international evaluation of research and doctoral training at ......international evaluation of...
TRANSCRIPT
AGR
ICULTU
RA
L
AGR
ICULTU
RA
L
AGR
ICULTU
RA
L
AGRICULTURAL
AUTO
NO
MY A
ND
AUTO
NO
MY A
ND
BIB
LIOM
ETRICS
BIB
LIOM
ETRICS
BIB
LIOM
ETRICS
BIBLIOMETRICS BOTTO
M-U
PH
UM
AN
ITIESB
OTTOM
-UP
COM
MU
NITY
COMMUNITY
CRO
SSING
TRA
DITIO
NA
L BO
RD
ERS
CROSSING TRADITIONAL BORDERS
CRO
SSING
TRA
DITIO
NA
LB
OR
DER
SCROSSING
TRADITIONALBORDERS
CRO
SSING
TR
AD
ITION
AL
BO
RD
ERS
DO
CTOR
AL TR
AIN
ING
DO
CTOR
AL
TRA
ININ
GD
OCTO
RA
L TRA
ININ
G
ENH
AN
CEMEN
T-LED EVA
LUATIO
N
ENHANCEMENT-LED EVALUATION
ENHANCEMENT-LED EVALUATION
FIVEIN
TERN
ATION
AL
PAN
ELS
INTERNATIONAL
FIVE INTER
NATIO
NA
L PAN
ELS
FIELD A
DJU
STED
BIB
LIOM
ETRIC A
NA
LYSIS
FIELD A
DJU
STED
BIB
LIOM
ETRIC A
NA
LYSISFIELD ADJUSTED BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
FIELD A
DJU
STEDB
IBLIO
METR
IC AN
ALYSIS
SOCIA
L IMPACT
SOCIAL IMPACT
SOCIA
L IMPACT
SOCIA
L IMPACTHIGH QUALITY RESEARCH
HIG
H Q
UA
LITY RESEA
RCH
HIG
H Q
UA
LITY RESEA
RCH
HIG
H Q
UA
LITY RESEA
RCH
HIG
H Q
UA
LITY RESEA
RCH
TRA
ININ
G
TRAINING TRANSDISCIPLINARITY
TRA
ININ
G
TRA
NSD
ISCIPLINA
RITY
VOLU
NTA
RY
VOLU
NTA
RY
VOLUNTARY
VOLU
NTA
RY
VOLU
NTA
RY
FLEXIBLE STR
UCTU
RES
FLEXIBLE STR
UCTU
RES
FLEXIBLE STR
UCTU
RES
FLEXIBLE STR
UCTU
RESH
ELSINK
I MO
DEL
HELSINKI MODEL
HEALTH SCIENCES
HEA
LTH SCIEN
CES
RESEA
RCH
ER
OR
IENTED
R
ESEAR
CHER
O
RIEN
TED
SCIENTO
METR
ICS
PEER R
EVIEW
MU
LTIDIM
ENSIO
NA
L
MU
LTIDISCIPLIN
AR
ITYFUTURE POTENTIAL
FUTUREPOTENTIAL
TRANSDISCIPLINARITY
FLEXIBLESTRUCTURES
SCIENTO
METR
ICS
AL
AGR
I
AGRICULTURAL
AUTO
NO
M
CS
S
BIB
LIOM
ETRICS
BIBLIOMETRICS OTTOU
MA
NO
M-
P
COM
MU
NITY
CRO
SSING
TRA
DITIO
NA
L BO
RD
ERS
CROSSING TRADITIONAL BORD
CRO
SSING
TR
AD
ITION
AL
BO
RD
ERS
NIN
DO
CTOR
AL
TRA
ININ
GD
OENHANCEMENT-LED EVALUATAA
-LED EVALUATIONAA
INTER
NATIO
NA
P
FIVE INTER
FIELD A
DJU
STEDB
IBLIO
METR
IC AN
ALYSIS
AD
JUSTED
TRIC A
NA
LYSISFIELD ADJUSTED BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
DSOCIAL IMPACT
SOC
PACPP
QUALITY RESEARCHA
LITY RESEA
RCH
HIG
H Q
UA
LITY RESEA
RCH
TRA
ININ
RAINING TRANSDISCIPLINARITY
TRA
NSD
ISCIPLINA
R
VO
VOLU
NTA
RY
UN
TARY
FLE
LE STRU
CTUR
ESHELSIN
KI M
OD
E
HEALTH SCIENCERESEA
RCH
ER
ACTEME
NAL
OR
IENTED
RES
OR
TOM
ETRICS
LTIDISCIPLIN
AR
ITPOTENTIAL
IAL
NSD SCIPLINARITY
EXIBLESTRUCTURES
L
RN
O
SB
OTTH
UM
AM
-UP
RDERS
NG
EVALUA
ERN
ATPA
NELS
VE INTE
JUSTED
IC AN
ALY
ANALYSIS
ACT
TY RESEA
AIN
TRA
ININ
G
TRA
NSD
ISCIPLINA
RITY
NTA
STRU
CESM
ET
LERUCTURES
CCRREERR
S
OOOOCCCCIAAAA
LLLL IIMP
MP
MP
MAAAAACCCCTTTT
ALILITYTTD
HHHEELLLSSSIN
MMOOO
DDDEELL
MMENTENTENT L-LELE GG
D VVFRROO
DDISSSCCIIPPPLLINN
AAOOTTTTEEEENNNNTTIIAL
SSSDIDIDIDISSSCSC
UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI – EXCELLENCE FOR SOCIETY – HELSINKI MODEL OF RESEARCH EVALUATION
The Evaluation of Research and Doctoral Training is a new model and innovative endeavour to interpret the diversity of the research of a multidisciplinary university. The present evaluation method can be considered to be enhancement led, supporting a bottom-up approach that begins from the researchers. The voluntary-based evaluation succeeded in attracting 1,059 Principal Investigators, and altogether 5,857 researchers participated in the evaluation.
The participants were Researcher Communities – a new concept to be used for evaluation and to plan future research which crosses faculty and departmental borders and proves the collaboration of researchers. The Researcher Communities chose one of the options of participation categories describing their special status or the character of their research:
• Outstanding• Close to outstanding• Exceptional• Innovative opening• Societal impact
The University of Helsinki has carried out previous research assessments in the years 1998 and 2005. The planning of the present evaluation started in 2010. The data in the evaluation material covered the years 2005–2010.
One exceptional feature in the evaluation was the two types of bibliometric analyses available to the Panels.
The Helsinki University Library prepared tailored bibliometric figures for the entire University and for the Researcher Communities in Social Sciences, Humanities and Computer Sciences. The publication rankings of the Norwegian and Australian models were applied in the evaluation as well. The library analyses proved its innovativeness in the publication analyses. The University of Leiden provided traditional bibliometric analyses for the University and for the Researcher Communities.
The TUHAT Research Information System provided an excellent opportunity to test the publication metadata stored in the database of the University.
The 50 international Panellists represented the five main fields of sciences. The Panels scored the four main evaluation questions and category fitness using the scale 1–5. The mean of the scores for most of the evaluation objects was four or close to that number. The performance of most RCs can be considered outstanding or high quality. The performance of the entire University is outstanding or high quality when compared to the international field-normalised indicators.
The evaluation results with its recommendations offer tools for the strategic planning of the University.
INTERN
ATION
AL EVA
LUATION
OF RESEA
RCH A
ND
D
OCTO
RAL TRA
ININ
G AT TH
E UN
IVERSITY OF H
ELSINKI 2005–2010
INTERNATIONAL EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI 2005–2010Seppo Saari & Antti Moilanen (Eds.)
Seppo Saari & Antti M
oilanen (Eds.)
ISBN 978-952-10-7557-5 (Paperback)ISBN 978-952-10-7558-2 (PDF)ISSN 1795-5408 (Print)ISSN 1795-5513 (Online)
INTERNATIONAL EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI 2005–2010
SEPPO SAARI & ANTTI MOILANEN (EDS.)
University of HelsinkiAdministrative Publications 81
Evaluations
University of HelsinkiAdministrative Publications 81Evaluations
ISBN 978-952-10-7557-5 (Paperback)ISBN 978-952-10-7558-2 (PDF)ISSN 1795-5408 (Print)ISSN 1795-5513 (Online)
Layout Unigrafia
Printed by Unigrafia, Helsinki 2012
www.helsinki.fi/julkaisut
cONTENTs
ForEword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
PAnEl MEMbErs oF biologicAl, AgricUltUrAl And VEtErinAry sciEncEs . . . . . . . 14
PAnEl MEMbErs oF MEdicinE, bioMEdicinE And HEAltH sciEncEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
PAnEl MEMbErs oF nAtUrAl sciEncEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
PAnEl MEMbErs oF HUMAnitiEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
PAnEl MEMbErs oF sociAl sciEncEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
oFFiciAls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
AcronyMs, AbbrEViAtions And dEFinitions APPliEd in tHE rEPort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
UniVErsity oF HElsinki in briEF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
UniVErsity oF HElsinki in globAl rAnkings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1 . introdUction to tHE EVAlUAtion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271.1 University aims 291.2 Steering group and its mandate 291.3 Evaluation method 301.4 Monetary rewards of the evaluation 321.5 Aims and objectives in the evaluation 321.6 Conditions to form a Researcher Community
for the evaluation 331.7 Participation categories 351.8 Evaluation material 351.9 Evaluation questions, aspects and material 381.10 Evaluation feedback and criteria 411.11 Timetable of the evaluation 46
2 . iMPlEMEntAtion oF ExtErnAl EVAlUAtion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472.1 Five evaluation Panels 492.2 Evaluation related tasks before the Panel meetings in Helsinki 502.3 Reporting aims of the Panels 522.4 RC-specific evaluation reports 522.5 University level report 53
3 . PAnEl-sPEciFic FEEdbAck − biologicAl, AgricUltUrAl And VEtErinAry sciEncEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553.1 Doctoral training 623.2 Development of the RC concept 633.3 Distribution of scores 663.4 Publication statistics 683.5 Bibliometric indicators 69
2. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4 . PAnEl-sPEciFic FEEdbAck − MEdicinE, bioMEdicinE And HEAltH sciEncEs . . . . 734.1 Evaluation method 794.2 Performance of the university 794.3 Graduate school programme 814.4 Core facilities and platforms for various central methods in campuses 814.5 Main aspects that the Panel considered important in the evaluation of RCs 824.6 Distribution of scores 834.7 Bibliometric indicators 86
5 . PAnEl-sPEciFic FEEdbAck − nAtUrAl sciEncEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895.1 Introduction 955.2 Research 975.3 Recommendations to enhance quality and focusing in the research 1005.4 Practices and quality of the doctoral training 1015.5 Strategic issues and recommendations regarding practices and
quality in the doctoral training 1025.6 Research Communities – a unit for new research opportunities and
doctoral training 1025.7 Distribution of scores 1045.8 Publication statistics 1065.9 Bibliometric indicators 107
6 . PAnEl-sPEciFic FEEdbAck − HUMAnitiEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1136.1 Doctoral programmes 1196.2 Financing of doctoral programmes 1206.3 Internationalization of doctoral programmes 1206.4 The need for funded post-doctoral positions 1216.5 Research excellence 1216.6 The need for risk-taking RCs 1226.7 Support for the writing of grant proposals and
the development of research agenda’s 1236.8 Societal impact 1236.9 Concern for the work load of senior staff 1236.10 Distribution of scores 1246.11 Publication statistics 1256.12 Publication indicators 126
7 . PAnEl-sPEciFic FEEdbAck − sociAl sciEncEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1337.1 Introduction 1397.2 Research 1407.3 Doctoral Training 1417.4 Internationalization 1427.5 Multidisciplinarity 1427.6 Societal Impact 1437.7 Bibliometrics and Statistics 1437.8 Comment on Categorization 1447.9 Distribution of scores 1457.10 Publication statistics 1477.11 Publication indicators 1497.12 Publication statistics of the CWTS/Leiden – Social Sciences 155
8 . oVErAll stAtistics on tHE EVAlUAtion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1598.1 Participation 1618.2 Focus areas of research at the University of Helsinki 1648.3 Evaluation scores 1688.4 Publications of the entire university 169
9 . rEsEArcH PErForMAncE oF tHE UniVErsity oF HElsinki (2005–2010) . . . . . . . . 1739.1 Executive summary 1759.2 Introduction 1769.3 Data collection 1769.4 Methodology 1769.5 Main results 1859.6 Results by discipline 1929.7 Conclusions 1989.8 Full profiles of University of Helsinki and its areas 199
10 . biblioMEtric AnAlysEs by tHE HElsinki UniVErsity librAry − HUlib . . . . . . . .25910.1 Background 26110.2 University level bibliometrics by the Helsinki University Library 26310.3 Faculties, publications and scientific fields 26810.4 Bibliometric analyses: Faculties, publications and scientific fields 27310.5 Researcher Communities in HULib bibliometric analyses 286
11 . sUMMAry rEPort on doctorAl stUdEnts’ And PrinciPAl inVEstigAtors’ doctorAl trAining ExPEriEncEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28911.1 Introduction 29111.2 Participants and data collection 29211.3 Doctoral thesis process 29411.4 Doctoral studies 30311.5 Challenges in the development of doctoral education at the university of helsinki 30411.6 Career and employment survey for University of Helsinki PhD holders 30611.7 Summary of results 307
12 conclUding rEMArks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .309
13 APPEndicEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315
11.5. Challenges in the development of doctoral education at the University of Helsinki 304
TAbLEs
1 . . . . . . .
3 . . . . . .
4 . . . . . .
5 . . . . . .
6 . . . . . .
7 . . . . . .
9 . . . . . .
Table 1. Main stages in the evaluation 46Table 2. Numeric evaluation of RCs in the Panel of Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Science 66Table 3. Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences: publications, citations and field-normalized figures in CWTS analysis (2005–2010) 69Table 4. SUVALUE and VITRI in Norwegian and Australian journal rankings 72Table 5. SUVALUE and VITRI: weighted values (coefficient) in Norwegian and Australian journal rankings 72Table 6. Numeric evaluation of RCs in the Panel of Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Science 83Table 7. Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences: publications, citations and field-normalized figures in the CWTS/Leiden analysis (2005−2010) 86Table 8. Distribution of marks in the Panel of Natural Sciences by participation category and evaluation parameter 97Table 9. Numeric evaluation of RCs in the Panel of Natural Sciences 104Table 10. Natural Sciences: publications, citations and field-normalized figures in the CWTS/Leiden analysis 107Table 11. Australian Conference Rankings of ALKO, NODES and SOFTSYS 110Table 12. Publish or Perish: refereed articles in conference publications of ALKO, NODES and SOFTSYS 110Table 13. HLG in Norwegian and Australian journal ranking 111Table 14. HLG’s weighted values (coefficients) in Norwegian and Australian journal rankings 111Table 15. Numeric evaluation of RCs in the Panel of Humanities 124Table 16. Publications and indicators of Humanities 125Table 17. Publications and indicators of Humanities 127Table 18. Publication performance of RCs in relation to Norwegian and Australian Publication Rankings 130Table 19. Numeric evaluation of the RCs in the Panel of Social Sciences 145Table 20. Publications in the Social Sciences 147Table 21. Social Sciences – publication statistics, Norwegian and Australian Publication Rankings 149Table 22. Publication performance of the RCs in relation to Norwegian and Australian Publication Rankings 152Table 23. Social Sciences: publications, citations and field-normalized figures in the CWTS/Leiden analysis 155Table 24. Number of participating Researcher Communities (RCs) as per category and field of science 161Table 25. Participation activity of principal investigators (PI) in the Faculties of the University 162Table 26. Participation activity of principal investigators (PI) in the Independent Institutes of the University 162Table 27. Number of researchers organised according to tenure track 162Table 28. Number of RCs in focus areas of research organised according to evaluation panels 165Table 29. RCs’ focus areas of research in percentage according to evaluation Panels 166Table 30. Number of focus areas of research in participation categories 166Table 31. Percentages of focus areas of research in participation categories 167Table 32. Average scores and standard deviations in the evaluation panels 168Table 33. Average scores (standard deviations) in the evaluation panels 168Table 34. Average scores (number of RCs) in categories 169Table 35. Publication types of all publications under evaluation in the years 2005–2010 169Table 36. Number of publications by type in the evaluation panels 170Table 37. Percentages of publications by type in the evaluation panels 170Table 1. Overview of the bibliometric indicators discussed in this chapter 177Table 2: Bibliometric data for the publications of a hypothetical research group. 180Table 3: Overall bibliometric statistics UH 2005–2010 185Table 4: Trend analysis bibliometric performance indicators UH 185Table 5: Overview of basic statistics by Discipline and UH research area 187Table 6: General statistics for Biological, agricultural and veterinary science 193Table 7: General statistics for Humanities 194Table 8: General statistics for Medicine, biomedicine and health sciences 195Table 9: General statistics for Natural sciences 197Table 10: General statistics for Social sciences 198
Table 1. Publication categories of TUHAT RIS. The publication types follow the classification of the Ministry of Education and Culture. 262Table 2. Number of publications in different languages 264Table 3. Previous figure as a table: the number of authors in publications 265Table 4. The top 20 scientific journals that have published peer-reviewed scientific articles have been counted and ranked according to the Finnish Publication Forum ranking list suggestion (12.1.2012) and Norway journal ranking list 267Table 5. Number of publications per faculties 268Table 6. Publication types, number of publications per faculties 269Table 7. Number of authors in publications and faculties 271Table 8. Language of publications and faculties 272Table 9. Number of the RCs’ publications according to the Norwegian and Australian publication rankings in Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, Natural Sciences and Humanities 286Table 10. Number of the RCs’ publications according to the Norwegian and Australian publication rankings in Social Sciences 287Table 1. Membership in doctoral program and research group, and form of the thesis in each faculty 294Table 2. Doctoral students’ and PIs’ perceptions of selection criteri 295Table 3. Reasons for applying for doctoral training (min=1, max=5) 295Table 4. Doctoral students’ and PIs’ perceptions of main supervisor 299Table 5. Percentage of doctoral students’ and PIs’ perceptions of frequency of supervision 299Table 6. Doctoral students’ perceptions of the significance of different factors in the dissertation project 300Table 7. Doctoral students’ and PIs’ perceptions of the importance of different persons/groups in supervision 300Table 8. Satisfaction with supervision and consideration of changing supervisors in different facultie 302Table 1. Stages of evaluation including the material provision, timing and responsible actors in the evaluation 318Table 2. Evaluation aspects in connection with the evaluation questions. 320
10 . . . .
11 . . . . . .
13 . . . . .
2 ......3 ......
4 ......
5 ......
6 ......
7 ......
8 ......
9 ......
Figure 1. Example of the pre-work in August and the work in Helsinki in September 51Figure 2. Distributions of the numeric evaluation of the Panel of Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences 67Figure 3. Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences: Number of WoS and
A1−A4 publications (TUHAT), number of RCs 27 68Figure 4. Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences: Number of citations, number of RCs 27 68Figure 5. MNJS in relation to MNCS 70Figure 6. THCP10 in relation to MNCS 71Figure 7. Distributions of numeric evaluation in the Panel of Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences 84Figure 8 Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences: Number of WoS and
A1-A4 publications, number of RCs 23 85Figure 9. Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences: Number of citations, number of RCs 23 85Figure 10. MNJS in relation to MNCS 87Figure 11. THCP10 in relation to MNCS 88Figure 12. Distributions of numeric evaluation in the Panel of Natural Sciences 105Figure 13. Natural Sciences: Number of WoS and A1−A4 publications (TUHAT), RCs 22 106Figure 14. Natural Sciences: Number of WoS citations, RCs 22 106Figure 15. MNJS in relation to MNCS 108Figure 16. THCP10 in relation to MNCS 109Figure 17. Distributions of numeric evaluation of RCs in the Panel of Humanities 125Figure 18. Norwegian publication ranking application in Humanities 129Figure 19. Distribution of the publication performance of RCs in relation to Norwegian and
Australian Publication Rankings 132Figure 20. Distributions of numeric evaluation of RCs in the Panel of Social Sciences 146Figure 21. Norwegian publication ranking application 151Figure 22. Distribution of the publication performance of RCs in relation to Norwegian and
Australian Publication Rankings 154Figure 23. Social Sciences: number of RC’s publications (P) and total citations (TCS)
in the CWTS/Leiden analysis 155Figure 24. MNJS in relation to MNCS 156Figure 25. THCP10 in relation to MNCS 157Figure 26. Number of RCs in focus areas by evaluation panels 165Figure 27. Number of RCs in focus areas and categories 167Figure 28. Number of publications in TUHAT from 4/2010 to 4/2011 (12.4.2011) 171Figure 29. Number of UH publications in TUHAT 2005-2010 171Figure 1. Distribution and impact of UH collaboration 186Figure 2: Overview of 35 UH areas regarding P and MNCS (2005–2010) 189Figure 3: Overview of 35 UH areas regarding P and MNCS (2005–2010) 190Figure 4: Overview of 35 UH areas regarding P and MNCS (2005–2010) 191Figure 5: Performance of all Biological, Agricultural and veterinary sciences areas
with the entire landscape 192Figure 6: Performance of all Humanities areas with the entire landscape 194Figure 7: Performance of all Medicine, Biomedicine and Health sciences areas
within the entire landscape 195Figure 8. Performance of all Natural Sciences areas within the entire UH landscape 196Figure 9: Performance of all Social Sciences areas within the entire UH landscape 197
FIGURES
Figure 1. Number of publications in publication categories 263Figure 2. Language of publications – percentage distribution 264Figure 3. Number of authors in publications – the percentage distribution 265Figure 4. Publications by subject – journal articles 266Figure 5. Percentages of publication types by faculties 270Figure 6. Number of publications within subject areas of the Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry 274Figure 7. Number of publications within subject areas of the Faculty of Arts 275Figure 8. Number of publications within subject areas of the Faculty of Behavioural Sciences 276Figure 9. Number of publications within subject areas of the Faculty of Biological and
Environmental Sciences 277Figure 10. Number of publications within subject areas of the Faculty of Law 278Figure 11. Number of publications within subject areas of the Faculty of Medicine 279Figure 12. Number of publications within subject areas of the Faculty of Pharmacy 280Figure 13. Number of publications within subject areas of the Faculty of Science 281Figure 14. Number of publications within subject areas of the Faculty of Social Sciences 282Figure 15. Number of publications within subject areas of the Faculty of Theology 283Figure 16. Number of publications within subject areas of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine 284Figure 17. Number of publications within subject areas of the Swedish School of Social Sciences 285Figure 1. Facilitating factors according to doctoral students and PIs 296Figure 2. Impeding factors experienced by doctoral students and PIs 297Figure 3. Doctoral students’ and PIs’ perceptions of the most important tasks of a supervisor.
The relation was statistically significant 301Figure 4. Primary work assignments reported by PhD holders 307
10 ....
11 ......
APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Focus Areas of Research 317Appendix 2. Detailed time table of the Evaluation 319Appendix 3. Evaluation aspects 321Appendix 4. Table of Fields of sciences in the CWTS/Leiden analyses 322Appendix 5. Stage 1, e-form for registration 328Appendix 6. Stage 2, e-form for submission of evaluation material 332Appendix 7. Evaluation Form 337Appendix 8. Figure of completed doctoral degrees at the University of Helsinki 2000−2011 344Appendix 9. Tables of scores of participating RCs by participation category 345Appendix 10. Distributions of numeric evaluation of the RCs in the evaluation panels 348Appendix 11. Number of publications in the evaluation (TUHAT RIS) 353Appendix 12. Tables of RC-specific bibliometric indicators by the CWTS/Leiden 358Appendix 13. PhD student survey 362Appendix 14. PI Survey 369Appendix 15. Differences in reasons for conducting a PhD between students who have
considered interrupting their studies and students who have not considered interrupting 376Appendix 16. Satisfaction and intentions to interrupt studies in different faculties 376Appendix 17. PIs and students’ perceptions of the emphasis of different kind of supervision in
the beginning of the doctoral process and later 377Appendix 18. Sum variables and differences in sum variables between the faculties 378Appendix 19. Candidates’ and PIs perceptions of studies required for doctoral degree 380Appendix 20. Graduation times in different faculties 380
11
FOREWORD
The evaluation of research and doctoral training was carried out in the years 2010–2012. The steering group appointed by the Rector in January 2010 set the conditions for participation in the evaluation and prepared the Terms of Reference to present the evaluation procedure and criteria. The publications and other scientific activities included in the evaluation covered the years 2005–2010.
The participating unit in the evaluation was defined as a Researcher Community (RC). To obtain a critical mass with university level impact, the number of members was set to range from 20 to 120. The RCs were required to contain researchers in all stages of their research career, from doctoral students to principal investigators (PIs). All in all, 136 Researcher Communities participated in this voluntary evaluation, 5857 persons in total, of whom 1131 were principal investigators. PIs were allowed to participate in two communities in certain cases, and 72 of them used this opportunity.
This evaluation enabled researchers to define RCs from the “bottom up” and across disciplines. The aim of the evaluation was not to assess individual performance but a community with shared aims and researcher-training activities. The RCs were able to choose among five different categories that characterised the status and main aims of their research. The steering group considered the process of applying to participate in the evaluation to be important, which lead to the establishment of these categories. In addition, providing a service for the RCs to enable them to benchmark their research at the global level was one of the main goals of the evaluation.
The data for the evaluation consisted of the RCs’ answers to evaluation questions on supplied e-forms and a compilation extracted from the research information system (RIS) TUHAT on 12 April 2011. The compilation covered scientific and other publications as well as certain areas of scientific activities. During the process, the RCs were asked to check the list of publications and other scientific activities and to make corrections if needed. These TUHAT compilations are public and available on the evaluation project sites of each RC in the TUHAT system.
In addition to the e-form and TUHAT compilation, the University of Leiden (CWTS) carried out bibliometric analyses of the articles included in the Web of Science (WoS). This was done according to the fields of sciences and levels of the RCs. In cases where most of the publications of the RC were not included in the WoS data, the Library of the University of Helsinki conducted a separate analysis of the publications. This was done for 66 RCs, mainly representing the humanities and social sciences. The total publications of the university were also analysed by the Helsinki University Library, and this analysis is a part of this report.
The evaluation office also carried out an enquiry targeted to PhD candidate supervisors and PhD candidates about the organisation of doctoral studies at the University of Helsinki. This and other documents describing the University and the Finnish higher education system were provided to the panellists.
12
The panel feedback for each RC is unique and presented as an entity in each panel-specific report. The first collective evaluation reports available to the entire panel were prepared in July–August 2011. The reports were accessible to all panel members via the electronic evaluation platform in August. Scoring from 1 to 5 was used to complement written feedback in association with evaluation questions 1–4 (scientific focus and quality, doctoral training, societal impact, cooperation), in addition to the category evaluating the fitness for participation in the evaluation. The panellists used the international level as a point of comparison in the evaluation. Scoring was not expected to follow a preset normal deviation.
Each of the draft reports were discussed and dealt with by the panel in meetings in Helsinki (from 11 September to 13 September or from 18 September to 20 September 2011). In these meetings the panels also examined the deviations among the scores and finalised the draft reports together.
This university level report deals shortly with the background of the evaluation and the terms of participation. The main evaluation feedback is provided in the RC-specific evaluation reports, which are published as 136 separate reports. Summaries and central findings as well as the main recommendations written by each panel are published in the university report. The key figures of the bibliometric analyses are presented in this report.
On behalf of the evaluation steering group and office, I sincerely wish to thank all the RCs warmly for your participation in this evaluation. The effort you made in submitting the data to TUHAT-RIS is gratefully acknowledged by the University. We hope that you find this panel feedback useful in many ways. The bibliometric profiles may open a new view on publication forums and provide a perspective for discussion on the choice of forums. We especially hope that this evaluation report will help the University in setting future goals for research.
Johanna Björkroth
Vice-RectorChair of the Steering Group of the Evaluation
13
STEERING GROUP OF THE EVALUATIONSteering group, nominated by the Rector of the University, was responsible for the planning of the evaluation and its implementation having altogether 22 meetings between February 2010 and March 2012.
CHAIRVice-Rector, professor Johanna Björkroth
VICE-CHAIRProfessor Marja Airaksinen
Chief Information Specialist, Dr Maria ForsmanProfessor Arto MustajokiUniversity Lecturer, Dr Kirsi PyhältöDirector of Strategic Planning and Development, Dr Ossi TuomiDoctoral candidate, MSocSc Jussi Vauhkonen
The Panel members are introduced on the following pages
The panels independently evaluated all the submitted material and were responsible for the feedback for the RC-specific reports. The panels wrote a university level summary based on all the material discussed in the panel. The panel members were asked to confirm whether they had any conflicts of interest with the RCs. If this was the case, the panel members disqualified themselves from the discussion and report writing.
14
PANEL MEMBERS OF BIOLOGICAL, AGRICULTURAL AND VETERINARY SCIENCES
CHAIRProfessor Ary A. HoffmanEcological genetics, evolutionary biology, biodiversity conservation, zoologyUniversity of Melbourne, Australia
VICE-CHAIRProfessor Barbara KochForest Sciences, remote sensingUniversity of Freiburg, Germany
Professor Per-Anders HanssonAgricultural engineering, modeling, life cycle analysis, bioenergySwedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden
Professor Danny HuylebroeckDevelopmental biologyKatholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium
Professor Jonathan KingVirus assembly, protein foldingMassachusetts Institute of Technology MIT, USA
Professor Hannu J.T. KorhonenFunctional foods, dairy technology, milk hygieneMTT Agrifood Research Finland
Professor Kristiina KruusMicrobiological biotechnology, microbiological enzymes, applied microbiologyVTT Technical Research Centre of Finland
Professor Joakim LundebergBiochemistry, biotechnology, sequencing, genomicsKTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
Professor Dominiek MaesVeterinary medicineGhent University, Belgium
Professor Olli SaastamoinenForest economics and policyUniversity of Eastern Finland
Professor Kai SimonsBiochemistry, molecular biology, cell biologyMax-Planck-Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics, Germany
15
Added expertise to the evaluation was contributed by members from other panels and by one evaluator outside the panels.
External ExpertProfessor Anders LindeOral biochemiFaculty of OdontologyGöteborg University, Sweden
Experts from Other PanelsProfessor Caitlin Buck, from the Panel of Natural SciencesProfessor Ritske Huismans, from the Panel of Natural SciencesProfessor Johanna Ivaska, from the Panel of Medicine, Biomedicine and Health SciencesProfessor Lea Kauppi, from the Panel of Natural SciencesProfessor Holger Stark, from the Panel of Natural SciencesProfessor Peter York, from the Panel of Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences
16
PANEL MEMBERS OF MEDICINE, BIOMEDICINE AND HEALTH SCIENCES
CHAIRProfessor Lorenz PoellingerCancer biology, cell and molecular biologyKarolinska Institute, Sweden
VICE-CHAIRProfessor Cornelia van DuijnGenetic epidemiology, Alzheimer’s disease and related disordersErasmus Medical Centre, the Netherlands
Professor Johanna IvaskaMolecular cell biology, cell adhesion, cancer biologyUniversity of Turku, VTT Technical Research Centre, Finland
Professor Olli Lassila Immunology, medical microbiologyUniversity of Turku, Finland
Professor Hans-Christian PapeNeuroscience, neurophysiologyUniversity of Münster, Germany
Professor Thomas RuzickaDermatology, allergologyLudwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) München, Germany
Professor Lars TereniusExperimental alcohol and drug dependence research, mental disorders, preventive medicineKarolinska Institute, Sweden
Professor Peter YorkPhysical pharmaceutics, pharmaceutical chemistry, pharmaceutical technologyUniversity of Bradford, Great Britain
Added expertise to the evaluation was contributed by two evaluators outside the Panels and by three members from other Panels.
External ExpertsProfessor Olli CarpénPathology, cancer cell metastasisUniversity of Turku, Finland
Professor Anders LindeOral biochemiFaculty of OdontologyGöteborg University, Sweden
Experts from Other PanelsProfessor Jan-Otto Carlsson, from the Panel of Natural SciencesProfessor Danny Huylebroek, from the Panel of Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary SciencesProfessor Holger Stark, from the Panel of Natural Sciences
17
PANEL MEMBERS OF NATURAL SCIENCES
CHAIRProfessor Jan-Otto CarlssonMaterials science in chemistry and physics, nanotechnology, inorganic chemistryUppsala University, Sweden
VICE-CHAIRProfessor Jan van LeeuwenComputer science, information technologyUniversity of Utrecht, the Netherlands
Professor Caitlin BuckProbability and statistics, archeology, palaeoenvironmental scienceUniversity of Sheffield, Great Britain
Professor David ColtonMathematics, inverse problems of acoustic and electromagnetic scatteringUniversity of Delaware, USA
Professor Jean-Pierre EckmannMathematics, dynamical systems, mathematical physicsUniversity of Geneva, Switzerland
Professor Ritske HuismansGeosciences, geodynamicsUniversity of Bergen, Norway
Professor Jukka JurvelinMedical physics and engineeringUniversity of Eastern Finland
Professor Lea KauppiEnvironmental sciences, water researchThe Finnish Environment Institute, Finland
Professor Riitta KeiskiChemical engineering, heterogeneous catalysis, environmental technology, mass and heat trans-fer processesUniversity of Oulu, Finland
Professor Mats LarssonExperimental molecular physics, chemical dynamics, molecular spectroscopy, astrobiologyStockholm University, Sweden
Professor Holger StarkMedicinal, organic and pharmaceutical chemistry, pharmacologyJohann Wolfgang Goethe Universität, Germany
Added expertise to the evaluation was contributed by the members from other Panels.
Experts from Other PanelsProfessor Barbara Koch, from the Panel of Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary SciencesProfessor Peter York, from the Panel of Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences
18
PANEL MEMBERS OF HUMANITIES
CHAIRProfessor Wim van den DoelContemporary history, history of European relations with the world beyond EuropeLeiden University, the Netherlands
VICE-CHAIRProfessor Kerstin JonassonRomance languages, linguisticsUppsala University, Sweden
Professor Regina BendixEuropean ethnology, scientific history of ethnography, folkloreUniversity of Göttingen, Germany
Professor Paul CobleyHistory, American studies, communication, semioticsLondon Metropolitan University, Great Britain
Professor Troels Engberg-Pedersen1
Theology, early Christian thought, ancient philosophyUniversity of Copenhagen, Denmark
Professor Erhard HinrichsLinguistics, language technology, infrastructuresEberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Germany
Professor Jutta ScherrerIntellectual and cultural history of Russia, history of ideologiesL’École des hautes études en sciences sociales (EHESS), France
Professor Klaus Tanner2
Theology, ethicsUniversity of Heidelberg, Germany
Professor Pauline von BonsdorffAesthetics, art educationUniversity of Jyväskylä, Finland
Added expertise to the evaluation was contributed by the members from other Panels.
Experts from Other PanelsProfessor Caitlin Buck, from the Panel of Natural SciencesProfessor Allen Ketcham, from the Panel of Social SciencesProfessor Erno Lehtinen, from the Panel of Social SciencesProfessor Jan van Leeuwen, from the Panel of Natural Sciences
1 Professor Engberg-Pedersen contributed in the report writing although he was not able to take part in the meetings in Helsinki.
2 Professor Tanner was involved in the discussions in Helsinki, but not in the pre-work and report writing.
19
PANEL MEMBERS OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
CHAIRProfessor Hebe VessuriSocial anthropologyVenezuelan Institute of Scientific Research, Venezuela
VICE-CHAIRProfessor Christine HeimPsychology, neurobiology of early-life stress, depression, anxiety, functional somatic disordersCharité University Medicine Berlin, Germany
Professor Allen KetchamEthics and social philosophy, applied Social philosophy, ethics of businessTexas A&M University – Kingsville, USA
Professor Erno LehtinenEducation, educational reformUniversity of Turku, Finland
Professor Enzo MingioneUrban sociologyUniversity of Milan - Bicocca, Italy
Professor Giovanna ProcacciPolitical sociology, transformation of citizenship, social rights, social exclusion, immigration policyUniversity of Milan, Italy
Professor Inger Johanne SandLaw, public law, legal theoryUniversity of Oslo, Norway
Professor Timo TeräsvirtaTime series econometricsAarhus University, Denmark
Professor Göran TherbornGeneral sociologyUniversity of Cambridge, Great Britain
Professor Liisa UusitaloConsumer behaviour (economic & social theory), marketing and communication researchAalto University, School of Economics, Finland
Added expertise to the evaluation was contributed by two members from the Panel of Humani-ties.
Experts from the Panel of HumanitiesProfessor Erhard HinrichsProfessor Pauline von Bonsdorff
20
OFFICIALSEVALUATION OFFICE
Editors of the reports
Dr Seppo Saari, Doc., Senior Adviser in Evaluation, was responsible for the entire evaluation, its planning and implementation and acted as an Editor-in-chief of the reports.
Mr Antti Moilanen, Project Secretary, was responsible for editing the reports. He worked in the evaluation office from January 2012 to May 2012.
MSocSc Paula Ranne, Planning Officer, was responsible for organising the panel meetings and all the other practical issues like agreements and fees and editing a part the RC-specific reports. She worked in the evaluation office from March 2011 to January 2012.
Dr Eeva Sievi, Doc., Adviser, was responsible for the registration and evaluation material compila-tions for the panellists. She worked in the evaluation office from August 2010 to July 2011.
TUHAT OFFICE - Provision of the publication and other scientific activity data
Mrs Aija Kaitera, Project Manager of TUHAT RIS served the project ex officio providing the evalua-tion project with the updated information from TUHAT RIS. The TUHAT office assisted in mapping the publications with the CWTS/University of Leiden.
MA Liisa Ekebom, Assisting Officer, served in TUHAT RIS updating the publications for the evalua-tion. Ekebom also assisted the UH/Library analyses (Spring and Autumn 2011)
BA Liisa Jäppinen, Assisting Officer, served in TUHAT RIS updating the publications for the evalu-ation (Spring 2011)
HELSINKI UNIVERSITY LIBRARY - Provision of the publication analyses
Dr Maria Forsman, Chief Information Specialist in the Helsinki University Library, managed with her 10 colleagues the bibliometric analyses in humanities, social sciences and in other fields of sciences where the CWTS/Leiden analyses were not applicable.
PROVISION OF DOCTORAL SURVEY
Dr Kirsi Pyhältö, Doc. PhD., Senior Lecturer in University Pedagogy, University of Helsinki
MA Minna Frimodig, Education Adviser, Rector’s Office, Academic Affairs, University of Helsinki
21
ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS APPLIED IN THE REPORT
External competitive fundingAF – Academy of FinlandTEKES – Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation EU – European UnionERC – European Research CouncilInternational and national foundationsFP7/6 etc. /Framework Programmes/Funding of European Commission
Evaluation marksOutstanding (5)Excellent (4)Very Good (3)Good (2)Sufficient (1)
Abbreviations of Bibliometric IndicatorsP - Number of publicationsTCS – Total number of citationsMCS – Number of citations per publication, excluding self-citationsPNC – Percentage of uncited publicationsMNCS – Field-normalized number of citations per publicationMNJS – Field-normalized average journal impactTHCP10 – Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%)INT_COV – Internal coverage, the average amount of references covered by the WoSWoS – Thomson Reuters Web of Science® Databases
TUHAT Research Information System (RIS)Research Information System of University of Helsinki
Explanation of Norwegian, Australian and Finnish Publication Forum (FPF) rankings (http://www.tsv.fi/julkaisufoorumi/materiaalit/julkaisufoorumi_lehdet_sarjat_35842_10022011.xls)Norwegian journal (NJ) and publisher (NP) ranking (http://dbh.nsd.uib.no):• Level 2 – highest scientific• Level 1 – scientific.Australian ranking (http://www.arc.gov.au/era/era_2010/archive/key_docs10.htm):• A* – Virtually all papers they publish will be of a very high quality• A – The majority of papers in a Tier A journal will be of very high quality• B – Generally, in a Tier B journal, one would expect only a few papers of
very high quality• C – Journals that do not meet the criteria of higher tiers.
22
Finnish Publication Forum (FPF) rankings • 3 – top leading scientific journal• 2 – leading scientific journal• 1 – scientific journal
Participation category
Category 1. The research of the participating community represents the international cutting edge in its field.Category 2. The research of the participating community is of high quality, but the community in its present composition has yet to achieve strong international recognition or a clear break-through.Category 3. The research of the participating community is distinct from mainstream research, and the special features of the research tradition in the field must be considered in the evaluation.Category 4. The research of the participating community represents an innovative opening.Category 5. The research of the participating community has a highly significant societal impact.
Research focus areas of the University of HelsinkiFocus area 1. The basic structure, materials and natural resources of the physical worldFocus area 2. The basic structure of lifeFocus area 3. The changing environment – clean waterFocus area 4. The thinking and learning human beingFocus area 5. Welfare and safetyFocus area 6. Clinical researchFocus area 7. Precise reasoningFocus area 8. Language and cultureFocus area 9. Social justiceFocus area 10. Globalisation and social change
Type of publication in TUHAT RISType of classification follows mainly the definition of the Ministry of Education and Culture.A1 Refereed journal articleA2 Review in scientific journalA3 Contribution to book/other compilations (refereed)A4 Article in conference publication (refereed)B1 Unrefereed journal articleB2 Contribution to book/other compilations (non-refereed)B3 Unrefereed article in conference proceedingsC1 Published scientific monographC2 Edited book, compilation, conference proceeding or special issue of journalD1 Article in professional journalD2 Article in professional hand or guide book or in a professional data system, or text book materialD3 Article in professional conference proceedingsD4 Published development or research reportD5 Text book or professional handbook or guidebook or dictionaryE1 Popular article, newspaper articleE1 Popular contribution to book/other compilations
23
E2 Popular monographF1 Published independent artistic workF2 Public contribution to artistic workF3 Public artistic play or exhibitionF4 Model or plan taken into production / exploitedG1-G5 Theses (not included in the evaluation)H1 PatentsI1 Audiovisual materialsI2 ICT programs or applications
Type of other scientific activity in TUHAT RISAssessment of candidates for academic postsEditor of communication journalEditor of research anthology/collection/conference proceedingsEditor of research journalEditor of seriesEditor of special theme numberMembership or other role in national/international committee, council, boardMembership or other role in public Finnish or international organizationMembership or other role in research networkMembership or other role in review committeeMembership or other role of body in private company/organisationOther tasks of an expert in private sectorParticipation in interview for web based mediaParticipation in interview for written mediaParticipation in radio programmeParticipation in TV programmePeer review of manuscriptsPrizes and awardsSupervisor or co-supervisor of doctoral thesisPrincipal Investigator (PI) at the University of Helsinki (2009)
A principal investigator at the University of Helsinki is typically a person who:i) steers and leads research independently,ii) has completed an applicable doctoral degree and become qualified as an independent
researcher,iii) has access to the necessary resources (facilities, funding, equipment) for independent
research,iv) supervises doctoral students and/or mentors post-doctoral researchers as well as (in
applicable research fields) leads a research group, and v) is placed on the third or fourth level in the hierarchy of research positions.
24
Affiliation with the University of Helsinki
A person is or has been affiliated with the University of Helsinki, if he or she is or has been employed by the University as a researcher or doctoral candidate between 1 January 2005 and 31 October 2010.
Scholars not employed by the University of Helsinki are nevertheless considered to be affiliated with the University if they have:
• worked at the University as a researcher or doctoral candidate between 1 January 2005 and 31 October 2010, and
• received external funding from a source other than a university or a research institute.
A further prerequisite for the affiliation of doctoral candidates is that they must have been granted the right to pursue postgraduate studies at the University of Helsinki.
A docentship alone does not constitute an affiliation with the University.
25
UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI IN BRIEF
University of Helsinki is 372 years old, established in Turku 1640 and moved to Helsinki 1828.
Main tasks of the University are research, teaching and societal interaction. The University is bilingual, Finnish and Swedish. Several courses in English are provided.
• 37,000 degree students• 32,000 continuing education and Open University students• 8,590 employees, including 4,820 researchers and teachers (2011)• Total funding 648 million euro (2011)• Operates on four campuses in Helsinki and 14 other locations throughout Finland• 25 national top research units, one Nordic top research unit, 15 Academy professors
and 15 FiDiPro professors. New top research units for the years 2012–2017. 10 of 15 are totally or partially working at the University of Helsinki
• Scientific publications per year from 6,500 to 7,000. All publications 10,000 per year• Masters degrees 2,200 per year• Doctoral degrees 430 per year• Foreign degree students 2,000
Campuses and Faculties
City Center• Faculty of Theology• Faculty of Law• Faculty of Arts• Faculty of Behavioural Sciences• Faculty of Social Sciences• Swedish School of Social Science
Kumpula• Faculty of Science
Meilahti• Faculty of Medicine
Viikki• Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences • Faculty of Pharmacy• Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry • Faculty of Veterinary Medicine
Independent institutes• Aleksanteri Institute - Finnish Centre for Russian and East European Studies• Center for Information Technology (IT Center)• Center for Properties and Facilities• Finnish Museum of Natural History• Helsinki Center of Economic Research (HECER) • Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies
26
• Helsinki Institute for Information Technology • Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP)• Helsinki University Library• Institute of Biotechnology• Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM)• IPR University Center• Ruralia-institute• Language Centre • The National Library of Finland• Helsinki University Laboratory Animal Centre• Neuroscience Center • Open University • Palmenia Centre for Continuing Education• UniSport
UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI IN GLOBAL RANKINGS3
SHANGHAI QS4 TIMES HIGHER
LEIDEN TAIWAN GRONINGEN WEBOMETRICS
2003 74 - - - - - -
2004 72 129 - - - - -
2005 76 62 - - - - -
2006 74 116 - - - - -
2007 73 100 - - 52 - -
2008 68 91 - - 50 - -
2009 72 108 - 535 48 436 52
2010 72 75 102 - 47 - 64 and 597
2011 74 89 91 - 66 - 62 and 785
Note: hyphen (-) indicates that ranking is not published
The University of Helsinki is ranked high in the comparison of the world’s top uni-versities. On the esteemed Shanghai list UH is ranked 74th and on the Times Higher Education it is 91st.
With some 15,000 universities in the world, the University of Helsinki performs very well, especially when considering Finland’s population base (5,4 million) and resources.
4567
3 Table provided by Markus Laitinen, International Affairs, UH4 Earlier Times5 P * CPP/FCSm 2003–20076 CPP 1998–20087 2010 and 2011 twice a year
1 INTRODUCTION TO THE EVALUATION
3 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − BIOLOGICAL, AGRICULTURAL AND VETERINARY SCIENCES
4 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − MEDICINE, BIOMEDICINE AND HEALTH SCIENCES
5 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − NATURAL SCIENCES
6 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − HUMANITIES
7 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − SOCIAL SCIENCES
8 OVERALL STATISTICS ON THE EVALUATION
9 RESEARCH PERFORMANCE
10 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSES
11 SUMMARY REPORT OF DOCTORAL TRAINING
12 CONCLUDING REMARKS
13 APPENDICES
2 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION
29Introduction to the Evaluation
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE EVALUATION
1.1 UNIVERSITY AIMS
The new strategy of the University of Helsinki for the years 2013–2016 sets the strategic objective of the University to be counted among the 50 leading universities in the world by 2020. The goal requires that the University remains at the cutting edge or research in as many fields as possible and that it enhances its reputation as a high-quality learning environment with the ability to resolve global issues. The mission of the University is to be the most comprehensive research institution of higher education, edification and intellectual regeneration in Finland. It is a pioneer and builder of the future. To make right strategic choices in achieving presented goals, the University regularly carries out international evaluations of its research and teaching. Previous research evaluations including doctoral training was carried out in 1999 and 2005. The present international evaluation of research and doctoral training to be launched took place between 2010 and 2012 and the material under evaluation covered the period from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2010.
The University’s performance depends on its personnel and students. The evaluation findings will be expected to offer useful information to the university to identify areas of strength as well as areas in need of development within research and doctoral training. Also, structures that relate to research and doctoral training and extend over faculty and departmental boundaries will be more readily recognised. For the Researcher Community, the evaluation offers an opportunity to receive feedback from external experts and to obtain feedback on the quality of research and doctoral training in the international context.
1.2 STEERING GROUP AND ITS MANDATE
For the planning of the evaluation, the Rector of the University appointed a steering group 27 January 2010, Decision No 101/01/2010. The steering group was chaired by Vice-Rector Johanna Björkroth with Professor Marja Airaksinen who served as the Vice-Chair. The other group members were Chief Information Specialist Maria Forsman, Professor Arto Mustajoki, University Lecturer Kirsi Pyhältö, Director of Strategic Planning and Development Ossi Tuomi and doctoral candidate Jussi Vauhkonen.
The steering group prepared the evaluation plan, tasks, aims, objectives, methods, the timetable for implementation and the bases for financial or other recognition from the evaluation. The basic material used in the preparation was the strategic documents of the University. In the planning process, the steering group thoroughly discussed the options for how the evaluation would be implemented. A particular focus of the discussion was how to ensure continuity with the previous evaluations and what
30 Introduction to the Evaluation
means could be used to support the choice of research focus areas, societal impact, new innovative research openings, the composition of research communities and their interdisciplinarity, multidisciplinarity or transdisciplinarity, and international visibility. It was stated in the discussions that the new structures in the faculties did not support continuity with the previous evaluations. The steering group argued on behalf of voluntary participation and that the participating Researcher Communities (RCs) should cross department and faculty borders. RC refers to the group of researchers who registered together to participate in the evaluation of their research and doctoral training. It was assumed that this voluntary aspect would support the bottom-up approach in forming Researcher Communities. Further, encouragement factors were also needed, such as benefits for the researcher groups, departments or faculties of the university. The main impetus for using the new method was the strategic aim of the university: “to the top and out to society” or “excellence for society”.
The key topic in the discussions of the steering group was how to be able to recognise the diversity of research and its conditions and preconditions in a multidisciplinary university.
After the planning period, the steering group continued its work and followed the implementation of the evaluation and made principled decisions when necessary. During the planning stage, the steering group discussed the implementation of the evaluation with the academic community in several forums.
1.3 EVALUATION METHOD
Background
The structure of the faculties and departments has changed since the year 2010. The steering group stated that there is no longer a good reason to repeat the previous evaluation model and to compare the research performance of the old and new structures. In practice, the implementation of a new model meant taking a risk. There were many unknown factors, and the university had no earlier experience in how to manage the selected model successfully. The concept of a Researcher Community was especially unclear to both the academic community and the panellists. Also, the distinctions between categories were not clear, and the categories were not exclusive. The RCs had several options to choose from among the participation categories. It was not, however, possible to foresee or speculate on the optimal choice of category.
Bottom-up approach
The participants in the evaluation were Researcher Communities (RCs). Conditions in forming RC were given in the Guidelines for the Participating Researcher Communities. The RCs defined whether the composition of their communities should be considered, for example, as well-established or new.
31Introduction to the Evaluation
The challenge for this evaluation was to recognise and justify the diversity of research practices and publication traditions. Traditional Research Assessment Exercises (RAE) do not necessarily value high quality research if the volumes are low or the research is distinct from mainstream research. It is always challenging to expose the diversity of research to fair comparison. Understanding the divergent starting points of the RCs demanded sensitivity from the panellists.
The evaluation’s emphasis on a researcher-oriented approach was already apparent during the registration procedure when the RCs were formed. The platform for the evaluation made it possible to consider a variety of compositions of researcher communities. Because the publications covered the years 2005–2010, it was assumed that the RCs would have certain aspects in common during the years under evaluation, e.g., common themes in their publications or some common type of cooperation and also common plans for the future.
The evaluation can be considered as enhancement led. Instead of ranking, the main aim was to provide useful information for the enhancement of the research and doctoral training of the participating RCs. The comparison should take into account each field of science and acknowledge its special characteristics. The comparison should be able to produce information to identify the present status of the RC and the factors that have lead to success. Moreover, challenges in the operations and outcomes should be recognised.
The evaluation approach was designed to recognise the significance and specific nature of researcher communities and research areas in a multidisciplinary top level university. Furthermore, one of the aims of the evaluation was to bring to light those evaluation principles that differ from the prevalent ones. Thus, the views of various fields of research can be described and research arising from various starting points better understood. The evaluation of doctoral training was integrated into the evaluation as a natural component related to research. Operational processes of doctoral training were examined in the evaluation questions and in a separate doctoral survey for background information.
Five main stages of the evaluation method• Registration• Self-evaluation• TUHAT8 compilations on publications and other scientific activities9
• External evaluation• Public reporting
The external part of the evaluation – the peer evaluation – took place in panels comprising distinguished national and international experts who based their evaluation on the materials submitted by the participating Researcher Communities and the data stored in the University’s research information system TUHAT.
The previous evaluations of research, in the years 1998 and 2005, covered all the institutions in the university. The previous model was traditional in the sense that a
8 TUHAT (acronym) of Research Information System (RIS) of the University of Helsinki9 E.g. editorial work, memberships, public appearances, peer reviews, supervision or co-supervision of
doctoral thesis
32 Introduction to the Evaluation
distinguished collection of research reports formed the main evaluation material in addition to the evaluation questions. The external panels evaluated the publications and scored their level of performance.
It is essential to emphasise that the present evaluation combined both meta-evaluation and traditional research assessment and that its focus was both on research outcomes and the procedures associated with research and doctoral training. The approach to the evaluation where self-evaluation constituted the main source of information can be considered enhancement led. The answers to the evaluation questions together with the information about publications, its bibliometric analyses and the lists of other scientific activities formed an entity that was to be reviewed as a whole.
1.4 MONETARY REWARDS OF THE EVALUATION
The financial consequence of the first research assessment in the year 1998 took the form of monetary rewards to successful departments. Successful faculties were rewarded as well. In the year 2005, the departments and faculties with high scores whose performance was enhanced compared to the previous evaluation were rewarded. The rewards were assigned for 3 or 6 years.
The Rector will decide on the amount and allocation criteria of the resources to be distributed on the basis of the present evaluation results. High quality performance as well as the amount of participation in the evaluation will be considered in the allocation of resources in the planning of the next strategy period (2013–2016) and in the preparation of the University’s research policy.
1.5 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES IN THE EVALUATION
The aims of the evaluation were stated as follows:
• to improve the level of research and doctoral training at the University of Helsinki and to raise their international profile in accordance with the University’s strategic policies. The improvement of doctoral training should be compared to the University’s policy,10
• to enhance the research conducted at the University by taking into account the diversity, originality, multidisciplinary nature, success and field-specificity,
• to recognize the conditions and prerequisites under which excellent, original and high-impact research is carried out,
• to offer the academic community the opportunity to receive topical and versatile international peer feedback,
• to better recognize the University’s research potential,• to exploit the University’s TUHAT research information system to enable transparency
of publishing activities and in the production of reliable, comparable data.
10 Policies on doctoral degrees and other postgraduate degrees at the University of Helsinki.
33Introduction to the Evaluation
1.6 CONDITIONS TO FORM A RESEARCHER COMMUNITY FOR THE EVALUATION
The evaluation was targeted to researcher communities which were formed on the basis of collaboration in research and doctoral training. The researcher communities must include Principal Investigators (PI) and doctoral candidates. In addition, the researcher community typically included academics also on the other levels of the four-level hierarchy of researcher positions. As the purpose of the evaluation was to recognise the conditions and requirements for producing cutting edge and high quality research results and doctoral training, the University encouraged researcher communities with established collaboration between its members to participate. The practical motivation (e.g. research, doctoral training) for forming the researcher community was to be demonstrated in the evaluation materials.
Researcher communities that, in addition to meeting the above requirements, had to fulfil the following conditions (a-c) in the evaluation:
a) The researcher community consists of 20–120 members of the research and teaching staff who are or have been affiliated with the University of Helsinki between 1 January 2005 and 31 October 2010. On 31 October 2010 at least three members of such a group act as Principal Investigators appointed by the University of Helsinki.
b) During the period under evaluation (from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2010), some members of the researcher community have served as supervisors of doctoral dissertations, appointed for the task by a University of Helsinki faculty.
c) Data on publications and other scientific activities of the researcher community members from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2010 is updated in the TUHAT database by 31 January 2011.
Moreover, the following conditions were applied to the participating researcher communities:
• Participation is voluntary.• The participating researcher community may include researchers across department
and faculty boundaries.• The participating researcher communities do not need the approval of their faculty or
independent institute, even though it is recommended that faculties and independent institutes encourage their researchers to participate.
• The minimum number of members in a researcher community may be lower for a wellgrounded reason in categories three (research distinct from mainstream research) and four (an innovative opening). However, the members in such a researcher community must include at least two acting Principal Investigators appointed by the University as well as doctoral candidates under their supervision.
• Only Principal Investigators (PI) can participate in the evaluation as members of two researcher communities (A and B). In such cases, the prerequisites are:
• there is only one PI in common between the researcher communities A and B, and• the researcher communities A and B do not go under the minimum size set for
researcher• communities, and• the researcher communities A and B participate the evaluation in different categories.• The participating researcher communities may also include researchers from outside the
University of Helsinki. Such researchers will not, however, be included in the number of researchers in the participating researcher community.
34 Introduction to the Evaluation
• The publications and other scientific activities of a researcher will be evaluated only for the period during which he or she has been affiliated with the University of Helsinki.
• The researcher community must register for the evaluation and submit the required evaluation materials within the set deadline.
The Evaluation Steering Group reserved the right to reject researcher communities which did not fulfil the conditions requested.
At the first stage in February 2010, 141 communities registered. After discussions with the responsible persons of the RCs, some members were excluded, and some RCs were excluded due to a conflict with the regulations of the evaluation. One community felt that participation was too demanding and withdrew their participation.
In the final count, 136 RCs participated in the evaluation, prepared all the material and reviewed their publications and other scientific activities.
Critical aspects in forming the Researcher Communities for the evaluation
The procedure for forming a Researcher Community was not supervised by the Evaluation Office. Many PIs were asked to become involved by several communities. Sometimes the regulations were not known, and not everyone, especially with regard to doctoral candidates, was sure of which community he or she was affiliated with. In some cases the PhD candidates were not aware of the restrictions in the evaluation. The tight schedule, e.g., of just one month to form a community was challenging and sometimes caused unintended negative side effects.
Some critical voices were presented by participants in the humanities about the minimum size of the Researcher Community. Some fields in the humanities felt that the minimum size of 20 members in a RC was too big and challenging to compose. However, the conditions allowed a smaller number of participants in categories three and four. The restriction was that in this case, the PIs were allowed to participate only in one RC.
One good example that worked well was the meetings organised by some faculties and departments together with the PIs in which ideas for forming communities were shared. The willingness to participate was often augmented in these meetings. What can be learned from this experience? One possibility of making the process more efficient could be an open platform (e.g., a WIKI) where all potential and interested members could be reviewed.
35Introduction to the Evaluation
1.7 PARTICIPATION CATEGORIES
The Researcher Communities had to choose one of the participation categories:
1. The research of the participating community represents the international cutting edge in its field.
2. The research of the participating community is of high quality, but the community in its present composition has yet to achieve strong international recognition or a clear break-through.
3. The research of the participating community is distinct from mainstream research, and the special features of the research tradition in the field must be considered in the evaluation. The research is of high quality and has great significance and impact in its field. However, the generally used research evaluation methods do not necessarily shed sufficient light on the merits of the research.
4. The research of the participating community represents an innovative opening. A new opening can be an innovative combination of research fields, or it can be proven to have a special social, national or international demand or other significance. Even if the researcher community in its present composition has yet to obtain proof of international success, its members can produce convincing evidence of the high level of their previous research.
5. The research of the participating community has a highly significant societal impact. The participating researcher community is able to justify the high social significance of its research. The research may relate to national legislation, media visibility or participation in social debate, or other activities promoting social development and human welfare. In addition to having societal impact, the research must be of a high standard.
1.8 EVALUATION MATERIAL
The primary material in the evaluation was the RCs’ self-evaluations, which were qualitative in character and allowed the RCs to choose what was important to mention or emphasise and what was left unmentioned. The present evaluation is exceptional, at least in the Finnish context, because it was based on the evaluation documentation (self-evaluation questions, publications and other scientific activities), bibliometric reports and a doctoral survey. All the documents were delivered to the panellists for examination.
The evaluation questions formed a substantial part of the evaluation material. In addition, in spring 2011 the University carried out bibliometric analyses based on the data updated in the TUHAT system before 12 April 2011. The bibliometric analyses were based on those carried out by professionals from the CWTS/Leiden (Centre for Science and Technology Studies) and the Helsinki University Library. The analyses done by the CWTS/ the Centre for Science and Technology Studies Leiden were based on a standard method using indicators that have been tested and widely approved.
When using the Web of Science database, for example, traditional bibliometrics can be reasonably done in fields such as medicine, biosciences and natural sciences. The bibliometrics provided by the CWTS/Leiden covered only the publications that included a WoS identification number (UT) in the TUHAT research information system.
36 Introduction to the Evaluation
The analyses used publication data that was stored in the University’s own research information system. One reason for using TUHAT as a data source was to support the new information system and to accelerate its implementation. The total number of all publications stored in the research information system was 67,465 publications published in the years 2005–2010. A part of that, i.e., 16,000, had been assigned a WoS identification number. About 3,500 identification numbers were added afterwards to publications that were in the TUHAT system but had not WoS identification number. This was done in cooperation with the CWTS/Leiden.
Traditional bibliometrics are seldom relevant in the humanities and social sciences because international comparable databases do not include every type of high quality research publication, such as books and monographs and scientific journals in languages other than English. The Helsinki University Library carried out analyses for the RCs if their publications were not well represented in the Web of Science database, the RC’s number of publications was less than 50 or the internal coverage was less than 40%, which was the case for 58 RCs. Altogether, library analyses were carried out for 66 RCs. Also the Library analyses were provided for the RCs whose publications were analysed by the CWTS/Leiden but less than 40 percent of the scientific publications were not included in the CWTS/Leiden analyses.
It is well known that the analyses do not do justice to the humanities and social sciences. The Helsinki University Library tailored its methods and procedures to the fields of RCs. In practice, there was no model for carrying out relevant analyses for the humanities and social sciences and no applicable international indicators. A group of information specialists from the Library compared a variety of methods and chose methods that would produce sensible analyses for the RCs and the entire university. Because the Finnish national publication forum had not yet been implemented, the Library applied Norwegian, Australian and ERICH’s publication classifications. The results are unique, and only offer one picture of the level of publications in the humanities and social sciences, as international normalised figures for the comparisons are not available. It is hoped that the RCs themselves will continue the analyses and try to find benchmarks against which to clarify their international status. It is also hoped that relevant comparable figures will be available in the future when publication forums can be applied to national comparison.
The survey on doctoral training served as background material for the panels. The survey focused on the implementation of the University’s guidelines for the postgraduate degree. Altogether 431 PIs (166 women, 40%; 252 men, 60%; mode: 50–54 years) from the University of Helsinki completed the survey, and 1,184 doctoral students (770 women, 66%; 383 men, 34%; mode: 30–34 years) including all eleven faculties, responded to the survey.
The panels were provided with the evaluation material and all other necessary background information, such as basic information about the University of Helsinki and the Finnish higher education system.
37Introduction to the Evaluation
List of evaluation material• Registration documents of the RCs for the background information• Self evaluation material – answers to evaluation questions• Publications and “other scientific activities” based on the TUHAT RIS
- Statistics of publications- List of publications- Statistics of other scientific activities- List of other scientific activities
• Bibliometrics and comparable analyses- RC-specific analyses on publications 2005–2010, June 2011, provided by CWTS,
Leiden University, 18,000 publications (partly overlapping)- University level, fields of science-specific analyses on publications 2005–2010,
August 2011, provided by CWTS, Leiden University, 15,000 unique publications- RC-specific publication analyses on publications 2005–2010, June 2011, provided by
the Helsinki University Library. This was mainly for humanities and social sciences, 52,000 publications (partly overlapping)
- University level analyses on publications 2005–2010, November 2011, provided by the Helsinki University Library, 67,465 unique publications
• University level survey on doctoral training (August 2011)
Background material for the Panels
University of Helsinki• Basic information about the University of the Helsinki• The structure of doctoral training at the University of Helsinki• Previous evaluations of research at the University of Helsinki – links to the reports: 1998
and 2005
The Finnish Universities/Research Institutes• Finnish University system• Evaluation of the Finnish National Innovation System• The State and Quality of Scientific Research in Finland. Publication of the Academy of
Finland 9/09.
The evaluation Panels were provided with other relevant material on request before the meeting in Helsinki.
Responsibility of updating the Evaluation Material
The participating RCs were responsible for registering their participation in November 2010, answering the evaluation questions in January 2011 and for updating the data on their publications and other scientific activities in the research information system TUHAT by February 2011.
The Evaluation Office prepared compilations of all the material and requested the RCs to verify their publications (by 22 March 2011) and other scientific activities (by 20 May).
38 Introduction to the Evaluation
Most of the RCs carefully checked their publications and activities and took care of updating their information in the TUHAT system in time. If this was not the case, the evaluation office considered the material reliable as such. When “other scientific activities” were imported from the MUTI and YHTI databases, they did not match perfectly with the TUHAT data. One reason was that activities were not stored in a uniform way, the imported data was not satisfactory and in many cases, the quality of the stored data was not very high. However, only the researchers themselves could say what the correct data should be. Finally, the researchers are responsible for the data currently stored in the system.
1.9 EVALUATION QUESTIONS, ASPECTS AND MATERIAL
The participating RCs answered the following evaluation questions which are presented according to the evaluation form. In addition, TUHAT RIS was used to provide additional material as explained. For giving the feedback to the RCs, the panellists received the evaluation feedback form constructed in line with the evaluation questions.
The Panels were asked to give a written feedback for the following aspects: scientific quality, scientific significance, societal impact, processes in leadership and management, collaboration, innovativeness, future significance (Appendix 3. Evaluation aspects). The participating RCs were informed about the evaluation aspects before the submission of the evaluation material.
In each question the panellists were asked to indicate:
• Strengths• Areas of development• Other remarks• Recommendations
1. Focus and quality of the RC’s research
• Description of - the RC’s research focus - the quality of the RC’s research (incl. key research questions and results) - the scientific significance of the RC’s research in the research field(s)
• Identification of the ways to strengthen the focus and improve the quality of the RC’s research
The additional material: TUHAT compilation of the RC’s publications, analysis of the RC’s publications data (provided by University of Leiden and the Helsinki University Library)
Aspects: scientific quality, scientific significance, societal impact, innovativeness
Numeric evaluation: Outstanding (5), Excellent (4), Very good (3), Good (2), Sufficient (1)
39Introduction to the Evaluation
2. Practices and quality of doctoral training
• Organising of the doctoral training in the RC. Description of the RC’s principles for: - recruitment and selection of doctoral candidates - supervision of doctoral candidates - collaboration with faculties, departments/institutes, and potential graduate schools/doctoral programmes - good practises and quality assurance in doctoral training - assuring of good career perspectives for the doctoral candidates/fresh doctorates
• Identification of the RC’s strengths and challenges related to the practises and quality of doctoral training, and the actions planned for their development.
The additional material: TUHAT compilation of the RC’s other scientific activities/supervision of doctoral dissertations
Aspects: processes and good practices related to leadership and management
Numeric evaluation: Outstanding (5), Excellent (4), Very good (3), Good (2), Sufficient (1)
3. The societal impact of research and doctoral training
• Description on how the RC interacts with and contributes to the society (collaboration with public, private and/or 3rd sector).
• Identification of the ways to strengthen the societal impact of the RC’s research and doctoral training.
The additional material: TUHAT compilation of the RC’s other scientific activities.
Aspects: societal impact, national and international collaboration, innovativeness
Numeric evaluation: Outstanding (5), Excellent (4), Very good (3), Good (2), Sufficient (1)
4. International and national (incl. intersectoral) research collaboration and researcher mobility
• Description of - the RC’s research collaborations and joint doctoral training activities - how the RC has promoted researcher mobility
• Identification of the RC’s strengths and challenges related to research collaboration and researcher mobility, and the actions planned for their development.
Aspects: scientific quality, national and international collaboration
Numeric evaluation: Outstanding (5), Excellent (4), Very good (3), Good (2), Sufficient (1)
40 Introduction to the Evaluation
5. Operational conditions
• Description of the operational conditions in the RC’s research environment (e.g. research infrastructure, balance between research and teaching duties).
• Identification of the RC’s strengths and challenges related to operational conditions, and the actions planned for their development.
Aspects: processes and good practices related to leadership and management
6. Leadership and management in the researcher community
• Description of - the execution and processes of leadership in the RC - how the management-related responsibilities and roles are distributed in the RC - how the leadership- and management-related processes support
- high quality research- collaboration between principal investigators and other researchers in the RC the RC’s research focus- strengthening of the RC’s know-how
• Identification of the RC’s strengths and challenges related to leadership and management, and the actions planned for developing the processes
7. External competitive funding of the RC
• The RCs were asked to provide information of such external competitive funding, where: - the funding decisions have been made during 1.1.2005-31.12.2010, and - the administrator of the funding is/has been the University of Helsinki
• On the e-form the RCs were asked to provide:1) The relevant funding source(s) from a given list (Academy of Finland/Research
Council, TEKES/The Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation , EU, ERC, foundations, other national funding organisations, other international funding organizations), and
2) The total sum of funding which the organisation in question had decided to allocate to the RCs members during 1.1.2005–31.12.2010.
Competitive funding reported in the text was also to be considered when evaluating this point.
Aspects: scientific quality, scientific significance, societal impact, innovativeness, future significance
41Introduction to the Evaluation
8. The RC’s strategic action plan for 2011–2013
• RC’s description of their future perspectives in relation to research and doctoral training.
Aspects: scientific quality, scientific significance, societal Impact, processes and good practices related to leadership and management, national and international collaboration, innovativeness, future significance
9. Evaluation of the category of the RC in the context of entity of the evalua-tion material (1-8)
The RC’s fitness to the chosen participation categoryA written feedback evaluating the RC’s fitness to the chosen participation category
Numeric evaluation: Outstanding (5), Excellent (4), Very good (3), Good (2), Sufficient (1)
10. Short description of how the RC members contributed the compilation of the stage 2 material11. How the UH’s focus areas are presented in the RC’s research?12. RC-specific main recommendations based on the previous questions 1–1113. RC-specific conclusions
1.10 EVALUATION FEEDBACK AND CRITERIA
The panellists were expected to give evaluative and analytical feedback to each evaluation question according to their aspects in order to describe and justify the quality of the submitted material. In addition, the evaluation feedback should be pointed out the level of the material according to the following classifications:
• outstanding (5)• excellent (4)• very good (3)• good (2)• sufficient (1)
42 Introduction to the Evaluation
Evaluation according to the criteria was to be made with thorough consideration of the entire evaluation material of the RC in question. Finally, in questions 1-4 and 9, the panellists were expected to classify their written feedback into one of the provided levels (the levels included respective descriptions of ‘criteria’).
Description of criteria levels
Question 1 – Focus and quality of the RC’s research
Classification: Criteria (level of procedures and results)
Outstanding quality of procedures and results (5)
Outstandingly strong research, also from international perspective. Attracts great international interest with a wide impact, including publications in leading journals and/or monographs published by leading international publishing houses. The research has world leading qualities. The research focus, key research questions scientific significance, societal impact and innovativeness are of outstanding quality.
In cases where the research is of a national character and, in the judgement of the evaluators, should remain so, the concepts of ”international attention” or ”international impact” etc in the grading criteria above may be replaced by ”international comparability”.
Operations and procedures are of outstanding quality, transparent and shared in the community. The improvement of research and other efforts are documented and operations and practices are in alignment with the documentation. The ambition to develop the community together is of outstanding quality.
Excellent quality of procedures and results (4)
Research of excellent quality. Typically published with great impact, also internationally. Without doubt, the research has a leading position in its field in Finland.
Operations and procedures are of excellent quality, transparent and shared in the community. The improvement of research and other efforts are documented and operations and practices are to large extent in alignment with the documentation. The ambition to develop the community together is of excellent quality.
Very good quality of procedures and results (3)
The research is of such very good quality that it attracts wide national and international attention.
Operations and procedures are of very good quality, transparent and shared in the community. The improvement of research and other efforts are documented and operations and practices are to large extent in alignment with the documentation. The ambition to develop the community together is of very good quality.
43Introduction to the Evaluation
Good quality of procedures and results (2)
Good research attracting mainly national attention but possessing international potential, extraordinarily high relevance may motivate good research.
Operations and procedures are of good quality, shared occasionally in the community. The improvement of research and other efforts are occasionally documented and operations and practices are to large extent in alignment with the documentation. The ambition to develop the community together is of good quality.
Sufficient quality of procedures and results (1)
In some cases the research is insufficient and reports do not gain wide circulation or do not have national or international attention. Research activities should be revised.
Operations and procedures are of sufficient quality, shared occasionally in the community. The improvement of research and other efforts are occasionally documented and operations and practices are to some extent in alignment with the documentation. The ambition to develop the community together is of sufficient quality.
Question 2 – Doctoral training
Question 3 – Societal impact
Question 4 – Collaboration
Classification: Criteria (level of procedures and results)
Outstanding quality of procedures and results (5)
Procedures are of outstanding quality, transparent and shared in the community. The practices and quality of doctoral training/societal impact/international and national collaboration/leadership and management are documented and operations and practices are in alignment with the documentation. The ambition to develop the community together is of outstanding quality. The procedures and results are regularly evaluated and the feedback has an effect on the planning.
Excellent quality of procedures and results (4)
Procedures are of excellent quality, transparent and shared in the community. The practices and quality of doctoral training/societal impact/international and national collaboration/leadership and management are documented and operations and practices are to large extent in alignment with the documentation. The ambition to develop the community together is of excellent quality. The procedures and outcomes are evaluated and the feedback has an effect on the planning.
44 Introduction to the Evaluation
Very good quality of procedures and results (3)
Procedures are of very good quality, transparent and shared in the community. The practices and quality of doctoral training/societal impact/international and national collaboration/leadership and management are documented and operations and practices are to large extent in alignment with the documentation. The ambition to develop the community together is of very good quality.
Good quality of procedures and results (2)
Procedures are of good quality, shared occasionally in the community. The practices and quality of doctoral training/societal impact/international and national collaboration/leadership and management are documented and operations and practices are to large extent in alignment with the documentation. The ambition to develop the community together is of good quality.
Sufficient quality of procedures and results (1)
Procedures are of sufficient quality, transparent and shared in the community. The practices and quality of doctoral training/societal impact/international and national collaboration/leadership and management are occasionally documented and operations and practices are to some extent in alignment with the documentation. The ambition to develop the community together is of sufficient quality.
Question 9 – Category
Participation category – fitness for the category chosenThe choice and justification for the chosen category below should be reflected in the
RC’s responses to the evaluation questions 1–8.1 The research of the participating community represents the international cutting
edge in its field.2. The research of the participating community is of high quality, but the community
in its present composition has yet to achieve strong international recognition or a clear break-through.
3. The research of the participating community is distinct from mainstream research, and the special features of the research tradition in the field must be considered in the evaluation. The research is of high quality and has great significance and impact in its field. However, the generally used research evaluation methods do not necessarily shed sufficient light on the merits of the research.
