Fecha/hora: 03/06/2024 04:17:56

Biblioteca(s): | INIA Las Brujas.
Fecha corriente: | 07/03/2022
Fecha de la última actualización: | 30/11/2022
Autoria: | VASEN, F.; SIERRA, M.
Afiliación: | FEDERICO VASEN, Universidad de Buenos Aires-CONICET, Buenos Aires, Argentina; MIGUEL OSCAR SIERRA PEREIRO, INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria), Uruguay.
Título: | "The Hardest Task"-peer review and the evaluation of technological activities.
Año de publicación: | 2022
Fuente/Imprenta: | Minerva, 2022, Volume 60, Issue 3, pages 375-395. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-022-09461-0
ISSN: | 0026-4695 (print); 1573-1871 (electronic)
DOI: | 10.1007/s11024-022-09461-0
Idioma: | Inglés

Notas:

Article history: Accepted 24 January 2022; Published 07 March 2022; To be published September 2022. -- Corresponding author: Federico Vasen, fvasen@uba.ar --- 
This work was supported by Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria and Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica [grant PICT2018-2794].

Contenido:

ABSTRACT.- Technology development and innovation are fundamentally different from scientific research. However, in many circumstances, they are evaluated jointly and by the same processes. In these cases, peer review -the most usual procedure for evaluating research - is also applied to the evaluation of technological products and innovation activities. This can lead to unfair results and end up discouraging the involvement of researchers in these fields. This paper analyzes the evaluation processes in Uruguay's National System of Researchers. In this system, all members' activities, both scientific and technological, are evaluated by peer committees. Based on documentary analysis and semi-structured interviews, the difficulties faced by evaluators in assessing technology products are explored. The article highlights the persistence of a linear conception of the link between science and technology and describes the obstacles to assimilate the particularities of technological activities. Refereed publications are presented as the only uncontested product. Other types of output are reviewed with suspicion. This study emphasizes the need for specific mechanisms to evaluate technological production within academic careers.
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2022

Palabras-Clave: | Latin America; National system of researchers; Peer review; Research evaluation; Technological outputs; Uruguay.
Categoría del tema: | A50 Investigación agraria
Registro original: | INIA Las Brujas (LB)
Ejemplares: | LB - (103009-1) - PXI - AP - DD - PP/MINERVA/2022 -  -  - DIS