Technology development and innovation are fundamentally different from scientific research. However, in many circumstances, they are evaluated jointly and by the same processes. In these cases, peer review—the most usual procedure for evaluating research—is also applied to the evaluation of technological products and innovation activities. This can lead to unfair results and end up discouraging the involvement of researchers in these fields. This paper analyzes the evaluation processes in Uruguay's National System of Researchers. In this system, all members' activities, both scientific and technological, are evaluated by peer committees. Based on documentary analysis and semi-structured interviews, the difficulties faced by evaluators in assessing technology products are explored. The article highlights the persistence of a linear conception of the link between science and technology and describes the obstacles to assimilate the particularities of technological activities. Refereed publications are presented as the only uncontested product. Other types of output are reviewed with suspicion. This study emphasizes the need for specific mechanisms to evaluate technological production within academic careers.

技术开发和创新与科学研究有着根本的不同。然而，在许多情况下，它们是由相同的过程联合评估的。在这些情况下，同行评审——评估研究的最常用程序——也适用于技术产品和创新活动的评估。这可能导致不公平的结果，最终阻碍研究人员参与这些领域。本文分析了乌拉圭国家研究人员系统的评估过程。在这个系统中，所有成员的科学和技术活动都由同行委员会评估。在文献分析和半结构化访谈的基础上，探讨了评估人员在评估技术产品时面临的困难。文章强调了科学与技术之间联系的线性概念的持久性，并描述了吸收技术活动特殊性的障碍。参考出版物是唯一没有争议的产品。对其他类型的输出持怀疑态度。这项研究强调需要特定的机制来评估学术生涯中的技术生产。