4. The research of the participating community represents an innovative opening. A new opening can be an innovative combination of research fields, or it can be proven to have a special social, national or international demand or other significance. Even if the researcher community in its present composition has yet to obtain proof of
45Introduction to the Evaluation
international success, its members can produce convincing evidence of the high level of their previous research.
5. The research of the participating community has a highly significant societal impact. The participating researcher community is able to justify the high social significance of its research. The research may relate to national legislation, media visibility or participation in social debate, or other activities promoting social development and human welfare. In addition to having societal impact, the research must be of a high standard.
An example of outstanding fitness for category choice (5) 11
The RC’s presentation and argumentation for the chosen category are convincing. The RC recognizes its real capacity and apparent outcomes in a wider context to the research communities. The specific character of the RC is well-recognized and well stated in the responses. The RC fits optimally for the category.
The previously mentioned definition of outstanding was only an example in order to assist the panellists in the positioning of the classification. There was no exact definition for the category fitness.
11 The panels discussed the category fitness and made the final conclusions of the interpretation of it.
46 Introduction to the Evaluation
1.11 TIMETABLE OF THE EVALUATION
The entire evaluation was implemented during the university’s strategy period 2010–2012. The preliminary results were available for the planning of the new strategy period in late autumn 2011. The final evaluation reports were published in May 2012. The RC-specific draft reports were delivered to the RCs in January 2012.
Table 1. Main stages in the evaluation
Month and year Evaluation Office Participating Researcher Community – RC
September 2010 Briefing sessions
October 2010 Publication of the guidelines for participation in the evaluation
November 2010 Registration for the evaluation by 30 November 2010
December 2010 Notifications sent to researcher communities confirming whether they fulfil the requirements for participation
January 2011 Evaluation questions by 31 January 2011
February 2011 Compilation and analysis of the researcher communities’ data from the TUHAT database
Submission of the publications in TUHAT by 28 February 2011
March 2011 University level analysis of data from the TUHAT database University level survey on doctoral training
Check-up of the compilations made based on the information in the TUHAT database
June 2011 Evaluation materials to the panellists
July-August 2011 Panels at work
September 2011 Panel meetings in Helsinki
November 2011 Written feedback from the panels Preliminary University level results
January 2012 RC-specific reports to the RCs
April/May 2012 Publication of the evaluation reports 136+1
RC-specific and University Level reports
RC specific evaluation reports have been published as 136 unique volumes and are public as well as the entire University report.
3 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − BIOLOGICAL, AGRICULTURAL AND VETERINARY SCIENCES
4 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − MEDICINE, BIOMEDICINE AND HEALTH SCIENCES
5 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − NATURAL SCIENCES
6 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − HUMANITIES
7 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − SOCIAL SCIENCES
8 OVERALL STATISTICS ON THE EVALUATION
9 RESEARCH PERFORMANCE
10 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSES
11 SUMMARY REPORT OF DOCTORAL TRAINING
12 CONCLUDING REMARKS
13 APPENDICES
1 INTRODUCTION TO THE EVALUATION
2 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION
49Implementation of the External Evaluation
2. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION
2.1 FIVE EVALUATION PANELS
Five Evaluation Panels consisting of independent, renowned and highly respected experts evaluated the publications, scientific activities and other evaluation material of the RCs. The main domains of the Panels were:
• Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences• Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences• Natural Sciences• Humanities• Social Sciences
The University invited 10 renowned scientists to act as Chairs or Vice-Chairs of the Panels based on the suggestions of faculties and independent institutes. Besides leading the work of the Panel, an additional role of the Chairs was to discuss with other Panel Chairs in order to adopt a broadly similar approach.
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010 37
2 Implementation of External Evaluation
2.1 Five evaluation Panels
Five Evaluation Panels consisting of independent, renowned and highly respected expertsevaluated the publications, scientific activities and other evaluation material of the RCs. Themain domains of the Panels were:
1. Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences2. Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences3. Natural Sciences4. Humanities5. Social Sciences
The University invited 10 renowned scientists to act as Chairs or Vice-Chairs of the Panels based on the suggestions of faculties and independent institutes. Besides leading the work of thePanel, an additional role of the Chairs was to discuss with other Panel Chairs in order to adopt abroadly similar approach.
The Panel compositions were nominated by the Rector of the University 27th April 2011. The participating RCs suggested the Panel members. The total number of nominated Panelmembers was 49. In addition to the nominated Panels two external experts participated in their special area in writing feedback. The reason for a smaller number (30%) of panellists as compared to the previous evaluations was the character of the evaluation – meta-evaluation. The panellists did not read research reports or abstracts but instead, they evaluated answers to the evaluation questions, tables and compilations of publications, other scientific activities andbibliometric or comparable analyses.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13
Countries of residence of the panellists
Add. exp.
Panellists
E u r o p e O u t s i d e E u r o p e
The Panel compositions were nominated by the Rector of the University 27 April 2011. The participating RCs suggested the Panel members. The total number of nominated Panel members was 49. In addition to the nominated Panels two external experts participated in their special area in writing feedback. The reason for a smaller number (30%) of panellists as compared to the previous evaluations was the character of the evaluation – meta-evaluation. The panellists did not read research reports or abstracts but instead, they evaluated answers
50 Implementation of the External Evaluation
to the evaluation questions, tables and compilations of publications, other scientific activities and bibliometric or comparable analyses.
The Panels were primarily formed in accordance with divisions between the main fields of science. The Evaluation Steering Group reserved the right to also form Panels representing a narrower selection of fields. The final number of Panels and divisions between fields of research were determined on the basis of field-specific interest in the evaluation. For the evaluation of cross/inter/multidisciplinary research, the RCs were requested to propose a primary field with the most significance from the point of view of research.
The evaluation material was submitted to the Panels in June 2011. Site visits were not organised because interviews for 136 RCs was not possible in practice in the frame of time schedule.
The Panel meetings were held in Helsinki:
• On 11–13 September 2011: (1) Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, (2) Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences and (3) Natural Sciences.
• On 18–20 September 2011: (4) Humanities and (5) Social Sciences.
2.2 EVALUATION RELATED TASKS BEFORE THE PANEL MEETINGS IN HELSINKI
The Panel Chairs and Vice-Chairs had a pre-meeting on 27 May 2011 in Amsterdam. The Evaluation Office made a proposal of division of RCs’ material between the panellists. The suggestion was preliminary and the Chairs and Vice-Chairs confirmed the division, made necessary changes together with the evaluation office and completed the division of RCs to the panellists within a week after the Chair meeting in Amsterdam.
Desk-work before the Panel meetings in September 2011
During the time allotted for desk work, each panellist operated both as a first and a second reviewer. In some cases there were more reviewers as well. Each Panel had a detailed reading list that was allocated to pairs of panellists. The pairs of panellists mutually agreed on a working schedule and made sure that the desk work feedback was returned by the deadline of 22 August 2011. The Evaluation Office was informed of any exceptions to the agreed schedule. The desk work was expected to happen mainly in August, but was allowed to be done as soon as all the evaluation material was available in late June.
The exact timing of individual desk work depended on the schedule agreed on between the pairs of reviewers. The first reviewer wrote the initial feedback, and the second reviewer continued writing, disagreed, agreed or added comments. The second reviewer returned the document to the first reviewer. The point was that the preliminary feedback should form a complete draft before the Panel’s meeting in Helsinki. From the point of view of the writing process, it was important that the feedback included argumentation and justification so that it could easily be understood by the other Panel members. Diversity and opposing points were acceptable in the feedback. There were
51Implementation of the External Evaluation
136 RCs participating in the evaluation, thus each panellist prepared the draft reports for approximately 6–12 RCs. In some cases reviewers evaluated over the Panels.
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010 39
Figure 1. Example of the pre-work in August and the work in Helsinki in September
The evaluation feedback was to be written in a format similar to that prepared by the Evaluation Office. All the feedback was stored on the Panels’ non-public WIKI site after the first reviewer had sent it to the evaluation office.
Division of labour in the Panel meetings in Helsinki
In September, each Panel met for three days to continue their reporting responsibilities and to finalise the preliminary evaluation feedback. During the meetings in Helsinki, each Panel member was responsible for writing his/her contribution to the preliminary RC-specific reports, which were compiled in the Panel meetings and, when necessary, finalised after the meetings in Helsinki. The Chairs and Vice-Chairs had the main responsibility in the compilation of the feedback. The division of labour in the Panel meetings was decided by the Chairs. Suggestions for practical working methods were introduced to the Panels before the meetings in Helsinki. The Panel worked, in addition to working in sub-groups, as an entity and discussed the questions/aspects/feedback that they considered important to share together in order to have a common understanding about the content matters, recommendations and the numeric level of the feedback. The Panels, however, had the freedom to be flexible in their working methods, and the ways in which those methods were implemented were diverse. Most of the Panels did not work in sub-groups.
The Panel Chairs introduced the preliminary feedback and findings at a general level in the September meetings to the RCs on Tuesday afternoon of the 13th or 20th of September, to which all the RCs’ representatives were invited.
2.3 Reporting aims of the Panels
The Panels gave their feedback at the following levels:
Figure 1. Example of the pre-work in August and the work in Helsinki in September
The evaluation feedback was to be written in a format similar to that prepared by the Evaluation Office. All the feedback was stored on the Panels’ non-public WIKI site after the first reviewer had sent it to the evaluation office.
Division of labour in the Panel meetings in Helsinki
In September, each Panel met for three days to continue their reporting responsibilities and to finalise the preliminary evaluation feedback. During the meetings in Helsinki, each Panel member was responsible for writing his/her contribution to the preliminary RC-specific reports, which were compiled in the Panel meetings and, when necessary, finalised after the meetings in Helsinki. The Chairs and Vice-Chairs had the main responsibility in the compilation of the feedback. The division of labour in the Panel meetings was decided by the Chairs. Suggestions for practical working methods were introduced to the Panels before the meetings in Helsinki. The Panel worked, in addition to working in sub-groups, as an entity and discussed the questions/aspects/feedback that they considered important to share together in order to have a common understanding about the content matters, recommendations and the numeric level of the feedback. The Panels, however, had the freedom to be flexible in their working methods, and the ways in which those methods were implemented were diverse. Most of the Panels did not work in sub-groups.
52 Implementation of the External Evaluation
The Panel Chairs introduced the preliminary feedback and findings at a general level in the September meetings to the RCs on Tuesday afternoon of the 13 or 20 of September, to which all the RCs’ representatives were invited.
2.3 REPORTING AIMS OF THE PANELS
The Panels gave their feedback at the following levels:TYPE OF REPORT VERSIONS MAIN RESPONSIBILITY1. RC-specific evaluation feedback 136 separate reports
– electronic versionsPanel Members / Chairs
2. University level report in the form of panel-specific evaluation feedback
one report – paperback and electronic versions
Chairs / Panel Members
The Evaluation Panels were responsible for writing feedback and comments before, during and after the Panel meetings in Helsinki. Most of the written work was to be done in pairs before the Panel meetings. During the process, the Evaluation Office had an option to request for additional argumentation or clarifications from Panel members. After having received all the feedback the final versions were compiled by the Evaluation Office.
The University level Panel feedback was introduced according to the general themes. The themes were not common in all the Panels. The final feedback was compiled by the Panel Chairs and Vice-Chairs and was published as such.
2.4 RC-SPECIFIC EVALUATION REPORTS
RC-specific feedback was published electronically as 136 separate reports. The RC-specific reports include mainly the titles as outlined:
• Introduction to the evaluation• Evaluation feedback to the evaluation questions - considered in parallel with the self-
evaluation questions• Conclusions or summary• Appendices
- Self-evaluation material° Registration material° Answers to evaluation questions
- List of participants- List of publications- List of other scientific activities- Bibliometric analyses
The panels were encouraged to write honest feedback including thorough arguments and evidence. It was requested that the feedback be evaluative and reflective in addition to any necessary factual descriptions. Evaluative writing was defined as stating what is valuable and describing the relevant background and context.
53Implementation of the External Evaluation
The panels were expected not to follow the normal distribution in scores but to compare international level in each field of science. In addition to performance, processes were evaluated, as well.
The other important aspect was that the scores should not directly depend on bibliometric indicators but instead to take into account the evaluation material as a whole. The panels stated in detail in RC-specific reports the basis of scoring. The level of scores can be judged only in the RC-specific reports. General impression can be judged reading both RC-specific and university- level reports.
The RC-specific reports were distributed to the RCs by the end of January 2012 and published at the same time as the entire university report, in May 2012.
2.5 UNIVERSITY LEVEL REPORT
The panel specific reports constitute the main part of the University level report. They are presented on a general level and are summaries of the discussions in the panels. The recommendations are addressed generally to the RCs, to the entire university and, in some cases, to the departments and faculties.
The university level report includes five main sections:
1. Introduction to the evaluation – the starting points of the evaluation2. Panel-specific feedback based on the evaluation material of the Researcher Communities
for the panels – five main chapters Panels have written their feedback based on the RC-specific reports, background
documents, bibliometric reports and discussions in the meetings in Helsinki. Evaluation Office prepared a combination of bibliometrics based on both the CWTS/
Leiden and HULibrary indicators.3. University level bibliometric report provided by the CWTS/Leiden The planning of the analyses was done together with the Evaluation Office of the
University. The report presents the analyses of the fields of sciences according to the classification of the Web of Science (35 fields). Thus the analyses do not follow the faculty structures or the division of the fields of sciences where the Researcher Communities actually publish their research results. The data is based mainly on the updated publications of RCs not the entire University. Therefore university level conclusions of the performance should be only carefully drawn.
Each Researcher Community, except in the Panels of Humanities and Social Sciences, received detailed bibliometric analysis based on their WoS publications. These analyses have been published only in RC-specific reports.
4. University level bibliometric analyses provided by the Helsinki University Library The Library bibliometric analyses were implemented for the first time at the University
and were experienced very useful. Analyses produced new information about the publishing practices at the University. International, comparative field-normalised indicators are not available and thus the direct comparisons should not be done. Even inside the panels’ fields of sciences the results should be only carefully compared and the conclusions should not be done before the more thorough analyses. The analyses follow the faculty structures and tell about the publishing practices on the faculty level.
54 Implementation of the External Evaluation
RC-specific analyses, mainly for Humanities, Social Sciences and Computer Sciences, were done and published only in RC-specific reports. They shed light on the publishing practices and profiles of the RCs.
5. Doctoral survey carried out by the Centre for Research and Development of Higher Education, the University of Helsinki
The planning and implementation were carried out together with the steering group of the evaluation. The report of doctoral survey follows the faculty structures. The survey provided background material for the panels.
The Panel’s conclusions about the strengths and areas in need of development on the university level were compiled into a report to be published both as a paperback and an electronic version in May 2012.
4 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − MEDICINE, BIOMEDICINE AND HEALTH SCIENCES
5 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − NATURAL SCIENCES
6 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − HUMANITIES
7 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − SOCIAL SCIENCES
8 OVERALL STATISTICS ON THE EVALUATION
9 RESEARCH PERFORMANCE
10 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSES
11 SUMMARY REPORT OF DOCTORAL TRAINING
12 CONCLUDING REMARKS
13 APPENDICES
2 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION
3 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − BIOLOGICAL, AGRICULTURAL AND VETERINARY SCIENCES
1 INTRODUCTION TO THE EVALUATION
57Panel-specific Feedback - Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences
PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − BIOLOGICAL, AGRICULTURAL AND VETERINARY SCIENCES
Panel membersProfessor Ary A. Hoffman, Chair
Professor Barbara Koch, Vice-Chair
Professor Per-Anders Hansson
Professor Danny Huylebroeck
Professor Jonathan King
Professor Hannu J.T. Korhonen
Professor Kristiina Kruus
Professor Joakim Lundeberg
Professor Dominiek Maes
Professor Olli Saastamoinen
Professor Kai Simons
58 Panel-specific Feedback - Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences
Researcher Communities in the Panel of Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary SciencesNumber of RCs 27, principal investigators 249 and other members 1,096
ACRONYM OF RC
NAME OF RC RESPONSIBLE PERSON OF RC
PIS MBS. TOT.
ARC Avian Research Community Brommer, Jon 5 22 27
BIOSYST Biological Systematics and Taxonomy Stenroos, Soili 13 25 38
CellMolBiol The Research Program in Cell and Molecular Biology
Lappalainen, Pekka 7 40 47
CoE MRG Centre of Excellence in Metapopulation Research Hanski, Ilkka 8 47 55
CoE_VIRRES Center of Excellence in Virus Research Bamford, Dennis 6 37 43
CoE-MiFoSaPLUS
Extended Center of Excellence in Microbiology and Food Safety Research
Palva, Airi 13 77 90
EGRU Ecological Genetics Research Unit Merilä, Juha 5 25 30
ENIGMA Environmental change and management Korhola, Atte 9 24 33
EvoDevo Helsinki EvoDevo Jernvall, Jukka 5 16 21
FoodNutri Food and Nutrition Sciences Lamberg-Allardt, Christel
20 78 98
FRESH Freshwater Research Horppila, Jukka 8 20 28
HelDevBio Helsinki Developmental Biology Research Community
Thesleff, Irma 11 54 65
INBIOS Integrative Biodiversity Science Rikkinen, Jouko 11 30 41
LEGMILK Home-grown feeds, milk and healthy aging Wähälä, Kristiina 4 18 22
Membrec Cell membrane recognition and dynamics Gahmberg, Carl G. 7 36 43
MICRO Research and postgraduate training in microbiology
Sivonen, Kaarina 10 75 85
MUSGEN Gene-culture evolution in music Järvelä, Irma 2 8 10
PEATLANDERS Peatland Ecology Group in the University of Helsinki
Vasander, Harri 9 22 31
PHABIO Pharmaceutical Biology Vuorela, Heikki 3 22 25
PHYTOPATH Phytopathogen Research Valkonen, Jari 4 43 47
SB&B Structural Biology & Biophysics Programme Wikström, Mårten 10 29 39
SSA Science of Sustainable Agriculture Stoddard, Frederick
27 68 95
SUVALUE Sustainable Forest Value Chains Valsta, Lauri 11 48 59
VetSci Veterinary science: clinical, translational, and animal welfare research
Peltoniemi, Olli 19 93 112
ViiGen Viikki Genome Biology Research Community Helariutta, Yrjö 7 35 42
VITRI Viikki Tropical Resources Institute Luukkanen, Olavi 3 30 33
VMPS Viikki Molecular Plant Sciences Palva, Tapio 12 74 86
The panel’s feedback is presented in chapters 3, 3.1–3.2. The tables and figures in chapter 3 are compiled by the Evaluation Office based on the statistics of CWTS/Leiden and the Helsinki University Library.
59Panel-specific Feedback - Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences
Fields of sciences of the Researcher Communities in the Panel of Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences
RC SUBFIELD 1 SUBFIELD 2 SUBFIELD 3 SUBFIELD 4 OTHER SCIENTIFIC SUBFIELD
ARC Evolutionary Biology
Ecology Ornithology Genetics and Heredity
BIOSYST Biology Mycology Plant Sciences Zoology Systematics and Taxonomy
CellMolBiol Cell Biology Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
- -
CoE MRG Ecology Evolutionary Biology
Mathematical and Computational Biology
Biodiversity Conservation
Bioinformatics, Genomics, Genetics
CoE_VIRRES Virology Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Microscopy Microbiology Bioinformatics Structural biology
CoE-MiFoSaPLUS
Veterinary Sciences
Food Science and Technology
- -
EGRU Evolutionary Biology
Genetics and Heredity
Ecology Zoology Biodiversity Conservation, Fisheries, Marine and Freshwater Biology, Biology, Mathematical and Computational Biology
ENIGMA Environmental Sciences
- - -
EvoDevo Evolutionary Biology
Developmental Biology
Paleontology Mathematical and Computational Biology
Evodevo
FoodNutri Food Science and Technology
- - -
FRESH Limnology Marine and Freshwater Biology
Fisheries Ecology
HelDevBio Developmental Biology
Genetics and Heredity
Evolutionary Biology
Cell Biology Pediatrics, Dentistry
INBIOS Biodiversity Conservation
Evolutionary Biology
Ecology Geosciences, Multidisciplinary
Geoinformatics
LEGMILK Chemistry, Organic
Agriculture, Dairy and Animal Science
Veterinary Sciences
Chemistry, Medicinal
Molecular chemistry in life science Organic analysis Spectrometry
Membrec Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Cell Biology Biochemical Research Methods
- Cell Membrane Research
MICRO Microbiology Biotechnology and Applied Microbiology
- -
60 Panel-specific Feedback - Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences
RC SUBFIELD 1 SUBFIELD 2 SUBFIELD 3 SUBFIELD 4 OTHER SCIENTIFIC SUBFIELD
MUSGEN Genetics and Heredity
Evolutionary Biology
Mathematical and Computational Biology
Music Music education, Neuropsychology
Peatlanders Ecology Forestry Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Biodiversity Conservation
Biogeochemistry
PHABIO Chemistry, Medicinal
Biotechnology and Applied Microbiology
Plant Sciences -
PHYTOPATH Agriculture, Multidisciplinary
Forestry Virology Biotechnology and Applied Microbiology
SB&B Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Biophysics Biology Chemistry, Multidisciplinary
SSA Agriculture, Multidisciplinary
- - -
SUVALUE Forestry Economics Operations Research and Management Science
Remote Sensing Techonology and Engineering; Materials Science: Paper and Wood
VetSci Veterinary Sciences
- - -
ViiGen Genetics and Heredity
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Mathematical and Computational Biology
Ecology Bioinformatics and genomics
VITRI Forestry Agricultural Economics and Policy
Environmental Sciences
-
VMPS Plant Sciences Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Cell Biology Developmental Biology
Genetics and genomics
The table shows the fields of sciences chosen by the RCs in the Panel of Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences. Subfields 1−4 follow the classification of Web of Science (for a complete list, see Appendix 4), and “other scientific subfield” is the RC’s own description.
61Panel-specific Feedback - Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences
3. PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − BIOLOGICAL, AGRICULTURAL AND VETERINARY SCIENCES
The Panel was positive about the RC concept. RCs provide flexible units that have the potential to capture research units without the constraint of departmental boundaries. By facilitating the establishment of RCs, The University of Helsinki has the potential to develop dynamic research units that can explore multi- and inter-disciplinary research and capture expertise available within the University. These units may then mature into groups that bid for centre of excellence funds and/or funds from other organizations including those available through EC schemes. By building a profile within the university and the wider community, RCs have the potential to have an impact at the societal-level and to be widely recognized for their expertise. They may also form effective units for acquiring and effectively using large items of equipment and other infrastructure without aiming themselves for becoming large infrastructure facilities only, which should be funded separately.
The BIO sector at UH is in a healthy position, and includes several world class research groups as well as nationally significant training centres feeding into industry and the wider community. BIO compares favourably with other UH sectors in performance. For instance based on figures provided by UH on University Level Biometrics (“Overall figures (2005–2009, citation data until 2010”) and the 35 field of sciences grouped according to the panels), the BIO sector provides a substantial output in terms of publications (31% of University total), the sector’s citations (normalized) are higher than expectations (1.38 versus 1) and the number of citations in the top 10% of cited papers is also higher than expected (1.33 versus 1). The “basic biological sciences” perform particularly well, producing within the BIO sector the highest number of papers, citations per paper, and impact as assessed by normalized citations and papers in the top 10% (all exceeding university averages even without accounting for differences among disciplines).
The BIO sector provides core postgraduate training for a number of industries. These include the pharmaceutical industry, food industry, forestry, agriculture, veterinary medicine, and environmental/natural resource management including fisheries.
The BIO sector fits into several Key Focus areas at UH. These include the “basic structure of life” and the “changing environment”. Several national centres of excellence in this key focus area are in the BIO sector. The BIO sector also is covered in the “welfare and safety” focus area which includes a national centre of excellence.
The evaluation Panel included membership from across the BIO sector, and engaged in a series of lively and constructive discussions during the evaluation period. The Panel considered that it was of an appropriate size and that its members were at an appropriate level of seniority. All members contributed actively to discussions and evaluations. The Panel was well served by the Vice-Rector’s Office during its deliberations and the TUHAT data was considered particularly useful for making evaluations even when there is a risk that some information may not have been fully up to date. The Panel
62 Panel-specific Feedback - Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences
has provided detailed feedback to the RCs and also made a series of recommendations to the University in the areas of doctoral training and further development of the RC concept. These recommendations should be seen as constructive and designed to further enhance the excellent training and research already being undertaken at UH at a time when there appear to be major changes within the Finnish academic sector and when the University appears to be gaining greater financial and academic autonomy.
3.1 DOCTORAL TRAINING
The Panel was generally impressed with the training programs outlined in the RC documents. It also noted the confidential Summary report on doctoral students’ and principal investigators’ doctoral training experiences, and some issues of concern in this report.
The Panel notes that there are high proportions of students who are not in doctoral programs (53% biology/environment, 65% agriculture/forestry, 60% veterinary medicine). The frequency of supervision varied notably among areas with biology/environment/vet students getting frequent supervision but in some areas it was typical to receive supervision either monthly or every 2 months, and a substantial fraction rarely interacting with their supervisors. It is noteworthy that “both students (45%) and PIs (39%) highlighted supervision in the research process – including giving practical help and advice concerning the research topic and research methods, as well as planning the research and reporting on it – to be a supervisor’s most important task” whereas this might be expected as the central role of the supervisor. There were differences between areas, with research supervision being least important in veterinary science and coaching of students being highlighted in biology/environment.
The report notes that “constructive supervision and feedback, working conditions, and sense of belonging to the scholarly community” scored lowest for biology/environment students, whereas for veterinary science there was a strong sense of belonging. The majority of students were satisfied at least “partly” with their supervision but biology/environment/veterinary science/agriculture tended to score at the lower end when compared to other faculties. Students have quite a high success in finding job placements, although it is noteworthy that a substantial fraction of placements (<50%) do not involve research. This makes it noteworthy that “the students also reported that the studies were less likely to provide the skills needed in work outside of university” and that “the students also reported a need for extra courses, especially in research methodology, management and project skills, and career planning”.
The Panel took account of these comments in preparing its recommendations. The general recommendations of the Panel to the University are as follows:
1. To improve the quality of doctoral training, more support should be provided for promoting teaching by graduate students. Currently the time allocation to teaching is only 5%. Teaching experience provides an important component of the doctoral experience and improves the breadth of training.
2. The structure of a PhD thesis is currently quite prescriptive in many RCs, in terms of specifying a substantial number of accepted and submitted papers. In some graduate
63Panel-specific Feedback - Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences
schools and RCs the requirement amounts even to 5 accepted papers. To create more flexibility, we recommend that this requirement be relaxed. When there is a strong focus on a requested minimum number of publications, student projects are likely to be less risky, and there is a tendency to focus too much on the smallest potential publishable units rather than well integrated papers in high profile journals. In our experience, a single paper with a high impact can be preferable to a series of papers.
3. The Panel recommends that ways are explored to reduce the time students take to complete their PhD training. In some RCs, training can take many years, and this may have a negative effect on employability. We suspect that the adoption of (2) above will assist in reducing completion times.
4. More attention should be paid to developing consistent course components for doctoral students that widens their training. It is clear that many graduates will not find employment as researchers within the Finnish system. To equip graduates for positions outside a research environment, we recommend that courses are developed that allow students to acquire a wider set of skills in areas like communication, biostatistics and so on.
5. Steps should be taken to ensure that all students are aware of multidisciplinary approaches in tackling research questions. In many RCs there is awareness of and emphasis on multi-disciplinary training, but the Panel feels that steps should be taken to ensure that all doctoral students have some exposure to multiple disciplines as part of their normal training. This might be achieved by ensuring that students have placements in more than one laboratory, as is often done overseas.
6. The nature of doctoral training seems to depend too much on the type of funding available to support the project. If funding for doctoral training is attached to a specific project, there is a particular danger that the doctoral training experience will be quite narrow. The Panel recommends that ways of standardizing training within disciplines across the BIO sector be explored. The Panel also notes the large difference in the frequency of interactions between the student and supervisor across disciplines and wonders if the monthly interactions in the Agricultural sector are sufficient to ensure high quality doctoral training.
7. Ways should be explored to give doctoral students greater ownership of their projects by linking funding to performance. In some institutions students develop and present their potential project ideas to a forum, and funding depends on the grades they receive at this time. In institutions in some countries (unlike in Finland) students are able to directly apply for their own funding, and this also promotes independence and project ownership.
8. No information was provided about drop out/completion rates of PhD students and the Panel recommends that that this type of information be made available through the University. This type of information (along with graduate placements) is critical when assessing the success of doctoral training.
3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE RC CONCEPT
After assessing and discussing the written material provided by the RCs, the Panel came up with a number of recommendations to assist in the further development of the RC concept. In making these recommendations, the Panel noted the University’s strategy for 2010–2012. In particular, it noted that the University aims to “establish up-to-date and discipline-related performance indicators that measure the quality and quantity of research activities” to recognize strengths, and that the University “seeks to improve the funding base
64 Panel-specific Feedback - Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences
for its research activities” as well as being interested in research quality assessment that was to be followed up regularly. It was also noted that UH “will define its most important research infrastructure requirements and technology services and will participate in national and international projects on these issues”. The Strategic document also indicated the University’s interest in taking “its national and global community responsibilities into consideration” with a focus on societal development and interest in “societal significance of science and education”. To meet these strategic goals, the Panel felt that several changes to the RC concept should be considered.
1. The Panel recommends that any funds earmarked by the University for the further development of the RCs should not be allocated based on a ranked list of numerical scores, including the scores from this evaluation round. Instead funding allocations should take account of the comments from the Panel, future potential development of the RCs, and the category as well as size of RCs.
2. The number of categories available for the RCs should be reduced. In particular, category 2 is very closely related to category 1 and these could be collapsed as long as an evaluation is made of the research opportunity and seniority of principal investigators involved in an RC. That way RCs involving promising young researchers can be identified and separated from those based around more senior and established researchers. The Panel also felt that high quality specialist research does not specifically need to be separated from category 1 research. In our evaluations, high quality specialist groups often performed as well as category 1 RCs – for example based on bibliometrics.
3. The evaluation exercise needs to place more emphasis on research adoption and path to impact. Given the University’s increasing interest in innovation for promoting industry-based developments and for strengthening interactions with government agencies, the Panel felt that a greater emphasis on impact outside of scientific publications was warranted. We note that the Academy of Finland currently provides the bulk of support for the RCs, whereas a greater focus on path to impact could assist in diversifying funding sources including access to TEKES funding and some EU schemes.
4. Where PIs participate in more than one group, the component of the PIs funding attributable to that group needs to be clearly defined. This helps in assessing the funding gained by a particular RC.
5. Metrics need to be expressed relative to the number of investigators in a group. Opportunities that PIs have for undertaking research need to be explicitly spelt out in defining group size. Indeed, no information on: 1) output per full time professor / persons with fixed position 2) output per funding unit (e.g. number of publications (+ IF) per 100,000 or 500,000 euro funding) obviously taking into account the variation in working cost per field (animal experimentation, high-throughput sequencing, expensive culture media for stem cell related work)
6. An opportunity should exist for panels to interview representatives from the RCs. Site visits should be part of the normal assessment procedure in the future rounds, although we appreciate that this was impossible if 27 RCs are being evaluated like in this first round.
7. Mechanisms should be put in place to facilitate steps to broaden the funding base of RCs. Low funding from EC sources seems to partly reflect researcher concerns about onerous administrative requirements associated with these grants. However these EC funds can be valuable because there are substantial benefits associated with collaboration across the EC. The University should explore ways of reducing this burden for researchers.
65Panel-specific Feedback - Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences
8. RCs should provide lists of top 10 papers that are essential in the past and indicate which of those are a solid basis for the future development of the RC. In addition, brief information should be provided about the relevance and impact of each paper for the development of the RC.
9. The University needs to improve its definition of an RC. Tighter definition is required around the size of the RC and expectations. We prefer RCs that involve a merger of disparate areas where there is likely to be a major benefit, leading to new research directions and capturing novel and innovative concepts. Our expectation is that an RC is a dynamic initiative that leads to the development of intellectual capital that can promote high quality PhD training and exciting multidisciplinary research (but this was not addressed in many proposals).
10. The RCs should have defined more clearly the stage of their development (although some did). This helps in the evaluation process.
11. Internal funding available to the RCs needs to be clearly defined. Internal funding was never quantified even though it clearly contributes to (for instance) centre of excellence initiatives.
12. Because the categories available to RCs emphasize different components, the final evaluation of an RC should weight sections of the application differently depending on the category selected.
13. It is inappropriate to provide ratings for societal impact of RCs unless the RCs specifically nominate to be evaluated as part of this category. The Panel appreciates that societal impact should be documented by all RCs but numerical scores should not be assigned unless there is a specific focus on this category.
66 Panel-specific Feedback - Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences
3.3 DISTRIBUTION OF SCORES
Table 2. Numeric evaluation of RCs in the Panel of Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Science
RCS (27) QUALITY OF RESEARCH
DOCTORAL TRAINING
SOCIETAL IMPACT
CO- OPERATION
CATEGORY FITNESS
SUM OF SCORES
CATEGORY
ARC 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 11.0 1
BIOSYST 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 19.0 3
CellMolBiol 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 24.0 1
CoE MRG 5.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 5.0 22.5 1
CoE_VIRRES 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 21.5 1
CoE-MiFoSaPLUS 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 24.0 1
EGRU 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 5.0 23.0 1
ENIGMA 4.0 2.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 17.0 1
EvoDevo 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 23.0 3
FoodNutri 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 19.0 5
FRESH 3.0 2.7 4.0 2.7 4.0 16.4 3
HelDevBio 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 1
INBIOS 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 17.0 4
LEGMILK 2.5 3.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 13.0 4
MEMBREC 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 21.0 2
MICRO 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 21.0 1
MUSGEN 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 21.0 4
PEATLANDERS 5.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 20.0 3
PHABIO 3.0 3.5 3.0 4.0 3.0 16.5 3
PHYTOPATH 4.5 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 21.5 1
SB&B 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 20.0 1
SSA 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 17.5 2
SUVALUE 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 18.5 5
VetSci 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 20.0 2
ViiGen 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 17.5 4
VITRI 3.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 2.5 19.0 1
VMPS 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 24.0 1
Average 4.02 3.88 4.02 3.93 3.89 19.7
The table is organized in alphabetical order. The mean of the scores in quality of research is relatively high, 4.02 (panels’ average 3.96). For a comparison of panels, see Table 33. The RCs are 27 altogether.
67Panel-specific Feedback - Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–201052
Figure 2. Distributions of the numeric evaluation of the Panel of Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences
The bars are organised according to the order of the first four evaluation questions. Category fitness was added to the results. Category fitness can be considered to represent the type of performance other than the previous four evaluation questions. Only in three cases, category fitness would change the numeric order of the RCs.
0,0
5,0
10,0
15,0
20,0
25,0
30,0
HelD
evBi
o
CellM
olBi
ol
CoE-
MiF
oSaP
LUS
VMPS
EvoD
evo
EGRU
CoE
MRG
CoE_
VIRR
ES
PHYT
OPA
TH
MEM
BREC
MIC
RO
MU
SGEN
VITR
I
ViiG
en
PEAT
LAN
DERS
SB&
B
VetS
ci
BIO
SYST
Food
Nut
ri
SUVA
LUE
ENIG
MA
SSA
INBI
OS
PHAB
IO
FRES
H
LEGM
ILK
ARC
Panel of Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences (RCs 27)
Quality of research Doctoral training Societal impact Cooperation Category fitness
Figure 2. Distributions of the numeric evaluation of the Panel of Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences
The bars are organised according to the order of the first four evaluation questions. Category fitness was added to the results. Category fitness can be considered to represent the type of performance other than the previous four evaluation questions. Only in three cases, category fitness would change the numeric order of the RCs.
68 Panel-specific Feedback - Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences
3.4 PUBLICATION STATISTICS
The next publication statistics are based on the publications exported from the TUHAT RIS.
Figure 3. Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences: Number of WoS and A1−A4 publications (TUHAT), number of RCs 27
Figure 4. Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences: Number of citations, number of RCs 27
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–20108
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
FoodNutri SSA
CoE-MiFoSaPLUS SB&B
VetSci MICRO
CoE MRG ViiGen INBIOS
BIOSYST EGRU
CellMolBiol HelDevBio
PEATLANDERS CoE_VIRRES
MEMBREC ENIGMA
VMPS FRESH
SUVALUE EvoDevo MUSGEN
PHYTOPATH LEGMILK
ARC PHABIO
VITRI
No. of publications with WoS id
No. of A1-A4 publications
1.4 Publication statistics
The next publication statistics are based on the publications exported from the TUHAT RIS.
Figure 2. Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences: Number of WoS and A1−A4 publications (TUHAT), number of RCs 27
Figure 3. Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences: Number of citations, number of RCs 27
The RCs’ order in the figures: the first figure (on the left) shows the ratio of WoS publications to A1−A4 (TUHAT). The figure on the right can be predicted by the first figure. If the ratio of WoS to A1-A4 is high, the total citations (TCS) of RC can be expected to be high as well. The correlation between the indicators (WoS publications/(A1−A4) and TCS) in the figures is 0.63.Publications in WoS (Web of Science) and TCS (total citations) are based on the CWTS/Leiden indicators.
A-publications are categorised in the TUHAT RIS as follows:
0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
ViiGen CellMolBiol
SB&B CoE MRG
CoE-MiFoSaPLUS FoodNutri
VMPS MEMBREC HelDevBio
MICRO EGRU
SSA EvoDevo
PEATLANDERS ENIGMA
MUSGEN VetSci
CoE_VIRRES INBIOS
ARC BIOSYST
PHYTOPATH FRESH
LEGMILK PHABIO
SUVALUE VITRI
TCS
The RCs’ order in the figures: the first figure (on the left) shows the ratio of WoS publications to A1−A4 (TUHAT). The figure on the right can be predicted by the first figure. If the ratio of WoS to A1-A4 is high, the total citations (TCS) of RC can be expected to be high as well. The correlation between the indicators (WoS publications/(A1−A4) and TCS) in the figures is 0.63. Publications in WoS (Web of Science) and TCS (total citations) are based on the CWTS/Leiden indicators.
A-publications are categorised in the TUHAT RIS as follows:
69Panel-specific Feedback - Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences
A1 Refereed journal articleA2 Review in scientific journalA3 Contribution to book/other compilations (refereed)A4 Article in conference publication (refereed)
3.5 BIBLIOMETRIC INDICATORS
The bibliometric indicators are based on the CWTS/Leiden analyses.
Table 3. Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences: publications, citations and field-normalized figures in CWTS analysis (2005–2010)
RCS (27) ALL AC PWOS TCS MCS PNC MNCS MNJS THCP10 INT_COV
ARC 328 102 80 578 7.29 32.50 1.38 1.47 1.67 0.70
BIOSYST 632 393 174 567 3.26 45.40 0.59 0.71 0.50 0.47
CellMolBiol 183 176 164 2445 14.97 13.41 1.63 1.49 1.85 0.94
CoE MRG 341 293 239 2174 9.21 21.34 1.66 1.46 1.95 0.75
CoE_VIRRES 148 145 123 704 5.76 18.70 0.83 1.45 0.45 0.88
CoE-MiFoSaPLUS 566 366 318 2070 6.57 24.53 1.27 1.13 1.10 0.83
EGRU 258 195 172 1286 7.64 22.09 1.64 1.28 1.77 0.78
ENIGMA 228 171 117 785 6.80 29.91 1.57 1.24 1.85 0.61
EvoDevo 147 137 100 927 9.49 29.00 1.45 1.28 1.82 0.75
FoodNutri 880 497 354 2025 5.72 22.03 1.33 1.28 1.13 0.82
FRESH 374 218 103 424 4.12 33.98 1.19 1.18 0.82 0.68
HelDevBio 184 176 141 1364 9.73 22.70 1.36 1.27 1.42 0.93
INBIOS 524 260 179 596 3.35 44.13 0.74 1.01 0.67 0.68
LEGMILK 184 138 91 405 4.45 28.57 1.11 1.00 1.19 0.81
MEMBREC 146 130 121 1530 12.64 18.18 1.36 1.34 1.11 0.93
MICRO 405 337 263 1307 4.97 24.71 0.89 1.05 0.70 0.83
MUSGEN 144 118 100 780 8.04 18.00 1.36 1.15 1.48 0.90
PEATLANDERS 304 200 131 793 6.05 19.85 1.77 1.38 2.01 0.73
PHABIO 125 115 72 390 5.42 22.22 1.41 1.09 1.35 0.84
PHYTOPATH 174 129 98 538 5.49 24.49 1.23 1.17 1.26 0.80
SB&B 341 337 292 2227 7.66 20.89 1.91 1.26 0.79 0.87
SSA 1130 698 343 1224 3.57 36.73 0.86 1.03 0.76 0.71
SUVALUE1 434 283 101 231 2.29 44.55 1.21 1.06 1.17 0.50
VetSci 604 439 279 734 2.67 38.35 0.95 1.21 0.84 0.76
ViiGen 251 234 195 2851 14.73 19.49 3.09 1.56 1.78 0.85
VITRI2 88 59 35 79 2.26 37.14 1.06 0.99 0.62 0.58
VMPS 199 147 111 1749 15.76 16.22 2.34 1.71 2.34 0.89
Total 9322 6493 449612
1 CWTS analysis covered under 40 percent of scientific publications of the RC, thus the HU Library analyses were also applied.
2 The number of publications of RC was under a critical point i.e. 50 publications although the internal coverage was over 40 percent.
70 Panel-specific Feedback - Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences
CWTS analysis: Number of publications (PWoS), Total number of citations (TCS), Number of citations per publication (MCS), Percentage of uncited publications (pnc), Field-normalized number of citations (MNCS), Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS), Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) (THCP10), Internal coverage, i.e. inside WoS publications (int_cov).
The number of all publications (publication types from A to I) is based on the TUHAT RIS data where A and C publications belong to the scientific publications:
A1 Refereed journal articleA2 Review in scientific journalA3 Contribution to book/other compilations (refereed)A4 Article in conference publication (refereed)C1 Published scientific monographC2 Edited book, compilation, conference proceeding or special issue of journal
MNJS in relation to MNCS of publications of RCs
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–201010
proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) (THCP10), Internal coverage, i.e. inside WoS publications (int_cov).
The number of all publications (publication types from A to I) is based on the TUHAT RIS datawhere A and C publications belong to the scientific publications:
A1 Refereed journal articleA2 Review in scientific journalA3 Contribution to book/other compilations (refereed)A4 Article in conference publication (refereed)C1 Published scientific monographC2 Edited book, compilation, conference proceeding or special issue of journal
MNJS in relation to MNCS of publications of RCs
Figure 4. MNJS in relation to MNCS
In Figure 5, the number of RCs is 263
Figure 5
. The RCs’ publications value for MNJS is placed on the horizontal axis, and the value for MNCS on the vertical axis. The axes indicate the world average(1.0). The MNJS indicator refers to the field-normalised average journal impact and describes the impact of the journals in which the RC published their papers. This describes the researchers’ level of ambition when choosing the journal in which to publish their research results. indicates that at least 20 of the 26 RCs belong to square 1, i.e., the RCs publish in high impact publications and their impact is high as well. Five of the rest of the RCs belong to square 2, publishing in high impact journals with MNCS very close to the world average.Combination of indicators is applied by the Evaluation Office.
3 The figure includes RCs with WoS publications ≥ 50, thus VITRI is excluded.
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
3,5
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2,0
MN
CS
MNJS
MNJS/MNCS relation (Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences)
4 1
23
Figure 5. MNJS in relation to MNCS
In Figure 5, the number of RCs is 263. The RCs’ publications value for MNJS is placed on the horizontal axis, and the value for MNCS on the vertical axis. The axes indicate the world average (1.0). The MNJS indicator refers to the field-normalised average journal impact and describes the impact of the journals in which the RC published their papers. This describes the researchers’ level of ambition when choosing the journal in which to publish their research results. Figure 5 indicates that at least 20 of the 26 RCs belong to square 1, i.e., the RCs publish in high impact publications and their impact is high as well. Five of the rest of the RCs belong to square 2, publishing in high impact journals with MNCS very close to the world average. Combination of indicators is applied by the Evaluation Office.
3 The figure includes RCs with WoS publications ≥ 50, thus VITRI is excluded.
71Panel-specific Feedback - Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences
Interpretation of square areas in the figure
Square 1: RCs publish their papers in high-impact journals and the number of citations they receive exceeds the world average in their field.
Square 2: RCs publish their papers in high-impact journals and the number of citations they receive falls below the world average in their field.
Square 3: RCs publish their papers in low-impact journals and the number of citations they receive falls below the world average in their field.
Square 4: RCs publish their papers in low-impact journals and the number of citations they receive exceeds the world average in their field.
Impact and robustness of publications of RCs
Interpretation of square areas in the figure
Square 1: RCs publish their papers in high-impact journals and the number of citations they receive exceeds the world average in their field.Square 2: RCs publish their papers in high-impact journals and the number of citations they receive falls below the world average in their field.Square 3: RCs publish their papers in low-impact journals and the number of citations they receive falls below the world average in their field.Square 4: RCs publish their papers in low-impact journals and the number of citations they receive exceeds the world average in their field.
Impact and robustness of publications of RCs
Figure 5. THCP10 in relation to MNCS
In Figure 6, the number of RCs is 264
The RCs with high MNCS and THCP10 that exceed the international average can be interpreted as having good and robust publication practices. Altogether 26 RCs were analysed by the CWTS, of which 18 performed with high and robust publication practices. Combination of indicators is applied by the Evaluation Office.
. The RCs’ publications value for THCP10 is placed on the horizontal axis, and the value for MNCS on the vertical. The axes indicate the world average(1.0). By combining the two indicators, MNCS and THCP10, the publication activity of the RC can be described as a whole. This gives an idea of how robust the field normalised indicator MNCS is.
4 The figure includes RCs with WoS publications ≥ 50, thus VITRI is excluded.
0,00
0,50
1,00
1,50
2,00
2,50
3,00
3,50
0,00 0,25 0,50 0,75 1,00 1,25 1,50 1,75 2,00 2,25 2,50
MN
CS
THCP10
THCP10/MNCS relation (Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences)
Figure 6. THCP10 in relation to MNCS
In Figure 6, the number of RCs is 264. The RCs’ publications value for THCP10 is placed on the horizontal axis, and the value for MNCS on the vertical. The axes indicate the world average (1.0). By combining the two indicators, MNCS and THCP10, the publication activity of the RC can be described as a whole. This gives an idea of how robust the field normalised indicator MNCS is.
The RCs with high MNCS and THCP10 that exceed the international average can be interpreted as having good and robust publication practices. Altogether 26 RCs were analysed by the CWTS, of which 18 performed with high and robust publication practices. Combination of indicators is applied by the Evaluation Office.
4 The figure includes RCs with WoS publications ≥ 50, thus VITRI is excluded.
72 Panel-specific Feedback - Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences
Complementary bibliometric information of RCs
Table 4. SUVALUE5 and VITRI6 in Norwegian and Australian journal rankings
RC NJ2 NJ1 NJ TOT. NJ TOT. /MB AUPR A* AUPR A AUPR B AUPR C AUPR TOT. AUPR TOT. /MB
SUVALUE 9 102 111 1.9 3 43 39 58 143 2.4
VITRI 5 36 41 1.2 2 10 21 6 39 1.2
Table 5. SUVALUE5 and VITRI6: weighted values (coefficient) in Norwegian and Australian journal rankingsRC NJ2
(3)NJ1 (2)
NJ TOT.
NJ TOT. /MB AUPR A* (3)
AUPR A (2)
AUPR B (1)
AUPR C (0.5)
AUPR TOT. AUPR TOT. /MB
SUVALUE 27 204 231 3.9 9 86 39 29 163 2.8
VITRI 15 72 87 2.6 6 20 21 3 50 1.5
Explanations of Table 4 and Table 5
NJ2 Number of articles in Norwegian journal ranking level 2 (highest)
NJ1 Number of articles in Norwegian journal ranking level 1
NJ tot. Total number of articles in Norwegian journal ranking
NJ tot./mb Total number of articles in Norwegian journal ranking per member
AUPR A*, A, B, C Number of articles in Australian journal ranking where A* is the highest and C the lowest tier
AUPR tot. Sum of articles in tiers A*, A, B and C
AUPR tot./mb Articles in Australian journal ranking per member
5 CWTS analysis covered under 40 percent of scientific publications of the RC, thus the HU Library analyses were also applied.
6 The number of publications of RC was under a critical point, i.e. 50 publications although the internal coverage was over 40 percent.
3 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − BIOLOGICAL, AGRICULTURAL AND VETERINARY SCIENCES
5 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − NATURAL SCIENCES
6 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − HUMANITIES
7 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − SOCIAL SCIENCES
8 OVERALL STATISTICS ON THE EVALUATION
9 RESEARCH PERFORMANCE
10 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSES
11 SUMMARY REPORT OF DOCTORAL TRAINING
12 CONCLUDING REMARKS
13 APPENDICES
2 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION
4 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − MEDICINE, BIOMEDICINE AND HEALTH SCIENCES
1 INTRODUCTION TO THE EVALUATION
75Panel-specific Feedback − Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences
PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK – MEDICINE, BIOMEDICINE AND HEALTH SCIENCES
Panel MembersProfessor Lorenz Poellinger, Chair
Professor Cornelia van Duijn, Vice-Chair
Professor Johanna Ivaska
Professor Olli Lassila
Professor Hans-Christian Pape
Professor Thomas Ruzicka
Professor Lars Terenius
Professor Peter York
76 Panel-specific Feedback − Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences
Researcher Communities in the Panel of Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences
Number of RCs 23, principal investigators 184 and other members 986
ACRONYM OF RC
NAME OF RC RESPONSIBLE PERSON OF RC
PIS MBS. TOT.
CANBIO Genome-Scale Cancer Biology Alitalo, Kari 18 78 96
CardioMed Cardiovascular Medicine Mervaala, Eero 6 25 31
CompDisGen Complex Disease Genomics Group Kaprio, Jaakko 17 101 118
CSB Cancer Systems Biology RC Aaltonen, Lauri 4 32 36
DECODE/DECODA
Diabetes Epidemiology: Collaborative analysis of Diagnostic criteria in Europe and in Asia
Qiao, Qing 3 9 12
Dental Dental and Oral Health Research Rice, David 10 66 76
DePoNa Drug Delivery and Polymer Based Nanotechnology
Urtti, Arto 8 49 57
ID-TM Inflammatory Diseases-towards Translational Medicine
Lokki, Marja-Liisa 5 40 45
IndiViDrug Individual variability in drug response Backman, Janne 6 19 25
InfBio Infection Biology Meri, Seppo 13 99 112
Legal protection and welfare
Forensic medicine: from citizens protection to community welfare
Sajantila, Antti 5 16 21
MNRP Research Program of Molecular Neurology Wartiovaara, Anu 9 45 54
MS Group Medication Safety Group Airaksinen, Marja 2 28 30
Neuroiontroph Molecular and Integrative Neuroscience Research
Saarma, Mart 7 38 45
NEUROMED Neuroscience research at the institute of biomedicine
Stenberg, Tarja 11 62 73
Neuron Neuroscience Center (NC) Rauvala, Heikki 12 82 94
PARTICLE Pharmaceutical Technology and Industrial Pharmacy
Yliruusi, Jouko 4 41 45
PDBD Pharmacology of Degenerative Brain Diseases
Tuominen, Raimo 5 26 31
P-Molmed Personalized Molecular Medicine Kallioniemi, Olli 7 18 25
ProLipids CoE on Biomembranes Ikonen, Elina 4 23 27
PURE Public Health and Epidemiology Research Community
Tuomilehto, Jaakko 6 14 20
Skin and allergy
Department of Skin and allergic diseases Ranki, Annamari 11 17 28
Women’s Health
Women’s Health Research Program Paavonen, Jorma 11 58 69
The panel’s feedback is presented in chapters 4.1–4.14. The tables and figures in chapter 4 are compiled by the Evaluation Office based on the statistics of the CWTS/Leiden and the Helsinki University Library.
77Panel-specific Feedback − Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences
Fields of sciences of the Researcher Communities in the Panel of Medicine, Biomedicine and Health SciencesRC SUBFIELD 1 SUBFIELD 2 SUBFIELD 3 SUBFIELD 4 OTHER SCIENTIFIC
SUBFIELD
CANBIO Oncology Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Genetics and Heredity
Cell Biology
CardioMed Cardiac and Cardiovascular System
Pharmacology and Pharmacy
Nutrition and Dietetics
Medicine, Research and Experimental
CompDisGen Genetics and Heredity
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Veterinary Sciences
- Comparative Genetics, Epidemiology, Translational Medicine
CSB Genetics and Heredity
Medical Informatics
Oncology -
DECODE /DECODA
Public, Environmental and Occupational Health
Endocrinology and Metabolism
- - Epidemiology
Dental Dentistry, Oral Surgery and Medicine
Developmental Biology
Microbiology Health Care Sciences and Services
Genetics and Heredity Infectious Diseases Public, Environmental and Occupational Health
DePoNa Pharmacology and Pharmacy
Nanoscience and Nanotechnology
Materials Science, Biomaterials
Chemistry, Applied
polymer science, eye research
ID-TM Immunology Genetics and Heredity
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
- Translational Medicine
IndiViDrug Pharmacology and Pharmacy
- - -
InfBio Microbiology Infectious Diseases
Virology Immunology Bacteriology, Parasitology
Legal protection and welfare
Biology Medicine, Legal Pathology Toxicology
MNRP Medicine, Research and Experimental
Clinical Neurology
Cell Biology Neurosciences Mitochondrial medicine Stem cell biology
MS Group Health Care Sciences and Services
Pharmacology and Pharmacy
- - Subfield 3: Social Pharmacy, Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacoeconomics
Neuroiontroph Neurosciences Biology Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Developmental Biology
NEUROMED Neurosciences Pharmacology and Pharmacy
Physiology Neuroimaging
Neuron Neurosciences - - -
78 Panel-specific Feedback − Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences
RC SUBFIELD 1 SUBFIELD 2 SUBFIELD 3 SUBFIELD 4 OTHER SCIENTIFIC SUBFIELD
PARTICLE Pharmacology and Pharmacy
Technology and Engineering
Engineering, Manufacturing
Materials Science, Multidisciplinary
Pharmaceutical Technology Industrial Pharmacy
PDBD Pharmacology and Pharmacy
Neurosciences Medicine, Research and Experimental
Substance Abuse
Neuropharmacology Neurodegeneration Behavioral nuroscience Parkinson’s disease Discovery of new drugs and drug targets
P-Molmed Oncology Cardiac and Cardiovascular System
- - Genomics, systems biology, translational research
ProLipids Medicine, Research and Experimental
- - - Cross- and multidisciplinary, bridging biomedical sciences, cell biology, structural biology, membrane biophysics, medical nutritional physiology, and computational biophysics with computational systems biology
PURE Public, Environmental and Occupational Health
Cardiac and Cardiovascular System
Endocrinology and Metabolism
Nutrition and Dietetics
epidemiology, genetic epidemiology, neuroepidemiology, physical activity research, dementia, randomised controlled trials, pharmacoepidemiology, cancer epidemiology, psychiatric epidemiology
Skin and allergy Dermatology Allergy Oncology - Autoimmune and autoinflammatory diseases, borreliosis.
Women’s Health Obstetrics and Gynecology
- - -
The table shows the fields of sciences chosen by the RCs in the Panel of Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences. Subfields 1−4 follow the classification of Web of Science (for a complete list, see Appendix 4), and “other scientific subfield” is the RC’s own description.
79Panel-specific Feedback − Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences
4. PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − MEDICINE, BIOMEDICINE AND HEALTH SCIENCES
4.1 EVALUATION METHOD
The evaluation method was found to be new and unorthodox, as it was organised from the bottom up. Many of the RCs were organized in cross-departmental and cross-disciplinary settings.
The efficiency of the evaluation method:
• The method was completely new to the Panellists, and there were a few problems with its implementation.
• The categories were somewhat intuitive or straightforward and were difficult to interpret. Due to the heterogeneity of the RCs, it was difficult to value the communities as such.
• The Panel missed opportunities for questions and answers.• The evaluation was mainly orientated towards past performance. • The Panel was convinced was that there is great potential for new researcher
communities to be formed in the University between existing departments and among existing collaborations.
The brunt of the review was on past performance. This is unfortunate because the future and strategic visions do not appear as clearly in a history-based evaluation. The Panel did appreciate and take into account strategic and future visions, but the main weight was on past performance.
The Panel consulted specialists from the RC’s field. This was done in some cases, e.g., in the topics of molecular and cancer biology and medicine and in dental and oral health research. However, all the documents were introduced and discussed in the Panel, and the feedback statements were agreed on together.
4.2 PERFORMANCE OF THE UNIVERSITY
The Panel was very impressed with the success of the University of Helsinki.
• Research at the University is very well organized and very well executed. • The Panel was very impressed by the quality of individual researchers:
- There are excellent publication track records and some very outstanding RCs.- In bioscience, the University of Helsinki is doing very well. - The Panel was impressed by the doctoral training programmes.
The Panel is definitely impressed by the doctoral training at the University. The various doctoral training programmes are administered well with the result of excellent PhD candidates and through significant financial investments from the faculties.
80 Panel-specific Feedback − Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences
Critical aspects in the performance
The Panel’s comments relate to problems that may not be unique to Helsinki University, but are shared by medical research enterprises worldwide.
How can the hospital authorities, and possibly also local government authorities, be cooperated with to liberate time for clinicians for basic research?
• This well-known dilemma is also perceived at the University of Helsinki regarding clinicians at both junior and senior levels.
• The challenge will be for the University to coordinate efforts and dialogue with the hospital management to generate more time for the clinicians.
The University uses a great deal of financial resources for seeding.
• The question is how to harvest what is sown. The best students will very often move to well-known laboratories for postdoctoral training, but the University’s interest should lie in how to recruit them back.
• Does the University make an effort to, at least on a national scale, recruit for further research their own doctoral students, top international post-doctoral fellows as well as junior scientists who have completed their post-doctoral training programme?
Potential Research Fields
How can the very best researchers be attracted to do the very best science research when finances are limited? Bibliometrics or qualitative indices can be used for this purpose.
The Panel discussed how to support those who are successful now, and how we should also look ahead to the future. If a community already has good financial support, a rather small amount of additional money does not make a large impact. How can the money be used best? The answer is to support those communities that we think have potential. Potential can have different import in different categories, e.g., a discovery at a basic molecular level, deep research into the very nature of life, particularly in pathology, or more integrated research. Good medical genetic and genomic research has also been carried out in Finland.
Promotion of research on multiple fronts
Many RCs reach beyond the Medical Faculty and include other faculties. They are formed across the borders of not only departments but also faculties. There are no patent solutions, but the key is to try to create some sort of dialogue with the different partners and actors to facilitate the liberation of research time.
Rating and category choice
The RCs were not ranked; instead the Panel rated the evaluation documents and aspects in an international context. The University can rank the RCs later, if necessary. Many of the
81Panel-specific Feedback − Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences
RCs have evaluated their research as top-level international research. The Panel respected the RCs category choice and marked it in relation to the evaluation material. The categories were partly obscure to the Panellists, and perhaps as well to some of the RCs. The categories were chosen by the RCs, and they remained as they were. The Panel in some cases gave feedback that it would probably have been more constructive to choose another category than the one that was chosen.
In the review process, the Panel did an in-depth analysis of all the evaluation material. The aim was uniformity and a detailed discussion of the value and impact of each RC’s evaluation material.
4.3 GRADUATE SCHOOL PROGRAMME
It was discussed whether the faculties and the University should be responsible for the graduate school programmes, instead of the national coordination evaluation by the Academy of Finland. This is a general issue to consider. What was apparent to the Panel was that the current procedures with which the Academy of Finland initiates and controls graduate schools is quite an established, transparent and widely accepted procedure that works quite well. It does not seem appropriate to change established and well functioning procedures. It is good to be progressive, but some structures that are well established should be permanent and sustainable. In particular, to support and recruit young and good researchers and to support their further career and education, the Panel would highly recommend not changing these procedures, if possible, since they are transparent, accepted and functional.
4.4 CORE FACILITIES AND PLATFORMS FOR VARIOUS CENTRAL METHODS IN CAMPUSES
The core facilities are restricted to the Meilahti campus, and the Panel was very impressed by the high standard of the core facilities, especially in genomic research and possibly also in some of the genetic model systems.
The Panel noted the availability and accessibility of state-of-the-art core facilities, whether the capacity is sufficient or not. The documents provided did not fully demonstrate the situation, but the existing core facilities seem to be quite impressive, so it is not clear whether there is still a need to expand them.
The Panel did not evaluate different units, departments or programmes. The evaluation documents indicate that there are RCs that included members of all the units, e.g., the University of Helsinki, the Helsinki University Clinical Hospital and the Finnish Institute for Molecular Medicine. These RCs are cross-boundary, cross-department and cross-campus, in a cross campus-fashion. This was considered to be very positive.
The researcher community Neuron is located on two campuses, which is non-optimal, given that this research community produces top-notch international science and has created much infrastructural development at the University. The situation should be improved in order to increase scientific interactions and to use the infrastructure more
82 Panel-specific Feedback − Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences
efficiently. If possible, the University of Helsinki should provide the means to locate this research community in one place in order to improve its scientific output, which is already close to being outstanding and excellent. This community has contributed to making Helsinki visible in the neurosciences.
The Panel was impressed by the neuroscience Master’s and doctoral programme, which has been established as a truly interdisciplinary programme that escapes the regular constraints of institutional boundaries and which is also exceptional, at least according to European standards. This is unique and an excellent example of how interdisciplinary programmes can be established in pre-existing University structures.
4.5 MAIN ASPECTS THAT THE PANEL CONSIDERED IMPORTANT IN THE EVALUATION OF RCS
The strengths in the University of Helsinki are the wonderful cohorts and clinical patient series as well as the very strong situation in terms of concentrated facilities.
1. Much potential was seen in both in the genomic field and also in the animal facilities. The concentrated facilities also seem to function well and give the potential for the development of many groups.
2. The Panel looked at how well people recognize both challenges and opportunities. Niches were discussed in depth. What opportunities are there, for example, in general physiology, or in translational or clinical studies? A possible niche should be evaluated for its potential in the broader perspective of the community and after five and ten years.
3. The third aspect that often arose in the Panel’s discussions was what the international position of the University is, and where the leadership of the community is situated. Is the community internationally participating just as part of a consortium; or are they leading a consortium, and have they been able to maintain that leadership? Are the researchers from the University of Helsinki in a leading position? Leadership should be more than being just one participant in a group. Leadership implies that researchers and students come to the University to work with and learn from leading actors.
The Panel considered these aspects to be more important than the bibliometric summary.
Recruitment of young scientists
The Panel considered the tenure-track system as excellent for supporting the development of junior scientists. Other solutions should be developed as well for junior scientists.
How to have a more coordinated and efficient recruitment of top-level junior scientists should be considered more deeply. This can be considered the future of the University.
The Panel believes that the University should support relatively young, promising groups in different areas, e.g., in deep intermolecular biology or in more integrated sciences. The groups could increase in size, and they should be evaluated. The long-term goal for
83Panel-specific Feedback − Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences
success could be ten years. The most important duty as a scientist is to make sure that new scientists are trained and can continue important work.
If the funds are not available to think in terms of a tenure tracks – then perhaps there could be a fund available for returning post-doctoral researchers that would at least give them a short period of time to get settled and integrate into the Finnish research environment so that they can apply for local funds.
4.6 DISTRIBUTION OF SCORES
Table 6. Numeric evaluation of RCs in the Panel of Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Science
RCS (23) QUALITY OFRESEARCH
DOCTORALTRAINING
SOCIETALIMPACT
CO-OPERATION
CATEGORYFITNESS
SUM OF SCORES
CAT.
CANBIO 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 24.0 1
CardioMed 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 17.0 2
CompDisGen 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 1
CSB 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 1
DECODE/DECODA
3.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 19.0 4
Dental 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 19.0 1
DePoNa 3.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 19.0 1
ID-TM 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2
IndiViDrug 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 1
InfBio 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 21.0 1
Legal Prot 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 17.0 5
MNRP 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 20.0 1
MS Group 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 15.0 4
Neuroiontroph 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 4
NEUROMED 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 18.0 4
Neuron 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 24.0 1
PARTICLE 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 16.0 1
PDBD 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 21.0 2
P-Molmed 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 24.0 5
ProLipids 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 24.0 4
PURE 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 22.0 1
Skin and allergy
4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 21.0 1
Women’s Health
3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 17.0 2
Average 4.00 4.09 4.17 4.22 3.96 20.4
Table 6 is organized in alphabetical order. The scores of the first four evaluation questions are above the average compared to the mean of scores in all panels. Category fitness is lower than the mean in all panels (3.96 vs. 4.23). For a comparison of panels, see Table 33.
84 Panel-specific Feedback − Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–201068
4.15 Distribution of scores
Table 6. Numeric evaluation of RCs in the Panel of Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences
RCs (23) Quality ofresearch
Doctoraltraining
Societalimpact
Co-operation
CategoryFitness
Sum of scores Category
CANBIO 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 24.0 1CardioMed 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 17.0 2CompDisGen 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 1CSB 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 1DECODE/DECODA 3.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 19.0 4Dental 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 19.0 1DePoNa 3.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 19.0 1ID-TM 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2IndiViDrug 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 1InfBio 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 21.0 1Legal Prot 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 17.0 5MNRP 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 20.0 1MS Group 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 15.0 4Neuroiontroph 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 4NEUROMED 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 18.0 4Neuron 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 24.0 1PARTICLE 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 16.0 1PDBD 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 21.0 2P-Molmed 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 24.0 5ProLipids 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 24.0 4PURE 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 22.0 1Skin and allergy 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 21.0 1Women's Health 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 17.0 2Average 4.00 4.09 4.17 4.22 3.96 20.4
Table 6 is organized in alphabetical order. The scores of the first four evaluation questions are above the average compared to the mean of scores in all panels. Category fitness is lower than the mean in all panels (3.96 vs. 4.23). For a comparison of panels, see Table 33.
0,0
5,0
10,0
15,0
20,0
25,0
30,0
Com
pDisG
en
CSB
Indi
ViDr
ug
Neu
roio
ntro
ph
CAN
BIO
Neu
ron
P-M
olm
ed
ProL
ipid
s
PURE
InfB
io
PDBD
Skin
and
alle
rgy
MN
RP
DECO
DE/D
ECO
DA
DePo
Na
Dent
al
NEU
ROM
ED
Lega
l Pro
t
Wom
en's
Heal
th
Card
ioM
ed
PART
ICLE
MS
Grou
p
ID-T
M
Panel of Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences
Quality of research Doctoral training Societal impact Cooperation Category fitness
Figure 7. Distributions of numeric evaluation in the Panel of Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences
The RCs are organised according to the sum of first four evaluation questions. Category fitness was added to the results. Four of the RCs have full numeric performance, i.e. 25 scores. The figure indicates that the category fitness does not change the order.
85Panel-specific Feedback − Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences
PUBLICATION STATISTICS
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010 69
Figure 7. Distributions of numeric evaluation in the Panel of Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences
The RCs are organised according to the sum of first four evaluation questions. Category fitness was added to the results. Four of the RCs have full numeric performance, i.e. 25 scores. The figure indicates that the category fitness does not change the order.
4.16 Publication statistics
Figure 8, Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences: Number of WoS and A1-A4 publications, number of RCs 23
Figure 9. Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences: Number of citations, number of RCs 23
The RCs’ order in the figures: the first figure (on the left) indicates the ratio of WoS publications to A1−A4. The correlation between the indicators (WoS publications/(A1−A4) and TCS) in the figures is 0.34. The figures indicate that the correlation between the total citations and WoS publications is very high (0.96). Publications in WoS (Web of Science) and TCS (total citations) are based on the CWTS/Leiden indicators.
A-publications are categorised in the TUHAT RIS as follows:A1 Refereed journal articleA2 Review in scientific journalA3 Contribution to book/other compilations (refereed)A4 Article in conference publication (refereed)
0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
CompDisGen PURE
CANBIO InfBio
Women's Health DECODE/DECODA
NEUROMED ProLipids
Neuron Dental MNRP
IndiViDrug CardioMed
DePoNa ID-TM
CSB PARTICLE
Neuroiontroph P-Molmed
Skin and allergy PDBD
Legal Prot MS Group
No. of publications with WoS id
No. of A1-A4 publications
0 2000
4000
6000
8000
1000
0
1200
0
1400
0
CompDisGen PURE
DECODE/DEC… CANBIO
Women's … Neuron
ProLipids InfBio
CSB IndiViDrug
MNRP NEUROMED CardioMed P-Molmed
Neuroiontroph DePoNa
Dental Skin and allergy
ID-TM PARTICLE
PDBD Legal Prot MS Group
TCS
Figure 8, Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences: Number of WoS and A1-A4 publications, number of RCs 23
Figure 9. Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences: Number of citations, number of RCs 23
The RCs’ order in the figures: the first figure (on the left) indicates the ratio of WoS publications to A1−A4. The correlation between the indicators (WoS publications/(A1−A4) and TCS) in the figures is 0.34. The figures indicate that the correlation between the total citations and WoS publications is very high (0.96). Publications in WoS (Web of Science) and TCS (total citations) are based on the CWTS/Leiden indicators.
A-publications are categorised in the TUHAT RIS as follows:
A1 Refereed journal articleA2 Review in scientific journalA3 Contribution to book/other compilations (refereed)A4 Article in conference publication (refereed)
86 Panel-specific Feedback − Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences
4.7 BIBLIOMETRIC INDICATORS
Table 7. Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences: publications, citations and field-normalized figures in the CWTS/Leiden analysis (2005−2010)
RCS (23) ALL AC PWOS TCS MCS PNC MNCS MNJS THCP10 INT_COV
CANBIO 528 481 433 7255 17.08 15.70 1.86 1.71 2.40 0.95
CardioMed 241 210 173 1643 9.67 22.54 1.30 1.00 1.35 0.93
CompDisGen 1147 1060 890 12104 13.76 19.44 2.17 1.94 2.21 0.89
CSB 156 150 143 2649 18.72 18.18 1.83 2.00 2.42 0.95
DECODE/DECODA 480 434 344 7994 23.76 19.19 3.38 1.86 2.88 0.86
Dental 520 446 220 1314 6.10 32.27 1.09 1.04 1.13 0.81
DePoNa 232 215 169 1369 8.14 15.38 1.57 1.46 1.60 0.89
ID-TM 223 211 161 1175 7.36 26.09 1.10 1.53 0.93 0.94
IndiViDrug 333 243 184 2327 13.02 11.41 2.38 1.58 2.70 0.91
InfBio 569 502 411 2850 6.99 24.09 0.97 1.13 0.94 0.91
Legal Prot 107 99 77 630 8.34 23.38 1.55 1.00 1.62 0.84
MNRP 371 307 214 2210 10.70 21.50 1.46 1.57 1.50 0.94
MS Group 159 118 56 175 3.30 33.93 0.90 0.82 0.67 0.65
Neuroiontroph 170 164 135 1416 10.54 16.30 1.26 1.48 1.55 0.94
NEUROMED 391 354 284 2044 7.27 21.48 1.10 1.16 0.97 0.91
Neuron 335 311 259 3588 13.89 11.97 1.64 1.41 2.03 0.94
PARTICLE 241 233 142 759 5.35 28.17 0.93 1.14 0.74 0.79
PDBD 160 138 111 742 6.68 22.52 0.94 1.09 0.76 0.92
P-Molmed 155 145 119 1524 13.48 27.73 2.88 2.22 3.08 0.93
ProLipids 315 293 260 2945 11.49 19.62 1.60 1.21 1.91 0.91
PURE 655 597 483 9550 20.21 20.70 2.96 1.82 2.52 0.86
Skin and allergy 156 130 119 1177 10.41 24.37 1.35 1.31 1.52 0.91
Women’s Health 544 481 406 5056 12.66 22.17 1.83 1.43 1.90 0.91
Total 8188 7322 5793
The CWTS/Leiden analysis: Number of publications (PWoS), Total number of citations (TCS), Number of citations per publication (MCS), Percentage of uncited publications (pnc), Field-normalized number of citations (MNCS), Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS), Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) (THCP10), Internal coverage, i.e. inside WoS publications (int_cov).
The number of all publications (publication types from A to I) is based on the TUHAT RIS data where A and C publications belong to the scientific publications:
A1 Refereed journal articleA2 Review in scientific journalA3 Contribution to book/other compilations (refereed)A4 Article in conference publication (refereed)C1 Published scientific monographC2 Edited book, compilation, conference proceeding or special issue of journal
87Panel-specific Feedback − Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences
MNJS in relation to MNCS of publications of RCs
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010 71
MNJS in relation to MNCS of publications of RCs
Figure 10. MNJS in relation to MNCS
In Figure 10, the number of RCs is 23. The RCs’ publication value for MNJS is placed on the horizontal axis, and the value for MNCS on the vertical axis. The axes indicate the world average(1.0). The MNJS indicator refers to the field-normalised average journal impact and describes the impact of the journals in which the RC published their papers. This describes the researchers’ level of ambition when choosing the journal in which to publish their researchresults. Figure 10 indicates that 19 of the 23 RCs belong to square 1, i.e., the RCs publish in high impact publications and their impact is high as well. Of the other four RCs, three belong to square 2, publishing their papers in high-impact journals and receiving citations close to the world average. Combination of indicators is applied by the Evaluation Office.
Interpretation of square areas in the figure
Square 1: RCs publish their papers in high-impact journals and the number of citations they receive exceeds the world average in their field.Square 2: RCs publish their papers in high-impact journals and the number of citations they receive falls below the world average in their field.Square 3: RCs publish their papers in low-impact journals and the number of citations they receive falls below the world average in their field.Square 4: RCs publish their papers in low-impact journals and the number of citations they receive exceeds the world average in their field.
0,00
0,50
1,00
1,50
2,00
2,50
3,00
3,50
4,00
0,00 0,25 0,50 0,75 1,00 1,25 1,50 1,75 2,00 2,25 2,50
MN
CS
MNJS
MNJS/MNCS relation (Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences)
4 1
23
Figure 10. MNJS in relation to MNCS
In Figure 10, the number of RCs is 23. The RCs’ publication value for MNJS is placed on the horizontal axis, and the value for MNCS on the vertical axis. The axes indicate the world average (1.0). The MNJS indicator refers to the field-normalised average journal impact and describes the impact of the journals in which the RC published their papers. This describes the researchers’ level of ambition when choosing the journal in which to publish their research results. Figure 10 indicates that 19 of the 23 RCs belong to square 1, i.e., the RCs publish in high impact publications and their impact is high as well. Of the other four RCs, three belong to square 2, publishing their papers in high-impact journals and receiving citations close to the world average. Combination of indicators is applied by the Evaluation Office.
Interpretation of square areas in the figureSquare 1: RCs publish their papers in high-impact journals and the number of citations they receive exceeds the world average in their field.
Square 2: RCs publish their papers in high-impact journals and the number of citations they receive falls below the world average in their field.
