegra-Valle, A. (2019). Building a reputation in global scientific communication: A SWOT analysis of Spanish humanities journals. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 44(1), 39–66. https://doi.org/10.29173/cjs28935Google Scholar

Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 342(6154), 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6154.60Google Scholar

Bonaccorsi, A. (Ed.). (2018a). The evaluation of research in social sciences and humanities: Lessons from the Italian experience. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68554-0Google Scholar

Bonaccorsi, A. (2018b). Towards an epistemic approach to evaluation in SSH. In Bonaccorsi, A. (Ed.), The evaluation of research in social sciences and humanities: Lessons from the Italian experience (pp. 1–29). Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar

Bonev, I. (2009). Should we take journal impact factors seriously? ParalleMIC. https://espace2.etsmtl.ca/id/eprint/9919Google Scholar

Bordons, M., Fernández, M. T., & Gómez, I. (2002). Advantages and limitations in the use of impact factor measures for the assessment of research performance in a peripheral country. Scientometrics, 53(2), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014800407876Google Scholar

Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410810844150Google Scholar

Bornmann, L., & Haunschild, R. (2018). Alternative article‐level metrics. EMBO Reports, 19(12), e47260–e47260. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201847260Google Scholar

Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2014). Scientometrics in a changing research landscape: Bibliometrics has become an integral part of research quality evaluation and has been changing the practice of research. EMBO Reports, 15(12), 1228–1232. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201439608Google Scholar

Bornmann, L., & Williams, R. (2017). Can the journal impact factor be used as a criterion for the selection of junior researchers? A large-scale empirical study based on ResearcherID data. Journal of Informetrics, 11(3), 788–799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.06.001Google Scholar

Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Polity Press.Google Scholar

Bowman, J. D. (2014). Predatory publishing, questionable peer review, and fraudulent conferences. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 78(10), 176. https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe7810176Google Scholar

Bradford, S. C. (1948). Documentation. Crosby Lockwood and Son.Google Scholar

Braudel, F. (1958). Histoire et Sciences sociales: La longue durée. Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales, 13(4), 725–753. https://doi.org/10.3406/ahess.1958.2781Google Scholar

Brož, L., Stöckelová, T., & Vostal, F. (2017, January 26). Predators and bloodsuckers in academic publishing. Derivace. https://derivace.wordpress.com/2017/01/26/predators-and-bloodsuckers-in-academic-publishing/Google Scholar

Buranyi, S. (2017, June 27). Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? The Guardian. www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-scienceGoogle Scholar

Burton, M. (2016). The politics of austerity: A recent history. Springer.Google Scholar

Butler, L. (2003a). Explaining Australia’s increased share of ISI publications: The effects of a funding formula based on publication counts. Research Policy, 32(1), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(02)00007-0Google Scholar

Butler, L. (2003b). Modifying publication practices in response to funding formulas. Research Evaluation, 12(1), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.3152/147154403781776780Google Scholar

Butler, L. (2017). Response to van den Besselaar et al.: What happens when the Australian context is misunderstood. Journal of Informetrics, 11(3), 919–922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.05.017Google Scholar

Cai, Y. (2010). Global isomorphism and governance reform in Chinese higher education. Tertiary Education and Management, 16(3), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2010.497391Google Scholar

Campbell, D. T. (1979). Assessing the impact of planned social change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2(1), 67–90.Google Scholar

Chapelle, F. H. (2014). The history and practice of peer review. Groundwater, 52(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12139Google Scholar

Chapman, C. A., Bicca-Marques, J. C., Calvignac-Spencer, S., Fan, P., Fashing, P. J., Gogarten, J., Guo, S., Hemingway, C. A., Leendertz, F., Li, B., Matsuda, I., Hou, R., Serio-Silva, J. C., & Chr. Stenseth, N. (2019). Games academics play and their consequences: How authorship, h-index and journal impact factors are shaping the future of academia. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 286(1916), 20192047. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.2047Google Scholar

Chavarro, D., Tang, P., & Ràfols, I. (2017). Why researchers publish in non-mainstream journals: Training, knowledge bridging, and gap filling. Research Policy, 46(9), 1666–1680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.08.002Google Scholar

Chen, X. (2019). High monetary rewards and high academic article outputs: Are China’s research publications policy driven? The Serials Librarian, 77(1–2), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2019.1645793Google Scholar

Chung, A. (2018). Media probes raise questions over quality of conferences. University World News. www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20180922053255197Google Scholar

Cleere, L., & Ma, L. (2018). A local adaptation in an Output-Based Research Support Scheme (OBRSS) at University College Dublin. Journal of Data and Information Science, 3(4), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2018-0022Google Scholar

Cocka, P. M. (1980). Science policy: USA/USSR. Volume II, science policy in the Soviet Union. National Science Foundation. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED199102.pdfGoogle Scholar

Connelly, J. (2000). Captive university: The Sovietization of East German, Czech and Polish higher education, 1945–1956. University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar

Cooper, S., & Poletti, A. (2011). The new ERA of journal ranking: The consequences of Australia’s fraught encounter with “quality.” Australian Universities Review, 53(1), 57–65.Google Scholar

Crocker, J., & Cooper, M. L. (2011). Addressing scientific fraud. Science, 334(6060), 1182–1182. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1216775Google Scholar

Cronin, B. (2015). The need for a theory of citing. In Cronin, B. & Sugimoto, C. R. (Eds.), Scholarly metrics under the microscope: From citation analysis to academic auditing (pp. 33–44). Information Today. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026703Google Scholar

Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. R. (Eds.). (2014). Beyond bibliometrics: Harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact. The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Dadkhah, M., Borchardt, G., Lagzian, M., & Bianciardi, G. (2017). Academic journals plagued by bogus impact factors. Publishing Research Quarterly, 33(2), 183–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-017-9509-4Google Scholar

Dahler-Larsen, P. (2012). The evaluation society. Stanford Business Books.Google Scholar

Dahler-Larsen, P. (2014). Constitutive effects of performance indicators: Getting beyond unintended consequences. Public Management Review, 16(7), 969–986. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.770058Google Scholar

Dahler-Larsen, P. (2015). The evaluation society: Critique, contestability and skepticism. SpazioFilosofico, 1(13), 21–36. www.spaziofilosofico.it/numero-13/5241/the-evaluation-society-critique-contestability-and-skepticism/Google Scholar

Dahler-Larsen, P. (2022). Your brother’s gatekeeper: How effects of evaluation machineries in research are sometimes enhanced. In Forsberg, E., Geschwind, L., Levander, S., & Wermke, W. (Eds.), Peer review in an era of evaluation (pp. 127–146). Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Davis, K. E., Fisher, A., Kingsbury, B., & Merry, S. E. (Eds.). (2012). Governance by indicators: Global power through quantification and rankings. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Davis, K. E., Kingsbury, B., & Merry, S. (2012). Introduction: Global governance by indicators. In Davis, K. E., Fisher, A., Kingsbury, B., & Merry, S. E. (Eds.), Governance by indicators: Global power through quantification and rankings (pp. 3–28). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Davis, P. (2016, February 10). Citable items: The contested impact factor denominator. The Scholarly Kitchen. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2016/02/10/citable-items-the-contested-impact-factor-denominator/Google Scholar

De Bellis, N. (2009). Bibliometrics and citation analysis: From the science citation index to cybermetrics. The Scarecrow Press.Google Scholar

De Bellis, N. (2014). History and evolution of (biblio)metrics. In Cronin, B. & Sugimoto, C. R. (Eds.), Beyond bibliometrics: Harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact (pp. 23–44). The MIT Press.Google Scholar

De Jong, S. P. L., & Muhonen, R. (2018). Who benefits from ex ante societal impact evaluation in the European funding arena? A cross-country comparison of societal impact capacity in the social sciences and humanities. Research Evaluation, 29(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvy036Google Scholar

