Dr. hab. Emanuel Kulczycki, prof. UAM, is interested in the evaluation of science and the theory of communication. He is a professor in the Center for Public Policy Studies (Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań), where he leads the Scholarly Communication Research Group. He was awarded his doctoral degree (2011) and his habilitation degree (2016) in philosophy. He is the president of Zespół ds. wykazów czasopism naukowych i wydawnictw naukowych (i.e. the group for indexing research journals and research publishers) and a member of Komitet Ewaluacji Jednostek Naukowych (the Committee for Evaluation of Scientific Research Institutions), of Komisja ds. Akredytacji i Rankingów KRASP (the Commission for Accreditation and Ranking) and of Komitet Nauk Filozoficznych PAN (the Committee on Philosophical Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences). His works have recently appeared in Nature, Research Evaluation, Journal of Informetrics, and Scientometrics.

Lecture summary
Dr. hab. Emanuel Kulczycki, prof. UAM

What bibliometric indexes are used by postdoctoral researchers in their summaries of professional accomplishments?
Field patterns of metric-wiseness


In 2017 Rosseau and Rousseau in their work “Being Metric-Wise: Heterogeneity in Bibliometric Knowledge” introduced the idea of metric-wiseness defined as a researcher’s capacity to use the characteristics and formats of scientometric indicators to present one’s true research value. So far, this idea has not been empirically tested.
The focus of my presentation will be the results of my own research, which may substantially contribute to this idea by revealing the differences in using indexes in different research fields and disciplines. I have analysed 3,695 summaries of professional accomplishments (82,710 pages) complied within the so-called new habilitation procedures in all existing disciplines, 2011-2016 (May). They were analysed and coded in MaxQDA and next in IBM SPSS. The results allow to answer the following research questions: What are the differences between different research fields in using bibliometric indexes in summaries of professional accomplishments? What are the differences between men and women in using indexes in summaries of professional accomplishments? Is metric-wiseness associated with publishing patterns in given research fields? The results of my analyses show that there are significant differences between so-called hard and soft sciences with regard to metric-wiseness. For example, researchers in the field of medical sciences very frequently use indexes whereas researchers in the field of humanities write the shortest summaries of professional accomplishments and hardly ever use bibliometric indexes.