Poland’s Ministry of Science and Higher Education (Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższej, MNiSW) is in the process of overhauling ewaluacja jakości działalności naukowej — the national system that scores every university and research institute’s scientific disciplines and, in turn, gates their degree-granting rights, doctoral-school eligibility, and a large share of statutory (block) research funding. The reform targets the 2026–2030 assessment period and is explicitly framed by the ministry and by Polish academic commentators as a response to “punktoza” (literally “point-itis” or “point-chasing”) — the well-documented side effect of the current model’s heavy reliance on a fixed quota of publication-linked points per researcher. This page tracks what is changing, what stays the same, and what is still only proposed rather than enacted, based on the ministry’s own autumn 2025 consultation materials and Polish academic-press reporting current as of mid-2026.
The system being replaced: parametric evaluation under the 2018 Act
The evaluation model now being revised was introduced by the 2018 Law on Higher Education and Science (popularly nicknamed the “Constitution for Science”) and has run on four-year assessment windows, most recently covering 2017–2021, with institutional results announced in 2022. Each academic discipline at each institution is placed into one of five categories — A+, A, B+, B, C — which determine whether that unit keeps the right to award doctorates and habilitations and how much statutory research funding it receives. The score itself is built from three weighted criteria: Criterion I (scientific achievements, dominated by publications assigned point values from ministry-maintained journal and publisher lists, converted against a fixed quota of publication “slots” per full-time-equivalent researcher), Criterion II (effects of scientific activity on the economy and society), and Criterion III (research potential, e.g. grants won, infrastructure, staff development).
Why “punktoza” became the reform’s target
Criterion I’s slot-and-points mechanics are what Polish academics, rectors’ conferences, and disciplinary councils have most consistently criticized in the years since 2018. Because a fixed number of publication slots must be filled and each slot’s value is driven almost entirely by a journal or publisher’s ministry-assigned point score, the incentive structure rewards hitting a quota on the highest-scoring outlet a researcher can reach — rather than judging the actual content, originality, or societal value of the work. Reporting in the Polish academic press (Forum Akademickie, PulsHR) has tied punktoza to salami-slicing of results into the minimum publishable unit, pressure to target list-topping journals regardless of disciplinary fit, and a structural bias against forms of scholarly contribution — monographs in some humanities and social-science fields, applied and commercialization-oriented work, science communication — that don’t translate cleanly into a per-slot point value.
What the 2026–2030 model proposes
Per the ministry’s autumn 2025 consultation package (“Ewaluacja działalności naukowej, 2026–2030”) and consistent coverage from Forum Akademickie and Laboratorium360, the replacement model restructures evaluation around two pillars rather than the current single composite score:
- Pillar 1 — disciplinary evaluation. Retains the existing A+/A/B+/B/C category structure and the institutional rights tied to it, but is reported to move away from a rigid per-researcher publication-slot quota toward expert-panel judgment of submitted outputs.
- Pillar 2 — potential assessment. A new, separately rated track covering an institution’s capacity to develop its research activity and its work on creating a sustainable, supportive research environment — including staff development and working conditions — plus the dissemination of research findings, including science popularization and public engagement. This pillar is rated on a three-point scale (“wyróżniająca” / distinguished, “pozytywna” / positive, “negatywna” / negative) rather than the five-tier disciplinary scale.
The assessment period itself lengthens from four years to five years, and the ministry has signaled the Evaluation Commission’s own composition will shift — reducing dedicated science-policy expert seats while adding seats specifically for commercialization and technology transfer, reflecting a stated intent to weight knowledge and technology transfer more heavily going forward (see CASRAI’s companion piece on Poland’s university technology-transfer framework for the commercialization side of that shift). Multiple Polish outlets covering the draft also report provisions eliminating the fixed per-researcher publication-slot quota and barring institutions from directly converting a unit’s aggregate evaluation score into an individual employee’s performance rating — a mechanism some universities have used internally despite it never being the evaluation’s intended purpose. Treat these specific provisions as reported rather than independently confirmed against the final legal text, since the reform has not yet been enacted (see status below).
