Abstract From 1994 to 2018, ISBN was part of Polish VAT law, acting as a requirement for the reduced tax rate for books. In 2019, this requirement was abolished. However, the Polish Book Chamber (Polska Izba Książki), a Polish self-regulatory organization, has been lobbying for maintaining it. The organization argues that, due to the problems with defining what constitutes a book, such a solution is beneficial, as the ISBN unambiguously indicates the “book status.” This article argues that such a solution is in fact flawed and policymakers should seek other ways to improve tax law, or any other law related to books. First, an analysis of the ISBN standard is conducted, which shows that the process of ISBN assignment is arbitrary and left to the publisher’s discretion. Then, Polish case law is analyzed, demonstrating that ISBN was not considered to be a reliable aid for the tax authorities and courts. Lastly, consideration is given to the question whether such a solution violates the fiscal neutrality principle of taxation and should be applied within the EU.

Abstract Much is rotten in academic publishing, but it is easier to hold noses than do anything more fundamental about the stench. The five companies dominating the industry have grown fat on the backs of free academic labour. Why do academics (and so their research funders, their employers and the taxpayer) continue to subsidise the Big Five? Perhaps because one needs, and the other supplies, the publication indicators of academic performance on which rankings and the distribution of resources in higher education are largely based. Many of those with vested interests in academic publishing and higher education share a faith that publication indicators indicate something other than an ability to game, that academic papers will be read rather than merely counted, and that scholarship is mysteriously protected by a peer review system that is often little more than hollow ritual. The incursion of “predatory” publishers – publishers simply selling authors what they want – cheap, instant performance indicators, no questions asked, no need for gaming or peer review – might have been expected to have shaken this faith. Instead, established academic publishers have not hesitated to emulate the predators in their rush to make money, whatever the cost. This paper argues that the cost may be to scholarship.

The academic landscape has witnessed significant transformations in recent years, primarily attributed to advancements in IT tools, which have advantages and drawbacks in the world of publications. The transition from traditional university library searches to the digital era, with access to various information sources such as Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar, has revolutionized research practices. Thanks to technology, researchers, academics and students now enjoy rapid and vast information access, facilitating quicker manuscript preparation and boosting bibliometric parameters. To identify authors “self-distorted” bibliometric parameters, different indices following the Hirsch index (h-index) (based on citations) have been proposed. The new “fi-score” evaluates the reliability of citation counts for individual authors and validates the accuracy of their h-index, comparing the number of citations to the h-index value to highlight value that is not within the norm and probably influenced or distorted by authors themselves. It examines how authors’ citations impact their h-index, although they are not self-citing. The study calculated the fi-score on a sample of 194,983 researchers. It shows that the average value of the fi-score is 25.03 and that a maximum value admissible as good must not exceed 32. The fi-score complements existing indexes, shedding light on the actual scientific impact of researchers. In conclusion, bibliometric parameters have evolved significantly, offering valuable insights into researchers’ contributions. The fi-score emerges as a promising new metric, providing a more comprehensive and unbiased evaluation of scholarly impact. By accounting for the influence of citations and self-citations, the fi-score addresses the limitations of traditional indices, empowering academic communities to recognize better and acknowledge individual contributions.