Research Evaluation for Development University of Gothenburg 2010

1. 2011-03-09 RED10 REPORT Research Evaluation for Development University of Gothenburg 2010

2. RED10 - the process 0910 1001 100201  100502 1007 1012 110228

3. Thanks to In chonological order The advisory group – Sally Boyd, Hans Hedberg, Ulf Lekholm and HåkanCarlsson The secretariat – Anna Clara Stenvall A source of inspiration – Bengt Söderström, Lund The reference group– all deans, SofieBlombäck, and StaffanEdén; The department of Zoology for housing us, BerntCarlsson, Lars-ÅkeAndersson, Ann-Sofie Olsson for extra help Set 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 panels The site visit – Susanne Renner (chair of chairs), panel chairs and vice-chairs Heads of department, PhD-student pilots, the University Guest Service and Conference Centres The bibliometric analyses - Bibliometric services at the University Library for providing data and help with the procurement process

4. I General recommendations II Panel reports 1-18 III Bibliometric analysis

5. I. General recommendations

6. 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 • The PhD students (they met) are content • v) Excellent facilities (infrastructure)

7. “Major concerns” - Five central issues • i) national and international collaboration and recruitment • flux of early-career scientists from and to the University • departmental and faculty structure. Highly specialized and under-staffed research groups • best practice in relation to research and research planning • v) interdisciplinary research at all levels

8. Collaboration Assessment based on: Text in self evaluation Coauthors Research visits

9. Collaboration Publications 2004-2009 with only one author (% of all) Diagram 15

10. Number of research visits abroad(2004-2009) per research staff (2009) Collaboration Diagram 20 > 3 months 1 week – 3 months

11. Recruitmentand mobility Number of new academic staff with a PhD degree from…… Diagram 21 other universities GU, except own department own department

12. 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

13. Strategies and visions • Strategic documents – present but no impact • “complete academic environment” unlikely to exist everywhere • Lack of visions Weak leadership   poorly prepared self-evaluations • Measuring and monitoring department activities • Improve administrative support (modern electronic tools)

14. Organization Both mergers and splits of departments/subunits The Sahlgrenska academy – the Sahlgrenska hospital The University – Chalmers

15. Finances and economy Research income (kSEK) per research staff (2009) Diagram 12

16. 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

17. 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?

18. Female versus male staff Under-representation of women in senior positions Female professors overloaded with committee work as a result Gender issues appears to be almost ignored in some departments Percent females among PhD students and professors Diagram 5

19. PhD students PhD students – age and mobility High dissertation age Drawback at labour market Many part time PhD students Work abroad more difficult when part time

20. PhD students PhD exams 2009, age categories Diagram 10 -29 30-39 40-

21. Websites Swedish   English Updating (also links) Uniformity in layout and minimal information (also individuals)

22. II. Panel reports 1-18

23. Expert statistics Invitations 199 sent 118 accepted (59%) 7 cancellations Sex distribution Women 39 (33%) Men 79 (67%) Affiliation Norway: 23 Iceland: 2 Finland: 19 UK: 23 Sweden: 3 Ireland: 1 Denmark: 14 Poland: 1 The Nehterlands: 3 Belgium: 2 Germany: 8 France: 3 Switzerland: 2 Austria: 1 Italy: 1 USA: 8 Canada: 2 Australia: 2

24. Self-evaluation Department documents 1-4 Dean doc. 5 1A Personnel 1B Examinations 1C Finances Vice-Ch. doc. 6 2A and 2B Publications 4 Self evaluation 3 Res. activities

25. The Panel Report Introduction and Overall assessmentGrade Research quality, productivity, uniqueness & relevance Grade Organisation & research infrastructure Grade Collaboration and networksGrade Future plansGrade Future potential and possibilities Comment Research activity & teachingComment Interactions with societyComment Gender and opportunity issuesComment Other issuesComment Summary & recommendations Grades: Outstanding – excellent – verygood – good – insufficient – poor

26. Assessments Number Research quality (research quality, productivity, uniqueness & relevance) Assessment w/ parts towards the next higher assesssment, eg Good with Very good features Assessment, eg Good N = 103

27. Top quality Outstanding • 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 (InstClinSci) • Molecular and Clinical Medicine (Inst Medicine) • EndocrinePhysiology(InstNeuroscience and Physiol) • Psychiatry and Neurochemistry(InstNeurosciPhysiol) • Child and AdolescentPsychiatry(InstNeurosciPhysiol) Excellent • DeptEducation, Communication and Learning • Dept Work Science • Dept Marine Ecology • Dept Chemistry • Swedish NMR Centre • DeptPhysics • DeptPolitical Science • DeptPsychology • Bacteriology and Immunology(Inst Biomedicine) • Glycobiology(InstBiomedcine) • Gastrosurgical Research and Education(InstClinSci) • Symptoms, Health and Care (Inst Health Care Sciences) • Internal Medicine – CBAR (Inst Medicine) • InstNeuroscience and Physiology • Neurophysiology(InstNeuroscience and Physiology) • Behavioural and Community Dentistry(InstOdontology) • Oral and MaxillofacialRadiology(InstOdontology) • Periodontology(InstOdontology) • Gothenburg Research Institute, GRI

28. Bibliometric analysis • Publications in GUP • Citation analysis – Web of Science • Publication analysis – Norwegian method (Frida)

29. Citation analysis Average field normalized citation impact World mean1.00 Diameter of bubble equals % articles in the 10% best journals in the world within the field

30. Citations Citation impact (GUP & Web of Science) 38 statistically significant values (shown); 23 values not sign., 10 zero values (not shown) World mean = 1.00 Swedish mean = 1.32

31. Top 10 citation impact • 1.94 Anesthesiology, Biomaterials and Orthopaedics (Institute of Clinical Sci) • 1.93 Emergency and Cardiovascular Medicine (Institute of Medicine) • 1.92Psychiatry 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

32. Norwegian analysis – percent Level 2 publications Publication World mean 60 statistically significant values; 15 values not sign. (not shown);

33. 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

34. Results Expert assessments versus bibliometrics Norwegian analysis – percent Level 2 publications Excellent Very good Good

35. How to get your copy of the report? • 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