Square 3: RCs publish their papers in low-impact journals and the number of citations they receive falls below the world average in their field.
Square 4: RCs publish their papers in low-impact journals and the number of citations they receive exceeds the world average in their field.
88 Panel-specific Feedback − Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences
Impact and robustness of publications of RCs
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–201072
Impact and robustness of publications of RCs
Figure 11. THCP10 in relation to MNCS
In Figure 11, the number of RCs is 23. The RCs’ publications value for THCP10 is placed on the horizontal axis, and the value for MNCS on the vertical. The axes indicate the world average(1.0). By combining the two indicators, MNCS and THCP10, the publication activity of RC can be described as a whole. This gives an idea of how robust the field normalized indicator MNCS is.Combination of indicators is applied by the Evaluation Office.
An RC with a high MNCS and THCP10 that exceeds the international average can be interpreted as having good and robust publication practices as was the case with 17 RCs of all 23.
0,00
0,50
1,00
1,50
2,00
2,50
3,00
3,50
4,00
0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50
MN
CS
THCP10
THCP10/MNCS relation (Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences)
Figure 11. THCP10 in relation to MNCS
In Figure 11, the number of RCs is 23. The RCs’ publications value for THCP10 is placed on the horizontal axis, and the value for MNCS on the vertical. The axes indicate the world average (1.0). By combining the two indicators, MNCS and THCP10, the publication activity of RC can be described as a whole. This gives an idea of how robust the field normalized indicator MNCS is. Combination of indicators is applied by the Evaluation Office.
An RC with a high MNCS and THCP10 that exceeds the international average can be interpreted as having good and robust publication practices as was the case with 17 RCs of all 23.
3 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − BIOLOGICAL, AGRICULTURAL AND VETERINARY SCIENCES
4 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − MEDICINE, BIOMEDICINE AND HEALTH SCIENCES
6 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − HUMANITIES
7 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − SOCIAL SCIENCES
8 OVERALL STATISTICS ON THE EVALUATION
9 RESEARCH PERFORMANCE
10 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSES
11 SUMMARY REPORT OF DOCTORAL TRAINING
12 CONCLUDING REMARKS
13 APPENDICES
2 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION
5 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − NATURAL SCIENCES
1 INTRODUCTION TO THE EVALUATION
91Panel-specific Feedback − Natural Sciences
PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK – NATURAL SCIENCES
Panel MembersProfessor Jan-Otto Carlsson, Chair
Professor Jan van Leeuwen, Vice-Chair
Professor Caitlin Buck
Professor David Colton
Professor Jean-Pierre Eckmann
Professor Ritske Huismans
Professor Jukka Jurvelin
Professor Lea Kauppi
Professor Riitta Keiski
Professor Mats Larsson
Professor Holger Stark
92 Panel-specific Feedback − Natural Sciences
Researcher Communities in the Panel of Natural Sciences
Number of RCs 22, principal investigators 163 and other members
ACRONYM OF RC
NAME OF RC RESPONSIBLE PERSON OF RC
PIS MBS. TOT.
ALKO Algorithms and Data Analysis Ukkonen, Esko 17 78 95
ANDY Analysis and Dynamics Kupiainen, Antti 12 78 90
ASP Astronomy and Space Physics Koskinen, Hannu 6 57 63
ATM Center of Excellence in Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Meteorology of Atmosphere
Kulmala, Markku 14 106 120
BAYES Bayesian statistics and interdisciplinary risk analysis
Kuikka, Sakari 3 21 24
BNCTMI Medical Physics: BNCT & Medical Imaging Savolainen, Sauli 4 29 33
CARBON14 Radiocarbon for past, present and future Oinonen, Markku 2 6 8
CoE CMS Finnish Centre of Excellence in Computational Molecular Science
Halonen, Lauri 9 51 60
ECO Evolving continents Korja, Annakaisa 13 29 42
GIMMEC Geospatial monitoring and modelling of environmental change using geoinformatics
Pellikka, Petri 7 16 23
HLG Helsinki Logic Group Väänänen, Jouko 5 26 31
HUBI Helsinki University Biorefining Kilpeläinen, Ilkka 7 33 40
HYRL Laboratory of Radiochemistry, Department of Chemistry
Lehto, Jukka 5 34 39
Inv Inverse problems group Päivärinta, Lassi 5 15 20
LIC Laboratory of Inorganic Chemistry Leskelä, Markku 8 66 74
LTCC Long-term climate change: patterns and consequences
Seppä, Heikki 6 24 30
MAC Modern Analytical Chemistry Kostiainen, Risto 5 23 28
MATENA Materials- and Nanophysics Researcher Community
Räisänen, Jyrki 6 58 64
MedChemBio Medicinal Chemistry and Biochemistry Research Group
Yli-Kauhaluoma, Jari
4 29 33
NODES Networks and Distributed Systems Kangasharju, Jussi 6 28 34
PaCo Particle Physics and Cosmology Huitu, Katri 16 102 118
SOFTSYS Software Systems Abrahamsson, Pekka
3 12 15
The panel’s feedback is presented in chapters 5, 5.1–5.6. The tables and figures in chapter 5 are compiled by the Evaluation Office based on the statistics of the CWTS/Leiden and the Helsinki University Library.
93Panel-specific Feedback − Natural Sciences
Fields of sciences of the Researcher Communities in the Panel of Natural SciencesRC SUBFIELD 1 SUBFIELD 2 SUBFIELD 3 SUBFIELD 4 OTHER SCIENTIFIC
SUBFIELD
ALKO Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence
Computer Science, Information Systems
Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications
Computer Science, Theory and Methods
Data analysis
ANDY Mathematics - - -
ASP Astronomy and Astrophysics
Physics, Fluids and Plasmas
Geochemistry and Geophysics
-
ATM Physics, Multidisciplinary
Geosciences, Multidisciplinary
Forestry Chemistry, Analytical
Environment and ecology Geosciences, atmospheric sciences
BAYES Mathematical and Computational Biology
Fisheries Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications
Water Resources
Baltic Sea interdiscplinary risk analysis
BNCTMI Physics, Applied Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imagi
Physics, Mathematical
Engineering, Biomedical
Medical Physics
CARBON14 Nuclear Science and Technology
Environmental Sciences
Archaeology Genetics and Heredity
Geosciences - Multidisciplinary
CoE CMS Chemistry, Physical - - -
ECO Geosciences, Multidisciplinary
Geology Geochemistry and Geophysics
Mineralogy
GIMMEC Environmental Sciences
Geosciences, Multidisciplinary
Remote Sensing - Geoinformatics
HLG Mathematics, General
Mathematics, Interdisciplinary Applications
Philosophy - Logic, e-learning
HUBI Chemistry, Multidisciplinary
Materials Science, Biomaterials
Materials Science, Multidisciplinary
Biotechnology and Applied Microbiology
HYRL Chemistry, Multidisciplinary
Nuclear Science and Technology
Chemistry, Medicinal
Environmental Sciences
Inv Mathematics, Applied
- - -
LIC Chemistry, Inorganic and Nuclear
Materials Science, Coatings and Films
Nanoscience and Nanotechnology
Chemistry, Multidisciplinary
LTCC Geosciences, Multidisciplinary
Geology Geography, Physical
-
MAC Chemistry, Analytical Pharmacology and Pharmacy
Nanoscience and Nanotechnology
- Microtechnology
MATENA Physics, Condensed Matter
Materials Science, Characterization, Testing
Nanoscience and Nanotechnology
Materials Science, Coatings and Films
94 Panel-specific Feedback − Natural Sciences
RC SUBFIELD 1 SUBFIELD 2 SUBFIELD 3 SUBFIELD 4 OTHER SCIENTIFIC SUBFIELD
MEDCHEMBIO Chemistry, Medicinal Pharmacology and Pharmacy
Chemistry, Organic
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
NODES Telecommunications Computer Science, Theory and Methods
Computer Science, Information Systems
- Human-computer interaction
PaCo Physics, Particles and Fields
Physics, Mathematical
- -
SOFTSYS Computer Science, Information Systems
Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications
Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications
Computer Science, Software Engineering
Social sciences, behavioural sciences (as applied to project research), Social sciences, management
The table shows the fields of sciences chosen by the RCs in the Panel of Natural Sciences. Subfields 1−4 follow the classification of Web of Science (for a complete list, see Appendix 4), and “other scientific subfield” is the RC’s own description.
95Panel-specific Feedback − Natural Sciences
5. PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − NATURAL SCIENCES
The Panel of Natural Sciences was honored to be part of the meta-assessment carried out at the University of Helsinki - a complete university, well-recognized world-wide and highly ranked.
Assessments are quite common at universities today. The challenges of the knowledge triangle require intense evaluations of the positionings and qualities in all academic activities of a university. The University of Helsinki was actually one of the pioneers to start evaluating research and has since then developed the research evaluation processes as an example for other universities.
The present assessment introduces a new entity to be assessed – the so-called Research Community (RC), which might be defined as a flexible grouping of researchers “across group- or discipline-boundaries”. The RC concept introduces flexibility and creativity and may open new opportunities in both research and education.
The present evaluation is regarded as a so-called meta-evaluation, aimed at enhancing quality, focusing, doctoral training, societal impact and strategic planning within both RCs and at the university level. A meta-evaluation is non-trivial. It requires quite a lot of background and policy documents as well as very specific evaluation documents from the RCs.
The quality of all the documents provided for this evaluation was very high. As certain aspects of the meta-evaluation process are new for the University, the Panel has included several comments and suggestions in its report which may be of help to further calibrate the meta-process in the future. The Panel was impressed by, and is very grateful to, the very effective and competent Evaluation Office, supporting the Panel in any issue.
This evaluation has shown that the University of Helsinki is well prepared to tackle many of grand challenges in research and education in the Natural Sciences in the future.
On behalf of the evaluation Panel of Natural Sciences,
Jan-Otto Carlsson Jan van LeeuwenChair Vice-chair
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Research assessment of universities can be made in several ways depending on the objectives of the assessment. One important aspect of an assessment is how big the research environment to be assessed should be or, in other words, how finely meshed the
96 Panel-specific Feedback − Natural Sciences
units for evaluation should be. The advantage of defining small research environments for assessment might be that they usually have a tendency to move faster into new research fields and the so called golden nuggets are much easier identified by using a finer net. Larger research environments have a tendency to be more stable over time and keep their levels more constant. From a university level perspective the bigger research environments are more useful from research planning aspects due to their bigger stabilities. However, even bigger research environments have a limited time span and quality and focusing may vary with time. It means that there is a need to follow the development of also the bigger research environments. Another important aspect on the size of a research environment is that many competences are needed to be able to effectively tackle large research complexes like the so called grand challenges.
The University of Helsinki has chosen to evaluate bigger research environments by defining the so called research communities, RC’s. The RC concept is not a very well-defined entity in the university organization but it is very interesting and challenging. An RC might be defined as a flexible grouping of researchers “across group- or discipline-boundaries”. The 22 RCs which were offered to the Panel for evaluation varied in size and age, which introduced difficulties in both ranking and recommendations. However, since the evaluation aims at enhancement of quality, not ranking, neither the size nor the age of an RC has to be taken into account this time. The RC concept will be further discussed later on in this report.
According to the University guidelines, the RCs were divided into five categories with the following definitions:
Category 1: The research of the participating community represents the international cutting edge in its field.
Category 2: The research of the participating community is of high quality, but the community in its present composition has yet to achieve strong international recognition or a clear breakthrough.
Category 3: The research of the participating community is distinct from mainstream research and the special features of the research tradition in the field must be considered in the evaluation.
Category 4: The research of the participating community represents an innovative opening.
Category 5: The research of the participating community has a highly significant societal impact.
Within Natural Sciences, 50% of the RCs chose the category 1. The category 3 was not represented and a few were found in the three other categories.
97Panel-specific Feedback − Natural Sciences
5.2 RESEARCH
The selection of the category of the individual RCs was found to be adequate in nearly all cases. Another category might have been applicable only for one RC. The RCs tend to fit into the wide focus areas, except if they border engineering, which is understandable with the Aalto University close by.
The table below summarizes the evaluation of the RCs for each category (1,2,3,4, and 5, respectively), for the evaluation parameters focus and quality of the research, practices and quality of doctoral training, societal impact of research and doctoral training, and international and national research collaboration and researcher mobility, respectively. As can be seen from the table, many RCs were found to operate at an excellent scientific level; some were even outstanding on most criteria. A small number of the RCs was still estimated as very good. The practices and quality of the doctoral training, the societal impact and the national and international collaborations and mobility were in general excellent. For the categories 1 and 2, the rankings are shifted somewhat to the right in comparison with the two other categories. For the categories 1 and 2 the average ranking is excellent or higher for all evaluation parameters while for category 4 it typically lies in the range from very good to excellent on all parameters.
Table 8. Distribution of marks in the Panel of Natural Sciences by participation category and evaluation parameter
CATEGORY QUALITY AND FOCUS
DOCTORAL TRAINING
SOCIETAL IMPACT COLLABORATION AND MOBILITY
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 4 7 6 5 1 7 3 5 6
2 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 2
4 2 3 1 3 2 1 4 2 1 1 2 2
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
Total 4 7 11 5 9 8 5 13 4 1 2 9 10
Quality and focus
The rankings of the RCs were remarkably high. However, the voluntary participation in the assessment can be anticipated to give higher rankings on average than in a situation where the participation would have been mandatory. Anyhow, the rankings summarized in the table indicate that there exist many RCs in natural sciences at UH carrying out research and doctoral training at a very high level. Overall the Panel was very impressed by the qualities in the faculty.
The evaluations often reflected a maturity level in the scientific development of the RC as well as in the focusing. The recently formed RCs were in general less focused and the RCs consisted in several cases more or less of the older research groups with relatively weak integrations. This means that there is certainly a good potential for
98 Panel-specific Feedback − Natural Sciences
further development. However, it may require both stronger leadership as well as formal restructurings in some cases.
Strategic action plans
Many RCs have capitalized on their proven performance. Less effort was put into the strategic action plans. They were in general too short-termed and neither original nor very visionary. Stronger international breakthroughs require well developed strategic action plans as well as sharpening of the research agendas in both the shorter and the longer time-perspectives. In this respect it was not clear what the actual status of RCs is in relation to the department or faculty structure or other structures (like the Centres of Excellence) and what role its strategic action plan can have independent of the existing organization.
Operational conditions and infrastructure
The operational conditions and the infrastructures were judged to be excellent in most cases. However, there seems to be a need of an infrastructural planning procedure both within each RC as well as at the faculty/university level. There is also a need for co-planning of infrastructure between various RCs. The heavy investments in infrastructures are usually long-term commitments and drive the development of the research and sometimes even the doctoral training to a large extent. This means that careful and broad planning procedures are required. In comparison with many other European universities, the research profiles developed in Natural Sciences at UH require extraordinarily large infrastructural investments both in funding and in planning time. The contributions by researchers from UH in the design and use of the large-scale facilities world-wide are of high quality and well-recognized. Finally, participation in the planning of the infrastructures at the EU level is also recommended.
Funding
Many RCs if not all depend on external funding for their research. Depending on the research profiles of the RCs, various funding agencies could be approached. The external funding for the RCs evaluated varied from strictly the Academy of Finland (AoF) to include TEKES and also in many cases important industry funding. The role and level of funds from Finnish sources (special programs, Academy of Finland, industry) is important, and there are some successes in European-wide context. However, the role and level of European-wide funding (ERC, EU) could be developed further in several of the RCs. The RC concept may be perfect for this, to leverage a concerted effort e.g. in the upcoming Horizon 2020 framework. A concrete strategy for the acquisition of research funding that takes expected opportunities and uncertainties into account may be advised for all RCs.
Information on the external funding situation for every RC is very important. However, it would have been beneficial for this meta-evaluation to have information on the financial support of the RCs by the university as well. Such information would have been useful for overall assessment of both scientific productivity and freedom to
99Panel-specific Feedback − Natural Sciences
operate, the latter very important in order to develop the RC concept fully along its potential. Usually the university has fewer strings attached to its funding, making them very useful and attractive within the RCs.
Collaborations
The international and national research collaborations varied quite a lot depending on research areas and traditions. Exchange of students and of professors for longer or shorter times should be improved for some RCs. Even a short sabbatical would be of interest for professors. Participation in various EU programs is also recommended even though some RCs have already been very successful in this. Finally we would like to stress the importance of sabbaticals for professors for renewal of research and creation of exchange programs.
Societal impact
All the RCs have the basic societal impact with their research and production of highly skilled PhDs. Their research agendas cover extremely wide fields from cosmology and instrument development to information technology, environmental science, climate change and biorefining. Several RCs are leading in international research collaborations, attacking the so called grand challenges. Other RCs play an important role in society with their research and interactions with various organizations and authorities. A few RCs have frequent and substantial collaborations directly with relevant industries. With further development of the RC concept, the societal impact can probably be enhanced.
For quite a few RCs the introduction of the concept of the so-called “knowledge triangle” might be useful to increase the quality of the research as well as the education and the societal impact. The knowledge triangle is nothing else than an interaction platform between research, education and innovation/companies and can be designed in different ways. It might be used in “open innovation” activities with a focus on generic knowledge. UH could also consider exploiting RCs in an innovation strategy across all disciplines. By way of incentive, UH could identify or select (say) 5 RCs of high level and potential and with a great vision, and reinforce them to realize their vision. An active policy to encourage novel RCs could be developed, which is stimulating for researchers and which positions UH optimally for the innovation-aimed research initiatives at all levels (including Horizon 2020).
Leadership, management and recruitment
The leadership and management of the RCs were in general based on a “management by consensus” philosophy. Good leadership is particularly important in the very interdisciplinary RCs for ensuring active knowledge transfer between scientists with a different disciplinary background. The challenge is to find ways to make scientists with different academic disciplines to understand each other and to ensure effective communication. The descriptions of the management and organization structures in relation to the departmental structures were usually very vague.
100 Panel-specific Feedback − Natural Sciences
Personnel management and recruitment are extremely important issues also for universities. The Panel observed a number of common issues or concerns in the evaluation of RCs in the domain of personnel management across all disciplines:
• Policies for sustaining research leadership (in the RCs)• Policies to anticipate timely on the retirements of professors (e.g. change of course,
new blood)• Workload policies given the increasing time needed for acquisition of research funds.
A distinction between “teaching staff” and “researchers that bring in funding” may eventually develop
• Ingredients for career development of scientific staff (e.g. start-up grants for young professors, short-sabbaticals)
• Greater balance in gender representation in faculties and graduate programs needs attention
• The increased administrative burden, observed at many universities, is of course a problem for many academics. This extends to the time required to write applications for research funding. These are issues which have to be resolved within each organization, for instance by support in project management or by other arrangements. We observe the development of new professions (scientific project managers or coordinators) in departments and bigger research groups to administratively support researchers. This kind of project coordinators should at least have a PhD as a basic competence level in order to be effective. Many of the assessed RCs are big enough to certainly gain in many aspects from this kind of administrative support, if it can be afforded. The smaller RCs might have joint arrangements of such support.
• Post docs: An important category for inducing new research initiatives is the post doc. However, it was not obvious from the evaluation documents how to develop from a post doc to an independent researcher in an RC. The number of post docs varied considerably between the RCs. In some RCs there were relatively few PhD students, making it difficult for post docs to gain practical experience in supervising research. Another important academic career aspect for post docs is to gain teaching experience, which was difficult in some RCs although the teaching loads seemed to be too high in other RCs. Even if the evaluation documents were meager with respect to career opportunities for post docs, the general impression by the Panel was that more attention should be paid to the post doc group to enhance quality and creativity.
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS TO ENHANCE QUALITY AND FOCUSING IN THE RESEARCH
The recommendations to enhance quality vary from RC to RC. The RC-specific recommendations can be found in the RC-reports. The most common recommendations are given below.
• Integrate more effectively the research topics of the RCs.• Develop visionary long-term strategic action plans.• Initiate long-term planning of infrastructures and access to infrastructures within
RCs, between RCs and across disciplinary borders as well as internationally.
101Panel-specific Feedback − Natural Sciences
• Stimulate international co-operations and participation in international exchange programs on all levels (students, post docs, professors) and participate in e.g. the Marie Curie programs.
• Recruit personnel and doctorate candidates after international announcement.• Professionalize researchers and develop a support structure for applications
of research funding and project coordination by employing project managers. Researchers have to specialize more and can no longer be “ein Mädchen fur alles”.
• Work along the concept of the knowledge triangle to introduce more interdisciplinary research and to increase the societal impact.
• Develop further the leadership and management of the RCs and identify role models within the university.
• Develop a post doc career program at the university level.• Elucidate the organization and governance structure of the RCs in relation to the
departments (see below).
5.4 PRACTICES AND QUALITY OF THE DOCTORAL TRAINING
Practices and quality of the doctoral training were in general excellent (see Table 9), even though there was an extremely wide variation in the practices. The Panel was very pleased to see the frequent involvement in national graduate schools as well as in some international schools. Some RCs participated in large international research collaborations, making participation in international exchange programs natural. The high quality in the doctoral training within several RCs is confirmed by the fact that produced PhDs are also attractive for post doc positions abroad.
A prerequisite for a high quality in the doctoral training is that the students are exposed to excellent research, which is the case for most of the assessed RCs. However, there was a large variation already in the recruitment procedure, from handpicking candidates to international announcement. Some students had only one supervisor while others had many. The course requirements seem to vary quite a lot. Routines to follow the progress in the PhD education were in many cases not described in the evaluation documents by the RCs, and procedures for annual reviews and revision of research plans were lacking for several RCs. More uniformity in these respects could be helpful and effective, as demonstrated in some RCs.
The information on graduate training (PhD programs) was basically limited to procedural aspects making an overall assessment of the doctoral training difficult. The Panel read excellent commitments throughout. The number of PhDs per RC does not seem to follow an ideal indicator. Also, it was not clear whether an RC can or should be responsible for a graduate program (master or PhD) rather than e.g. a department.
102 Panel-specific Feedback − Natural Sciences
5.5 STRATEGIC ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PRACTICES AND QUALITY IN THE DOCTORAL TRAINING
• Increase the international recruitment of PhD students as much as possible.• Increase the involvement in international exchange programs like Marie Curie.• Graduate schools seem to work well and increased engagement in such schools is
judged to be relevant.• PhD training seemed often distributed over a variety of organizational structures.
This seemed unnecessarily complex and possibly without much impact for students.• PhD supervision is probably excellently done everywhere but procedural requirements
seemed to differ by department. A university-wide standard based on best practice of some departments is advised.
• Some aspects of the supervision process seemed underexposed, e.g. the annual review and revision of PhD research plans.
5.6 RESEARCH COMMUNITIES – A UNIT FOR NEW RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES AND DOCTORAL TRAINING
Using RCs as units of evaluation (RC = Research Community) is an original concept, although the position and acceptance of RCs in the organization was not clear and left the Panel guessing about their status (see later). We considered RCs as “research and education units” in the evaluation.
But, it was not clear what we actually evaluated if RC structures are only temporary and without consequences. A possible vision for the concept of RCs could be: a flexible grouping of researchers “across group- or discipline-boundaries”, to join forces for shaping a new research or innovation challenge. RCs can capture a theme in the dynamic development of science and can be an instrument in an innovation strategy, forming a setting that suit people best. RCs could arise around new opportunities and should be able to count on a recognized status if approved, to benefit from faculty or university support, maybe under an Innovation Board. The concept of the so-called knowledge triangle is judged to be applicable to many RCs.
The possible consequences of using the RC concept as outlined above might be summarized in the following way:
• RCs should have clear goals to achieve e.g in shaping a new subdiscipline or in a new challenge in funding (joint proposals in multidisciplinary area)
• RCs can be temporary and should fold if goals are not reached or prove infeasible; some will “fly”, some will disappear
• RCs will be strike forces, not new sections in the organization. Thus, management should not be an issue and remain with the existing (departmental) organization.
• RCs should not overtake the responsibility for teaching programs from the department• RCs should immediately benefit from support by the innovation Board.
103Panel-specific Feedback − Natural Sciences
Evaluation of RC should assess their success in achieving the set goals. From this perspective “past performance” of the researchers is important, but the vision and the strategic plan of an RC are more crucial. RCs should be decided by the university/faculty board for a limited but longer time, say 10 years, with assessments during this period of time. Rules for termination procedures, governance, expansions, reductions, etc should be set before starting an RC.
Observations and comments on the research community concept and the evaluation procedure
Meta-evaluation is an interesting and useful instrument in assessing research qualities. The criteria for scientific excellence (research, education, societal impact, and strategic action plan) used in this assessment are internationally accepted. It also has shortcomings: tendency to highlight good points only, no personal interviews, no site visits, i.e., concrete inspection of laboratory surroundings. Completeness of self-evaluations in this process is impossible to assess, concrete advising based on paper information difficult and risky.
Universities face a new challenge: the knowledge triangle (research-education-innovation). Multidisciplinary research is only one ingredient of a policy aimed at “research and education for innovation”. RCs as defined in this evaluation might be a start to tackle the new challenges and being attractive partners in research co-operations.
The RCs were formed bottom-up by initiative of the research groups themselves. However, the emphasis seemed slanted towards grouping along established centers, less towards new endeavours and strategic initiatives. It was not clear how groups in an RC are concretely collaborating or what new opportunities were created in the process. The RC concept is seen as experimental at the present stage and as said earlier the long term visions seemed not well documented for most RCs and the strategic action plans were mostly too short-term. Categories (1−5) are interesting but seemed to be static indicators only and not as orthogonal as perhaps desired. Their strategic meaning and impact could have been integrated more in the strategic action plans.
The participation in this meta-evaluation was voluntarily and not all research groups were presumable covered by this concept. Thus the research evaluation does not give a complete picture of all research within the faculty. Individual research qualities are not assessed, only qualities as a group or consortium. “Averaging” over the number of PIs in a group does not give a meaningful account of the research qualities and has a tendency to hide activities of lower qualities. Concrete accounts of most important results were often not included.
The evaluation was somewhat hampered by the unclarity of the RC concept. Given the voluntary character of the RCs, it was not very clear to the evaluators (nor to the RCs) what the University intends to achieve with it. The RCs were very different in size, making the assessments incomparable. Also, it was not clear from the RC evaluation documents what the governance model of an RC is expected to be. This means that recommendations have unclear status and impact, if the governance of the RCs is not developed.
104 Panel-specific Feedback − Natural Sciences
The present meta-evaluation has, as discussed above, some possible shortcomings in assessing the not fully developed concept of RCs. For some research areas the concept can be stimulating and open new research scenarios and opportunities. To follow the development of an RC over time, bibliometric analysis is judged to be appropriate at the instrument level. The bibliographic and bibliometric information to support this evaluation was extensive and more than adequate. The TUHAT database may now be maintained for future purposes. It is well-known that bibliometric indicators are not uniform and have to be interpreted with care within every discipline and subarea. A subarea presented by e.g. an RC might be useful for longitudinal bibliometric studies of the development of the research in an RC.
The Panel compliments UH and its researchers for engaging in this new approach to research evaluation. We hope the assessments and recommendations are helpful to enhance quality at all levels in research and doctoral training.
5.7 DISTRIBUTION OF SCORES
Table 9. Numeric evaluation of RCs in the Panel of Natural Sciences
RCS (22) QUALITY OF RESEARCH
DOCTORAL TRAINING
SOCIETAL IMPACT
CO-OPERATION
CATEGORY FITNESS
SUM OF SCORES
CAT.
ALKO 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 1
ANDY 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 23.5 1
ASP 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 21.0 1
ATM 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 1
BAYES 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 5.0 23.0 5
BNCTMI 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 18.0 2
CARBON14 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 14.0 4
CoE CMS 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 18.5 1
ECO 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 3.5 19.5 4
GIMMEC 4.5 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 22.5 2
HLG 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 18.5 1
HUBI 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 21.0 4
HYRL 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 17.0 5
INV 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 23.0 1
LIC 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 23.0 1
LTCC 5.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 22.5 1
MAC 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 19.0 4
MATENA 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 21.0 1
MedChemBio 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 16.5 4
NODES 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 22.5 2
PaCo 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 23.0 1
SOFTSYS 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 16.0 4
Average 4.16 4.02 3.82 4.09 4.50 20.6
The table is organized in alphabetical order. The mean of the scores in quality of research is relatively high, 4.16 (panels’ average 3.96). The panel mainly scored the category fitness either 4 or 5, thus the distribution of scores is quite narrow (stdev 0.56). For a comparison of panels, see Table 33.
105Panel-specific Feedback − Natural Sciences
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–201087
5.7 Distribution of scores
Table 9. Numeric evaluation of RCs in the Panel of Natural Sciences
RCs (22) Quality of research
Doctoral training
Societal impact
Co-operation
Category fitness
Sum of scores Category
ALKO 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 1ANDY 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 23.5 1ASP 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 21.0 1ATM 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 1BAYES 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 5.0 23.0 5BNCTMI 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 18.0 2CARBON14 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 14.0 4CoE CMS 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 18.5 1ECO 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 3.5 19.5 4GIMMEC 4.5 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 22.5 2HLG 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 18.5 1HUBI 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 21.0 4HYRL 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 17.0 5INV 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 23.0 1LIC 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 23.0 1LTCC 5.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 22.5 1MAC 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 19.0 4MATENA 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 21.0 1MedChemBio 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 16.5 4NODES 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 22.5 2PaCo 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 23.0 1SOFTSYS 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 16.0 4Average 4.16 4.02 3.82 4.09 4.50 20.6
The table is organized in alphabetical order. The mean of the scores in quality of research is relatively high, 4.16 (panels’ average 3.96). The panel mainly scored the category fitness either 4 or 5, thus the distribution of scores is quite narrow (stdev 0.56). For a comparison of panels, see Table 33.
0,0
5,0
10,0
15,0
20,0
25,0
30,0
ALKO
ATM
ANDY
BAYE
S
INV LIC
PaCo
GIM
MEC
LTCC
NO
DES
ASP
MAT
ENA
HUBI
ECO
MAC
CoE
CMS
HLG
BNCT
MI
HYRL
Med
Chem
Bio
SOFT
SYS
CARB
ON
14
Panel of Natural Sciences
Quality of research Doctoral training Societal impact Cooperation Category fitness
Figure 12. Distributions of numeric evaluation in the Panel of Natural Sciences
The RCs are organised according to the sum of first four evaluation questions. Category fitness was added to the results. Two of the RCs received full scores (25).
106 Panel-specific Feedback − Natural Sciences
5.8 PUBLICATION STATISTICS
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–201088
Figure 12. Distributions of numeric evaluation in the Panel of Natural Sciences
The RCs are organised according to the sum of first four evaluation questions. Category fitness was added to the results. Two of the RCs received full scores (25).
5.8 Publication statistics
Figure 13. Natural Sciences: Number of WoS and A1−A4 publications (TUHAT), RCs 22 Figure 14. Natural Sciences: Number of WoS
citations, RCs 22
The RCs’ order in the figures: the first figure (on the left) indicates the ratio of WoS publications to A1−A4 (TUHAT). The correlation between the indicators (WoS publications/(A1−A4) and TCS) in the figures is 0.35. The figures indicate that the correlation between the total citations and WoS publications is very high (0.91). Publications in WoS (Web of Science) and TCS (total citations) are based on the CWTS/Leiden indicators.
A-publications are categorised in the TUHAT RIS as follows:A1 Refereed journal articleA2 Review in scientific journalA3 Contribution to book/other compilations (refereed)A4 Article in conference publication (refereed)
0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
ATM PaCo
LIC MATENA
ASP HUBI
CoE CMS ANDY LTCC ALKO MAC
MedChemBio GIMMEC
ECO BNCTMI
CARBON14 HYRL
INV BAYES
HLG NODES
SOFTSYS
No. of publications with WoS id
No. of A1-A4 publications
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
ATM PaCo
LIC MATENA CoE CMS
HUBI LTCC ASP
GIMMEC MAC ALKO
MedChemBio BAYES ANDY
CARBON14 BNCTMI
ECO INV
HYRL NODES
HLG SOFTSYS
TCS
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–201088
Figure 12. Distributions of numeric evaluation in the Panel of Natural Sciences
The RCs are organised according to the sum of first four evaluation questions. Category fitness was added to the results. Two of the RCs received full scores (25).
5.8 Publication statistics
Figure 13. Natural Sciences: Number of WoS and A1−A4 publications (TUHAT), RCs 22 Figure 14. Natural Sciences: Number of WoS
citations, RCs 22
The RCs’ order in the figures: the first figure (on the left) indicates the ratio of WoS publications to A1−A4 (TUHAT). The correlation between the indicators (WoS publications/(A1−A4) and TCS) in the figures is 0.35. The figures indicate that the correlation between the total citations and WoS publications is very high (0.91). Publications in WoS (Web of Science) and TCS (total citations) are based on the CWTS/Leiden indicators.
A-publications are categorised in the TUHAT RIS as follows:A1 Refereed journal articleA2 Review in scientific journalA3 Contribution to book/other compilations (refereed)A4 Article in conference publication (refereed)
0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
ATM PaCo
LIC MATENA
ASP HUBI
CoE CMS ANDY LTCC ALKO MAC
MedChemBio GIMMEC
ECO BNCTMI
CARBON14 HYRL
INV BAYES
HLG NODES
SOFTSYS
No. of publications with WoS id
No. of A1-A4 publications
0 1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
ATM PaCo
LIC MATENA CoE CMS
HUBI LTCC ASP
GIMMEC MAC ALKO
MedChemBio BAYES ANDY
CARBON14 BNCTMI
ECO INV
HYRL NODES
HLG SOFTSYS
TCS
Figure 13. Natural Sciences: Number of WoS and A1−A4 publications (TUHAT), RCs 22
Figure 14. Natural Sciences: Number of WoS citations, RCs 22
The RCs’ order in the figures: the first figure (on the left) indicates the ratio of WoS publications to A1−A4 (TUHAT). The correlation between the indicators (WoS publications/(A1−A4) and TCS) in the figures is 0.35. The figures indicate that the correlation between the total citations and WoS publications is very high (0.91). Publications in WoS (Web of Science) and TCS (total citations) are based on the CWTS/Leiden indicators.
A-publications are categorised in the TUHAT RIS as follows:
A1 Refereed journal articleA2 Review in scientific journalA3 Contribution to book/other compilations (refereed)A4 Article in conference publication (refereed)
107Panel-specific Feedback − Natural Sciences
5.9 BIBLIOMETRIC INDICATORS
Table 10. Natural Sciences: publications, citations and field-normalized figures in the CWTS/Leiden analysis
RCS (23) ALL AC PWOS TCS MCS PNC MNCS MNJS THCP10 INT_COV
ALKO3 676 637 180 748 4.21 42.22 1.12 1.43 1.06 0.64
ANDY 376 343 207 462 2.23 49.76 2.20 1.21 2.03 0.58
ASP 652 475 306 1256 4.10 29.74 0.67 0.94 0.48 0.75
ATM 1572 984 692 4980 7.23 21.97 1.55 1.37 1.58 0.82
BAYES 219 84 59 494 8.37 30.51 2.27 1.58 1.97 0.65
BNCTMI 130 102 75 370 4.98 30.67 1.47 1.00 1.43 0.79
CARBON14 109 94 68 382 5.62 41.18 1.34 0.96 1.14 0.66
CoE CMS 269 250 223 1411 6.39 26.91 1.15 1.22 1.18 0.81
ECO 385 181 85 362 4.26 28.24 0.89 1.11 0.53 0.61
GIMMEC 237 186 124 960 7.74 27.42 1.92 1.56 2.21 0.69
HLG4 120 94 30 18 0.60 60.00 1.30 0.55 1.43 0.37
HUBI 301 272 226 1331 5.91 19.47 1.57 1.33 1.45 0.82
HYRL 156 143 66 96 1.45 46.97 0.57 1.05 0.29 0.68
INV 90 85 60 327 5.45 26.67 3.50 1.85 4.10 0.63
LIC 529 505 447 2003 4.48 28.19 1.14 1.19 1.16 0.79
LTCC 313 269 198 1283 6.53 29.80 1.64 1.36 1.79 0.65
MAC 178 175 126 829 6.61 26.98 1.53 1.40 2.15 0.89
MATENA 490 447 377 1962 5.20 31.03 1.23 1.36 1.27 0.80
MedChemBio 142 136 125 657 5.29 23.20 0.91 1.24 0.68 0.89
NODES19 393 337 29 42 1.45 65.52 0.48 1.02 0.46 0.33
PaCo 910 817 468 3332 7.12 31.62 1.16 1.21 1.26 0.71
SOFTSYS19 80 62 2 7 3.50 0 1.21 1.61 0 0.16
Total 8327 6678 4173
The CWTS/Leiden analysis: Number of publications (PWoS), Total number of citations (TCS), Number of citations per publication (MCS), Percentage of uncited publications (pnc), Field-normalized number of citations (MNCS), Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS), Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) (THCP10), Internal coverage, i.e. inside WoS publications (int_cov).
The number of all publications (publication types from A to I) is based on the TUHAT RIS data where A and C publications belong to the scientific publications:
A1 Refereed journal articleA2 Review in scientific journalA3 Contribution to book/other compilations (refereed)A4 Article in conference publication (refereed)C1 Published scientific monographC2 Edited book, compilation, conference proceeding or special issue of journal
108 Panel-specific Feedback − Natural Sciences
MNJS in relation to MNCS of publications of RCs
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–201090
MNJS in relation to MNCS of publications of RCs
Figure 15. MNJS in relation to MNCS
In Figure 15, only RCs with publications ≥ 50 are included, 1920
Of all 19 RCs 14 belong to square 1. Of the rest five RCs, three belong to square 2 and two of them are very close to the world average. Three of the RCs could not be analysed by the CWTS/Leiden because the reliability requirements were not fulfilled (publications, P≥50 and internal coverage ≥ 0.40), thus they were analysed by the HU Library.
. The RCs’ publications value for MNJS is placed on the horizontal axis, and the value for MNCS on the vertical axis. The axes indicate the world average (1.0). The MNJS indicator refers to the field-normalized average journal impact and describes the impact of the journals in which the RC published their papers. This describes the researchers’ level of ambition when choosing the journal in which to publish the results. Combination of indicators is applied by the Evaluation Office.
The Helsinki University Library applied Norwegian and Australian publication rankings in order to have international benchmark for the comparison of the RCs’ publications. It was known that the first model of Australian publication ranking was cancelled in 2011. It included, however, applicable comprehensive rankings of journals, publishing houses and conference proceedings.
Interpretation of square areas in the figure
Square 1: RCs publish their papers in high-impact journals and the number of citations they receive exceeds the world average in their field.Square 2: RCs publish their papers in high-impact journals and the number of citations they receive falls below the world average in their field.Square 3: RCs publish their papers in low-impact journals and the number of citations they receive falls below the world average in their field.
20 HLG, NODES and SOFTSYS are excluded.
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
0 0,25 0,5 0,75 1 1,25 1,5 1,75 2
MN
CS
MNJS
MNJS/MNCS relation (Natural Sciences)
4 1
23
Figure 15. MNJS in relation to MNCS
In Figure 15, only RCs with publications ≥ 50 are included, 191. The RCs’ publications value for MNJS is placed on the horizontal axis, and the value for MNCS on the vertical axis. The axes indicate the world average (1.0). The MNJS indicator refers to the field-normalized average journal impact and describes the impact of the journals in which the RC published their papers. This describes the researchers’ level of ambition when choosing the journal in which to publish the results. Combination of indicators is applied by the Evaluation Office.
Of all 19 RCs 14 belong to square 1. Of the rest five RCs, three belong to square 2 and two of them are very close to the world average. Three of the RCs could not be analysed by the CWTS/Leiden because the reliability requirements were not fulfilled (publications, P≥50 and internal coverage ≥ 0.40), thus they were analysed by the HU Library.
The Helsinki University Library applied Norwegian and Australian publication rankings in order to have international benchmark for the comparison of the RCs’ publications. It was known that the first model of Australian publication ranking was cancelled in 2011. It included, however, applicable comprehensive rankings of journals, publishing houses and conference proceedings.
Interpretation of square areas in the figure
Square 1: RCs publish their papers in high-impact journals and the number of citations they receive exceeds the world average in their field.
1 HLG, NODES and SOFTSYS are excluded.
109Panel-specific Feedback − Natural Sciences
Square 2: RCs publish their papers in high-impact journals and the number of citations they receive falls below the world average in their field.
Square 3: RCs publish their papers in low-impact journals and the number of citations they receive falls below the world average in their field.
Square 4: RCs publish their papers in low-impact journals and the number of citations they receive exceeds the world average in their field.
Impact and robustness of publications of RCs
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010 91
Square 4: RCs publish their papers in low-impact journals and the number of citations they receive exceeds the world average in their field.
Impact and robustness of publications of RCs
Figure 16. THCP10 in relation to MNCS
In Figure 16, only RCs with publications ≥ 50 are included, 1921
An RC with a high MNCS and THCP10 that exceeds the international average can be interpreted as having good and robust publication practices as was the case with 15 RCs of all 19. Three of the RCs could not be analysed by the CWTS/Leiden because the reliability requirements were not fulfilled (publications, P≥50 and internal coverage ≥ 0.40). They were analysed by the HU Library.
. The RCs’ publications value for THCP10 is placed on the horizontal axis, and the value for MNCS on the vertical. The axes indicate the world average. By combining the two indicators, MNCS and THCP10, the publication activity of RC can be described as a whole. This gives an idea of how robust the field normalized indicator MNCS is. Combination of indicators is applied by the Evaluation Office.
21 HLG, NODES and SOFTSYS are excluded.
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5
MN
CS
THCP10
THCP10/MNCS relation (Natural Sciences)
Figure 16. THCP10 in relation to MNCS
In Figure 16, only RCs with publications ≥ 50 are included, 192. The RCs’ publications value for THCP10 is placed on the horizontal axis, and the value for MNCS on the vertical. The axes indicate the world average. By combining the two indicators, MNCS and THCP10, the publication activity of RC can be described as a whole. This gives an idea of how robust the field normalized indicator MNCS is. Combination of indicators is applied by the Evaluation Office.
An RC with a high MNCS and THCP10 that exceeds the international average can be interpreted as having good and robust publication practices as was the case with 15 RCs of all 19. Three of the RCs could not be analysed by the CWTS/Leiden because the reliability requirements were not fulfilled (publications, P≥50 and internal coverage ≥ 0.40). They were analysed by the HU Library.
2 HLG, NODES and SOFTSYS are excluded.
110 Panel-specific Feedback − Natural Sciences
Complementary bibliometric information of RCs
Table 11. Australian Conference Rankings of ALKO3, NODES4 and SOFTSYS
RC A4+B3 AUCR A
AUCR B
AUCR C
NOT FOUND
AUCR TOT. /(A4+B3)
A4+B3 /MB
AUCR TOT. /MB
AUCR TOT. (WEIGHTED)
AUCR TOT. (WEIGHTED) /MB
ALKO 315 119 46 28 122 61% 3.3 2.0 298.00 3.14
NODES 257 49 64 29 115 55% 7.6 4.2 176.50 5.19
SOFTSYS 39 4 10 5 20 49% 2.6 1.3 20.50 1.37
Total 611 172 120 62 257
Explanations of Table 11
A4+B3 Total number of the RC’s articles in conference publications (for a list of publication types, see Appendix 11)AUCR A, B, C Number of articles in Australian conference ranking where A is the highest and C the lowest tierNot found Number of articles not found in Australian conference rankingAUCR tot. Sum of level A, B and C articlesAUCR tot./(A4+B3) Coverage of the RC’s conference articles in Australian conference rankingA4+B3/mb Number of conference articles per memberAUCR tot./mb Number of articles in ranked conferences per memberAUCR tot. (weighted) Weighted value of all ranked articles, where coefficients for tiers are A*2, B*1 and C*0.5AUCR (weighted)/mb Weighted value of ranked articles per member
Table 12. Publish or Perish: refereed articles in conference publications of ALKO, NODES and SOFTSYS
RC P POP C POP P POP /A4 P POP /MB C POP/MB
ALKO 174 1989 0.57 1.83 20.94
NODES 85 798 0.37 2.50 23.47
SOFTSYS 31 54 0.08 1.24 2.16
Sum 290 2841
3 CWTS analysis covered under 40 percent of scientific publications of the RC, thus the HU Library analyses were also applied.
4 NODES and SOFTSYS did not fulfil the criteria requirement of CWTS/Leiden (P ≥ 50 and int_cov ≥ 0.40).
111Panel-specific Feedback − Natural Sciences
Explanations of Table 12
Publish or Perish was requested by some RCs for their publication analyses. See Harzing’s Publish or Perish: http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm. The data is based on Google Scholar. Hirsch’s h-index is one of the main indicators applied by Harzing.
P PoP Number of publications in Publish or PerishC PoP Number of citations in Publish or PerishP PoP /A4 Coverage of the RC’s A4 (refereed conference articles) publications in Publish or PerishP PoP /mb Number of publications per member in Publish or PerishC PoP/mb Number of citations per member in Publish or Perish
Table 13. HLG5 in Norwegian and Australian journal rankingRC NJ2 NJ1 NJ TOT. NJ TOT. /MB AUPR
A*AUPR
AAUPR
BAUPR
CAUPR TOT.
AUPR TOT. /MB
HLG 16 28 44 1.4 4 23 17 1 45 1.5
Table 14. HLG’s weighted values (coefficients) in Norwegian and Australian journal rankingsRC NJ2
(3)NJ1 (2)
NJ TOT. NJ TOT. /MB AUPR A* (3)
AUPR A (2)
AUPR B (1)
AUPR C (0.5)
AUPR TOT.
AUPR TOT. /MB
HLG 48 56 104 3.4 12 46 17 0.5 75.5 2.4
Explanations of Table 13 and Table 14
NJ2 Number of articles in Norwegian journal ranking level 2 (highest)NJ1 Number of articles in Norwegian journal ranking level 1NJ tot. Total number of articles in Norwegian journal rankingNJ tot./mb Total number of articles in Norwegian journal ranking per member
AUPR A*, A, B, C Number of articles in Australian journal ranking where A* is the highest and C lowest tierAUPR tot. Sum of articles in tiers A*, A, B and CAUPR tot./mb Articles in Australian journal ranking per member
5 HLG did not fulfil the criteria requirements of CWTS/Leiden (P ≥ 50 and int_cov ≥ 0.40)
112 Panel-specific Feedback − Natural Sciences
3 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − BIOLOGICAL, AGRICULTURAL AND VETERINARY SCIENCES
4 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − MEDICINE, BIOMEDICINE AND HEALTH SCIENCES
5 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − NATURAL SCIENCES
7 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − SOCIAL SCIENCES
8 OVERALL STATISTICS ON THE EVALUATION
9 RESEARCH PERFORMANCE
10 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSES
11 SUMMARY REPORT OF DOCTORAL TRAINING
12 CONCLUDING REMARKS
13 APPENDICES
2 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION
6 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − HUMANITIES
1 INTRODUCTION TO THE EVALUATION
115Panel-specific Feedback − Humanities
PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK – HUMANITIES
Panel MembersProfessor Wim van den Doel, Chair
Professor Kerstin Jonasson, Vice-Chair
Professor Regina Bendix
Professor Paul Cobley
Professor Troels Engberg-Pedersen1
Professor Erhard Hinrichs
Professor Jutta Scherrer
Professor Klaus Tanner2
Professor Pauline von Bonsdorff
1 Professor Engberg-Pedersen contributed in the report writing although he was not able to take part in the meetings in Helsinki.
2 Professor Tanner was involved in the discussions in Helsinki, but not in the pre-work and report writing.
116 Panel-specific Feedback − Humanities
Researcher Communities in the Panel of HumanitiesNumber of RCs 28, principal investigators 246 and other members 839
ACRONYM OF RC
NAME OF RC RESPONSIBLE PERSON OF RC
PIS MBS. TOT.
AHCI Art, History and Critical Interpretations Lukkarinen, Ville 3 23 26
AMNE Ancient Mediterranean and the Near East Kajava, Mika 12 14 26
ARCH-HU Archaeology (in the Department of Philosophy, History, Culture and Art Studies)
Lavento, Mika 4 52 56
ART Arte Research Team Pyrhönen, Heta 10 49 59
BAULT Building and use of language technology Koskenniemi, Kimmo 13 17 30
CECH Contemporary European Church History Lauha, Aila 3 26 29
CITA Changing Identities in the Americas Henriksson, Markku 8 27 35
CMVG Cultural Meanings and Vernacular Genres Anttonen, Pertti 3 18 21
CoCoLaC Comparing and Contrasting Languages and Cultures
Havu, Eva 14 28 42
CSTT Changes in Sacred Texts and Traditions Aejmelaeus, Anneli 6 18 24
FC The Formation of Christianity: Historical, Social and Cognitive Perspectives
Dunderberg, Ismo 7 25 32
Gender Studies
Gender Studies Pulkkinen, Tuija 13 46 59
GLW Genres of Literary Worldmaking Lyytikäinen, Pirjo- 4 27 31
HIST History Meinander, Henrik 15 56 71
ILLC Interfaces between Language, Literature and Culture
Pettersson, Bo 11 21 32
Interaction Language and Social Interaction Klippi, Anu 17 36 53
LDHFTA Linguistic Diversity: Historical, Functional and Typological Approaches
Janhunen, Juha 15 31 46
LFP Lingua Francas and Plurilingualism Mauranen, Anna 6 15 21
LMPS Logic, methodology, and philosophy of science Sandu, Gabriel 15 34 49
LMS Language, meaning and society Östman, Jan-Ola 15 73 88
MusSig Musical Signification Tarasti, Eero 4 24 28
PPMP Philosophical Psychology, Morality, and Politics Knuuttila, Simo 8 25 33
RCSP Religious Communication, Symbols, and Publicity
Heikkilä, Markku 8 17 25
RELDIAL Inter-Religious Dialogue Promoting Cross-Cultural Communication
Ruokanen, Miikka 4 27 31
RELSOC Religion and Society Saarinen, Risto 8 21 29
SHC Subjectivity, Historicity, and Communality: Studies in Philosophy and Political Sciences
Heinämaa, Sara 6 16 22
TraST Translation Studies and Terminology Vehmas-Lehto, Inkeri 9 32 41
VARIENG Research Unit for the Study of Variation, Contacts and Change in English
Nevalainen, Terttu 5 41 46
The panel’s feedback is presented in chapters 6.1–6.9. The tables and figures in chapter 6 are compiled by the Evaluation Office based on the statistics of the CWTS/Leiden and the Helsinki University Library.
117Panel-specific Feedback − Humanities
Fields of sciences of the Researcher Communities in the Panel of HumanitiesRC SUBFIELD 1 SUBFIELD 2 SUBFIELD 3 SUBFIELD 4 OTHER SCIENTIFIC
SUBFIELD
AHCI Art History Medieval and Renaissance Studies
-
AMNE Classics History and Philosophy of Science
Language and Linguistics Theory
-
ARCH-HU Archaeology Geosciences, Multidisciplinary
Environmental Sciences
Humanities, Multidisciplinary
Engineering sciences
ART Literary Theory and Criticism
Theater Film, Radio, Television
Philosophy
BAULT Language and Linguistics Theory
Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications
Information Science and Library Science
- infrastructures
CECH Theology History Humanities, Multidisciplinary
-
CITA Humanities, Multidisciplinary
Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary
- - Latin American Studies; North American Studies
CMVG Folklore - - -
CoCoLaC Humanities, Multidisciplinary
- - - Vocabulary, Constrastive Syntax, Text types and discourses, Pragmatic approaches to languages and cultures
CSTT Theology History Archaeology Classics Semitic languages and cultures Translation science
FC Theology Religion - -
Gender Studies
Women’s Studies
- - -
GLW Literature Literary Theory and Criticism
- - Finnish and Scandinavian Literature
HIST History - - -
ILLC Humanities, Multidisciplinary
Language and Linguistics Theory
Literary Theory and Criticism
Literature Translation studies
Interaction Social Sciences Behavioral Sciences
Education and Educational Research
Language and Linguistics Theory
LDHFTA Language and Linguistics Theory
Humanities, Multidisciplinary
- -
LFP Language and Linguistics Theory
Applied Linguistics
- - Lingua franca, bilingualism, plurilingualism, second language use
118 Panel-specific Feedback − Humanities
RC SUBFIELD 1 SUBFIELD 2 SUBFIELD 3 SUBFIELD 4 OTHER SCIENTIFIC SUBFIELD
LMPS Philosophy History and Philosophy of Science
Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary
Language and Linguistics Theory
Logic, philosophy of logic, foundations of mathematics, game-theory, philosophy of economics
LMS Language and Linguistics Theory
Applied Linguistics
Humanities, Multidisciplinary
- Pragmatics
MusSig Music - - - musicology, semiotics, musical semiotics
PPMP Philosophy Theology History -
RCSP Theology Art History Medieval and Renaissance Studies
RELDIAL Religion Theology Humanities, Multidisciplinary
Political Science World Cultures, Islamic Studies, Asian Studies, African Studies
RELSOC Theology Religion Humanities, Multidisciplinary
-
SHC Philosophy Political Science Women’s Studies
History and Philosophy of Science
History, art.
TraST Humanities Humanities, Multidisciplinary
- - Translation theory Semiotics of translation Terminology and specialized translation Sociology of translation History of translation Translation of multimodal texts Literary translation Interpreting Translator education Language and translation technology
VARIENG Language and Linguistics Theory
Humanities, Multidisciplinary
Medieval and Renaissance Studies
Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications
Historical linguistics
The table shows the fields of sciences chosen by the RCs in the Panel of Natural Sciences. Subfields 1−4 follow the classification of Web of Science (for a complete list, see Appendix 4), and “other scientific subfield” is the RC’s own description.
119Panel-specific Feedback − Humanities
6. PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − HUMANITIES
6.1 DOCTORAL PROGRAMMES
This research evaluation takes places at a time of major changes in the structure of the University of Helsinki. Like many universities in Europe, the University of Helsinki is developing distinct graduate programmes or even American style graduate schools in order to create a better environment for the doctoral training. At the same time, within the several faculties of the university, departments are merged into larger units, leaving open the question which shape doctoral training should take. Although the subject of doctoral training is very much a part of the research evaluation, because of these developments which are taking place right now it is hard to evaluate. But not only is it the case that the recent occurrence of the developments makes it hard to evaluate the state, the aims and the quality of the doctoral programmes; it should also be stated that the Panel was given insufficient data on doctoral education. No quantitative data were available (the number of full time funded PhD candidates, the number of self-funded “external” PhD candidates, the number of international PhD candidates, the success rate of these different groups, the duration of the research and the writing process, etc.); and also qualitative data were lacking: no dissertations were presented to the Panel and the Panel did not meet PhD candidates.
In order to evaluate doctoral programmes in the future, these important data on PhD candidates should be collected. Indeed, they should be collected not only for future panels, but also for the university / faculty management which at the moment does not seem to possess sufficient management information about this vital group within the university.
However, one important issue should be resolved before one can seriously interpret the data on the doctoral programmes: it is the question of which unit within the university takes responsibility for the doctoral training: is it the faculties, the larger departments or the Researcher Communities (RCs)? At the moment it is difficult to see any consensus on this issue, although in the way the evaluation as been set up (the RCs are questioned about their doctoral training) there is the impression that the RCs are the units which are supposed to take care of the doctoral training.
Then the question regarding the nature of an RC assumes importance. The nature of an RC does not seem to be clear given the fact that the Panel has seen quite a variety of RCs. At the very least, the RCs seem to have different background and rationales. The most focused RCs are the ones which originate from strong and coherent research groups (for example, certain groups in theology or linguistics). Other RCs are just former departments and do not have central themes and seem to lack internal cohesion. In addition, other RCs seem to be ad hoc combinations of groups formed just for the sake of the research evaluation. It is difficult to judge the RCs in this respect, since
120 Panel-specific Feedback − Humanities
there might be good reasons to have both either smaller, focused research communities as a basis of the doctoral training, or larger “departmental” RCs.
With regard to the doctoral training the Panel was impressed by some examples of national doctoral programmes. The Panel is concerned that with the formation of well-structured doctoral programmes within the University of Helsinki the continued existence of these national doctoral programmes will be threatened. This would be an unwelcome development since national doctoral programmes do give important additional training for specific groups that the University would not be able to support in an efficient way. Of course, the graduate schools of the University of Helsinki should remain responsible for the doctoral training and the quality assurance of this training. While courses on transferable skills can be best offered by the university, certain disciplinary activities could best remain in the hands of the national doctoral schools. The Panel recommends that the universities and the national doctoral schools come to an agreement about a division of labour regarding doctoral training.
In general the Panel recommends that the University of Helsinki develops an ethos and structure for its doctoral training in which PhD candidates not only have (1) a personal supervisor, but (2) also have larger groups of supervisors / coaches, (3) take certain courses or participate in certain activities (poster sessions, etc). within the disciplinary group (e.g. linguistics, history), (4) follow courses aimed at developing transferable skills which are offered university wide and (5) participate in the activities of the national doctoral programmes.
6.2 FINANCING OF DOCTORAL PROGRAMMES
One other issue seems to need attention: that is, the financing of the RCs and the doctoral training programmes. Although the evaluation material does not give any insights into the matter of financing, one guesses that most of the RCs do not control any budgets. Budgets seem to be the responsibility of the faculties and the (larger) departments. This can make perfect sense, but one consequence might be that the responsibility for doctoral training should also be in the hands of the faculty and the larger departments. In that way, the faculty can be compensated for being active in the doctoral programmes (for instance by being given a reduced workload in the BA- and MA-programmes). In this model, the RCs would function simply as “doctoral programmes” in the same way that within one department several BA- and MA-programmes might operate. If this model is to be adopted, the RCs should take the form of clearly defined and clearly focused groups as exist within the fields of theology and linguistics.
6.3 INTERNATIONALIZATION OF DOCTORAL PROGRAMMES
It is important for the University of Helsinki to attract more international PhD students. It is not possible within the Humanities to set the same targets as within the Natural Sciences, but there should be an ambition to create a more international “doctoral classroom”. In
121Panel-specific Feedback − Humanities
this regard, the Panel recommends that the University of Helsinki has a good look at the website of the RCs and / or the doctoral programmes, that it encourages the use of English as a lingua franca in the doctoral programmes and that it tries to attract foreign students by promoting a limited number of well-defined graduate programmes.
Also against the background of the internationalization of graduate programmes, the University of Helsinki should make an effort at defining what the standard (or standards) of a PhD dissertation should be, and how long PhD candidates are supposed to work on a PhD dissertation. Without having seen any example of the PhD dissertations (and at risk of perhaps making an unnecessary recommendation), the Panel would like to encourage the University of Helsinki to limit the time spent on completion of a fully funded or full time PhD dissertation to 4 years or an absolute maximum of 5 years. This would also give successful PhD candidates the opportunity to have a further academic career as post-doc.
6.4 THE NEED FOR FUNDED POST-DOCTORAL POSITIONS
In this respect the Panel would recommend consideration be given to funding post-doctoral positions. In order to create a truly healthy RC, it is vital not only to have senior researchers and PhD candidates, but also a number of post-docs. These can function as coaches for PhD candidates and work towards the success of the doctoral training.
6.5 RESEARCH EXCELLENCE
With regard to the research evaluation the general impression of the Panel is that research in the Humanities at the University of Helsinki is well established and of high quality. Certain groups feel uncertain or insecure given the major changes in the administrative environment; some other groups do not know whether the level of funding will remain the same in the future; but, in general, most RCs seems to be in a healthy state.
However, a definitive answer to the question of how healthy the RCs are can only be given by presenting to future evaluation panels the products of the research. Not all of the research within the Humanities is produced in the form of articles and not every bibliometrical method (which is aimed at articles) is suitable. Monographs are still important and should be given to evaluation panels to consider.
But, once more, it is not clear how the RCs operate within the faculty and the departments, how they can influence policy making, how they can control their own funding. It is hard to evaluate issues of leadership when the possible scope of that leadership in the present and in the future is not known.
One issue with regard to the RCs within the Humanities needs special attention. The Panel has the strong opinion that within the Humanities is it perfectly justifiable to work with RCs which are smaller than the combination of at least 20 researchers asked for at the University of Helsinki. Size in itself is not a value. It has to be in correlation with the subject. Within the Humanities certain disciplines are small and the combination of
122 Panel-specific Feedback − Humanities
several smaller disciplines into one larger RC does not automatically entail a coherent or potentially successful group. On the other hand, with larger disciplinary groups one can think of well focused smaller RCs which have the potential to be very successful.
6.6 THE NEED FOR RISK-TAKING RCS
The Panel was struck by the fact that most RCs have a rather traditional outlook. They are sometimes the result of a long tradition of successful research or the continuation in other forms of traditional departments. Although the Panel is very much of the opinion that traditional, disciplinary and solid research should have a place in the University of Helsinki, it would also call upon the University to stimulate interdisciplinary and trans-disciplinary research on larger themes and to stimulate the formation of new, risk-taking RCs.
Again, this does not mean traditional and solid research should be banned from the University. RCs which do such research should have a place within the university. It struck the Panel that there was no participation category for this type of RC. Not every RC can be “internationally on the cutting edge of the field” (cat 1), working at a “well-defined breakthrough” (cat 2), be “exceptional” (cat 3), “innovative” (cat 4) or focused at “societal impact” (cat 5). There should also be room for a “category 6” : “solid, high quality research”.
On the other hand, one should encourage the formation of new, risk-taking, interdisciplinary and trans-disciplinary RCs to look at larger themes which can be approached from different angles. One of the reasons for this is that the Humanities have a vital role to play in dealing with the grand societal challenges of the 21st century. Without the input of the Humanities, addressing issues such as how to create innovative and inclusive societies become difficult to tackle. Of course the issue of how to create or sustain “innovative and inclusive societies” is not just a Finnish problem, but might very well be a central grand challenge within the new framework programme of the EU: Horizon 2020.
Not only do the Humanities have a vital role to play in tackling these societal problems, the need to attract more EU research money is evident for the University of Helsinki, not only at the level of the ERC and programmes like Marie Curie, but also in the realm of the Grand Challenges. However, for this purpose new, innovative and risk-taking RCs need to be constructed.
The Panel therefore recommends that the present research evaluation is not just used to identify excellent RCs which might receive extra research money, but also as an opportunity to try to form new RCs which can more efficiently deal with the challenges of the 21st century.
The Panel even would like to stress that it feels very uncomfortable when the present research exercise is used to redistribute research money among the different RCs. First of all it is not evident all the RCs knew about the criteria the University of Helsinki will use to recognize the groups entitled to receive extra money. It is even not evident which criteria will be used. Secondly, the marks given to the RCs by the Panel are only based on the written documentation, without having seen examples of the research output,
123Panel-specific Feedback − Humanities
without proper data on the doctoral training and with “participation categories” which should be reconsidered or enlarged. The Panel would like to emphasize strongly it favors a process in which the faculty within the Humanities is encouraged to propose risk taking and trans-disciplinary research programmes which after a separate evaluation can receive seed money for further development.
6.7 SUPPORT FOR THE WRITING OF GRANT PROPOSALS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH AGENDA’S
In this respect it was not clear to the Panel how the support of writing research proposals for national or European institutions is organized within the University of Helsinki. It seems clear that the University of Helsinki has a well organized support structure for all technical and administrative issues concerning the development of research proposals and grant applications. But what seems to be lacking is the support structure for developing new, risk taking proposals anticipating the development of new research agenda’s by bodies like the Academy of Finland and the EU DG for Research and Innovation. The Panel has not seen any information on how the RCs support members who develop grant proposals and does not know if the university or faculty support faculty members by temporarily reducing the teaching load and/or by organizing peer support. If there is room for improvement in this field, the Panel will happily support measures in that direction. But again, information was not sufficient to make firm recommendations.
6.8 SOCIETAL IMPACT
The Humanities are central and vital in studying and approaching societal problems and challenges. The Panel knows that many within the Humanities faculty of the University of Helsinki are well aware of their role in society and are active in debates and other activities in society. However, societal impact is not only to be measured by the number of media appearances or participations in public debate – the Humanities directly add to the commonweal of society by offering fresh insights into crucial societal issues.
6.9 CONCERN FOR THE WORK LOAD OF SENIOR STAFF
Everything mentioned above constitutes a challenge for the senior staff of the University of Helsinki. Besides their own research and their teaching obligations in BA- and MA-programmes, they are expected to be active in doctoral training, RCs, and fundraising/grant securing activities. The Panel calls upon the University of Helsinki to encourage faculties and departments to organize the work in such a fashion that individual faculty members can be offered sabbaticals. A system of sabbaticals seems to be of great value, also because of the abolition of the Senior Researchers Grant by the Academy of Finland, which has served the Humanities community of Finland, especially, very well.
124 Panel-specific Feedback − Humanities
6.10 DISTRIBUTION OF SCORES
Table 15. Numeric evaluation of RCs in the Panel of Humanities
RCS (28) QUALITY OF RESEARCH
DOCTORAL TRAINING
SOCIETAL IMPACT
CO-OPERATION
CATEGORY FITNESS
SUM OF SCORES
CATEGORY
AHCI 3.0 4.0 4.0 2.5 3.0 16.5 2
AMNE 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 24.0 1
ARCH-HU 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 20.5 3
ART 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 13.5 2
BAULT 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 3
CECH 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 21.0 2
CITA 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 17.0 3
CMVG 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 23.0 2
CoCoLaC 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 20.0 3
CSTT 4.5 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.5 23.0 1
FC 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 23.0 1
Gender Studies 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 21.0 2
GLW 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 17.0 3
HIST 4.0 4.0 4.5 3.0 3.0 18.5 1
ILLC 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 19.0 3
Interaction 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 21.0 1
LDHFTA 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 24.0 1
LFP 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 20.0 4
LMPS 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 19.0 1
LMS 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 19.0 2
MusSig 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 21.0 1
PPMP 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 23.5 1
RCSP 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 20.5 4
RELDIAL 3.5 5.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 20.5 4
RELSOC 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 23.5 5
SHC 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 21.0 4
TraST 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 21.0 5
VARIENG 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 24.5 1
Average 4.02 4.30 4.18 4.07 4.16 20.7
The table is organized in alphabetical order. The mean of the scores of doctoral training is high, 4.30 (panels’ average 4.02). The mean of the scores of all evaluation questions is the highest, 4.15 (stdev 0.68), compared to other panels. For a comparison of panels, see Table 33.
125Panel-specific Feedback − Humanities
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010105
Figure 17. Distributions of numeric evaluation of RCs in the Panel of Humanities
The order of RCs is based on the sum of four first evaluation questions. The category fitness was added to the results. One RC received full scores (25).
0,0
5,0
10,0
15,0
20,0
25,0
30,0
BAU
LT
VARI
ENG
AMN
E
LDHF
TA
RELS
OC
PPM
P
CSTT
FC
CMVG
RELD
IAL
CECH
Inte
ract
ion
Mus
Sig
SHC
TraS
T
RCSP
Gend
er S
tudi
es
CoCo
LaC
LFP
ARCH
-HU
HIST
ILLC
LMPS
LMS
CITA
GLW
AHCI
ART
Panel of Humanities
Quality of research Doctoral training Societal impact Cooperation Category fitness
Figure 17. Distributions of numeric evaluation of RCs in the Panel of Humanities
The order of RCs is based on the sum of four first evaluation questions. The category fitness was added to the results. One RC received full scores (25).
6.11 PUBLICATION STATISTICS
Table 16. Publications and indicators of Humanities
TUHAT CWTS/LEIDEN
RCS (28) ALL AC B E PWOS TCS MCS PNC
AHCI 391 165 74 113 0 0 0 0
AMNE 672 349 227 90 1 1 1.00 0
ARCH-HU 462 195 157 90 13 15 1.15 54
ART 861 449 145 165 0 0 0 0
BAULT 399 332 30 18 14 31 2.21 29
CECH 275 95 60 111 0 0 0 0
CITA 234 114 53 63 5 7 1.40 60
CMVG 287 114 142 26 0 0 0 0
CoCoLaC 357 276 62 14 0 0 0 0
CSTT 271 143 40 42 0 0 0 0
FC 385 201 102 55 3 2 0.67 67
Gender Studies 548 287 115 121 12 17 1.42 58
GLW 483 127 89 242 0 0 0 0
HIST 1106 411 229 435 23 115 5.36 26
ILLC 259 199 25 32 0 0 0 0
Interaction 414 269 86 25 43 63 1.47 47
LDHFTA 644 397 108 106 7 6 0.86 86
LFP 344 183 59 75 3 2 0.67 33
126 Panel-specific Feedback − Humanities
TUHAT CWTS/LEIDEN
RCS (28) ALL AC B E PWOS TCS MCS PNC
LMPS 644 471 77 87 27 27 1.00 52
LMS 673 281 188 142 0 0 0 0
MusSig 334 140 55 95 0 0 0 0
PPMP 469 321 73 57 2 2 1.00 50
RCSP 496 252 146 80 2 0 0 100
RELDIAL 474 232 76 105 0 0 0 0
RELSOC 483 257 79 102 3 1 0.33 67
SHC 313 224 46 32 8 24 3.00 38
TraST 311 200 77 14 3 0 0 100
VARIENG 394 324 58 6 10 5 0.50 70
Total 12983 7008 2678 2543 179
The table shows that WoS indicators are not applicable in the fields of Humanities. The table also shows that the number of scientific publications is high compared to all publications of RCs. The publications, however, are not inclusive in the Web of Science. The publication tradition can be concluded from the table (type of B and E publications). See also Table 37 for C type of publications.
TUHATA1 Refereed journal articleA2 Review in scientific journalA3 Contribution to book/other compilations (refereed)A4 Article in conference publication (refereed)B1 Unrefereed journal articleB2 Contribution to book/other compilations (non-refereed)B3 Unrefereed article in conference proceedingsC1 Published scientific monographC2 Edited book, compilation, conference proceeding or special issue of journalE1 Popular article, newspaper articleE12 Popular contribution to book/other compilationsE2 Popular monograph
CWTS/LEIDENPWoS Number of publicationsTCS Total number of citationsMCS Number of citations per publication pnc Percentage of uncited publications
6.12 PUBLICATION INDICATORS
The Norwegian and Australian publication rankings were applied in the evaluation. The rankings do not include international normalised indicators but offer the level of
127Panel-specific Feedback − Humanities
publications (journals, publishing houses and conference proceedings/Australia). When the number of publications was divided by the members of the RC, the indicators could be better compared between the RCs. Perhaps it should be emphasised that the indicators should not be compared over the fields of sciences, even inside humanities.
Table 17. Publications and indicators of Humanities
NORWEGIAN PUBLICATION RANKING AUSTRALIAN PUBLICATION RANKING
RCS (28) NJ NP (NJ+NP) /AC
NJ+NP (WEIGHTED)
NJ+NP (WEIGHTED) /MEMBER
AUPR AUPR/AC
AUPR (WEIGHTED) /MEMBER
AHCI 11 3 0.08 28 1.08 13 0.08 0.33
AMNE 216 15 0.66 493 18.96 45 0.13 2.92
ARCH-HU 62 1 0.32 155 2.77 97 0.50 1.76
ART 65 23 0.20 192 3.25 86 0.19 1.35
BAULT 52 19 0.21 181 6.03 55 0.17 2.52
CECH 7 5 0.13 24 0.83 37 0.39 1.22
CITA 31 8 0.34 88 2.51 36 0.31 1.27
CMVG 75 8 0.73 170 8.10 14 0.12 0.60
CoCoLaC 57 10 0.24 138 3.29 51 0.18 1.61
CSTT 23 9 0.22 79 3.29 51 0.36 2.75
FC 30 28 0.29 147 4.59 74 0.37 3.17
Gender Studies 98 32 0.45 301 5.10 74 0.26 1.33
GLW 18 61 0.62 159 5.13 12 0.09 0.27
HIST 113 160 0.66 595 8.38 78 0.19 1.10
ILLC 18 25 0.22 110 3.44 15 0.08 0.61
Interaction 109 24 0.49 339 6.40 111 0.41 2.08
LDHFTA 100 16 0.29 298 6.48 100 0.25 2.00
LFP 30 9 0.21 90 4.29 20 0.11 0.83
LMPS 112 33 0.31 346 7.06 134 0.28 4.10
LMS 136 34 0.60 463 5.26 123 0.44 0.79
MusSig 21 6 0.19 55 1.96 22 0.16 0.66
PPMP 47 26 0.23 170 5.15 77 0.24 2.77
RCSP 12 19 0.12 65 2.60 122 0.48 4.18
RELDIAL 39 15 0.23 126 4.06 41 0.18 1.50
RELSOC 31 15 0.18 104 3.59 68 0.26 2.34
SHC 46 18 0.29 135 6.14 67 0.30 3.18
TraST 30 6 0.18 76 1.85 11 0.06 0.33
VARIENG 84 35 0.37 292 6.35 79 0.24 2.35
Total 1673 663 1713
128 Panel-specific Feedback − Humanities
The number of all publications (publication types from A to I) is based on the TUHAT RIS data where A and C publications belong to the scientific publications. The combination of indicators is based on the application done in the Evaluation Office.
NJ Norwegian Journal categorisationNP Norwegian Publishing house categorisation(NJ+NP)/AC Journals and Publishing houses per A and C publications in TUHAT(NJ+NP) (weighted) Weighted figuresNJ+NP (weighted) /member Weighted figures divided per member in RCAUPR Number of publications in Australian publication rankingAUPR/AC Australian publication ranking figures divided by A and C publicationsAUPR (weighted) /member Australian publication ranking figures per member
TUHAT AC
A1 Refereed journal articleA2 Review in scientific journalA3 Contribution to book/other compilations (refereed)A4 Article in conference publication (refereed)C1 Published scientific monographC2 Edited book, compilation, conference proceeding or special issue of journal
COEFFICIENTS APPLIED IN THE PUBLICATION RANKINGS
Journals in Norwegian publication ranking 2 NJ2 − coefficient 3Journals in Norwegian publication ranking 1 NJ1 − coefficient 2Publishing houses in Norwegian publication ranking 2 NP2 − coefficient 3Publishing houses in Norwegian publication ranking 1 NP1 − coefficient 2
Journals in Australian publication ranking A* AUPRA* − coefficient 3Journals in Australian publication ranking A AUPRA − coefficient 2Journals in Australian publication ranking B AUPRB − coefficient 1Journals in Australian publication ranking C AUPRC − coefficient 0.5
129Panel-specific Feedback − Humanities
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010 109
C2 Edited book, compilation, conference proceeding or special issue of journal
COEFFICIENTS APPLIED IN THE PUBLICATION RANKINGS Journals in Norwegian publication ranking 2 NJ2 − coefficient 3Journals in Norwegian publication ranking 1 NJ1 − coefficient 2Publishing houses in Norwegian publication ranking 2 NP2 − coefficient 3Publishing houses in Norwegian publication ranking 1 NP1 − coefficient 2
Journals in Australian publication ranking A* AUPRA* − coefficient 3Journals in Australian publication ranking A AUPRA − coefficient 2Journals in Australian publication ranking B AUPRB − coefficient 1Journals in Australian publication ranking C AUPRC − coefficient 0.5
Figure 18. Norwegian publication ranking application in Humanities
Coefficients applied in the publication rankings
Journals in Norwegian publication ranking 2 NJ2 − coefficient 3Journals in Norwegian publication ranking 1 NJ1 − coefficient 2Publishing houses in Norwegian publication ranking 2 NP2 − coefficient 3Publishing houses in Norwegian publication ranking 1 NP1 − coefficient 2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25 0,30 0,35 0,40 0,45 0,50 0,55 0,60 0,65 0,70 0,75 0,80
NJ+
NP
(wei
ghte
d) /
mem
ber
NJ+NP / A+C publications
Weighted values of publications in Humanities (28 RCs)
Figure 18. Norwegian publication ranking application in Humanities
Coefficients applied in the publication rankings
Journals in Norwegian publication ranking 2 NJ2 − coefficient 3Journals in Norwegian publication ranking 1 NJ1 − coefficient 2Publishing houses in Norwegian publication ranking 2 NP2 − coefficient 3Publishing houses in Norwegian publication ranking 1 NP1 − coefficient 2
A+C publications belong to the type of scientific publications in TUHAT RIS.The axes in the figure indicate the average of dimensions. Axes cross at the mean
values of NJ+NP (weighted)/member (4.90) and (NJ+NP)/AC (0.32). The vertical axis in Figure 18 takes into account the number of members in the RC. The range of members in the RCs was from 21 to 88. The vertical axis is thus the member-balanced indicator of the RC’s weighted publications. The weighted publications can be claimed to indicate the quality of publications.
