Search

During the last 20 years, science policy-making has taken to evaluation as an instrument for assessing research projects, programmes and even entire research institutes or faculties. This article examines key elements of the evaluation systems in the United Kingdom (Research Assessment Exercise), the Netherlands (Standard Evaluation Protocol) and Germany (Leibniz Association’s Evaluation Procedure) and the extent to which evaluations serve as an instrument of organizational development for the scientific bodies being evaluated. Evaluations are often mistrusted – particularly in Germany’s public discourse – as a Trojan horse of policy-making infiltrating the science system. However, our findings demonstrate that peer-review based evaluations can be an authoritative source of validation employed by scientific institutes to develop or optimize institutional strategies. Against this backdrop, we conclude with recommendations of how institutional evaluations may be further developed and how processes of organizational transformation can be supported in the research landscape. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Copyright of Soziale Welt is the property of Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Allergic contact dermatitis caused by shoes is common and new relevant allergens have been identified., Objectives: To investigate the pattern of type IV sensitization in patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis of the feet related to shoes as a presumed culprit trigger., Methods: Retrospective analysis of data of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK), 2009-2018., Results: Six hundred twenty-five patients with presumed shoe dermatitis were identified in a cohort of 119 417 patients. Compared to patients with suspected contact sensitization from other allergen sources (n = 118 792), study group patients were more frequently sensitized to potassium dichromate (10.8% vs 3.5%), colophony (7.2% vs 3.7%), mercaptobenzothiazole (MBT; 4.0% vs 0.6%), mercapto mix (4.6% vs 0.6%), and p-tert-butylphenol formaldehyde resin (1.6% vs 0.5%). Sensitizations to urea formaldehyde resin, melamine formaldehyde resin, glutaraldehyde, tricresyl phosphate, and phenyl glycidylether were rare. Moreover, reactions to compounds in the leather or textile dyes test series were scarce., Conclusion: A distinct sensitization pattern was observed in patients with suspected allergy to shoe materials. Although substances with low sensitization rates should be removed from the leather and shoe patch test series, novel potential allergens should be added., (© 2021 The Authors. Contact Dermatitis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: While the use of methyldibromo glutaronitrile (MDBGN) in leave-on products is clearly associated with high sensitization or elicitation risk, such a clear-cut relation could be questioned with regard to rinse-off products., Objective: The objective of this study was to find a maximum non-eliciting concentration for rinse-off products in MDBGN patch test-positive patients., Patients and Methods: We performed a use-related test [repeated open application test (ROAT)] in patients sensitized to MDBGN with a liquid soap containing three concentrations of MDBGN (50, 200, and 400 p.p.m. MDBGN, respectively). The soap at 50 p.p.m. was used twice daily for 4 weeks. If no reaction of the skin was observed, the product with the next higher concentration was used for another 4 weeks, etc., Results: In total, 32/37 evaluated cases [86.5%; lower exact one-sided 95% confidence limit (CL): 73.7%] did not react to any of the preparations. The remaining reacted as follows: 1/37 reacted to 50 p.p.m., 3/37 to 200 p.p.m., and 1/37 to 400 p.p.m. The cumulative non-response to 50 p.p.m. was 97.3% (lower CL: 87.8%)., Conclusions: The majority of subjects sensitized to MDBGN-tolerated rinse-off products containing a maximum concentration of 400 p.p.m. A concentration in rinse-off products in the range of 50 p.p.m. could be regarded as safe for most individuals already sensitized. These concentrations will presumably prevent induction (sensitization) also.