When publications are used in the evaluation of research performance, tensions between the simplifying, standardizing approaches of evaluations and the communication practices of scientific communities are likely to arise. An analysis of data gathered in an evaluation at the Australian National University demonstrates that many academic disciplines employ communication channels that are recognized neither by the current Australian funding formulae for university research nor by universities' internal evaluation systems that mirror those formulae. This discrepancy has the potential to distort the communication practices and, ultimately, the production of knowledge in some fields. (Contains 3 tables.)