Horizontal axis: in TUHAT, A+C publications indicate potential publications expected to be included in the Norwegian publication ranking. The relation of the Norwegian and TUHAT publications of the RCs (as a percentage) indicates the quality
130 Panel-specific Feedback − Humanities
of the RC as far as quality can be considered to be indicated by publications included in the Norwegian publication ranking.
The analyses were done in April−June 2011; thus the Finnish publication forum was not completed and could not be applied.
On the top right in Figure 18 is AMNE. Almost 70 (66) percent of its publications are included in the Norwegian publication ranking, and the weighted number of publications per member is 18.96. It indicates that most publications of AMNE are high quality if the publication ranking is considered relevant for comparison. The productivity of the members is of a very high quality. Productivity, however, is field specific and should not simply be compared over the fields of sciences.
CMVG is the next in the co-ordination, with almost 70 (69) percent of its publications in the Norwegian publication ranking, with weighted publications per member being 7.71. This indicates that most publications of CMVG are high quality as far as the Norwegian publication ranking can be considered relevant for comparison. Productivity, however, is field specific and should not simply be compared over the fields of sciences. The other RCs in the Figure 18 can be identified in Table 17.
Table 18. Publication performance of RCs in relation to Norwegian and Australian Publication Rankings
RCS (28) AC /MB
OTHER /MB
NPR /MB
NPR(WEIGHTED)/MB AUPR /MB
AUPR(WEIGHTED)/MB SUM
AHCI 6.3 8.7 0.5 1.1 0.5 0.3 17.48
AMNE 13.4 12.4 8.9 19.0 1.7 2.9 58.35
ARCH-HU 3.5 4.8 1.1 2.8 1.7 1.8 15.63
ART 7.6 7.0 1.5 3.3 1.5 1.3 22.14
BAULT 11.1 2.2 2.4 6.0 1.8 2.5 26.05
CECH 3.3 6.2 0.4 0.8 1.3 1.2 13.22
CITA 3.3 3.4 1.1 2.5 1.0 1.3 12.59
CMVG 5.4 8.2 4.0 8.1 0.7 0.6 26.98
CoCoLaC 6.6 1.9 1.6 3.3 1.2 1.6 16.20
CSTT 6.0 5.3 1.3 3.3 2.1 2.8 20.79
FC 6.3 5.8 1.8 4.6 2.3 3.2 23.92
Gender Studies
4.9 4.4 2.2 5.1 1.3 1.3 19.18
GLW 4.1 11.5 2.5 5.1 0.4 0.3 23.92
HIST 5.8 9.8 3.8 8.4 1.1 1.1 30.00
ILLC 6.2 1.9 1.3 3.4 0.5 0.6 13.95
Interaction 5.1 2.7 2.5 6.4 2.1 2.1 20.90
LDHFTA 8.6 5.4 2.5 6.5 2.2 2.0 27.17
LFP 8.7 7.7 1.9 4.3 1.0 0.8 24.31
LMPS 9.6 3.5 3.0 7.1 2.7 4.1 30.00
LMS 3.2 4.5 1.9 5.3 1.4 0.8 17.03
131Panel-specific Feedback − Humanities
RCS (28) AC /MB
OTHER /MB
NPR /MB
NPR(WEIGHTED)/MB AUPR /MB
AUPR(WEIGHTED)/MB SUM
MusSig 5.0 6.9 1.0 2.0 0.8 0.7 16.30
PPMP 9.7 4.5 2.2 5.2 2.3 2.8 26.68
RCSP 10.1 9.8 1.2 2.6 4.9 4.2 32.74
RELDIAL 7.5 7.8 1.7 4.1 1.3 1.5 23.92
RELSOC 8.9 7.8 1.6 3.6 2.3 2.3 26.52
SHC 10.2 4.0 2.9 6.1 3.0 3.2 29.50
TraST 4.9 2.7 0.9 1.9 0.3 0.3 10.91
VARIENG 7.0 1.5 2.6 6.3 1.7 2.3 21.57
Average 6.9 5.8 2.1 4.9 1.6 1.8 23.14
The previous indicators are counted per member of each RC. It is thus better to interpret the indicators inside Humanities. There are no grounds to claim that the indicators would justify ranking between the fields of sciences even inside Humanities. The data is based only on RCs’ publications in the panel of Humanities. Normalised indicators are not available.
• AC/mb: number of scientific publications A and C in TUHAT RIS, per member in each RC
• Other/mb: number of other publications excluding A and C in TUHAT RIS, per member in each RC
• NPR/mb: number of publications recognised in Norwegian Publication Ranking, per member in each RC
• NPR(weighted)/mb: weighted value for number of publications recognised in Norwegian Publication Ranking, per member in each RC
• AUPR/mb: number of publications recognised in Australian Publication Ranking per member in each RC
• AUPR(weighted)/mb: weighted value for number of publications recognised in Australian Publication Ranking, per member in each RC
Coefficients applied in the publication rankings
Journals in Norwegian publication ranking 2 NJ2 − coefficient 3Journals in Norwegian publication ranking 1 NJ1 − coefficient 2Publishing houses in Norwegian publication ranking 2 NP2 − coefficient 3Publishing houses in Norwegian publication ranking 1 NP1 − coefficient 2
Journals in Australian publication ranking A* AUPRA* − coefficient 3Journals in Australian publication ranking A AUPRA − coefficient 2Journals in Australian publication ranking B AUPRB − coefficient 1Journals in Australian publication ranking C AUPRC − coefficient 0.5
A and C publications belong to the type of scientific publications in TUHAT RIS.
132 Panel-specific Feedback − Humanities
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010113
Figure 19. Distribution of the publication performance of RCs in relation to Norwegian and Australian Publication Rankings
The bars in the figure are based on Table 18 from which the indicators have been totalled. The mean value is 22.90. Each indicator is slightly in alignment with the sum of indicators in each RC. The figure indicates that the indicator “other publications” is less in alignment with the other indicators. Compiled indicators give an approximate insight of the quality of RCs’ research.
23,1
0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0
TraST CITA
CECH ILLC
ARCH-HU CoCoLaC
MusSig LMS
AHCI Gender Studies
CSTT Interaction
VARIENG ART
Mean GLW
RELDIAL FC
LFP BAULT
RELSOC PPMP CMVG
LDHFTA SHC
LMPS HIST
RCSP AMNE
Compiled publication performance in Humanities (28 RCs)
AC/mb
Other/mb
NPR/mb
NPR(weighted)/mb
AUPR/mb
AUPR(weighted)/mb
Figure 19. Distribution of the publication performance of RCs in relation to Norwegian and Australian Publication Rankings
The bars in the figure are based on Table 18 from which the indicators have been totalled. The mean value is 23.1. Each indicator is slightly in alignment with the sum of indicators in each RC. The figure indicates that the indicator “other publications” is less in alignment with the other indicators. Compiled indicators give an approximate insight of the quality of RCs’ research.
23,1
3 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − BIOLOGICAL, AGRICULTURAL AND VETERINARY SCIENCES
4 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − MEDICINE, BIOMEDICINE AND HEALTH SCIENCES
5 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − NATURAL SCIENCES
6 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − HUMANITIES
8 OVERALL STATISTICS ON THE EVALUATION
9 RESEARCH PERFORMANCE
10 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSES
11 SUMMARY REPORT OF DOCTORAL TRAINING
12 CONCLUDING REMARKS
13 APPENDICES
2 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION
7 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − SOCIAL SCIENCES
1 INTRODUCTION TO THE EVALUATION
135Panel-specific Feedback − Social Sciences
PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK – SOCIAL SCIENCES
Panel MembersProfessor Hebe Vessuri, Chair
Professor Christine Heim, Vice-Chair
Professor Allen Ketcham
Professor Erno Lehtinen
Professor Enzo Mingione
Professor Giovanna Procacci
Professor Inger Johanne Sand
Professor Timo Teräsvirta
Professor Göran Therborn
Professor Liisa Uusitalo
136 Panel-specific Feedback − Social Sciences
Researcher Communities in the Panel of Social SciencesNumber of RCs 36, principal investigators 289 and other members 884
ACRONYM OF RC
NAME OF RC RESPONSIBLE PERSON OF RC
PIS MBS. TOT.
AG ECON Agricultural Economics Sumelius, John 6 31 37
CEA Centre for Educational Assessment Hautamäki, Jarkko 8 26 34
CNC Cognitive Neuroscience Cluster Kujala, Teija 7 41 48
CPHS Centre for Population, Health and Society Martikainen, Pekka 9 34 43
CRADLE Center for Research on Activity, Development and Learning
Engeström, Yrjö 7 41 48
CulCap Cultural Capital and Social Stratification Rahkonen, Keijo 4 4 8
DEPSY Developmental Psychology Research Group Räikkönen, Katri 4 18 22
DEVERELE Research for Relevance Development Policy Koponen, Juhani 6 20 26
DYNASOBIC The dynamics of social behaviour in context Pirttilä-Backman, Anna-Maija
7 39 46
EAT Economic applications and theory Kultti, Klaus 6 31 37
ECI Erik Castrén Institute Koskenniemi, Martti 5 55 60
EdPsychHE Educational psychology, especially in higher education
Lindblom-Ylänne, Sari
10 33 43
ENFIFO Environmental, fisheries and forest economics research group
Ollikainen, Markku 5 20 25
FCREES Finnish Centre of Russian and East European Studies
Kivinen, Markku 9 29 38
GENU Governance of Environmental Unknowns Hukkinen, Janne I. 8 15 23
HELPS Helping between generations, reproduction, aging, and social policy
Roos, J P 5 18 23
KUFE Cultural and feminist studies in education Lahelma, Elina 5 18 23
KUMU Transformation of the Consumer Society (Kulutusyhteiskunnan muutos, KUMU)
Heinonen, Visa 4 20 24
Law Researchers at the Faculty of Law Nuotio, Kimmo 36 31 67
MECOL Media and Communication Transforming Public Life
Nieminen, Hannu 20 18 38
METEORI Methodologies, Technologies, Organizations and Innovations
Nyman, Göte 5 34 39
NordSoc The Nordic Society in Cross-disciplinary and Transnational Perspectives
Kettunen, Pauli 18 34 52
PEWE Personality and Well-Being Keltikangas-Järvinen, Liisa
7 19 26
PosPus Political Sociology and Public Sector Research Sulkunen, Pekka 9 36 45
PPH Practical Philosophy Airaksinen, Timo 7 13 20
RCMSER Research Community for Mathematics and Science Education Research
Lavonen, Jari 6 24 30
SBII Social bonds, Interactions and Institutions Jallinoja, Riitta 12 21 33
SCA Social and Cultural Anthropology Kaartinen, Timo 4 22 26
SigMe Multisensory Signals and Meanings Vainio, Martti 3 15 18
SOCE-DGI Sociology of Education: Diversity, Governance and Interaction
Simola, Hannu 5 24 29
Sociopolis Multidisciplinary Urban Studies Haila, Anne 4 22 26
137Panel-specific Feedback − Social Sciences
ACRONYM OF RC
NAME OF RC RESPONSIBLE PERSON OF RC
PIS MBS. TOT.
SocStats RC on Social, Behavioral, Economic and Official Statistics
Lehtonen, Risto 5 9 14
STRUTSI Structural development and differentiation of city-regions
Vaattovaara, Mari 5 16 21
STS Science and Technology Studies Helén, Ilpo 9 15 24
TRANSRURBAN Transformation of social and ecological spaces in rural-urban interfaces
Granberg, Leo 15 20 35
TSEM Time Series Econometrics Lanne, Markku 6 31 37
The panel’s feedback is presented in chapters 7.1–7.8. The tables and figures in chapter 7 are compiled by the Evaluation Office based on the statistics of the CWTS/Leiden and the Helsinki University Library.
Fields of sciences of the Researcher Communities in the Panel of Social Sciences
RC SUBFIELD 1 SUBFIELD 2 SUBFIELD 3 SUBFIELD 4 OTHER SCIENTIFIC SUBFIELD
AG ECON Agr.Economics & Policy
Business Management Agriculture, Multidisc.
CEA Education and Educational Research
Psychology, Educational
Psychology, Developmental
Education, Special
Social psychology
CNC Psychology, Experimental
Neurosciences Neuroimaging Psychology, Multidisc.
CPHS Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary
Demography Psychology, Social
Public, Environmental and Occupational Health
CRADLE Education and Ed Res.
- - -
CulCap Sociology - - -
DEPSY Psychology, Multidisciplinary
Psychology, Developmental
Psychiatry Pediatrics Clinical psychology listed under Medicine, Biomedicine and Health sciences characterizes also our multidisciplinary research interests.
DEVERELE Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary
Planning and Development
Political Science Anthropology Management, Social Psychology, Geography, Sociology
DYNASOBIC Psychology, Social Social Issues - -
EAT Economics - - -
ECI Law International Relations
Political Science History
EdPsychHE Psychology, Educational
Education and Educational Research
Education, Scientific Disciplines
-
ENFIFO Economics - - - Environ. economy, Agri-environ. econ. Fisheries economics Forest economics
FCREES Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary
Political Science Humanities, Multidisciplinary
-
138 Panel-specific Feedback − Social Sciences
The table shows the fields of sciences chosen by the RCs in the Panel of Social Sciences. Subfields 1−4 follow the classification of Web of Science (for a complete list, see Appendix 4), and “other scientific subfield” is the RC’s own description.
RC SUBFIELD 1 SUBFIELD 2 SUBFIELD 3 SUBFIELD 4 OTHER SCIENTIFIC SUBFIELD
GENU Environmental Studies
Political Science Anthropology Planning and Develop.
Envir.hist., Ind. ecology, Urban ecology
HELPS Social Issues Gerontology - -
KUFE Education and Ed. Res.
Sociology Women’s Studies
Social Sciences, Interd.
KUMU Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary
- - - Consumer economics, economic and social history.
Law Law - - -
MECOL Communication Soc. Sc Interd. - -
METEORI Psychology Behavioral Sciences
Language and Linguistics Theory
Ergonomics
NordSoc History SocSc Interd. Political Science Industrial Relat.&Labourr
PEWE Psychology, Multidisciplinary
Psychology, Biological
Public, Env. and Occupat. Health
Cardiac and Cardiovascular System
Behavioral genetics
PosPus Sociology Social Issues Political Science Public Administration
PPH Ethics Philosophy Political Science - History of Philosophy Philosophy of Law
RCMSER Education and Educational Research
Physics, Multidisciplinary
Chemistry, Multidisciplinary
Mathematics, Interdisciplinary Applications
SBII Anthropology History and Philosophy of Science
Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary
Sociology Area studies, behave. studies, family, youth and childhood sociology, ethnicity, educ. gender, medical anthrop. migration, pol. anthropology
SCA Anthropology - - -
SigMe Behavioral Sciences Psychology Neurosciences - Phonetics, Psycholinguistics
SOCE-DGI Education and Ed. Res.
Sociology Women’s Studies
Social Sciences, Interd.
Sociopolis Urban Studies Planning& Dev. Social Issues Public Administration
SocStats Social Sciences, Mathematical Methods
- - - Social statistics
STRUTSI Urban Studies Geography Planning&Dev. Social Sciences, Interd.
STS Social Sciences, Interd.
Sociology Philosophy Environmental Studies
Science and techn. std., Adult education
TRANSRURBAN Ecology Geography Public Admin. Social Sciences, Interd.
Rural Studies
TSEM Economics Statist.& Probab. - -
139Panel-specific Feedback − Social Sciences
7. PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − SOCIAL SCIENCES
Prepared by Hebe Vessuri (Chair) & Christine Heim (Co-Chair)
7.1 INTRODUCTION
The aim of this exercise was to evaluate the success of Researcher Communities (RCs) that share a common scientific interest rather than evaluating more traditional institutes or departments of the University of Helsinki. The “Panel on Social Sciences” evaluated a total of 36 RCs that spanned across a wide range of diverse research interests within the social sciences, from sociology, environmental research and law to education research as well as social neuroscience and biomedical research. It should be noted that participation in the evaluation was voluntary for the RCs and, in spite of that, we had an appreciable number of participant communities.
For each RC, the Panel received a wealth of evaluation materials, including a combination of RC-prepared and University-prepared materials. RC-prepared materials comprised information on research areas, doctoral candidates, societal impact, internationalization, leadership strategies, external funding, strategic planning, and goodness of fit with a self-chosen categorization of the RC. The material further included listings of peer-reviewed publications, chapters, monographs, awards and honors, as well as other listings such as interviews and articles in popular media. From the University side, we received bibliometric statistics (publication trends, impact factors, etc.) and other compilations of data, including a doctoral candidate survey.
Based on this information, we as a Panel had the task to assign ordinal marks (in different categories) that would reflect the success of a specific RC relative to international level.
We had a chance to look indirectly at particular processes and practices in research and doctoral training and, clearly, there are some examples of good practice in particular RCs that might be of interest for other groups and for the University of Helsinki as a whole. This does not mean to say, however, that we are singling out one or another practice as the valid one. There are many very good RCs with quite different performance profiles.
Having said that, the diversity of the RCs and inherent differences in measureable success by research area made the evaluation difficult. For example, biomedical research might have more bibliometric visibility than other research areas represented in the Panel. Another example is that there are RCs that have direct societal impact (such as education research), whereas for other RCs this impact is more indirect. A third example is that some RCs were associated with an organized doctoral program (such as a graduate school), whereas others are not. There was also a temporal dimension
140 Panel-specific Feedback − Social Sciences
to be considered. Some RCs were newly or recently formed and had a less developed track record, whereas other RCs were longstanding and, hence, had a more substantial track record as a group. Finally, RCs differed considerably in size and some RCs seemed to have been formed somewhat artificially for this effort, in which there was no true sense of community, such as joined authorships on papers or a common strategic plan.
Having in mind these difficulties regarding the nature of RCs and their comparability, we tried to consider and judge each RC and its successes and merits individually.
One general comment arose in our Panel in the course of the discussions. We evaluated research success and as part of this, the number of doctoral candidates and completed dissertations. However the materials given to us did not necessarily reflect the quality of doctoral training. For example, we did not see teaching curricula, specific theses or post-PhD career trajectories of former doctoral students.
In the following, we will summarize more specific comments that we wish to relay to the University grouped by the different domains of the evaluation.
7.2 RESEARCH
First, we would like to comment on the trend of Universities to select key areas of scientific interest or expertise that would give the University a specific profile. Goodness of fit of RCs with such key areas was part of the evaluation. However, we feel that this “branding” is inappropriate for the University of Helsinki. The University of Helsinki is the largest national university in Finland. The Panel considered that the University of Helsinki should not have a thematic profile; instead, it needs to be a University for everybody. The University of Helsinki is complex and comprehensive, and it should clearly have the full spectrum of academic fields represented. The University also needs to have the capacity to evolve and expand into new fields as they are arising (that are not predefined in terms of key areas). In addition, the University of Helsinki needs to be able to allow for different combinations of field (multidisciplinarity). A large and comprehensive University likely has the best potential for innovation. For these reasons, we do not support profiling of the University of Helsinki.
Related to this topic, we want to emphasize that there should be no discrimination against the Social Sciences, by focusing key research areas of support in the natural sciences. The University of Helsinki needs to support and further expand its strong research in the social sciences, especially since fields eventually will merge more and more (for example, neural bases of social behavior).
In terms of the research evaluation of the individual RCs, we feel that some are more promising, while others are not convincing or appear artificial. It is clear that some RCs were formed to be able to participate in the evaluation, but there is no true community in place. It should be noted that there is very strong research in social sciences at the University of Helsinki. Many RCs are at the cutting edge of their fields. However, we noticed that - as a whole - strategic plans presented by RCs had a relatively low level of quality. Very few RCs had put intellectual content in their plans, and there were only few exceptions. Some RCs formulated specific goals (priority research, future studies).
141Panel-specific Feedback − Social Sciences
In general, more intellectual content would have been needed here and the evaluation should have been done from that point of view (less numbers, more content).
We further discussed the general idea of RCs per se. Is it a good or a bad idea? Under what conditions is it a good idea? RCs certainly introduce intellectual flexibility to administrative structures. However, there are open issues in terms of what this means to departmental or faculties responsibilities (e.g., who is responsible for doctoral training and undergraduate teaching). It should be the Departments’ responsibility to organize optimal research support while insuring the flexibility and creativity of the RCs. There are some prerequisites that RCs need to be successful. These include coherence, a collective infrastructure, and synergies. On the other hand, one can question artificial “conglomerates”, because they may not really be communities. Joining an RC should be an individual option, there should be no particular incentives to join one; that would reinforce conglomerates and would be misleading. Individual researchers should be supported as well by the University. There should not be one model that is pushed upon the entire University. We therefore recommend not allocating money on the basis of the RCs, there should be no University economic incentives for RCs (“People should marry for love not for money”). Individual curiosity must be reinforced as well. Another question is concerned with what will happen to the RCs. How will they grow? It is good to keep their flexibility, but probably some of them might have to move into a more institutionalized stage, maybe a 10-year program or an institutional format on a 10-year-basis, after which it might be reconsidered through an evaluation.
In conclusion, we feel that there should be no monetary incentives for forming a RC per se. Artificial RCs need to be avoided. Individuals need to have possibilities to opt out from RCs. We feel that the fragmentation of research in the University of Helsinki is not overcome by forming RCs or networks. We suggest that RCs need more infrastructure and more substantial support in terms of resources to be successful. We therefore suggest that RCs with similar topics could be integrated and the University of Helsinki could form research centers, programs or institutes with concentrated institutional support for a set period of time and an evaluation of success after that period. The University of Helsinki needs to create a more institutionalized mechanism.
7.3 DOCTORAL TRAINING
As mentioned in the Introduction, we did not obtain enough information to critically evaluate the individual RCs in terms of the quality of their doctoral training. The questionnaire we received that provided perception of the doctoral students yielded quite different information than what was presented by RCs. This survey shows that doctoral students do not know what to do and are quite disoriented.
Generally, we think that sensible PhD programs require systematic doctoral training with course work. There should be more structure for doctoral training at the University level (CRADLE could be a model). The doctoral training varied greatly across the RCs that we reviewed. Some were linked with national graduate schools and some were not. The doctoral training should be more systematic, provide a similar kind
142 Panel-specific Feedback − Social Sciences
of supervision for all doctoral candidates, and should be linked to national programs. Collaboration with other Universities is desirable for doctoral program.
More structure should be implemented in terms of (a) recruitment, (b) financial support of candidates, (c) time limit of doctoral training, (d) coursework requirements, and (e) incentives for successful programs and candidates. In terms of recruitment, there should be a competitive process that should be internationally oriented. The University should ensure scholarships for all selected candidates. To accomplish that, the University needs to define the optimal number of doctoral students per program. We noticed that there are too many doctoral students without proper supervision. This perception of the Panel is corroborated by the report we were given that was completed by the students. Notably 2/3rds of doctoral students of the University of Helsinki are not part of an organized doctoral program. All doctoral students should be part of a program. There should be a systematic program that covers all departments and faculties. There should be mandatory programs. There should be a time limit of enrollment in the program. We suggest a maximum of 10 years to complete a PhD (with more limited time scale for salary/scholarship/financial support of 3−4 years).
Organizing a systematic doctoral program is the responsibility of the University and faculties, but not of the RCs. The RCs can help because they provide the research content, but they cannot organize the program themselves. Neither does each of the RCs need its own doctoral program, but the RCs’ doctoral training should be embedded in a larger structure where they also have formal courses. The doctoral training should not be limited to writing a dissertation. If the University follows our above recommendation to form larger research institutes that connect several RCs, each of these institutes could have its doctoral program.
7.4 INTERNATIONALIZATION
We suggest that the University of Helsinki explores the possibility of a dimension that we did not see reflected in the data. That is the internationalization of staff at the University of Helsinki. We recommend making open calls for professorships and post-doc positions at the international level. We find a general awareness of the interest of enlarging the number of international students but we observe an insufficient internationalization of personnel at University of Helsinki. The University needs to reinforce researchers’ mobility. Doctoral candidates should be motivated to go abroad. Some RCs we reviewed need more international visibility and need to publish more internationally.
7.5 MULTIDISCIPLINARITY
The University needs to reinforce interdisciplinary collaboration. However, it must be noted that the specific themes of some RCs might be more amenable for multidisciplinarity than others. The crucial dimension in evaluating current multidisciplinarity is time. Some of the RCs are newly formed. It takes time to understand each other across the different
143Panel-specific Feedback − Social Sciences
disciplinary cultures and specialties. The University should promote the possibility for RCs to seek a common language or at least common issues of interest in which to build synergies. A clear sign of maturity of these RCs would be co-authorships, the exploration (from various disciplines or perspectives) of the very theme that groups them in the RC.
7.6 SOCIETAL IMPACT
The profiles of the RCs vary greatly in terms of societal impact. Some RCs wish to directly impact society quickly. They are designed, in effect, to directly influence society with the results of their work. Other RCs are concerned with abstract academic work that cannot quickly be relevant to the greater society, but has the potential to impact on society in the medium term. We reflected on and adjusted our marks for these facts.
We had concerns regarding how one can measure societal impact. In the Terms of Reference, we were instructed to use the following definition: “How the RC interacts with and contributes to the society”. Specific mentions included collaboration with public, private, and 3rd party sector. Materials we were provided with to evaluate societal impact included the RCs’ self-description, publications directed to popular audiences and analyses of activities (membership in committee/board/council, in public/private organizations, participation in media).
We gave special attention to the variety of means of dissemination and participation in public debate (not only policy-making, not only media). We found some RCs are very much engaged in public dissemination of their research results and in public debate over media on sensitive social issues, but also in training professionals and practitioners, planning schools, participating in committees and boards either national or local. Some are especially careful to involve doctoral students and young researchers in such activities. Some other RC reports were rather thin on this point. We also find there is in some cases room for further expanding RC abilities of societal impact.
Having said this, we feel that it is a challenge to maintain intellectual independence and high academic quality of research, while being also concerned with public and corporate interests. Therefore, we found a sense of “mission” in public and private sector engagement less convincing.
7.7 BIBLIOMETRICS AND STATISTICS
We want to comment on the usefulness of bibliometrics. There were a number of weaknesses using bibliometrics and statistics in this evaluation: If the University of Helsinki wants to achieve a serious evaluation of the quality and visibility of research, it should pay attention to different scientific traditions and how different types of statistics cover these areas and what they pick up.
The University provided us with different databases and systems, but this needs to be more developed. It was impossible to take any meaningful information from some of the statistics we were provided with. We did not have numbers of full-time, half-
144 Panel-specific Feedback − Social Sciences
time, and part-time members within an RC. We do not know specific contributions of RCs to publications that came out of international collaborations.
Across the different documents we received, the numbers did not necessarily match up. There were many discrepancies between numbers in evaluation forms and summary report tables. Such mistakes need to be corrected.
When grading the RCs, we took the weaknesses of bibliometrics into consideration. In future evaluations, we would prefer less numbers and more intellectual content.
7.8 COMMENT ON CATEGORIZATION
As part of the evaluation, each RC had to select a Category under which they participated in the evaluation. These included:
1. The research of the participating community represents the international cutting edge in its field.
2. The research of the participating community if of high quality, but the community in its present composition has yet to achieve strong international recognition or a clear break-through.
3. The research of the participating community is distinct from mainstream research, and the special features of the research tradition in the field must be considered in the evaluation.
4. The research of the participating community represents an innovative opening.5. The research of the participating community has a highly significant societal impact.
Note: We were specifically instructed that these categories are not to be considered as a ranked qualitative order on a quantitative scale with Category 1 being the best and Category 5 being the worst. The categories were meant to provide a frame of reference when performing the evaluation. We as reviewers were instructed at the end of each evaluation form to judge on a 5 point scale whether the chosen category was the appropriate one for the given RC, when taking into account all the data in the evaluation. In other words, we were asked to rate the “goodness of fit” of the self-assignment. The “goodness of fit” score that we had to assign is entered into the summary total score of the RC. The “goodness of fit rating” receives equal weight as all the other evaluation dimensions.
We felt that there were grave problems with this categorization:
• Some categories clearly reflect a qualitative ranking, i.e. 1 and 2.• Not all the categories are mutually exclusive.• If an RC was modest in their assignments, they are being punished in the overall
score.• An RC could potentially be in several categories, which is not accounted for.
145Panel-specific Feedback − Social Sciences
We felt that the “goodness of fit” variable should not be part of the total score that reflects the quality of research, doctoral programs, societal impact, and so on. It is a distinct type of assessment that provides an evaluation framework and should not be part of the quantitative score that an RC receives. In order for it to be a true frame of reference, each category should have had separate or distinct evaluation criteria tailored to each category and each RC should have then been evaluated in that category in reference to other RCs in the same category, and this is reflected in your questions. However, this was not the case; this is not how this evaluation was designed.
In order to minimize the consequences of this problem for the RCs, we have done the following:
• We considered the category as a frame of reference as best as possible when evaluating each RC to give fair score within the frame.
• We minimized the numeric impact of the “goodness of fit” rating by limiting its variance without decreasing scores of social science as a whole compared to other fields in the evaluation.
• Practically, we gave 5 for perfect fit and gave 4 where we had concerns.• Hence, we made it a yes/no variable of goodness of fit and added maximal possible
numeric point to summary score. We felt this is the fairest way to solve the issue.
7.9 DISTRIBUTION OF SCORES
Table 19. Numeric evaluation of the RCs in the Panel of Social Sciences
RCS (36) QUALITY OF RESEARCH
DOCTORAL TRAINING
SOCIETAL IMPACT
CO-OPERATION
CATEGORY FITNESS
SUM OF SCORES
CAT.
AG ECON 3.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 21.0 5
CEA 3.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 19.0 5
CNC 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 23.0 1
CPHS 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 1
CRADLE 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 23.0 1
CulCap 3.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 5.0 17.0 4
DEPSY 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 1
DEVERELE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 16.0 5
DYNASOBIC 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 20.0 2
EAT 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 23.0 2
ECI 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 24.0 1
EdPsychHE 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 23.0 4
ENFIFO 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 20.0 4
FCREES 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 21.0 1
GENU 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 20.0 4
HELPS 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 19.0 5
KUFE 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 19.0 1
KUMU 3.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 5.0 17.0 3
Law 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 21.0 5
MECOL 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 17.0 2
METEORI 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 18.0 3
146 Panel-specific Feedback − Social Sciences
RCS (36) QUALITY OF RESEARCH
DOCTORAL TRAINING
SOCIETAL IMPACT
CO-OPERATION
CATEGORY FITNESS
SUM OF SCORES
CAT
NordSoc 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 19.0 1
PEWE 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 25.0 1
PosPus 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 22.0 1
PPH 4.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 21.0 2
RCMSER 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 20.0 4
SBII 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 19.0 2
SCA 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 19.0 3
SigMe 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 18.0 4
SOCE-DGI 4.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 21.0 2
Sociopolis 4.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 20.0 1
SocStats 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 15.0 3
STRUTSI 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 17.0 5
STS 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 19.0 2
TRANSRURBAN 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 18.0 3
TSEM 5.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 22.0 2
Average 3.72 3.86 3.94 4.08 4.56 20.2
The table is organized in alphabetical order. The mean of the scores in quality of research, 3.72 is lower than the panels’ average, 3.96. The panel mainly scored the question of category fitness either 4 or 5, thus the distribution of scores is quite narrow (stdev 0.50). For a comparison of panels, see Table 33.
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010126
Figure 20. Distributions of numeric evaluation of RCs in the Panel of Social Sciences
The order of RCs is based on the sum of four first evaluation questions. Category fitness was added to the results. There are 36 RCs are altogether.
The figure shows that the sum of the first four scores indicates the order of success. The variance of the category fitness is narrow (4 or 5) and does not change the order of the first four scores. Three of the RCs received full scores (25).
0,0
5,0
10,0
15,0
20,0
25,0
30,0
CPHS
DE
PSY
PEW
E EC
I CN
C CR
ADLE
EA
T Ed
Psyc
hHE
PosP
us
TSEM
FC
REES
AG
ECO
N
Law
PP
H SO
CE-D
GI
ENFI
FO
Soci
opol
is DY
NAS
OBI
C G
ENU
RC
MSE
R HE
LPS
KUFE
N
ordS
oc
SBII
SCA
STS
CEA
MET
EORI
TR
ANSR
URB
AN
SigM
e M
ECO
L ST
RUTS
I Cu
lCap
KU
MU
DE
VERE
LE
SocS
tats
Panel of Social Sciences
Quality of research Doctoral training Societal impact Cooperation Category fitness
Figure 20. Distributions of numeric evaluation of RCs in the Panel of Social Sciences
The order of RCs is based on the sum of four first evaluation questions. Category fitness was added to the results. There are 36 RCs are altogether.
The figure shows that the sum of the first four scores indicates the order of success. The variance of the category fitness is narrow (4 or 5) and does not change the order of the first four scores. Three of the RCs received full scores (25).
147Panel-specific Feedback − Social Sciences
7.10 PUBLICATION STATISTICS
Table 20. Publications in the Social Sciences
TUHAT CWTS/LEIDEN
RCS (32) ALL AC B E PWOS TCS MCS PNC
BOTH CWTS AND HU LIBRARY ANALYSES
DYNASOBIC 281 233 21 13 91 260 2.86 44
EAT 517 438 21 53 89 130 1.47 54
EdPsychHE 455 353 52 7 92 201 2.21 46
GENU 380 211 53 105 50 254 5.16 32
METEORI 258 206 22 7 68 168 2.5 44
RCMSER 799 572 42 18 103 736 7.15 29
ONLY HU LIBRARY ANALYSIS APPLIED
AG ECON 217 113 38 40 14 16 1.14 64
CEA 476 275 65 48 19 48 2.53 53
CRADLE 409 302 53 23 26 74 2.85 31
CulCap 73 51 17 5 1 0 0 100
DEVERELE 305 142 49 80 12 21 1.75 58
ECI 554 362 132 45 37 39 1.05 65
ENFIFO 142 81 22 14 27 29 1.07 52
FCREES 600 328 167 86 10 15 1.5 60
HELPS 341 156 61 108 19 74 3.89 37
KUFE 194 109 47 19 4 8 2 50
KUMU 302 139 74 79 5 0 0 100
Law 1780 1154 320 165 6 11 1.83 83
MECOL 518 367 68 57 19 29 1.53 47
NordSoc 620 381 148 69 16 28 1.75 69
PosPus 385 217 85 44 23 16 0.7 57
PPH 206 146 31 17 16 42 2.63 38
SBII 317 206 60 37 23 24 1.04 61
SCA 177 107 36 31 7 23 3.29 43
SigMe 84 76 6 2 35 64 1.83 37
SOCE-DGI 178 127 36 6 15 36 2.4 40
Sociopolis 177 91 57 25 7 22 3.14 29
SocStats 126 77 37 5 13 44 3.38 31
STRUTSI 207 102 55 14 16 18 1.13 63
STS 211 153 30 16 31 57 1.84 29
TRANSRURBAN 439 276 84 51 20 46 2.3 30
TSEM 116 109 1 31 63 2.03 42
Total 11844 7660 1990 1289 945
The previous table includes 32 RCs. The CWTS/Leiden analysis was exclusively provided for CNC, CPHS, DEPSY and PEWE.
148 Panel-specific Feedback − Social Sciences
The number of all publications (publication types from A to I) is based on the TUHAT RIS data where A and C publications belong to the scientific publications.
The table shows that WoS indicators are mainly not applicable in the fields of Social Sciences. The table also shows that the number of scientific publications is high compared to all publications of RCs. Most publications, however, are not inclusive in the Web of Science. The publication tradition can be concluded from the table (type of B and E publications). See also Table 37 for C publications.
TUHAT categorisation of publications
A1 Refereed journal articleA2 Review in scientific journalA3 Contribution to book/other compilations (refereed)A4 Article in conference publication (refereed)B1 Unrefereed journal articleB2 Contribution to book/other compilations (non-refereed)B3 Unrefereed article in conference proceedingsC1 Published scientific monographC2 Edited book, compilation, conference proceeding or special issue of journalE1 Popular article, newspaper articleE12 Popular contribution to book/other compilationsE2 Popular monograph
CWTS/Leiden
PWoS Publications of TUHAT with WoS idTCS Total citationsMCS Mean of citationspnc Percentage of uncited publications
149Panel-specific Feedback − Social Sciences
7.11 PUBLICATION INDICATORS
Table 21. Social Sciences – publication statistics, Norwegian and Australian Publication Rankings
NORWEGIAN PUBLICATION RANKING AUSTRALIAN PUBLICATION RANKING
RCS (32) NJ NP (NJ+NP)/AC
(NJ+NP) (WEIGHTED)
NJ+NP (WEIGHTED) /MB
AUPR AUPR /AC
AUPR (WEIGHTED) /MB
BOTH CWTS AND HU LIBRARY ANALYSES
DYNASOBIC 106 7 0.48 271 5.89 105 0.45 2.99
EAT 118 5 0.28 281 7.60 111 0.25 5.04
EdPsychHE 128 8 0.39 315 7.33 128 0.36 3.79
GENU 81 10 0.43 204 8.87 83 0.39 5.15
METEORI 72 7 0.38 186 4.77 68 0.33 2.46
RCMSER 305 53 0.63 853 28.43 293 0.51 22.82
ONLY HU LIBRARY ANALYSIS
AG ECON 18 0 0.16 18 0.97 14 0.12 0.31
CEA 51 85 0.49 293 8.62 43 0.16 1.46
CRADLE 85 67 0.50 350 7.29 77 0.25 1.92
CulCap 8 8 0.31 39 4.88 7 0.14 0.94
DEVERELE 25 5 0.21 67 2.58 20 0.14 0.85
ECI 155 20 0.48 402 6.70 194 0.54 3.88
ENFIFO 31 2 0.41 68 2.72 27 0.33 1.60
FCREES 145 43 0.57 392 10.32 42 0.13 1.08
HELPS 33 7 0.26 81 3.78 35 0.22 1.43
KUFE 37 28 0.60 139 6.04 32 0.29 1.70
KUMU 34 37 0.51 147 6.13 34 0.24 1.35
Law 199 89 0.25 606 9.04 59 0.05 1.08
MECOL 86 32 0.32 274 7.21 46 0.13 2.01
NordSoc 112 30 0.37 305 5.90 80 0.21 1.67
PosPus 85 11 0.44 218 4.84 82 0.38 1.82
PPH 35 9 0.30 102 5.10 43 0.29 2.60
SBII 59 17 0.37 173 5.24 59 0.29 2.11
SCA 58 6 0.60 137 5.27 54 0.50 2.44
SigMe 41 3 0.58 101 5.61 40 0.53 3.56
SOCE-DGI 39 20 0.46 142 4.90 31 0.24 1.50
Sociopolis 25 3 0.31 70 2.69 26 0.29 1.62
SocStats 35 3 0.49 82 5.86 37 0.48 4.50
STRUTSI 25 13 0.37 80 3.81 18 0.18 1.14
STS 64 7 0.46 170 7.08 65 0.42 3.85
TRANSRURBAN 48 5 0.19 108 3.09 39 0.14 1.27
TSEM 37 0 0.34 91 4.14 38 0.35 3.66
Total 2380 640 2030
150 Panel-specific Feedback − Social Sciences
The number of all publications (publication types from A to I) is based on the TUHAT RIS data where A and C publications belong to the scientific publications. Combination of indicators is based on the application done in the Evaluation Office. Number of RCs is 32. The CWTS/Leiden analysis was exclusively provided for CNC, CPHS, DEPSY and PEWE.
NJ Norwegian Journal categorisationNP Norwegian Publishing house categorisation(NJ+NP)/AC Norwegian Journals and Publishing houses per A and C publications in TUHAT(NJ+NP) (weighted) Weighted figuresNJ+NP (weighted)/mb Weighted figures divided per member in RCAUPR Number of publications in Australian publication rankingAUPR/AC Australian publication ranking figures divided by A and C publ. inTUHATAUPR (weighted)/mb Australian publication ranking figures per member
TUHAT
A1 Refereed journal articleA2 Review in scientific journalA3 Contribution to book/other compilations (refereed)A4 Article in conference publication (refereed)C1 Published scientific monographC2 Edited book, compilation, conference proceeding or special issue of journal
COEFFICIENTS APPLIED IN THE PUBLICATION RANKINGS
Journals in Norwegian publication ranking 2 NJ2 − coefficient 3Journals in Norwegian publication ranking 1 NJ1 − coefficient 2Publishing houses in Norwegian publication ranking 2 NP2 − coefficient 3Publishing houses in Norwegian publication ranking 1 NP1 − coefficient 2
Journals in Australian publication ranking A* AUPRA* − coefficient 3Journals in Australian publication ranking A AUPRA − coefficient 2Journals in Australian publication ranking B AUPRB − coefficient 1Journals in Australian publication ranking C AUPRC − coefficient 0.5
151Panel-specific Feedback − Social SciencesEVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010
131
Figure 21. Norwegian publication ranking application
Vertical axis in Figure 21 takes into account the number of members in the RC. The axes cross at the mean values of NJ+NP (weighted)/member (6.30) and (NJ+NP)/AC (0.40). The range of members in RCs was from 18 to 67. The figure is thus a member-balanced indicator of the RC’s weighted values of publications. The weighted values of publications can be considered to indicate the quality of publications in the RC.
Horizontal axis: in TUHAT RIS A+C publications indicate potential publications to be expected to include in Norwegian publication ranking. The relation of Norwegian and TUHAT publications of RCs (percentage) indicate the quality of the RC as far the Norwegian Publication Ranking can be considered as a relevant indicator of quality.
The analyses were done in April−June 2011, thus the Finnish publication forum was not completed and could not be applied.
On the top right in Figure 21 is RCMSER. Sixty-three percent of its publications are included in the Norwegian publication ranking, and weighted value of publications per member is 24.83. It indicates that most publications of RCMSER are high quality as far the Norwegian publication ranking is considered relevant. The productivity of the members is very high quality. Productivity, however, is field-specific and should not simply be compared over the fields of sciences.
FCREES is the next RC in the coordination having 57 percent of its publication in the Norwegian publication ranking and the weighted values of publications per member being 10.32. It indicates also that the most publications of FCREES are high quality as far the Norwegian publication ranking is considered relevant. Productivity of the members is very high quality. Productivity,
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0,0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8
NJ+
NP
(wei
ghte
d) /
mem
ber
NJ + NP / A+C publications
Weighted values of publications (32 RCs)
Figure 21. Norwegian publication ranking application
Vertical axis in Figure 21 takes into account the number of members in the RC. The axes cross at the mean values of NJ+NP (weighted)/member (6.30) and (NJ+NP)/AC (0.40). The range of members in RCs was from 8 to 67. The figure is thus a member-balanced indicator of the RC’s weighted values of publications. The weighted values of publications can be considered to indicate the quality of publications in the RC.
Horizontal axis: in TUHAT RIS A+C publications indicate potential publications to be expected to include in Norwegian publication ranking. The relation of Norwegian and TUHAT publications of RCs (percentage) indicate the quality of the RC as far the Norwegian Publication Ranking can be considered as a relevant indicator of quality.
The analyses were done in April−June 2011, thus the Finnish publication forum was not completed and could not be applied.
On the top right in Figure 21 is RCMSER. Sixty-three percent of its publications are included in the Norwegian publication ranking, and weighted value of publications per member is 28.40. It indicates that most publications of RCMSER are high quality as far the Norwegian publication ranking is considered relevant. The productivity of the members is very high quality. Productivity, however, is field-specific and should not simply be compared over the fields of sciences.
152 Panel-specific Feedback − Social Sciences
FCREES is the next RC in the coordination having 57 percent of its publication in the Norwegian publication ranking and the weighted values of publications per member being 10.32. It indicates also that the most publications of FCREES are high quality as far the Norwegian publication ranking is considered relevant. Productivity of the members is very high quality. Productivity, however, is field-specific and cannot simply be compared over the fields of sciences.
Table 22. Publication performance of the RCs in relation to Norwegian and Australian Publication Rankings
RCS (32) AC / MB
OTHER / MB
NPR/ MB
NPR(WEIGHTED) / MB
AUPR / MB
AUPR(WEIGHTED) /MB
SUM
AG ECON 3.1 2.8 0.5 1.0 0.4 0.3 8.01
CEA 8.1 5.9 4.0 8.6 1.3 1.5 29.34
CRADLE 6.3 2.2 3.2 7.3 1.6 1.9 22.50
CulCap 6.4 2.8 2.0 4.9 0.9 0.9 17.81
DEVERELE 5.5 6.3 1.2 2.6 0.8 0.8 17.08
DYNASOBIC 5.1 1.0 2.5 5.9 2.3 3.0 19.73
EAT 11.8 2.1 3.3 7.6 3.0 5.0 32.93
ECI 6.0 3.2 2.9 6.7 3.2 3.9 25.97
EdPsychHE 8.2 2.4 3.2 7.3 3.0 3.8 27.84
ENFIFO 3.2 2.4 1.3 2.7 1.1 1.6 12.40
FCREES 8.6 7.2 4.9 10.3 1.1 1.1 33.24
GENU 9.2 7.3 4.0 8.9 3.6 5.2 38.11
HELPS 6.8 8.0 1.7 3.8 1.5 1.4 23.30
KUFE 4.7 3.7 2.8 6.0 1.4 1.7 20.39
KUMU 5.8 6.8 3.0 6.1 1.4 1.4 24.44
Law 17.2 9.3 4.3 9.0 0.9 1.1 41.87
MECOL 9.7 4.0 3.1 7.2 1.2 2.0 27.17
METEORI 5.3 1.3 2.0 4.8 1.7 2.5 17.62
NordSoc 7.3 4.6 2.7 5.9 1.5 1.7 23.73
PosPus 4.8 3.7 2.1 4.8 1.8 1.8 19.18
PPH 7.3 3.0 2.2 5.1 2.2 2.6 22.35
RCMSER 19.1 7.6 11.9 28.4 9.8 22.8 99.58
SBII 6.2 3.4 2.3 5.2 1.8 2.1 21.05
SCA 4.1 2.7 2.5 5.3 2.1 2.4 19.06
SigMe 4.2 0.4 2.4 5.6 2.2 3.6 18.50
SOCE-DGI 4.4 1.8 2.0 4.9 1.1 1.5 15.64
Sociopolis 3.5 3.3 1.1 2.7 1.0 1.6 13.19
SocStats 5.5 3.5 2.7 5.9 2.6 4.5 24.71
STRUTSI 4.9 5.0 1.8 3.8 0.9 1.1 17.48
STS 6.4 2.4 3.0 7.1 2.7 3.9 25.40
153Panel-specific Feedback − Social Sciences
The previous indicators are counted per member of each RC. It is thus better to interpret the indicators inside Social Sciences. There are no grounds to claim that the indicators would justify ranking between the fields of sciences even inside Social Sciences. The data is based only on RCs’ publications in the panel of Social Sciences. Normalised indicators are not available.
• AC/mb: number of scientific publications A and C in TUHAT RIS, per member in each RC
• Other/mb: number of other publications excluding A and C in TUHAT RIS, per member in each RC
• NPR/mb: number of publications recognised in Norwegian Publication Ranking, per member in each RC
• NPR(weighted)/mb: weighted value for number of publications recognised in Norwegian Publication Ranking, per member in each RC
• AUPR/mb: number of publications recognised in Australian Publication Ranking per member in each RC
• AUPR(weighted)/mb: weighted value for number of publications recognised in Australian Publication Ranking, per member in each RC
COEFFICIENTS APPLIED IN THE PUBLICATION RANKINGS• Journals in Norwegian publication ranking 2 NJ2 − coefficient 3• Journals in Norwegian publication ranking 1 NJ1 − coefficient 2• Publishing houses in Norwegian publication ranking 2 NP2 − coefficient 3• Publishing houses in Norwegian publication ranking 1 NP1 − coefficient 2
• Journals in Australian publication ranking A* AUPRA* − coefficient 3• Journals in Australian publication ranking A AUPRA − coefficient 2• Journals in Australian publication ranking B AUPRB − coefficient 1• Journals in Australian publication ranking C AUPRC − coefficient 0.5
RCS (32) AC /MB
OTHER /MB
NPR/ MB
NPR(WEIGHTED) /MB
AUPR /MB
AUPR(WEIGHTED) /MB
SUM
TRANSRURBAN 7.9 4.7 1.5 3.1 1.1 1.3 19.53
TSEM 5.0 0.3 1.7 4.1 1.7 3.7 16.48
Average 6.8 3.9 2.7 6.2 1.9 2.8 24.86
154 Panel-specific Feedback − Social Sciences
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010134
Figure 22. Distribution of the publication performance of RCs in relation to Norwegian and Australian Publication Rankings
The bars in the figure are based on Table 22 from which the indicators have been totalled. The mean value is 24.83. Each indicator is slightly in alignment with the sum of indicators in each RC. The figure indicates that indicator “other publications” is less in alignment with the other indicators. Compiled indicators give an approximate insight of the quality of RCs’ research.
24,9
0,0 20,0 40,0 60,0 80,0 100,0
AG ECON ENFIFO
Sociopolis SOCE-DGI
TSEM DEVERELE
STRUTSI METEORI
CulCap SigMe
SCA PosPus
TRANSRURBAN DYNASOBIC
KUFE SBII PPH
CRADLE HELPS
NordSoc KUMU
SocStats Mean
STS ECI
MECOL EdPsychHE
CEA EAT
FCREES GENU
Law RCMSER
Compiled publication performance in Social Sciences (32 RCs)
AC/mb
Other/mb
NPR/mb
NPR(weighted)/mb
AUPR/mb
AUPR(weighted)/mb
Figure 22. Distribution of the publication performance of RCs in relation to Norwegian and Australian Publication Rankings
The bars in the figure are based on Table 22 from which the indicators have been totalled. The mean value is 24.9. Each indicator is slightly in alignment with the sum of indicators in each RC. The figure indicates that indicator “other publications” is less in alignment with the other indicators. Compiled indicators give an approximate insight of the quality of RCs’ research.
24,9
155Panel-specific Feedback − Social Sciences
7.12 PUBLICATION STATISTICS OF THE CWTS/LEIDEN – SOCIAL SCIENCES
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010 135
7.12 Publication statistics of the CWTS/Leiden – Social Sciences
Figure 23. Social Sciences: number of RC’s publications (P) and total citations (TCS) in the CWTS/Leiden analysis
In Figure 23, only RCs (10) which fulfilled the requirements of the CWTS/Leiden analysis are shown, i.e. RCs’ publications (with WoS id) were 50 or more and internal coverage was more than 40 percent. One indicator of impact can be considered the ratio between TCS/P (TCS: total citations; P: number of WoS publications). Figures inside the parentheses indicate MCS (the mean of citations per publication).
The columns are organised according to the order of total sum of citations in the analysis of the CWTS/Leiden.
Table 23. Social Sciences: publications, citations and field-normalized figures in the CWTS/Leidenanalysis
RCs (10) All AC B E PWoS TCS MCS pnc MNCS MNJS THCP10 int_cov
Only CWTS analysisCNC 294 252 20 10 199 1644 8.26 23.62 0.96 1.11 0.79 0.86
CPHS 373 316 40 13 245 2091 8.59 24.49 1.47 1.45 1.71 0.76
DEPSY 235 206 23 4 166 1779 10.76 22.29 1.68 1.97 1.64 0.89
PEWE 463 444 14 1 399 2271 5.7 26.57 1.53 1.63 1.91 0.82
Both CWTS and UH Library analysesDYNASOBIC 281 233 21 13 91 260 2.86 43.96 0.89 0.95 0.74 0.57
EAT 517 438 21 53 89 130 1.47 53.93 0.72 0.77 0.7 0.55
EdPsychHE 455 353 52 7 92 201 2.21 45.65 0.88 1.05 0.87 0.51
GENU 380 211 53 105 50 254 5.16 32 1.57 1.44 1.78 0.51
METEORI 258 206 22 7 68 168 2.5 44.12 1.14 1.04 0.79 0.54
RCMSER 799 572 42 18 103 736 7.15 29.13 1.21 1.73 1.07 0.71
Total 4055 3231 308 231 1502
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
PEWE (5,70)
CPHS (8,59)
DEPSY (10,76)
CNC (8,26)
RCMSER (7,15)
DYNASOBIC (2,86)
GENU (5,16)
EdPsychHE (2,21)
METEORI (2,50)
EAT (1,47)
P TCS
Figure 23. Social Sciences: number of RC’s publications (P) and total citations (TCS) in the CWTS/Leiden analysis
In Figure 23, only RCs (10) which fulfilled the requirements of the CWTS/Leiden analysis are shown, i.e. RCs’ publications (with WoS id) were 50 or more and internal coverage was more than 40 percent. One indicator of impact can be considered the ratio between TCS/P (TCS: total citations; P: number of WoS publications). Figures inside the parentheses indicate MCS (the mean of citations per publication).
The columns are organised according to the order of total sum of citations in the analysis of the CWTS/Leiden.
Table 23. Social Sciences: publications, citations and field-normalized figures in the CWTS/Leiden analysis
RCS (10) ALL AC B E PWOS TCS MCS PNC MNCS MNJS THCP10 INT_COV
ONLY CWTS ANALYSIS
CNC 294 252 20 10 199 1644 8.26 23.62 0.96 1.11 0.79 0.86
CPHS 373 316 40 13 245 2091 8.59 24.49 1.47 1.45 1.71 0.76
DEPSY 235 206 23 4 166 1779 10.76 22.29 1.68 1.97 1.64 0.89
PEWE 463 444 14 1 399 2271 5.7 26.57 1.53 1.63 1.91 0.82
BOTH CWTS AND UH LIBRARY ANALYSES
DYNASOBIC 281 233 21 13 91 260 2.86 43.96 0.89 0.95 0.74 0.57
EAT 517 438 21 53 89 130 1.47 53.93 0.72 0.77 0.7 0.55
EdPsychHE 455 353 52 7 92 201 2.21 45.65 0.88 1.05 0.87 0.51
GENU 380 211 53 105 50 254 5.16 32 1.57 1.44 1.78 0.51
METEORI 258 206 22 7 68 168 2.5 44.12 1.14 1.04 0.79 0.54
RCMSER 799 572 42 18 103 736 7.15 29.13 1.21 1.73 1.07 0.71
Total 4055 3231 308 231 1502
156 Panel-specific Feedback − Social Sciences
Number of all publications are counted in the TUHAT RIS where A and C publications belong to the publication type of scientific publications. TUHAT’s publication classification follows mainly the definition of the Ministry of Education (Publication Type Classification, Manual 2010).
The CWTS/Leiden analysis: Number of publications (PWoS), Total number of citations (TCS), Number of citations per publication (MCS), Percentage of uncited publications (pnc), Field-normalized number of citations (MNCS), Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS), Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) (THCP10), Internal coverage, i.e. inside WoS publications (int_cov).
TUHAT
A1 Refereed journal articleA2 Review in scientific journalA3 Contribution to book/other compilations (refereed)A4 Article in conference publication (refereed)B1 Unrefereed journal articleB2 Contribution to book/other compilations (non-refereed)B3 Unrefereed article in conference proceedingsC1 Published scientific monographC2 Edited book, compilation, conference proceeding or special issue of journalE1 Popular article, newspaper articleE12 Popular contribution to book/other compilationsE2 Popular monograph
MNJS in relation to MNCS of publications of RCs
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010136
Number of all publications are counted in the TUHAT RIS where A and C publications belong to the publication type of scientific publications. TUHAT’s publication classification follows mainly the definition of the Ministry of Education (Publication Type Classification, Manual 2010).
The CWTS/Leiden analysis: Number of publications (PWoS), Total number of citations (TCS), Number of citations per publication (MCS), Percentage of uncited publications (pnc), Field-normalized number of citations (MNCS), Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS), Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) (THCP10), Internal coverage, i.e. inside WoS publications (int_cov).
TUHATA1 Refereed journal articleA2 Review in scientific journalA3 Contribution to book/other compilations (refereed)A4 Article in conference publication (refereed)B1 Unrefereed journal articleB2 Contribution to book/other compilations (non-refereed)B3 Unrefereed article in conference proceedingsC1 Published scientific monographC2 Edited book, compilation, conference proceeding or special issue of journalE1 Popular article, newspaper articleE12 Popular contribution to book/other compilationsE2 Popular monograph
MNJS in relation to MNCS of publications of RCs
Figure 24. MNJS in relation to MNCS
In Figure 24, the RCs’ publications value for MNJS is placed on the horizontal axis, and the value for MNCS on the vertical axis. The axes indicate the world average. The MNJS indicator refers to the field-normalized average journal impact and describes the impact of the journals in which RC published their papers. This describes the researchers’ level of ambition when
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4 1,6 1,8 2,0
0,00 0,25 0,50 0,75 1,00 1,25 1,50 1,75 2,00
MN
CS
MNJS
MNJS/MNCS relation (Social Sciences, 10 RCs)
4 1
23
Figure 24. MNJS in relation to MNCS
157Panel-specific Feedback − Social Sciences
In Figure 24, the RCs’ publications value for MNJS is placed on the horizontal axis, and the value for MNCS on the vertical axis. The axes indicate the world average. The MNJS indicator refers to the field-normalized average journal impact and describes the impact of the journals in which RC published their papers. This describes the researchers’ level of ambition when choosing the journal in which to publish their research results. The combination of indicators is applied by the Evaluation Office.
Figure 24 indicates that at least 6 of 10 RCs belong to square 1, i.e. the RCs publish in high impact publications and their impact is high as well. Two of the rest RCs belong to square 2 publishing in high impact journals and their MNCS is close to the world average. The RCs in the figure are CNC, CPHS, DEPSY, PEWE, DYNASOBIC, EAT, EdPsychHE, GENU, METEORI and RCMSER and can be identified in Table 23.
Interpretation of square areas in the figureSquare 1: RCs publish their papers in high-impact journals and the number of citations they receive exceeds the world average in their field.
Square 2: RCs publish their papers in high-impact journals and the number of citations they receive falls below the world average in their field.
Square 3: RCs publish their papers in low-impact journals and the number of citations they receive falls below the world average in their field.
Square 4: RCs publish their papers in low-impact journals and the number of citations they receive exceeds the world average in their field.
Impact and robustness of publications of RCs
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010 137
choosing the journal in which to publish their research results. The combination of indicators is applied by the Evaluation Office.
Figure 24 indicates that at least 6 of 10 RCs belong to square 1, i.e. the RCs publish in high impact publications and their impact is high as well. Two of the rest RCs belong to square 2 publishing in high impact journals and their MNCS is close to the world average. The RCs in the figure are CNC, CPHS, DEPSY, PEWE, DYNASOBIC, EAT, EdPsychHE, GENU, METEORI and RCMSER and can be identified in Table 23.
Interpretation of square areas in the figure
Square 1: RCs publish their papers in high-impact journals and the number of citations they receive exceeds the world average in their field.Square 2: RCs publish their papers in high-impact journals and the number of citations they receive falls below the world average in their field.Square 3: RCs publish their papers in low-impact journals and the number of citations they receive falls below the world average in their field.Square 4: RCs publish their papers in low-impact journals and the number of citations they receive exceeds the world average in their field.
Impact and robustness of publications of RCs
Figure 25. THCP10 in relation to MNCS
In Figure 28, the RCs’ publications value for THCP10 is placed on the horizontal axis, and the value for MNCS on the vertical. The axes indicate the world average. By combining the two indicators, MNCS and THCP10, the publication activity of the RC can be described as a whole. It gives an idea of how robust the field normalized indicator MNCS is. The RCs in the figure are CNC, CPHS, DEPSY, PEWE, DYNASOBIC, EAT, EdPsychHE, GENU, METEORI and RCMSER.
The RCs with a high MNCS and THCP10 that exceeds the international average can be
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
1,2
1,4
1,6
1,8
0,00 0,25 0,50 0,75 1,00 1,25 1,50 1,75 2,00 2,25
MN
CS
THCP10
THCP10/MNCS relation (Social Sciences, 10 RCs)
Figure 25. THCP10 in relation to MNCS
158 Panel-specific Feedback − Social Sciences
In Figure 25, the RCs’ publications value for THCP10 is placed on the horizontal axis, and the value for MNCS on the vertical. The axes indicate the world average. By combining the two indicators, MNCS and THCP10, the publication activity of the RC can be described as a whole. It gives an idea of how robust the field normalized indicator MNCS is. The RCs in the figure are CNC, CPHS, DEPSY, PEWE, DYNASOBIC, EAT, EdPsychHE, GENU, METEORI and RCMSER.
The RCs with a high MNCS and THCP10 that exceeds the international average can be interpreted as having good and robust publication practices. In the analysis by the CWTS/Leiden were altogether 10 RCs of which five performed with ambitious and robust publication practices (in Social Sciences).
All RCs can be identified in Table 23.
3 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − BIOLOGICAL, AGRICULTURAL AND VETERINARY SCIENCES
4 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − MEDICINE, BIOMEDICINE AND HEALTH SCIENCES
5 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − NATURAL SCIENCES
6 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − HUMANITIES
7 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − SOCIAL SCIENCES
9 RESEARCH PERFORMANCE
10 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSES
11 SUMMARY REPORT OF DOCTORAL TRAINING
12 CONCLUDING REMARKS
13 APPENDICES
2 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION
8 OVERALL STATISTICS ON THE EVALUATION
1 INTRODUCTION TO THE EVALUATION
161Overall statistics on the evaluation
12345678910
1 Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences2 Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences3 Natural Sciences4 Humanities5 Social Sciences6 Category 1. The research of the participating community represents the international cutting edge in its
field.7 Category 2. The research of the participating community is of high quality, but the community in its
present composition has yet to achieve strong international recognition or a clear break-through.8 Category 3. The research of the participating community is distinct from mainstream research, and the
special features of the research tradition in the field must be considered in the evaluation.9 Category 4. The research of the participating community represents an innovative opening.10 Category 5. The research of the participating community has a highly significant societal impact.
8. OVERALL STATISTICS ON THE EVALUATION
8.1 PARTICIPATION
Table 24. Number of participating Researcher Communities (RCs) as per category and field of science
Table 24 shows that the RCs are quite evenly participated in the categories. The most attractive was the first category. The number of RCs in the fields of sciences is quite even, the range of RCs being from 22 to 36. The exceptions are Medicine and Natural Sciences in category 3 (exceptional from main stream research), which they did not participate in.
CATEGORY BIO1
NO. OF RCS
MED2
NO. OF RCS
NAT3
NO. OFRCS
HUM4
NO. OFRCS
SOC5
NO. OFRCS
NO. OF RCS IN CATEG.
PERCENTAGE OF RCS IN
CATEGORY
PERCENTAGE OF INDIVIDUALS
IN CATEGORY
NO. OF PIS
NO. OF INDIVIDUALS IN CATEGORY
16 13 12 11 10 11 57 41.9 52.0 513 3045
27 3 4 3 6 8 24 17.6 17.9 214 1047
38 5 0 0 6 5 16 11.8 8.7 125 507
49 4 5 6 4 6 25 18.4 12.2 145 714
510 2 2 2 2 6 14 10.3 9.3 134 544
No. of RCs 27 23 22 28 36 136 (100%) (100%)
No. of individuals
1345 1170 1084 1085 1173 5857 Total
No. of PIs 249 184 163 246 289 1131Total
162 Overall statistics on the evaluation
Table 25. Participation activity of principal investigators (PI) in the Faculties of the University
FACULTY PARTICIPATING PIS NON-PARTICIPATING PIS PIS TOTAL PARTICIPATION %
Pharmacy 36 1 37 97.3%
Veterinary Medicine 35 4 39 89.7%
Agriculture and Forestry 108 16 124 87.1%
Theology 38 8 46 82.6%
Arts 178 40 218 81.7%
Social Sciences 103 24 127 81.1%
Science 145 34 179 81.0%
Swedish School of Social Science 18 8 26 69.2%
Law 38 21 59 64.4%
Biological and Environmental Sciences 64 39 103 62.1%
Behavioural Sciences 55 36 91 60.4%
Medicine 136 238 374 36.4%
Table 26. Participation activity of principal investigators (PI) in the Independent Institutes of the University
INDEPENDET INSTITUTE PARTICIPATING PIS NON-PARTICIPATING PIS
PIS TOTAL
PARTICIPATION %
Aleksanteri Institute 8 0 8 100.0%
Institute of Biotechnology 33 0 33 100.0%
Helsinki Center of Economic Research (HECER) 1 0 1 100.0%
Helsinki Insitute for Information Technology (HIIT) 2 0 2 100.0%
Neuroscience Center 9 0 9 100.0%
Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM) 11 1 12 91.7%
Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies (-2009) 20 7 27 74.1%
Finnish Museum of Natural History 17 11 28 60.7%
Ruralia Institute 4 3 7 57.1%
Table 27. Number of researchers organised according to tenure track
TENURE TRACK NO. NO. OF RESEARCHERS
I 2899
II 1122
III 1022
IV 748
Not known 66
Total 5857
Table 27 shows the number of researchers classified in the tenure track system. All the participants did not explicitly indicate their position. For these, their position was estimated by the evaluation office. The tenure track for about 1% of the participants, i.e., 66/5857, was not known. The table, however, describes the status quo quite well when compared to other available University statistics. It must be taken into account that the table is based on past positions which are not relevant in the present situation.
163Overall statistics on the evaluation
Number of PIs and other members in RCs in the evaluation panels
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010 145
Number of PIs and other members in RCs in the evaluation panels
0 50 100 150
VetSci FoodNutri
SSA CoE-…
VMPS MICRO
Law HelDevBio CoE MRG
CellMolBiol PHYTOPATH CoE_VIRRES
MEMBREC ViiGen INBIOS
SB&B BIOSYST ENIGMA
VITRI PEATLANDERS
EGRU FRESH
ARC PHABIO
LEGMILK EvoDevo MUSGEN
Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Scs
Other RC-members PIs 0 50 100 150
CompDisGen InfBio
CANBIO Neuron Dental
NEUROMED Women's Health
SUVALUE DePoNa
MNRP ID-TM
Neuroiontroph PARTICLE
TraST CSB
CardioMed PDBD
MS Group Skin and allergy
ProLipids IndiViDrug
PURE DECODE/DECODA
Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Scs
Other RC-members PIs
0 50 100 150
ATM PaCo ALKO ANDY
LIC MATENA
ASP CoE CMS
ECO HUBI HYRL
AG ECON NODES
BNCTMI MedChemBio
HLG LTCC MAC
GIMMEC INV
SOFTSYS CARBON14
Natural Sciences
Other RC-members PIs 0 50 100 150
LMS HIST
Gender Studies ART
ARCH-HU Interaction
LMPS LDHFTA
VARIENG CoCoLaC
CITA CEA
PPMP FC
ILLC GLW
RELDIAL BAULT
CECH RELSOC MusSig AMNE
AHCI RCSP CSTT SHC
CMVG LFP
Humanities
Other RC-members PIs
164 Overall statistics on the evaluationEVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010
146
8.2 Focus areas of research at the University of Helsinki
Table 28 and Figure 26 (in absolute figures), and Table 29 (in percentages) indicate the University’s focus areas in the main fields of sciences. In the performance agreement between the University of Helsinki and the Ministry of Education and Culture, the University defined ten main focus areas for the period 2010–2012. It should be noted that the focus areas look forwards and the evaluation looks mainly backwards and is based on the RCs’ publications and other scientific activities in the years 2005–2010. The evaluation material reflects the focus areasand the tables give a picture of how the RCs at present cover the focus areas. “Welfare and safety” are covered by all fields of sciences, whereas the other focus areas are represented mainly in their typical fields of sciences.
0 20 40 60 80
ECI NordSoc CRADLE
CNC DYNASOBIC
PosPus EdPsychHE
CPHS METEORI
FCREES MECOL
EAT TRANSRURBAN
SBII RCMSER
SOCE-DGI Sociopolis DEVERELE
SCA PEWE
P-Molmed ENFIFO KUMU
STS BAYES GENU KUFE
HELPS TSEM
DEPSY Legal protection and welfare
STRUTSI PPH
SigMe SocStats
CulCap
Social Sciences
Other RC-members PIs
8.2 FOCUS AREAS OF RESEARCH AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI
Table 28 and Figure 26 (in absolute figures), and Table 29 (in percentages) indicate the University’s focus areas in the main fields of sciences. In the performance agreement between the University of Helsinki and the Ministry of Education and Culture, the University defined ten main focus areas for the period 2010–2012. It should be noted that the focus areas look forwards and the evaluation looks mainly backwards and is based on the RCs’ publications and other scientific activities in the years 2005–2010. The evaluation material reflects the focus areas and the tables give a picture of how the RCs at present cover the focus areas. “Welfare and safety” are covered by all fields of sciences, whereas the other focus areas are represented mainly in their typical fields of sciences.
165Overall statistics on the evaluation
1112131415
11 12 13 14 15
Table 28. Number of RCs in focus areas of research organised according to evaluation panels
FOCUS AREA BIO19 MED20 NAT21 HUM22 SOC23 TOTAL
1. The basic structure, materials and natural resources of the physical world
5 8 13
2. The basic structure of life 12 8 20
3. The changing environment - clean water 5 5 1 11
4. The thinking and learning human being 5 7 12
5. Welfare and safety 2 4 2 1 4 13
6. Clinical research 1 10 11
7. Exact thinking 6 1 7
8. Language and culture 19 19
9. Social justice 1 6 7
10. Globalisation and social change 12 12
Not selected 2 1 1 2 5 11
Total 27 23 22 28 36 136
Table 28 is represented graphically in Figure 26 according to the total sum of figures in focus areas.
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010147
Table 28. Number of RCs in focus areas of research organised according to evaluation panels
Focus area BIO37 MED38 NAT39 HUM40 SOC41 Total
1. The basic structure, materials and natural resources of the physical world
5 8 13
2. The basic structure of life 12 8 20
3. The changing environment - clean water 5 5 1 11
4. The thinking and learning human being 5 7 12
5. Welfare and safety 2 4 2 1 4 13
6. Clinical research 1 10 11
7. Exact thinking 6 1 7
8. Language and culture 19 19
9. Social justice 1 6 7
10. Globalisation and social change 12 12
Not selected 2 1 1 2 5 11
Total 27 23 22 28 36 136
Table 28 is represented graphically in Figure 26 according to the total sum of figures in focus areas.
Figure 26. Number of RCs in focus areas by evaluation panels
37 Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences38 Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences39 Natural Sciences40 Humanities41 Social Sciences
0
5
10
15
20
25
Num
ber o
f RCs
Focus area
5 SOC
4 HUM
3 NAT
2 MED
1 BIO
Figure 26. Number of RCs in focus areas by evaluation panels
Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences Natural Sciences Humanities Social Sciences
166 Overall statistics on the evaluation
1617181920
16 17 18 19 20
Table 29. RCs’ focus areas of research in percentage according to evaluation Panels
FOCUS AREA BIO24 MED25 NAT26 HUM27 SOC28 % OF ALL
1. The basic structure, materials and natural resources of the physical world
19 36 10
2. The basic structure of life 44 35 15
3. The changing environment - clean water 19 23 3 8
4. The thinking and learning human being 18 19 9
5. Welfare and safety 7 17 9 4 11 10
6. Clinical research 4 43 8
7. Precise reasoning 27 3 5
8. Language and culture 68 14
9. Social justice 4 17 5
10. Globalisation and social change 33 9
Not selected 7 4 5 7 14 8
Total % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Note: Column “% of all” indicates the percentages of the number of RCs from all RCs (136) that chose focus areas shown in the first column.
Table 30. Number of focus areas of research in participation categories
FOCUS AREA CAT 1 CAT 2 CAT 3 CAT 4 CAT 5 TOTAL
1. The basic structure, materials and natural resources of the physical world
7 1 4 1 13
2. The basic structure of life 12 2 2 4 20
3. The changing environment - clean water 4 1 2 3 1 11
4. The thinking and learning human being 5 2 4 1 12
5. Welfare and safety 5 1 2 5 13
6. Clinical research 5 4 1 1 11
7. Exact thinking 4 2 1 7
8. Language and culture 6 5 4 3 1 19
9. Social justice 2 3 2 7
10. Globalisation and social change 4 2 3 1 2 12
Not selected 3 4 2 2 11
Total 57 24 16 25 14 136
Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences Natural Sciences Humanities Social Sciences
167Overall statistics on the evaluation
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010149
Figure 27. Number of RCs in focus areas and categories
Table 31. Percentages of focus areas of research in participation categories
Focus area CAT 147 CAT 248 CAT 349 CAT 450 CAT 551
1. The basic structure, materials and natural resources of the physical world
13 6 16 7
2. The basic structure of life 21 8 13 163. The changing environment - clean water 7 4 13 12 74. The thinking and learning human being 9 13 16 75. Welfare and safety 9 4 8 366. Clinical research 9 16 4 77. Precise reasoning 7 8 48. Language and culture 11 20 25 12 79. Social justice 2 16 1410. Globalisation and social change 7 8 19 4 14Not selected 5 16 13 8Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Table 31 indicates the focus areas which are represented in participation categories. “Changing environment”, “Language and culture”, “Social justice” and “Globalisation” are presented in all participation categories. The table indicates also the diversity of research topics in relation to the categories.
8.3 Evaluation scores
The detailed scores of RCs are presented in the feedback chapters of each panel.
47 Category 1. The research of the participating community represents the international cutting edge in its field.48 Category 2. The research of the participating community is of high quality, but the community in its present composition has yet to achieve strong international recognition or a clear break-through.
49 Category 3. The research of the participating community is distinct from mainstream research, and the special features
of the research tradition in the field must be considered in the evaluation.50 Category 4. The research of the participating community represents an innovative opening.51 Category 5. The research of the participating community has a highly significant societal impact.
