Academic disciplines have distinctive ways of valuing research. These differences exist not only across fields but also between collegial and organisational evaluations. This presentation draws on recent empirical studies of assessment processes in Swedish academia. By analysing guidelines and peer review reports across four domains: humanities, social sciences, medicine, and natural sciences, we identify five key dimensions of publication assessment: (1) Work attribution, (2) Content quality, (3) Publication channel, (4) Impact, and (5) Volume. Our findings reveal contrasting evaluation styles at different organisational levels, which we call ‘disharmonic styles of valuation.’ Rather than focusing on the origins of these quality standards, we emphasise how they interact and coexist within academic assessments.