De Rijcke, S., & Stöckelová, T. (2020). Predatory publishing and the imperative of international productivity: Feeding off and feeding up the dominant. In Biagioli, M. & Lippman, A. (Eds.), Gaming the metrics: Misconduct and manipulation in academic research (pp. 101–110). MIT Press.Google Scholar

De Rijcke, S., Wouters, P. F., Rushforth, A. D., Franssen, T. P., & Hammarfelt, B. (2016). Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use: A literature review. Research Evaluation, 25(2), 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv038Google Scholar

Demir, S. B. (2018). Predatory journals: Who publishes in them and why? Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1296–1311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.10.008Google Scholar

Derrick, G. (2018). The evaluators’ eye: Impact assessment and academic peer review. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Desrosières, A. (2002). The politics of large numbers: A history of statistical reasoning (C. Naish, Trans.). Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Desrosières, A. (2013). Pour une sociologie historique de la quantification: L’Argument statistique I. Presses des Mines. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pressesmines.901Google Scholar

Dey, E. L., Milem, J. F., & Berger, J. B. (1997). Changing patterns of publication productivity: Accumulative advantage or institutional isomorphism? Sociology of Education, 70(4), 308–323. https://doi.org/10.2307/2673269Google Scholar

Dill, D. D. (2014). Evaluating the “evaluative state”: Implications for research in higher education. European Journal of Education, 33(3), 361–377.Google Scholar

DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101Google Scholar

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. (2014). Innovation Union Competitiveness report: Commission Staff Working Document. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/799d9836-1333-4804-835a-6968b35ae619Google Scholar

Dmitriev, I. S. (2016). Академия благих надежд (эффективность научной деятельности Петербургской академии наук в XVIII столетии). Социология Науки и Технологий, 7(4). 9–31.Google Scholar

Dobija, D., Górska, A. M., & Pikos, A. (2019). The impact of accreditation agencies and other powerful stakeholders on the performance measurement in Polish universities. Baltic Journal of Management, 14(1), 84–102. https://doi.org/10.1108/BJM-01-2018-0018Google Scholar

Dobrov, G. (1969a). Kryterium wyboru jako kompleksowy problem naukoznawstwa. Zagadnienia Naukoznawstwa, 5(4), 92–99.Google Scholar

Dobrov, G. (1969b). Wstęp do naukoznawstwa (J. Bolecki, Trans.). Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar

Donovan, C. (2008). The Australian research quality framework: A live experiment in capturing the social, economic, environmental, and cultural returns of publicly funded research. New Directions for Evaluation, 2008(118), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.260Google Scholar

Drabek, A., Rozkosz, E., & Kulczycki, E. (2017). Analiza opóźnień wydawniczych polskich czasopism naukowych (Report No. 3). https://doi.org/10.6084/M9.FIGSHARE.4578394Google Scholar

Dunleavy, P., & Hood, C. (1994). From old public administration to new public management. Public Money and Management, 14(3), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540969409387823Google Scholar

Eastwood, D. (2007). Goodbye to the RAE … And hello to the REF. Times Higher Education. www.timeshighereducation.com/news/goodbye-to-the-rae-and-hello-to-the-ref-david-eastwood/311322.articleGoogle Scholar

Eisenstadt, S. N. (2000). Multiple modernities. Daedalus, 129(1), 1–29.Google Scholar

Ellman, M. (2014). Socialist planning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Elsaie, M., & Kammer, J. (2009). Impactitis: The impact factor myth syndrome. Indian Journal of Dermatology, 54(1), 83–86. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5154.48998Google Scholar

Else, H. (2019, April 11). Impact factors are still widely used in academic evaluations. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01151-4Google Scholar

Else, H. (2022, March 14). Journals under pressure to boycott Russian authors. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00718-yGoogle Scholar

Emysheva, E. M. (2008). Генеральный регламент 1720 года как опыт создания организационного документа. История и Архивы, 8, 248–261.Google Scholar

Enders, J. (2001). A chair system in transition: Appointments, promotions, and gate-keeping in German higher education. Higher Education, 41(1–2), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026790026117Google Scholar

Engels, T. C. E., & Guns, R. (2018). The Flemish performance-based research funding system: A unique variant of the Norwegian model. Journal of Data and Information Science, 3(4), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2018-0020Google Scholar

Engels, T. C. E., Istenič Starčič, A., Kulczycki, E., Pölönen, J., & Sivertsen, G. (2018). Are book publications disappearing from scholarly communication in the social sciences and humanities? Aslib Journal of Information Management, 70(6), 592–607. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-05-2018-0127Google Scholar

Erfanmanesh, M., & Pourhossein, R. (2017). Publishing in predatory open access journals: A case of Iran. Publishing Research Quarterly, 33(4), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-017-9547-yGoogle Scholar

Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 113(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1086/517897Google Scholar

Espeland, W. N., & Stevens, M. L. (2008). A sociology of quantification. European Journal of Sociology/Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 49(3), 401–436. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003975609000150Google Scholar

Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “mode 2” to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4Google Scholar

Ezinwa Nwagwu, W., & Ojemeni, O. (2015). Penetration of Nigerian predatory biomedical open access journals 2007–2012: A bibliometric study. Learned Publishing, 28(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1087/20150105Google Scholar

Fernández, L. M., & Vadillo, M. A. (2019, June 19). Retracted papers die hard: Diederik Stapel and the enduring influence of flawed science. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/cszpyGoogle Scholar

Fochler, M., & De Rijcke, S. (2017). Implicated in the indicator game? An experimental debate. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 3(3), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2017.108Google Scholar

Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777–795.Google Scholar

Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline & punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage Books.Google Scholar

Frankel, M. S., & Cave, J. (Eds.). (1997). Evaluating science and scientists: An east-west dialogue on research evaluation in post-communist Europe. Central European University Press.Google Scholar

French, N. J., Massy, W. F., & Young, K. (2001). Research assessment in Hong Kong. Higher Education, 42, 34–46.Google Scholar

Frood, A. (2015, February 9). Death in academia and the mis-measurement of science. EuroScientist. www.euroscientist.com/death-academia-mis-measurement-science/Google Scholar

Fyfe, A., Squazzoni, F., Torny, D., & Dondio, P. (2019). Managing the growth of peer review at the Royal Society Journals, 1865–1965. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 45(3), 405–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243919862868Google Scholar

Galiullina, R. H., & Ilina, K. A. (2012). «Ученые записки» ученого сословия (первая половина XIX века). Препринты. Высшая Школа Экономики. WP6/2012/02 Серия WP6 Гуманитарные исследованияGoogle Scholar

Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122(3159), 108–111. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.122.3159.108Google Scholar

Garfield, E. (1964). Can citation indexing be automated? In Stevens, M. E., Giuliano, V. E., & Heilprin, L. B. (Eds.), Statistical association methods for mechanized documentation: Symposium proceedings (pp. 189–192). National Bureau of Standards.Google Scholar

Garfield, E. (1996). Significant scientific literature appears in a small core of journals. The Scientist, 10(17), 13–15.Google Scholar

Garfield, E. (2005, September 16). The agony and the ecstasy: The history and meaning of the journal impact factor [Paper presentation]. International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, Chicago, IL, United States. http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/jifchicago2005.pdfGoogle Scholar

Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA, 295(1), 90–93. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.1.90Google Scholar

Geuna, A., & Martin, B. R. (2003). University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison. Minerva, 41(4), 277–304. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:MINE.0000005155.70870.bdGoogle Scholar

Giménez Toledo, E. (2016). Malestar: Los investigadores ante su evaluación. Iberoamericana.Google Scholar

Gingras, Y. (1995, September 13–15). Performance indicators: Keeping the black box open [Paper Presentation]. Dans Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Research Funding, Ottawa, Canada. https://ost.openum.ca/files/sites/132/2017/06/proceedings_research_funding.pdfGoogle Scholar

Gingras, Y. (2014). Bibliometrics and research evaluation: Uses and abuses. The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Glänzel, W., Moed, H. F., Schmoch, U., & Thelwall, M. (Eds.). (2019). Handbook of science and technology indicators. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3Google Scholar