0
5
10
15
20
25
Num
ber o
f RCs
Focus area
CAT 5
CAT 4
CAT 3
CAT 2
CAT 1
Figure 27. Number of RCs in focus areas and categories
Table 31. Percentages of focus areas of research in participation categories
FOCUS AREA CAT 121 CAT 222 CAT 323 CAT 424 CAT 525
1. The basic structure, materials and natural resources of the physical world
13 6 16 7
2. The basic structure of life 21 8 13 16
3. The changing environment - clean water 7 4 13 12 7
4. The thinking and learning human being 9 13 16 7
5. Welfare and safety 9 4 8 36
6. Clinical research 9 16 4 7
7. Precise reasoning 7 8 4
8. Language and culture 11 20 25 12 7
9. Social justice 2 16 14
10. Globalisation and social change 7 8 19 4 14
Not selected 5 16 13 8
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Table 31 indicates the focus areas which are represented in participation categories. “Changing environment”, “Language and culture”, “Social justice” and “Globalisation” are presented in all participation categories. The table indicates also the diversity of research topics in relation to the categories.
2122232425
21
22
23
24 25
Category 1. The research of the participating community represents the international cutting edge in its field.
Category 2. The research of the participating community is of high quality, but the community in its present composition has yet to achieve strong international recognition or a clear break-through.
Category 3. The research of the participating community is distinct from mainstream research, and the special features of the research tradition in the field must be considered in the evaluation.
Category 4. The research of the participating community represents an innovative opening. Category 5. The research of the participating community has a highly significant societal impact.
168 Overall statistics on the evaluation
8.3 EVALUATION SCORES
The detailed scores of RCs are presented in the feedback chapters of each panel.
Table 32. Average scores and standard deviations in the evaluation panels
PANEL QUALITY OF RESEARCH
DOCTORAL SOCIETAL TRAINING IMPACT
CO-OPERATION
CATEGORY FITNESS
BIOLOGICAL, AGRICULTURAL AND VETERINARY SCIENCES
Average 4.02 3.88 4.02 3.93 3.89
Standard deviation 0.82 0.98 0.71 0.80 0.89
MEDICINE, BIOMEDICINE AND HEALTH SCIENCES
Average 4.00 4.09 4.17 4.22 3.96
Standard deviation 0.88 0.83 0.76 0.83 0.91
NATURAL SCIENCES
Average 4.16 4.02 3.82 4.09 4.50
Standard deviation 0.76 0.70 0.67 0.92 0.56
HUMANITIES
Average 4.02 4.30 4.18 4.07 4.16
Standard deviation 0.62 0.63 0.66 0.73 0.73
SOCIAL SCIENCES
Average 3.72 3.86 3.94 4.08 4.56
Standard deviation 0.73 0.89 0.66 0.79 0.50
Question average 3.96 4.02 4.03 4.08 4.23
Table 33. Average scores (standard deviations) in the evaluation panels
EVALUATION QUESTION BIO26 MED27 NAT28 HUM29 SOC30 QUESTION AVERAGE
Quality of research 4.02 (0.82)
4.00 (0.88)
4.16 (0.76)
4.02 (0.62)
3.72 (0.73)
3.96 (0.78)
Doctoral training 3.88 (0.98)
4.09 (0.83)
4.02 (0.70)
4.30 (0.63)
3.86 (0.89)
4.02 (0.84)
Societal impact 4.02 (0.71)
4.17 (0.76)
3.82 (0.67)
4.18 (0.66)
3.94 (0.66)
4.03 (0.70)
Cooperation 3.93 (0.80)
4.22 (0.83)
4.09 (0.92)
4.07 (0.73)
4.08 (0.79)
4.08 (0.82)
Category fitness 3.89 (0.89)
3.96 (0.91)
4.50 (0.56)
4.16 (0.73)
4.56 (0.50)
4.23 (0.77)
Panel average 3.95 (0.85)
4.09 (0.85)
4.12 (0.77)
4.15 (0.68)
4.03 (0.78)
4.06 (0.79)
2627282930
26 Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences27 Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences28 Natural Sciences29 Humanities30 Social Sciences
169Overall statistics on the evaluation
Table 34. Average scores (number of RCs) in categories
CATEGORY BIO26 MED27 NAT28 HUM29 SOC30
1 4.38 (13) 4.33 (12) 4.59 (11) 4.50 (10) 4.36 (11)
2 3.67 (3) 3.00 (4) 4.00 (3) 3.50 (6) 3.75 (8)
3 3.80 (5) - - 3.83 (6) 3.20 (5)
4 3.50 (4) 4.00 (5) 3.50 (6) 3.88 (4) 3.50 (6)
5 3.75 (2) 4.00 (2) 4.00 (2) 4.00 (2) 3.17 (6)
Average (sum of RCs) 3.95 (27) 4.09 (23) 4.12 (22) 4.15 (28) 4.03 (36)
8.4 PUBLICATIONS OF THE ENTIRE UNIVERSITY
Table 35. Publication types of all publications under evaluation in the years 2005–2010
CODE TYPE OF PUBLICATION NO. OF PUBLICATIONS
A1 Refereed journal article 25327
A2 Review in scientific journal 849
A3 Contribution to book/other compilations (refereed) 11366
A4 Article in conference publication (refereed) 3196
B1 Unrefereed journal article 6749
B2 Contribution to book/other compilations (non-refereed) 2034
B3 Unrefereed article in conference proceedings 1340
C1 Published scientific monograph 1966
C2 Edited book, compilation, conference proceeding or special issue of journal 1635
D1 Article in professional journal 1531
D2 Article in professional hand or guide book or in a professional data system, or textbook material
1032
D3 Article in professional conference proceedings 117
D4 Published development or research report 502
D5 Textbook or professional handbook or guidebook or dictionary 803
E1 Popular article, newspaper article 6896
E1 Popular contribution to book/other compilations 1350
E2 Popular monograph 524
F1 Published independent artistic work 29
F2 Public contribution to artistic work 34
F3 Public artistic play or exhibition 15
F4 Model or plan taken into production / exploited 2
G1-G5 Theses (not included in the evaluation) –
H1 Patents 59
I1 Audiovisual materials 62
I2 ICT programs or applications 47
Total 67465
170 Overall statistics on the evaluation
Detailed information on publications is presented in the Library analyses chapter and Appendix 11.
Table 36. Number of publications by type in the evaluation panels
TYPE OF PUBLICATION
EVALUATION PANEL A B C D E F H I TOTAL
Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary sciences
6332 1059 161 610 1110 – 20 30 9322
Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences
7267 591 55 160 90 – 20 5 8188
Natural Sciences 6416 1015 262 318 270 2 32 12 8327
Humanities 5897 2678 1111 659 2543 49 – 46 12983
Social Sciences 7477 2087 1401 908 1317 2 – 17 13209
Total 33389 7430 2990 2655 5330 53 72 110 52029
Table 37. Percentages of publications by type in the evaluation panels
TYPE OF PUBLICATION
EVALUATION PANEL A B C D E F H I TOTAL
Biological, agricultural and veterinary sciences
67.9 11.4 1.7 6.5 11.9 0.0 0.2 0.3 100%
Medicine, biomedicine and health sciences
88.8 7.2 0.7 2.0 1.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 100%
Natural sciences 77.1 12.2 3.1 3.8 3.2 0.0 0.4 0.1 100%
Humanities 45.4 20.6 8.6 5.1 19.6 0.4 0.0 0.4 100%
Social sciences 56.6 15.8 10.6 6.9 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 100%
Total 64.2 % 14.3 % 5.7 % 5.1 % 10.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 100%
In Table 36 and Table 37 publications are categorized by the classification of the Ministry of Education and Culture as follows:
A Peer-reviewed scientific articlesB Non-refereed scientific articlesC Scientific books (monograph)D Publications intended for professional communitiesE Publications intended for the general publicF Public artistic and design activitiesH Patents and invention disclosuresI Audiovisual material, ICT software
171Overall statistics on the evaluation
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010152
Table 37. Percentage of publications by type in evaluation panels
Type of publication
Evaluation panel A B C D E F H I Total
Biological, agricultural and veterinary sciences
67.9 11.4 1.7 6.5 11.9 0.0 0.2 0.3 100%
Medicine, biomedicine and health sciences
88.8 7.2 0.7 2.0 1.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 100%
Natural sciences 77.1 12.2 3.1 3.8 3.2 0.0 0.4 0.1 100%
Humanities 45.4 20.6 8.6 5.1 19.6 0.4 0.0 0.4 100%
Social sciences 56.6 15.8 10.6 6.9 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 100%
Total 64.2 % 14.3 % 5.7 % 5.1 % 10.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 100%
In Table 36 and Table 37 publications are categorized by the classification of the Ministry of Education and Culture as follows:
A Peer-reviewed scientific articlesB Non-refereed scientific articlesC Scientific books (monograph)D Publications intended for professional communitiesE Publications intended for the general publicF Public artistic and design activitiesH Patents and invention disclosuresI Audiovisual material, ICT software
Figure 28. Number of publications in TUHAT from 4/2010 to 4/2011 (12.4.2011)
The figure indicates an increase of publications in TUHAT RIS. The increase of total publications depended on the updating of both new and old publications which existed but the storage had delayed in the information system because of recent implementation of the system or for some other reason.
41045 42416 43196 44066 46165 47307 49051 52356
57116 63121
67162 68613 68730
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
4/2010 5/2010 6/2010 7/2010 8/2010 9/2010 10/2010 11/2010 12/2010 1/2011 2/2011 3/2011 4/2011
No. of publications in TUHAT
Figure 28. Number of publications in TUHAT from 4/2010 to 4/2011 (12.4.2011)
The figure indicates an increase of publications in TUHAT RIS. The increase of total publications depended on the updating of both new and old publications which existed but the storage had delayed in the information system because of recent implementation of the system or for some other reason.
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010 153
Figure 29. Number of UH publications in TUHAT 2005-2010
The figure above shows the change in the number of publications in TUHAT RIS from 2005 to 2010. The upper curve illustrates the actual numbers of publications per year as they were on 10 April 2012 and the lower on 12 April 2011, i.e. number of publications that were included in the evaluation. The total post-registering of publications after the deadline, 12 April 2011, was approximately 2,000 in the years 2005−2010.
10667 11087 11722 11338 11417
10555
10858 11290 11938 11614 11785
11218
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Number of UH publications in TUHAT
No. of publications included in the evaluation
Actual no. of publications
Figure 29. Number of UH publications in TUHAT 2005-2010
The figure above shows the change in the number of publications in TUHAT RIS from 2005 to 2010. The upper curve illustrates the actual numbers of publications per year as they were on 10 April 2012 and the lower on 12 April 2011, i.e. number of publications that were included in the evaluation. The total post-registering of publications after the deadline, 12 April 2011, was approximately 2,000 in the years 2005−2010.
172 Overall statistics on the evaluation
3 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − BIOLOGICAL, AGRICULTURAL AND VETERINARY SCIENCES
4 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − MEDICINE, BIOMEDICINE AND HEALTH SCIENCES
5 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − NATURAL SCIENCES
6 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − HUMANITIES
7 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − SOCIAL SCIENCES
8 OVERALL STATISTICS ON THE EVALUATION
10 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSES
11 SUMMARY REPORT OF DOCTORAL TRAINING
12 CONCLUDING REMARKS
13 APPENDICES
2 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION
9 RESEARCH PERFORMANCE
1 INTRODUCTION TO THE EVALUATION
175Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
9. RESEARCH PERFORMANCE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI (2005–2010)
Evaluation of the output and impact using a bibliometric analysis
Ed Noyons & Thed van LeeuwenCWTS – Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University
9.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARYIn the present study CWTS assesses the performance from a bibliometric perspective, us-ing the oeuvre of the University of Helsinki (UH) in the years 2005–2010 and the world’s output as covered in the Web of Science.
The results in the present study draw a picture of UH regarding performance in the 7 disciplines and 35 areas within. The UH was active in all of them but shows a differentiated performance. The results of the impact analysis show that UH performs very well overall. If we look at the disciplines and areas within separately, we see large differences. Regarding disciplines and areas in which both volume and coverage are substantial, we could present UH as follows.
The UH has one very strong discipline with biological, agricultural and veterina-ry sciences. In all areas in this discipline UH has an impact well above world average, while the choice of journals for publishing their results is ambitious. UH researchers in this discipline select the better journals in their field.
In natural sciences, most UH areas have an impact above world average but the picture is bit more differentiated over the discipline. All in all this also a strong UH discipline.
In medicine, biomedicine and health sciences, UH shows a substantial output in all four areas. In the areas in which the volume is the highest, also the impact is high (more than 30% above world average).
In the humanities the volume is too small to draw any conclusion from the biblio-metric data.
In the social sciences we see a similar situation but in this discipline there are a few areas in which the output in absolute terms is substantial and the coverage is reasonab-le. In only one of these areas (psychology) the impact is high. We therefore conclude that on the basis of this bibliometric data we cannot find evidence UH has a strong social science discipline apart from psychology, in which UH shows a strong profile.
176 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
9.2 INTRODUCTIONIn the present study CWTS assesses the performance from a bibliometric perspective, us-ing the oeuvre of the University of Helsinki (UH) in the years 2005–2010 and the world’s output as covered in the Web of Science.
The overall production and impact are measured as well as for the areas in which the UH is active. The areas we discern in this study do not relate in any way to the or-ganizational structure of UH. Publications are assigned to disciplines and areas on the basis of the journals in which they are published regardless in which faculty, depart-ment or research group they were published. In that sense we created (in close colla-boration with UH) an artificial structure. The reason for this approach is that the UH operates in the evaluation primarily without a traditional organizational structure. Pri-or to this study a performance analysis of 136 research communities (which do refer to some organizational structure) was conducted. The results of that study do not cover the entire UH oeuvre and will not be discussed in this report.
The results in the present study draw a picture of UH regarding performance in the 7 disciplines and 35 areas within. The UH was active in all of them but shows a diffe-rentiated performance. The structure of UH we applied provides a good insight in the strengths of UH from a bibliometric perspective.
9.3 DATA COLLECTIONThe data in this study were collected using the following procedure. The University of Hel-sinki (UH) exported from their local Research Information System (RIS), named TUHAT, the registered publications from all researchers in 2005–2010. The export contained all rel-evant bibliographic information for CWTS to link to the CWTS data system. In this study only journal articles covered by the Web of Science (WoS) were used. Journal articles rep-resent the scientific communication researchers share with their peers.
The provided publications were matched with the CWTS data system. The matched publications were verified by the UH to remove false positives, i.e., publications that were accidently matched but were not from the UH.
The whole procedure yielded around 15,000 unique publications (2005–2010) to represent the total output of UH used in the present study.
9.4 METHODOLOGYAt CWTS, we normally calculate our indicators based on our in-house version of the Web of Science (WoS) database of Thomson Reuters. WoS is a bibliographic database that covers the publications of about 12,000 journals in the sciences, the social sciences, and the arts and humanities. Each journal in WoS is assigned to one or more subject categories. These subject categories can be interpreted as scientific fields. There are about 250 subject catego-ries in WoS. Some examples are Astronomy & Astrophysics, Economics, Philosophy, and Surgery. Multidisciplinary journals such as Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy
177Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
of Sciences, and Science belong to a special subject category labeled Multidisciplinary Sci-ences. Each publication in WoS has a document type. The most frequently occurring docu-ment types are article, book review, correction, editorial material, letter, meeting abstract, news item, and review. In the calculation of bibliometric indicators, we only take into ac-count publications of the document types article, letter, and review. Publications of other document types usually do not make a significant scientific contribution. We note that our in-house version of the WoS database includes a number of improvements over the origi-nal WoS database. Most importantly, our database uses a more advanced citation match-ing algorithm and an extensive system for address unification. Our database also supports a hierarchically organized field classification system on top of the WoS subject categories. We note that at the moment conference proceedings are not covered by our database. In the future, however, our database will also include conference proceedings.
It is important to mention that we normally do not use the bibliometric indicators discussed in this chapter in the humanities. The humanities are characterized by a low WoS coverage (i.e., many publications are not included in WoS) and a very low citation density (i.e., a very small average number of citations per publication). Because of this, we do not consider our indicators, in particular our indicators of scientific impact, to be sufficiently accurate and reliable. We further note that some fields in the social scien-ces have characteristics similar to the humanities. In the social sciences, our indicators should therefore be interpreted with special care. To determine the appropriateness of our indicators for assessing a particular research group, we often look at the internal and the external WoS coverage of the group. The internal WoS coverage of a group is defined as the proportion of the publications of the group that are covered by WoS. Internal WoS coverage can be calculated only if a complete list of all publications of a group is available. The external WoS coverage of a group is defined as the proportion of the references in the publications of the group that point to publications covered by WoS. The lower the internal and the external WoS coverage of a group, the more care-ful one should be in the interpretation of our indicators. We refer to Hicks (2005) and Moed (2005) for a more extensive discussion of the use of bibliometric indicators in the social sciences and the humanities.
The rest of this chapter provides an in-depth discussion of the bibliometric indica-tors that we use in this report.
Table 1. Overview of the bibliometric indicators discussed in this chapter
Indicator Dimension Definition
P Output Total number of publications of a research group.
MCS Impact Average number of citations of the publications of a research group.
MNCS Impact Average normalized number of citations of the publications of a research group.
PPtop 10% Impact Proportion publications of a research group belonging to the top 10% most frequently cited publications in their field.
MNJS Journal impact Average normalized citation score of the journals in which a research group has published.
178 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
9.4.1 Indicators of outputTo measure the total publication output of a research group, we use a very simple indica-tor. This is the number of publications indicator, denoted by P. This indicator is calculated by counting the total number of publications of a research group.
9.4.2 Indicators of ImpactA number of indicators are available for measuring the average scientific impact of the pub-lications of a research group. These indicators are all based on the idea of counting the num-ber of times the publications of a research group have been cited. Citations can be counted using either a fixed-length citation window or a variable-length citation window. In the case of a fixed-length citation window, only citations received within a fixed time period (e.g., three years) after the appearance of a publication are counted. In the case of a variable-length citation window, all citations received by a publication up to a fixed point in time are counted, which means that older publications have a longer citation window than more re-cent publications. An advantage of a variable-length window over a fixed-length window is that a variable-length window usually yields higher citation counts, which may be expected to lead to more reliable impact measurements. A disadvantage of a variable-length window is that citation counts of older and more recent publications cannot be directly compared with each other. Using a variable-length window, older publications on average have higher citation counts than more recent publications, which makes direct comparisons impossible. This difficulty does not occur with a fixed-length window. At CWTS, we mostly work with a variable-length window, where citations are counted up to and including the most recent year fully covered by our database. In trend analyses, however, we usually use a fixed-length window. This ensures that different publication years are treated in the same way as much as possible. Furthermore, in the calculation of our impact indicators, we only take into ac-count publications with a citation window of at least one full year. For instance, if our data-base covers publications until the end of 2011, this means that publications from 2011 are not taken into account, while publications from 2010 are.
In the calculation of our impact indicators, we disregard author self citations. We classify a citation as an author self citation if the citing publication and the cited pub-lication have at least one author name (i.e., last name and initials) in common. We disregard self citations because they have a somewhat different nature than ordinary citations. Many self citations are given for good reasons, in particular to indicate how different publications of a researcher build on each other. However, sometimes self ci-tations serve mainly as a mechanism for self promotion rather than as a mechanism for indicating relevant related work. This is why we consider it preferable to exclude self citations from the calculation of our impact indicators. By disregarding self citations, the sensitivity of our impact indicators to manipulation is reduced. Disregarding self citations means that our impact indicators focus on measuring the impact of the work of a researcher on other members of the scientific community. The impact of the work of a researcher on his own future work is ignored.
Our most straightforward impact indicator is the mean citation score indicator, denoted by MCS. This indicator simply equals the average number of citations of the publications of a research group. Only citations within the relevant citation window are counted, and author self citations are excluded. Also, only citations to publications
179Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
of the document types article, letter, and review are taken into account. In the calcu-lation of the average number of citations per publication, articles and reviews have a weight of one while letters have a weight of 0.25.
A major shortcoming of the MCS indicator is that it cannot be used to make com-parisons between scientific fields. This is because different fields have very different citation characteristics. For instance, using a three-year fixed-length citation window, the average number of citations of a publication of the document type article equals 2.0 in mathematics and 19.6 in cell biology. So it clearly makes no sense to make com-parisons between these two fields using the MCS indicator. Furthermore, when a va-riable-length citation window is used, the MCS indicator also cannot be used to make comparisons between publications of different ages. In the case of a variable-length citation window, the MCS indicator favors older publications over more recent ones be-cause older publications tend to have higher citation counts.
Our mean normalized citation score indicator, denoted by MNCS, provides a more sophisticated alternative to the MCS indicator. The MNCS indicator is similar to the MCS indicator except that it performs a normalization that aims to correct for differen-ces in citation characteristics between publications from different scientific fields, bet-ween publications of different ages (in the case of a variable-length citation window), and between publications of different document types (i.e., article, letter, and review1). To calculate the MNCS indicator for a research group, we first calculate the normali-zed citation score of each publication of the group. The normalized citation score of a publication equals the ratio of the actual and the expected number of citations of the publication, where the expected number of citations is defined as the average number of citations of all publications in WoS that belong to the same field and that have the same publication year and the same document type. The field (or the fields) to which a publication belongs is determined by the WoS subject categories of the journal in which the publication has appeared. The MNCS indicator is obtained by averaging the normalized citation scores of all publications of a research group. Like in the case of the MCS indicator, letters have a weight of 0.25 in the calculation of the average while articles and reviews have a weight of one. If a research group has an MNCS indicator of one, this means that on average the actual number of citations of the publications of the group equals the expected number of citations. In other words, on average the publications of the group have been cited equally frequently as publications that are si-milar in terms of field, publication year, and document type. An MNCS indicator of, for instance, two means that on average the publications of a group have been cited twice as frequently as would be expected based on their field, publication year, and docu-ment type. We refer to Waltman, Van Eck, Van Leeuwen, Visser, and Van Raan (2011) for more details on the MNCS indicator.
To illustrate the calculation of the MNCS indicator, we consider a hypothetical re-search group that has only five publications. Table 2 provides some bibliometric data
1 We note that the distinction between the different document types is sometimes based on somewhat arbitrary criteria. This is especially the case for the distinction between the document types article and review. One of the main criteria used by WoS to distinguish between these two document types is the number of references of a publication. In general, a publication with fewer than 100 references is classified as article while a publication with at least 100 references is classified as review. It is clear that this criterion does not yield a very accurate distinction between ordinary articles and review articles.
180 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
for these five publications. For each publication, the table shows the scientific field to which the publication belongs, the year in which the publication appeared, and the actual and the expected number of citations of the publication. (For the moment, the last column of the table can be ignored.) The five publications are all of the document type article. Citations have been counted using a variable-length citation window. As can be seen in the table, publications 1 and 2 have the same expected number of ci-tations. This is because these two publications belong to the same field and have the same publication year and the same document type. Publication 5 also belongs to the same field and has the same document type. However, this publication has a more re-cent publication year, and it therefore has a smaller expected number of citations. It can further be seen that publications 3 and 4 have the same publication year and the same document type. The fact that publication 4 has a larger expected number of ci-tations than publication 3 indicates that publication 4 belongs to a field with a higher citation density than the field in which publication 3 was published. The MNCS indi-cator equals the average of the ratios of actual and expected citation scores of the five publications. Based on Table 2, we obtain
08.280.10
10.923
66.54
13.637
13.67
51MNCS =
++++=
Hence, on average the publications of our hypothetical research group have been cited more than twice as frequently as would be expected based on their field, publication year, and document type.
Table 2: Bibliometric data for the publications of a hypothetical research group.
Publication Field Year Actual citations
Expected citations
Top 10% threshold
1 Surgery 2007 7 6.13 15
2 Surgery 2007 37 6.13 15
3 Clinical neurology 2008 4 5.66 13
4 Hematology 2008 23 9.10 21
5 Surgery 2009 0 1.80 5
In addition to the MNCS indicator, we have another important impact indicator. This is the proportion top 10% publications indicator, denoted by PPtop 10%. For each publication of a research group, this indicator determines whether based on its number of citations the publication belongs to the top 10% of all WoS publications in the same field (i.e., the same WoS subject category) and the same publication year and of the same document type. The PPtop 10% indicator equals the proportion of the publications of a research group that belong to the top 10%. Analogous to the MCS and MNCS indicators, letters are given less weight than articles and reviews in the calculation of the PPtop 10% indicator. If a research group has a PPtop 10% indicator of 10%, this means that the actual number of top 10% publications of the group equals the expected number. A PPtop 10% indicator of, for instance, 20% means that a group has twice as many top 10% publications as expected. Of course, the choice to focus on top 10% publications is somewhat arbitrary. Instead of the PPtop 10% indicator, we can also calculate for instance a PPtop 1%, PPtop 5%, or PPtop 20% indicator. In this study, how-
181Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
ever, we use the PPtop 10% indicator. On the one hand this indicator has a clear focus on high impact publications, while on the other hand the indicator is more stable than for instance the PPtop 1% indicator.
In this study we normalize the PPtop 10% to the expected value and refer to it as the NPHCP10. This means that the values are normalized to 10% of the oeuvres, meaning that 1 is the world average (or expected value).
To illustrate the calculation of the PPtop 10% indicator, we use the same example as we did for the MNCS indicator. Table 2 shows the bibliometric data for the five publications of the hypothetical research group that we consider. The last column of the table in-dicates for each publication the minimum number of citations needed to belong to the top 10% of all publications in the same field and the same publication year and of the same document type.2 Of the five publications, there are two (i.e., publications 2 and 4) whose number of citations is above the top 10% threshold. These two publications are top 10% publications. It follows that the PPtop 10% indicator equals
%404.052PP 10%top ===
In other words, top 10% publications are four times overrepresented in the set of publica-tions of our hypothetical research group.
To assess the impact of the publications of a research group, our general recommen-dation is to rely on a combination of the MNCS indicator and the PPtop 10% indicator. The MCS indicator does not correct for field differences and should therefore be used only for comparisons of groups that are active in the same field. An important weakness of the MNCS indicator is its strong sensitivity to publications with a very large number of citations. If a research group has one very highly cited publication, this is usually sufficient for a high score on the MNCS indicator, even if the other publications of the group have received only a small number of citations. Because of this, the MNCS in-dicator may sometimes seem to significantly overestimate the actual scientific impact of the publications of a research group. The PPtop 10% indicator is much less sensitive to publications with a very large number of citations, and it therefore does not suffer from the same problem as the MNCS indicator. A disadvantage of the PPtop 10% indicator is the artificial dichotomy it creates between publications that belong to the top 10% and publications that do not belong to the top 10%. A publication whose number of cita-tions is just below the top 10% threshold does not contribute to the PPtop 10% indicator, while a publication with one or two additional citations does contribute to the indica-tor. Because the MNCS indicator and the PPtop 10% indicator have more or less opposite strengths and weaknesses, the indicators are strongly complementary to each other.
It is important to emphasize that the correction for field differences that is perfor-med by the MNCS and PPtop 10% indicators is only a partial correction. As already men-tioned, the field definitions on which these indicators rely are based on the WoS sub-ject categories. It is clear that, unlike these subject categories, fields in reality do not
2 If the number of citations of a publication is exactly equal to the top 10% threshold, the publication is partly classified as a top 10% publication and partly classified as a non-top-10% publication. This is done in order to ensure that for each combination of a field, a publication year, and a document type we end up with exactly 10% top 10% publications.
182 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
have well-defined boundaries. The boundaries of fields tend to be fuzzy, fields may be partly overlapping, and fields may consist of multiple subfields that each have their own characteristics. From the point of view of citation analysis, the most important shortcoming of the WoS subject categories seems to be their heterogeneity in terms of citation characteristics. Many subject categories consist of research areas that differ substantially in their density of citations. For instance, within a single subject catego-ry, the average number of citations per publication may be 50% larger in one research area than in another. The MNCS and PPtop 10% indicators do not correct for this within-subject-category heterogeneity. This can be a problem especially when using these indi-cators at lower levels of aggregation, for instance at the level of individual researchers, at the level of research groups or at the level of areas as in the current study. At these levels, within-subject-category heterogeneity may significantly reduce the accuracy of the impact measurements provided by the MNCS and PPtop 10% indicators.
9.4.3 Indicators of journal impactIn addition to the average scientific impact of the publications of a research group, it may also be of interest to measure the average scientific impact of the journals in which a re-search group has published. In general, high-impact journals may be expected to have strict-er quality criteria and a more rigorous peer review system than low-impact journals. Pub-lishing a scientific work in a high-impact journal may therefore be seen as an indication of the quality of the work.
We use the mean normalized journal score indicator, denoted by MNJS, to measu-re the impact of the journals in which a research group has published. To calculate the MNJS indicator for a research group, we first calculate the normalized journal score of each publication of the group. The normalized journal score of a publication equals the ratio of on the one hand the average number of citations of all publications published in the same journal and on the other hand the average number of citations of all pub-lications published in the same field (i.e., the same WoS subject category). Only pub-lications in the same year and of the same document type are considered. The MNJS indicator is obtained by averaging the normalized journal scores of all publications of a research group. Analogous to the impact indicators discussed in Section 1.4.2, letters are given less weight than articles and reviews in the calculation of the average. The MNJS indicator is closely related to the MNCS indicator. The only difference is that instead of the actual number of citations of a publication the MNJS indicator uses the average number of citations of all publications published in a particular journal. The interpretation of the MNJS indicator is analogous to the interpretation of the MNCS indicator. If a research group has an MNJS indicator of one, this means that on ave-rage the group has published in journals that are cited equally frequently as would be expected based on their field. An MNJS indicator of, for instance, two means that on average a group has published in journals that are cited twice as frequently would be expected based on their field.
In practice, journal impact factors reported in Thomson Reuters’ Journal Citation Reports are often used in research evaluations. Impact factors have the advantage of being easily available and widely known. The use of impact factors is similar to the use of the MNJS indicator in the sense that in both cases publications are assessed based
183Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
on the journal in which they have appeared. However, compared with the MNJS indi-cator, impact factors have the important disadvantage that they do not correct for dif-ferences in citation characteristics between scientific fields. Because of this disadvanta-ge, impact factors should not be used to make comparisons between fields. The MNJS indicator, on the other hand, does correct for field differences (albeit with some limita-tions; see the discussion at the end of Section 1.4.2). When between-field comparisons need to be made, the use of the MNJS indicator can therefore be expected to yield sig-nificantly more accurate journal impact measurements than the use of impact factors.
9.4.4 Analyses of cognitive orientation: research profilesThe indicators of cognitive orientation are based on an analysis of all scientific fields in which papers were published by a group (by analysis of the journals). The purpose of this indicator is to show how frequently a group has published papers in certain fields of science, as well as the impact in these fields, and in particular the impact in core fields compared to the impact in more peripheral fields (for that group). This analysis was conducted for the entire period 2005-2009/2010. The output per field is expressed as a share of the total output of the unit.
9.4.5 Indicators of scientific collaboration: scientific cooperation profilesThe indicators of scientific collaboration are based on an analysis of all addresses in papers published by a group. We first identified all papers authored by scientists from one orga-nization only (most likely Helsinki University). To these papers we assigned the collabora-tion type ‘‘No collaboration’. With respect to the remaining papers we established (on the basis of the addresses) whether authors participated from other groups within Finland (‘National’), and finally whether scientists are involved from other groups outside Finland (collaboration type ‘International’). If a paper by a group is the result of collaboration with both another Finnish group and a group outside Finland, it is marked with collabora-tion type international.
The purpose of this indicator is to show how frequently a group has co-published papers with other groups, and how the impact of papers resulting from national or in-ternational collaboration compares to the impact of publications authored by scien-tists from one research group only. This analysis was conducted for the period 2005-2009/2010.
9.4.6 Basic elements of bibliometric analysisAll above discussed indicators are important in a bibliometric analysis as they relate to dif-ferent aspects of publication and citation characteristics. Generally, we consider MNCS, in combination with PPtop 10% as the most important indicators. These indicators relate the measured impact of a research group or institute to a worldwide, field-specific reference value, by both comparing with the averages in the fields as well as the position in the actu-al distribution of impact over publications per field. Therefore, these two indicators form a set of powerful internationally standardized impact indicators. This indicator enables us to observe immediately whether the performance of a research institute/group or institute is significantly far below (indicator value < 0.5), below (indicator value 0.5 - 0.8), about (0.8 - 1.2), above (1.2 - 2.0), or far above (>2.0) the international impact standard of the field.
184 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
We would like to emphasize that the meaning of the numerical value of the indica-tor is related to the aggregation level of the entity under study. The higher the aggre-gation level, the larger the volume in publications and the more difficult it is to have an average impact significantly above the international level. At the ‘meso-level’ (e.g., a large institute, or faculty, about 500 – 1,000 publications per year), a MNCS value above 1.2 means that the institute’s impact as a whole is significantly above (western-) world average. The institute can be considered as a scientifically strong organization, with a high probability to find very good to excellent groups. Therefore, it is important to split up large institutes into smaller groups. Only this allows a more precise assess-ment of research performance. Otherwise, excellent work will be ‘hidden’ within the bulk of a large institute or faculty.
9.4.7 Stability intervalsThe stability of an indicator relates to the sensitivity of the indicator to changes in the un-derlying set of publications. An indicator has a low stability if it is highly sensitive to chang-es in the set of publications based on which it is calculated. An indicator has a high stability if it is relatively insensitive to such changes. For instance, if a research group has one very highly cited publication and a number of lowly cited publications, the MNCS indicator for this group will be quite unstable. This is because the value of the MNCS indicator depends strongly on whether the group’s highly cited publication is included in the calculation of the indicator or not. A research group whose publications all have similar citation scores will have a very stable MNCS indicator. In general, the larger the number of publications of a research group, the more stable the indicators calculated for the group. We note that the notion of stability is closely related to the notion of reliability discussed in Section 1.4.2. Ci-tation analysis has a high reliability if the indicators that are used are stable. If the indica-tors are unstable, the reliability of citation analysis is low.
To determine the stability of an indicator, we use a so-called stability interval. Sta-bility intervals are similar to confidence intervals, but they have a somewhat different interpretation. A stability interval indicates a range of values of an indicator that are likely to be observed when the underlying set of publications changes. For instance, the MNCS indicator may be equal to 1.50 for a particular research group, with a sta-bility interval from 1.25 to 1.90. This means that the true value of the MNCS indicator equals 1.50 for this group, but that changes in the set of publications of the group may relatively easily lead to MNCS values in the range from 1.25 to 1.90. Clearly, the larger the stability interval of an indicator, the lower the stability of the indicator.
We construct our stability intervals as follows. Given a set of n publications, suppose that we want to construct a stability interval for the MNCS indicator. We then random-ly draw a large number of samples (e.g., 1000 samples) from our set of publications. Each sample is drawn with replacement, which means that a publication may occur multiple times in the same sample. The size of each sample is n, which is the same as the size of the original set of publications. For each sample, we calculate the value of the MNCS indicator. This yields a distribution of sample MNCS values. We derive our stability interval for the MNCS indicator from this distribution. We are usually inter-ested in a 95% stability interval. To obtain such an interval, we take the 2.5th and the 97.5th percentile of the distribution of sample MNCS values. These percentiles serve as
185Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
the lower and the upper bound of our stability interval. We note that in the statistical literature our procedure for constructing stability intervals is known as bootstrapping (Efron & Tibshirani, 1993).
9.5 MAIN RESULTS
9.5.1 Helsinki UniversityThe University of Helsinki (UH) shows a good performance over the entire period we stud-ied (2005–2010). The normalized impact (MNCS) is more than 50% above world average and even increases up to a level of 1.6 (see Table 4). Regarding the fact that UH has a broad scope this is relatively high. It has been shown that specialized universities more ‘easily’ get higher scores.
Table 3: Overall bibliometric statistics UH 2005–2010
P Number of publications (P) 14,935
TCS Number of citations (TCS) 157,248
MCS Number of citations per publication (MCS) 10.67
pnc Percentage of uncited publications 20.07
mncs Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) 1.52
mnjs Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) 1.32
nphcp10 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) 1.51
int_cov Internal Coverage 0.78
The contribution to the top10% most highly cited papers (NPHCP10) is also around 50% above the expected value. This means that on average UH has 3 instead of 2 out of 10 pub-lications in the top10 %. This indicates that the high impact (MNCS) does not depend on a small number of highly cited publications. The situation seems to be a robust or struc-tural one.
Furthermore, UH chooses (on average) the higher impact journals, i.e., the ambiti-on is high regarding their publication strategy.
Table 4: Trend analysis bibliometric performance indicators UH
P mncs mnjs nphcp10
2005-2008 9,609 1.50 1.29 1.52
2006-2009 10,220 1.53 1.31 1.51
2007-2010 10,449 1.59 1.35 1.53
As mentioned above the average and normalized impact (MNCS) increases from 1.5 to 1.6 during the studied period, while the contribution of top10% most highly cited publications (NPHCP10) remains at around 50% above expected. This indicates that the impact scores are robust, i.e., not depending on a relatively small amount of highly cited papers.
Finally, the MNJS shows an increase from 1.29 to 1.35 which indicates that the UH on average and increasingly chooses journals with the higher impact within the field in which they are active.
186 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
Final aspect we included in this analysis is the collaboration profile. As all WoS pub-lications can be classified as either international, national collaboration or no external collaboration, we can also apply this classification to the UH publication set. Thus we can investigate the distribution of the entire UH oeuvre over the three types. On top of this we can add the impact the three types achieve.
In the chart below, we summarize the results.
Figure 1. Distribution and impact of UH collaboration
There is a clear preference for international collaboration at UH. Moreover, it appears that the impact (between parentheses) is the highest for these publications. For National and publications with only UH, the impact is high but remains at a distant from the interna-tional collaborations.
An important finding, thus, is that the strength of UH relies for important part on the international collaboration. A similar conclusion can be drawn on the basis of the results of the Leiden Ranking of universities3. UH has a reasonable impact (MNCS) of 1.08 in the default setting in which collaborative papers and their impact are distri-buted over the contributing universities. By applying a whole counting method, the impact of UH increases up to 1.29. We see this effect for many universities but as UH rises (20 positions within Europe) in the ranking by applying the fractional counting, we may conclude that the collaborative work is a very important for the performance.
9.5.2 UH research areasThe overall results we presented so far applied to the entire university, aggregating all fac-ulties and departments. It goes without saying that within a university, particularly those with a broad scope such as UH, a wide variety of research is covered. The different areas all have their own research strategy as well as performance. To differentiate within the UH, we were not able to use the organizational structure and therefore we implemented a virtual structure using a classification scheme created at CWTS.
In the classification scheme all journals covered by the Web of Science (WoS) were assigned to fields at different levels. The scheme has four levels:• Top level (7 disciplines)• Intermediate level (14 main fields)• Low level (35 areas of research)• Subject level (250 subject fields).
3 C.f., http://www.leidenranking.com
187Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
The scheme is hierarchical so that we were able to assign the UH publications to the 35 ar-eas using the journals in which they were published. The UH happened to have publications in all 35 areas in the studied period 2005–2010. It should be noted, however, that there are large differences regarding output volume between the different areas.
The results are in the table below (Table 5), grouped by discipline.
Table 5: Overview of basic statistics by Discipline and UH research area
P4 MCS pnc mncs mnjs nphcp10 int_cov
Biological, agricultural and veterinary sciences
AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SCIENCE 833 6.02 22.81 1.21 1.24 1.18 0.76
BASIC LIFE SCIENCES 2680 12.60 12.39 1.62 1.39 1.48 0.89
BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES 1305 7.05 24.06 1.32 1.19 1.27 0.72
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY
1404 7.98 17.81 1.37 1.23 1.38 0.69
Humanities
CREATIVE ARTS, CULTURE AND MUSIC 6 1.17 50.00 0.30 0.18 0.00 0.46
HISTORY, PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION 49 1.61 46.94 0.85 0.91 0.89 0.24
LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS 63 1.24 65.08 0.65 0.61 0.61 0.21
LITERATURE 4 1.25 25.00 2.58 0.93 5.13 0.27
Medicine, biomedicine and health sciences
BASIC MEDICAL SCIENCES 168 5.39 21.43 0.81 1.00 0.75 0.81
BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES 2109 10.55 13.37 1.32 1.18 1.42 0.89
CLINICAL MEDICINE 4534 15.12 15.59 1.85 1.47 1.94 0.87
HEALTH SCIENCES 277 5.19 27.08 0.95 1.11 0.95 0.72
Natural sciences
ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS 394 6.80 23.86 0.96 1.00 0.95 0.76
CHEMISTRY AND CHEMICAL ENGINEERING 1350 6.91 21.93 1.21 1.27 1.13 0.81
CIVIL ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION 11 2.36 36.36 1.12 1.45 0.95 0.53
COMPUTER SCIENCES 202 4.95 37.13 1.63 1.50 1.13 0.48
EARTH SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY 831 7.37 17.93 1.54 1.33 1.71 0.73
ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING AND TELECOMMUNICATION
117 6.43 35.90 2.15 1.41 1.40 0.56
ENERGY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 190 3.93 42.11 1.40 0.80 0.81 0.65
GENERAL AND INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING 27 4.00 29.63 1.32 1.37 1.20 0.59
INSTRUMENTS AND INSTRUMENTATION 188 2.72 46.81 0.75 0.74 0.67 0.62
MATHEMATICS 272 2.25 44.49 1.77 1.20 1.88 0.53
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING AND AEROSPACE 29 1.31 48.28 0.70 1.04 0.91 0.57
PHYSICS AND MATERIALS SCIENCE 1390 6.71 27.41 1.29 1.24 1.25 0.76
STATISTICAL SCIENCES 75 4.08 34.67 1.62 1.06 1.22 0.57
4 The total volume in this table (P) adds up to more than the 15,000 publications because publications may be assigned to more than one research area
188 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
P MCS pnc mncs mnjs nphcp10 int_cov
Social sciences
ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS 178 1.79 46.63 0.66 0.94 0.44 0.45
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES 138 2.97 44.93 1.18 1.07 1.38 0.37
INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION SCIENCES
45 2.33 33.33 1.84 1.08 1.92 0.25
LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY 36 3.64 30.56 1.10 1.03 0.89 0.45
MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING 64 3.53 35.94 0.93 1.04 0.90 0.32
POLITICAL SCIENCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
80 1.44 60.00 0.70 0.98 0.85 0.19
PSYCHOLOGY 349 5.85 23.78 1.22 1.21 1.48 0.72
SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
115 3.81 38.26 0.86 1.04 1.04 0.50
SOCIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY 116 2.03 43.10 1.07 0.97 1.40 0.31
Other
MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNALS 180 53.36 8.89 2.95 1.84 2.49 0.86
The results reveal the expected large differences between disciplines but also between areas within a discipline. Within Natural sciences for instance in some areas UH has less than 50 papers and while in others, UH has more than 1000. Together with the internal coverage (a proxy for the coverage within the WoS) this already gives some idea to what extent these results provide a complete picture.
In a diagram (below, Figure 2), we summarize the results for all 35 UH areas by combining volume (P) and impact (MNCS). In addition to that, we identified and in-dicated those areas with an internal coverage below 40%, i.e., at least 6 references out of every 10 are not covered by the WoS. For these areas (indicated by open circles), we have to assume that a substantial amount of UH work is published outside the covera-ge of WoS, so that the indicators we presented here are not sufficient to show a comp-lete picture of the performance.
As all open circles are on the left hand side of the diagram we can conclude that volume correlates with coverage. Three areas with a coverage below 40% are from Hu-manities and five from Social sciences have an internal coverage.
It should be noted that not all of these areas show a low impact (MNCS). Two of them (both from social sciences) have a significant volume (n>50) as well as an impact above word average (Sociology & Anthropology and Educational sciences).
On the other hand there are areas with a low number of papers, (n< 50), but with a coverage over 40%. Three of them are from Natural sciences: Civil engineering and construction, general and industrial engineering and Mechanical engineering and ae-rospace.
189Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
p
mncs
Figure 2: Overview of 35 UH areas regarding P and MNCS (2005–2010)
Closed triangles represent areas with an internal coverage above 40%, open circles repre-sent areas with an internal coverage below 40%
In sum we found 24 UH areas with a normalized impact above world average (MNCS> 1). Five of these 24 had less than 50 papers in the studied period. Further-more, we found 9 areas with more than 50 papers and an impact below world avera-ge. Three of them however have an internal coverage below 40% and therefore are not sufficiently represented by our data. For them other output data should be taken into consideration to enable an assessment of performance from a bibliometric perspective.
Subsequently, we investigated the robustness of the UH performance in all areas. The robustness is tested by the contribution to the top 10% most highly cited papers. We found 19 areas with more than 50 papers and an impact above world average. In the diagram below we depict the same indicators (P and MNCS) as before and indicated UH areas (by closed triangles) if their contribution to the top 10% most highly cited publi-cations is higher than expected (nphcp10>1). The open circles represent the other areas.
190 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
p
mncs
Figure 3: Overview of 35 UH areas regarding P and MNCS (2005–2010)
Closed triangles represent areas with an NPHCP10>1. Open circles represent areas with an NPHCP < 1
The diagram shows that there is only one area (Energy S&T) with a substantial oeuvre (n>50) and impact above world average but with relatively a small contribution to the top 10% (lower than expected). The other areas above world average show a ro-bust high impact. Furthermore, it is interesting to see that all these other areas with an impact above world average have a robust impact regardless whether they have an internal coverage above 40% or not. This means that in the areas with a lower coverage the high impact does not depend on a small amount of papers. It should still be noted that a substantial part of the output is published outside the WoS.
For Social and behavioral sciences we discern a particular pattern with a contri-bution to the top 10% papers above expected but an overall impact below world avera-ge (closed triangle below line). This means that there is a relatively high percentage of papers with a very low impact (MNCS) in this area.
Finally, we discuss he UH publication strategy related to performance. Below (Fi-gure 4), we use the same diagram and discern areas with a strategy of publishing in journals with an impact above world average (MNJS > 1, closed triangles) from areas with an impact below world average (open circles).
191Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
p
mncs
Figure 4: Overview of 35 UH areas regarding P and MNCS (2005–2010)
Closed triangles represent areas with an MNJS>1. Open circles represent areas with an MNJS< 1
The diagram shows that there are only a few areas with an MNJS below 1 (open cir-cles). This means that almost all UH publishes its research in almost all areas in the higher impact journals. Most of the areas in which lower impact journals are used are areas with small volume. Moreover, we can see that the areas with a lower MNJS are also the ones with a lower impact. The impact seems to correlate with the ambition.
Finally we discern Energy S&T with an impact well above world average but with a modest journal choice. Because we also saw a relatively low number of papers in the top 10% of the field, this area may not fit properly the WoS journal classification. Feed-back of the researchers is needed to check their profile (Chapter 1.8).
192 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
9.6 RESULTS BY DISCIPLINEIn this section we will discuss the results in more detail by discipline. We will follow the structure as implemented (see Table 5) and focus on the individual fields within the con-text of the discipline.
9.6.1 Biological, agricultural and veterinary sciencesIn the first diagram we plotted the performance of all areas and highlighted the areas from this discipline.
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
p
mncs
Triangles: Discipline = Biological, agricultural and veterinary sciences
Figure 5: Performance of all Biological, Agricultural and veterinary sciences areas with the entire landscape
193Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
The data underlying the areas are in the table below.
Table 6: General statistics for Biological, agricultural and veterinary science
Area P MCS pnc mncs mnjs nphcp10 int_cov
AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SCIENCE 833 6.02 22.81 1.21 1.24 1.18 0.76
BASIC LIFE SCIENCES 2680 12.60 12.39 1.62 1.39 1.48 0.89
BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES 1305 7.05 24.06 1.32 1.19 1.27 0.72
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY
1404 7.98 17.81 1.37 1.23 1.38 0.69
This discipline is the only one in which the impact of all UH areas is above world average, for both MNCS and NPHCP10.
The area of basic life sciences is most successful. This is also the area that is cove-red best by the WoS (almost 90%), so we are confident about the results. Also the am-bition (MNJS) is high, meaning that in this area, UH researchers choose the high im-pact journals. In addition we found that the MNCS significantly increased during the studied period from 1.4 to 1.6.
Also the other three areas have an impact above world average (as well as a cont-ribution to the top 10% above expected). Their MNCS remains stable at the same high level throughout the entire period.
194 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
9.6.2 Humanities
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
p
mncs
Triangles: Discipline = Humanities
Figure 6: Performance of all Humanities areas with the entire landscape
In Humanties, the UH areas show a completely different picture. We already mentioned that only one of them has more than 50 papers in the period studied but with a coverage of 20%. Moreover, three out of four areas have an impact below world average. Only Literature is far above but the amount of papers published is low that we cannot conclude anything on the basis of these results. Creative arts, culture and music have an internal coverage above 40% but also in this area the production volume as covered by WoS is extremely small.
Table 7: General statistics for Humanities
Area P MCS pnc mncs mnjs nphcp10 int_cov
CREATIVE ARTS, CULTURE AND MUSIC 6 1.17 50.00 0.30 0.18 0.00 0.46
HISTORY, PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION 49 1.61 46.94 0.85 0.91 0.89 0.24
LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS 63 1.24 65.08 0.65 0.61 0.61 0.21
LITERATURE 4 1.25 25.00 2.58 0.93 5.13 0.27
195Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
9.6.3 Medicine, Biomedicine and health sciences
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
p
mncs
Triangles: Discipline = Medicine, biomedicine and health sciences
Figure 7: Performance of all Medicine, Biomedicine and Health sciences areas within the entire landscape
In the four medical areas, UH shows quite a differentiated performance. In clinical medicine and biomedical sciences, UH has a performance well above world average, in basic medical sciences and health sciences this is not the case. As seen from the volumes, the former two are focal areas of UH. In the Biomedical sciences we also detected a steady increase of impact during the studied period. The other areas remain at the same level during the years studied.
Table 8: General statistics for Medicine, biomedicine and health sciences
Area P MCS pnc mncs mnjs nphcp10 int_cov
BASIC MEDICAL SCIENCES 168 5.39 21.43 0.81 1.00 0.75 0.81
BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES 2109 10.55 13.37 1.32 1.18 1.42 0.89
CLINICAL MEDICINE 4534 15.12 15.59 1.85 1.47 1.94 0.87
HEALTH SCIENCES 277 5.19 27.08 0.95 1.11 0.95 0.72
196 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
9.6.4 Natural sciences
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000
p
mncs
Triangles: Discipline = Natural Sciences
Figure 8. Performance of all Natural Sciences areas within the entire UH landscape
In the natural sciences we also see a broad variety of areas regarding their volume as well as performance. In three areas the UH has an impact below world average, while in only one of them we detected a production below 50 papers (Mechanical engineering and aero-space). The other two (Astronomy & astrophysics, and Instruments & instrumentation) do have a good coverage and substantial volume but their impact is below the world average.
On the other end of the table, we see Electrical engineering and telecom, Computer science, Mathematics and Earth sciences & technology as UH areas with a high impact.
Regarding the choice of journals to disseminate the research we found that in mat-hematics UH researchers are quite ambitious. With a substantial output, they choose journals with an impact (on average) twice as high as in the field they belong to.
197Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
Table 9: General statistics for Natural sciences
9.6.5 Social sciences
Figure 9: Performance of all Social Sciences areas within the entire UH landscape
Area P MCS pnc mncs mnjs nphcp10 int_cov
ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS 394 6.80 23.86 0.96 1.00 0.95 0.76
CHEMISTRY AND CHEMICAL ENGINEERING 1350 6.91 21.93 1.21 1.27 1.13 0.81
CIVIL ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION 11 2.36 36.36 1.12 1.45 0.95 0.53
COMPUTER SCIENCES 202 4.95 37.13 1.63 1.50 1.13 0.48
EARTH SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY 831 7.37 17.93 1.54 1.33 1.71 0.73
ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING AND TELECOMMUNICATION
117 6.43 35.90 2.15 1.41 1.40 0.56
ENERGY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 190 3.93 42.11 1.40 0.80 0.81 0.65
GENERAL AND INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING 27 4.00 29.63 1.32 1.37 1.20 0.59
INSTRUMENTS AND INSTRUMENTATION 188 2.72 46.81 0.75 0.74 0.67 0.62
MATHEMATICS 272 2.25 44.49 1.77 1.20 1.88 0.53
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING AND AEROSPACE 29 1.31 48.28 0.70 1.04 0.91 0.57
PHYSICS AND MATERIALS SCIENCE 1390 6.71 27.41 1.29 1.24 1.25 0.76
STATISTICAL SCIENCES 75 4.08 34.67 1.62 1.06 1.22 0.57
198 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
In the Social sciences, there are only two UH areas with less than 50 papers but there are six with an internal coverage below 40%. It means that within this discipline there is a sub-stantial output volume to base a bibliometric analysis upon (even in the studied period of 5 years), It should however be noted that there is still a lot published outside the WoS as indi-cated by the internal coverage for which we cannot draw any reasonable conclusion. There are only 4 out of 5 areas in which the internal coverage is higher than 40% and only one (psychology) in which it is more than 60%. In this area UH has a substantial output as well as a high impact (both MNCS and NPHCP10). Together with the observed internal cover-age of over 70%, the results indicate a good UH performance in this area.
Table 10: General statistics for Social sciences
Area P MCS pnc mncs mnjs nphcp10 int_cov
ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS 178 1.79 46.63 0.66 0.94 0.44 0.45
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES 138 2.97 44.93 1.18 1.07 1.38 0.37
INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION SCIENCES
45 2.33 33.33 1.84 1.08 1.92 0.25
LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY 36 3.64 30.56 1.10 1.03 0.89 0.45
MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING 64 3.53 35.94 0.93 1.04 0.90 0.32
POLITICAL SCIENCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
80 1.44 60.00 0.70 0.98 0.85 0.19
PSYCHOLOGY 349 5.85 23.78 1.22 1.21 1.48 0.72
SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
115 3.81 38.26 0.86 1.04 1.04 0.50
SOCIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY 116 2.03 43.10 1.07 0.97 1.40 0.31
9.7 CONCLUSIONS In this study we applied a bibliometric analysis of all University of Helsinki publications (2005–2010). The results of the impact analysis show that UH performs very well overall. If we look at the disciplines and areas within separately, we see large differences. There are, however, quite some areas in which either the volume or the coverage is so low that we are reluctant to draw any conclusion. Regarding disciplines and areas in which both volume and coverage are substantial, we could UH as follows.
The UH has one very strong discipline with biological, agricultural and veterina-ry sciences. In all areas in this discipline UH has an impact well above world average, while the choice of journals for publishing their results is ambitious. UH researchers in this discipline select the better journals in their field.
In natural sciences, most UH areas have an impact above world average but the pic-ture is bit more differentiated over the discipline. There are, however, only a few areas in which the impact remains around or below the world average. All in all this is also a strong UH discipline.
In medicine, biomedicine and health sciences, UH shows a substantial output in all four areas. In the areas in which the volume is the highest, also the impact is high (more than 30% above world average).
199Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
In the humanities the volume is too small to draw any conclusion from the biblio-metric data.
In the social sciences we see a similar situation but in this discipline there are a few areas in which the output in absolute terms is substantial and the coverage is reaso-nable. In only one of these areas (psychology) the impact is high. We may therefore conclude on the basis of this bibliometric data that the UH does not have a strong so-cial science discipline apart from psychology.
9.8 FULL PROFILES OF UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI AND ITS AREASIn this section we present the profiles with activity and impact trends as well as research profiles for the entire university as well as by research area (in alphabetic order).
In the collaboration profiles we present the distribution of production volume (P) over the collaboration types:
1. International, in which at least two countries co-publish;2. National, in which at least two organizations from the same country co-publish (and not
from any other country);3. No collaboration, in which only one organization publishes (there may be more authors
involved).
In addition, we measure for each type the normalized impact (MNCS) these publications have.
In the research profiles, we present the distribution of production volume (P) over subject categories (max 15). Subject categories for which we found less than 3 papers our not included in the profile.
In addition, we measure for each category, the normalized impact (MNCS) these publications have.
200 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
23
Helsinki University
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 14,935 Number of citations (TCS) 157,248 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 10.67 Fraction uncited publications 20.07 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) 1.52 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) 1.32 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) 1.51 Internal coverage .78
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
201Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
24
Research profile - Helsinki Univ
Agriculture and food science
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 833 Number of citations (TCS) 4,992 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 6.02 Fraction uncited publications 22.81 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) 1.21 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) 1.24 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) 1.18 Internal coverage .76
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY (1,60)
GENETICS & HEREDITY (2,67)
ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM (1,50)
NEUROSCIENCES (1,26)
PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY (1,50)
ONCOLOGY (1,50)
PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH (1,49)
ECOLOGY (1,62)
METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES (1,57)
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES (1,02)
ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS (0,84)
MICROBIOLOGY (1,12)
PLANT SCIENCES (1,33)
FORESTRY (1,27)
CELL BIOLOGY (1,54)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
202 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
25
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
203Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
25
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
26
Research profile - AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SCIENCE
Astronomy and astrophysics
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 394 Number of citations (TCS) 2,678 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 6.80 Fraction uncited publications 23.86 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) .96 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) 1.00 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) .95 Internal coverage .76
0 50 100 150 200 250
FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY (1,20)
NUTRITION & DIETETICS (1,17)
AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY (1,30)
AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE (0,99)
SOIL SCIENCE (1,18)
AGRONOMY (1,66)
CHEMISTRY, APPLIED (1,91)
ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM (1,22)
MICROBIOLOGY (0,92)
PLANT SCIENCES (1,37)
BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY (0,75)
VETERINARY SCIENCES (0,77)
AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING (0,34)
REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY (0,97)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
204 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
27
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
Research profile - ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS (0,84)
PHYSICS, PARTICLES & FIELDS (1,43)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
205Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
27
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
Research profile - ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS (0,84)
PHYSICS, PARTICLES & FIELDS (1,43)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
28
Basic life sciences
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 2,680 Number of citations (TCS) 33,480 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 12.60 Fraction uncited publications 12.39 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) 1.62 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) 1.39 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) 1.48 Internal coverage .89
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
206 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
29
Research profile - BASIC LIFE SCIENCES
Basic medical sciences
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 168 Number of citations (TCS) 897 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 5.39 Fraction uncited publications 21.43 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) .81 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) 1.00 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) .75 Internal coverage .81
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY (1,60)
GENETICS & HEREDITY (2,67)
MICROBIOLOGY (1,12)
CELL BIOLOGY (1,54)
BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY (1,54)
BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS (1,32)
BIOPHYSICS (1,17)
DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY (1,48)
EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY (1,55)
IMMUNOLOGY (1,29)
CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL (1,19)
ECOLOGY (1,60)
REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY (1,15)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
207Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
30
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
208 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
31
Research profile - BASIC MEDICAL SCIENCES
Biological sciences
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 1,305 Number of citations (TCS) 9,159 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 7.05 Fraction uncited publications 24.06 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) 1.32 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) 1.19 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) 1.27 Internal coverage .72
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL (0,88)
ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL (0,80)
PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY (0,92)
MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS (0,86)
CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY (1,21)
MEDICAL INFORMATICS (0,58)
CHEMISTRY, ORGANIC (0,58)
BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY (0,45)
HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES (0,65)
RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING (1,11)
PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH (0,62)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
209Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
32
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
210 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
33
Research profile - BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES
Biomedical sciences
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 2,109 Number of citations (TCS) 21,926 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 10.55 Fraction uncited publications 13.37 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) 1.32 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) 1.18 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) 1.42 Internal coverage .89
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
PLANT SCIENCES (1,33)
BIOLOGY (1,37)
EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY (1,18)
ZOOLOGY (1,06)
ECOLOGY (1,44)
MARINE & FRESHWATER BIOLOGY (1,26)
ENTOMOLOGY (1,03)
BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES (1,20)
GENETICS & HEREDITY (1,10)
BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY (2,29)
FISHERIES (1,29)
MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY (1,42)
MYCOLOGY (0,85)
ORNITHOLOGY (1,66)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
211Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
34
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
212 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
35
Research profile - BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES
Chemistry and chemical engineering
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 1,350 Number of citations (TCS) 9,299 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 6.91 Fraction uncited publications 21.93 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) 1.21 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) 1.27 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) 1.13 Internal coverage .81
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
NEUROSCIENCES (1,26)
PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY (1,50)
IMMUNOLOGY (1,31)
VIROLOGY (0,95)
MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL (1,56)
CLINICAL NEUROLOGY (1,53)
RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING (1,04)
TOXICOLOGY (1,03)
PHYSIOLOGY (1,05)
INFECTIOUS DISEASES (1,62)
MICROBIOLOGY (1,52)
BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY (1,22)
ALLERGY (1,95)
GENETICS & HEREDITY (1,22)
BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY (1,80)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
213Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
36
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
214 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
37
Research profile - CHEMISTRY AND CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
Civil engineering and construction
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 11 Number of citations (TCS) 26 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 2.36 Fraction uncited publications 36.36 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) 1.12 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) 1.45 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) .95 Internal coverage .53
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL (1,09)
CHEMISTRY, INORGANIC & NUCLEAR (0,98)
CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY (1,33)
CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL (1,39)
CHEMISTRY, ORGANIC (0,77)
POLYMER SCIENCE (1,74)
SPECTROSCOPY (1,16)
PHYSICS, ATOMIC, MOLECULAR & CHEMICAL (1,02)
BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS (1,16)
CHEMISTRY, APPLIED (1,72)
FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY (1,88)
MATERIALS SCIENCE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY (1,45)
NUCLEAR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY (0,42)
BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY (0,82)
ENGINEERING, CHEMICAL (1,07)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
215Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
38
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
Research profile - CIVIL ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5
ENGINEERING, CIVIL (1,25)
ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL (1,29)
CONSTRUCTION & BUILDING TECHNOLOGY (0,92)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
216 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
39
Clinical medicine
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 4,534 Number of citations (TCS) 66,360 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 15.12 Fraction uncited publications 15.59 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) 1.85 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) 1.47 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) 1.94 Internal coverage .87
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
217Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
40
Research profile - CLINICAL MEDICINE
Computer sciences
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 202 Number of citations (TCS) 1,000 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 4.95 Fraction uncited publications 37.13 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) 1.63 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) 1.50 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) 1.13 Internal coverage .48
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM (1,50)
ONCOLOGY (1,50)
PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH (1,49)
MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL (8,91)
CLINICAL NEUROLOGY (1,79)
CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS (2,51)
PSYCHIATRY (1,51)
PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE (1,52)
VETERINARY SCIENCES (1,33)
OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY (1,30)
HEMATOLOGY (1,76)
DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE (1,18)
GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY (1,51)
SURGERY (1,06)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
218 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
41
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
219Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
41
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
42
Research profile - COMPUTER SCIENCES
Creative arts, culture and music
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 6 Number of citations (TCS) 7 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 1.17 Fraction uncited publications 50.00 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) .30 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) .18 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) .00 Internal coverage .46
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
COMPUTER SCIENCE, THEORY & METHODS (1,47)
COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (1,49)
COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS (0,58)
COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS (1,02)
COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING (1,28)
ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC (1,52)
STATISTICS & PROBABILITY (2,33)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
220 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
42
Research profile - COMPUTER SCIENCES
Creative arts, culture and music
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 6 Number of citations (TCS) 7 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 1.17 Fraction uncited publications 50.00 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) .30 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) .18 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) .00 Internal coverage .46
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
COMPUTER SCIENCE, THEORY & METHODS (1,47)
COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (1,49)
COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS (0,58)
COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS (1,02)
COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING (1,28)
ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC (1,52)
STATISTICS & PROBABILITY (2,33)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
221Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
43
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
Research profile - CREATIVE ARTS, CULTURE AND MUSIC
Earth sciences and technology
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 831 Number of citations (TCS) 6,122 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 7.37 Fraction uncited publications 17.93 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) 1.54 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) 1.33 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) 1.71 Internal coverage .73
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5
MUSIC (0,31)
PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL (0,31)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
222 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
44
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
223Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
44
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
45
Research profile - EARTH SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY
Economics and business
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 178 Number of citations (TCS) 317 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 1.79 Fraction uncited publications 46.63 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) .66 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) .94 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) .44 Internal coverage .45
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES (1,57)
GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY (1,65)
GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS (1,10)
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES (1,50)
GEOGRAPHY, PHYSICAL (1,69)
OCEANOGRAPHY (1,04)
ECOLOGY (2,36)
GEOLOGY (0,87)
PALEONTOLOGY (1,55)
REMOTE SENSING (2,20)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
224 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
46
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
225Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
46
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
47
Research profile - ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS
Educational sciences
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 138 Number of citations (TCS) 403 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 2.97 Fraction uncited publications 44.93 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) 1.18 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) 1.07 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) 1.38 Internal coverage .37
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
ECONOMICS (0,69)
BUSINESS (0,50)
BUSINESS, FINANCE (0,70)
SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS (0,97)
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES (0,58)
POLITICAL SCIENCE (0,41)
MANAGEMENT (0,36)
HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES (0,43)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
226 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
48
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
Research profile - EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH (1,35)
PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL (1,01)
EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES (0,81)
HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES (0,67)
EDUCATION, SPECIAL (0,75)
DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE (1,35)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
48
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
Research profile - EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH (1,35)
PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL (1,01)
EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES (0,81)
HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES (0,67)
EDUCATION, SPECIAL (0,75)
DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE (1,35)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
48
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
Research profile - EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH (1,35)
PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL (1,01)
EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES (0,81)
HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES (0,67)
EDUCATION, SPECIAL (0,75)
DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE (1,35)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
227Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
48
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
Research profile - EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH (1,35)
PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL (1,01)
EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES (0,81)
HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES (0,67)
EDUCATION, SPECIAL (0,75)
DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE (1,35)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
49
Electrical engineering and telecommunication
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 117 Number of citations (TCS) 747 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 6.43 Fraction uncited publications 35.90 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) 2.15 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) 1.41 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) 1.40 Internal coverage .56
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
228 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
50
Research profile - ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING AND TELECOMMUNICATION
Energy science and technology
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 190 Number of citations (TCS) 746 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 3.93 Fraction uncited publications 42.11 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) 1.40 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) .80 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) .81 Internal coverage .65
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC (2,63)
PHYSICS, APPLIED (0,44)
TRANSPORTATION (1,62)
NUCLEAR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY (7,85)
COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (2,49)
NANOSCIENCE & NANOTECHNOLOGY (0,46)
OPTICS (0,73)
TELECOMMUNICATIONS (0,90)
COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS (0,85)
AUTOMATION & CONTROL SYSTEMS (2,84)
PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH (0,95)
PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED (2,18)
MATERIALS SCIENCE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY (0,40)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
229Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
51
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
230 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
52
Research profile - ENERGY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Environmental sciences and technology
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 1,404 Number of citations (TCS) 11,169 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 7.98 Fraction uncited publications 17.81 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) 1.37 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) 1.23 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) 1.38 Internal coverage .69
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
NUCLEAR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY (1,87)
INSTRUMENTS & INSTRUMENTATION (0,62)
SPECTROSCOPY (0,44)
PHYSICS, PARTICLES & FIELDS (0,44)
PHYSICS, ATOMIC, MOLECULAR & CHEMICAL (0,91)
PHYSICS, NUCLEAR (0,91)
ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC (7,85)
CHEMISTRY, INORGANIC & NUCLEAR (0,35)
MINING & MINERAL PROCESSING (2,33)
MATERIALS SCIENCE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY (2,79)
ENERGY & FUELS (0,94)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
231Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
53
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
232 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
54
Research profile - ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY
General and industrial engineering
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 27 Number of citations (TCS) 108 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 4.00 Fraction uncited publications 29.63 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) 1.32 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) 1.37 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) 1.20 Internal coverage .59
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
ECOLOGY (1,62)
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES (1,02)
FORESTRY (1,27)
EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY (1,58)
BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION (2,18)
METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES (1,61)
GENETICS & HEREDITY (1,14)
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES (0,78)
ZOOLOGY (1,36)
ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL (0,94)
GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY (1,61)
LIMNOLOGY (1,15)
GEOGRAPHY (1,53)
MARINE & FRESHWATER BIOLOGY (1,09)
OCEANOGRAPHY (1,37)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
233Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
55
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
Research profile - GENERAL AND INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5
ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY (1,00)
ERGONOMICS (0,97)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
234 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
56
Health sciences
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 277 Number of citations (TCS) 1,395 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 5.19 Fraction uncited publications 27.08 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) .95 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) 1.11 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) .95 Internal coverage .72
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
235Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
57
Research profile - HEALTH SCIENCES
History, philosophy and religion
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 49 Number of citations (TCS) 79 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 1.61 Fraction uncited publications 46.94 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) .85 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) .91 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) .89 Internal coverage .24
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY (1,03)
HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES (0,74)
SUBSTANCE ABUSE (1,10)
SPORT SCIENCES (0,99)
GERONTOLOGY (1,36)
NURSING (1,00)
HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES (0,62)
REHABILITATION (0,82)
PSYCHIATRY (1,41)
PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH (1,08)
EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES (0,67)
SOCIAL WORK (0,72)
PHYSIOLOGY (2,01)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
236 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
58
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
237Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
58
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
59
Research profile - HISTORY, PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION
Information and communication sciences
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 45 Number of citations (TCS) 105 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 2.33 Fraction uncited publications 33.33 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) 1.84 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) 1.08 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) 1.92 Internal coverage .25
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
ETHICS (0,67)
PHILOSOPHY (0,47)
BUSINESS (0,21)
ARCHAEOLOGY (1,10)
MEDICAL ETHICS (0,96)
SOCIAL ISSUES (0,96)
SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL (0,96)
ANTHROPOLOGY (1,19)
HISTORY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES (0,32)
EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH (0,73)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
238 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
60
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
Research profile - INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION SCIENCES
0 5 10 15 20 25
COMMUNICATION (1,89)
INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE (2,00)
PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL (0,81)
LINGUISTICS (0,68)
COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS (1,89)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
60
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
Research profile - INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION SCIENCES
0 5 10 15 20 25
COMMUNICATION (1,89)
INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE (2,00)
PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL (0,81)
LINGUISTICS (0,68)
COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS (1,89)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
239Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
60
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
Research profile - INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION SCIENCES
0 5 10 15 20 25
COMMUNICATION (1,89)
INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE (2,00)
PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL (0,81)
LINGUISTICS (0,68)
COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS (1,89)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
61
Instruments and instrumentation
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 188 Number of citations (TCS) 511 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 2.72 Fraction uncited publications 46.81 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) .75 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) .74 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) .67 Internal coverage .62
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
240 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
62
Research profile - INSTRUMENTS AND INSTRUMENTATION
Language and linguistics
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 63 Number of citations (TCS) 78 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 1.24 Fraction uncited publications 65.08 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) .65 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) .61 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) .61 Internal coverage .21
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
INSTRUMENTS & INSTRUMENTATION (0,67)
NUCLEAR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY (0,62)
SPECTROSCOPY (0,47)
PHYSICS, PARTICLES & FIELDS (0,44)
PHYSICS, NUCLEAR (0,91)
PHYSICS, ATOMIC, MOLECULAR & CHEMICAL (0,91)
MICROSCOPY (3,11)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
62
Research profile - INSTRUMENTS AND INSTRUMENTATION
Language and linguistics
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 63 Number of citations (TCS) 78 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 1.24 Fraction uncited publications 65.08 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) .65 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) .61 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) .61 Internal coverage .21
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
INSTRUMENTS & INSTRUMENTATION (0,67)
NUCLEAR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY (0,62)
SPECTROSCOPY (0,47)
PHYSICS, PARTICLES & FIELDS (0,44)
PHYSICS, NUCLEAR (0,91)
PHYSICS, ATOMIC, MOLECULAR & CHEMICAL (0,91)
MICROSCOPY (3,11)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
241Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
63
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
Research profile - LANGUAGE AND LINGUISTICS
Law and criminology
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 36 Number of citations (TCS) 131 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 3.64 Fraction uncited publications 30.56 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) 1.10 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) 1.03 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) .89 Internal coverage .45
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
LINGUISTICS (0,75)
LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS (0,47)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
242 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
64
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
Research profile - LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
MEDICINE, LEGAL (1,49)
LAW (0,46)
CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY (0,89)
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (0,97)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
64
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
Research profile - LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
MEDICINE, LEGAL (1,49)
LAW (0,46)
CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY (0,89)
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (0,97)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
243Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
64
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
Research profile - LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
MEDICINE, LEGAL (1,49)
LAW (0,46)
CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY (0,89)
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (0,97)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
65
Literature
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 4 Number of citations (TCS) 5 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 1.25 Fraction uncited publications 25.00 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) 2.58 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) .93 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) 5.13 Internal coverage .27
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
Research profile - LITERATURE
N/A
244 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
66
Management and planning
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 64 Number of citations (TCS) 226 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 3.53 Fraction uncited publications 35.94 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) .93 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) 1.04 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) .90 Internal coverage .32
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
245Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
67
Research profile - MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING
Mathematics
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 272 Number of citations (TCS) 611 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 2.25 Fraction uncited publications 44.49 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) 1.77 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) 1.20 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) 1.88 Internal coverage .53
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
0 5 10 15 20 25
MANAGEMENT (1,00)
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT (1,09)
PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED (0,85)
AREA STUDIES (1,09)
ECONOMICS (0,65)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
246 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
68
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
Research profile - MATHEMATICS
Mechanical engineering and aerospace
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 29 Number of citations (TCS) 38 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 1.31 Fraction uncited publications 48.28 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) .70 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) 1.04 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) .91 Internal coverage .57
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
MATHEMATICS (2,05)
MATHEMATICS, APPLIED (1,78)
MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS (1,10)
PHYSICS, MATHEMATICAL (0,78)
STATISTICS & PROBABILITY (1,11)
SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS (1,07)
COMPUTER SCIENCE, THEORY & METHODS (1,61)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
247Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
69
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
Research profile - MECHANICAL ENGINEERING AND AEROSPACE
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
MECHANICS (0,88)
ACOUSTICS (0,46)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
248 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
70
Multidisciplinary journals
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 180 Number of citations (TCS) 9,205 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 53.36 Fraction uncited publications 8.89 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) 2.95 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) 1.84 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) 2.49 Internal coverage .86
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
249Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
71
Research profile - MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNALS
Physics and materials science
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 1,390 Number of citations (TCS) 9,301 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 6.71 Fraction uncited publications 27.41 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) 1.29 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) 1.24 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) 1.25 Internal coverage .76
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES (3,08)
CLINICAL NEUROLOGY (0,49)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
250 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
72
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
Research profile - PHYSICS AND MATERIALS SCIENCE
Political science and public administration
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 80 Number of citations (TCS) 115 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 1.44 Fraction uncited publications 60.00 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) .70 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) .98 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) .85 Internal coverage .19
0 50 100 150 200 250
PHYSICS, PARTICLES & FIELDS (1,21)
PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY (2,60)
PHYSICS, ATOMIC, MOLECULAR & CHEMICAL (1,00)
PHYSICS, CONDENSED MATTER (1,12)
PHYSICS, APPLIED (0,78)
CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL (1,08)
ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS (1,42)
MATERIALS SCIENCE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY (1,37)
PHYSICS, NUCLEAR (1,76)
PHYSICS, MATHEMATICAL (1,14)
OPTICS (1,12)
CRYSTALLOGRAPHY (0,83)
NUCLEAR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY (0,89)
INSTRUMENTS & INSTRUMENTATION (0,60)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
72
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
Research profile - PHYSICS AND MATERIALS SCIENCE
Political science and public administration
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 80 Number of citations (TCS) 115 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 1.44 Fraction uncited publications 60.00 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) .70 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) .98 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) .85 Internal coverage .19
0 50 100 150 200 250
PHYSICS, PARTICLES & FIELDS (1,21)
PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY (2,60)
PHYSICS, ATOMIC, MOLECULAR & CHEMICAL (1,00)
PHYSICS, CONDENSED MATTER (1,12)
PHYSICS, APPLIED (0,78)
CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL (1,08)
ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS (1,42)
MATERIALS SCIENCE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY (1,37)
PHYSICS, NUCLEAR (1,76)
PHYSICS, MATHEMATICAL (1,14)
OPTICS (1,12)
CRYSTALLOGRAPHY (0,83)
NUCLEAR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY (0,89)
INSTRUMENTS & INSTRUMENTATION (0,60)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
251Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
73
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
Research profile - POLITICAL SCIENCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (0,85)
POLITICAL SCIENCE (0,50)
ECONOMICS (0,41)
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (0,50)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
252 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
74
Psychology
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 349 Number of citations (TCS) 2,026 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 5.85 Fraction uncited publications 23.78 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) 1.22 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) 1.21 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) 1.48 Internal coverage .72
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
253Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
75
Research profile - PSYCHOLOGY
Social and behavioral sciences, interdisciplinary
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 115 Number of citations (TCS) 438 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 3.81 Fraction uncited publications 38.26 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) .86 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) 1.04 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) 1.04 Internal coverage .50
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY (1,48)
PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL (1,10)
PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL (0,85)
PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL (1,13)
PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL (1,18)
PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED (1,37)
NEUROSCIENCES (1,22)
PSYCHIATRY (1,36)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
75
Research profile - PSYCHOLOGY
Social and behavioral sciences, interdisciplinary
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 115 Number of citations (TCS) 438 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 3.81 Fraction uncited publications 38.26 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) .86 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) 1.04 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) 1.04 Internal coverage .50
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY (1,48)
PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL (1,10)
PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL (0,85)
PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL (1,13)
PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL (1,18)
PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED (1,37)
NEUROSCIENCES (1,22)
PSYCHIATRY (1,36)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
75
Research profile - PSYCHOLOGY
Social and behavioral sciences, interdisciplinary
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 115 Number of citations (TCS) 438 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 3.81 Fraction uncited publications 38.26 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) .86 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) 1.04 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) 1.04 Internal coverage .50
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY (1,48)
PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL (1,10)
PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL (0,85)
PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL (1,13)
PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL (1,18)
PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED (1,37)
NEUROSCIENCES (1,22)
PSYCHIATRY (1,36)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
254 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
76
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
Research profile - SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Sociology and anthropology
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 116 Number of citations (TCS) 236 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 2.03 Fraction uncited publications 43.10 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) 1.07 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) .97 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) 1.40 Internal coverage .31
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
SOCIAL SCIENCES, BIOMEDICAL (0,90)
PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH (1,06)
DEMOGRAPHY (0,73)
SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY (0,94)
SOCIAL ISSUES (1,27)
MEDICAL ETHICS (0,96)
ETHICS (0,96)
SOCIOLOGY (0,31)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
255Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
77
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
256 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
78
Research profile - SOCIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY
Statistical sciences
Basic statistics
Number of publications (P) 75 Number of citations (TCS) 303 Number of citations per publication (MCS) 4.08 Fraction uncited publications 34.67 Field-normalized number of citations per publication (MNCS) 1.62 Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS) 1.06 Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) 1.22 Internal coverage .57
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
SOCIOLOGY (0,70)
ANTHROPOLOGY (1,49)
WOMEN'S STUDIES (1,33)
FAMILY STUDIES (0,51)
BIOLOGY (2,91)
CULTURAL STUDIES (0,07)
ETHNIC STUDIES (0,12)
ARCHAEOLOGY (1,19)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
257Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
79
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
Research profile - STATISTICAL SCIENCES
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
STATISTICS & PROBABILITY (2,52)
SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS (0,92)
MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS (1,17)
ECONOMICS (0,97)
OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE (1,29)
COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS (0,65)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
79
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
Research profile - STATISTICAL SCIENCES
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
STATISTICS & PROBABILITY (2,52)
SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS (0,92)
MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS (1,17)
ECONOMICS (0,97)
OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE (1,29)
COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS (0,65)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
79
Trend analyses
Number of publications Publication Strategy (MNJS)
Contribution top10% (NPHCP10) Impact (MNCS)
Collaboration
Performance (P and MNCS) by collaboration type
Research profile - STATISTICAL SCIENCES
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
STATISTICS & PROBABILITY (2,52)
SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS (0,92)
MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS (1,17)
ECONOMICS (0,97)
OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE (1,29)
COMPUTER SCIENCE, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS (0,65)
P
Categ
ory
High MNCS Avg MNCS Low MNCS
258 Research Performance of the University of Helsinki 2005–2010
3 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − BIOLOGICAL, AGRICULTURAL AND VETERINARY SCIENCES
4 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − MEDICINE, BIOMEDICINE AND HEALTH SCIENCES
5 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − NATURAL SCIENCES
6 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − HUMANITIES
7 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − SOCIAL SCIENCES
8 OVERALL STATISTICS ON THE EVALUATION
9 RESEARCH PERFORMANCE
11 SUMMARY REPORT OF DOCTORAL TRAINING
12 CONCLUDING REMARKS
13 APPENDICES
2 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION
10 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSES
1 INTRODUCTION TO THE EVALUATION
261Bibliometric Analyses by Helsinki University Library
10. BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSES BY THE HELSINKI UNIVERSITY LIBRARY − HULIB
Maria Forsman, Chief Information Specialist, DSocScHelsinki University Library
10.1 BACKGROUND
The bibliometric analyses – especially citation analyses – have raised discussion and critics among researchers in social sciences and humanities as a tool of research evaluation. Researchers view that bibliometric analyses are often unfair, because they do not give a good enough picture of publishing in these fields of sciences. Citation databases – Web of Science and Scopus – cover mostly journals and therefore only weakly the main publications of these fields. In humanities and social sciences monograph is still the main form of publishing, and usually it is not included in these article databases. The computer scientists have met problems of the same kind, because they publish mostly in conference reports that are not included in these citation databases.
