Komparatywna ocena ewaluacji naukowej na podstawie systemów funkcjonujących w Polsce oraz Republice Czeskiej

Abstract

The article presents a comparative analysis of the scientific evaluation systems operating in Poland and the Czech Republic. Poland has introduced a system of evaluation based on two main criteria: on the one hand, the number of scientific publications, and on the other hand, their quality, the amount of research funding obtained, and the assessment of the impact of scientific activity on society. In contrast, the Czech Republic has implemented an expert-based evaluation system with five criteria: contribution to knowledge, research efficiency, societal relevance, and the quality of management, strategy, and policy of scientific entities. The research hypothesis posits that the scientific evaluation systems under comparison differ both in their structure and in the comprehensiveness of theiroperational methods. The study therefore aims to identify similarities as well as significant differences in the structure and functioning of these systems. The article identifies the main differences between the systems, highlighting that the Czech system is more comprehensive due to the greater number of evaluation criteria and the use of expert evaluation. The analysis provides a fuller understanding of the mechanisms of scientific evaluation in both countries and identifies potential areas for further improvement.