Comment: High game. Mismanagement of science leads to bad governance

The case of the unfortunate exchange of the minister for science has its bright side. It aroused the interest of the media and the public in the problems of Czech science, which was otherwise always very lukewarm. I will therefore use the historical opportunity and briefly summarize in layman’s terms what Czech science is dealing with and why it is a problem for all of us.

Academic colleagues will hopefully forgive me for making some simplifications and generalizations in the interest of clarity. The essence of my message is that scientific research only benefits people if it is well managed and funded. This problem is not only faced by the Czech Republic, but with varying degrees of success by all countries of the world.

Changing a badly set up system for the better is not at all easy, because in this process those whose careers were helped by the badly set up system have a very strong voice. Another problem is that the quality management of the science system is hampered by the low quality of the social sciences, in which the necessary expertise is born.

The belief that science is the engine of human progress is disputed by few. But the public’s interest in its management certainly does not correspond to it. Unbeknownst to most people, applied research and development has long been improving the quality of our daily lives in all aspects – in health, work productivity, entertainment, services and also governance.

Applied research stands on the back of basic research. It aims “only” at a better understanding of the material and immaterial world around us and within us. In order for applied research to be sufficiently applied in a country such as the Czech Republic, it is not enough just to adopt the findings of basic research from abroad. We need our own. Every country must have a foundation of basic research, because it connects knowledge with local needs. And above all, thanks to it, doctoral students are educated, who then apply the latest scientific knowledge in the commercial and public sector of the country.

The results of basic research usually cannot be monetized. That is also why it is dependent on funding from public sources. And since there is never enough money, we must distribute it meaningfully. Therefore, countries must continuously evaluate the results of basic research.

The evaluation is not only a guide for the efficient distribution of financial support, but also induces strong motivations among researchers and workplaces. If the assessment is set up wrong, it creates bad motivations, research is ineffective and money for it disappears like in a black hole. It is here that the Czech story and the “Tuleja case” begins. But more about him in a moment.

Evaluating the results of basic research is a difficult task for any country. In most fields, it has historically been the practice in the developed world that the quality of basic research results of individuals, teams, workplaces and countries can be derived (with an acceptable degree of unreliability) from the reputation of the scientific journals in which the research was published.

The reputation of a journal is built up over a long period of time and is determined by the demandingness of the review process, which in turn is determined by the demandingness and quality of the scientists who are involved in the review of the journal. There are many scientific journals and their number is still growing. The magazines are diametrically different in terms of their reputation and importance. As well as the quality and importance of published research. And it is known that top-notch and useful science is definitely not made by the number of publications.

Until 2010, the Czech Republic did not have a system for evaluating scientific organizations in the true sense of the word. The distribution of financial support for science was partly determined by historical inertia, partly the result of partial interests and partly a matter of pure chance. The quantity of publications played a much greater role than their quality. Desperation resulted in desperate measures around 2010.

In an effort to eliminate the influence of partial interests and chance, the funding of research organizations, especially universities, was converted to an automatic system. He started assigning points to scientific results, including articles, and the points were then converted into money.

For this mechanism, the name coffee machine quickly took hold. He brought good and bad. In a number of fields, it has indeed redirected the flow of money to higher quality research and motivated higher quality publications. But at the same time, it also created a strong motivation to publish quantity regardless of quality.

While the benefits of the coffee machine seemed to outweigh the negative effects in the natural sciences and engineering fields, it was exactly the opposite in the social sciences. The coffee shop there leads precisely to the publication quantity.

The new system also blindly reduced the share of the social sciences in funding for science. And since the social sciences suddenly had an even more limited pool of money at stake, the race for the number of articles began. The more publications, the more money. And the more low-quality, useless, even fraudulent publications.

Quality research in a number of social science workplaces simply fell by the wayside because it did not bring in money. Quantitative criteria also dominated the evaluation of the success of grants, when awarding docents and professorships. It was simply much easier to put commas behind scientific outputs than to evaluate them from the point of view of quality. The coffee shop system did try to respond a little, but the changes were due to the wrong motivations.