At the University of Helsinki, the above mentioned concerns have been taken into account in the research evaluation process. The Evaluation Office ordered analyses from the Helsinki University Library (HULib) for the participating researcher communities that are weakly represented in Web of Science. The database for the HULib analyses is TUHAT RIS (https://tuhat.halvi.helsinki.fi/portal/en/) including all the publications that the researchers have considered important.
Based on this data, information specialists at HULib have carried out the following analyses:
1) Number of authors/publication/year;2) Language of publication/year;3) Articles/journal/year; journals have been compared by ISSN with the Norwegian,
Australian and ERIH (2007–2008) journal ranking lists; number of articles in ranked journals have been counted;
4) Publisher/monograph type (according to TUHAT RIS); monographs have been compared with the Norwegian publisher ranking list. According to this, the monographs that are published by a leading scientific publisher (2) or a scientific publisher (1) have been counted.
5) Conference publications (from TUHAT RIS) especially in computer sciences; compared with the Australian conference ranking list. Where relevant, some additional analyses and notes concerning the publication culture of a scientific field have been added. Overall, these analyses complement the other evaluation material and lists of publications of the participating researcher communities.
262 Bibliometric Analyses by Helsinki University Library
The following analyses are based on all publications (2005–2010) in TUHAT RIS, exported 12.4.2011. These analyses complement the bibliometric analyses of Web of Science database, conducted by CWTS/Leiden.
Table 1. Publication categories of TUHAT RIS. The publication types follow the classification of the Ministry of Education and Culture.
CODE TYPE OF PUBLICATION
A1 Refereed journal article
A2 Review in scientific journal
A3 Contribution to book/other compilations (refereed)
A4 Article in conference publication (refereed)
B1 Unrefereed journal article
B2 Contribution to book/other compilations (non-refereed)
B3 Unrefereed article in conference proceedings
C1 Published scientific monograph
C2 Edited book, compilation, conference proceeding or special issue of journal
D1 Article in professional journal
D2 Article in professional hand or guide book or in a professional data system, or text book material
D3 Article in professional conference proceedings
D4 Published development or research report
D5 Text book or professional handbook or guidebook or dictionary
E1 Popular article, newspaper article
E1 Popular contribution to book/other compilations
E2 Popular monograph
F1 Published independent artistic work
F2 Public contribution to artistic work
F3 Public artistic play or exhibition
F4 Model or plan taken into production / exploited
G1-G5 Theses (not included in the evaluation)
H1 Patents
I1 Audiovisual materials
I2 ICT programs or applications
263Bibliometric Analyses by Helsinki University Library
10.2 UNIVERSITY LEVEL BIBLIOMETRICS BY THE HELSINKI UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
The following figures illustrate the publishing in the University of Helsinki (the whole university level) in 2005–2010. The analysed data is exported from TUHAT RIS (12.4.2011). The total number of publications in analyses is 67,465.
Figure 1. Number of publications in publication categories
The number of A1 original peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals is 25,327 (38%) and A3 peer-reviewed contributions to books or other compilations 11,366 (17%). 10% of publications are E1 popular articles or newspaper articles (6,896), and 10% B1 non-peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals (6,749). The rest 25% include a variety of publication types.
2
15
29
34
47
59
62
117
502
524
803
849
1032
1340
1350
1531
1635
1966
2034
3196
6749
6896
11366
25327
F4 Model or plan taken into production / exploited
F3 Public artistic play or exhibition
F1 Published independent artistic work
F2 Public contribution to artistic work
I2 ICT programs or applications
H1 Patents
I1 Audiovisual materials
D3 Article in professional conference proceedings
D4 Published development or research report
E2 Popular monograph
D5 Text book or professional handbook or guidebook or …
A2 Peer-reviewed review article
D2 Article in professional hand or guide book or in a …
B3 Article in conference proceedings
E1 Popular article in monograph
D1 Article in professional journal
C2 Edited book, compilation, conference proceeding or …
C1 Published scientific monograph
B2 Contribution to book/other compilations
A4 Peer-reviewed article in conference publication
B1 Writing in scientific journal
E1 Popular article, newspaper article
A3 Peer-reviewed contribution to book/other compilations
A1 Original peer-reviewed scientific article
Number of publications in publication categories No. of publications
Figure 1. Number of publications in publication categories
The number of A1 original peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals is 25,327 (38%) and A3 peer-reviewed contributions to books or other compilations 11,366 (17%). 10% of publications are E1 popular articles or newspaper articles (6,896), and 10% B1 non-peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals (6,749). The rest 25% include a variety of publication types.
264 Bibliometric Analyses by Helsinki University Library
Figure 2. Language of publications – percentage distribution
Table 2. Number of publications in different languages
Language No. of publications
English 37266Finnish 25378Swedish 2159German 553Russian 533French 366Italian 239Estonian 196Other/Unknown 160Spanish 157Multilingual 116Norwegian 94Chinese 54Japanese 37Hungarian 23Polish 21Danish 21Latvian 19Portugese 18Dutch 16Greece 16Lithuanian 13Czech 7Turkish 3Grand Total 67465
The language of publications is most often English (55%), then Finnish (38%), Swedish (3%), German (1%) and Russian (1%). The rest 2% of publications are published in more than 20 different languages. The total number of publications is 67,465. In chapter 10.3 the Table 8shows the exact numbers about language of publications by faculties.
English 55 %
Finnish 38 %
Swedish 3 %
German 1 %
Russian 1 % Other languages
2 %
Language of publications
Figure 2. Language of publications – percentage distribution
Table 2. Number of publications in different languages
LANGUAGE NO. OF PUBLICATIONS
English 37266
Finnish 25378
Swedish 2159
German 553
Russian 533
French 366
Italian 239
Estonian 196
Other/Unknown 160
Spanish 157
Multilingual 116
Norwegian 94
Chinese 54
Japanese 37
Hungarian 23
Polish 21
Danish 21
Latvian 19
Portugese 18
Dutch 16
Greece 16
Lithuanian 13
Czech 7
Turkish 3
Grand Total 67465
265Bibliometric Analyses by Helsinki University Library
The language of publications is most often English (55%), then Finnish (38%), Swedish (3%), German (1%) and Russian (1%). The rest 2% of publications are published in more than 20 different languages. The total number of publications is 67,465. In chapter 10.3 the Table 8 shows the exact numbers about language of publications by faculties.
Figure 3. Number of authors in publications – the percentage distribution
Table 3. Previous figure as a table: the number of authors in publications
No. of authors No. of publications
1 au 305932 au 98623 au 59984 au 46965 au 38746 au 31847 au 23548 au 17099 au 121810–2041 au 3977Grand Total 67465
45% of publications have been written by only one author. 2 authors have written together in 15%, 3 in 9%, and 4 in 7% of publications. 5–9 authors are in 18% of publications, 10–2041authors in 6% of publications.
1 au 45 %
2 au 15 %
3 au 9 %
4 au 7 %
5 au 6 %
6 au 5 %
7 au 3 %
8 au 2 %
9 au 2 %
10-2041 au 6 %
Number of authors in publications
Figure 3. Number of authors in publications – the percentage distribution
Table 3. Previous figure as a table: the number of authors in publications
NO. OF AUTHORS NO. OF PUBLICATIONS
1 au 30593
2 au 9862
3 au 5998
4 au 4696
5 au 3874
6 au 3184
7 au 2354
8 au 1709
9 au 1218
10–2041 au 3977
Grand Total 67465
45% of publications have been written by only one author. 2 authors have written together in 15%, 3 in 9%, and 4 in 7% of publications. 5–9 authors are in 18% of publications, 10–2041 authors in 6% of publications.
266 Bibliometric Analyses by Helsinki University Library
Publications by subject – journal articles
The subject classification is based on the Ulrich’s database (Ulrichsweb) that covers more than 300,000 periodicals from more than 900 subject areas. It is important to state that this analysis is based on the subject classification of journals, not separate journal articles. The total number of publications in the analysis is 30,549 (45% of all publications, 74% of all journal articles).
1.2.1 Publications by subject – journal articles
The subject classification is based on the Ulrich’s database (Ulrichsweb) that covers more than 300,000 periodicals from more than 900 subject areas. It is important to state that this analysis is based on the subject classification of journals, not separate journal articles. The total number of publications in the analysis is 30,549 (45% of all publications, 74% of all journal articles).
Figure 4. Publications by subject – journal articles
17 25 27 29 48 51 51 63 79 134 154 166 292 350 357 360 360 361 365 370 374 392 392 541 571 596 678 697 714 747 779
1035 1088
1345 1449
1716 4280
9496
Energy science and technology Electrical engineering and telecommunication
Mechanical engineering and aerospace Humanities: comprehensive works
Instruments and instrumentation Civil engineering and construction
Statistical sciences Multidisciplinary journals
Management and planning Computer sciences
General and industrial engineering Information and communication sciences
Veterinary sciences Astronomy and astrophysics
Forestry Social and behavioral sciences, interdisciplinary
Sociology and anthropology Law and criminology
Political science and public administration Educational sciences
Economics and business Creative arts, culture and music
Psychology Language and linguistics
Mathematics Pharmacy and pharmacology
Sciences: comprehensive works Agriculture and food science
Environmental sciences and technology Literature
Health sciences Earth sciences and technology
Chemistry and chemical engineering History, philosophy and religion
Physics and materials science General interest periodicals
Biological sciences Medical sciences
Publications by subject – journal articles No. of publications
Figure 4. Publications by subject – journal articles
267Bibliometric Analyses by Helsinki University Library
Table 4. The top 20 scientific journals that have published peer-reviewed scientific articles have been counted and ranked according to the Finnish Publication Forum ranking list suggestion (12.1.2012) and Norway journal ranking list
JOURNAL NO. OF PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLES
FPF RANKING
FPF ALT.RANK
NJ RANKING
Duodecim 229 1 no ranking
Suomen lääkärilehti 205 1 no ranking
Physical Review D : Particles, Fields, Gravitation and Cosmology
200 2 1
Physical Review Letters 183 2 3 2
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
133 2 3 1
Boreal Environment Research 123 2 1
Diabetologia 120 2 3 1
Teologinen Aikakauskirja 120 1 no ranking
PLoS One 105 2 1
Lakimies 94 1 1
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
89 2 3 2
Physical Review B, Condensed Matter and Materials Physics
85 2 2
Diabetes Care 83 2 3 1
Journal of Biological Chemistry 81 2 2
Astronomy& Astrophysics 74 2 3 2
Journal of Geophysical Research 74 2 3 2
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica
71 2 1
Journal of Chemical Physics 71 2 3 1
Yhteiskuntapolitiikka 70 1 no ranking
Suomen hammaslääkärilehti 69 no ranking 1
The Table 4 shows the top 20 scientific journals in which has been published most peer-reviewed scientific articles (A1) of all researchers of the University of Helsinki in years 2005–2010 (source: TUHAT RIS). The number of all peer-reviewed articles is 25,327; the top 20 journals cover 9% of them (2,279 articles).
The journal rankings have been checked according to the Finnish Publication Forum (FPF) ranking lists and the Norway journal (NJ) ranking lists. Six journals of 20 have the highest rank in both: rank 2 or 3 in FPF and 2 in NJ.
The researchers of the University of Helsinki have published peer-reviewed scientific articles in 5,680 different journals. 10% of them are published in 23 journals, and 50% in 465 journals.
268 Bibliometric Analyses by Helsinki University Library
10.3 FACULTIES, PUBLICATIONS AND SCIENTIFIC FIELDS
The next tables and figures illustrate the publishing in the University of Helsinki at the faculty level in 2005–2010. The analysed data is loaded from TUHAT RIS (12.04.2011). Publications of faculties cover 90% (60,638) of all publications of the University of Helsinki (67,465) in 2005–2010. The rest of publications (6,827) belong to independent insititutes.
Table 5. Number of publications per faculties
FACULTY TOTAL NUMBER OF PUBLICATIONS
PUBLICATIONS (JOURNAL ARTICLES) IN ANALYSIS
Agriculture and forestry 4723 1984
Arts 11931 2878
Behavioural scs 4567 1485
Biological and environmental scs 2973 1817
Law 2837 581
Medicine 14065 10447
Pharmacy 899 587
Sciences 7708 4161
Social sciences 6215 2054
Theology 2982 682
Veterinary medicine 1202 677
Swedish School of social scs 536 182
Grand total 60638 27535
269Bibliometric Analyses by Helsinki University Library
Tabl
e 6.
Pub
licat
ion
type
s, n
umbe
r of p
ublic
atio
ns p
er fa
culti
es
PUBL
ICAT
ION
TYP
ES /
FA
CULT
IES
AG
RFO
RA
RTS
BEH
SCBI
O
ENVS
CLA
WM
EDIC
PHA
RM
SCIE
NCE
SOCS
CTH
EOL
VET
MED
SWS
SOCS
CTO
TAL
A1 O
rigin
al p
eer-
revi
ewed
sci
entifi
c ar
ticle
1696
1209
1360
1595
539
9366
600
3883
1274
346
619
7722
564
A2
Peer
-rev
iew
ed re
view
art
icle
5278
3936
3038
635
4441
1116
377
1
A3
Peer
-rev
iew
ed c
ontr
ibut
ion
to b
ook/
othe
r co
mpi
latio
ns44
735
4390
922
092
315
7348
486
1373
916
6915
610
663
A4
Peer
-rev
iew
ed a
rtic
le in
con
fere
nce
publ
icat
ion
418
392
448
4012
162
11596
288
4787
327
74
B1 W
ritin
g in
sci
entifi
c jo
urna
l45
515
5529
113
434
616
4043
297
816
405
8058
6120
B2 C
ontr
ibut
ion
to b
ook/
othe
r com
pila
tions
167
608
215
6114
660
316
921
816
94
2218
42
B3 A
rtic
le in
con
fere
nce
proc
eedi
ngs
232
222
3661
1925
158
154
2214
012
67
C1 P
ublis
hed
scie
ntifi
c m
onog
raph
131
325
11228
160
483
193
608
1120
4217
62
C2 E
dite
d bo
ok, c
ompi
latio
n, c
onfe
renc
e pr
ocee
ding
or
spe
cial
issu
e of
jour
nal
7453
915
822
9895
614
621
3111
417
1483
D1 A
rtic
le in
pro
fess
iona
l jou
rnal
137
255
100
3652
173
1333
084
104
2463
1371
D2
Art
icle
in p
rofe
ssio
nal h
and
or g
uide
boo
k or
in a
pr
ofes
sion
al d
ata
syst
em, o
r tex
t boo
k m
ater
ial
7670
9215
234
162
251
1786
920
897
D3
Art
icle
in p
rofe
ssio
nal c
onfe
renc
e pr
ocee
ding
s29
203
41
92
712
422
0113
D4
Publ
ishe
d de
velo
pmen
t or r
esea
rch
repo
rt42
3074
5422
25
5713
011
66
439
D5
Text
boo
k or
pro
fess
iona
l han
dboo
k or
gui
debo
ok
or d
ictio
nary
1610
940
39
3217
468
3844
70
747
E1 P
opul
ar a
rtic
le, n
ewsp
aper
art
icle
610
2025
249
492
202
305
1429
410
0949
214
186
5919
E1 P
opul
ar a
rtic
le in
mon
ogra
ph76
643
52118
1812
184
156
6812
012
40
E2 P
opul
ar m
onog
raph
4819
220
303
160
1279
323
343
8
F1 P
ublis
hed
inde
pend
ent a
rtis
tic w
ork
027
00
00
00
00
00
27
F2 P
ublic
con
trib
utio
n to
art
istic
wor
k0
302
00
00
00
00
032
F3 P
ublic
art
istic
pla
y or
exh
ibiti
on0
141
00
00
00
00
015
F4 M
odel
or p
lan
take
n in
to p
rodu
ctio
n /
expl
oite
d0
00
00
00
20
00
02
H1 P
aten
ts10
00
00
103
300
01
054
I1 A
udio
visu
al m
ater
ials
711
318
04
11
42
10
52
I2 IC
T pr
ogra
ms
or a
pplic
atio
ns0
340
00
00
111
00
046
Gra
nd to
tal
4723
1193
145
6729
7328
3714
065
899
770
862
1529
8212
02
536
6063
8
270 Bibliometric Analyses by Helsinki University Library
Researchers in the Faculties of Agriculture and Forestry, Behavioural Sciences, Biological and Environmental Sciences, Medicine, Pharmacy, Sciences, and Veterinary Medicine publish mostly original peer-reviewed scientific articles in journals, whereas researchers in the Faculties of Arts, Law, Social Sciences, Theology, as well as Swedish School of Social Sciences publish mostly peer-reviewed articles in scientific books or other compilations.
Figure 5. Percentages of publication types by faculties
0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 100 %
AgrFor
Arts
BehSc
BioEnvSc
Law
Medic
Pharm
Science
SocSc
Theol
VetMed
SwSSocSc
Percentages of publication types by faculties
A1 Original peer-reviewed scientific article A2 Peer-reviewed review article A3 Peer-reviewed contribution to book/other compilations A4 Peer-reviewed article in conference publication B Non-refereed scientific articles (B1-B3) C Scientific books (C1-C2) D Publications intended for professional communities (D1-D5) E Publications intended for the general public (E1-E2) Other publications (F1-F4, H1, I1-I2)
Figure 5. Percentages of publication types by faculties
271Bibliometric Analyses by Helsinki University Library
Table 7. Number of authors in publications and faculties
The table shows that researchers in the Faculties of Arts (81%), Law (86%), Social Sciences (66%) and Theology (87%) as well as in the Swedish School of Social Sciences (61%) publish mostly alone or with one co-author.
There are mostly more than 2 authors in publications of researchers of the Faculties of Agriculture and Forestry (60%), Biological and Environmental Sciences (51%), Medicine (71%), Pharmacy (83%), Science (61%), and Veterinary Medicine (60%).
Researchers in the Faculty of Behavioural Sciences publish both alone and together with others: 40% of publications have one author, while 41% of publications have more than 2 authors.
In medicine and sciences there are large research communities that publish together. In the Faculty of Medicine there is co-authorship with more than 20 authors in 271 publications, and in the Faculty of Sciences the number of publications is 98.
NO. OF AUTHORS
AGRFOR ARTS BEHSC BIO ENVSC
LAW MEDIC PHARM SCIENCE SOCSC THEOL VETMED SWS SOCSC
1 1085 9689 1805 894 2429 2523 70 1701 4087 2603 358 328
2 781 1571 872 549 269 1582 80 1267 1332 255 122 117
3 638 388 552 447 95 1281 95 1118 426 85 134 31
4 546 161 376 333 28 1355 124 904 165 16 137 34
5 450 43 298 256 7 1349 149 729 88 11 154 9
6 306 32 206 140 4 1337 133 627 42 5 98 5
7 222 15 186 100 2 1000 92 393 29 1 66 10
8 144 12 103 64 1 789 62 259 16 3 43 1
9 90 10 62 36 1 648 49 195 6 27 1
10 53 4 38 27 1 515 16 110 5 21
11 39 1 31 28 339 14 84 3 13
12 36 2 11 18 252 6 60 3 4
13 19 1 4 8 210 5 31 1 1 5
14 12 2 14 153 2 29 4 4
15 12 4 15 122 21 3 2
16 9 1 5 5 81 1 21 4 2 3
17 7 1 6 83 25
18 6 4 5 80 1 14 1
19 249 5 54 10 1 1
20 3 2 41 12 1
21 or more 16 1 7 21 271 98 8
272 Bibliometric Analyses by Helsinki University Library
Tabl
e 8.
Lan
guag
e of
pub
licat
ions
and
facu
lties
FACU
LTY
/LA
NG
UA
GE
AG
RFO
RA
RTS
BEH
SCBI
O E
NVS
CLA
WM
EDIC
PHA
RM
SCIE
NCE
SOCS
CTH
EOL
VET
MED
SWS
SOCS
CG
RA
ND
TO
TAL
Engl
ish
3040
3667
2124
1924
899
1022
078
963
7724
5080
077
718
933
256
Finn
ish
1602
5756
2230
980
1584
3660
108
1246
3373
1931
401
134
2300
5
Swed
ish
5791
910
957
240
150
156
213
508
196
2056
Ger
man
133
613
237
63
3557
128
510
Russ
ian
233
91
44
114
182
138
6
Fren
ch6
213
241
122
228
121
130
2
Italia
n19
08
31
512
1123
0
Esto
nian
175
153
134
129
461
188
Span
ish
395
1115
916
11
115
2
Nor
weg
ian
172
17
13
81
94
Mul
tilin
gual
151
12
31
93
71
Chin
ese
52
51
12
3854
Japa
nese
111
181
41
36
Hun
garia
n1
113
12
31
22
Polis
h15
11
421
Dan
ish
51
21
29
20
Latv
ian
126
18
Port
uges
e12
12
21
18
Dut
ch2
121
15
Gre
ece
1313
Lith
uani
an13
13
Czec
h4
11
17
Turk
ish
12
3
Oth
er /
unk
now
n2
1184
11
610
33
148
Gra
nd to
tal
4723
1193
145
6729
7328
3714
065
899
770
862
1529
8212
02
536
6063
8
273Bibliometric Analyses by Helsinki University Library
Researchers publish in English mostly in the Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry (64%), Biological and Environmental Sciences (65%), Medicine (73%), Pharmacy (88%), Science (83%) and Veterinary Medicine (65%). In Faculty of Arts (48%), Law (56%), Social Sciences (54%) and Theology (65%) they publish mostly in Finnish, while in the Faculty of Behavioural Sciences the number is almost the same: English (47%) and Finnish (49%). In the Swedish School of Social Sciences they publish mostly in Swedish (37%) and in English (36%) and somewhat less in Finnish (25%).
There is a variety of other languages, and the most multilingual is the Faculty of Arts with more than 20 different languages.
10.4 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSES: FACULTIES, PUBLICATIONS AND SCIENTIFIC FIELDS
The next figures illustrate the publishing in the University of Helsinki at the faculty level in 2005–2010. The analysed data is loaded from TUHAT RIS (12.4.2011).
The publications by subject have been counted on articles in scientific journals. The subject classification is based on the Ulrich’s database (Ulrichsweb) that covers more than 300,000 periodicals from more than 900 subject areas. Although only less than half of all the publications are included in these periodicals, these tables and figures give a picture about the orientation of research in the university by subject fields.
274 Bibliometric Analyses by Helsinki University Library
Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry
1.4 Bibliometric analyses: Faculties, publications and scientific fields
The next figures illustrate the publishing in the University of Helsinki at the faculty level in 2005–2010. The analysed data is loaded from TUHAT RIS (12.4.2011).
The publications by subject have been counted on articles in scientific journals. The subject classification is based on the Ulrich’s database (Ulrichsweb) that covers more than 300,000 periodicals from more than 900 subject areas. Although only less than half of all the publications are included in these periodicals, these tables and figures give a picture about the orientation of research in the university by subject fields.
1.4.1 Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry
Figure 6. Number of publications within subject areas of the Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry
The main publishing forum of the articles of researchers of the Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry is journals classified to biological sciences, then agriculture and foods science, forestry, and environmental sciences and technology.
1 2 2 3 3 3 6 7 8 8 9 10 10 10 12 12 14 16 17
45 46
67 68 79 79
147 288
437 575
Psychology Mathematics
Computer sciences Statistical sciences
Sociology and anthropology Management and planning
Multidisciplinary journals Political science and public administration
Veterinary sciences Energy science and technology
Social and behavioral sciences, interdisciplinary Physics and materials science
Mechanical engineering and aerospace Creative arts, culture and music History, philosophy and religion
Civil engineering and construction Sciences: comprehensive works
General and industrial engineering Pharmacy and pharmacology
Chemistry and chemical engineering Economics and business
Medical sciences General interest periodicals
Health sciences Earth sciences and technology
Environmental sciences and technology Forestry
Agriculture and food science Biological sciences
No. of publications
Figure 6. Number of publications within subject areas of the Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry
The main publishing forum of the articles of researchers of the Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry is journals classified to biological sciences, then agriculture and foods science, forestry, and environmental sciences and technology.
275Bibliometric Analyses by Helsinki University Library
Faculty of Arts1.4.2 Faculty of Arts
Figure 7. Number of publications within subject areas of the Faculty of Arts
The researchers of the Faculty of Arts publish almost as often in journals classified to literature as to history, philosophy and religion. Also general interest periodicals, language and linguistics, as well as creative arts, culture and music are on the top.
1 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 6 6 9 12 13 14 15 26 27 31 33 37
63 68
107 325
432 502
545 583
Agriculture and food science Pharmacy and pharmacology
Environmental sciences and technology Physics and materials science
Management and planning Multidisciplinary journals
Biological sciences Computer sciences
General and industrial engineering Psychology
Health sciences Mathematics
Humanities: comprehensive works Earth sciences and technology
Civil engineering and construction Information and communication sciences
Educational sciences Economics and business
Medical sciences Political science and public administration
Sociology and anthropology Social and behavioral sciences, interdisciplinary
Sciences: comprehensive works Creative arts, culture and music
Language and linguistics General interest periodicals
History, philosophy and religion Literature
No. of publications
Figure 7. Number of publications within subject areas of the Faculty of Arts
The researchers of the Faculty of Arts publish almost as often in journals classified to literature as to history, philosophy and religion. Also general interest periodicals, language and linguistics, as well as creative arts, culture and music are on the top.
276 Bibliometric Analyses by Helsinki University Library
Faculty of Behavioural Sciences1.4.3 Faculty of Behavioural Sciences
Figure 8. Number of publications within subject areas of the Faculty of Behavioural Sciences
In the Faculty of Behavioural Sciences researchers publish most often in journals classified to medical sciences. Only the come educational sciences and psychology.
1 1 1 2 2 2 5 6 6 7 8 8 8 10 14 15 26 29 30 30
42 49 51 55
76 79
193 268
461
Environmental sciences and technology Humanities: comprehensive works
Instruments and instrumentation General and industrial engineering
Law and criminology Management and planning
Agriculture and food science Information and communication sciences
Political science and public administration Literature
Computer sciences Pharmacy and pharmacology
Sociology and anthropology Civil engineering and construction
Earth sciences and technology Creative arts, culture and music
Mathematics Physics and materials science
Biological sciences Economics and business
History, philosophy and religion Social and behavioral sciences, interdisciplinary
Sciences: comprehensive works Language and linguistics
Health sciences General interest periodicals
Psychology Educational sciences
Medical sciences No. of publications
Figure 8. Number of publications within subject areas of the Faculty of Behavioural Sciences
In the Faculty of Behavioural Sciences researchers publish most often in journals classified to medical sciences. Only the come educational sciences and psychology.
277Bibliometric Analyses by Helsinki University Library
Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences1.4.4 Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences
Figure 9. Number of publications within subject areas of the Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences
In the Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences researchers publish mostly in journals classified to biological sciences, and secondly in journals of environmental sciences and technology.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 6 6 12 31 40
76 84 88 94
132 233
988
Civil engineering and construction Economics and business
General and industrial engineering Health sciences
Management and planning Political science and public administration
Social and behavioral sciences, interdisciplinary Veterinary sciences
Educational sciences Physics and materials science
History, philosophy and religion Mathematics
Energy science and technology Pharmacy and pharmacology
Literature Sociology and anthropology
Chemistry and chemical engineering Forestry
Multidisciplinary journals Sciences: comprehensive works
Agriculture and food science Medical sciences
Earth sciences and technology General interest periodicals
Environmental sciences and technology Biological sciences
No. of publications
Figure 9. Number of publications within subject areas of the Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences
In the Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences researchers publish mostly in journals classified to biological sciences, and secondly in journals of environmental sciences and technology.
278 Bibliometric Analyses by Helsinki University Library
Faculty of Law1.4.5 Faculty of Law
Figure 10. Number of publications within subject areas of the Faculty of Law
In the Faculty of Law they publish mostly in journals classified to law and criminology, and secondly general interest periodicals.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 4 6 10 11 12 15 18
36 133
325
Biological sciences Creative arts, culture and music Energy science and technology
Information and communication sciences Mechanical engineering and aerospace
Multidisciplinary journals Psychology
General and industrial engineering Sciences: comprehensive works
Medical sciences Earth sciences and technology
Social and behavioral sciences, interdisciplinary History, philosophy and religion
Literature Economics and business
Sociology and anthropology Political science and public administration
General interest periodicals Law and criminology
No. of publications
Figure 10. Number of publications within subject areas of the Faculty of Law
In the Faculty of Law they publish mostly in journals classified to law and criminology, and secondly general interest periodicals.
279Bibliometric Analyses by Helsinki University Library
Faculty of Medicine1.4.6 Faculty of Medicine
Figure 11. Number of publications within subject areas of the Faculty of Medicine
Researchers of the Faculty of Medicine publish mostly in journals classified to medical sciences, biological sciences and health sciences.
1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 7 8 9 11 12 14 16 23 25 54 55 90 128 237 401
1151 8169
Electrical engineering and telecommunication Energy science and technology
Instruments and instrumentation Language and linguistics
Sociology and anthropology Statistical sciences
Astronomy and astrophysics Computer sciences
Law and criminology Multidisciplinary journals
Earth sciences and technology Economics and business
Educational sciences History, philosophy and religion
Political science and public administration General and industrial engineering
Mathematics Veterinary sciences
Social and behavioral sciences, interdisciplinary Agriculture and food science
Environmental sciences and technology Physics and materials science
Chemistry and chemical engineering Psychology
General interest periodicals Sciences: comprehensive works
Pharmacy and pharmacology Health sciences
Biological sciences Medical sciences
No. of publications
Figure 11. Number of publications within subject areas of the Faculty of Medicine
Researchers of the Faculty of Medicine publish mostly in journals classified to medical sciences, biological sciences and health sciences.
280 Bibliometric Analyses by Helsinki University Library
Faculty of Pharmacy1.4.7 Faculty of Pharmacy
Figure 12. Number of publications within subject areas of the Faculty of Pharmacy
In the Faculty of Pharmacy journals classified to pharmacy and pharmacology form the main forum, and then journals of chemistry and chemical engineering, biological sciences and medical sciences.
1 1 1 2 4 6 7 8 8 12
63 74
121 282
Forestry Language and linguistics
Mechanical engineering and aerospace Educational sciences
Sciences: comprehensive works Physics and materials science
Environmental sciences and technology Agriculture and food science
General and industrial engineering Health sciences
Medical sciences Biological sciences
Chemistry and chemical engineering Pharmacy and pharmacology
No. of publications
Figure 12. Number of publications within subject areas of the Faculty of Pharmacy
In the Faculty of Pharmacy journals classified to pharmacy and pharmacology form the main forum, and then journals of chemistry and chemical engineering, biological sciences and medical sciences.
281Bibliometric Analyses by Helsinki University Library
Faculty of Science1.4.8 Faculty of Science
Figure 13. Number of publications within subject areas of the Faculty of Science
In the Faculty of Sciences there can be seen a variety of subject classifications. Researchers publish most often in journals classified to chemistry and chemical engineering, earth sciences and technology, physics and material science, mathematics, astronomy and astrophysics, as well as biological sciences.
1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 5 6 7 7 8 9 9 11 12 12 15 18 18 19 20 21 23 31
51 75 79 80
101 206
252 324
472 685
763 809
Energy science and technology Humanities: comprehensive works
Multidisciplinary journals Veterinary sciences
Law and criminology Psychology
Sociology and anthropology Social and behavioral sciences, interdisciplinary
Civil engineering and construction Creative arts, culture and music
Educational sciences Literature
Information and communication sciences Instruments and instrumentation
Language and linguistics Political science and public administration
Mechanical engineering and aerospace Pharmacy and pharmacology
Management and planning Agriculture and food science
Forestry Electrical engineering and telecommunication
Economics and business History, philosophy and religion
Health sciences Statistical sciences
General interest periodicals Computer sciences
Medical sciences General and industrial engineering
Sciences: comprehensive works Environmental sciences and technology
Biological sciences Astronomy and astrophysics
Mathematics Physics and materials science
Earth sciences and technology Chemistry and chemical engineering
No. of publications
Figure 13. Number of publications within subject areas of the Faculty of Science
In the Faculty of Sciences there can be seen a variety of subject classifications. Researchers publish most often in journals classified to chemistry and chemical engineering, earth sciences and technology, physics and material science, mathematics, astronomy and astrophysics, as well as biological sciences.
282 Bibliometric Analyses by Helsinki University Library
Faculty of Social Sciences1.4.9 Faculty of Social Sciences
Figure 14. Number of publications within subject areas of the Faculty of Social Sciences
Researchers of the the Faculty of Social Sciences publish most often in journals classified to general interest periodicals. Then come sociology and anthropology, economics and business, history, philosophy and religion, political science and public administration, medical sciences, social and behavioural sciences – interdisciplinary, and health sciences.
1 1 2 4 4 5 6 6 7 7 8 9 10 13 15 16 21 21 27
37 47 51 59
79 151 155 161 165 173
186 205
402
Astronomy and astrophysics Energy science and technology
Physics and materials science Agriculture and food science
Computer sciences General and industrial engineering
Biological sciences Multidisciplinary journals
Civil engineering and construction Humanities: comprehensive works
Forestry Statistical sciences
Mathematics Language and linguistics
Earth sciences and technology Environmental sciences and technology
Creative arts, culture and music Law and criminology Educational sciences
Information and communication sciences Management and planning
Literature Sciences: comprehensive works
Psychology Health sciences
Social and behavioral sciences, interdisciplinary Medical sciences
Political science and public administration History, philosophy and religion
Economics and business Sociology and anthropology General interest periodicals
No. of publications
Figure 14. Number of publications within subject areas of the Faculty of Social Sciences
Researchers of the the Faculty of Social Sciences publish most often in journals classified to general interest periodicals. Then come sociology and anthropology, economics and business, history, philosophy and religion, political science and public administration, medical sciences, social and behavioural sciences – interdisciplinary, and health sciences.
283Bibliometric Analyses by Helsinki University Library
Faculty of Theology1.4.10 Faculty of Theology
Figure 15. Number of publications within subject areas of the Faculty of Theology
Researchers of the Faculty of Theology publish mostly in journals classified to history, philosophy and religion, and then general interest periodicals.
1.4.11 Faculty of Veterinary Medicine
Figure 16. Number of publications within subject areas of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine
1 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 4 6 7 8 8 10 17 20 35
118 433
Economics and business Law and criminology
Management and planning Mathematics
Creative arts, culture and music Health sciences
Information and communication sciences General and industrial engineering
Psychology Humanities: comprehensive works
Political science and public administration Medical sciences
Sociology and anthropology Educational sciences
Social and behavioral sciences, … Sciences: comprehensive works
Literature General interest periodicals
History, philosophy and religion
No. of publications
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3
10 14 14 15
73 93
193 250
Computer sciences Economics and business
Educational sciences Mathematics
Mechanical engineering and aerospace Multidisciplinary journals
Psychology Statistical sciences
Earth sciences and technology General interest periodicals
Chemistry and chemical engineering Sciences: comprehensive works
Environmental sciences and technology Health sciences
Pharmacy and pharmacology Medical sciences
Agriculture and food science Biological sciences
Veterinary sciences No. of publications
Figure 15. Number of publications within subject areas of the Faculty of Theology
Researchers of the Faculty of Theology publish mostly in journals classified to history, philosophy and religion, and then general interest periodicals.
284 Bibliometric Analyses by Helsinki University Library
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine
1.4.10 Faculty of Theology
Figure 15. Number of publications within subject areas of the Faculty of Theology
Researchers of the Faculty of Theology publish mostly in journals classified to history, philosophy and religion, and then general interest periodicals.
1.4.11 Faculty of Veterinary Medicine
Figure 16. Number of publications within subject areas of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine
1 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 4 6 7 8 8 10 17 20 35
118 433
Economics and business Law and criminology
Management and planning Mathematics
Creative arts, culture and music Health sciences
Information and communication sciences General and industrial engineering
Psychology Humanities: comprehensive works
Political science and public administration Medical sciences
Sociology and anthropology Educational sciences
Social and behavioral sciences, … Sciences: comprehensive works
Literature General interest periodicals
History, philosophy and religion
No. of publications
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3
10 14 14 15
73 93
193 250
Computer sciences Economics and business
Educational sciences Mathematics
Mechanical engineering and aerospace Multidisciplinary journals
Psychology Statistical sciences
Earth sciences and technology General interest periodicals
Chemistry and chemical engineering Sciences: comprehensive works
Environmental sciences and technology Health sciences
Pharmacy and pharmacology Medical sciences
Agriculture and food science Biological sciences
Veterinary sciences No. of publications
Figure 16. Number of publications within subject areas of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine
In the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine researchers publish mostly in journals classified to veterinary sciences, then biological sciences, agriculture and food sciences, as well as medical sciences.
285Bibliometric Analyses by Helsinki University Library
Faculty of Swedish School of Social Sciences
In the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine researchers publish mostly in journals classified to veterinary sciences, then biological sciences, agriculture and food sciences, as well as medical sciences.
1.4.12 Faculty of Swedish School of Social Sciences
Figure 17. Number of publications within subject areas of the Swedish School of Social Sciences
The publishing profile of the Swedish School of Social Sciences by journal classification is mostly political science and public administration, then general interest periodicals, sociology and anthropology and literature.
1 1 2 3 3 3
5 5 6
11 15
20 21
31 55
Law and criminology Management and planning
Biological sciences Economics and business
Health sciences Language and linguistics
History, philosophy and religion Psychology
Information and communication sciences Medical sciences
Social and behavioral sciences, interdisciplinary Literature
Sociology and anthropology General interest periodicals
Political science and public administration No. of publications
Figure 17. Number of publications within subject areas of the Swedish School of Social Sciences
The publishing profile of the Swedish School of Social Sciences by journal classification is mostly political science and public administration, then general interest periodicals, sociology and anthropology and literature.
286 Bibliometric Analyses by Helsinki University Library
10.5 RESEARCHER COMMUNITIES IN HULIB BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSES
Table 9. Number of the RCs’ publications according to the Norwegian and Australian publication rankings in Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, Natural Sciences and Humanities
DISCIPLINE RC ACRONYMNORWAY – JOURNAL NORWAY – PUBLISHERS AUSTRALIA – JOURNAL
2 1 01 2 1 01 A* A B C
Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences
VITRI 5 36 0 0 2 10 21 6
SUVALUE 9 102 0 0 3 43 39 58
Natural Sciences
ALKO2 – – – – – – – –
HLG 16 28 0 0 4 23 17 1
NODES3 – – – – – – – –
SOFTSYS2 – – – – – – – –
Humanities AHCI 0 11 0 3 0 0 4 9
AMNE 25 191 6 9 11 13 13 8
ARCH-HU 29 33 0 1 4 14 38 41
ART 15 50 1 22 3 13 19 51
BAULT 32 20 7 12 8 14 14 19
CECH 0 7 0 5 0 0 34 3
CITA 9 22 1 7 3 9 12 11
CMVG 4 71 0 8 0 2 5 7
CoCoLaC 4 53 0 10 0 22 18 11
CSTT 10 13 5 4 7 9 19 16
FC 14 16 17 11 10 12 43 9
Gender Studies 27 71 14 18 2 16 25 31
GLW 1 17 0 61 0 0 5 7
HIST 10 103 39 121 2 12 32 32
ILLC 6 12 18 7 2 2 8 3
Interaction 67 42 6 18 5 19 28 59
LDHFTA 59 41 7 9 3 13 30 54
LFP 9 21 3 6 0 3 6 11
LMPS 49 63 7 26 20 45 33 36
LMS 108 28 15 19 0 3 7 113
MusSig 0 21 1 5 0 5 0 17
PPMP 18 29 6 20 3 16 43 15
RCSP 3 9 0 19 1 2 76 43
RELDIAL 12 27 6 9 0 12 16 13
RELSOC 8 23 4 11 0 13 29 26
SHC 3 43 4 14 5 11 15 36
TraST 3 27 1 5 0 5 1 5
VARIENG 29 55 25 10 0 40 17 22
123
1 2 3
Norwegian journal and publisher rankings’ level 0 is not applied in the evaluation Both CWTS and special analysis by the HU Library Special analyses by the HU Library
287Bibliometric Analyses by Helsinki University Library
In the Table 9 and Table 10 journal articles of the Research Communities have been counted and compared with Norwegian and Australian journal ranking lists. Also the monographs of the Research Communities have been counted and compared with Norwegian publisher ranking list. The numbers in columns tell about the amount of publications in specific ranking value.
Table 10. Number of the RCs’ publications according to the Norwegian and Australian publication rankings in Social Sciences
DISCIPLINE RC ACRONYM NORWAY – JOURNAL NORWAY – PUBLISHERS AUSTRALIA – JOURNAL
2 1 04 2 1 04 A* A B C
Social Sciences
AG ECON 0 18 0 0 0 1 6 7
CEA 13 38 8 77 2 9 19 13
CNC5 – – – – – – – –
CPHS5 – – – – – – – –
CRADLE 20 65 26 41 4 17 36 20
CulCap 3 5 4 4 0 2 2 3
DEPSY5 – – – – – – – –
DEVERELE 5 20 2 3 1 3 10 6
DYNASOBIC6 44 62 1 6 12 21 47 25
EAT6 32 86 3 2 22 41 29 19
ECI 36 119 16 4 10 58 48 78
EdPsychHE6 40 88 3 5 10 31 55 32
ENFIFO 1 30 1 1 1 13 9 4
FCREES 10 135 6 37 0 9 13 20
GENU6 18 63 4 6 6 31 31 15
HELPS 7 26 0 7 1 6 8 20
KUFE 9 28 0 28 0 11 13 8
KUMU 3 31 2 35 2 2 15 15
Law 17 182 13 76 5 13 22 19
MECOL 33 53 5 27 12 14 5 15
METEORI6 28 44 0 7 9 17 28 14
NordSoc 15 97 6 24 4 12 38 26
PEWE5 – – – – – – – –
PosPus 22 64 4 7 4 15 17 46
PPH 7 28 7 2 4 8 17 14
RCMSER6 137 168 0 53 137 122 25 9
SBII 19 40 2 15 2 16 22 19
SCA 7 51 2 4 1 9 41 3
SigMe 13 28 0 3 6 15 13 6
SOCE-DGI 19 20 5 15 4 7 15 5
Sociopolis 13 12 1 2 7 5 8 6
SocStats 6 29 0 3 4 20 9 4
STRUTSI 4 21 0 12 1 5 10 2
STS 24 37 3 4 8 17 29 11
TRANSRURBAN 2 46 0 5 2 7 19 11
TSEM 17 20 0 0 14 16 5 3
4 Norwegian journal and publisher rankings’ level 0 is not applied in the evaluation5 CWTS analysis inclusive6 Both CWTS and the HU Library analyses
288 Bibliometric Analyses by Helsinki University Library
3 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − BIOLOGICAL, AGRICULTURAL AND VETERINARY SCIENCES
4 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − MEDICINE, BIOMEDICINE AND HEALTH SCIENCES
5 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − NATURAL SCIENCES
6 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − HUMANITIES
7 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − SOCIAL SCIENCES
8 OVERALL STATISTICS ON THE EVALUATION
9 RESEARCH PERFORMANCE
10 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSES
12 CONCLUDING REMARKS
13 APPENDICES
2 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION
11 SUMMARY REPORT OF DOCTORAL TRAINING
1 INTRODUCTION TO THE EVALUATION
291Summary Report of Doctoral Training
11. SUMMARY REPORT ON DOCTORAL STUDENTS’ AND PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS’ DOCTORAL TRAINING EXPERIENCES
11.1 INTRODUCTION
The University of Helsinki is an international multidisciplinary university with a high pro-file in research and researcher education. In the Strategic Plan and Research Policy for the University of Helsinki 2010–20121, the University is stated as being commited to the principles of research-based teaching, continuous reassessment of its operations as well as developing academic careers and doctoral education. This report is part of the international evaluation of research and doctoral training at the University of Helsinki. It aims to con-tribute research-based evidence pertaining to the development of doctoral education at the University of Helsinki by exploring how doctoral students and principal investigators (PIs) perceive strengths and challenges within the doctoral training process.
Doctoral students’ and PIs perceptions and experiences of doctoral training were analyzed in terms of three complementary aspects of the training: the doctoral dis-sertation process, supervision, and doctoral studies. The report consists of a summa-ry of the results based on data collected at the University of Helsinki in March 2011.
The PI and doctoral student surveys2 were developed by the evaluation steering group consisting of Vice Rector Johanna Björkroth, Professor Marja Airaksinen, Chief Information Specialist Maria Forsman, Professor Arto Mustajoki, Senior Lecturer Kir-si Pyhältö, Development Director Ossi Tuomi, PhD student Jussi Vauhkonen, Adviser Minna Frimodig, Planning Officer Paula Ranne, Project Manager Seppo Saari, and Adviser Eeva Sievi. During this work the steering group consulted the Doctoral Edu-cation Committee of the University of Helsinki and Professor Timo Aarrevaara from the Faculty of Social Sciences. Professor Sari Lindblom-Ylänne from the Centre for Re-search and Development of Higher Education and Senior Lecturer Auli Toom, Chair of the Network of Pedagogical University Lecturers, also provided their comments on the report. Principal Investigator Jyrki Ollikainen and Hanna Lindholm from the School of Information Sciences, University of Tampere provided the data and analysis for chapter 7. This summary report was compiled by Docent Kirsi Pyhältö3 from the
1 For further information see http://www.helsinki.fi/strategia/pdf/STRATEGIA_web.pdf http://www.helsinki.fi/strategia/pdf/Tutkimuspoliittinen_web.pdf
2 The principal investigator and the doctoral student surveys were developed based on previous research on doctoral training. The surveys include adapted items from the Early Careers of Doctorate Holders survey (Haapasaari, A. 2008), the international Postgraduate Students Mirror survey (Högschoolverket 2006; Dill, D. et al. 2006) PhD, The Changing Academic Profession survey (Aarrevaara, T. & Pekkola, E. 2010), and The PhD Experience questionnaire developed by Pyhältö, K. & Lonka, K. 2006.
3 The authors’ research interests focus on doctoral education.
292 Summary Report of Doctoral Training
Centre for Research and Development of Higher Education, in collaboration with PhD students Jenni Stubb and Jenna Tuomainen from the Faculty of Behavioural Sciences.
11.2 PARTICIPANTS AND DATA COLLECTION
The data reported in this report were collected by e-mail through two online surveys in March 2011. Both the principal investigator survey and the doctoral student survey em-ployed Likert-type statements and open-ended questions concerning three themes: (1) the thesis process, (2) supervision, and (3) doctoral studies, as well as background questions (see Appendix 13 and 14). The questionnaires were available in Finnish, Swedish, and English. The PI survey was sent to all designated PIs4 (n=1491) at the University of Helsinki. The doctoral student survey was sent to all registered doctoral students (n= 4274) at the Uni-versity. The data reported on here were analysed using content analysis and statistical mea-sures including descriptive statistics, independent samples T-tests, ANOVAs, and χ²-tests.
11.2.1 Principal investigators
Altogether 431 PIs (166 women, 40%; 252 men, 60%; mode: 50-54 years) from the Univer-sity of Helsinki completed the survey. The response rate was 29%. The distribution of men and women represent well the gender distribution of the designated PIs at the University. The PIs were from all of the University’s eleven faculties: Arts (n=66), Agriculture and For-estry (n= 41), Behavioral Sciences (n=33), Biological and Environmental sciences (n=34), Law (n=16), Medicine (n=68), Pharmacy (n=13), Science (n=51), Social Sciences (n=53), Theology (n= 15), and Veterinary Medicine (n=17).
The majority of the PIs (62%) were working as professors or research directors, 36% were employed as university lecturers or university researchers, and 2% were univer-sity instructors and post doctoral researchers. Half of the PIs (50%) had been super-vising doctoral students for more than 11 years (mean 13 years). According to the re-ports, the average number of doctoral students under a PI’s supervision at the time of the survey was 5.4. Professors and research directors had typically supervised a higher number of completed doctoral dissertations, reported a higher number of doctoral stu-dents under their supervision, and began their careers as supervisors earlier compa-red to university lecturers or university researchers. The majority of the PIs (71%) re-ported having a suitable number of students to supervise, while a minority considered
4 Designation as principal investigator at the University of Helsinki carries a recognized status and a high profile in the academic community. A PI at the University is typically a person who i) steers and leads research independently, ii) has completed an applicable doctoral degree and is qualified as an independent researcher, iii) has access to the necessary resources (facilities, funding, equipment) for independent research, iv) supervises doctoral students and/or mentors post-doctoral researchers as well as (in applicable research fields) leads a research group, and v) is placed on the third or fourth level in the hierarchy of research positions. In administering external research funding, the PI functions as the project leader, as referred to in the University’s financial regulations. Not all PIs have access to external funding administered at the University, however, and a project leader can also be someone other than a PI, especially in the context of research groups (for example, a doctoral candidate or post-doctoral researcher). (For further information see http://notes.helsinki.fi/halvi/hallinto/Rehtorin.nsf/dc887e3b5230caa0c225685400395d44/78b6368cc8a41a2ac22575e000450160?OpenDocument)
293Summary Report of Doctoral Training
the number either too high (14%) or too low (15%). There were, however, differences with regard to position: professors and research directors more often felt they had too many students to supervise whereas post-docs and university teachers more often felt they had too few (χ²= 12.647, df= 4, p= .013).
11.2.2 Doctoral students
Altogether 1184 doctoral students (770 women, 66%; 383 men, 34%; mode: 30-34 years) from the University of Helsinki, including all eleven faculties, responded to the survey (Ta-ble 1). The distribution of men and women represented the whole population well. The re-sponse rate was 28%.
According to the responses, 50% of the doctoral students expected to finish their doctoral degree within 5 years. About one third (36%) were conducting their thesis in the form of a monograph and 60% as a compilation of articles (Table 1), while 4% re-ported that they did not know in which form they would write their thesis. Monographs were the most typical form of theses in the Faculty of Theology, whereasa compilati-on of articles was most typical thesis form in the Faculty of Medicine. Altogether 775 doctoral students were native Finns writing their thesis in English. The majority of the doctoral students (65%) reported working full-time on their thesis and 35% part-time. There were no differences in the estimated gradutation time between part-time and full-time students.
The doctoral students funded their doctoral education through several different sources. Studying was typically funded by personal grants or by wages from working outside the University. Altogether a third of the students (33%) were conducting their doctoral studies in a doctoral programme or at a graduate school (Table 1). There were some differences between the faculties (χ²= 72.382, df= 10, p= .000). Conducting the work in a graduate school or a doctoral program was most common in pharmacy and least common in theology and arts. The majority of the doctoral students (54%) re-ported working on their doctoral dissertation alone, and a minority (22%) in a group. About a quarter of the students (24%) reported conducting their work both alone and in a group. There were, however, some differences between faculties (χ²= 460.311, df= 20, p= .000). Doctoral students majoring in arts most often reported working on their the-ses alone, whereas doctoral students majoring in biological and environmental sciences most typically reported working on their theses in a group.
294 Summary Report of Doctoral Training
Table 1. Membership in doctoral program and research group, and form of the thesis in each faculty
FACULTY N DOCTORAL PROGRAM % NO YES
GROUP STATUS %ALONE GROUP BOTH
FORM OF THESIS %MONOGRAPH ARTICLE
Biological and environmental sciences
111 53 47 18 56 26 1 93
Veterinary Medicine
47 60 40 24 40 36 2 94
Pharmacy 30 30 70 14 36 50 7 90
Arts 239 81 19 91 1 8 83 14
Behavioral Sciences
98 78 22 54 16 30 29 66
Medicine 141 55 45 18 50 32 1 96
Agriculture and forestry
118 65 35 42 30 28 6 86
Science 157 62 38 40 23 37 7 81
Law 42 74 26 95 - 5 90 10
Theology 59 81 19 72 7 21 93 7
Social sciences 137 67 32 82 2 16 66 41
ALL students 1184 67 33 54 22 24 36 60
Doctoral students working in graduate schools or doctoral programs reported to be more satisfied with their doctoral training than other students (T= -6.126, df=821, p=.000). The form of the thesis, on the other hand, was related to the experienced frequency of supervi-sion (χ²= 199.593, df= 10, p= .000). Doctoral students who were writing their thesis in the form of a compilation of articles reported receiving supervision typically weekly, while stu-dents writing a monograph reported receiving supervision typically monthly or even less fre-quently. Moreover, doctoral students who reported working either in a group or partly in a group reported to be overall more satisfied with their doctoral training than students who reported working alone (F= 20.087, df=2, p= .000). They were also more satisfied with the supervision they had received (χ²= 14.756 df=4, p= .005).
11.3 DOCTORAL THESIS PROCESS
11.3.1 Recruitment of doctoral students
On average, the doctoral students reported that the criteria and selection procedure for doc-toral training were lacking transparency. This was shown, for instance, in viewing the cri-teria as not being openly available and implemented in the selection procedure. However, the students reported more often that support and supervision were ensured during the se-lection process. PIs perceived the recruitment process as better explicated and more trans-parent compared to doctoral students (see Table 2).
295Summary Report of Doctoral Training
Table 2. Doctoral students’ and PIs’ perceptions of selection criteriSTATEMENT (SCALE 1 TO 5) DOCTORAL
CANDIDATE M(SD)
PISM (SD)
SIGNIFICANCE EFFECT SIZE
Predetermined criteria were implemented in the selection.
1.83 (2) 3.1 (1,6) p= .000** 0.70 medium
The selection criteria were openly available. 2.10 (2) 3.0 (1.6) p= .000** 0.50 medium
The selection process was transparent. 1.84 (1.8) 3.0 (1.5) p= .000** 0.71 medium
During the selection process the availability of supervision and support in the field of the dis-sertation was ensured.
2.8 (1,9) 3.9 (1.4) p= .000** 0.66 medium
The selection was decided by a postgraduate admissions committee or an equivalent group.
2.2 (2.2) 2.8 (1.8) p= .000** 0.30 small
Note: **The difference was significant at a ≤ 0.01 level; SD= Standard devision; M= mean
11.3.2 Reasons for undertaking doctoral training
Doctoral students reported various reasons for undertaking doctoral studies. Table 3 shows that four of the most important were interest in research work, doctoral training being a natural continuation of previous studies, interest in a particular topic, and professional development. On the other hand, students rarely emphasized encouragement from others, having no other job prospects, and coincidence as reasons.
Table 3. Reasons for applying for doctoral training (min=1, max=5)
STATEMENT (SCALE 1-5) MEAN(SD)
The doctoral degree was the objective already at the beginning of Master’s studies 2.5 (1.5)
Embarked on the research topic when writing Master’s thesis 3.0 (1.6)
Interest in a particular research topic 3.8 (1.2)
Interest in research in general 4.1 (0.9)
A natural continuation of previous studies or work 3.8 (1.2)
Encouragement from the academic staff 2.9 (1.3)
Encouragement from employer or other expert 2.2 (1.4)
Obtaining qualifications 3.4 (1.3)
Professional development 3.9 (1.1)
Improved career prospects after completing a doctorate 3.0 (1.4)
Improved professional status after completing a doctorate 3.1 (1.4)
Higher salary after completing a doctorate 2.7 (1.3)
No other career prospect in sight 2.2 (1.3)
Coincidence 2.5 (1.4)
Other factor 1.9 (1.6)
Doctoral students who had considered interrupting their training reported to be less moti-vated by the above reasons than those who had not considered an interruption. Coincidence and lack of other job opportunities were more commonly emphasized among students who
296 Summary Report of Doctoral Training
had considered interrupting their studies. All differences were statistically significant (see Appendix 15).
11.3.3 Facilitating and impeding factors and episodes
Doctoral students and PIs reported a variety of factors that either facilitated or impeded the doctoral process, including supervision and scholarly community, personal regulators for the doctoral process, research-specific factors, as well as structures and resources. The em-phasis on both the facilitating (χ²= 76.611, df= 3, p= .000) and impeding (χ²= 53.996, df= 3, p= .000) factors differed between doctoral students and PIs.
Figure 1 shows that the most typical facilitating factor (43%) according to the doc-toral students was high-quality supervision and scholarly community. For instance, the students highlighted encouragement, support, and constructive feedback received from the supervisors as well as supervisors’ expertise and commitment to the supervi-sory relationship as central factors in their doctoral training. In addition, participation in scholarly communities such as working in a research group, as well as peer inter-action and a good atmosphere in seminars, research groups or at the research center was perceived as positive factors in the doctoral training process. On the other hand, a lack of supervision and problems in the supervisory relationship, being an outsider, and destructive friction in the scholarly community such as a competitive academic at-mosphere and conflicts between students and other members of the community, were perceived as impediments in the doctoral process.
The most important resource for doctoral training (39%) identified by the PIs was structures and resources. Continuity and continuous financing as well as financial se-curity were often considered as important preconditions for successful doctoral trai-ning, by both PIs and doctoral students. In addition, other resources and structural factors such as time resources, balancing between personal life and work and between research and other academic duties, organizing of the doctoral training, as well as stu-dy and research facilities were often seen as having an important influence in the doc-toral process by both doctoral students and PIs.
0 %
5 %
10 %
15 %
20 %
25 %
30 %
35 %
40 %
45 %
50 %
Community and
supervision
Personal regulators
Research specific factors
Structures and
resources
Doctoral student
PI
Figure 1. Facilitating factors according to doctoral students and PIs
297Summary Report of Doctoral Training
Personal regulators such as doctoral students’ motivation, competences, efficacy, engage-ment, as well as self-regulative skills were often emphasized as being important in the doc-toral project by both the PIs and students. In turn, a lack of these was seen as an impedi-ment more often by PIs than doctoral students. A minority of the doctoral students and PIs described research-specific factors such as developing high-quality research plans and proj-ects, finding good research questions, in addition to methodological know-how, data col-lection and obtaining results, to be key factors for successful doctoral training. A reason for this may be that both the PIs and doctoral students saw conducting high-quality research as an obvious starting point for doctoral training.
Figure 2 shows that both the doctoral students (59%) and PIs (66%) most often saw a lack of resources and structures as central impediments in the doctoral training process. However, while PIs emphasized insufficient funding as the core impediment, doctoral students highlighted a lack of other resources and structures, such as insuffi-cient time resulting from personal life and other work within and outside of academia, the high amount of administration and bureaucracy involved in doctoral studies, frag-mented employment, as well as insufficient information on doctoral studies.
0 %
10 %
20 %
30 %
40 %
50 %
60 %
70 %
Community and
supervision
Personal regulators
Research specific factors
Structures and
resources
Doctoral student
PI
Figure 2. Impeding factors experienced by doctoral students and PIs
There was a difference in the PIs’ emphasis between different faculties concerning facilitat-ing (χ²= 56.163, df= 30, p= .003) and impeding factors (χ²= 59.948, df= 30, p= .001) in the doctoral training process. Scholarly community and supervision was highlighted as a positive factor in doctoral training most often among PIs in Behavioral Sciences and least often by PIs in Theology. On the other hand, personal regulators were emphasized the most among PIs in Theology and Law and the least by PIs in Agriculture and Forestry. PIs in Veterinary Medicine, Behavioral Sciences, and Law highlighted most the research-specific factors. Funding, structural factors and resources were highlighted the most among PIs in Social Sciences and the least among PIs in Behavioral Sciences.
The impeding factors were experienced differently by doctoral students in the va-rious faculties (χ²= 52.797, df= 30, p= .006). Scholarly community and supervision
298 Summary Report of Doctoral Training
were perceived as impeding factors most often among students in Pharmacy and least often in Theology. Personal regulators were most emphasized as a hindrance among students in Theology and Science and least in Law. On the other hand, doctoral stu-dents in Pharmacy and Biological and Environmental Sciences most often highlighted research-specific factors as impediments in the doctoral process. Structural factors and resources were emphasized the most as impediments among doctoral students in Arts and the least in Biological and environmental sciences.
Consideration of an interruption in doctoral training was associated with the expe-rienced impediments. Doctoral students who had considered interrupting their trai-ning more often highlighted a lack of supervision or scholarly community as an impe-diment to the doctoral process. The relation was statistically significant (χ²= 16.972, df= 3, p= .001).
Perceptions of the facilitating and hindering factors were also related to satisfaction with one’s doctoral training (F= 8.067, df= 3, p= .000). The most satisfied were stu-dents who reported supervision and scholarly community or research-specific factors as the primary facilitating factor in the doctoral training process.
In general, the doctoral students reported being rather satisfied with their own doc-toral training (mean= 3.3; sd= 0.9). Altogether 63% of the students had not considered interrupting their training while 37% had (see Appendix 16).
11.3.4 Supervision
Doctoral students at the University of Helsinki are assigned at least one supervisor in addi-tion to which it is recommended that each student is supported by a monitoring group. 5 In terms of supervising the doctoral process, the University has since 2006 been commited to the following policies6: each doctoral student must be regularly supervised both in research work and in doctoral studies; at the start of doctoral studies particular attention should be given to supervision; each doctoral candidate must be provided with orientation in doctor-al studies and with guidance in taking advantage of course offerings; and the integration of doctoral students into the scholarly community must be supported.
11.3.5 Arrangement and organization of supervision at the University of Helsinki
PIs reported that doctoral students under their supervision were carrying out their thesis work mainly in research groups (44%). A minority of PIs (22%) reported that the doctoral students they were supervising were carrying out the work alone. With respect to this, cer-tain differences between faculties (χ²=169.857, df= 20, p= .000) were evident. PIs who re-ported most often that their doctoral students were working in research groups were from
5 Further information see: http://www.helsinki.fi/strategia/pdf/Tutkimuspoliittinen_web.pdf http://www.helsinki.fi/evaluation/material/research_policy_07-09.pdf#page=8
6 Further information see: http://www.helsinki.fi/tutkinnonuudistus/materiaalit/Policies%20concerning%20doctoral%20degrees%20-%20engl.pdf
299Summary Report of Doctoral Training
the Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences whereas those who reported that their students were working alone were most often from the Faculty of Law.
Table 4 shows that the doctoral students reported their main supervisor for the the-sis process typically to be one designated supervisor. A majority of PIs reported that their doctoral students were supervised by several designated supervisors or a super-visory board. Table 5 shows that the doctoral students found themselves receiving su-pervision typically monthly, while supervisors reported supervising their students ty-pically weekly. There were some differences between disciplines (χ²=282.846, df =50, p= .000). In the faculties of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Veterinary Medi-cine, and Medicine 50% or more students reported receiving supervision either daily or weekly. In Pharmacy, Behavioral Sciences, Arts, Theology, and Agriculture and Fo-restry it was typical to receive supervision either monthly or once every two months. In Arts, Law, and Agriculture and Forestry 15-17% reported receiving supervision less frequently than once every six months.
Table 4. Doctoral students’ and PIs’ perceptions of main supervisorMAIN SUPERVISOR DOCTORAL
STUDENTS %PIS %
One designated supervisor 49 40
Several designated supervisors/supervisory board 47 58
No supervisor 2 -
Does not know 2 8
Note: Some participants chose more than one alternative.
Table 5. Percentage of doctoral students’ and PIs’ perceptions of frequency of supervisionFREQUENCY OF SUPERVISION DOCTORAL
STUDENTS %PIS %
Daily 7 11
Weekly 24 45
Monthly 28 27
Once every other month 18 14
Once in six months 13 2,5
More seldom 10 0,5
Note: Some participants had chosen more than one alternative.
The doctoral students perceived the supervisor and their own field as the most significant factors in their thesis process. On the other hand, doctoral programmes or some other groups/institutes were seldom perceived by the students as important factors in the doc-toral project (see Table 6).
300 Summary Report of Doctoral Training
Table 6. Doctoral students’ perceptions of the significance of different factors in the dissertation project
FACTOR (SCALE 1-5) MEAN(SD)
My supervisor 4.1 (1.1)
My research group 2.7 (1.7)
My doctoral programme/graduate school 1.8 (1.5)
Other doctoral students 3.0 (1.3)
My field 3.8 (1.3)
My department/institute or division at the University 2.9 (1.3)
My faculty or independent institute 2.3 (1.3)
The University of Helsinki or a (sectoral) research institute 2.2 (1.4)
Another group or institute 1.6 (2.0)
Further investigation showed that doctoral students and PIs experienced the significance of different persons or groups differently in terms of supervision. Table 7 indicates that both the students and PIs perceived the main supervisor/senior researcher as the most impor-tant person/group in terms of supervision. The doctoral students felt the support/follow-up/advisory group to be the least important whereas PIs reported someone else/another group as the least important. Overall, the PIs viewed different persons/groups as more influential than did the doctoral students. The differences were statistically significant.
Table 7. Doctoral students’ and PIs’ perceptions of the importance of different persons/groups in supervisionSIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENT ACTORS IN SUPERVISION (SCALE 1-5)
DOCTORAL STUDENTS
M(SD)
PISM(SD)
SIGNIFICANCE EFFECT SIZE
First supervisor/senior researcher 4.04 (1.3) 4.65 (0.9) p= .000** 0.58 medium
Co-supervisor/junior researcher 2.43 (2.0) 3.6 (1.5) p= .000** 0.66 medium
Other members of the supervisory group 1.84 (1.6) 2.53 (1.5) p= .000** 0.44 small
Support/follow-up/advisory group 1.4 (1.4) 2.0 (1.4) p= .000** 0.43 small
Other postgraduate candidate 2.9 (1.3) 3.5 (1.1) p= .000** 0.50 medium
Other members of the research group 2.3 (1.7) 3.6 (1.3) p= .000** 0.86 large
Someone else/another group 1.6 (1.9) 1.3 (1.7) p= .014* 0.17 small
Note: * The difference was significant at the ≤ 0.05 level. **The difference was significant at the ≤ 0.01 level.
11.3.6 The focus and quality of supervision
The doctoral students and PIs reported a variety of tasks they considered to be important for a supervisor. Figure 3 shows that both students (45%) and PIs (39%) highlighted super-vision in the research process – including giving practical help and advice concerning the research topic and research methods, as well as planning the research and reporting on it – to be a supervisor’s most important task. Both the PIs and doctoral students also identi-fied coaching in terms of giving emotional support, encouragement, constructive feedback, and collaborative thinking, as well as promoting the doctoral candidate’s active agency as a member of the scholarly community as an important part of supervising as well. Some PIs
301Summary Report of Doctoral Training
(22%) and doctoral students (13%) perceived project management as the core task of the supervisor. This included writing recommendations for foundations, providing funding and other recources for the doctoral candidate, as well as quality assurance and adopting the role of a gatekeeper. Basic prerequisites for supervision, such as commitment and being avail-able, were also often described. Further, there were some differences concerning the em-phasis on different tasks between doctoral students and PIs (χ²= 25.078, df= 3, 0= .000).
Moreover, in the doctoral students’ reports differences were evident between fa-culties concerning the most important supervisors’ task (χ²= 61.925, df= 30, p= .001). The research process was emphasized most in Social Sciences and least in Veterina-ry Medicine. Coaching was highlighted most in Theology and least in Biological and Environmental Sciences. Project management was highlighted most in Pharmacy and least in Arts. Lastly, basic prerequisites for supervision were emphasized most in Ve-terinary Science and least in Theology.
Doctoral students who emphasized supervision of the research process as the most important task of a supervisor were more satisfied with their doctoral education (F= 5.181, df= 3, p= .001) and with the supervision that they had received than the others (χ²= 18.550, df= 6, p= .005).
Figure 3. Doctoral students’ and PIs’ perceptions of the most important tasks of a supervisor. The relation was statistically significant
The doctoral students and PIs reported that the emphasis of the supervision in the early phases of the doctoral training was on integrating into the scholarly community (see Ap-pendix 17). The doctoral students, however, considered supervision to have focused more on courses at the beginning of the doctoral training. PIs, for their part, reported placing a greater emphasis on supervising the development of students’ research skills later in the doctoral training process. This was also considered to be the main emphasis among the students later in the doctoral process. Altogether, the PIs highlighted the different elements more than did the students.
301Summary Report of Doctoral Training
(22%) and doctoral students (13%) perceived project management as the core task of the supervisor. This included writing recommendations for foundations, providing funding and other recources for the doctoral candidate, as well as quality assurance and adopting the role of a gatekeeper. Basic prerequisites for supervision, such as commitment and being avail-able, were also often described. Further, there were some differences concerning the em-phasis on different tasks between doctoral students and PIs (χ²= 25.078, df= 3, 0= .000).