Gläser, J., Lange, S., Laudel, G., & Schimank, U. (2010). Informed authority? The limited use of research evaluation systems for managerial control in universities. In Whitley, R., Gläser, J., & Engwall, L. (Eds.), Reconfiguring knowledge production: Changing authority relationships in the sciences and their consequences for intellectual innovation (pp. 149–183). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gläser, J., & Laudel, G. (2007). The social construction of bibliometric evaluations. In Whitley, R. & Gläser, J. (Eds.), The changing governance of the sciences: The advent of research evaluation systems (pp. 101–123). Springer.Google Scholar

Godin, B. (2005). Measurement and statistics on science and technology: 1920 to the present. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2013.10.043Google Scholar

Godin, B. (2006). From eugenics to scientometrics: Galton, Cattell and men of science. Social Studies of Science, 37(5), 691–728. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312706075338Google Scholar

Godin, B. (2009). The value of science: Changing conceptions of scientific productivity, 1869 to circa 1970. Social Science Information, 48(4), 547–586. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018409344475Google Scholar

Goffman, E. (1972). Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction. Penguin University Books.Google Scholar

Good, B., Vermeulen, N., Tiefenthaler, B., & Arnold, E. (2015). Counting quality? The Czech performance-based research funding system. Research Evaluation, 24(2), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvu035Google Scholar

Graham, L. R. (1964). Bukharin and the planning of Science. Russian Review, 23(2), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.2307/126518Google Scholar

Graham, L. R. (1967). The Soviet academy of sciences and the communist party, 1927–1932. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Graham, L. R. (Ed.). (1990). Science and the Soviet social order. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Graham, L. R. (1993). Science in Russia and the Soviet Union: A short history. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Graham, L. R., & Dezhina, I. (2008). Science in the new Russia: Crisis, aid, reform. Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Granovsky, Y. V. (2001). Is it possible to measure science? V. V. Nalimov’s research in scientometrics. Scientometrics, 52(2), 127–150. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017991017982Google Scholar

Grzechnik, M. (2019). The missing second world: On Poland and postcolonial studies. Interventions, 21(7), 998–1014. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369801X.2019.1585911Google Scholar

Guskov, A., Kosyakov, D., & Selivanova, I. (2016). Scientometric research in Russia: Impact of science policy changes. Scientometrics, 107(1), 287–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1876-7Google Scholar

Gutierrez, F. R. S., Beall, J., & Forero, D. A. (2015). Spurious alternative impact factors: The scale of the problem from an academic perspective. BioEssays, 37(5), 474–476. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201500011Google Scholar

Haddow, G. (2022). Research assessment in Australia: Journal ranking, research classification and ratings. In Engels, T. C. E. & Kulczycki, E. (Eds.), Handbook on research assessment in the social sciences (pp. 434–450). Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar

Haitun, S. D. (1980). Scientometric investigations in the USSR: Review. Scientometrics, 2(1), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016600Google Scholar

Hallonsten, O. (2021). Stop evaluating science: A historical-sociological argument. Social Science Information, 60(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018421992204Google Scholar

Hammarfelt, B. (2018). Taking comfort in points: The appeal of the Norwegian model in Sweden. Journal of Data and Information Science, 3(4), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2018-0023Google Scholar

Hammarfelt, B., & Åström, F. (2015, September 2–4). The multi-layered and multilevel use of bibliometric measures in Swedish universities: Isomorphism, translation and strategic choice [Paper Presentation]. The 20th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Lugano, Switzerland. http://hb.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:853400/FULLTEXT01.pdfGoogle Scholar

Hammarfelt, B., & Haddow, G. (2018). Conflicting measures and values: How humanities scholars in Australia and Sweden use and react to bibliometric indicators. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69(7), 924–935. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24043Google Scholar

Hanley, H. J. M. (1975). Letters to the editor. Science, 188(4193), 1064. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.188.4193.1064-aGoogle Scholar

Hare, P. (1989). The economics of shortage in the centrally planned economies. In Davis, C. & Charemza, W. (Eds.), Models of disequilibrium and shortage in centrally planned economies (pp. 49–81). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0823-9_3Google Scholar

Hare, P. (1991). Central planning. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar

Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hazelkorn, E. (2015). Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: The battle for world-class excellence (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Hedding, D. W. (2019). Payouts push professors towards predatory journals. Nature, 565(7739), 267–267. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00120-1Google Scholar

Hicks, D. (2012). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy, 41(2), 251–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.007Google Scholar

Hicks, D. (2017). What year? Difficulties in identifying the effect of policy on university output. Journal of Informetrics, 11(3), 933–936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.05.020Google Scholar

Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., De Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429–431. https://doi.org/10.1038/520429aGoogle Scholar

Higher Education Funding Council for England. (2015). The metric tide: Correlation analysis of REF2014 scores and metrics (Supplementary Report II to the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management). Higher Education Funding Council for England. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3362.4162Google Scholar

Hilton, A. (2013, April 12). Honoris causa? Margaret Thatcher and the eternal shame of Oxford University. Mail Online. www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/index.htmlGoogle Scholar

Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569–16572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102Google Scholar

Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.xGoogle Scholar

Horta, H., & Shen, W. (2020). Current and future challenges of the Chinese research system. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 42(2), 157–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2019.1632162Google Scholar

Howarth, P. (2022, March 4). Ukraine crisis: A message from THE’s chief executive. Times Higher Education. www.timeshighereducation.com/ukraine-crisis-message-thes-chief-executiveGoogle Scholar

Hrabak, M., Vujaklija, A., Vodopivec, I., Hren, D., Marusic, M., & Marusic, A. (2004). Academic misconduct among medical students in a post-communist country. Medical Education, 38(3), 276–285. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2004.01766.xGoogle Scholar

Huang, Y., Li, R., Zhang, L., & Sivertsen, G. (2020). A comprehensive analysis of the journal evaluation system in China. Quantitative Science Studies, 2(1), 300–326. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00103Google Scholar

Hur, J. D., & Nordgren, L. F. (2016). Paying for performance: Performance incentives increase desire for the reward object. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(3), 301–316. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000059Google Scholar

Hur, J., Lee-Yoon, A., & Whillans, A. V. (2018). Who is more useful? The impact of performance incentives on work and personal relationships. Harvard Business School.Google Scholar

Igami, M., & Nagaoka, S. (2014). Exploring the effects of the motivation of a research project on the research team composition, management, and outputs. In E. Noyons (Ed.), Proceedings of the science and technology indicators conference 2014 Leiden “Context Counts: Pathways to master big and little data” (pp. 290–294). Universiteit Leiden.Google Scholar

Ings, S. (2016). Stalin and the scientists: A history of triumph and tragedy 1905–1953. Grove Press.Google Scholar

Irwin, A. (2017). If the indicator game is the answer, then what is the question? Engaging Science, Technology, and Society, 3, 64–72. https://doi.org/10.17351/ests2017.110Google Scholar

Jablecka, J. (1997). Peer review in Poland: Practical solutions and possible improvements. In Frankel, M. S., & Cave, J. (Eds.), Evaluating science and scientists (pp. 96–111). Central European University Press.Google Scholar

Jacques, T. S., & Sebire, N. J. (2010). The impact of article titles on citation hits: An analysis of general and specialist medical journals. JRSM Short Reports, 1(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1258/shorts.2009.100020Google Scholar

Jessop, B. (2002). Globalization and the national state. In Aronowitz, S. & Bratsis, P. (Eds.), Paradigm lost: State theory reconsidered (pp. 185–220). University of Minnesota Press. https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctttsh78Google Scholar

Jessop, B. (2005). Cultural political economy, the knowledge-based economy, and the state. In Barry, A. & Slater, D. (Eds.), Technological economy (pp. 144–165). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203022450Google Scholar

Jessop, B. (2017). Varieties of academic capitalism and entrepreneurial universities: On past research and three thought experiments. Higher Education, 73(6), 853–870. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0120-6Google Scholar

