Paradigm shifts in research assessment for scientific publishing: Emerging models in a pluriverse perspective.

In the realm of design, research publication undergoes a transformative shift in evaluation and emerging forms that prompt investigation into the distortive impact of the current assessment framework on publication diversity. The complexity of assessing research quality within institutional frameworks and career metrics hinders innovation, and globally, debates on impact factors drive a shift to qualitative, responsible evaluation. Therefore, peer-review models advance toward transparency and continuous assessment. Regarding these concerns, a solid review culture in the design domain is crucial, emphasizing the link between assessment and impact. The article explores how collaborative methodologies enable new assessment practices for design communities in the Global South, challenging Western-centric peer-review norms to adopt a more pluriversal perspective. It includes an introduction problematising the status of publication assessment in the general scientific domain. It continues focusing on some features and good practices in the assessment that could be inspirational and suitable for design (that in Italy – the context of this paper - is a non-bibliometrics sector). The paradigm of pluriversality is then introduced as a background framework to discuss and nurture new opportunities in the assessment of scientific research and publication in the design field and adopted as a reference in two proposals, shown in the case studies. The paper concludes with some statements and propositions integrating the concept of distributed knowledge leadership in assessment processes and thus refining the discourse on research plurality.