Moreover, in the doctoral students’ reports differences were evident between fa-culties concerning the most important supervisors’ task (χ²= 61.925, df= 30, p= .001). The research process was emphasized most in Social Sciences and least in Veterina-ry Medicine. Coaching was highlighted most in Theology and least in Biological and Environmental Sciences. Project management was highlighted most in Pharmacy and least in Arts. Lastly, basic prerequisites for supervision were emphasized most in Ve-terinary Science and least in Theology.
Doctoral students who emphasized supervision of the research process as the most important task of a supervisor were more satisfied with their doctoral education (F= 5.181, df= 3, p= .001) and with the supervision that they had received than the others (χ²= 18.550, df= 6, p= .005).
0 %
5 %
10 %
15 %
20 %
25 %
30 %
35 %
40 %
45 %
50 %
Research process Coaching Project management Basic prerequisites
Doctoral student
PI
Figure 3. Doctoral students’ and PIs’ perceptions of the most important tasks of a supervisor. The relation was statistically significant
The doctoral students and PIs reported that the emphasis of the supervision in the early phases of the doctoral training was on integrating into the scholarly community (see Ap-pendix 17). The doctoral students, however, considered supervision to have focused more on courses at the beginning of the doctoral training. PIs, for their part, reported placing a greater emphasis on supervising the development of students’ research skills later in the doctoral training process. This was also considered to be the main emphasis among the students later in the doctoral process. Altogether, the PIs highlighted the different elements more than did the students.
302 Summary Report of Doctoral Training
The doctoral students also had varying experiences of supervision and the condi-tions of doctoral training. On average, they felt that the supervision and feedback was rather constructive, they reported a moderate sense of belonging to the scholarly com-munity, and were satisfactied with working conditions. The variation was highest in constructive supervision and feedback (Appendix 18).
Differences were evident between doctoral students from different faculties concer-ning constructive supervision and feedback, working conditions, and sense of belon-ging to the scholarly community. The most satisfied with the supervision and feedback were students from Theology and Behavioral Sciences and the least were students from Biological and Enivironmental Sciences. Doctoral candidates who felt the strongest sense of belonging to the scholarly community were Veterinary Medicine and Phar-macy students. Law students experienced less of a sense of belonging than the others. The highest degree of satisfaction with working conditions was expressed by Pharmacy students whereas the lowest was expressed by Social Sciences students (Appendix 18).
Doctoral students who had considered interrupting their training were less satis-fied with both the supervisory relationship and working conditions, and felt a weaker sense of belonging to the scholarly community.
In general, the doctoral students were quite satisfied with the supervision (see Table 8). A majority (88%) reported being either satisfied or partly satisfied, while 12% re-ported being dissatisfied. Altogether 16% had changed their supervisor during the doc-toral process either on their own initiative (6%) or for some other reason (10%). There were, however, some differences between faculties. Satisfaction with supervison was highest in Law and Behavioral Sciences and lowest in Biological and Enviromental Sciences. Doctoral students in Behavioral Sciences, Theology and Social sciences had most often changed their supervisor either on their own initiative or for some other reason. The relations between satisfaction with supervision and faculty as well as bet-ween changing a supervisor and faculty were statistically significant.
Table 8. Satisfaction with supervision and consideration of changing supervisors in different facultie
FACULTY SATISFACTION % *YES NO PARTLY
CHANGING OF SUPERVISOR % **YES NO HAVE CONSID.
Biological and environmental sciences 39 23 38 5 75 20
Veterinary Medicine 50 2 48 17 74 9
Pharmacy 43 7 50 23 74 3
Arts 48 10 42 19 9 72
Behavioral Sciences 59 8 33 26 66 8
Medicine 44 12 44 16 78 6
Agriculture and forestry 46 15 39 5 85 10
Science 44 12 44 15 74 11
Law 62 13 25 19 8 73
Theology 47 6 47 23 67 10
Social sciences 47 12 41 24 66 10
Note: * Relation between satisfaction with supervision and faculty among doctoral students was statistically significant (χ²= 34.292, df= 20, p= .024). ** The relation between changing supervisors and the faculty was statistically significant (χ²= 67.574, df= 30, p= .000).
303Summary Report of Doctoral Training
No differences were evident in satisfaction with supervision between part-time and full-time doctoral students. Moreover, there were no differencies in satisfaction with supervision or changing supervisors between doctoral students in doctoral programmes and the others. However, doctoral students who were working in a research group reported to be more sat-isfied with supervision than students who reported working alone.
11.4 DOCTORAL STUDIES
In addition to writing a doctoral thesis, a doctoral degree in Finland includes courses, semi-nars, and a public defence of the thesis. In addition to the dissertation, the requirements for a doctoral degree include 60-80 credits worth of postgraduate studies (40-60 credits [ECTS] in medicine, dentistry and veterinary medicine). In terms of doctoral studies and assess-ment of a thesis the University of HeIsinki is commited to the following policies and prac-tices7: doctoral studies must support the dissertation and provide the knowledge and skills required for research work and other demanding expert assignments; admissions decisions are based on pre-determined and published criteria and systematic admissions; all doctoral students draw up a personal study plan consisting of a research plan and a study progress plan; the personal study plan is updated together with the supervisor throughout the stud-ies; and the assessment criteria for each grade must be clearly described.
11.4.1 Personal study plan
Approximately half of the doctoral students (54%) reported that they had completed a per-sonal study plan (PSP) with their supervisor and 35% that their PSP had been updated. A majority of the students who had updated their PSP (30%) were satisfied with the updating whereas 5% were dissatisfied with it. In Pharmacy, a majority of students reported that the PSP had been updated and that they were satisfied with the updated plan. There were some differences between faculties in whether the doctoral students had made a personal study plan with their supervisors or not (χ²= 62.898, df= 20, p= .000). A PSP was most common among Pharmacy students where almost 80% reported having made one. A PSP was least common in Social Sciences, which was also the only faculty where the majority reported not having made a PSP with their supervisor.
11.4.2 Important elements, relevance and other characteristics of doctoral studies
The students reported that gaining expertise in one’s field was the most important element of their degree whereas career planning, applying for funding, as well as acquiring business, entrepreneurship skills, and IPR skills were seldom considered to be important. PIs consid-ered gaining academic expertise in one’s field to be the most important element of a doc-toral degree, and considered business skills and marketing of research results as the least
7 For further information see http://www.helsinki.fi/tutkinnonuudistus/materiaalit/Policies%20concerning%20doctoral%20degrees%20-%20engl.pdf
304 Summary Report of Doctoral Training
important aspects of expertise gained from a doctoral degree. Altogether the PIs consid-ered the different aspects of expertise to be more important than did the doctoral students.
The doctoral students typically reported that their studies supported the research work rather well in addition to providing expertise for the work and other expert tasks. However, the students also reported that the studies were less likely to provide the skills needed in work outside of university. The students felt that the studies had prog-ressed as planned and to some degree agreed that it was possible to complete studies within four years. As well, a majority did not consider the workload to be too high. PIs, on the other hand, agreed that the doctoral studies supported the doctoral research work quite well. Further, they felt that the studies provided more expertise for research or other expert work than for working generally outside of university. They evaluated rather well their students’ studies progressing as planned and on average did not con-sider the studies to be overly extensive (Appendix 19).
11.4.3 Assessment of doctoral thesis
Altogether 60% of the PIs reported that clear criteria for the assessment of the thesis exist-ed and 65% considered them readily available. The majority of the doctoral students (64%) reported that they did not know the criteria. Close to one third (29%) of the students con-sidered the criteria readily available and 7% did not.
11.5 CHALLENGES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTORAL EDUCATION AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI
The PIs and doctoral students were asked to identify core challenges and ways of developing doctoral training at the University from three perspectives: selection of doctoral students, supervision practices, and doctoral training as a whole.
11.5.1 Selection of doctoral students
Altogether 33% of the doctoral students and 61% of PIs reported that they thought the se-lection process for doctoral training should be developed. Both doctoral students (74%) and PIs (60%) highlighted explication of selection criteria in terms of making it tighter, fairer and more transparent. Moreover, securing financial and supervision resources were consid-ered important by both students and PIs. Further investigation showed that PIs (31%) and students (22%) also considered developing more coherent and open recruitment practices to be a challenge. The PIs emphasized developing certain practices, such as interviews and familiarization periods, whereas the students emphasized open discussions, guidance, and advance information on doctoral education. A few PIs (9%) and doctoral students (3%) re-ported a need for developing a more centralized selection system for the faculty.
305Summary Report of Doctoral Training
11.5.2 Supervision practices
Nearly half of the PIs (43%) and doctoral students (48%) made suggestions for developing the supervision. Among both groups a variety of ideas on how to do this were presented. Both PIs (42%) and doctoral students (42%) highlighted resources and structures, espe-cially more time for supervision, reducing bureaucracy and administrative duties, possibili-ties of frequenting supervisory meetings, as well as a better supervisor-doctoral candidate ratio (more supervisors) as central preconditions for high-quality supervision. Moreover, PIs (37%) highlighted a need for developing more collaborative supervisory practices in-cluding collaboration between researchers and research groups, mentoring, developing a post doc supervisory system, facilitating peer interaction among doctoral students, and de-veloping research group -based supervision practices. This was less frequently described by the doctoral students (21%). On the other hand, the need to develop more systematic and explicit training practices, such as having supervisory agreements, explicating roles, pro-viding guidelines for doctoral students and supervisors, providing knowledge about doc-toral training and career opportunities, as well as pedagogical training for supervisors were emphasized more often by the doctoral students (37%) than PIs (21%). The students also reported a need for extra courses, especially in research methodology, management and project skills, and career planning. The PIs, on the other hand, often emphasized a need for providing doctoral students with courses in academic writing and research methodology.
In total, 34% of the PIs reported that they would like to receive extra support or trai-ning for their duties as supervisors. They identified peer support, developing pedagogi-cal knowledge and skills, and providing basic preconditions for supervision as the main forms of support needed. They also highlighted the importance of pedagogical know-ledge and skills (41%), and hence the need for providing supervisory courses as a form of support. Mentoring, discussing supervision-related issues with peers, and being able to supervise students together were also emphasized by the PIs (30%). Preconditions for supervision identified by PIs included developing structures, rules, and clear roles for both supervisors and doctoral students as well as providing more resources (29%).
11.5.3 Doctoral training as a whole
In general, the doctoral students and PIs had varying ideas about the ways in which doc-toral training as a whole should be developed. PIs (56%) emphasized the development of structures and settings for doctoral training typically in terms of developing doctoral pro-grammes and educational models, reducing bureaucracy, and developing selection as well as providing more funding. These elements were also highlighted by some of the doctoral stu-dents (38%). Both PIs (25%) and students (27%) emphasized the importance of developing more explicit aims and content for doctoral training, such as clarifying the demands of doc-toral studies and thesis writing, as well as developing study and career planning. Moreover, doctoral students (35%) emphasized the development of supervision and the practices of scholarly communities in terms of providing sufficient supervision, focusing of supervision resources, as well as promoting students’ participation in the scholarly community. These factors were also emphasized by a number of PIs (19%).
306 Summary Report of Doctoral Training
11.6 CAREER AND EMPLOYMENT SURVEY FOR UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI PHD HOLDERS
Data reported in this section are based on the 2010 Sainio National Career and Employment Survey carried out by the University of Helsinki’s career and recruitment services in collabo-ration with the Ministry of Culture and Education. The survey was e-mailed to all doctoral students who had graduated in 2006 and 2007 from the University of Helsinki. The data were collected during summer 2009. The data and the analysis for this section are provided by Principal Investigator Jyrki Ollikainen in collaboration with Lecturer Hanna Lindholm from the School of Information Sciences, University of Tampere.
11.6.1 Participants
Altogether 421 PhD holders (240 women; 181 men; mean age 36) from the University of Helsinki completed the survey. The response rate was 51%. The survey used Likert-type statements and open-ended questions concerning two themes: (1) doctoral training, (2) employment and careers. Background questions were also used. The participants repre-sented all eleven faculties of the University: Arts (n=38), Behavioral Sciences (n=36), Law (n=13), Social Sciences (n=41), Theology (n=12), Science (n= 63), Medicine (n=100), Phar-macy (n=9), Veterinary Medicine (n= 7), Agriculture and Forestry (n=41), and Biological and Environmental sciences (n=61).
11.6.2 Employment and careers of PhD holders
Approximately one fourth of the PhD holders (26%) had finished their doctoral degree with-in four years, 15% in five years and 15% in six years. Close to a fourth (23%) completed their degree in seven to ten years. The proportion of those who studied for over ten years was 21%. There was also a variation between the faculties in terms of graduation time as well as number of completed degrees (Appendix 20).
A majority of respondents (91%) had been employed after receiving their doctoral degree. About one tenth (9%) reported that they had experienced unemployment after-wards. However, 62% of those who had experienced unemployment had been unemp-loyed for under 12 months.
At the time of the survey a majority of PhD holders (89%) were employed full time either in permanent or temporary positions. As well, 4% were working part time, 4% were on parental leave while 2% were unemployed, and 1% reported some other form of employment. Further investigation indicated that the most typical (43%) primary work assignments among the PhD holders consisted of research (Figure 4). About a fifth of the doctors worked in client- and patient-related professions. Training and de-velopment were reported as primary work assignments by 18%. Figure 4 shows PhD holders also working in fields where their primary assignments included management, administration, and other tasks.
307Summary Report of Doctoral Training
Figure 4. Primary work assignments reported by PhD holders
11.7 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The results presented in this report provide information concerning how doctoral students and PIs at the University of Helsinki perceived the supervision, main challenges, and re-sources of the University’s doctoral process along with the doctoral studies themselves, the admission and assessment criteria, and the challenges involved with further developing doc-toral education at the University. It also sheds light on how the doctoral students have expe-rienced their learning environment. The results can be summarized as follows:
In general, the doctoral students reported being rather satisfied with their doctoral train-ing. Doctoral students working in graduate school or doctoral programs reported being more satisfied with their doctoral training than other students. Moreover, doctoral stu-dents working in a group reported being more satisfied with their training than students who reported working alone. They were also more satisfied with the supervision they had received.
High-quality supervision and a scholarly community were identified by the doctoral stu-dents as the most important elements in doctoral training. The PIs emphasized struc-tures and resources as being the most important. Both doctoral students and PIs most often perceived insufficient resources and structures as key impediments in the doctoral training process.
The doctoral students appeared quite satisfied with the supervision. They reported that their main supervisor for the thesis process was typically one designated supervisor. They also reported receiving supervision typically monthly, while supervisors reported super-vising their students weekly. Both the doctoral students and PIs highlighted supervision of the research process as the most important task of the supervisor. There were no dif-ferences in satisfaction with supervision between part-time and full-time students. Doc-toral students who were working in a research group reported being more satisfied with supervision than students who reported working alone.
307Summary Report of Doctoral Training
0 %
5 %
10 %
15 %
20 %
25 %
30 %
35 %
40 %
45 %
50 %
Research Client/patient work Training and development
Management Administration Other
Figure 4. Primary work assignments reported by PhD holders
11.7 suMMary of results
The results presented in this report provide information concerning how doctoral students and PIs at the University of Helsinki perceived the supervision, main challenges, and re-sources of the University’s doctoral process along with the doctoral studies themselves, the admission and assessment criteria, and the challenges involved with further developing doc-toral education at the University. It also sheds light on how the doctoral students have expe-rienced their learning environment. The results can be summarized as follows:
In general, the doctoral students reported being rather satisfied with their doctoral train-ing. Doctoral students working in graduate school or doctoral programs reported being more satisfied with their doctoral training than other students. Moreover, doctoral stu-dents working in a group reported being more satisfied with their training than students who reported working alone. They were also more satisfied with the supervision they had received.
High-quality supervision and a scholarly community were identified by the doctoral stu-dents as the most important elements in doctoral training. The PIs emphasized struc-tures and resources as being the most important. Both doctoral students and PIs most often perceived insufficient resources and structures as key impediments in the doctoral training process.
The doctoral students appeared quite satisfied with the supervision. They reported that their main supervisor for the thesis process was typically one designated supervisor. They also reported receiving supervision typically monthly, while supervisors reported super-vising their students weekly. Both the doctoral students and PIs highlighted supervision of the research process as the most important task of the supervisor. There were no dif-ferences in satisfaction with supervision between part-time and full-time students. Doc-toral students who were working in a research group reported being more satisfied with supervision than students who reported working alone.
308 Summary Report of Doctoral Training
Altogether 37% of the doctoral students had considered interrupting their training. Doc-toral students who had considered interrupting their training more often highlighted a lack of supervision or scholarly community as impediments. They were also less satisfied with supervision than students who had not considered interrupting their training.
The doctoral students often reported that their studies supported the research work rath-er well and provided expertise for research work and other expert tasks. Close to half of the students reported that they had completed a personal study plan.
The doctoral students felt that the admission and assessment criteria for doctoral training were rather unclear and lacking in transparency. Both doctoral students and PIs high-lighted the importance of developing more transparent criteria for doctoral student ad-mission.
In terms of developing doctoral training supervision, both PIs and doctoral students em-phasized providing more resources and structures, particularly more time for supervi-sion, as well as reducing bureaucracy and administrative duties, frequenting supervisory meetings, and a better supervisor-student ratio as central preconditions for high-quality supervision. In total, one third of the PIs reported that they wished to receive extra sup-port or training for their duties as supervisors. The PIs identified peer support, develop-ing pedagogical knowledge and skills, and providing basic preconditions for supervision as the main forms of support needed. They also highlighted the importance of pedagogi-cal knowledge and skills, and hence the need for providing supervisory courses as a form of support.
Both PIs and doctoral students emphasized the importance of creating more functional structures and settings, typically in terms of developing doctoral programmes and edu-cational models, reducing bureaucracy, developing doctoral student admission as well as providing more funding.
Doctoral degree holders’ graduated from the University of Helsinki usually reported be-ing employed full time in either permanent or temporary positions.
3 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − BIOLOGICAL, AGRICULTURAL AND VETERINARY SCIENCES
4 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − MEDICINE, BIOMEDICINE AND HEALTH SCIENCES
5 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − NATURAL SCIENCES
6 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − HUMANITIES
7 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − SOCIAL SCIENCES
8 OVERALL STATISTICS ON THE EVALUATION
9 RESEARCH PERFORMANCE
10 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSES
11 SUMMARY REPORT OF DOCTORAL TRAINING
13 APPENDICES
2 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION
12 CONCLUDING REMARKS
1 INTRODUCTION TO THE EVALUATION
311Concluding Remarks
12. CONCLUDING REMARKS
Model of Research Evaluation of the University of Helsinki – MORE – Helsinki
The steering group of the evaluation discussed the title of the evaluation or acronym which could describe the character of the implemented evaluation model. One acronym discussed was MORE. MORE provides more but should not expect more work. On the contrary MORE can be produced by less work. The implemented meta-evaluation as such can be carried out without extra workload from the researchers. All the evaluation data could be acquired direct from the University’s database. For the evaluation purposes special questions addressed to the researchers should be acquired separately.
TUHAT research information system worked as a source and platform for the evaluation. The critical points are now recognised and more fluent procedures learnt filling the gaps. The evaluation model as such can be repeated whenever without extra workload, as a part of everyday information production and used that for the decision making. There is one request – researchers should keep their files updated. In the long run, it is a privilege to the University and to the researchers themselves.
The complementary information compiled for the purposes of the evaluation – basic bibliometrics by the CWTS/Leiden and the UHLibrary served the aims of the evaluation providing new approach and figures of how to acquire and analyse the quality of publications.
Evaluation reporting
The University level evaluation report includes five main parts: Background, Panel-specific feedback, Bibiometrics by the CWTS/Leiden, Bibliometrics by the Helsinki University Library and Doctoral survey. The RC-specific reports were published as 136 electronic versions only.
Relevant conclusions from the evaluation can be drawn by reading the feedback to the RCs with the attached original evaluation material, bibliometric reports and also panels’ feedback to the University. The Panels’ feedback is a composition of all the material provided for them.
University’s general performance
All the data analysed by the CWTS/Leiden University shows that expected mean normalised citation scores are 52 percent higher than the world average and the impact of journals is high being 32 percent above the world average (2005–2010). At the same time period the level of Top10% publications was 51 % higher than the world average. During the years 2007–2010 the development of indicators is increasing compared to the earlier four years’ period (2005–2008) (mean normalised citation score) from 50% to 59%, (mean normalised
312 Concluding Remarks
journal impact) from 29% to 35% and (Top 10% most frequently cited publications) from 52% to 53%.
When all the university data was analysed by the CWTS/Leiden the artificial structure of the fields of sciences was constructed following the panel structure combined with the predetermined classification of Leiden and WoS which divide the fields of sciences into 7 disciplines, 14 main fields, 35 areas of research and 250 subject fields. Typical example of the mismatch in the fields of sciences was Medicine where “Basic medical sciences” includes Medicinal Chemistry; Biomedical Engineering; Material Science, Biomaterials and Medical Informatics. The number of publications and other indicators show that the field does not represent the typical performance on the Basic medical sciences at the University of Helsinki. Better applicable fields, e.g., are Biomedical sciences and Clinical medicine that seems to be relevant and the performance of the University is fairly high.
General impression written by the Panels was that the performance of the University of Helsinki is outstanding or excellent. RCs’ research in all panels was evaluated being well established and high quality. Panels’ descriptive feedback confirms the conclusions.
The number of publications differs in the analyses. Differences in numbers depend on publications identified in WoS. When the RCs were analysed the same publication could belong to several RCs, because of common authors and because the same PI was allowed to participate in two communities. This is one reason why the list of publications includes overlapping. The original data also included overlapping because , e.g., the title variants.
University level publication analysis of “international collaboration” was based on 15,000 WoS publications. Publications with international collaboration were included 7,550 and their mean normalised citation score was 84 percent higher than the world average. National collaboration included 3,750 publications and their mean normalised citation score was 17 percent higher than the world average. Of publications 3,640 represented “no collaboration” and was 22 percent higher than the world average.
Researcher Communities´ performance
The number of RCs in the panel of Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences was 26. The analysis indicated that at least 20 of the 26 RCs publish in high impact publications and their impact is high as well. Five of the rest six RCs publish in high impact journals with close to the world average. RCs, 18 performed with high and robust publication practices.
The number of RCs in the panel of Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences was 23. The analysis indicated that 19 of the 23 RCs publish in high impact publications and their impact is high as well. Of the other four RCs, three publish their papers in high-impact journals receiving citations close to the world average. The publication activity of RCs gives an idea of how robust the field normalized indicator MNCS is. RCs, 17 of all 23 had good and robust publication practices being remarkably over the world average.
The number of RCs in the Panel of Natural Sciences is 22. Three of them were analysed also by the HULib. Of 19 RCs, 14 publish in high impact journals and their impact is high, too. The 15 RCs indicated good and robust publication practices. Mean normalised citations in Top 10% publications exceed the international average.
313Concluding Remarks
Mainly for the Humanities and Social Sciences the evaluation office applied the publication forum using the Norwegian and Australian publication rankings. The Finnish Publication Forum could not be applied. It was not published before the analyses. The reason for applying Norwegian model was that the Finnish Publication Forum is partly based on the Norwegian ranking. Because there was also no previous model to do analyses, the report includes some exercises applied. The conclusions should, however, only carefully be drawn. The number of publications was divided by the members in each RC, so the figures can be interpreted to represent “member-normalised” indicators. There is not available any comparable average indicators. The presented indicators should be interpreted only in the field specific context in accordance to the publication tradition. In addition there is no way to test the relevance of the indicators chosen.
All the RCs in the panel of Humanities were analysed by the HuLib only. The RCs in Humanities have the most of “popular publications”. Their publications belong evenly to all publication types. Based on this, the publication tradition can be considered extensive. The mean of indicator is 23.1. Fourteen of 28 RCs reached higher than the average in the panel.
In the Panel of Social sciences 36 RCs participated in the evaluation. The HuLib analysis were done for 32 RCs. Six RCs were provided with both the CWTS/Leiden and HuLib analyses. In social sciences 4/5 of the RCs with only the CWTS/Leiden analysis were scored with highest marks by the Panel. In the Panel of social sciences 10 RCs of 32 RCs received member-balanced figures over the mean value (24.9).
From the exercise point of view it is interesting that the constructed mean between Humanities and Social Sciences was close to each other (23.1 and 24.9).
The correlation between the bibliometric indicators and Panels’ scores were compared during the panels’ work. They are not published because they were as background information for the panels and changed during the evaluation procedure. In the future it would be useful to analyse all the data and to find factors that indicate high scores delivered by the panels. It would be useful to analyse the basic data more and draw conclusions how the success was built in the evaluation.
The analysis by HuLib was a new endeavour and gives an example of how the quality of publications in the Humanities and Social Sciences can be evaluated. The Norwegian and Australian application model gives only one model of implementation of the publication ranking.
Concept of Researcher Community
The Panels were mainly positive for the new concept in the evaluation. The panels discussed much the possibilities of the Researcher Communities. The RCs were formed bottom-up by initiative of the research groups themselves. The University of Helsinki has the potential to develop dynamic research units that can explore multi- and inter-disciplinary research and capture expertise available within the University.
RCs should have defined more clearly the stage of their development and they should have clear goals to achieve, e.g. in shaping a new sub-discipline or in a new challenge in
314 Concluding Remarks
funding. It was not clear what the actual status of RCs is in relation to the department or faculty structure or other structures (like the Centres of Excellence).
RCs provide flexible units that have the potential to capture research units without the constraint of departmental boundaries, they are potential to develop dynamic research units that can explore multi- and inter-disciplinary research and capture expertise available within the University.
The key question still remains, how the RCs are going to continue cooperation and how the University can develop the concept of RC. A question is concerned with what will happen to the RCs. It is good to keep their flexibility, but probably some of them might have to move into a more institutionalized stage, maybe a 10-year program or an institutional format on a 10-year-basis, after which it might be reconsidered through an evaluation. University should encourage in building new researcher communities in future, too.
Doctoral training
The Panels were generally impressed with the training programs outlined in the RCs’ documents including the Summary report on doctoral students’ and principal investigators’ doctoral training experiences. The various doctoral training programmes run very well and result is very good students qualifying for a PhD.
The panels missed more information about the organising doctoral training. University, however, does not have statistics based on the RCs because all the statistics are based mainly on faculty structures.
Participation category
There were two opposite views to participation categories. Participation categories should be reduced, e.g. the difference between the categories 1 and 2 was experienced to be too small. The other panel suggested adding a new category: solid, high quality research. Category fitness should not be part of the total score that reflects the quality of research and doctoral training.
Panels’ role
The mandate to review was delegated to the Panels exclusively. In the meta-evaluation special expertise of all the research fields cannot always be covered or ensured. The chairs of the panels discussed beforehand their competence to tackle the challenge and they confirmed managing it.
Rightly the evaluation feedback should be judged, too. The evaluation procedure, however, does not include possibility to complain the evaluation results.
3 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − BIOLOGICAL, AGRICULTURAL AND VETERINARY SCIENCES
4 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − MEDICINE, BIOMEDICINE AND HEALTH SCIENCES
5 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − NATURAL SCIENCES
6 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − HUMANITIES
7 PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK − SOCIAL SCIENCES
8 OVERALL STATISTICS ON THE EVALUATION
9 RESEARCH PERFORMANCE
10 BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSES
11 SUMMARY REPORT OF DOCTORAL TRAINING
12 CONCLUDING REMARKS
2 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION
13 APPENDICES
1 INTRODUCTION TO THE EVALUATION
317Appendices
APPENDIX 1. FOCUS AREAS OF RESEARCH
In the performance agreement between the University of Helsinki and the Ministry of Education and Culture, the University defined the following as its focus areas for the period 2010–2012: 1) the thinking and learning human being, 2) health and welfare, 3) climate and environmental changes and natural resources, and 4) cultures and society.
The focus areas are based on proven excellence, social significance and emerging fields of importance. In line with the University’s strategic plan, these focus areas draw on research of a high standard and are shown to have a high societal impact.
The faculties, departments and independent institutes have specified their own key focus areas, which they have presented in their target programmes and action plans.
The University will take these key areas into account in human resources planning and infrastructure funding and will monitor that the detailed specifications below are considered in the prioritisation of unit- specific operations. Any revisions to the key focus areas will be agreed upon annually in connection with the drafting of target programmes and action plans. The results of the ongoing evaluation of research will be taken into account in the revision.
The contents of the key focus areas specified on the University level are as follows:
The basic structure, materials and natural resources of the physical world includes, for example, materials- and energy-related chemistry, physics, nano research and research on geological processes as well as CERN activities. The national centres of excellence in this key focus area are the following: 1) the Finnish Centre of Excellence in Computational Molec ular Science and 2) the Centre of Excellence in Functional Printable Materials.
The basic structure of life encompasses, among other things, genetics research, systemic biology and biotechnology. The national centres of excellence in this key focus area are the following: 1) the Finnish Centre of Excellence in Molecular and Integrative Neuroscience Research, 2) the Centre of Excellence in Cancer Biology, 3) the Finnish Centre of Excellence in Virus Research, 4) the Finnish Centre of Excellence in Translational Genome-Scale Biology, 5) the Centre of Excellence in Evolutionary Genetics and Physiology, 6) the Finnish Centre of Excellence in Plant Signal Research, 7) the Centre of Excellence in Complex Disease Genetics.
The changing environment – clean water includes, for example, atmospheric and climate change research, research on the effects of climate change, research on the Baltic Sea and its drainage basin as well as other environmental research within the biosciences, arts, social sciences and law. The national centres of excellence in this key focus area are the following: 1) the Finnish Centre of Excellence in Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Meteorology of Atmospheric Composition and Climate, and 2) the Finnish Centre of Excellence in Metapopulation Research.
318 Appendices
The thinking and learning human being encompasses, among other things, brain research, learning research, research on linguistic interaction as well as research on education and innovation. The national centres of excellence in this key focus area are the following: 1) the Centre of Excellence in Systems Neuroscience and Neuroimaging Research, and 2) the Finnish Centre of Excellence in Philosophical Psychology, Morality and Politics.
Welfare and safety encompasses research focusing on the production and safety of food and medicines, for example. The national centre of excellence in this key focus area is the Centre of Excellence in Microbial Food Safety Research.
Clinical research includes, for example, clinical translational medicine, personalised medicine and clinical veterinary medicine. The Meilahti Campus accommodates six research programmes that integrate clinical and basic research.
Precise reasoning encompasses, among other things, mathematics and information sciences as well as their applications in other fields. The national centres of excellence in this key focus area are the following: 1) the Finnish Centre of Excellence in Analysis and Dynamics Research, 2) the Finnish Centre of Excellence in Algorithmic Data Analysis Research, and 3) the Finnish Centre of Excellence in Inverse Problems.
Language and culture includes, for example, research on identities, cultures, legal cultures and religions as well as research on Finnish culture and the changes taking place under the pressure of multiculturalism. The national centres of excellence in this key focus area are the following: 1) the Centre of Excellence in the Ancient Greek Written Sources and 2) the Centre of Excellence for the Study of Variation, Contacts and Change in English.
Social justice encompasses, among other things, research on the fairness of the legal system, the Nordic welfare state, ethnicity and ethical systems. The national centre of excellence in this key focus area is the Finnish Centre of Excellence in Foundations of European Law Polity Research.
Globalisation and social change includes, for example, social research on globalisation and locality as well as European studies and Russian Studies. The national centre of excellence in this key focus area is the Centre of Excellence in Global Governance Research.
319Appendices
APPENDIX 2. DETAILED TIME TABLE OF THE EVALUATION
Table 1. Stages of evaluation including the material provision, timing and responsible actors in the evaluation
STAGES AND MATERIAL PROVISION TIMING RESPONSIBLE ACTOR
Planning the evaluation January 2010–May 2010 Steering group/ Evaluation office
Planning and implementation the evaluation procedure
June 2010–May 2011 Steering group/ Evaluation office
Registration to the evaluation November 2010 RCs
Evaluation questions (self-evaluation) January–February 2011 RCs
Submission of publications January 2011 RCs
Submission of other scientific activity February 2011 RCs
Checking the publications March 2011 RCs
Checking the other scientific activity March–May 2011 RCs
Mapping the TUHAT data with WoS Ids April 2011 Evaluation office
Bibliometric report on publications April–May 2011 University of Leiden
Filling the gaps in mapping WoS Ids May 2011 Evaluation Office, TUHAT, Leiden
Special publication analysis (mainly in hum. and social sciences)
May–June 2011 University Library
PRE-MEETING IN AMSTERDAM 27 MAY 2011 PANEL CHAIRS/VICE-CHAIRS
STAGES AND MATERIAL PROVISION TIMING RESPONSIBLE ACTOR
Sample material to the Chairs and Vice-Chair May 2011 Evaluation OfficeChairs/Vice-Chairs
Distribution of reading lists to the panellists May - June 2011 Evaluation OfficeChairs/Vice-Chairs
BEFORE THE MEETING IN HELSINKI – ORIENTATION, PREPARATIONS AND EVALUATION AT DESK - FROM JUNE TO AUGUST 2011
STAGES AND MATERIAL PROVISION TIMING RESPONSIBLE ACTOR
Evaluation material to the Panels June 2011 Evaluation office
Orientation to the evaluation June - July 2011 All Panellists
Evaluation at desk By 22 August 2011 All Panellists
Report of survey on doctoral training July - August 2011 Evaluation Office, YTY*
University level bibliometric report August 2011 University of Leiden
Draft report compilation to the Panels based on the preliminary evaluation feedback (August 2011)
On 26 September 2011 onwards
Evaluation officeAll panellists
320 Appendices
Seminar on bibliometrics and comparable analyses for RCs 7 September 2011organised by the UH Library - Evaluation office, RCs, the CWTS/Leiden University.
PANEL MEETING IN HELSINKI: 11–13 SEPTEMBER 2011 PANELS 1, 2 AND 3
BIOLOGICAL, MEDICINE AND NATURAL SCIENCES
STAGES AND MATERIAL PROVISION TIMING RESPONSIBLE ACTOR
Orientation to the tasks in Helsinki 11 September Panels – Festival House of UH
Dinner with the rectors and deans 11 September Panels – Festival House of UH
Panels at work 12–13 September 2011 Panels on campuses
Panel dinner among panellists 12 September 2011 Panels
Meeting with the RCs – questions to be addressed**, general remarks
13 September 2011+ on-line VIDEO
Panels on campuses
Penultimate version of the RC-specific evaluation feedback
13 September Panels
Primary version of the University level findings and recommendations
13 September Chairs/Vice-Chairs
PANEL MEETING IN HELSINKI: 18–20 SEPTEMBER 2011 PANELS 4 AND 5HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
STAGES AND MATERIAL PROVISION TIMING RESPONSIBLE ACTOR
Orientation to the tasks in Helsinki 18 September Panels – Festival House of UH
Dinner with the rectors and deans 18 September Panels – Festival House of UH
Panels at work 18–19 September 2011 Panels on campuses
Panel dinner among panellists 19 September 2011 Panels
Meeting with the RCs – questions to be addressed**, general remarks
19 September 2011+ on-line VIDEO
Panels on campuses
Penultimate version of the RC specific evaluation findings
19 September Panels
Primary version of the University level findings and recommendations continuation to the reporting of Panels 1,2,3
19 September Chairs/Vice-Chairs
WORK AFTER THE PANEL MEETINGS SEPTEMBER – NOVEMBER 2011
STAGES AND MATERIAL PROVISION TIMING RESPONSIBLE ACTOR
Feedback on the penultimate RC-specific feedback September 2011 Chairs/Vice-Chairs
Final version of the RC-specific feedback October 2011 Chairs/Vice-Chairs
Penultimate version of the University level report October 2011 Chairs/Vice-Chairs
Final version of the University level report November 2011 Chairs/Vice-Chairs
Editing and completing the report November 2011–February 2012 Evaluation office
Published reports March–April 2011 Evaluation office
*YTY = The Helsinki University Centre for Research and Development of Higher Education.**The RCs will send their questions to the panels before the meetings in Helsinki, by 6 September at the latest. The evaluation office will compile the questions. The meetings are organised at the campuses. The invitations to RCs are addressed to three representatives of each RC including one doctoral candidate. The meeting can also be followed online.
321Appendices
APPENDIX 3. EVALUATION ASPECTSTable 2. Evaluation aspects in connection with the evaluation questions.EVALUATIONQUESTIONS
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
EVALUATION ASPECTS(SHADOWED)
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Conc
ludi
ng re
mar
ks
Scie
ntifi
c qu
ality
Scie
ntifi
c si
gnifi
canc
e
Soci
etal
impa
ct
Proc
esse
s of
L&M
6
Colla
bora
tion
Inno
vativ
enes
s
Futu
re s
igni
fican
ce
1Focus and quality of research
TUHAT /publication statistics and listsBibliometrics byCWTS and UH Library
a b c f Outstanding quality and results Excellent quality and results Very good quality and results Good quality and results Sufficient quality and results
Conc
ludi
ng v
iew
on
the
follo
win
g: S
tren
gths
, Are
as n
eed
for d
evel
opm
ent,
Oth
er re
mar
ks, R
ecom
men
datio
ns
2Practices and quality of doctoral training
TUHAT/ supervision of doctoral dissertations
d Outstanding quality and results Excellent quality and results Very good quality and results Good quality and results Sufficient quality and results
3Societal impact of researchand doctoraltraining
TUHAT/other scientific. activities statistics and lists.
c e f Outstanding quality and results Excellent quality and results Very good quality and results Good quality and results Sufficient quality and results
4International and national research collaboration
a e Outstanding quality and results Excellent quality and results Very good quality and results Good quality and results Sufficient quality and results
5Operational conditions
d Feedback according to the aspect without level
6Leadership and management
d Feedback according to the aspect without level
7Funding
a b c f g Feedback according to the aspects without level
8Strategic action plan
a b c d e f g Feedback according to the aspects without level
9Category1–8
Evidence to the choice of the category(the answers to the previous questions1–8)
a b c d e f g Outstanding fitness for category choice Excellent fitness for category choice Very good fitness for category choice Good fitness for category choice Sufficient fitness for category choice
The panellists provide the questions 1–4 and 9 both as descriptive and numerical feedback. The questions5–8 are evaluated only as descriptive.
322 Appendices
APPENDIX 4. TABLE OF FIELDS OF SCIENCES IN THE CWTS/LEIDEN ANALYSES
DISCIPLINES (7) MAIN FIELDS (14) AREAS OF RESEARCH (35)
SUBJECT FIELDS (250)
Engineering sciences
Engineering sciences
Civil engineering and construction
Construction & building technologyEngineering, civil
Electrical engineering and telecommunication
Automation & control systemsEngineering, electrical & electronicRoboticsTelecommunicationsTransportationTransportation science & technology
Energy science and technology
Energy & fuelsEngineering, petroleumMining & mineral processingNuclear science & technology
General and industrial engineering
Engineering, industrialEngineering, manufacturingEngineering, multidisciplinaryErgonomics
Instruments and instrumentation
Instruments & instrumentationMicroscopy
Mechanical engineering and aerospace
AcousticsEngineering, aerospaceEngineering, mechanicalMechanicsThermodynamics
Language, information and communication
Information and communication sciences
Information and communication sciences
CommunicationInformation science & library science
Language, linguistics and literature
Language and linguistics
Language & linguisticsLinguistics
Literature Literary reviewsLiterary theory & criticismLiteratureLiterature, african, australian, canadianLiterature, americanLiterature, british islesLiterature, german, dutch, scandinavianLiterature, romanceLiterature, slavicPoetry
Law, arts and humanities
Culture Creative arts, culture and music
ArchitectureArtAsian studiesClassicsDanceFilm, radio, televisionFolkloreHumanities, multidisciplinaryMusicTheater
323Appendices
DISCIPLINES (7) MAIN FIELDS (14) AREAS OF RESEARCH (35)
SUBJECT FIELDS (250)
History, philosophy and religion
ArchaeologyEthicsHistoryHistory & philosophy of scienceHistory of social sciencesMedical ethicsMedieval & renaissance studiesPhilosophyReligionTheology (added in evaluation, not included in analysis)
Law Law and criminology
Criminology & penologyLawMedicine, legal
Medical and life sciences
Health sciences Health sciences Geriatrics & gerontologyGerontologyHealth care sciences & servicesHealth policy & servicesNursingRehabilitationSocial workSport sciencesSubstance abuse
Life sciences Agriculture and food science
Agricultural engineeringAgricultural experiment station reportsAgriculture, dairy & animal scienceAgriculture, multidisciplinaryAgronomyFood science & technologyNutrition & dieteticsSoil science
Basic life sciences Biochemical research methodsBiochemistry & molecular biologyBiophysicsBiotechnology & applied microbiologyCell biologyDevelopmental biologyGenetics & heredityMicrobiologyReproductive biology
Biological sciences Behavioral sciencesBiologyEntomologyEvolutionary biologyFisheriesHorticultureMarine & freshwater biologyMathematical & computational biologyMycologyOrnithologyPlant sciencesZoology
324 Appendices
DISCIPLINES (7) MAIN FIELDS (14) AREAS OF RESEARCH (35)
SUBJECT FIELDS (250)
Medical sciences Basic life sciences Cell & tissue engineering
Basic medical sciences
Chemistry, medicinalEngineering, biomedicalMaterials science, biomaterialsMedical informatics
Biomedical sciences Anatomy & morphologyImmunologyIntegrative & complementary medicineMedical laboratory technologyMedicine, research & experimentalNeuroimagingNeurosciencesPharmacology & pharmacyPhysiologyRadiology, nuclear medicine & medical imagingToxicologyVirology
Clinical medicine AllergyAndrologyAnesthesiologyCardiac & cardiovascular systemsClinical neurologyCritical care medicineDentistry, oral surgery & medicineDermatologyEmergency medicineEndocrinology & metabolismGastroenterology & hepatologyHematologyInfectious diseasesMedicine, general & internalObstetrics & gynecologyOncologyOphthalmologyOrthopedicsOtorhinolaryngologyParasitologyPathologyPediatricsPeripheral vascular diseasePrimary health carePsychiatryPublic, environmental & occupational healthRespiratory systemRheumatologySurgeryTransplantationTropical medicineUrology & nephrologyVeterinary sciences
325Appendices
DISCIPLINES (7) MAIN FIELDS (14) AREAS OF RESEARCH (35)
SUBJECT FIELDS (250)
Multidisciplinary journals
Multidisciplinary journals
Multidisciplinary journals
Multidisciplinary sciences
Natural sciences Chemistry, physics and astronomy
Astronomy and astrophysics
Astronomy & astrophysics
Chemistry and chemical engineering
Chemistry, analyticalChemistry, appliedChemistry, inorganic & nuclearChemistry, multidisciplinaryChemistry, organicChemistry, physicalElectrochemistryEngineering, chemicalMaterials science, paper & woodMaterials science, textilesPolymer scienceSpectroscopy
Physics and materials science
CrystallographyMaterials science, ceramicsMaterials science, characterization & testingMaterials science, coatings & filmsMaterials science, compositesMaterials science, multidisciplinaryMetallurgy & metallurgical engineeringNanoscience & nanotechnologyOpticsPhysics, appliedPhysics, atomic, molecular & chemicalPhysics, condensed matterPhysics, fluids & plasmasPhysics, mathematicalPhysics, multidisciplinaryPhysics, nuclearPhysics, particles & fields
Earth and environmental sciences
Earth sciences and technology
Engineering, geologicalEngineering, marineEngineering, oceanGeochemistry & geophysicsGeography, physicalGeologyGeosciences, multidisciplinaryImaging science & photographic technologyMeteorology & atmospheric sciencesMineralogyOceanographyPaleontologyRemote sensing
326 Appendices
DISCIPLINES (7) MAIN FIELDS (14) AREAS OF RESEARCH (35)
SUBJECT FIELDS (250)
Environmental sciences and technology
Biodiversity conservationEcologyEngineering, environmentalEnvironmental sciencesEnvironmental studiesForestryGeographyLimnologyUrban studiesWater resources
Mathematics, statistics and computer science
Computer sciences Computer science, artificial intelligenceComputer science, cyberneticsComputer science, hardware & architectureComputer science, information systemsComputer science, interdisciplinary applicationsComputer science, software engineeringComputer science, theory & methods
Mathematics MathematicsMathematics, appliedMathematics, interdisciplinary applications
Statistical sciences Operations research & management scienceSocial sciences, mathematical methodsStatistics & probability
Social and behavioral sciences
Economics, management and planning
Economics and business
Agricultural economics & policyBusinessBusiness, financeEconomicsIndustrial relations & labor
Management and planning
Area studiesManagementPlanning & development
Social sciences Educational sciences
Education & educational researchEducation, scientific disciplinesEducation, specialPsychology, educational
Political science and public administration
International relationsPolitical sciencePublic administration
Psychology Psychology, appliedPsychology, biologicalPsychology, clinicalPsychology, developmentalPsychology, experimentalPsychology, mathematicalPsychology, multidisciplinaryPsychology, psychoanalysisPsychology, social
327Appendices
DISCIPLINES (7) MAIN FIELDS (14) AREAS OF RESEARCH (35)
SUBJECT FIELDS (250)
Social and behavioral sciences, interdisciplinary
DemographySocial issuesSocial sciences, biomedicalSocial sciences, interdisciplinary
Sociology and anthropology
AnthropologyCultural studiesEthnic studiesFamily studiesHospitality, leisure, sport & tourismSociologyWomen’s studies
328 Appendices
APPENDIX 5. STAGE 1, E-FORM FOR REGISTRATION
STAGE 1. Registration for the international evaluation of research and doc-toral training at the University of Helsinki
Form is timed: publicity ends 30.11.2010 23.59 - Period to be evaluated 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2010, evaluation to be
conducted between 2010 and 2012 - Registration is mandatory for those wishing to participate the evaluation - Registration deadline 30 November, 2010 (closing time at 23:59) - GUIDELINES FOR THE PARTICIPATING RESEARCHER COMMUNITIES
NB! Practical instructions at the bottom of the page:
- for saving the pre-filled e-form and continuing later- for attaching the requested excel file to the e-form
1 Responsible person (NB you can give only one e-mail address for the responsible person)
Last name:First name:E-mail:Phone:Affiliation:Street address:
NB! The responsible person confirms that each member of the researcher community is aware of the requirement to update her/his information in TUHAT Research Information System by January 31, 2011. The researcher community members themselves are responsible for the correctness of the information in TUHAT.
2 Description of the participating researcher community (RC)
Name of the participating RC:Acronym of the participating RC:Description of the practical motivation (’operational basis’) for forming the researcher community (eg. research collaboration, joint doctoral training). MAX. 2200 characters with spaces:
EXCEL ATTACHMENT: USE THIS EXCEL CHART to provide information on the RC members. Save the excel on your computer and attach the completed excel file to the e-form at the time of submission.
329Appendices
PLEASE NOTE! Instructions for attaching the excel chart to this e-form are available at the bottom of this page.
3 Scientific fields of the RC
MAIN SCIENTIFIC FIELD Select the main scientific field of your research: -Select-
SCIENTIFIC SUBFIELD(S) - mandatory to select scientific subfield 1 (subfields 2-4 are optional)- subfields are listed in alphabetical order according to the classification of Web of ScienceRC’s scientific subfield 1: -Select-RC’s scientific subfield 2: -Select-RC’s scientific subfield 3: -Select-RC’s scientific subfield 4: -Select-Other, if not in the list:
4 RC’s participation category
Participation category: -Select-
Justification for the selected participation category. MAX. 2200 characters with spaces:
5 Description of the RC’s research and doctoral training
Public description of the RC’s research and doctoral training. MAX. 2200 characters with spaces:
NB! The public description may be used for communication purposes, e.g., for presenting research and doctoral training on the University’s web site.
Significance of the RC’s research and doctoral training for the University of Helsinki. MAX. 2200 characters with spaces:
Keywords:
6 RC’s suggestions for experts to be invited to the evaluation panels
SUGGESTIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL (2) AND NATIONAL (2) PANELLISTS – please propose names for at least two experts- For disqualification of reviewers, see the Guidelines for the participating researcher
communities (page 11/Appendix 4).
330 Appendices
Name of panelist 1:E-mail of panelist 1:Affiliation of panelist 1:Fields of expertise of panelist 1:Name of panelist 2:E-mail of panelist 2:Affiliation of panelist 2:Fields of expertise of panelist 2:Name of panelist 3:E-mail of panelist 3:Affiliation of panelist 3:Fields of expertise of panelist 3:Name of panelist 4:E-mail of panelist 4;Affiliation of panelist 4:Fields of expertise of panelist 4:
7 Quality of the RC’s research and doctoral training
Evaluation with justification of the quality of the RC’s research and doctoral training at the national and international levels during the period under evaluation. MAX. 2200 characters with spaces:
Suggestions for methods of assessing the RC’s scientific productivity and doctoral training. Description of the RC’s publishing strategy. MAX. 2200 characters with spaces:
Partial submission
I wish to save the form and continue using the link that will be sent into email I give
Email address:
Proceed
I want to send attachment/attachments.
Submit
331Appendices
PLEASE NOTE:
1) TO CONTINUE FILLING IN THE E-FORM LATER, please go to the title ‘Partial submission’ (above) and select ‘I wish to save the form...’. Give the e-mail address to which you wish to receive the link of the pre-filled e-form and press Submit button.
NB! Please do not try to attach the excel file to the pre-filled e-form, attachments can be added only at the time of full submission.
2) TO ATTACH THE EXCEL CHART of the RC members to the e-form, please follow the instructions below:
a) tick the above box ‘I want to send attachment/attachments’ (under the title ‘Proceed’)b) click the Submit button abovec) on the next page, click the Browse button and select the excel chart amongst the files
on your computerd) on the next page, press UPLOAD FILE button --> your registration is completed,
and the e-form and the excel chart are submitted to the Evaluation Office
IMPORTANT!! ON THE NEXT PAGE DO NOT PRESS THE SUBMIT BUTTON (this will submit your registration without the excel attachment)
332 Appendices
APPENDIX 6. STAGE 2, E-FORM FOR SUBMISSION OF EVALUATION MATERIAL
STAGE 2. Submission of material to the international evaluation of research and doctoral training at the University of Helsinki - deadline 28 Feb 2011 (e-form closes at 23.59)
Form is timed: publicity ends 28.2.2011 23.59
PLEASE NOTE:· Only material submitted by registered RCs will be evaluated (list of registered RCs at the
Evaluation wiki site).· The main focus of questions 1-7 is on the time period from 1.1.2005 to 31.12.2010.· It is recommendable to formulate the answers in a Word file before saving them on the
e-form.
Background information
RESPONSIBLE PERSON OF THE RESEARCHER COMMUNITY (RC): Last name:First name:E-mail:
NAME AND ACRONYM OF THE RC:Name of the participating RC:Acronym of the participating RC:
RC’s RESEARCH IN RESPECT TO THE KEY FOCUS AREAS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI:
- please find below the list of UH’s key focus areas both in Finnish and in English (NB! the translations are preliminary, not yet officially accepted)
If the RC’s reseach represents the key focus areas of UH, please indicate here which one (if many, select the most important one): -Select-
Comments for your key focus area selection/for not selecting any of the key focus areas listed above:For the comments you have max. 1100 characters with spaces.
1 Focus and quality of the RC’s research
*Describe - the RC’s research focus. - the quality of the RC’s research (incl. key research questions and results). - the scientific significance of the RC’s research for the research field(s).
333Appendices
For the description you have max. 7700 characters with spaces:
*Identify ways to strengthen the focus and improve the quality of the RC’s research. For the description you have max. 1100 characters with spaces:
2 Practices and quality of doctoral training
* How is doctoral training organised in the RC? Describe the RC’s principles for:
- recruitment and selection of doctoral candidates.- supervision of doctoral candidates.- collaboration with faculties, departments/institutes, and potential
graduate schools/doctoral programmes.- good practices and quality assurance in doctoral training.- assuring good career perspectives for the doctoral candidates/fresh
doctorates.
For the description you have max. 7700 characters with spaces:
* Identify the RC’s strengths and challenges related to the practices and quality of doctoral training, and the actions planned for their development. For the description you have max. 1100 characters with spaces:
3 Societal impact of research and doctoral training
* Describe how the RC interacts with and contributes to the society (collaboration with public, private and/or 3rd sector). For the description you have max. 3300 characters with spaces:
* Identify ways to strengthen the societal impact of the RC’s research and doctoral training.For the description you have max. 1100 characters with spaces:
4 International and national (incl. intersectoral) research collaboration and researcher mobility
* Describe- the RC’s research collaborations and joint doctoral training activities.- how the RC has promoted researcher mobility.For the description you have max. 3300 characters with spaces:
334 Appendices
* Identify the RC’s strengths and challenges related to research collaboration and researcher mobility, and the actions planned for their development.For the description you have max. 1100 characters with spaces:
5 Operational conditions
* Describe the operational conditions in the RC’s research environment (e.g. research infrastructure, balance between research and teaching duties).For the description you have max. 3300 characters with spaces:
* Identify the RC’s strengths and challenges related to operational conditions, and the actions planned for their development.For the description you have max. 1100 characters with spaces:
6 Leadership and management in the RC
* Describe
- the execution and processes of leadership in the RC.- how the management-related responsibilities and roles are distributed in
the RC.- how the leadership- and management-related processes support:
- high quality research- collaboration between principal investigators and other researchers in
the RC- the RC’s research focus- strengthening of the RC’s know-how
For the description you have max. 3300 characters with spaces:
* Identify the RC’s strengths and challenges related to leadership and management, and the actions planned for developing the processes.For the description you have max. 1100 characters with spaces:
7 External competitive funding of the RC - funding decisions 1.1.2005-31.12.2010
The RCs are asked to provide information of such external competitive funding, where:
- the funding decisions have been made during 1.1.2005-31.12.2010, and- the administrator of the funding is/has been the University of Helsinki
NB! In the boxes below, please write the sums:
335Appendices
- with the accuracy of 10000 euros- without any commas, spaces or other separators between the numbers (e.g. 1000000)
Please note also the questions and answers at the FAQ column.
ACADEMY OF FINLAND (AF)In the box below, please provide the total amount of funding (in euros) AF has decided to allocate to the RC members during 1.1.2005-31.12.2010. Please note that funding decisions concerning posts for Academy Professors and Academy Research Fellows can be included here if the decisions have been made between 1.1.2005 and 31.12.2010 (the University is nowadays the administrator of the funding).NB! RC member reporting the funding is the one named as the grant recipient in the funding decision.
Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation (TEKES)In the box below, please provide the total amount of funding (in euros) TEKES has decided to allocate to the RC members during 1.1.2005-31.12.2010.NB! RC member reporting the funding is the one named as the grant recipient in the funding decision.
European Union (EU)In the box below, please provide the total amount of funding (in euros) EU has decided to allocate to the RC members during 1.1.2005-31.12.2010.NB! RC member reporting the funding is the one named as the grant recipient in the funding decision.
European Research Council (ERC) In the box below, please provide the total amount of funding (in euros) ERC has decided to allocate to the RC members during 1.1.2005-31.12.2010. NB! RC member reporting the funding is the one named as the grant recipient in the funding decision.
International and national foundationsIn the boxes below, please provide the names of international and national foundations which have decided to allocate funding to the RC members during 1.1.2005-31.12.2010, and the amount of their funding (in euros). NB! RC member reporting the funding is the one named as the grant recipient in the funding decision.
Names of the foundations: Total amount of funding (in euros) from the above-mentioned foundations:
Other international funding In the boxes below, please provide the names of other international funding organizations
336 Appendices
which have decided to allocate funding to the RC members during 1.1.2005-31.12.2010, and the amount of their funding (in euros). NB! RC member reporting the funding is the one named as the grant recipient in the funding decision.
Names of the funding organizations: Total amount of funding (in euros) from the above-mentioned funding organizations:
Other national funding (incl. ’EVO funding’ and Ministry of Education and Culture funded doctoral programme positions)In the boxes below, please provide the names of other national funding organizations which have decided to allocate funding to the RC members during 1.1.2005-31.12.2010, and the amount of their funding (in euros). NB! RC member reporting the funding is the one named as the grant recipient in the funding decision.
Names of the funding organizations: Total amount of funding (in euros) from the above-mentioned funding organizations:
8 RC’s strategic action plan for 2011–2013 * Describe the RC’s future perspectives in respect to research and doctoral training. For the description you have max. 4400 characters with spaces:
9 Compilation of material for stage 2 of the evaluation * Short description of how the RC members have contributed to the compilation of the stage 2 materials. For the description you have max. 1100 characters with spaces:
Partial submissionI wish to save the form and continue using the link that will be sent into email I give
Email address:
ProceedSubmit
337Appendices
APPENDIX 7. EVALUATION FORM
The Evaluation Form is structured to follow the form of the evaluation material submitted by the RCs. The evaluation feedback is to be written in the boxes found below each question. There is no predetermined word limit in the feedback. All feedback by the Panels is highly appreciated.
The main focus of the questions 1–7 is concerning time period from 1.1.2005 to 31.12.2010.
In addition to answering the evaluation questions and providing some basic background information (e.g. name of the RC and the RC’s responsible person), the RCs were asked to indicate if their research represents one of the key focus areas of the University of Helsinki (UH).
The evaluation feedback provided by the panellists with this form is used as the basis for the Panel discussions in Helsinki. The responsible panellists of each RC are to submit one feedback form per RC to the Evaluation Office by 22 August 2011 addressed to Paula Ranne and Seppo Saari:
[email protected] and [email protected]
The Evaluation Office will copy the feedback on the Panels’ WIKI-site:http://wiki.helsinki.fi/display/evaluation2011panel/Instructions.
RC-SPECIFIC MATERIAL FOR THE PEER REVIEW:
• Material submitted by the RC at stages 1 and 2 of the evaluation- STAGE 1 material: RC’s registration form (incl. list of RC participants in an excel table)- STAGE 2 material: RC’s answers to evaluation questions• TUHAT compilations of the RC members’ publications 1.1.2005-31.12.2010• TUHAT compilations of the RC members’ other scientific activities 1.1.2005-31.12.2010• Analysis of the RC’s publications data 1.1.2005-31.12.2010- The analysis of publications data is carried out either by CWTS (Leiden University) or
UH Library, and in some cases by both of them. CWTS analysis is based on Web of Science (WoS) -database, which does not provide representative results for most RCs representing humanities, social sciences and computer sciences, thus the publications of these RCs will be analyzed by the UH Library (results of the UH Library analysis are available by the end of June, 2011).
338 Appendices
The acronym of the Researcher Community
Please add your name and date before sending the evaluation form to the next reviewer/receiver. It is important to be able to follow the history of the circulation of the evaluation form.
REVIEWER’S NAME SENT TO E-MAIL DATE
[email protected] [email protected]
At the latest 22 August
RCs were requested to discuss or answer the topics/questions 1-10
1. FOCUS AND QUALITY OF THE RC’S RESEARCH *
• Description of• the RC’s research focus.• the quality of the RC’s research (incl. key research questions and results)• the scientific significance of the RC’s research in the research field(s)
• Identification of the ways to strengthen the focus and improve the quality of the RC’s research
• NB! See also the additional material: TUHAT compilation of the RC’s publications, analysis of the RCs publications data (provided by University of Leiden and the Helsinki University Library)
A written feedback from the aspects of: scientific quality, scientific significance, societal impact, innovativeness
• Strengths• Areas of development• Other remarks• Recommendations
OUTSTANDING (5), EXCELLENT (4), VERY GOOD (3), GOOD (2), SUFFICIENT (1)
2. PRACTISES AND QUALITY OF DOCTORAL TRAINING
• Organising of the doctoral training in the RC. Description of the RC’s principles for:• recruitment and selection of doctoral candidates• supervision of doctoral candidates• collaboration with faculties, departments/institutes, and potential graduate schools/doctoral programmes• good practises and quality assurance in doctoral training• assuring of good career perspectives for the doctoral candidates/fresh doctorates
339Appendices
• Identification of the RC’s strengths and challenges related to the practises and quality of doctoral training, and the actions planned for their development.
• NB! See also the additional material: TUHAT compilation of the RC’s other scientific activities/supervision of doctoral dissertations
A written feedback from the aspects of: processes and good practices related to leadership and management
• Strengths• Areas of development• Other remarks• Recommendations
OUTSTANDING (5), EXCELLENT (4), VERY GOOD (3), GOOD (2), SUFFICIENT (1)
3. THE SOCIETAL IMPACT OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING
• Description on how the RC interacts with and contributes to the society (collaboration with public, private and/or 3rd sector).
• Identification of the ways to strengthen the societal impact of the RC’s research and doctoral training.
• NB! See also the additional material: TUHAT compilation of the RC’s other scientific activities.
A written feedback from the aspects of: societal impact, national and international collaboration, innovativeness
• Strengths• Areas of development• Other remarks• Recommendations
OUTSTANDING (5), EXCELLENT (4), VERY GOOD (3), GOOD (2), SUFFICIENT (1)
4. INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL (INCL. INTERSECTORAL) RESEARCH COLLABORATION AND RESEARCHER MOBILITY
• Description of• the RC’s research collaborations and joint doctoral training activities• how the RC has promoted researcher mobility
• Identification of the RC’s strengths and challenges related to research collaboration and researcher mobility, and the actions planned for their development.
340 Appendices
A written feedback from the aspects of: scientific quality, national and international collaboration
• Strengths• Areas of development• Other remarks• Recommendations
OUTSTANDING (5), EXCELLENT (4), VERY GOOD (3), GOOD (2), SUFFICIENT (1)
5. OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS
• Description of the operational conditions in the RC’s research environment (e.g. research infrastructure, balance between research and teaching duties).
• Identification of the RC’s strengths and challenges related to operational conditions, and the actions planned for their development.
A written feedback from the aspects of: processes and good practices related to leadership and management
Strengths• Areas of development• Other remarks• Recommendations
6. LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT IN THE RESEARCHER COMMUNITY
• Description of• the execution and processes of leadership in the RC• how the management-related responsibilities and roles are distributed in the RC• how the leadership- and management-related processes support
o high quality researcho collaboration between principal investigators and other researchers in the RCo the RC’s research focuso strengthening of the RC’s know-how
• Identification of the RC’s strengths and challenges related to leadership and management, and the actions planned for developing the processes
A written feedback from the aspects of: processes and good practices related to leadership and management
• Strengths• Areas of development• Other remarks• Recommendations
341Appendices
7. EXTERNAL COMPETITIVE FUNDING OF THE RC
• The RCs were asked to provide information of such external competitive funding, where:• the funding decisions have been made during 1.1.2005-31.12.2010, and• the administrator of the funding is/has been the University of Helsinki
• On the e-form the RCs were asked to provide:1) The relevant funding source(s) from a given list (Academy of Finland/Research
Council, TEKES/The Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation , EU, ERC, foundations, other national funding organisations, other international funding organizations), and
2) The total sum of funding which the organisation in question had decided to allocate to the RCs members during 1.1.2005-31.12.2010.
NB! Competitive funding reported in the text is also to be considered when evaluating this point.
A written feedback from the aspects of: scientific quality, scientific significance, societal impact, innovativeness, future significance
• Strengths• Areas of development• Other remarks• Recommendations
8. THE RC’S STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN FOR 2011–2013
• RC’s description of their future perspectives in relation to research and doctoral training.
A written feedback from the aspects of: scientific quality, scientific significance, societal Impact, processes and good practices related to leadership and management, national and international collaboration, innovativeness, future significance
• Strengths• Areas of development• Other remarks• Recommendations
9. EVALUATION OF THE CATEGORY OF THE RC IN THE CONTEXT OF ENTITY OF THE EVALUATION MATERIAL (1-8)
The RC’s fitness to the chosen participation category.
A written feedback evaluating the RC’s fitness to the chosen participation category
342 Appendices
• Strengths• Areas of development• Other remarks• Recommendations
OUTSTANDING (5), EXCELLENT (4), VERY GOOD (3), GOOD (2), SUFFICIENT (1)
10. SHORT DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE RC MEMBERS CONTRIBUTED THE COMPILATION OF THE STAGE 2 MATERIAL
Comments on the compilation of evaluation material
11. HOW THE UH’ S F OCUS AREAS ARE PRESENTED IN THE RC’S RESEARCH?
Comments if applicable
12. RC-SPECIFIC MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTIONS 1 – 11
13. RC-SPECIFIC CONLUSIONS
The Panel should reach a consensus based on their discussions in Helsinki. Panels should ensure that the evaluation takes into account all the relevant material provided to the Panel.
In the Terms of Reference, the evaluation material is only mentioned in brief. For the full description of the evaluation material, please see the Guidelines for the Participating Researcher Communities, which were used by the participants in preparation of their evaluation documents.
14. INDICATE ISSUES THAT SHOULD BE GIVEN EMPHASIS AND DISCUSSED IN THE PANEL MEETING IN HELSINKI.
15. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK (IN THE UNIVERSITY LEVEL EVALUATION REPORT).
The Panel Chairs and Vice-Chairs will compile the final feedback.
343Appendices
PANEL-SPECIFIC FEEDBACK
Quality in research and doctoral training• Research focus• Practices and quality of doctoral training• Societal impact• International and national collaboration• Leadership and management• External funding• Strategic action plan• Findings• Strengths• Potential development areas
16. THIS PART INCLUDES PRELIMINARY FINDINGS THAT SHOULD BE MENTIONED IN THE UNIVERSITY LEVEL EVALUATION FEEDBACK
The Panel Chairs and Vice-Chairs will compile the final feedback together with the Evaluation Office.
UNIVERSITY LEVEL FEEDBACK
Findings and recommendations for improvement• Research focus• Practices and quality of doctoral training• Societal impact• International and national collaboration• Leadership and management• External funding• Strategic action plan
Comments and conclusions on bibliometrics and other publication statisticsSummary of the evaluation
344 Appendices
APPENDIX 8. FIGURE OF COMPLETED DOCTORAL DEGREES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI 2000−2011Appendix 1. Figure of completed doctoral degrees at the University of Helsinki 2000−2011
390 362 352 355
395 378 377
445 466 449 434 442
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
345Appendices
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010190
Appendix 9. Tables of scores of participating RCs by participation category
In the following tables, the RCs are shown by categories and sorted according to 1) sum of questions Q1-Q4, 2) sum of Q1-Q5 and 3) the RC’s acronym.