Jin, B., & Rousseau, R. (2005). Evaluation of research performance and scientometric indicators in China. In Moed, H. F., Glänzel, W., & Schmoch, U. (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems (pp. 497–514). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2755-9_23Google Scholar

Johnson, J. (2017). Sputnik and the space race. Cavendish Square Publishing.Google Scholar

Josephson, P. R. (1992). Soviet scientists and the state: Politics, ideology, and fundamental research from Stalin to Gorbachev. Social Research, 59(3), 589–614.Google Scholar

Jump, P. (2013, September 26). Twenty per cent contracts rise in run-up to REF. Times Higher Education. www.timeshighereducation.com/news/twenty-per-cent-contracts-rise-in-run-up-to-ref/2007670.articleGoogle Scholar

Jump, P. (2015, January 1). REF 2014 rerun: Who are the “game players”? Times Higher Education. www.timeshighereducation.com/features/ref-2014-rerun-who-are-the-game-players/2017670.articleGoogle Scholar

Kalfa, S., Wilkinson, A., & Gollan, P. J. (2018). The academic game: Compliance and resistance in universities. Work, Employment and Society, 32(2), 274–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950017017695043Google Scholar

Kapitza, P. L. (1966). Scientific policy in the U.S.S.R.: The scientist and the plans. Minerva, 4(4), 555–560.Google Scholar

Kassian, A., & Melikhova, L. (2019). Russian science citation index on the WoS platform: A critical assessment. Journal of Documentation, 75(5), 1162–1168. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-02-2019-0033Google Scholar

Kehm, B. M. (2014). Global university rankings: Impacts and unintended side effects. European Journal of Education, 49(1), 102–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12064Google Scholar

Killian, J. R. (1977). Sputnik, scientists and Eisenhower: A memoir of the first special assistant to the president for science and technology. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kim, D. H., & Bak, H.-J. (2016). How do scientists respond to performance-based incentives? Evidence from South Korea. International Public Management Journal, 19(1), 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2015.1032460Google Scholar

King, R., Marginson, S., & Naidoo, R. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook on globalization and higher education. Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Kliucharev, G. A., & Neverov, A. V. (2018). Project “5–100”: Some interim results. RUDN Journal of Sociology, 18(1), 100–116. https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2272-2018-18-1-100-116Google Scholar

Koçak, Z. (2020). Precise and immediate action against predatory conferences. Balkan Medical Journal, 37(1), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.4274/balkanmedj.galenos.2020.2020.1.001Google Scholar

Kokowski, M. (2015). The science of science (Naukoznawstwo) in Poland: The changing theoretical perspectives and political contexts: A historical sketch from the 1910s to 1993. Organon, 47, 147–237.Google Scholar

Kokowski, M. (2016). The science of science (naukoznawstwo) in Poland: Defending and removing the past in the cold war. In Aronova, E. & Turchetti, S. (Eds.), Science studies during the cold war and beyond (pp. 149–176). Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55943-2_7Google Scholar

Korytkowski, P., & Kulczycki, E. (2019). Publication counting methods for a national research evaluation exercise. Journal of Informetrics, 13(3), 804–816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.07.001Google Scholar

Korytkowski, P., & Kulczycki, E. (2021). The gap between Plan S requirements and grantees’ publication practices. Journal of Informetrics, 15(2), 101156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2021.101156Google Scholar

Kosyakov, D., & Guskov, A. (2019). Research assessment and evaluation in Russian fundamental science. Procedia Computer Science, 146, 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.01.072Google Scholar

Koza, Z., Lew, R., Kulczycki, E., & Stec, P. (in press). Who controls the national academic promotion system: An analysis of power distribution in Poland.Google Scholar

Krawczyk, F., & Kulczycki, E. (2021a). How is open access accused of being predatory? The impact of Beall’s lists of predatory journals on academic publishing. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102271Google Scholar

Krawczyk, F., & Kulczycki, E. (2021b). On the geopolitics of academic publishing: The mislocated centers of scholarly communication. Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society, 4(1), 1984641. https://doi.org/10.1080/25729861.2021.1984641Google Scholar

Krawczyk, S., Szadkowski, K., & Kulczycki, E. (2021). Identifying top researchers in highly metricized academia: Two discursive strategies of senior officials in Poland. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2021.1993792Google Scholar

Krzeski, J., Szadkowski, K., & Kulczycki, E. (2022). Creating evaluative homogeneity: Experience of constructing a national journal ranking. Research Evaluation, rvac011. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvac011Google Scholar

Kula, W. (1986). Measures and men. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Kulczycki, E. (2018). The diversity of monographs: Changing landscape of book evaluation in Poland. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 70(6), 608–622. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-03-2018-0062Google Scholar

Kulczycki, E. (2019). Field patterns of scientometric indicators use for presenting research portfolio for assessment. Research Evaluation, 28(2), 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvy043Google Scholar

Kulczycki, E., Engels, T. C. E., Pölönen, J., Bruun, K., Dušková, M., Guns, R., Nowotniak, R., Petr, M., Sivertsen, G., Istenič Starčič, A., & Zuccala, A. (2018). Publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities: Evidence from eight European countries. Scientometrics, 116(1), 463–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2711-0Google Scholar

Kulczycki, E., Guns, R., Pölönen, J., Engels, T. C. E., Rozkosz, E. A., Zuccala, A. A., Bruun, K., Eskola, O., Starčič, A. I., Petr, M., & Sivertsen, G. (2020). Multilingual publishing in the social sciences and humanities: A seven‐country European study. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 71(11), 1371–1385. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24336Google Scholar

Kulczycki, E., Hołowiecki, M., Taşkın, Z., & Doğan, G. (2022). Questionable conferences and presenters from top-ranked universities. Journal of Information Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515221087674Google Scholar

Kulczycki, E., Hołowiecki, M., Taşkın, Z., & Krawczyk, F. (2021a). Citation patterns between impact-factor and questionable journals. Scientometrics, 126(4), 8541–8560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04121-8Google Scholar

Kulczycki, E., Huang, Y., Zucalla, A. A., Engels, T. C. E., Ferrara, A., Guns, R., Pölönen, J., Sivertsen, G., Taşkin, Z., & Zhang, L. (2022). Uses of the Journal Impact Factor in national journal rankings in China and Europe. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 73( 12), 1741–1754. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24706Google Scholar

Kulczycki, E., & Korytkowski, P. (2018). Redesigning the model of book evaluation in the polish performance-based research funding system. Journal of Data and Information Science, 3(4), 60–72. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2018-0021Google Scholar

Kulczycki, E., Korzeń, M., & Korytkowski, P. (2017). Toward an excellence-based research funding system: Evidence from Poland. Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 282–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.01.001Google Scholar

Kulczycki, E., & Rotnicka, S. (2022, September 7–9). Consequences of participating in questionable academia: A global survey of authors of journal articles and conference presentations [Paper Presentation]. 26th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Granada, Spain. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6960060Google Scholar

Kulczycki, E., & Rozkosz, E. A. (2017). Does an expert-based evaluation allow us to go beyond the Impact Factor? Experiences from building a ranking of national journals in Poland. Scientometrics, 111(1), 417–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2261-xGoogle Scholar

Kulczycki, E., Rozkosz, E. A., & Drabek, A. (2015). Publikacje polskich badaczy w czasopismach z list ERIH w kontekście ewaluacji jednostek naukowych. Kultura i Edukacja, 24(1), 149–172. https://doi.org/10.15804/kie.2015.01.08Google Scholar

Kulczycki, E., Rozkosz, E. A., & Drabek, A. (2019a). Internationalization of Polish journals in the social sciences and humanities: Transformative role of the research evaluation system. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 44(1), 9–30. https://doi.org/10.29173/cjs28794Google Scholar

Kulczycki, E., Rozkosz, E. A., Engels, T. C. E., Guns, R., & Hołowiecki, M. (2019b). How to identify peer-reviewed publications: Open-identity labels in scholarly book publishing. PLoS ONE, 14(3), e0214423. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214423Google Scholar

