Geography of Evaluation: How Spatial Differences Shape Distinct Quality Assessment Systems in Science

The aim of this article is to develop and empirically illustrate the concept of a “geography of evaluation,” understood as an analytical perspective that allows us to map and compare national research-evaluation regimes within their spatial, political and cultural contexts. The paper does not advocate a single, “better” model of evaluation, nor does it promote any particular assessment method; its task is to recognise the diversity of regimes and to explain why similar instruments (e.g. journal lists, bibliometric indicators, expert assessments) produce different outcomes in different countries. Evaluation regimes are conceptualised here as nationally embedded configurations of research-assessment practices, described along two axes: stability (resistance to systemic change) and lability (capacity to adapt to local conditions).