One of the reasons that #ScienceOfScience was born in Poland in the 1910s was due to the need to build from scratch a higher education system after 123 years of occupation by Russia, Prussia, and Austria. 1/9
Poland was the first country in the world to establish a separate governmental unit in 1918 for the development of science and the humanities, known as the Division for Science and Higher Education within the Ministry of Religious Denominations and Public Enlightenment. 2/9
Since its inception, #ScienceOfScience has adopted a dual approach: philosophical (knowledge production) and pragmatic (organization of the science sector and research). 3/9
However, both original perspectives from the Polish #ScienceOfScience being developed since the 1910s-20s are largely absent in contemporary discussions within the field. 4/9
Today's focus within #ScienceOfScience is on (increasing) the productivity of scientists and institutions, separate from (1) discussions on the material labor conditions for scientific work and the social relevance of science, 5/9
and also in isolation from (2) philosophical reflection on the status and utility of the scientific knowledge produced under specific conditions (e.g., at the (semi)peripheries. 6/9
In essence, #ScienceOfScience initially aimed to improve conditions for scholars to conduct research, advocate for increased funding, and show how science impacts the development of countries and nations.
Much of this perspective remains highly relevant today, stressing the need to integrate both practical and philosophical considerations back into our discussions within the #ScienceOfScience field. 7/9
These are a few reflections from the project I'm starting to work on. One of the project’s goals is to showcase the relevance of Polish #ScienceOfScience today, and to demonstrate how the Soviet model of science management purposefully overshadowed Poland's contribution. 8/9
In the first tweet, I posted a picture of the Kronenberg Palace in Warsaw, which housed The Józef Mianowski Fund - a key organization for the emergence of #ScienceOfScience 9/9
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I see that many researchers circulate a new website (predatoryreports.org) that published a list of all MDPI predatory journals. As a guy who has studied #predatoryjournals for over eight years, I’ve found such lists to be a bad idea. I’ll tell you why 👇
Firstly, scholarly communication has an important geopolitical dimension. Researchers in many countries are forced to publish in MDPI journals because national science policies recognize them.
So, for many researchers, it might be a good idea (i.e. in line with the institutional or national policy) to have papers in MDPI journals because they are „countable”. In this way, they "secure" their workplace.