View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

"The Hardest Task"—Peer Review and the Evaluation of Technological Activities.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: "The Hardest Task"—Peer Review and the Evaluation of Technological Activities.
Authors: Vasen, Federico1 fvasen@uba.ar, Sierra Pereiro, Miguel2
Source: Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning & Policy. Sep2022, Vol. 60 Issue 3, p375-395. 21p.
Subject Terms: *Research, *Adults, *Higher education, Technology, Peer review committees
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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning & Policy is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Education Research Complete
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
Text:
  Availability: 1
Header DbId: ehh
DbLabel: Education Research Complete
An: 158814766
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: "The Hardest Task"—Peer Review and the Evaluation of Technological Activities.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Vasen%2C+Federico%22">Vasen, Federico</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><i> fvasen@uba.ar</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sierra+Pereiro%2C+Miguel%22">Sierra Pereiro, Miguel</searchLink><relatesTo>2</relatesTo>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Minerva%3A+A+Review+of+Science%2C+Learning+%26+Policy%22">Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning & Policy</searchLink>. Sep2022, Vol. 60 Issue 3, p375-395. 21p.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subject Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: *<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research%22">Research</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adults%22">Adults</searchLink><br />*<searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+education%22">Higher education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technology%22">Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+review+committees%22">Peer review committees</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning & Policy is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=ehh&AN=158814766
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s11024-022-09461-0
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 21
        StartPage: 375
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adults
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Higher education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Peer review committees
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: "The Hardest Task"—Peer Review and the Evaluation of Technological Activities.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Vasen, Federico
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sierra Pereiro, Miguel
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Text: Sep2022
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 00264695
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 60
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning & Policy
              Type: main
ResultId 1