Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/228475 
Year of Publication: 
2020
Citation: 
[Journal:] PLoS ONE [ISSN:] 1932-6203 [Volume:] 15 [Issue:] 10 [Article No.:] e0239336 [Publisher:] Public Library of Science [Place:] San Francisco, CA [Year:] 2020 [Pages:] --
Publisher: 
Public Library of Science, San Francisco, CA
Abstract: 
All across the globe politically initiated research evaluations are based on “informed peer review” procedures. Scholars are appointed as evaluators and can apply self-defined quality standards in order to overcome shortcomings of standardized measures. Even though there are no binding criteria in these procedures and the quality standards of the scholars' disciplines vary, studies suggest that scholars, in their role as government-appointed research evaluators, assess research uniformly.By drawing on a small-N investigation, this study compares the quality standards scholars apply as government-appointed research evaluators with quality standards they follow as researchers. The study points to a paradox: Criteria scholars refer to while describing the excellence of their own research and criteria they use as evaluators differ and contradict each other. The results are discussed from different angles.
Persistent Identifier of the first edition: 
Creative Commons License: 
cc-by Logo
Document Type: 
Article
Document Version: 
Published Version

Files in This Item:





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.