(the Appraisal of Research as a Conundrum)

The paper debunks the deep-rooted belief that proper appraisal of research is a job within reach of the average scientist. The main qualities of an individual expert that allow him to reveal the value of a research are profound knowledge of the subject, broad scientific outlook, and ability for conceptual linking. As the same person rarely combines them in full measure, judgments pretty often turn out to be imprecise and superficial. The scientific community as a whole is surely capable of redressing the defects and weaknesses of its individual members, but copes with the task quite satisfactorily chiefly in case of “standard” research with a small degree of novelty, while with pioneering works, it is mostly mistaken. Collective appraisals are bounded by the conceptual horizon of the age they are given in, the institutional involvement of those making them on its behalf, and the unification of attitudes that is conditioned by the “communal” nature of science as a social institution. That is why the scientific community virtually never attaches high value to breakthrough discoveries forthwith. And without transformation of the existing practice of “measuring” the value of research, this bias can scarcely be overcome.

Keywords:  research, value, peer review, self-appraisal, scientific community, distrust of the new.