Kulczycki, E., Rozkosz, E. A., Szadkowski, K., Ciereszko, K., Hołowiecki, M., & Krawczyk, F. (2021b). Local use of metrics for the research assessment of academics: The case of Poland. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 43(4), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2020.1846243Google Scholar

Kurt, S. (2018). Why do authors publish in predatory journals? Learned Publishing, 31(2), 141–147. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1150Google Scholar

Kuzhabekova, A. (2019). Invisibilizing Eurasia: How north–south dichotomization marginalizes post-Soviet scholars in international research collaborations. Journal of Studies in International Education, 24(1), 113–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315319888887Google Scholar

Lakhotia, S. C. (2017). Mis-conceived and mis-implemented academic assessment rules underlie the scourge of predatory journals and conferences. Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy, 83(3), 513–515. https://doi.org/10.16943/ptinsa/2017/49141Google Scholar

Lang, R., Mintz, M., Krentz, H. B., & Gill, M. J. (2018). An approach to conference selection and evaluation: Advice to avoid “predatory” conferences. Scientometrics, 118(2), 687–698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2981-6Google Scholar

Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015a). Big publishers, bigger profits: How the scholarly community lost the control of its journals. MediaTropes, 5(2), 102–110.Google Scholar

Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015b). The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PLOS ONE, 10(6), e0127502–e0127502. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502Google Scholar

Lemke, T. (2002). Foucault, governmentality, and critique. Rethinking Marxism, 14(3), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/089356902101242288Google Scholar

Levine, H. S. (1967). Economics. In Fischer, G. (Ed.), Science and ideology in soviet society 1917–1967 (pp. 107–138). Atherton Press.Google Scholar

Lewis, J. M. (2015). The politics and consequences of performance measurement. Policy and Society, 34(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.03.001Google Scholar

Lewis, R. (1979). Science and industrialisation in the USSR. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-03786-5Google Scholar

Leydesdorff, L., Wagner, C. S., & Bornmann, L. (2019). Diversity measurement: Steps towards the measurement of interdisciplinarity? Journal of Informetrics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2019.03.016Google Scholar

Li, L. (2009). Research priorities and priority-setting in China. Vinnova. www.vinnova.se/contentassets/44b342da5cdd4c4082b51c391d4ee423/va-09-21.pdf?cb=20170915134441Google Scholar

Lin, J. (2020). Altmetrics gaming: Beast within or without? In Biagioli, M. & Lippman, A. (Eds.), Gaming the metrics: Misconduct and manipulation in academic research (pp. 213–227). MIT Press.Google Scholar

Liu, X., & Chen, X. (2018). Journal retractions: Some unique features of research misconduct in China. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 49(3), 305–319. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.49.3.02Google Scholar

Liu, Y. (2012). Strategies for developing Chinese university journals through a comparison to western academic journal publishing. Serials Review, 38(2), 76–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/00987913.2012.10765432Google Scholar

López Piñeiro, C., & Hicks, D. (2015). Reception of Spanish sociology by domestic and foreign audiences differs and has consequences for evaluation. Research Evaluation, 24(1), 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvu030Google Scholar

Lovakov, A., Panova, A., Sterligov, I., & Yudkevich, M. (2021). Does government support of a few leading universities have a broader impact on the higher education system? Evaluation of the Russian university excellence initiative. Research Evaluation, 30(3), 240–255. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvab006Google Scholar

Lowe, T., & Wilson, R. (2017). Playing the game of outcomes-based performance management. Is gamesmanship inevitable? Evidence from theory and practice. Social Policy and Administration, 51(7), 981–1001. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12205Google Scholar

Lucas, L. (2006). The research game in academic life. The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.Google Scholar

Luczaj, K. (2020). Foreign-born scholars in Central Europe: A planned strategy or a ‘dart throw’? Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 6(42), 602–616. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2019.1682955Google Scholar

Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A radical view. The Macmillan Press.Google Scholar

Luo, Y. (2013). Building world-class universities in China. In Shin, J. C. & Kehm, B. M. (Eds.), Institutionalization of world-class university in global competition (pp. 165–183). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4975-7Google Scholar

Macháček, V., & Srholec, M. (2017). Predatory journals in Scopus. Institute for democracy and economic analysis. https://idea-en.cerge-ei.cz/files/IDEA_Study_2_2017_Predatory_journals_in_Scopus/files/downloads/IDEA_Study_2_2017_Predatory_journals_in_Scopus.pdfGoogle Scholar

Marcella, R., Lockerbie, H., & Bloice, L. (2016). Beyond REF 2014: The impact of impact assessment on the future of information research. Journal of Information Science, 42(3), 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551516636291Google Scholar

Marewski, J. N., & Bornmann, L. (2018). Opium in science and society: Numbers. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1804.11210Google Scholar

Marginson, S. (1997). Steering from a distance: Power relations in Australian higher education. Higher Education, 34(1), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003082922199Google Scholar

Marginson, S. (2018). The new geo-politics of higher education: Global cooperation, national competition and social inequality in the World-Class University (WCU) sector [Working Paper, no. 34]. www.researchcghe.org/perch/resources/publications/wp34final.pdfGoogle Scholar

Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education, 43(3), 281–309. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014699605875Google Scholar

Mari, L., Maul, A., & Wilson, M. (2019). Can there be one meaning of “measurement” across the sciences? Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1379(1), 012022. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1379/1/012022Google Scholar

Marini, G. (2018). Tools of individual evaluation and prestige recognition in Spain: How sexenio “mints the golden coin of authority.” European Journal of Higher Education, 8(2), 201–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2018.1428649Google Scholar

Martin, A., & Martin, T. (2016). A not-so-harmless experiment in predatory open access publishing: An experiment in predatory open access publishing. Learned Publishing, 29(4), 301–305. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1060Google Scholar

Martin, B. R. (1996). The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research. Scientometrics, 36(3), 343–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02129599Google Scholar

Marzolla, M. (2016). Assessing evaluation procedures for individual researchers: The case of the Italian National Scientific Qualification. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 408–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.01.009Google Scholar

Mayer, I. S. (2009). The gaming of policy and the politics of gaming: A review. Simulation and Gaming, 40(6), 825–862. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878109346456Google Scholar

Mazov, N. A., Gureev, V. N., & Kalenov, N. E. (2018). Some assessments of the list of journals in the Russian Science Citation Index. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 88(2), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1019331618020053Google Scholar

McCrostie, J. (2018). Predatory conferences: A case of academic cannibalism. International Higher Education, 2(93), 6–8. https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.0.93.10415Google Scholar

McCulloch, S. (2017, February 9). The importance of being REF-able: Academic writing under pressure from a culture of counting. The London School of Economics and Political Science. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/02/09/the-importance-of-being-ref-able-academic-writing-under-pressure-from-a-culture-of-counting/Google Scholar

McKiernan, E. C., Schimanski, L. A., Muñoz Nieves, C., Matthias, L., Niles, M. T., & Alperin, J. P. (2019). Use of the journal impact factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations. eLife, 8, e47338. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.47338Google Scholar

McLuhan, M. (1994). Understanding media: The extensions of man. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Mead, G. H. (1934). Play, the game, and the generalized other. In Mead, G. H. (Ed.), Mind, self and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist (pp. 158–159). University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Meho, L. I. (2020). Highly prestigious international academic awards and their impact on university rankings. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(2), 824–848. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00045Google Scholar

Mennicken, A., & Espeland, W. N. (2019). What’s new with numbers? Sociological approaches to the study of quantification. Annual Review of Sociology, 45(1), 223–245. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073117-041343Google Scholar

Merton, R. K. (1936). The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action. American Sociological Review, 1(6), 894–904. https://doi.org/10.2307/2084615Google Scholar

Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159(3810), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56Google Scholar

Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (Storer, N. W., Ed.). The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego. (2018). Ewaluacja jakości działalności naukowej: Przewodnik. Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego. www.gov.pl/attachment/c28d4c75-a14e-46c5-bf41-912ea28cda5bGoogle Scholar

