Uruguay: a case of multi-level research assessment, evaluation burn-out and an autonomist vocation

Uruguay presents a unique case where multiple research evaluation regimes coexist, leading to evaluation burn-out. Despite awareness among professors and administrators, efforts to unify these systems face obstacles due to the principle of university autonomy. This paper stems from a consultancy report commissioned by the National Council for Innovation, Science, and Technology to analyze existing evaluation systems and propose policy recommendations. The research includes interviews with institutional stakeholders, evaluators, and researchers from various disciplines and career stages, along with focus groups involving governing boards of key systems. Findings reveal systemic overlap caused by the absence of a centralized body for national scientific policy coordination. The National System for Researchers (SNI) has advanced doctoral training and internationalization but applies academicist criteria that sideline researchers engaged in dissemination, technological production, and social intervention. Meanwhile, the University of the Republic (UdelaR) follows a “flexible convergence” model for faculty evaluations, fostering diverse research profiles by recognizing multiple academic pathways. The study examines the feasibility of a dual evaluation system, proposing the unification of institutional-level assessments while maintaining the independent SNI. Policy recommendations advocate for a multidimensional SNI model that values both traditional scientific output and research dissemination with societal impact, promoting a more inclusive and responsible research framework for Uruguay.