Today, not only the vectors of technological development but also the modes of conducting human life largely depend on science. Consequently, the ways of governing the complex of scientific research acquire particular importance, a key part in it belonging to the appraisal of findings. At that, the issue of their novelty gets promoted to the forefront, which is quite reasonable, for they are called upon to provide society with opportunities for renewal. But innovations that remain fruitless cannot be attractive for those funneling resources into science. That is why another, and to practical effect even more essential, point – the value of research, that is to say, its links to the conceptual, technological, or social problems the scientific community or wider society is preoccupied with – comes into sharp focus and takes a central place in the discourse on science administration.

However, in spite of so important a role the notion of the value of research plays in the organization of science, it still remains in the shadow. No distinct criteria have been formulated, and appraisals are made actually “by eye.” Moreover, there is no clear view of how successfully individual scientists and the scientific community as a whole perform that task and to what extent one may trust their judgments. In the issue, one of the key instruments of the management of science turns into a cudgel those in power brandish to their own mind and in their own way and sometimes in their own selfish interests. That not merely lowers the effectiveness of science but also imports into it uncertainty, distortions, and even injustice.

The problem of the value of research is so neglected that no immediate solution of it seems to be feasible until a proper stage for it is set. That implies, first and foremost, elucidating some key points. Is the task of sizing up a research always within the grasp of scientists – their own or others’? What challenges face an appraiser and how likely are they to be overcome? Can the scientific community in whole redress the blunders of its individual members, and to what extent? These are the main topics discussed in my paper “Hunting for the Elusive (The Appraisal in Science as a Conundrum)” just published by the “Journal of the Knowledge Economy.”