Mirskaya, E. Z. (1995). Russian academic science today: Its societal standing and the situation within the scientific community. Social Studies of Science, 25(4), 705–725. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631295025004006Google Scholar

Mishler, W., & Rose, R. (1997). Trust, distrust and skepticism: Popular evaluations of civil and political institutions in post-communist societies. The Journal of Politics, 59(2), 418–451. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381600053512Google Scholar

Moed, H. F. (2017). A critical comparative analysis of five world university rankings. Scientometrics, 110(2), 967–990. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2212-yGoogle Scholar

Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Cobey, K. D., Lalu, M. M., Galipeau, J., Avey, M. T., Ahmadzai, N., Alabousi, M., Barbeau, P., Beck, A., Daniel, R., Frank, R., Ghannad, M., Hamel, C., Hersi, M., Hutton, B., Isupov, I., McGrath, T. A., McInnes, M. D. F., Page, M. J., Pratt, M., Pussegoda, K., Shea, B., Srivastava, A., Stevens, A., Thavorn, K., Van Katwyk, S., Ward, R., Wolfe, D., Yazdi, F., Yu, A. M., & Ziai, H. (2017). Stop this waste of people, animals and money. Nature, 549(7670), 23–25. https://doi.org/10.1038/549023aGoogle Scholar

Moore, P. V. (2017). The quantified self in precarity: Work, technology and what counts. Routledge.Google Scholar

Moosa, I. (2018). Publish or perish. Perceived benefits versus unintended consequences. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786434937Google Scholar

Mouritzen, P. E., & Opstrup, N. (2020). Performance management at universities: The Danish bibliometric research indicator at work. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21325-1Google Scholar

Moxham, N., & Fyfe, A. (2018). The royal society and the prehistory of peer review, 1665–1965. Historical Journal, 61(4), 863–889. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X17000334Google Scholar

Muller, J. Z. (2018). The tyranny of metrics. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Müller, M. (2018). In search of the Global East: Thinking between North and South. Geopolitics, 25(3), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2018.1477757Google Scholar

Müller, R., & De Rijcke, S. (2017). Exploring the epistemic impacts of academic performance indicators in the life sciences. Research Evaluation, 26(3), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx023Google Scholar

Münch, R. (2013). Academic capitalism: Universities in the global struggle for excellence. Routledge.Google Scholar

Musselin, C. (2014). Towards a European academic labour market? Some lessons drawn from empirical studies on academic mobility. Higher Education, 48(1), 55–78.Google Scholar

Musselin, C. (2018). New forms of competition in higher education. Socio-Economic Review, 16(3), 657–683. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwy033Google Scholar

Nabout, J. C., Parreira, M. R., Teresa, F. B., Carneiro, F. M., Da Cunha, H. F., De Souza Ondei, L., Caramori, S. S., & Soares, T. N. (2014). Publish (in a group) or perish (alone): The trend from single- to multi-authorship in biological papers. Scientometrics, 102(1), 357–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1385-5Google Scholar

Nalimov, V. V., & Mulchenko, Z. M. (1969). Naukometrija: Izučenie razvitija nauki kak informacionnogo processa. Nauka.Google Scholar

Nature. (2020). China’s research-evaluation revamp should not mean fewer international collaborations. Nature, 579(7797), 8. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00625-0Google Scholar

Nazarovets, S. (2020). Controversial practice of rewarding for publications in national journals. Scientometrics, 124(1), 813–818. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03485-7Google Scholar

Neal, H. A., Smith, T. L., & McCormick, J. B. (2008). Beyond Sputnik: U.S. science policy in the twenty-first century. University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Neave, G. (1998). The evaluative state reconsidered. European Journal of Education, 33(3), 265–284. www.jstor.org/stable/1503583Google Scholar

Neave, G. (2012). The evaluative state, institutional autonomy and re-engineering higher education in Western Europe: The prince and his pleasure. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Neff, M. W. (2018). Publication incentives undermine the utility of science: Ecological research in Mexico. Science and Public Policy, 45(2), 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scx054Google Scholar

Noga-Styron, K. E., Olivero, J. M., & Britto, S. (2017). Predatory journals in the criminal justices sciences: Getting our cite on the target. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 28(2), 174–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2016.1195421Google Scholar

Nolting, L. E. (1978). The planning of research, development, and innovation in USSR. US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.Google Scholar

Ochsner, M., Kulczycki, E., & Gedutis, A. (2018, September 12–14). The diversity of European research evaluation systems [Paper presentation]. 23rd International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators, Leiden, The Netherlands. http://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl:8080/bitstream/10593/24096/1/STI2018_paper_204.pdfGoogle Scholar

O’Connell, B. T., De Lange, P., Martin-Sardesai, A., & Agyemang, G. (2020a). Measurement and assessment of accounting research, impact and engagement. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 33(6), 1177–1192. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-05-2020-4560Google Scholar

O’Connell, B. T., De Lange, P., Stoner, G., & Sangster, A. (2020b). Impact of research assessment exercises on research approaches and foci of accounting disciplines in Australia. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 33(6), 1277–1302. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-12-2019-4293Google Scholar

OECD. (2015). Frascati manual 2015: Guidelines for collecting and reporting data on research and experimental development. OECD Publishing.Google Scholar

Olechnicka, A., Ploszaj, A., & Celi, D. (2019). The geography of scientific collaboration. Routledge.Google Scholar

Olssen, M., & Peters, M. A. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: From the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy, 20(3), 313–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930500108718Google Scholar

Omenn, G. S. (2006). Grand challenges and great opportunities in science, technology, and public policy. Science, 314(5805), 1696–1704. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1135003Google Scholar

Omobowale, A. O., Akanle, O., Adeniran, A. I., & Adegboyega, K. (2014). Peripheral scholarship and the context of foreign paid publishing in Nigeria. Current Sociology, 62(5), 666–684. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392113508127Google Scholar

Önder, Ç., & Erdil, S. E. (2017). Opportunities and opportunism: Publication outlet selection under pressure to increase research productivity. Research Evaluation, 26(2), 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx006Google Scholar

Oppenheim, C. (2008). Out with the old and in with the new: The RAE, bibliometrics and the new REF. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 40(3), 147–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000608092550Google Scholar

Ossowska, M., & Ossowski, S. (1935). Nauka o nauce. Nauka Polska, 20, 1–12.Google Scholar

Ossowska, M., & Ossowski, S. (1964). The science of science. Minerva, 3(1), 72–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01630150Google Scholar

Osuna, C., Cruz-Castro, L., & Sanz-Menéndez, L. (2011). Overturning some assumptions about the effects of evaluation systems on publication performance. Scientometrics, 86(3), 575–592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0312-7Google Scholar

Pace, I. (2018, April 3). The RAE and REF: Resources and critiques. Desiring progress. https://ianpace.wordpress.com/2018/04/03/the-rae-and-ref-resources-and-critiques/Google Scholar

Pan, R. K., & Fortunato, S. (2014). Author impact factor: Tracking the dynamics of individual scientific impact. Scientific Reports, 4(1), 4880. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep04880Google Scholar

Pardo Guerra, J. P. (2020). Research metrics, labor markets, and epistemic change: Evidence from Britain 1970–2018. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/yzkfuGoogle Scholar

Parr, C. (2014, December 3). Imperial College professor Stefan Grimm “was given grant income target.” Times Higher Education. www.timeshighereducation.com/news/imperial-college-professor-stefan-grimm-was-given-grant-income-target/2017369.articleGoogle Scholar

Parsons, T. (1987). On institutions and social evolution: Selected writings (Mayhew, L., Ed.) (3rd ed.). University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Pecorari, D. (2021). Predatory conferences: What are the signs? Journal of Academic Ethics, 19, 343–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09406-4Google Scholar

Perlin, M. S., Imasato, T., & Borenstein, D. (2018). Is predatory publishing a real threat? Evidence from a large database study. Scientometrics, 116(1), 255–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2750-6Google Scholar

