research evaluation for development university of gothenburg 2010

2011-03-09RED10 | Susanne Holmgren and Gustav Bertilsson Uleberg www.gu.se

Research Evaluation for DevelopmentUniversity of Gothenburg 2010

2011-03-09

RED10REPORT


Planning

Self evaluationEvaluation byinternational

experts

Report

Bibliometric analysis

Implem

entationRED10 - the process

0910 1001 100201 100502 1007 1012 110228


Thanks toThe advisory group – Sally Boyd, Hans Hedberg, Ulf Lekholm and Håkan CarlssonThe secretariat – Anna Clara StenvallA source of inspiration – Bengt Söderström, LundThe reference group – all deans, Sofie Blombäck, and Staffan Edén; The department of Zoology for housing us, Bernt Carlsson, Lars-Åke Andersson, Ann-Sofie Olsson for extra helpSet up and tests - university experts in personnel and finance issues The self evaluation – ca 3000 research staff and PhD-students, Heads of

department, deans, the Vice-chancellor, administrative staff at different levels, including the University Library The expert evaluation – 120 international scientists of high dignity in 18 panelsThe site visit – Susanne Renner (chair of chairs), panel chairs and vice-chairs

Heads of department, PhD-student pilots, the University Guest Service and Conference CentresThe bibliometric analyses - Bibliometric services at the University Library for providing data and help with the procurement process

In chonological order


I General recommendations

II Panel reports 1-18

III Bibliometric analysis


I. General recommendations


Bright spots

i) Many excellent and enviable elements

ii) Unique position within ”life sciences, medical sciences and several areas in the humanities and arts”

iii) You are referred to the individual panel reports

iv) The PhD students (they met) are content

v) Excellent facilities (infrastructure)


“Major concerns” - Five central issues

i) national and international collaboration and recruitment

ii) flux of early-career scientists from and to the University

iii) departmental and faculty structure. Highly specialized and under-staffed research groups

iv) best practice in relation to research and research planning

v) interdisciplinary research at all levels


Collaboration

Text in self evaluation

Coauthors

Research visits

Assessment based on:

1a 1c 3a 3c 4a 4c 5b 5d 6c 7a 7c 8a 8c 9b10b

10d 10f10h 12 14 16

17b17d

18b excl C

FF 18c0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Collaboration

Diagram 15

Publications 2004-2009 with only one author (% of all)

1a 1c 3a 3c 4a 4c 5b 5d 6c 7a 7c 8a 8c 9b 10b

10d 10

f10

h 12 14 16 17b

17d

18b

18d

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0Collaboration

Diagram 20

Number of research visits abroad(2004-2009) per research staff (2009)

> 3 months 1 week – 3 months


10d 10f10h 12 14 16

17b17d

18b18d

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 Recruitmentand mobility

Diagram 21

Number of new academic staff with a PhD degree from……

other universities GU, except own department own department


Additional issues

Strategies and visions Organization Finances and economy Demography, working conditions (mentors) and gender issues PhD students – age, mobility, PhD committées Infrastructure (facilities) – excellent Relations to society Websites RED10 follow up - important


Strategies and visions

Measuring and monitoring department activities

Improve administrative support (modern electronic tools)

Weak leadership poorly prepared self-evaluations

Strategic documents – present but no impact “complete academic environment” unlikely to exist everywhere Lack of visions


Organization

Both mergers and splits of departments/subunits

The Sahlgrenska academy – the Sahlgrenska hospital

The University – Chalmers


10d 10f10h 12 14 16

17b17d

18b18d

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Finances and economy

Diagram 12

Research income (kSEK) per research staff (2009)


Finances and economy

Allocation and reallocation of resources not transparent

Research budget covers teaching costs

No (or not enough) reward for good research

Handling of overhead unclear

Grant administration should not be handled by researchers


Demography, working conditions, gender issues

Absence of diversity - gender, ethnicity, nationality

Internal promotion - ”Professorial elevator” (befordringsprofessurer)

Career development - Mentor programmes for post-docs and mid-career academic staff

Too high teaching loads for junior scientists?

Diagram 50

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent females amongPhD studentsandprofessors

Under-representation of women in senior positionsFemale professors overloaded with committee work as a resultGender issues appears to be almost ignored in some departments

Female versus male staff


PhD students – age and mobility

High dissertation age

Drawback at labour market

Many part time PhD students

Work abroad more difficult when part time

PhD students


10d 10f10h 12 14 16

17b17d

18b18d

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50 PhD students

Diagram 10

PhD exams 2009, age categories

-29 30-39 40-


Swedish English

Updating (also links)

Uniformity in layout and minimal information (also individuals)

Websites


II. Panel reports 1-18


Expert statistics

Australia: 2

Belgium: 2

Denmark: 14

Finland: 19

France: 3

Ireland: 1

Iceland: 2

Italy: 1

Canada: 2

The Nehterlands: 3

Norway: 23

Poland: 1

Switzerland: 2

UK: 23

Germany: 8

USA: 8

Austria: 1

Sweden: 3

• Invitations–199 sent–118 accepted (59%)

