Evaluation or assessment of scientific work in universities and other research organizations has traditionally been organised around the peer review system with its almost jury-like functionality and a history of more than 300 years. The classic tradition looked only at the output or the product of scientific work, ignoring everything else and was for many years, and to a large degree still is, acknowledged as a necessary procedure to evaluate something as unique as scientific work. But the system is being questioned by a growing reliance on quantitative indicators in science policy, by the changing relationship between science and society, and by the conquests of theories on knowledge based organisations. This paper asks the question whether it is possible to adjust the peer review system to these new challenges by incorporating a more dialogue-based and learning dimension. In so doing, it presents a case study that can be read as an argument for a more dynamic and interactive model of peer review system in the evaluation of research organizations. The last sections discuss the strengths and weaknesses of this suggested model. #peer #learning #research #Evaluation2009 #Research,Technology,andDevelopmentEval #review #2009Conference #organizational