Perry, J. L., & Engbers, T. A. (2009). Back to the future? Performance-related pay, empirical research, and the perils of persistence. Public Administration Review, 69(1), 39–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.01939_2.xGoogle Scholar

Petr, M., Engels, T. C. E., Kulczycki, E., Dušková, M., Guns, R., Sieberová, M., & Sivertsen, G. (2021). Journal article publishing in the social sciences and humanities: A comparison of Web of Science coverage for five European countries. PLOS ONE, 16(4), e0249879. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249879Google Scholar

Pielke, R. (2014). In retrospect: The social function of science. Nature, 507(7493), 427–428. https://doi.org/10.1038/507427aGoogle Scholar

Pisár, P., & Šipikal, M. (2017). Negative effects of performance based funding of universities: The case of Slovakia. NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 10(2), 171–189. https://doi.org/10.1515/nispa-2017-0017Google Scholar

Plane, B. (1999). The “Sputnik myth” and dissent over scientific policies under the new economic system in East Berlin, 1961–1964. Minerva, 37(1), 45–62.Google Scholar

Platonova, D., & Semyonov, D. (2018). Russia: The institutional landscape of Russian Higher education. In Huisman, J., Smolentseva, A., & Froumin, I. (Eds.), 25 years of transformations of higher education systems in post-Soviet countries (pp. 337–362). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52980-6_13Google Scholar

Polanyi, M. (1962). The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva, 1(1), 54–73.Google Scholar

Pollitt, C. (2013). The logics of performance management. Evaluation, 19(4), 346–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389013505040Google Scholar

Pölönen, J. (2018). Applications of, and experiences with, the Norwegian model in Finland. Journal of Data and Information Science, 3(4), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2018-0019Google Scholar

Pölönen, J., Guns, R., Kulczycki, E., Sivertsen, G., & Engels, T. C. E. (2020). National lists of scholarly publication channels: An overview and recommendations for their construction and maintenance. Journal of Data and Information Science, 6(1), 50–86. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2021-0004Google Scholar

Pölönen, J., Pylvänäinen, E., Aspara, J., Puuska, H.-M., & Rinne, R. (2021). Publication Forum 2010–2020: Self-evaluation report of the Finnish quality classification system of peer-reviewed publication channels. Helsinki: Federation of Finnish Learned Societies. https://doi.org/10.23847/isbn.9789525995442Google Scholar

Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Power, M. (1999). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Power, M. (2004). Counting, control and calculation: Reflections on measuring and management. Human Relations, 57(6), 765–783. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726704044955Google Scholar

Price, D. J. (1963). Little science, big science. Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Priem, J., Taraborelli, D., Groth, P., & Neylon, C. (2010, October 26). Altmetrics: A manifesto. Altemetrics. http://altmetrics.org/manifestoGoogle Scholar

Pusser, B., & Marginson, S. (2013). University rankings in critical perspective. The Journal of Higher Education, 84(4), 544–568. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2013.0022Google Scholar

Quan, W., Chen, B., & Shu, F. (2017). Publish or impoverish: An investigation of the monetary reward system of science in China (1999–2016). Aslib Journal of Information Management, 69(5), 486–502. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0014Google Scholar

Radosevic, S. (2003). Patterns of preservation, restructuring and survival: Science and technology policy in Russia in post-Soviet era. Research Policy, 32(6), 1105–1124.Google Scholar

Reale, E., Avramov, D., Canhial, K., Donovan, C., Flecha, R., Holm, P., Larkin, C., Lepori, B., Mosoni-Fried, J., Oliver, E., Primeri, E., Puigvert, L., Scharnhorst, A., Schubert, A., Soler, M., Soòs, S., Sordé, T., Travis, C., & Van Horik, R. (2017). A review of literature on evaluating the scientific, social and political impact of social sciences and humanities research. Research Evaluation, 27(4), 298–308. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvx025Google Scholar

Reitz, T. (2017). Academic hierarchies in neo-feudal capitalism: How status competition processes trust and facilitates the appropriation of knowledge. Higher Education, 73(6), 871–886. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0115-3Google Scholar

Reuveny, R. X., & Thompson, W. R. (2007). The North-South divide and international studies: A symposium. International Studies Review, 9(4), 556–564. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2486.2007.00722.xGoogle Scholar

Reymert, I. (2020). Bibliometrics in academic recruitment: A screening tool rather than a game changer. Minerva, 59, 53–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-020-09419-0Google Scholar

Ridgway, V. F. (1956). Dysfunctional consequences of performance measurements. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1(2), 240–247.Google Scholar

Rochmyaningsih, D. (2019). How to shine in Indonesian science? Game the system. Science, 363(6423), 111–112. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.363.6423.111Google Scholar

Rodriguez Medina, L. (2014). Centers and peripheries in knowledge production. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar

Rose, N. (1991). Governing by numbers: Figuring out democracy. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 16(7), 673–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(91)90019-BGoogle Scholar

Rosli, A., & Rossi, F. (2016). Third-mission policy goals and incentives from performance-based funding: Are they aligned? Research Evaluation, 25(4), 427–441. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvw012Google Scholar

Rousseau, S., & Rousseau, R. (2017). Being metric-wise: Heterogeneity in bibliometric knowledge. El Profesional de La Informacion, 26(3), 480–487. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2017.may.14Google Scholar

Rowlands, J., & Gale, T. (2019). National research assessment frameworks, publication output targets and research practices: The compliance-habitus effect. Beijing International Review of Education, 1(1), 138–161. https://doi.org/10.1163/25902547-00101011Google Scholar

Rowlands, J., & Wright, S. (2019). Hunting for points: The effects of research assessment on research practice. Studies in Higher Education, 46(9), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1706077Google Scholar

Rowlands, J., & Wright, S. (2020). The role of bibliometric research assessment in a global order of epistemic injustice: A case study of humanities research in Denmark. Critical Studies in Education, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2020.1792523Google Scholar

Rozkosz, E. A. (2017). Polskie czasopisma pedagogiczne w “Wykazach czasopism punktowanych” w latach 2012, 2013 i 2015. In Kulczycki, E. (Ed.), Komunikacja naukowa w humanistyce (pp. 153–173). Wydawnictwo Naukowe Instytutu Filozofii UAM.Google Scholar

Salager-Meyer, F. (2015). Peripheral scholarly journals: From locality to globality. Ibérica, 30(2015), 15–36.Google Scholar

Sandoval-Romero, V., & Larivière, V. (2019). The national system of researchers in Mexico: Implications of publication incentives for researchers in social sciences. Scientometrics, 122(1), 99–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03285-8Google Scholar

Sauder, M., & Espeland, W. N. (2009). The discipline of rankings: Tight coupling and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 74(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400104Google Scholar

Sayer, D. (2015). Rank hypocrisies: The insult of the REF. Sage.Google Scholar

Schaff, A. (1956). Nauki Filozoficzne. In Suchodolski, B., Michajłow, W., Olszewski, E., Sosnowski, L., & Żółkiewski, S. (Eds.), Dziesięć lat rozwoju nauki w Polsce Ludowej (pp. 87–110). Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar

Schlegel, F. (Ed.). (2015). UNESCO science report: Towards 2030. UNESCO Publ.Google Scholar

Schneider, J. W. (2009). An outline of the bibliometric indicator used for performance-based funding of research institutions in Norway. European Political Science, 8(3), 364–378. https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2009.19Google Scholar

Schneider, J. W., Aagaard, K., & Bloch, C. W. (2016). What happens when national research funding is linked to differentiated publication counts? A comparison of the Australian and Norwegian publication-based funding models. Research Evaluation, 25(3), 244–256. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv036Google Scholar

Scopus. (2014, November 19). Times higher education choose scopus data for its world university ranking. Blog Scopus. https://blog.scopus.com/posts/times-higher-education-choose-scopus-data-for-its-world-university-rankingGoogle Scholar

