The long road to changing the national research evaluation system in Uruguay
FOLEC-CLACSO recommends reading the article “The long road to changing the national research evaluation system in Uruguay", written by Natalia Gras and Judith Sutz and published by DORA (Declaration on Research Assessment) May 13, 2026. The text analyzes the complex and prolonged process of discussion on the evaluation of research in UruguayThis study demonstrates how systems based on metrics and quantitative criteria shaped academic life for decades, especially in peripheral contexts. Drawing on empirical research, national consultations, and inter-institutional debates, the authors reconstruct both the resistance to change and the possibilities opened up by contemporary discussions on responsible evaluation, driven internationally by DORA and other actors.
The article also offers a particularly relevant diagnosis for Latin America regarding the effects of academic evaluation focused on bibliometric indicators, rankings, and ongoing productivity. Gras and Sutz demonstrate how these dynamics lead to the invisibility of fundamental tasks—such as teaching, institutional development, collaborative work, community engagement, and academic support—and generate increasing pressure on researchers' working conditions and mental health. The article situates these problems within the framework of center-periphery relations in the global scientific system, highlighting how, in peripheral countries, academic legitimacy remains strongly associated with models, journals, and indicators defined by the Global North, even as these same models are currently being challenged in core countries.
One of the main contributions of the text is to show how, through national surveys, public seminars, and inter-institutional forums for debate, a growing consensus began to emerge in Uruguay in favor of transforming academic assessment. This process culminated in the formulation of the “Fifteen agreements on research evaluationThese agreements, developed collectively by universities, scientific organizations, and national institutions, propose prioritizing qualitative criteria, recognizing the diversity of academic activities, incorporating gender and contextual perspectives, valuing collaborative work, and considering the social relevance of knowledge. They also promote concrete innovations, such as the incorporation of narrative curricula designed to evaluate not only products, but also processes, trajectories, and institutional and social contributions.
In this sense, the “Fifteen Agreements” probably represent one of the most advanced institutional expressions of responsible evaluation in Latin America, and are deeply in dialogue with the «Bogotá Manifesto» of FOLEC-CLACSOWhile the Uruguayan agreement operationalizes, at the national and institutional level, many of the principles defended by the Manifesto—such as the critique of productivism, the contextualization of evaluation, the recognition of the diversity of contributions, and the social relevance of knowledge—the Manifesto offers the broader political, epistemological, and regional horizon that allows us to understand the historical necessity of these transformations. The relationship between the two documents is profoundly complementary: one functions as a situated and concrete roadmap for reforming evaluative practices and institutions; the other as a strategic horizon for the democratization of science and the construction of cognitive sovereignty in Latin America and the Caribbean. We also recommend reading the complete document «Fifteen agreements on research evaluation", a central reference for contemporary debates on academic assessment in the region.