Status: proposal and consultation, not yet final law
As of mid-2026 this remains a live legislative process, not a finished reform. The ministry ran a formal consultation on the 2026–2030 model in autumn 2025, and Polish reporting at that time indicated the government was targeting adoption of the implementing legislation by the Council of Ministers around the third quarter of 2026, with new staffing-minimum and disciplinary-council provisions slated to take effect January 1, 2031 — timed to the following evaluation cycle. Separately, and while the fuller reform was still in consultation, the minister issued a narrower regulation on 30 July 2025 (published in the Dziennik Ustaw, item 1053) amending the existing 2019 evaluation-quality regulation — confirmation that the ministry has already begun adjusting the applicable legal instruments in stages rather than waiting for a single omnibus change. Research offices and CRIS/POL-on data stewards should treat any specific numeric thresholds, weightings, or percentage splits reported before the legislation is finalized as provisional, and should watch for the actual adopted regulation rather than the consultation draft when configuring institutional reporting.
Where this fits in the broader research-assessment reform picture
Poland’s approach is a national regulatory reform of a mandatory, funding-linked government evaluation system — a different mechanism from the voluntary institutional commitments underpinning the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) or the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA), which institutions and funders join by signing an agreement rather than by national statute. The underlying critique, however, is the same one driving both movements: over-reliance on a single quantitative proxy (journal placement, publication counts, points) as a stand-in for research quality. Poland’s two-pillar design, in particular the explicit potential-assessment track for working conditions and dissemination, echoes principles found in responsible metrics practice and the Leiden Manifesto‘s emphasis on qualitative expert judgment alongside indicators. For a broader comparison of the voluntary-commitment side of this landscape, see CASRAI’s DORA vs CoARA comparison and the guide on DORA and CoARA research-assessment commitments.
What research administrators should track
- Legal status — whether the Council of Ministers has adopted the implementing legislation, and whether the final text matches the consultation draft’s two-pillar structure.
- POL-on reporting changes — Poland’s national higher-education and science information system is the data backbone for evaluation submissions; any new potential-assessment data points (working-environment indicators, popularization outputs) will need a reporting field before they can be scored.
- Evaluation Commission composition — the reported shift toward more commercialization/technology-transfer expertise on the commission is a signal of where institutional effort will be rewarded next cycle.
- Whether publication slots are actually removed — this is currently reported, not confirmed in enacted law; institutions should not assume Criterion I’s mechanics disappear until the final regulation is published.
Frequently asked questions
What does “punktoza” mean?
Literally “point-itis” or “pointology” — the informal Polish term for the distortions created by evaluating scientific activity primarily through a fixed quota of publication points assigned from ministry journal and publisher lists. It’s used critically, to describe quantity-over-quality incentives rather than as a formal policy term.
Is the 2026–2030 reform already in force?
Not as an enacted omnibus reform as of mid-2026. The two-pillar model went through a formal autumn 2025 ministry consultation, with adoption by the Council of Ministers reported as targeted for around Q3 2026. A narrower regulation amending the 2019 evaluation rules was adopted in July 2025, but that is a separate, more limited legal instrument from the full 2026–2030 model described here.
Does the reform eliminate publication points entirely?
No — Pillar 1 (disciplinary evaluation) retains the existing A+ through C category structure that Criterion I’s publication scoring feeds into. What’s reported to change is the rigid per-researcher publication-slot quota mechanism, not the underlying use of journal/publisher point lists as an input to expert judgment.
How does this differ from DORA or CoARA?
DORA and CoARA are voluntary commitments that individual institutions, funders, and publishers opt into by signing an agreement. Poland’s reform is a mandatory national regulatory system that determines degree-granting rights and a share of public research funding for every evaluated unit — a different legal mechanism aimed at a similar underlying problem (over-reliance on quantitative publication proxies).
