In the year 2000 the journal Pedagogika celebrates fifty years of its existence - it has been published continuously since the year 1951. As it is the main periodical with a scientific character in Czech pedagogy it has served not only as a source of information for researchers and practitioners but has reflected the development of Czech educational theory and research as well. The present paper deals with an analytical description of the development of the journal during the period 1951-1999. The analysis applies both qualitative and quantitative procedures. In the introduction several approaches are described that have been utilized in evaluations of the development of a scientific periodical or a scientific discipline, e.g. by Walberg and Haertel (1992) in the analysis of journals in educational psychology and by Olkinuora and Lehtinen (1997) in an overview of forty years of educational psychology in Finland. The methods of analyzing Pedagogika have been similar to those applied in the works mentioned: First, the development of the journal has been divided into several periods and a qualitative description of the papers and topics published in each period has been carried out. Second, a quantitative analysis has been elaborated consisting in a survey of the number of published papers and reviews, their distribution according to the country (language) of origin, etc. Pedagogika started its existence in 1951 as a “Journal for educational theory and practice” and was published by the Ministry of Education. However, the first period of its development (1951 -1955) was extremely influenced by Marxist ideology: Almost all papers were focused on creating a new „Marxist theory of education“ and/or on the criticism of “bourgeois pedagogy”. Especially sharply criticised was especially professor Václav Příhoda, who was probably the most significant figure of Czech educational research in the 20,h century. Almost no scientific papers in a real sense were published in Pedagogika of that time. From the year 1956 Pedagogika has been published in the Comenius Institute of Pe dagogy (an institution of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences) and this change led to a certain liberalization of the journal. Some important scientific papers were published concerning the research on learning in school environment, theory of curriculum, history of education, etc. During the 1960s Pedagogika took over the role of the scientific medium in a larger extent which was a reflection of the liberal political atmosphere of the Prague Spring in 1968. At that time Czech educationalists proclaimed the independence of their science from ideological control by the communist party and tried to develop close contacts with the educationalists in West European countries, c. g. with W. Brezinka, a leading figure of pedagogy in Germany. Unfortunately, during the 1970s strong political censorship again oppressed the authors who published in Pedagogika. Some authors were not even allowed to publish their articles at all for political reasons. Nevertheless, a new spirit of independent scientific thinking was evident in some papers dealing with research on teacher - pupils communication, cognitive educational psychology, general theory of education, theory of instruction, etc. During the 1980s Pedagogika has step by step become a real scientific periodical and, finally, since the political shift in 1989 it has been published as a journal fully representing the free educational science in the Czech Republic. One of the new features of Pedagogika during the 1990s is its stronger emphasis on empirical studies, methods of qualitative research and information about the developments of educational theory in the world. Part 4 of the paper presents some data of the quantitative analysis of the development of Pedagogika during its half ccntury of existence: Altogether, more than 1,900 papers and 1,600 reviews have been published in the journal of which about 14% were published by authors other than Czechs. A special analysis of information sources, i.e. citation analysis, has been performed as presented in Part 4.5. For example, whereas in the 1970s and 1980s almost a half of all quotations from foreign sources concerned Russian publications, in the 1990s the structure has dramatically changed so that about 65% of quotations concerned publications in English and almost 20% in German. In the conclusion (Part 5) the author presents some questions that have not yet been answered but are important for the elucidation of the role of Pedagogika in the development of Czech educational science: What was in fact the nature and quality of Czech educational science during the period of socialism? And what was the real influence - both positive and negative - of Soviet pedagogy on Czech educational science? These questions are not easy to answer without a profound critical analysis of Czech educational science in the context of political and economic factors determining the life of Czech society during the past fifty years.