– 7 cancellations

• Sex distribution–Women 39 (33%)–Men 79 (67%)

• Affiliation


Self-evaluationDepartment documents 1-4 Dean doc. 5

Vice-Ch. doc. 61A Personnel 1B Examinations 1C Finances

2A and 2B Publications 4 Self evaluation3 Res. activities


Introduction and Overall assessmentGrade

Research quality, productivity, uniqueness & relevance Grade

Organisation & research infrastructureGrade

Collaboration and networksGrade

Future plans Grade

Future potential and possibilitiesComment

Research activity & teachingComment

Interactions with societyComment

Gender and opportunity issuesComment

Other issuesComment

Summary & recommendations

The Panel Report

Grades: Outstanding – excellent – very good – good – insufficient – poor

Outstanding Excellent Very good Good Insufficient Poor0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

AssessmentsResearch quality (research quality, productivity, uniqueness & relevance)

N = 103 Assessment, eg Good Assessment w/ parts towards the next higher assesssment, eg Good with Very good features

Number


Top qualityOutstanding• Dept Computer Science and Engineering• Chemical Ecology (Dept Marine Ecology)• Mithochondria and Metabolism (Inst. Biomedicine)

• Oral Biochemistry (Inst. Odontology)

Excellent to outstanding(Excellent with outstanding aspects; excellent with outstanding units)

• Biomaterials (Inst Clin Sci)• Molecular and Clinical Medicine (Inst Medicine)• Endocrine Physiology (Inst Neuroscience and Physiol)• Psychiatry and Neurochemistry (Inst Neurosci Physiol)• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (Inst Neurosci Physiol)

Excellent• Dept Education, Communication and Learning• Dept Work Science• Dept Marine Ecology• Dept Chemistry• Swedish NMR Centre• Dept Physics• Dept Political Science• Dept Psychology• Bacteriology and Immunology (Inst Biomedicine)• Glycobiology (Inst Biomedcine)• Gastrosurgical Research and Education (Inst Clin Sci)• Symptoms, Health and Care (Inst Health Care Sciences)• Internal Medicine – CBAR (Inst Medicine)• Inst Neuroscience and Physiology• Neurophysiology (Inst Neuroscience and Physiology)• Behavioural and Community Dentistry (Inst Odontology)• Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology (Inst Odontology)• Periodontology (Inst Odontology)• Gothenburg Research Institute, GRI


III. Bibliometric analysis

Publications in GUP

1. Citation analysis – Web of Science 2. Publication analysis – Norwegian method (Frida)

World mean 1.00

Citation analysis Average field normalized citation impact

Diameter of bubble equals % articles in the 10% best journals in the world within the field

38 statistically significant values (shown); 23 values not sign., 10 zero values (not shown)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

CitationsCitation impact (GUP & Web of Science)

World mean = 1.00 Swedish mean = 1.32


Top 10 citation impact

• 1.94 Anesthesiology, Biomaterials and Orthopaedics (Institute of Clinical Sci)• 1.93 Emergency and Cardiovascular Medicine (Institute of Medicine)• 1.92 Psychiatry and Neurochemistry (Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology)• 1.82 Molecular and Clinical Medicine (Institute of Medicine)• 1.70 Department of Marine Ecology• 1.61 Pathology (Institute of Biomedicine)• 1.60 Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences• 1.54 Department of Medicine• 1.53 Medical Genetics (Institute of Biomedicine)• 1.52 Institute of Clinical Sciences

Average field normalized citation impact

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

60 statistically significant values; 15 values not sign. (not shown);

PublicationNorwegian analysis – percent Level 2 publications

World mean


Top 10 --- % publications in Level 2 journals/books

• 41.50% Department of Physics• 38.90% Department of Swedish• 35.30% Medical Biochemistry and Cell Biology (Institute of Biomedicine)• 34.80% Medical Genetics (Institute of Biomedicine)• 32.60% Wallenberg Laboratory (Institute of Medicine)• 31.70% Department of Cell and molecular biology• 31.50% Department of Chemistry• 31.50% Emergency and Cardiovascular Medicine (Institute of Medicine)• 30.70% Department of Mathematical sciences• 29.20% School of Global Studies

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Excellent

ResultsExpert assessments versus bibliometricsNorwegian analysis – percent Level 2 publications

Very good Good


Electronic version• www.gu.se/red10

Hardcopy• Copies will be sent to directly to all departments• Pick up at a Service centre• www.gu.se/omuniversitetet/bestall_trycksaker

How to get your copy of the report?

research evaluation for development university of gothenburg 2010

Documents

09red10 susanne holmgren

gustav bertilsson uleberg

research staff

university library

gender issues phd students

university departmental

phdstudent pilots

finance issues