Disciplines display field-specific ways of valuing research contributions, and these different 'styles of valuation' influence how academic careers are assessed and formed. Yet, differences in how research is evaluated are also prevalent between different levels of assessment: collegial and organizational. Consequently, we employ a multifaceted two-dimensional approach for studying styles of valuation where both horizontal (across domains) and vertical (organization levels) variations in assessment practices are examined. For this purpose, we make use of 16 faculty guidelines and 112 referee reports concerning candidates for becoming 'docent' (Habilitation) from four broad domains: the humanities, the social sciences, medicine and the natural sciences (including technology). By inductively identifying five broad dimensions used when assessing publication merits: (1) "Attribution of work," (2) "Qualities of content," (3) "Publication channel," (4) "Publication impact," and (5) "Publication volume" we can distinguish specific styles of valuation for each of our four domains. Moreover, by extending the analysis to an organizational level we detect opposing ways in which the evaluations are justified--what we call 'disharmonic styles of valuation'. Thus, when developing insights on 'quality understandings'--and their operationalization through styles of valuation--in academia we need to put less emphasis on their origins and rather focus on how they come to travel between and co-exist within specific evaluative contexts.