Serger, S. S., & Breidne, M. (2007). China’s fifteen-year plan for science and technology: An assessment. Asia Policy, 4(1), 135–164. https://doi.org/10.1353/asp.2007.0013Google Scholar

Shapin, S. (2012). The ivory tower: The history of a figure of speech and its cultural uses. The British Journal for the History of Science, 45(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007087412000118Google Scholar

Sharma, Y. (2010, May 16). Asia: Governments should ignore rankings: Quacquarelli. University World News. www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20100514204441858Google Scholar

Shaw, M. A. (2019). Public accountability versus academic independence: Tensions of public higher education governance in Poland. Studies in Higher Education, 44(12), 2235–2248. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2018.1483910Google Scholar

Shen, C., & Björk, B.-C. (2015). “Predatory” open access: A longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine, 13(1), 230. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2Google Scholar

Shore, C., & Wright, S. (2003). Coercive accountability: The rise of audit culture in higher education. In Strathern, M. (Ed.), Audit cultures: Antropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy (pp. 69–101). Routledge.Google Scholar

Shu, F., Quan, W., Chen, B., Qiu, J., Sugimoto, C. R., & Larivière, V. (2020). The role of web of science publications in China’s tenure system. Scientometrics, 122(3), 1683–1695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03339-xGoogle Scholar

Sīle, L., Pölönen, J., Sivertsen, G., Guns, R., Engels, T. C. E. E., Arefiev, P., Dušková, M., Faurbæk, L., Holl, A., Kulczycki, E., Macan, B., Nelhans, G., Petr, M., Pisk, M., Soós, S., Stojanovski, J., Stone, A., Šušol, J., & Teitelbaum, R. (2018). Comprehensiveness of national bibliographic databases for social sciences and humanities: Findings from a European survey. Research Evaluation, 27(4), 310–322. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvy016Google Scholar

Sivertsen, G. (2014). Scholarly publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities and their coverage in Scopus and Web of Science. In E. Noyons (Ed.), Proceedings of the science and technology indicators conference 2014 Leiden “Context counts: Pathways to master big and little data” (pp. 598–604). Universiteit Leiden.Google Scholar

Sivertsen, G. (2018a). Balanced multilingualism in science. BiD: Textos Universitaris de Biblioteconomia i Documentació, 40. https://doi.org/10.1344/BiD2018.40.25Google Scholar

Sivertsen, G. (2018b). The Norwegian model in Norway. Journal of Data and Information Science, 3(4), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2018-0017Google Scholar

Skalska-Zlat, M. (2001). Nalimov and the Polish way towards science of science. Scientometrics, 52(2), 211–223. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1017911722525Google Scholar

Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Smith, P. (1995). On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 18(2–3), 277–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900699508525011Google Scholar

Smolentseva, A. (2017). Where Soviet and neoliberal discourses meet: The transformation of the purposes of higher education in Soviet and post-Soviet Russia. Higher Education, 74(6), 1091–1108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0111-7Google Scholar

Smolentseva, A. (2019). Field of higher education research, Russia. In Teixeira, P. N. & Shin, J. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of international higher education systems and institutions (pp. 1–8). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9553-1_189-1Google Scholar

Sokal, A. (1996). A physicist experiments with cultural studies. Lingua Franca, 6(4), 62–64.Google Scholar

Sokolov, M. (2016). Can efforts to raise publication productivity in Russia cause a decline of international academic periodicals? Higher Education in Russia and Beyond, 7(1), 16–18.Google Scholar

Sokolov, M. (2020). A story of two national research evaluation systems: Towards a comparative sociology of quantification. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/6r85mGoogle Scholar

Sokolov, M. (2021). Can Russian research policy be called neoliberal? A study in the comparative sociology of quantifica. Europe-Asia Studies, 73(3), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2021.1902945Google Scholar

Sorokowski, P., Kulczycki, E., Sorokowska, A., & Pisanski, K. (2017). Predatory journals recruit fake editor. Nature, 543(7646), 481–483. https://doi.org/10.1038/543481aGoogle Scholar

Stephan, P. (2012). Perverse incentives. Nature, 484(7392), 29–31.Google Scholar

Stöckelová, T., & Vostal, F. (2017). Academic stratospheres-cum-underworlds: When highs and lows of publication cultures meet. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 69(5), 516–528. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0013Google Scholar

Stockhammer, E., Dammerer, Q., & Kapur, S. (2021). The research excellence framework 2014, journal ratings and the marginalisation of heterodox economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 45(2), 243–269. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/beaa054Google Scholar

Strathern, M. (1997). ‘Improving ratings’: Audit in the British University system. European Review, 5(3), 305–321. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1234-981X(199707)5:3<305::AID-EURO184>3.0.CO;2-4Google Scholar

Strielkowski, W. (2018a). Predatory publishing: What are the alternatives to Beall’s list? The American Journal of Medicine, 131(4), 333–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.10.054Google Scholar

Strielkowski, W. (2018b). Setting new publishing standards after the Beall’s list. The International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 9(2), 108–110. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijoem.2018.1314Google Scholar

Strielkowski, W., & Gryshova, I. (2018). Academic publishing and «predatory» journals. Science and Innovation, 14(1), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.15407/scine14.01.005Google Scholar

Suber, P. (2012). Open access. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Suits, B. (1967). What is a game? Philosophy of Science, 34(2), 148–156. https://doi.org/10.1086/288138Google Scholar

Sum, N.-L., & Jessop, B. (2013). Competitiveness, the knowledge-based economy and higher education. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 4(1), 24–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-012-0121-8Google Scholar

Swinnerton-Dyer, P., & Major, L. E. (2001, October 30). Living with RAEs. The Guardian. www.theguardian.com/education/2001/oct/30/researchassessmentexercise.highereducationGoogle Scholar

Szasz, T. S. (1974). The myth of mental illness: Foundations of a theory of personal conduct. Harper Perennial.Google Scholar

Teixeira da Silva, J. A., Sorooshian, S., & Al-Khatib, A. (2017). Cost-benefit assessment of congresses, meetings or symposia, and selection criteria to determine if they are predatory. Walailak Journal of Science and Technology, 14(4), 259–265.Google Scholar

Tenopir, C., & King, D. W. (2014). The growth of journals publishing. The Future of the Academic Journal, 159–178. https://doi.org/10.1533/9781780634647.159Google Scholar

Teodorescu, D., & Andrei, T. (2009). Faculty and peer influences on academic integrity: College cheating in Romania. Higher Education, 57(3), 267–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9143-3Google Scholar

Thompson, J. W. (2002). The death of the scholarly monograph in the humanities? Citation patterns in literary scholarship. Libri, 52(3), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1515/LIBR.2002.121Google Scholar

Tollefson, J. (2018, January 18). China declared largest source of research articles. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-00927-4Google Scholar

Tonta, Y. (2018). Does monetary support increase the number of scientific papers? An interrupted time series analysis. Journal of Data and Information Science, 3(1), 19–39. https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2018-0002Google Scholar

Townsend, R. B. (2003, October 1). History and the future of scholarly publishing. Perspectives. www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/october-2003/history-and-the-future-of-scholarly-publishingGoogle Scholar

Tuszko, A., & Chaskielewicz, S. (1968). Organizowanie i kierowanie. Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar

UHR. (2004). A bibliometric model for performance-based budgeting of research institutions. Norwegian Association of Higher Education Institutions.Google Scholar

Umut, A., & Soydal, İ. (2012). Dergi Kendine Atıfının Etkisi: Energy education science and technology Örneği. Türk Kütüphaneciliği, 26(4), 699–714.Google Scholar

Van den Besselaar, P., Heyman, U., & Sandström, U. (2017). Perverse effects of output-based research funding? Butler’s Australian case revisited. Journal of Informetrics, 11(3), 905–918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.05.016Google Scholar

Vanclay, J. K. (2011). An evaluation of the Australian Research Council’s journal ranking. Journal of Informetrics, 5(2), 265–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.12.001Google Scholar