Emanuel Kulczycki

Contact

German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW)

Schützenstraße 6a | 10117 Berlin | www.dzhw.eu | Germany

Prof. Dr. Emanuel Kulczycki

Head of Department
Research System and Science Dynamics

Email:

 

Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin

Prof. Dr. Emanuel Kulczycki

Professor of Science Studies
Berlin School of Library and Information Science
Dorotheenstr. 26
D-10117 Berlin

Email:

Before you write to me

A note for prospective fellows, doctoral candidates, and collaborators.

I receive many inquiries from researchers who would like to apply for a fellowship, pursue a doctorate, or build a collaboration with me. I read every one of them, and I am genuinely open. I am especially drawn to work that takes the periphery and semi-periphery of science seriously, which is close to my own concerns.

I wrote the following so that we can both tell quickly whether there is a real fit. It explains where I sit institutionally, what I actually work on, and how to frame your message so it lands well. Please read it before writing. A message that shows you have done so will always stand out.

Where I am based

My situation shapes what is possible, so it is worth being precise:

  • I’m the Head of the Department Research System and Science Dynamics at the German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW), Berlin. DZHW is a research institute, not a university: it does not award doctoral degrees, but it can host fellows and visiting researchers (for example through the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, DAAD, or national schemes).
  • I’m Full Professor of Science Studies at the Berlin School of Library and Information Science, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Formal doctoral supervision and degree-granting run through HU Berlin and are necessarily selective.

What this means for you: Please be explicit about which track you have in mind: a hosted fellowship, a PhD, or a shorter research visit. They follow different routes, and naming the right one tells me you understand the setup.

Bear in mind that all of these take time — fellowship and doctoral schemes run on fixed cycles with deadlines well ahead of any start date, so it is worth approaching me early and checking the relevant scheme’s timeline yourself.

What I work on

A collaboration only makes sense if your question sits close to mine. At this moment, my main areas are:

  • Scientometrics and bibliometrics — including dynamics of scholarly communication, publication patterns, geography and geopolitics of collaboration, the history and theory of the field, and the contrast between its Eastern and Western traditions.
  • Research evaluation systems — how metrics, rankings, and governance reshape scholarly practices (see my book on the evaluation game).
  • The geopolitics of science — centre–periphery and semi-periphery dynamics, and the question of whose knowledge becomes visible.
  • Multilingualism and bibliodiversity in scholarly communication.
  • Predatory publishing and questionable conferences.

This page gives the fuller picture. If your project does not connect to one of these, I am most likely the wrong host — and I would rather tell you that early than have you build a proposal around the wrong person. I am usually not the right person for purely technical projects without a science-studies dimension.

What makes a strong inquiry

The single most common weakness I see is a strong general project with my name attached to it afterwards. The strongest proposals work the other way around: they are built inward from a specific question I actually work on, and they tell me how the work would extend, test, or challenge a particular idea — mine, or my department’s — rather than simply citing it.

A message that does well usually:

  • shows you have read this page and at least some of the work below, and says so concretely;
  • names one specific question or finding of mine that your project engages with, and how;
  • states the track (fellowship / PhD / visit), a rough timeline,
  • states your funding route;
  • is honest about data and method — and, where relevant, how you would draw on the resources here, such as the Competence Centre for Bibliometrics.

I am particularly glad to hear from people whose work takes non-English and multilingual scholarship and centre–periphery questions seriously. That is exactly where I think the field has most to learn.

Please attach a one-page sketch (your question, why here, your method), a short CV, and one or two representative publications.

Read these first

If you read nothing else before writing, read these. They will tell you faster than any email whether our interests genuinely meet.

  1. Scientometrics and bibliometrics: (1) Kulczycki, E., Engels, T. C. E., Pölönen, J., Bruun, K., Dušková, M., Guns, R., Nowotniak, R., et al. (2018). Publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities: evidence from eight European countries, Scientometrics. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2711-0 [PDF]; (2) Kislenko, I., Kulczycki, E., The Matilda Effect in Soviet scientometrics? Nalimov, Mulchenko, and the origins of Naukometriya. Quantitative Science Studies; doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/QSS.a.397 [PDF]; (3) Kulczycki, E. (2024) Reframing scientometrics: How ontological understanding of science influences what we count and how we interpret it. Qualität in Der Wissenschaft, 4, 102–108. [PDF]
  2. Research evaluation systems: (1)The Evaluation Game: How Publication Metrics Shape Scholarly Communication. Cambridge University Press; (2) Krzeski, J., Szadkowski, K., & Kulczycki, E. (2022). Creating evaluative homogeneity: Experience of constructing a national journal ranking. Research Evaluation, DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvac011 [PDF]
  3. The geopolitics of science: (1) Krawczyk, F., & Kulczycki, E. (2021). On the geopolitics of academic publishing: The mislocated centers of scholarly communication. Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society, 4(1), 1984641. DOI: 10.1080/25729861.2021.1984641 [PDF]; (2) Kowal, M., Sorokowski, P., Kulczycki, E., & Żelaźniewicz, A. (2021). The impact of geographical bias when judging scientific studies. Scientometrics. DOI: doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04176-7 [PDF]
  4. Multilingualism and bibliodiversity: Kulczycki, E. (2020). Guns R., Pölönen J., Engels, C.E., Rozkosz E.A., Zuccala A.A., Bruun. K., Eskola, O., Istenič-Starčič, A., Petr, M., Sivertsen, G. Multilingual Publishing in the Social Sciences and Humanities: A Seven‐Country European Study. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology: asi.24336. DOI: 10.1002/asi.24336 [PDF]
  5. Predatory publishing and questionable conferences: (1)Taskin, Z., Krawczyk, F., & Kulczycki, E. (2022). Are papers published in predatory journals worthless? A geopolitical dimension revealed by content-based analysis of citations. Quantitative Science Studies. DOI: 10.1162/qss_a_00242 [PDF]; (2) Kulczycki, E., Hołowiecki, M., Taşkın, Z., & Doğan, G. (2022). Questionable conferences and presenters from top-ranked universities. Journal of Information Science. DOI: 10.1177/01655515221087674 [PDF]

What happens after you write

So that no one is left waiting, here is roughly how this goes and, just as importantly, where it usually stops.

  • You will hear back from me – I reply to every serious inquiry, even if only briefly. Most do end at this stage, and that is normal: it is almost always a question of fit, not of how good your work is. A short, honest no is still an answer, and I would rather give you one than leave you waiting.
  • If there may be a fit, I will ask for a short sketch and then usually suggest a brief online meeting to talk the project through.
  • After that I take a little time to decide, and I will give you a clear answer either way rather than leave things open. A yes means we develop the proposal together for the relevant scheme; a no is final, and I will try to be straightforward about the reason.
  • I can host only a few people at any one time, so even a strong, well-aligned project may not work out, simply for reasons of capacity and timing.

A thoughtful inquiry takes me time to answer properly. If you have engaged with this page and the readings above, please say so. It tells me there is a real person and a real idea on the other side, and that is what I look for first.