At that time, the Czech Republic coincided with the onset of the global phenomenon called predatory magazines with its coffee machine. These are titles that pretend to be scientific, but in reality are just money machines from the fees they charge authors for publishing articles of dubious quality.

The interest of “also scientists” from all over the world to publish in these journals turned out to be huge. After all, there were and still are many countries in the world whose evaluation systems cannot distinguish scientific quality from quantity. It is not surprising that predatory publishing has spread the most in developing countries, but also in more economically developed countries, which, however, do not know how to evaluate scientific advice. The latter included the former socialist countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Including the Czech Republic.

Predatory publishing boomed in the Czech Republic in the second decade of the new century. Several factors had a significant impact on this.

First, the extremely strong incentives to publish quantity regardless of quality, created by the coffee-line funding system.

Secondly, the criteria for obtaining docents and professorships at universities and the criteria for evaluating the success of grants, which again emphasized quantity rather than quality.

Thirdly, insufficiently widespread awareness of the disciplinary quality standards of science in social and some other disciplines.

And fourthly, the redirection of financial support for the quantity of scientific results.

This brings us to the answer to the question of why a candidate for “Minister of Science” with scientific titles and high academic positions in his resume has such a high number of scientifically insignificant publications, some of them even in predatory journals. Mr. Tuleja and many others were motivated and pushed by the system. And also a weak awareness that it is something bad, even immoral. But here’s the bottom line: All too often, quantity-based publication strategies have actually led to success both in terms of careers and funding for research facilities.

The economist Tulej and the current state of basic Czech economic research serve as an example for other social science fields as well. And it describes the situation not only in the Czech Republic, but also in other post-communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

In international comparison, there are few academic economists who publish standardly in our country. Moreover, their publications are abnormally concentrated in scientifically insignificant journals, including strange, even predatory journals. On the contrary, publication productivity in top journals is very low.

The world’s citation response to these researches is naturally low and extremely low from the sphere of internationally renowned journals. A similar situation prevails in other social sciences. Among the big ones are psychology and sociology. And the situation is the same, if not worse, in Slovakia, Poland, and Hungary.

After a lot of effort, the coffee shop way of evaluating and funding science was put on the back burner at the end of the second decade. However, the new system of evaluation and funding of science is being implemented relatively slowly at the national level. Moreover, in a number of research organizations, the coffee machine continues to spin due to inertia.

Scientific degrees obtained due to the quantity rather than the quality of publications have long opened the door to various academic bodies, which significantly participated in setting evaluation and funding criteria and continue to participate. It is naïve to expect these people themselves to actively oppose the system that helped them rise up the ranks.

There are always significantly more below-average scientists and workplaces than above-average ones. And in a system that is governed primarily by consensus and majority voting, cutting-edge science does not have a strong enough voice to change the system. This is also why it is desirable that the Minister for Science not only understands all this well, but also has great authority vis-à-vis the academic community and is able to articulate and enforce the necessary changes – even against the strong opposition of many.

As I already mentioned in the introduction, basic research represents the undergrowth of applied research. And the results of social sciences are also significantly applied in the field of public policies. In the case of economic policy, it concerns, for example, the setting of the tax and pension system, employment policy, and supervision of the competitive environment. In the case of educational policy, it concerns the management and financing of education. And it would be possible to continue with the social or healthcare system.

Huge amounts of public money are involved in all the mentioned areas, and the efficiency of their use is absolutely essential. And the very small scope of quality research in the social sciences in the Czech Republic also causes the low quality of the aforementioned policies. Unfortunately, it also has a negative impact on the quality of science management.

It is therefore no accident that the Czech Republic and other post-communist states show a low quality of governance in international comparisons. So far, not much attention has been paid to it here, certainly not as much attention as the problem deserves. This is also why it is important who will eventually sit in the chair of Minister for Science.