CATEGORY 1 – Cutting edge Responsibleperson
RC PIs Mbrs total
Panel1 Q12 Q23 Q34 Q45 Q56 Sum of Q1-Q4
Sum of Q1-Q5
Ukkonen ALKO 17 95 NAT 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 20.0 25.0Kulmala ATM 14 120 NAT 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 20.0 25.0Kaprio CompDisGen 17 118 MED 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 20.0 25.0Martikainen CPHS 9 43 SOC 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 20.0 25.0Aaltonen CSB 4 36 MED 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 20.0 25.0Räikkönen DEPSY 4 22 SOC 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 20.0 25.0Thesleff HelDevBio 11 65 BIO 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 20.0 25.0Backman IndiViDrug 6 25 MED 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 20.0 25.0Keltikangas-Järvinen
PEWE 7 26 SOC 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 20.0 25.0
Nevalainen VARIENG 5 46 HUM 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 19.5 24.5Kajava AMNE 12 26 HUM 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 19.0 24.0Alitalo CANBIO 18 96 MED 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 19.0 24.0Lappalainen CellMolBiol 7 47 BIO 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 19.0 24.0Palva, A CoE-MiFoSaPLUS 13 90 BIO 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 19.0 24.0Koskenniemi, M ECI 5 60 SOC 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 19.0 24.0Janhunen LDHFTA 15 46 HUM 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 19.0 24.0Rauvala Neuron 12 94 MED 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 19.0 24.0Palva, T VMPS 12 86 BIO 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 19.0 24.0Kupiainen ANDY 12 90 NAT 5.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 18.5 23.5Knuuttila PPMP 8 33 HUM 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.0 18.5 23.5Aejmelaeus CSTT 6 24 HUM 4.5 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.5 18.5 23.0Dunderberg FC 7 32 HUM 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 18.5 23.0Kujala CNC 7 48 SOC 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 18.0 23.0Engeström CRADLE 7 48 SOC 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 18.0 23.0Merilä EGRU 5 30 BIO 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 5.0 18.0 23.0Päivärinta INV 5 20 NAT 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 18.0 23.0Leskelä LIC 8 74 NAT 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 18.0 23.0Huitu PaCo 16 118 NAT 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 18.0 23.0Sulkunen PosPus 9 45 SOC 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 18.0 22.0Tuomilehto PURE 6 20 MED 5.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 18.0 22.0Hanski CoE MRG 8 55 BIO 5.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 5.0 17.5 22.5Seppä LTCC 6 30 NAT 5.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 5.0 17.5 22.5Bamford CoE_VIRRES 6 43 BIO 4.5 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 17.5 21.5Valkonen PHYTOPATH 4 47 BIO 4.5 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 17.5 21.5Koskinen ASP 6 63 NAT 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 17.0 21.0Kivinen FCREES 9 38 SOC 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 17.0 21.0Meri InfBio 13 112 MED 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 17.0 21.0Klippi Interaction 17 53 HUM 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 17.0 21.0Räisänen Jyrki MATENA 6 64 NAT 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 17.0 21.0Sivonen MICRO 10 85 BIO 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 17.0 21.0Tarasti MusSig 4 28 HUM 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 17.0 21.0Ranki Skin and allergy 11 28 MED 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 17.0 21.0Luukkanen VITRI 3 33 BIO 3.0 4.5 5.0 4.0 2.5 16.5 19.0Wartiovaara MNRP 9 54 MED 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 16.0 20.0Wikström SB&B 10 39 BIO 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 16.0 20.0Haila Sociopolis 4 26 SOC 4.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 16.0 20.0Urtti DePoNa 8 57 MED 3.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 16.0 19.0Meinander HIST 15 71 HUM 4.0 4.0 4.5 3.0 3.0 15.5 18.5
1 Panels are BIO – Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, MED – Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences, NAT – Natural Sciences, HUM – Humanities, SOC – Social Sciences 2 Quality of research 3 Doctoral training 4 Societal impact 5 Cooperation 6 Category fitness
346 Appendices
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010
191
Rice Dental 10 76 MED 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 15.0 19.0Lahelma KUFE 5 23 SOC 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 15.0 19.0Sandu LMPS 15 49 HUM 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 15.0 19.0Kettunen NordSoc 18 52 SOC 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 15.0 19.0Halonen CoE CMS 9 60 NAT 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.5 4.0 14.5 18.5Väänänen HLG 5 31 NAT 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 14.5 18.5Korhola ENIGMA 9 33 BIO 4.0 2.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 14.0 17.0Yliruusi PARTICLE 4 45 MED 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 13.0 16.0Brommer ARC 5 27 BIO 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 8.0 11.0
CATEGORY 2 – Close to cutting edge Responsibleperson
RC PIs
Mbrs total
Panel Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Sum of Q1-Q4
Sum of Q1-Q5
Anttonen CMVG 3 21 HUM 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 18.0 23.0 Kultti EAT 6 37 SOC 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 18.0 23.0 Pellikka GIMMEC 7 23 NAT 4.5 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 17.5 22.5 Kangasharju NODES 6 34 NAT 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 17.5 22.5 Lanne TSEM 4 22 SOC 5.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 5.0 17.0 22.0 Lauha CECH 3 29 HUM 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 17.0 21.0 Gahmberg MEMBREC 7 43 BIO 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.0 17.0 21.0 Tuominen PDBD 5 31 MED 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 17.0 21.0 Pulkkinen Gender Studies 13 59 HUM 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 16.0 21.0 Airaksinen, T PPH 7 20 SOC 4.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 16.0 21.0 Simola SOCE-DGI 5 29 SOC 4.0 5.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 16.0 21.0 Peltoniemi VetSci 19 112 BIO 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 16.0 20.0 Pirttilä-Backman DYNASOBIC 7 46 SOC 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 15.0 20.0 Jallinoja SBII 12 33 SOC 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 15.0 19.0 Helen STS 9 24 SOC 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 15.0 19.0 Östman LMS 15 88 HUM 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 14.0 19.0 Paavonen Women's
Health 11 69 MED 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 14.0 17.0
Stoddard SSA 27 95 BIO 3.0 3.5 4.0 3.0 4.0 13.5 17.5 Lukkarinen AHCI 3 26 HUM 3.0 4.0 4.0 2.5 3.0 13.5 16.5 Savolainen BNCTMI 4 33 NAT 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 13.0 18.0 Mervaala CardioMed 6 31 MED 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 13.0 17.0 Nieminen MECOL 20 38 SOC 3.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 13.0 17.0 Pyrhönen ART 10 59 HUM 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 10.5 13.5 Lokki ID-TM 5 45 MED 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 10.0 12.0
CATEGORY 3 – Exceptional Responsibleperson
RC PIs Mbrs total
Panel Q1 Q Q3 Q4 Q5 Sum of Q1-Q4
Sum of Q1-Q5
Koskenniemi, K BAULT 13 30 HUM 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 20.0 25.0 Jernvall EvoDevo 5 21 BIO 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 19.0 23.0 Havu CoCoLaC 14 42 HUM 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 16.0 20.0 Vasander PEATLANDERS 9 31 BIO 5.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 16.0 20.0 Lavento ARCH-HU 4 56 HUM 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 5.0 15.5 20.5 Stenroos BIOSYST 13 38 BIO 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 15.0 19.0 Pettersson ILLC 11 32 HUM 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 15.0 19.0 Kaartinen SCA 4 26 SOC 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 15.0 19.0 Nyman METEORI 5 39 SOC 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 14.0 18.0 Granberg TRANSRURBAN 15 35 SOC 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 14.0 18.0 Henriksson CITA 8 35 HUM 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 14.0 17.0 Lyytikäinen GLW 4 31 HUM 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 14.0 17.0 Vuorela PHABIO 3 25 BIO 3.0 3.5 3.0 4.0 3.0 13.5 16.5 Horppila FRESH 8 28 BIO 3.0 2.7 4.0 2.7 4.0 12.4 16.4 Heinonen KUMU 4 24 SOC 3.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 5.0 12.0 17.0 Lehtonen SocStats 5 14 SOC 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 11.0 15.0
347AppendicesEVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010
192
CATEGORY 4 – Innovative opening Responsibleperson
RC PIs Mbrs total
Panel Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Sum of Q1-Q4
Sum of Q1-Q5
Saarma Neuroiontroph 7 45 MED 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 20.0 25.0 Ikonen ProLipids 4 27 MED 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 19.0 24.0 Lindblom-Ylänne EdPsychHE 10 43 SOC 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 18.0 23.0 Ruokanen RELDIAL 4 31 HUM 3.5 5.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 17.5 20.5 Järvelä MUSGEN 2 10 BIO 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 17.0 21.0 Heinämaa SHC 6 22 HUM 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 17.0 21.0 Heikkilä RCSP 8 25 HUM 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 16.5 20.5 Helariutta ViiGen 7 42 BIO 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 1.0 16.5 17.5 Kilpeläinen HUBI 7 40 NAT 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 16.0 21.0 Ollikainen ENFIFO 5 25 SOC 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 16.0 20.0 Mauranen LFP 6 21 HUM 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 16.0 20.0 Korja ECO 13 42 NAT 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.5 3.5 16.0 19.5 Qiao DECODE/
DECODA 3 12 MED 3.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 16.0 19.0
Hukkinen GENU 8 23 SOC 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 15.0 20.0 Lavonen RCMSER 6 30 SOC 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 15.0 20.0 Kostiainen MAC 5 28 NAT 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 15.0 19.0 Stenberg NEUROMED 11 73 MED 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 15.0 18.0 Rikkinen INBIOS 11 41 BIO 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 13.5 17.0 Vainio SigMe 3 18 SOC 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 13.0 18.0 Yli-Kauhaluoma MedChemBio 4 33 NAT 3.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 12.5 16.5 Abrahamsson SOFTSYS 3 15 NAT 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.5 12.5 16.0 Rahkonen CulCap 4 8 SOC 3.0 3.0 2.0 4.0 5.0 12.0 17.0 Airaksinen, M MS Group 2 30 MED 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 12.0 15.0 Oinonen CARBON14 2 8 NAT 3.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 10.0 14.0 Wähälä LEGMILK 4 22 BIO 2.5 3.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 10.0 13.0
CATEGORY 5 – Societal impact Responsibleperson
RC PIs Mbrs total
Panel Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Sum of Q1-Q4
Sum of Q1-Q5
Kallioniemi P-Molmed 7 25 MED 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 19.0 24.0 Saarinen RELSOC 8 29 HUM 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5 19.0 23.5 Valsta SUVALUE 11 59 BIO 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 14.5 18.5 Kuikka BAYES 3 24 NAT 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 5.0 18.0 23.0 Vehmas-Lehto TraST 9 41 HUM 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 17.0 21.0 Sumelius AG ECON 6 37 SOC 3.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 16.0 21.0 Nuotio Law 36 67 SOC 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 16.0 21.0 Lamberg-Allardt FoodNutri 20 98 BIO 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 15.0 19.0 Roos HELPS 5 23 SOC 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 15.0 19.0 Hautamäki CEA 8 34 SOC 3.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 14.0 19.0 Sajantila Legal Prot 5 21 MED 4.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 14.0 17.0 Lehto HYRL 5 39 NAT 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 13.0 17.0 Vaattovaara STRUTSI 5 21 SOC 3.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 13.0 17.0 Koponen DEVERELE 6 26 SOC 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 12.0 16.0 Sum of all categories
1131 5857
348 Appendices
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010
193
Appendix 10. Distributions of numeric evaluation of the RCs in the evaluation panels
Biological, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences Category Question (numeric evaluation from 1 to 5)
Quality and focus 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 5 6 2 1 2 3 3 2 4 1 1 2 5 1 1 No. of RCs 1 8 10 8 27
% of all 4 % 30 % 37 % 30 % 100 %
Doctoral training 1 2 3 4 5
1 1 1 6 5 2 1 2 3 1 2 1 1 4 2 2 5 1 1 No. of RCs 1 2 6 12 6 27
% of all 4 % 7 % 22 % 44 % 22 % 100 %
Societal impact 1 2 3 4 5
1 1 9 3 2 3 3 1 4 4 1 2 1 5 2 No. of RCs 2 1 20 4 27
% of all 7 % 4 % 74 % 15 % 100 %
Cooperation 1 2 3 4 5
1 1 1 6 5 2 1 2 3 1 3 1 4 1 1 2 5 1 1 No. of RCs 3 4 14 6 27
% of all 11 % 15 % 52 % 22 % 100 %
Category fitness 1 2 3 4 5
1 1 2 4 6 2 3 3 1 4 4 1 2 1 5 2 No. of RCs 1 1 5 14 6 27
% of all 4 % 4 % 19 % 52 % 22 % 100 %
349Appendices
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010194
Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences Category Question (numeric evaluation from 1 to 5) Quality and focus 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 4 6 2 1 2 1 3 4 2 1 2 5 2
No. of RCs 1 6 8 8 23 % of all 4 % 26 % 35 % 35 % 100 %
Doctoral training 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 5 5 2 2 1 1 3 4 2 1 2 5 1 1
No. of RCs 7 7 9 23 % of all 30 % 30 % 39 % 100 %
Societal impact 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 5 6 2 3 1 3 4 1 2 2 5 1 1
No. of RCs 5 9 9 23 % of all 22 % 39 % 39 % 100 %
Cooperation 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 4 7 2 1 3 3 4 1 2 2 5 1 1
No. of RCs 1 3 9 10 23 % of all 4 % 13 % 39 % 43 % 100 %
Category fitness 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 5 5 2 1 1 2 3 4 3 2 5 1 1
No. of RCs 1 7 7 8 23 % of all 4 % 3 3 35 % 100 %
350 Appendices
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010
195
Natural Sciences Category Question (numeric evaluation from 1 to 5) Quality and focus 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 3 7 2 1 2 3 4 4 2 5 1 1
No. of RCs 7 7 8 22 % of all 32 % 32 % 36 % 100 %
Doctoral training 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 5 5 2 1 2 3 4 3 3 5 1 1
No. of RCs 6 11 5 22 % of all 27 % 50 % 23 % 100 %
Societal impact 1 2 3 4 5 1 3 5 3 2 3 3 4 4 2 5 1 1
No. of RCs 8 11 3 22 % of all 36 % 50 % 14 % 100 %
Cooperation 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 4 6 2 1 1 1 3 4 1 2 3 5 2
No. of RCs 1 4 10 7 22 % of all 5 % 18 % 45 % 32 % 100 %
Category fitness 1 2 3 4 5 1 4 7 2 3 3 4 2 3 1 5 1 1
No. of RCs 2 8 12 22 % of all 9 % 36 % 55 % 100 %
351Appendices
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010
195
Natural Sciences Category Question (numeric evaluation from 1 to 5) Quality and focus 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 3 7 2 1 2 3 4 4 2 5 1 1
No. of RCs 7 7 8 22 % of all 32 % 32 % 36 % 100 %
Doctoral training 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 5 5 2 1 2 3 4 3 3 5 1 1
No. of RCs 6 11 5 22 % of all 27 % 50 % 23 % 100 %
Societal impact 1 2 3 4 5 1 3 5 3 2 3 3 4 4 2 5 1 1
No. of RCs 8 11 3 22 % of all 36 % 50 % 14 % 100 %
Cooperation 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 4 6 2 1 1 1 3 4 1 2 3 5 2
No. of RCs 1 4 1 7 22 % of all 5 % 18 % 45 % 32 % 100 %
Category fitness 1 2 3 4 5 1 4 7 2 3 3 4 2 3 1 5 1 1
No. of RCs 2 8 12 22 % of all 9 % 36 % 55 % 100 %
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010196
Table 3. Distributions of numeric evaluation of the RCs in the panel of Humanities
Humanities Category Question (numeric evaluation from 1 to 5) Quality and focus 1 2 3 4 5 1 6 4 2 3 3 3 2 3 1 4 1 3 5 2
No. of RCs 6 17 5 28 % of all 21 % 61 % 18 % 100 %
Doctoral training 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 5 4 2 1 3 2 3 1 4 1 4 2 2 5 1 1
No. of RCs 3 15 10 28 % of all 11 % 54 % 36 % 100 %
Societal impact 1 2 3 4 5 1 7 3 2 1 4 1 3 2 3 1 4 4 5 2
No. of RCs 1 2 18 7 28 % of all 4 % 7 % 64 % 25 % 100 %
Cooperation 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 5 4 2 2 1 3 3 1 4 1 4 3 1 5 1 1
No. of RCs 2 3 16 7 28 % of all 7 % 11 % 57 % 25 % 100 %
Category fitness 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 5 4 2 2 1 3 3 2 2 2 4 1 3 5 2
No. of RCs 6 13 9 28 % of all 21 % 46 % 32 % 100 %
352 Appendices EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010
197
Table 4. Distributions of numeric evaluation of the RCs in the panel of Social Sciences
Social Sciences Category Question (numeric evaluation from 1 to 5) Quality and focus 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 5 5 2 3 4 1 3 4 1 4 3 3 5 5 1
No. of RCs 16 14 6 36 % of all 44 % 39 % 17 % 100 %
Doctoral training 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 6 2 1 1 4 2 3 1 2 2 4 3 2 1 5 3 2 1
No. of RCs 2 11 13 10 36 % of all 6 % 31 % 36 % 28 % 100 %
Societal impact 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 5 5 2 2 6 3 2 3 4 1 5 5 1 4 1
No. of RCs 1 6 23 6 36 % of all 3 % 17 % 64 % 17 % 100 %
Cooperation 1 2 3 4 5 1 3 8 2 1 4 3 3 1 2 2 4 1 4 1 5 3 3
No. of RCs 1 7 16 12 36 % of all 3 % 19 % 44 % 33 % 100 %
Category fitness 1 2 3 4 5 1 5 6 2 3 5 3 4 1 4 1 5 5 3 3
No. of RCs 16 20 36 % of all 44 % 56 % 100 %
353Appendices
EVAL
UATI
ON O
F RE
SEAR
CH AN
D DO
CTOR
AL TR
AINI
NG 20
05–2
010
198 App
endi
x 11
. Num
ber o
f pub
licat
ions
in th
e ev
alua
tion
(TU
HA
T R
IS)
Type
of p
ublic
atio
ns in
TU
HA
T R
IS
A1
Ref
eree
d jo
urna
l arti
cle
A2
Rev
iew
in s
cien
tific
jour
nal
A3
Con
tribu
tion
to b
ook/
othe
r com
pila
tions
(ref
eree
d)
A4
Arti
cle
in c
onfe
renc
e pu
blic
atio
n (r
efer
eed)
B
1 U
nref
eree
d jo
urna
l arti
cle
B2
Con
tribu
tion
to b
ook/
othe
r com
pila
tions
(non
-ref
eree
d)
B3
Unr
efer
eed
artic
le in
con
fere
nce
proc
eedi
ngs
C1
Pub
lishe
d sc
ient
ific
mon
ogra
ph
C2
Edi
ted
book
, co
mpi
latio
n,
conf
eren
ce
proc
eedi
ng
or
spec
ial i
ssue
of j
ourn
al
D1
Arti
cle
in p
rofe
ssio
nal j
ourn
al
D2
Arti
cle
in
prof
essi
onal
ha
nd
or
guid
e bo
ok
or
in
a pr
ofes
sion
al d
ata
syst
em, o
r tex
tboo
k m
ater
ial
D3
Arti
cle
in p
rofe
ssio
nal c
onfe
renc
e pr
ocee
ding
s
D4
Pub
lishe
d de
velo
pmen
t or r
esea
rch
repo
rt D
5 Te
xtbo
ok
or
prof
essi
onal
ha
ndbo
ok
or
guid
eboo
k or
di
ctio
nary
E
1 P
opul
ar a
rticl
e, n
ewsp
aper
arti
cle
E1
Pop
ular
con
tribu
tion
to b
ook/
othe
r com
pila
tions
E
2 P
opul
ar m
onog
raph
F1
P
ublis
hed
inde
pend
ent a
rtist
ic w
ork
F2
Pub
lic c
ontri
butio
n to
arti
stic
wor
k F3
P
ublic
arti
stic
pla
y or
exh
ibiti
on
F4
Mod
el o
r pla
n ta
ken
into
pro
duct
ion
/ exp
loite
d G
1-G
5 Th
eses
not
incl
uded
in th
e ev
alua
tion
H1
Pat
ents
I1
A
udio
visu
al m
ater
ials
I2
IC
T pr
ogra
ms
or a
pplic
atio
ns
354 Appendices
EVAL
UATI
ON O
F RE
SEAR
CH AN
D DO
CTOR
AL TR
AINI
NG 20
05–2
010
199
RC
A
1 A
2 A
3 A
4 B
1 B
2 B
3 C
1 C
2 D
1 D
2 D
3 D
4 D
5 E1
E2
F1
F2F3
F4H
1I1
I2To
t. A
G E
CO
N
28
1 24
32
69
2321
77
42
13
364
217
AH
CI
17
2 12
2 2
5021
37
1517
71
2 10
67
111
391
ALK
O
223
3 60
30
72
19
2222
25
5 4
51
567
6A
MN
E 59
9
202
3520
114
1220
241
572
1867
2A
ND
Y 25
8 20
11
41
351
322
1 2
376
AR
C
92
5 2
427
21
218
5 1
150
132
8A
RC
H-H
U
56
7 99
20
8655
165
813
42
837
146
2A
RT
96
2 26
2 16
8652
723
5090
52
315
87
11
861
ASP
32
1 5
12
129
2311
881
744
3 3
21
265
2AT
M
758
9 98
95
3783
412
519
116
2 9
231
31
1572
BAU
LT
71
8 13
4 79
919
27
331
2 2
714
47
399
BA
YES
70
1 5
72
521
111
5 1
882
219
BIO
SYS
T 28
7 4
72
1244
162
99
2839
578
261
632
BN
CTM
I 79
1
2 20
11
55
19
51
130
CAN
BIO
44
2 19
8
1129
44
13
21
452
8C
ARB
ON
14
78
6 10
54
11
31
109
Car
dioM
ed
187
10
4 6
183
38
224
1C
EA
60
6 10
3 75
3621
88
2312
1016
50
435
476
CEC
H
14
63
120
407
103
33
108
327
5C
ellM
olBi
ol
165
10
1 3
12
118
3C
ITA
33
1 30
7
3416
328
151
11
162
123
4C
MV
G
27
5 65
1
9511
363
132
11
261
287
CN
C
204
17
25
617
32
11
810
294
CoC
oLaC
60
7
134
4335
189
230
14
1435
7C
oE C
MS
234
3 6
62
11
42
1026
9C
oE M
RG
24
8 10
22
6
35
33
41
71
4 1
185
341
CoE
-MiF
oSaP
LUS
325
11
19
1142
23
870
19
3 4
472
566
CoE
-VIR
RES
12
2 6
13
41
11
148
Com
pDis
Gen
10
00
20
27
848
64
14
92
2 13
21
1147
CPH
S 26
7 3
39
2911
34
21
113
373
CR
ADLE
11
0 12
2 27
2518
1025
188
31
13
622
140
9C
SB
142
6 2
41
115
6C
STT
31
4 91
6
297
45
68
299
402
271
Cul
Cap
16
2
24
152
18
573
DEC
OD
E/D
EC
OD
A 39
7 4
23
140
51
81
480
355AppendicesEV
ALUA
TION
OF
RESE
ARCH
AND
DOCT
ORAL
TRAI
NING
2005
–201
020
0
RC
A
1 A
2 A
3 A
4 B
1 B
2 B
3 C
1 C
2 D
1 D
2 D
3 D
4 D
5 E1
E2
F1
F2F3
F4H
1I1
I2To
t. D
enta
l 34
0 23
39
39
351
55
21
324
12
520
DeP
oNa
198
3 6
85
15
1 2
323
2D
EPS
Y 18
6 12
5
120
12
11
11
31
235
DEV
EREL
E 37
82
1
2022
78
144
53
17
574
630
5D
YNAS
OB
IC
131
2 70
8
116
412
104
15
412
128
1E
AT
128
1 21
1
183
280
75
494
517
EC
I 18
2 21
11
3 5
9036
623
184
18
243
255
4E
CO
10
3 3
34
1516
2485
818
271
6 12
1
302
385
EdP
sych
HE
162
3 11
0 32
3415
319
275
51
8 11
43
1345
5E
GR
U
186
3 4
116
21
242
125
8E
NFI
FO
33
2 10
11
68
820
512
12
113
114
2E
NIG
MA
133
3 23
5
138
122
53
1 1
114
422
8E
voD
evo
106
8 17
6
41
41
147
FC
43
116
473
281
1721
114
2 10
505
385
FCR
EES
97
7 15
9 12
133
277
2033
105
378
81
600
Food
Nut
ri 38
1 11
46
41
262
126
711
105
8 2
374
188
0FR
ESH
13
2 1
74
42
115
61
63
43
183
237
4G
ende
r Stu
dies
76
9
139
580
341
2335
410
2
118
38
154
8G
EN
U
92
3 83
5
3416
315
135
1 4
110
14
380
GIM
MEC
13
8 1
13
2217
48
48
22
3 1
1423
7G
LW
33
7 60
5
6513
117
1517
223
75
31
248
3H
elD
evBi
o 14
2 13
14
6
71
118
4H
ELP
S 61
3
69
4514
212
118
7 10
26
134
1H
IST
67
2 23
5 9
147
784
6137
104
4 10
385
501
11
1106
HLG
45
2
21
164
22
37
97
11
120
HU
BI
237
1 8
2419
11
14
530
1H
YRL
73
10
383
13
517
4 2
156
ID-T
M
179
17
6 9
91
11
223
ILLC
23
11
8 11
911
55
422
311
125
9IN
BIO
S 21
0 1
29
1424
1415
15
1810
1 2
413
417
241
524
Indi
ViD
rug
185
19
33
511
618
191
333
InfB
io
427
17
45
1225
31
1717
13
156
9In
tera
ctio
n 86
5
129
856
264
1130
36
9 16
214
414
Inv
62
2 1
201
490
KU
FE
41
1 50
4
2818
14
99
63
117
219
4
356 Appendices
EVAL
UATI
ON O
F RE
SEAR
CH AN
D DO
CTOR
AL TR
AINI
NG 20
05–2
010
201
RC
A
1 A
2 A
3 A
4 B
1 B
2 B
3 C
1 C
2 D
1 D
2 D
3 D
4 D
5 E1
E2
F1
F2F3
F4H
1I1
I2To
t. K
UM
U
37
1 60
20
6112
17
142
21
4 1
763
302
Law
27
7 5
674
620
998
1311
577
3675
1 8
2116
32
1780
LDH
FTA
93
5 22
7 25
6133
1414
336
22
910
15
1464
4Le
gal
prot
ectio
n an
d w
elfa
re
90
7
25
11
1
107
LEG
MIL
K 98
18
14
312
88
416
318
4LF
P 27
2
112
1217
3111
327
71
1 1
1573
22
344
LIC
45
4 8
6 36
41
11
711
529
LMP
S 14
4 5
245
2645
293
1635
51
2 1
861
644
LMS
41
3 17
0 9
129
509
1246
3114
2 13
129
132
673
LTC
C
244
2 10
9
111
41
33
24
1931
3M
AC
127
4 6
371
11
117
8M
ATEN
A 37
4 3
13
574
44
102
1 17
149
0M
ECO
L 11
3 2
162
1344
186
4829
51
16
450
751
8M
ED
CH
EM
BIO
12
3 4
82
11
12
142
Mem
brec
11
1 10
6
210
22
11
114
6M
ETE
OR
I 86
29
80
710
53
85
81
6 3
52
258
MIC
RO
27
7 9
28
237
101
22
3610
405
MN
RP
231
11
57
732
73
17
410
137
1M
S G
roup
99
3
7 5
173
22
81
3 3
51
159
MU
SG
EN
11
4 3
120
32
114
4M
usS
ig
33
3 48
27
265
2412
178
16
192
39
39
25
334
Neu
roio
ntro
ph
139
7 13
5
12
12
170
NEU
RO
MED
29
7 16
32
1
211
58
35
11
391
Neu
ron
271
19
17
39
13
14
43
335
NO
DE
S 37
38
22
76
729
1124
33
1 3
439
3N
ordS
oc
104
6 19
6 5
103
423
2941
122
4 3
5910
162
0P
aCo
699
1 22
88
64
85
223
9 39
31
910
PAR
TIC
LE
145
11
16
603
11
21
124
1P
DB
D
116
5 15
2
122
21
1 4
160
Pea
tland
ers
151
20
2322
2535
15
1 4
1730
4P
EW
E 42
2 2
13
114
51
22
146
3P
HA
BIO
92
6
2 14
21
21
11
21
125
PH
YTO
PAT
H
104
4 17
3
22
21
53
1 2
127
174
P-M
olm
ed
134
1 4
65
11
21
155
Pos
Pus
10
2 7
82
157
217
916
112
3 23
42
238
5
357AppendicesEV
ALUA
TION
OF
RESE
ARCH
AND
DOCT
ORAL
TRAI
NING
2005
–201
020
2
RC
A
1 A
2 A
3 A
4 B
1 B
2 B
3 C
1 C
2 D
1 D
2 D
3 D
4 D
5 E1
E2
F1
F2F3
F4H
1I1
I2To
t. P
PH
46
73
813
171
316
14
714
320
6P
PM
P 69
3
196
445
262
1534
47
755
246
9P
roLi
pids
27
1 12
8
215
22
331
5P
UR
E 54
6 4
30
844
71
36
11
31
655
RC
MS
ER
324
1 97
13
513
1514
312
842
3 78
171
799
RC
SP
32
1 17
1 11
114
302
1819
46
2 1
270
101
249
6R
ELD
IAL
72
2 10
0 12
5219
522
2444
102
586
1947
4R
ELS
OC
69
2
138
743
324
2021
219
5 10
957
483
SB&
B 30
6 6
3 20
21
11
134
1S
BII
75
2 98
1
4812
1119
52
3 4
3731
7S
CA
41
2 46
31
510
81
1 1
283
177
SH
C
85
4 10
3 5
2323
1215
34
432
313
Sig
Me
41
10
183
21
72
84S
kin
and
alle
rgy
123
2 3
124
11
115
6S
OC
E-D
GI
53
2 52
6
2014
24
102
32
2 6
178
Soc
iopo
lis
21
4 42
8
4412
111
51
2 1
2517
7S
ocS
tats
23
27
19
2512
81
1 2
53
126
SO
FTS
YS
11
4 38
31
35
45
31
280
SSA
38
0 15
12
9 15
019
3194
1014
7926
17
6 3
151
42
1130
STR
UTS
I 43
4
30
136
172
159
159
11
113
120
7ST
S 84
4
41
421
918
25
7 14
221
1S
UV
ALU
E 14
0 8
48
5521
3825
2111
67
11
142
434
TRA
NSR
UR
BAN
78
6
86
1837
3215
6919
112
1 11
3
465
439
TraS
T 30
10
5 38
2731
193
2415
13
141
311
TSE
M
44
3 2
160
6 11
6V
ARIE
NG
63
1
177
2945
138
461
11
62
139
4V
etS
ci
314
6 30
86
243
162
119
85
2 2
832
160
4V
iiGen
20
1 8
12
79
51
11
14
125
1V
ITR
I 44
5
73
151
21
53
11
88V
MPS
11
1 9
16
56
18
24
65
620
199
Wom
en's
Hea
lth
443
16
15
760
21
544
Tota
l
21521
694
8206
2968
4327
1698
1405
1500
1490
1092
576
118
425
444
4981
349
15 25 11 2 72 59 51
52029
358 AppendicesEVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010
1
1
Appendix 12. Tables of RC-specific biobliometric indicators by the CWTS/Leiden
The indicators of the CWTS/Leiden analysis: Number of publications (P), Total number of citations (TCS), Number of citations per publication (MCS), Percentage of uncited publications (pnc), Field-normalized number of citations (MNCS), Field-normalized average journal impact (MNJS), Field-normalized proportion highly cited publications (top 10%) (THCP10), Internal coverage, (int_cov).
RCs whose number of publications (P) was more than or equal to 50
RC Responsible person P TCS MCS pnc MNCS MNJS THCP10 int_cov
CompDisGen Kaprio 890 12104.25 13.76 19.44 2.17 1.94 2.21 0.89ATM Kulmala 692 4980 7.23 21.97 1.55 1.37 1.58 0.82PURE Tuomilehto 483 9550 20.21 20.70 2.96 1.82 2.52 0.86PaCo Huitu 468 3332 7.12 31.62 1.16 1.21 1.26 0.71LIC Leskelä 447 2003 4.48 28.19 1.14 1.19 1.16 0.79CANBIO Alitalo 433 7254.75 17.08 15.70 1.86 1.71 2.40 0.95InfBio Meri 411 2850 6.99 24.09 0.97 1.13 0.94 0.91Women's Health Paavonen 406 5056.25 12.66 22.17 1.83 1.43 1.90 0.91
PEWE Keltikangas-Järvinen 399 2271 5.70 26.57 1.53 1.63 1.91 0.82
MATENA Räisänen 377 1962 5.20 31.03 1.23 1.36 1.27 0.80FoodNutri Lamberg-Allardt 354 2025 5.72 22.03 1.33 1.28 1.13 0.82DECODE /DECODA Qiao 344 7994 23.76 19.19 3.38 1.86 2.88 0.86
SSA Stoddard 343 1224 3.57 36.73 0.86 1.03 0.76 0.71CoE-MiFoSaPLUS PalvaA 318 2069.75 6.57 24.53 1.27 1.13 1.10 0.83
ASP Koskinen 306 1256 4.10 29.74 0.67 0.94 0.48 0.75SB&B Wikström 292 2226.5 7.66 20.89 1.91 1.26 0.79 0.87NEUROMED Stenberg 284 2044.25 7.27 21.48 1.10 1.16 0.97 0.91VetSci Peltoniemi 279 734 2.67 38.35 0.95 1.21 0.84 0.76MICRO Sivonen 263 1307 4.97 24.71 0.89 1.05 0.70 0.83ProLipids Ikonen 260 2945.25 11.49 19.62 1.60 1.21 1.91 0.91Neuron Rauvala 259 3587.5 13.89 11.97 1.64 1.41 2.03 0.94CPHS Martikainen 245 2091 8.59 24.49 1.47 1.45 1.71 0.76CoE MRG Hanski 239 2174.25 9.21 21.34 1.66 1.46 1.95 0.75HUBI Kilpeläinen 226 1330.5 5.91 19.47 1.57 1.33 1.45 0.82CoE CMS Halonen 223 1411.25 6.39 26.91 1.15 1.22 1.18 0.81Dental Rice 220 1313.5 6.10 32.27 1.09 1.04 1.13 0.81MNRP Wartiovaara 214 2209.75 10.70 21.50 1.46 1.57 1.50 0.94ANDY Kupiainen 207 462 2.23 49.76 2.20 1.21 2.03 0.58CNC Kujala 199 1644 8.26 23.62 0.96 1.11 0.79 0.86LTCC Seppä 198 1283 6.53 29.80 1.64 1.36 1.79 0.65ViiGen Helariutta 195 2851 14.73 19.49 3.09 1.56 1.78 0.85IndiViDrug Backman 184 2326.75 13.02 11.41 2.38 1.58 2.70 0.91ALKO Ukkonen 180 748.25 4.21 42.22 1.12 1.43 1.06 0.64INBIOS Rikkinen 179 596.25 3.35 44.13 0.74 1.01 0.67 0.68BIOSYST Stenroos 174 567 3.26 45.40 0.59 0.71 0.50 0.47CardioMed Mervaala 173 1643.25 9.67 22.54 1.30 1.00 1.35 0.93EGRU Merilä 172 1286 7.64 22.09 1.64 1.28 1.77 0.78DePoNa Urtti 169 1369.25 8.14 15.38 1.57 1.46 1.60 0.89DEPSY Räikkönen 166 1778.5 10.76 22.29 1.68 1.97 1.64 0.89CellMolBiol Lappalainen 164 2444.5 14.97 13.41 1.63 1.49 1.85 0.94ID-TM Lokki 161 1174.5 7.36 26.09 1.10 1.53 0.93 0.94CSB Aaltonen 143 2649 18.72 18.18 1.83 2.00 2.42 0.95
bibliometric
359Appendices
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–20102
RC Responsible person P TCS MCS pnc MNCS MNJS THCP10 int_cov
PARTICLE Yliruusi 142 759 5.35 28.17 0.93 1.14 0.74 0.79HelDevBio Thesleff 141 1364.25 9.73 22.70 1.36 1.27 1.42 0.93Neuroiontroph Saarma 135 1415.5 10.54 16.30 1.26 1.48 1.55 0.94PEATLANDERS Vasander 131 793 6.05 19.85 1.77 1.38 2.01 0.73MAC Kostiainen 126 828.5 6.61 26.98 1.53 1.40 2.15 0.89MedChemBio Yli-Kauhaluoma 125 657 5.29 23.20 0.91 1.24 0.68 0.89GIMMEC Pellikka 124 960 7.74 27.42 1.92 1.56 2.21 0.69CoE_VIRRES Bamford 123 703.75 5.76 18.70 0.83 1.45 0.45 0.88MEMBREC Gahmberg 121 1530 12.64 18.18 1.36 1.34 1.11 0.93P-Molmed Kallioniemi 119 1523.75 13.48 27.73 2.88 2.22 3.08 0.93Skin and allergy Ranki 119 1176.5 10.41 24.37 1.35 1.31 1.52 0.91ENIGMA Korhola 117 785.25 6.80 29.91 1.57 1.24 1.85 0.61VMPS PalvaT 111 1749 15.76 16.22 2.34 1.71 2.34 0.89PDBD Tuominen 111 742 6.68 22.52 0.94 1.09 0.76 0.92FRESH Horppila 103 424 4.12 33.98 1.19 1.18 0.82 0.68RCMSER Lavonen 103 736 7.15 29.13 1.21 1.73 1.07 0.71SUVALUE Valsta 101 231 2.29 44.55 1.21 1.06 1.17 0.50EvoDevo Jernvall 100 927.25 9.49 29.00 1.45 1.28 1.82 0.75MUSGEN Järvelä 100 780.25 8.04 18.00 1.36 1.15 1.48 0.90PHYTOPATH Valkonen 98 538 5.49 24.49 1.23 1.17 1.26 0.80EdPsychHE Lindblom-Ylänne 92 201.25 2.21 45.65 0.88 1.05 0.87 0.51LEGMILK Wähälä 91 405 4.45 28.57 1.11 1.00 1.19 0.81DYNASOBIC Pirttilä-Backman 91 260 2.86 43.96 0.89 0.95 0.74 0.57EAT Kultti 89 130 1.47 53.93 0.72 0.77 0.70 0.55ECO Korja 85 362 4.26 28.24 0.89 1.11 0.53 0.61ARC Brommer 80 577.5 7.29 32.50 1.38 1.47 1.67 0.70Legal Prot Sajantila 77 629.75 8.34 23.38 1.55 1.00 1.62 0.84BNCTMI Savolainen 75 369.5 4.98 30.67 1.47 1.00 1.43 0.79PHABIO Vuorela 72 390 5.42 22.22 1.41 1.09 1.35 0.84CARBON14 Oinonen 68 382 5.62 41.18 1.34 0.96 1.14 0.66METEORI Nyman 68 168 2.50 44.12 1.14 1.04 0.79 0.54HYRL Lehto 66 96 1.45 46.97 0.57 1.05 0.29 0.68INV Päivärinta 60 327 5.45 26.67 3.50 1.85 4.10 0.63BAYES Kuikka 59 494 8.37 30.51 2.27 1.58 1.97 0.65MS Group AiraksinenM 56 175 3.30 33.93 0.90 0.82 0.67 0.65GENU Hukkinen 50 254 5.16 32.00 1.57 1.44 1.78 0.51
360 Appendices
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010
3
3
RCs whose number of publications (P) was less than 50.
RC Responsible person P TCS MCS pnc MNCS MNJS THCP1
0 int_co
v Interaction Klippi 43 63 1.47 46.51 0.92 0.75 0.86 0.35 ECI KoskenniemiM 37 39 1.05 64.86 0.64 0.93 0.82 0.18 VITRI Luukkanen 35 79 2.26 37.14 1.06 0.99 0.62 0.58 SigMe Vainio 35 64 1.83 37.14 0.65 0.91 0.64 0.75 STS Helen 31 57 1.84 29.03 1.03 0.95 0.26 0.24 TSEM Lanne 31 63 2.03 41.94 0.74 0.97 0.45 0.62 HLG Väänänen 30 18 0.60 60.00 1.30 0.55 1.43 0.37 NODES Kangasharju 29 42 1.45 65.52 0.48 1.02 0.46 0.33 LMPS Sandu 27 27 1.00 51.85 0.75 0.82 0.43 0.30 ENFIFO Ollikainen 27 29 1.07 51.85 0.31 1.04 0.00 0.46 CRADLE Engeström 26 74 2.85 30.77 1.47 1.09 1.41 0.22 HIST Meinander 23 115.25 5.36 26.09 1.60 1.12 1.28 0.75 SBII Jallinoja 23 24 1.04 60.87 0.52 0.67 0.27 0.21 PosPus Sulkunen 23 16 0.70 56.52 0.29 0.80 0.00 0.25 TRANSRURBAN Granberg 20 46 2.30 30.00 0.68 0.89 0.26 0.44 CEA Hautamäki 19 48 2.53 52.63 0.63 1.08 0.56 0.51 MECOL Nieminen 19 29 1.53 47.37 1.47 0.61 1.06 0.19 HELPS Roos 19 74 3.89 36.84 0.74 0.86 0.56 0.64 PPH AiraksinenT 16 42 2.63 37.50 0.64 0.78 0.00 0.24 NordSoc Kettunen 16 28 1.75 68.75 0.34 0.77 0.00 0.17 STRUTSI Vaattovaara 16 18 1.13 62.50 0.32 0.84 0.00 0.32 SOCE-DGI Simola 15 36 2.40 40.00 1.67 0.79 1.39 0.19 BAULT KoskenniemiK 14 31 2.21 28.57 0.71 1.07 0.60 0.33 AG ECON Sumelius 14 16 1.14 64.29 0.54 0.78 0.87 0.38 ARCH-HU Lavento 13 15 1.15 53.85 0.68 0.91 0.88 0.28 SocStats Lehtonen 13 44 3.38 30.77 1.93 1.33 3.03 0.50 Gender Studies Pulkkinen 12 17 1.42 58.33 2.10 0.76 1.79 0.14 DEVERELE Koponen 12 21 1.75 58.33 0.39 0.73 0.00 0.15 VARIENG Nevalainen 10 5 0.50 70.00 1.26 0.58 1.20 0.07 FCREES Kivinen 10 15 1.50 60.00 1.00 0.78 1.28 0.23 SHC Heinämaa 8 24 3.00 37.50 0.89 0.95 1.23 0.08 LDHFTA Janhunen 7 6 0.86 85.71 0.38 0.34 0.00 0.21 Sociopolis Haila 7 22 3.14 28.57 1.09 1.09 1.40 0.26 SCA Kaartinen 7 23 3.29 42.86 1.04 1.18 1.37 0.38 Law Nuotio 6 11 1.83 83.33 0.55 1.07 1.65 0.10 CITA Henriksson 5 7 1.40 60.00 0.46 0.63 0.00 0.23 KUMU Heinonen 5 0 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.13 KUFE Lahelma 4 8 2.00 50.00 0.48 0.49 0.00 0.15 FC Dunderberg 3 2 0.67 66.67 0.11 0.67 0.00 0.22 LFP Mauranen 3 2 0.67 33.33 3.77 0.70 4.00 0.06 RELSOC Saarinen 3 1 0.33 66.67 0.78 0.24 0.00 0.31 TraST Vehmas-Lehto 3 0 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.08 SOFTSYS Abrahamsson 2 7 3.50 0.00 1.21 1.61 0.00 0.16 RCSP Heikkilä 2 0 0.00 100.00 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.33 PPMP Knuuttila 2 2 1.00 50.00 0.14 0.68 0.00 0.03 AMNE Kajava 1 1 1.00 0.00 0.87 1.08 0.00 0.59 CulCap Rahkonen 1 0 0.00 100.00 0.00 4.83 0.00 0.45 CSTT Aejmelaeus 0 - - - - - - - CMVG Anttonen 0 - - - - - - - CoCoLaC Havu 0 - - - - - - - CECH Lauha 0 - - - - - - - AHCI Lukkarinen 0 - - - - - - -
361Appendices
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–20104GLW Lyytikäinen 0 - - - - - - - ILLC Pettersson 0 - - - - - - - ART Pyrhönen 0 - - - - - - - RELDIAL Ruokanen 0 - - - - - - - MusSig Tarasti 0 - - - - - - - LMS Östman 0 - - - - - - -
362 AppendicesEVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010
5
5
Appendix 13. PhD student survey Questions for doctoral students
QUESTIONNAIRE ON DOCTORAL EDUCATION AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF GUIDELINES FOR POSTGRADUATE DEGREES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI
Background information
Gender
□ female □ male
Age
□ under 25 □ 25–29 □ 30–34 □ 35–39 □ 40–44 □ 45–49 □ 50 or over
Faculty
□ Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry □ Faculty of Arts □ Faculty of Behavioural Sciences □ Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences □ Faculty of Law □ Faculty of Pharmacy □ Faculty of Medicine □ Faculty of Science □ Faculty of Social Sciences □ Faculty of Theology □ Faculty of Veterinary Medicine
Independent institutes
□ Aleksanteri Institute □ Finnish Museum of Natural History □ Helsinki Center of Economic Research (HECER) □ Helsinki Institute for Information Technology □ Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP) □ Institute of Biotechnology □ Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM) □ IPR University Center □ Ruralia‐institute □ Neuroscience Center
Field of education/major subject
□ Agriculture and Forestry □ Dentistry □ Education □ Humanities □ Law □ Medicine □ Natural Sciences
363AppendicesEVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010
6□ Pharmacy □ Psychology □ Social Sciences □ Theology □ Veterinary Medicine Year of starting postgraduate studies ____
Year of receiving the right to pursue postgraduate studies ____
Estimated year of completing the doctorate_____
I am completing my doctorate in a doctoral programme/graduate school
□ Yes □ No
At the moment, I am completing my doctorate
□ full time □ part time
If you plan to pursue an academic career, are you mainly interested in teaching or research? Select one only
□ Mainly in teaching □ Both, but mainly in teaching □ Both, but mainly in research □ Mainly in research
In your estimate, how much time are you currently devoting to teaching and its preparation?
□ None □ Less than 5 % □ 5‐10 % □ 10–20 % □ 20–40 % □ 40–60 % □ More than 60 %
In your estimate, how much time are you currently devoting to administrative tasks?
□ None □ Less than 5 % □ 5‐10 % □ 10–20 % □ 20–40 % □ 40–60 % □ More than 60 %
How are you financing your doctoral studies? Select one or several alternatives below
□ Doctoral programme position funded by the Academy of Finland/the Ministry of Education and Culture □ Other employment at the University of Helsinki □ Personal grant □ Project funding □ Student financial aid □ Employment outside the University □ Other, please specify
Which funding has been the longest in duration?_____________________
364 AppendicesEVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010
7
7
The duration of funding (in the case of grants, give the total duration of grant periods)__________
I work on my dissertation
□ On my own □ In a research group □ Both on my own and in a group
My dissertation will be in the form of
□ monograph □ summary of articles □ I don’t know
The language of my dissertation is
□ Finnish □ Swedish □ English □ Other, please specify___________
What is the significance of the following factors for your dissertation project?
1= not important… 5= very important, I don’t know 1 2 3 4 5 don’t know
My supervisor o o o o o oMy research group o o o o o oMy doctoral programme/graduate school o o o o o oOther doctoral students o o o o o oMy field o o o o o oMy department/institute or division at the University of Helsinki o o o o o oMy Faculty or independent institute o o o o o oThe University of Helsinki or a (sectoral)research institute o o o o o oAnother group or institute, please specify o o o o o o
Which factors have affected your motivation to engage in doing a doctoral degree?
1= not important… 5= very important 1 2 3 4 5
The doctoral degree was my objective already at the beginning of Master’s studies o o o o o
I embarked on the research topic when writing my Master’s thesis o o o o oInterest in a particular research topic o o o o oInterest in research in general o o o o oA natural continuation of previous studies or work o o o o oEncouragement from the academic staff o o o o oEncouragement by the employer or some other expert o o o o oObtaining qualifications o o o o oProfessional development o o o o oImproved career prospects after the doctorate o o o o oImproved professional status after the doctorate o o o o oHigher salary after the doctorate o o o o oNo other career prospect in sight o o o o oCoincidence o o o o oOther factor, please specify o o o o o
365Appendices
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–20108Please name the three most important factors that have contributed to the progress of your postgraduate studies and doctoral dissertation.
1_________________________________________________________________________________________ 2_________________________________________________________________________________________ 3_________________________________________________________________________________________
Please name the three most important factors that have hindered the progress of your postgraduate studies and doctoral dissertation.
1_________________________________________________________________________________________ 2_________________________________________________________________________________________ 3_________________________________________________________________________________________
Selection of doctoral students
Please assess how the factors below were implemented when you were selected as a doctoral student?
1= fully disagree… 5= fully agree..., I don’t know 1 2 3 4 5 don’t know
Predetermined criteria were implemented in the selection. o o o o o o The selection criteria were openly available. o o o o o o The selection process was transparent. o o o o o o During the selection process, the availability of supervision and support in the field of my dissertation was ensured. o o o o o o
The selection was decided by a postgraduate admissions committee or an equivalent group. o o o o o o
Do you think the selection process of doctoral students should be developed further?
□ Yes □ No If yes, how should the selection process be developed? _____________________________________________
Supervision and the personal study plan (PSP) / research, education and career plan
Who supervises your postgraduate studies and doctoral dissertation?
□ One appointed supervisor □ Several appointed supervisors/a supervisory group □ I have no supervisor □ I don’t know □ Someone else, please specify _________________________
Please assess the significance of the below individuals or groups for the supervision of your postgraduate studies and dissertation.
1= not important… 5= very important, I don’t know 1 2 3 4 5 don’t know
First supervisor/senior researcher o o o o o o Co‐supervisor/junior researcher o o o o o o Other members of the supervisory group o o o o o o Support/follow‐up/advisory group o o o o o o Other postgraduate students o o o o o o Other members of the research group o o o o o o Someone else/another group, please specify o o o o o o
366 Appendices
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010 9
9
How often do you receive supervision? □ Daily □ Weekly □ Once a month □ Once every two months □ Once every six months □ Less frequently In your opinion, what are a supervisor’s three most important tasks? 1_________________________________________________________________________________________ 2_________________________________________________________________________________________ 3_________________________________________________________________________________________
Have you changed supervisors in the course of your postgraduate studies and dissertation project? □ Yes, of my own initiative □ Yes, for some other reason □ No □ I have considered changing supervisors If you have changed or considered changing your supervisors, please state the reason. ___________________
At the beginning of postgraduate studies and the dissertation project, I received supervision and orientation in the following aspects. 1= none… 5= a great deal 1 2 3 4 5 Postgraduate studies in general o o o o oTeaching related to doctoral education o o o o oDrafting of the PSP or the research, education and career plan o o o o oIntegration into the scholarly community o o o o oInternational cooperation o o o o oOther points relevant at the initial stage of studies, please specify o o o o o
Have you done with your supervisor(s)a personal study plan (PSP) for doctoral education and/or a research proposal (including a plan for the progress of studies and the possible education and career plan)? □ Yes □ No □ I don’t know
Have you updated the PSP and/or the research proposal (including a plan for the progress of studies) and the possible education and career plan regularly with your supervisor(s)? □ Yes, I am happy with the updates □ Yes, I am not happy with the updates □ No updates have been made
Do you have comments or suggestions for further development of PSP in doctoral education? ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
As my postgraduate studies and dissertation project have progressed further, I have received supervision and orientation in the following aspects. 1= none… 5= a great deal 1 2 3 4 5 Planning and methods of research o o o o oLiterature and theories o o o o o
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–201010 Analysis of research material and presentation of results o o o o oAcademic writing o o o o oResearch ethics, applications for research approval o o o o oDeveloping as a researcher o o o o oDeveloping new ideas o o o o oAcquisition of funding o o o o oNetworking nationally o o o o oNetworking internationally o o o o oCareer planning o o o o oGeneral supervision policies o o o o oThe rights and obligations of doctoral students o o o o oThe rights and obligations of supervisors o o o o oOther points relevant for postgraduate studies, please specify o o o o o
The following section concerns supervision and the conditions of doctoral education
1=fully disagree… 5= fully agree 1 2 3 4 5
I often receive constructive criticism for my skills and expertise o o o o oMy expertise is put to use in the research community o o o o oI feel that I am treated with respect o o o o oI feel that the other members of the research community appreciate my work o o o o oI receive encouragement and personal attention from my supervisors o o o o oI feel that my supervisors are interested in my opinions o o o o oThe relationships between doctoral students are marked by competition o o o o oI feel accepted by the research community o o o o oI feel appreciated by my supervisors o o o o oThere is a good sense of collegiality between researchers o o o o oI feel like an outsider in my own research community o o o o oI can discuss openly any problems related to my doctoral education with my supervisors o o o o o
Rights and responsibilities between me and the other doctoral students in my immediate surroundings are equally distributed o o o o o
I receive encouragement and support from the other doctoral students o o o o oMy research community addresses problems in a constructive way o o o o oI have been bullied during my doctoral education o o o o oI am treated equally in my research community o o o o oI can influence matters concerning doctoral education in my research community o o o o oI have the facilities and equipment I need at my disposal o o o o oSupervision has been based on the general guidelines for the supervision of research and studies issued by the faculty/doctoral programme o o o o o
Are you satisfied with your supervision?
□ Yes □ No □ Partly Please state the reasons___________________________ How would you improve the supervision of doctoral studies? _______________________________________
Studies leading to the doctoral degree
367AppendicesEVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010
11
11
Besides the dissertation, the requirements for the doctoral degree include 60‐80 credits worth of postgraduate studies. (40‐60 credits in medicine, dentistry and veterinary medicine.) To what extent do the following areas of expertise form a part of your doctoral degree either as independent courses or as part of the dissertation research project?
1= to no extent… 5= to a great extent 1 2 3 4 5
Expertise related to the research field o o o o oExpertise related to research methods o o o o oResearch ethics o o o o oPhilosophy of science o o o o oAcademic communication skills o o o o oAcademic writing o o o o oPopularisation of science o o o o oInternational activities o o o o oLanguage skills o o o o oInformation literacy o o o o oTechnology skills o o o o oPresentation and interaction skills o o o o oUniversity pedagogics (teaching skills) o o o o oCareer planning o o o o oExpertise related to project work o o o o oLeadership skills o o o o oApplying for funding o o o o oBusiness skills o o o o oExpertise in IPR (intellectual property rights)Expertise in IPR (intellectual property rights) o o o o o
Entrepreneurship o o o o oCommercialisation of research results o o o o oOther area of expertise, please specify o o o o o
What kind of training should be more readily available? ___________________________________________
Assess how well the below factors have worked for you.
My studies required for the doctoral degree
1= fully disagree… 5= fully agree 1 2 3 4 5
have supported the research work conducted for the doctoral dissertation o o o o ohave provided skills for research work o o o o ohave provided skills for other expert assignments o o o o ohave provided skills necessary on the labour market outside academia o o o o ohave progressed as planned o o o o oare too broad in scope (no. of credits) o o o o oare of appropriate scope so that full‐time students are able to complete the degree in four years o o o o o
Are the grounds for the grading scale of doctoral dissertations publicly available?
□ Yes □ No □ I don’t know
368 Appendices
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–201012 Have you considered withdrawing from your doctoral studies? □ Yes □ No If yes, please state the reasons.______________________________________________ Please assess the level of your satisfaction with your doctoral education.
1= very dissatisfied... 5= very satisfied 1 2 3 4 5
Please assess the level of your satisfaction with your doctoral education o o o o o
How would you develop doctoral education?
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
369Appendices
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010
13
13
Appendix 14. PI Survey
Questions for principal investigators
QUESTIONNAIRE ON DOCTORAL EDUCATION AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF GUIDELINES FOR
POSTGRADUATE DEGREES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI
Background information
Gender
□ female □ male
Age
□ under 25 □ 25–29 □ 30–34 □ 35–39 □ 40–44 □ 45–49 □ 50‐54 □ 55–59 □ 60–64 □ 65 or over
Position at the University
□ Postdoctoral Researcher/University Instructor □ University Researcher/University Lecturer □ Professor/Research Director
Faculty
□ Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry □ Faculty of Arts □ Faculty of Behavioural Sciences □ Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences □ Faculty of Law □ Faculty of Pharmacy □ Faculty of Medicine □ Faculty of Science □ Faculty of Social Sciences □ Faculty of Theology □ Faculty of Veterinary Medicine
Independent institutes
□ Aleksanteri Institute □ Finnish Museum of Natural History □ Helsinki Center of Economic Research (HECER) □ Helsinki Institute for Information Technology □ Helsinki Institute of Physics (HIP) □ Institute of Biotechnology
370 Appendices EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–201014 □ Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM) □ IPR University Center □ Ruralia‐institute □ Neuroscience Center
Field of education/major subject
□ Agriculture and Forestry □ Dentistry □ Education □ Humanities □ Law □ Medicine □ Natural Sciences □ Pharmacy □ Psychology □ Social Sciences □ Theology □ Veterinary Medicine
I have supervised doctoral dissertations since_________
The number of completed doctoral dissertations under my supervision from 2005 to 2010________
The number of doctoral students currently under my supervision (incl. other students than University of
Helsinki)_______
In my opinion, the number of students under my supervision is
□ too high □ too small □ suitable
The primary source of funding of the doctoral students under my supervision
Select one or several alternatives below
□ Doctoral programme position funded by the Academy of Finland/the Ministry of Education and Culture □ Other employment at the University of Helsinki □ Personal grant □ Project funding □ Student financial aid □ Employment outside the University □ Other, please specify
On average, how long do your students take to complete their doctoral degree?
□ 4 years of less □ 4‐6 years □ More than 6 years
The students under my supervision typically work on their dissertations
□ On their own □ In a research group □ Both on their own and in a group
The students under my supervision typically work on
371AppendicesEVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010
15
15
□ monograph □ summary of articles
The students under my supervision typically write their dissertations in
□ Finnish □ Swedish □ English □ Other, please specify___________
Please name the three most important factors that contribute to the progress of postgraduate studies and
the doctoral dissertation.
1________________________________________________________________________________________
2_________________________________________________________________________________________
3_________________________________________________________________________________________
Please name the three most important factors that hinder the progress of postgraduate studies and the
doctoral dissertation.
1_________________________________________________________________________________________
2_________________________________________________________________________________________
3_________________________________________________________________________________________
Selection of doctoral students
Please assess how the factors below are implemented in the selection of your own doctoral students.
1= fully disagree… 5= fully agree, I don’t know 1 2 3 4 5 don’t know
Predetermined criteria are implemented in the selection. o o o o o o
The selection criteria are openly available. o o o o o o
The selection process is transparent o o o o o o
During the selection process, the availability of supervision and support
for students is ensured. o o o o o o
The selection of doctoral students is decided by a postgraduate
admissions committee or some other equivalent group. o o o o o o
Do you think the selection process of doctoral students should be developed further?
□ Yes □ No
If yes, how should the selection process be developed? _____________________________________________
Supervision and the personal study plan (PSP) / research, education and career plan
In your researcher community, who is primarily responsible for the provision of supervision and support for
372 Appendices EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–201016
doctoral students?
Select one or several alternatives below
□ Each doctoral student has one appointed supervisor □ Each doctoral student has several appointed supervisors/a supervisory group □ I don't know □ Someone else, please specify
Please assess the significance of the below individuals or groups for the supervision of dissertations in your
unit.
1= not important… 5= very important... I don’t know 1 2 3 4 5 don’t know
First supervisor/senior researcher o o o o o o
Co‐supervisor/junior researcher o o o o o o
Other members of the supervisory group o o o o o o
Support/follow‐up/advisory group o o o o o o
Other postgraduate students o o o o o o
Other members of the research group o o o o o o
Someone else/another group, please spesify_____________________ o o o o o o
On average, how often does your individual doctoral student receive supervision?
□ Daily □ Weekly □ Once a month □ Once every two months □ Once every six months □ Less frequently
In your opinion, what are a supervisor’s three most important tasks?
1_________________________________________________________________________________________
2_________________________________________________________________________________________
3_________________________________________________________________________________________
Please estimate the amount of attention you give to the following aspects in supervision and orientation at
the beginning of postgraduate studies.
1= none… 5= a great deal 1 2 3 4 5
Postgraduate studies in general o o o o o
Teaching related to doctoral education o o o o o
Drafting of the PSP or the research, education and career plan o o o o o
Integration into the scholarly community o o o o o
International cooperation o o o o o
373AppendicesEVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010
17
17
Other points relevant at the initial stage of studies, please specify o o o o o
Please estimate the amount of attention you give to the following aspects in supervision and orientation as
postgraduate studies progress further.
1= none… 5= a great deal 1 2 3 4 5
Planning and methods of research o o o o o
Literature and theories o o o o o
Analysis of research material and presentation of results o o o o o
Academic writing o o o o o
Research ethics, applications for research approval o o o o o
Developing as a researcher o o o o o
Developing new ideas o o o o o
Acquisition of funding o o o o o
Networking nationally o o o o o
Networking internationally o o o o o
Career planning o o o o o
General supervision policies o o o o o
The rights and obligations of doctoral students o o o o o
The rights and obligations of supervisors o o o o o
Other points relevant for postgraduate studies, please specify________ o o o o o
Have you done with your doctoral students personal study plan (PSP) for doctoral education and/or a
research proposal (including a plan for the progress of studies and the possible education and career plan)?
□ Yes □ No
Have you updated the PSP and/or the research proposal (including a plan for the progress of studies) and the
possible education and career plan regularly with your students?
□ Yes □ No
Do you have comments or suggestions for further development of PSP in doctoral education?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Do you wish to receive support or training for your duties as supervisor?
□ Yes □ No
374 AppendicesEVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010
18
If yes, what kind of support or training do you wish to receive? _______________________________________
How would you improve the supervision of doctoral studies? _______________________________________
Studies leading to the doctoral degree
Besides the dissertation, the requirements for the doctoral degree include 60‐80 credits worth of postgraduate
studies. (40‐60 credits in medicine, dentistry and veterinary medicine.)
How do you rate the significance of the below areas of expertise in the doctoral degree either as
independent courses or as part of the dissertation research project?
1= to no extent… 5= to a great extent 1 2 3 4 5
Expertise related to the research field o o o o o
Expertise related to research methods o o o o o
Research ethics o o o o o
Philosophy of science o o o o o
Academic communication skills o o o o o
Academic writing o o o o o
Popularisation of science o o o o o
International activities o o o o o
Language skills o o o o o
Information literacy o o o o o
Technology skills o o o o o
Presentation and interaction skills o o o o o
University pedagogics (teaching skills) o o o o o
Career planning o o o o o
Expertise related to project work o o o o o
Leadership skills o o o o o
Applying for funding o o o o o
Business skills o o o o o
Expertise in IPR (intellectual property rights)Expertise in IPR (intellectual property
rights) o o o o o
Entrepreneurship o o o o o
Commercialisation of research results o o o o o
Other area of expertise, please specify_________________________________ o o o o o
What kind of training should be more readily available for the doctoral students? ____________________
375Appendices
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010
19
19
Assess how well the below factors work for the doctoral students under your supervision.
The studies required for the doctoral degree
1= fully disagree… 5= fully agree 1 2 3 4 5
have supported the research work conducted for the doctoral dissertation o o o o o
have provided skills for research work o o o o o
have provided skills for other expert assignments o o o o o
have provided skills necessary on the labour market outside academia o o o o o
have progressed as planned o o o o o
are too broad in scope (no. of credits) o o o o o
are of appropriate scope so that full‐time students are able to complete the
degree in four years o o o o o
Does a clear description of the grading scale of doctoral dissertations exist?
□ Yes □ No □ I don’t know
Are the grounds for the grading scale of doctoral dissertations publicly available?
□ Yes □ No □ I don’t know
The monitoring of postgraduate study progress
1= fully disagree… 5= fully agree, I don’t know 1 2 3 4 5 don’t
know
supports the progress of postgraduate studies and the doctoral dissertation o o o o o o
facilitates the resourcing of supervision o o o o o o
How would you develop doctoral education?
___________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________
376 Appendices
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–201020
Appendix 15. Differences in reasons for conducting a PhD between students who have considered interrupting their studies and students who have not considered interrupting
Table 5. Differences in reasons for conducting a PhD between students who have considered interrupting their studies and students who have not considered interrupting
Reasons for conducting a PhD YES NO Significance Effect size The doctoral degree was my objective already at the beginning of Master’s studies
2.3 (1.4) 2.6 (1.5) t= -3.897, df=1114, p= .000** 0.21 small
I embarked on the research topic when writing my Master’s thesis 2.8 (1.6) 3.1 (1.5) t= -2.822, df= 864, p= .005* 0.19 small
Interest in a particular research topic 3.6 (1.3) 4.0 (1.1) t= -4.524, df= 1124, p= .000** 0.33 small Interest in research in general 4.0 (1.0) 4.2 (0.9) t= -4.993, df= 790, p= .000** 0.21 small A natural continuation of previous studies or work 3.7 (1.2) 3.9 (1.1) t= -3.774, df= 1130, p= .000** 0.17 small
Encouragement from the academic staff 2.7 (1.4) 3.0 (1.3) t= -3.857, df= 1119, p= .000** 0.22 small
Encouragement by the employer or some other expert 2.0 (1.3) 2.3 (1.4) t= -3.012, df= 1105, p= .003* 0.22 small
Obtaining qualifications 3.2 (1.4) 3.5 (1.2) t= -3.716, df= 1124, p= .000** 0.23 small Professional development 3.8 (1.2) 4.0 (1.0) t= -3.983, df= 1132, p= .000** 0.18 small Improved career prospects after the doctorate 2.8 (1.4) 3.0 (1.3) t= -2.288, df= 1124, p= .022* 0.15 small
Improved professional status after the doctorate 2.9 (1.4) 3.2 (1.3) t= -2.737, df= 1124, p= .006* 0.22 small
No other career prospect in sight 2.4 (1.4) 2.0 (1.3) t= 3.952, df= 1091, p= .000** 0.30 small Coincidence 2.9 (1.4) 2.3 (1.3) t= 6.831, df= 806, p= .000** 0.44 small
Note: * The difference was significant at ≤ 0.05 level **The difference was significant at ≤ 0.01 level. EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010
21
21
Appendix 16. Satisfaction and intentions to interrupt studies in different faculties
Table 6. Satisfaction and intentions to interrupt studies in different faculties
Faculty SatisfactionMean (SD)
Consideration of interrupting studies yes no
Biological and environmental sciences 3,3 (0,9) 43% 57% Veterinary Medicine 3,6 (0,8) 36% 64% Pharmacy 3,6 (0,9) 41% 59% Arts 3,3 (1,0) 35% 65% Behavioral Sciences 3,5 (0,9) 33% 67% Medicine 3,3 (0,9) 42% 58% Agriculture and forestry 3,4 (1,0) 39% 61% Science 3,5 (0,9) 40% 60% Law 3,5 (1,0) 40% 60% Theology 3,5 (0,9) 26% 74% Social sciences 3,4 (0,9) 34% 66%
Note: The difference in satisfaction between students from different disciplines in satisfaction was non-significant. The relation between faculty and students’ intentions to interrupt studies was non-significant.
377Appendices
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–201022
Appendix 17. PIs and students’ perceptions of the emphasis of different kind of supervision in the beginning of the doctoral process and later
Table 7. PIs and students’ perceptions of the emphasis of different kind of supervision in the beginning of the doctoral process and later
Emphasis on… Doctoral students PIs Significance Effect size
Beginning M (SD) M (SD)
Postgraduate studies in general 2.4 (1.2) 3.5 (1.0) t= -15.688, df= 1587, p= .000 1.0 large Teaching related to doctoral education 2.2 (1.1) 3.4 (1.0) t= -19.401, df= 1582, p= .000 1.1 large Drafting of the PSP or the research, education and career plan 2.0 (1.2) 3.0 (1.3) t= -15.306, df= 1586, p= .000 0.8 large
Integration into the scholarly community 2.3 (1.2) 4.0 (0.9) t= -25.876, df= 1585, p= .000 1.6 large
International cooperation 2.4 (1.3) 3.9 (1.0) t= -21.420, df= 1580, p= .000 1.3 large Other points relevant at the initial stage of studies 2.2 (1.3) 1.3 (1.4) t= -14.861, df= 347, p= .000 0.7 medium
Later
Planning and methods of research 3.2 (1.2) 4.0 (0.7) t= -19.225, df= 1574, p= .000 0.8 large Literature and theories 3.0 (1.2) 4.3 (0.8) t= -20.665, df=1572, p= .000 1.3 large Analysis of research material and presentation of results 3.1 (1.2) 4.5 (0.8) t= -22.394, df= 1566, p= .000 1.4 large
Academic writing 3.2 (1.2) 4.4 (0.8) t= -19.011, df= 1569, p= .000 1.2 large Research ethics, applications for research approval 2.4 (1.3) 3.2 (1.2) t= -12.482, df=1560, p= .000 0.6 medium
Developing as a researcher 2.6 (1.2) 3.9 (0.8) t= -19.925, df= 1561, p= .000 1.3 large Developing new ideas 2.7 (1.3) 4.1 (0.9) t= -20.695, df= 1561, p= .000 1.3 large Acquisition of funding 2.9 (1.3) 3.7 (1.0) t= -11.229, df= 1566, p= .000 0.7 medium Networking nationally 2.6 (1.2) 3.7 (0.9) t= -15.493, df= 1567, p= .000 1.0 large Networking internationally 2.8 (1.3) 4.2 (0.9) t= -20.522, df= 1562, p= .000 1.3 large Career planning 1.8 (1.0) 3.1 (0.9) t= -23.038, df= 1561, p= .000 1,4 large General supervision policies 2.0 (1.1) 2.8 (1.0) t= -13.356, df= 1545, p= .000 0,8 large The rights and obligations of doctoral students 2.1 (1.1) 2.8 (0.9) t= -11.935, df= 1562, p= .000 0,7 medium
The rights and obligations of supervisors 2.0 (1.1) 2.8 (0,9) t= -12.621, df= 815, p= .000 0,8 large
Other points relevant for postgraduate studies 1.8 (1.3) 3.0 (1.6) t= -7.386, df= 499, p= .000 0,8 large
Note: * The difference was significant at ≤ 0.05 level **The difference was significant at ≤ 0.01 level.
378 Appendices
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–201022 Appendix 17. PIs and students’ perceptions of the emphasis of different kind of supervision in the beginning of the doctoral process and later
Table 7. PIs and students’ perceptions of the emphasis of different kind of supervision in the beginning of the doctoral process and later
Emphasis on… Doctoral students PIs Significance Effect size Beginning M (SD) M (SD) Postgraduate studies in general 2.4 (1.2) 3.5 (1.0) t= -15.688, df= 1587, p= .000 1.0 large Teaching related to doctoral education 2.2 (1.1) 3.4 (1.0) t= -19.401, df= 1582, p= .000 1.1 large Drafting of the PSP or the research, education and career plan 2.0 (1.2) 3.0 (1.3) t= -15.306, df= 1586, p= .000 0.8 large Integration into the scholarly community 2.3 (1.2) 4.0 (0.9) t= -25.876, df= 1585, p= .000 1.6 large International cooperation 2.4 (1.3) 3.9 (1.0) t= -21.420, df= 1580, p= .000 1.3 large Other points relevant at the initial stage of studies 2.2 (1.3) 1.3 (1.4) t= -14.861, df= 347, p= .000 0.7 medium Later Planning and methods of research 3.2 (1.2) 4.0 (0.7) t= -19.225, df= 1574, p= .000 0.8 large Literature and theories 3.0 (1.2) 4.3 (0.8) t= -20.665, df=1572, p= .000 1.3 large Analysis of research material and presentation of results 3.1 (1.2) 4.5 (0.8) t= -22.394, df= 1566, p= .000 1.4 large Academic writing 3.2 (1.2) 4.4 (0.8) t= -19.011, df= 1569, p= .000 1.2 large Research ethics, applications for research approval 2.4 (1.3) 3.2 (1.2) t= -12.482, df=1560, p= .000 0.6 medium Developing as a researcher 2.6 (1.2) 3.9 (0.8) t= -19.925, df= 1561, p= .000 1.3 large Developing new ideas 2.7 (1.3) 4.1 (0.9) t= -20.695, df= 1561, p= .000 1.3 large Acquisition of funding 2.9 (1.3) 3.7 (1.0) t= -11.229, df= 1566, p= .000 0.7 medium Networking nationally 2.6 (1.2) 3.7 (0.9) t= -15.493, df= 1567, p= .000 1.0 large Networking internationally 2.8 (1.3) 4.2 (0.9) t= -20.522, df= 1562, p= .000 1.3 large Career planning 1.8 (1.0) 3.1 (0.9) t= -23.038, df= 1561, p= .000 1,4 large General supervision policies 2.0 (1.1) 2.8 (1.0) t= -13.356, df= 1545, p= .000 0,8 large The rights and obligations of doctoral students 2.1 (1.1) 2.8 (0.9) t= -11.935, df= 1562, p= .000 0,7 medium The rights and obligations of supervisors 2.0 (1.1) 2.8 (0,9) t= -12.621, df= 815, p= .000 0,8 large Other points relevant for postgraduate studies 1.8 (1.3) 3.0 (1.6) t= -7.386, df= 499, p= .000 0,8 large
Note: * The difference was significant at ≤ 0.05 level **The difference was significant at ≤ 0.01 level.
EVAL
UATI
ON O
F RE
SEAR
CH AN
D DO
CTOR
AL TR
AINI
NG 20
05–2
010
23
23
App
endi
x 18
. Sum
var
iabl
es a
nd d
iffer
ence
s in
sum
var
iabl
es b
etw
een
the
facu
lties
20 it
ems
conc
erni
ng e
xper
ienc
ies
of s
uper
visi
on a
nd c
ondi
tions
of d
octo
ral e
duca
tion
wer
e di
vide
d in
to fo
ur fa
ctor
s ba
sed
on a
prin
cipa
l com
pone
nt
anal
ysis
(m
etho
d: V
arim
ax).
The
data
fit t
he p
rinci
pal c
ompo
nent
ana
lysi
s w
ell (
KM
O=.
94, B
artle
tt’s
test
= .0
00).
Com
mun
aliti
es w
ere
all b
etw
een
.5
and
.8. T
he C
ronb
ach’
s A
lpha
s m
easu
ring
the
inte
rnal
con
sist
ency
of e
ach
scal
e w
ere
eith
er g
ood
or v
ery
good
. Bas
ed o
n th
e re
liabi
lity
anal
ysis
, we
deci
ded
to c
ombi
ne tw
o fa
ctor
s to
“sat
isfa
ctio
n w
ith th
e w
orki
ng c
ondi
tions
” and
com
pute
thre
e su
m v
aria
bles
that
exp
lain
ed a
ppro
xim
atel
y 60
% o
f the
va
rianc
e.
Tabl
e 8.
Sum
var
iabl
es
The
sum
var
iabl
e Ite
ms
incl
uded
A
lpha
M
ean
(SD
)
Con
stru
ctiv
e su
perv
isio
n/ fe
edba
ck
“I re
ceiv
e en
cour
agem
ent a
nd p
erso
nal a
ttent
ion
from
my
supe
rvis
ors”
“I
feel
that
my
supe
rvis
ors
are
inte
rest
ed in
my
opin
ions
” “I
feel
app
reci
ated
by
my
supe
rvis
ors”
“I
ofte
n re
ceiv
e co
nstru
ctiv
e cr
itici
sm fo
r my
skill
s an
d ex
perti
se”
“I ca
n di
scus
s op
enly
any
pro
blem
s re
late
d to
my
doct
oral
edu
catio
n w
ith m
y su
perv
isor
s”
“I fe
el th
at I
am tr
eate
d w
ith re
spec
t”
.90
3.5
(1)
Bel
ongi
ng to
the
scho
larly
com
mun
ity
“I fe
el a
ccep
ted
by th
e re
sear
ch c
omm
unity
” “I
feel
like
an
outs
ider
in m
y ow
n re
sear
ch c
omm
unity
” “M
y ex
perti
se is
put
to u
se in
the
rese
arch
com
mun
ity”
“I fe
el th
at th
e ot
her m
embe
rs o
f the
rese
arch
com
mun
ity a
ppre
ciat
e m
y w
ork”
“T
here
is a
goo
d se
nse
of c
olle
gial
ity b
etw
een
rese
arch
ers”
“I
rece
ive
enco
urag
emen
t and
sup
port
from
the
othe
r doc
tora
l stu
dent
s”
.84
3.5
(0.9
)
Sat
isfa
ctio
n w
ith th
e w
orki
ng c
ondi
tions
“S
uper
visi
on h
as b
een
base
d on
the
gen
eral
gui
delin
es f
or t
he s
uper
visi
on o
f re
sear
ch a
nd s
tudi
es is
sued
by
the
facu
lty/d
octo
ral p
rogr
amm
e.”
“I ha
ve th
e fa
cilit
ies
and
equi
pmen
t I n
eed
at m
y di
spos
al.”
“Rig
hts
and
resp
onsi
bilit
ies
betw
een
me
and
the
othe
r do
ctor
al s
tude
nts
in m
y im
med
iate
sur
roun
ding
s ar
e eq
ually
di
strib
uted
.” “M
y re
sear
ch c
omm
unity
add
ress
es p
robl
ems
in a
con
stru
ctiv
e w
ay.”
“The
rela
tions
hips
bet
wee
n do
ctor
al s
tude
nts
are
mar
ked
by c
ompe
titio
n.”
“I ha
ve b
een
bulli
ed d
urin
g m
y do
ctor
al e
duca
tion.
” “I
am tr
eate
d eq
ually
in m
y re
sear
ch c
omm
unity
.” “I
can
influ
ence
mat
ters
con
cern
ing
doct
oral
edu
catio
n in
my
rese
arch
com
mun
ity.”
.73
3.4
(0.7
)
379Appendices
EVAL
UATI
ON O
F RE
SEAR
CH AN
D DO
CTOR
AL TR
AINI
NG 20
05–2
010
24
Tabl
e 9.
Diff
eren
ces
in s
um v
aria
bles
bet
wee
n di
ffere
nt fa
culti
es
B
iolo
gica
l an
d en
viro
nmen
tal
scie
nces
Vete
rinar
y M
edic
ine
Phar
mac
y A
rts
Beh
avio
ral
Scie
nces
M
edic
ine
Agr
icul
ture
an
d fo
rest
ry
Scie
nce
Law
Th
eolo
gy
Soci
al
scie
nces
Si
gnifi
canc
e
Con
stru
ctiv
e su
perv
isio
n/
feed
back
3.2
(1.1
) 3.
6 (0
.9)
3.6
(0.9
) 3.
6 (1
.0)
3.8
(0.9
) 3.
6 (1
.0)
3.4
(1.0
) 3.
4 (0
.9)
3.6
(1.0
) 3.
8 (0
.8)
3.4
(1.0
) .0
00*
Bel
ongi
ng
to
the
scho
larly
co
mm
unity
3.3
(0.6
) 3.
5 (0
.5)
3.5
(0.6
) 3.
2 (0
.7)
3.3
(0.6
) 3.
3 (0
.6)
3.3
(0.6
) 3.
3 (0
.6)
2.9
(0.8
) 3.
4 (0
.6)
3.0
(0.7
) .0
00*
Sat
isfa
ctio
n w
ith
the
wor
king
co
nditi
ons
2.9
(0.6
) 2.
9 (0
.5)
3.2
(0.6
) 2.
9 (0
.6)
3.0
(0.5
) 3.
0 (0
.6)
3.0
(0.6
) 2.
9 (0
.5)
2.9
(0.6
) 3.
0 (0
.6)
2.8
(0.6
) .0
45**
Not
e: *
The
diff
eren
ce w
as s
igni
fican
t at ≤
0.0
5 le
vel *
*The
diff
eren
ce w
as s
igni
fican
t at ≤
0.0
1 le
vel.
380 Appendices
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–2010
25
25
Appendix 19. Candidates’ and PIs perceptions of studies required for doctoral degree
Table 10. Candidates’ and PIs perceptions of studies required for doctoral degree.
The studies required for the doctoral degree… Doctoral students
PIs Significance Effect size
M (SD) M (SD) ...have supported the research work conducted for the doctoral dissertation. 3.7 (1.0) 4 (0.9) p= .000** 0.32 small
...have provided skills for research work. 3.6 (1.1) 4.0 (0.9) p= .000** 0,40 small
...have provided skills for other expert assignments. 3.2 (1.2) 3.5 (0.9) p= .000** 0.28 small …have provided skills necessary on the labour market outside academia. 2.7 (1.2) 3.1 (1.0) p= .000** 0.36 small
...are too broad in scope (no. of credits). 2.4 (1.2) 2.6 (1.1) p= .004* 0.17 small
...are of appropriate scope so that full-time students are able to complete the degree in four years. 3.0 (1.3) 3.3 (1.2) p= .000** 0.24 small
Note: * The difference was significant at ≤ 0.05 level **The difference was significant at ≤ 0.01 level.
EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING 2005–201026
Appendix 20. Graduation times in different faculties
Table 11. Graduation times in different faculties.
Biological and environmental sciences
Veterinary science
Pharmacy
Arts
Behavioral sciences
Medicine
Science
Agriculture and forestry
Law
Theology
Social sciences
Total
≤ 4 years 11 2 2 2 10 34 26 6 7 0 9 10
9 5 years 14 0 0 3 2 20 13 9 0 0 3 64
6 years 19 0 3 7 5 13 8 1 1 1 4 62
7-10 years 13 3 3 10 7 22 9 14 3 4 10 98
over 10years
4 2 1 16 12 11 7 11 2 7 15 88
N 61 7 9 38 36 100 63 41 13 12 41 421
381Appendices
AGR
ICULTU
RA
L
AGR
ICULTU
RA
L
AGR
ICULTU
RA
L
AGRICULTURAL
AUTO
NO
MY A
ND
AUTO
NO
MY A
ND
BIB
LIOM
ETRICS
BIB
LIOM
ETRICS
BIB
LIOM
ETRICS
BIBLIOMETRICS BOTTO
M-U
PH
UM
AN
ITIESB
OTTOM
-UP
COM
MU
NITY
COMMUNITY
CRO
SSING
TRA
DITIO
NA
L BO
RD
ERS
CROSSING TRADITIONAL BORDERS
CRO
SSING
TRA
DITIO
NA
LB
OR
DER
S
CROSSINGTRADITIONAL
BORDERS
CRO
SSING
TR
AD
ITION
AL
BO
RD
ERS
DO
CTOR
AL TR
AIN
ING
DO
CTOR
AL
TRA
ININ
GD
OCTO
RA
L TRA
ININ
G
ENH
AN
CEMEN
T-LED EVA
LUATIO
N
ENHANCEMENT-LED EVALUATION
ENHANCEMENT-LED EVALUATION
FIVEIN
TERN
ATION
AL
PAN
ELS
INTERNATIONAL
FIVE INTER
NATIO
NA
L PAN
ELS
FIELD A
DJU
STED
BIB
LIOM
ETRIC A
NA
LYSIS
FIELD A
DJU
STED
BIB
LIOM
ETRIC A
NA
LYSIS
FIELD ADJUSTED BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
FIELD A
DJU
STEDB
IBLIO
METR
IC AN
ALYSIS
SOCIA
L IMPACT
SOCIAL IMPACT
SOCIA
L IMPACT
SOCIA
L IMPACTHIGH QUALITY RESEARCH
HIG
H Q
UA
LITY RESEA
RCH
HIG
H Q
UA
LITY RESEA
RCH
HIG
H Q
UA
LITY RESEA
RCH
HIG
H Q
UA
LITY RESEA
RCH
TRA
ININ
G
TRAINING TRANSDISCIPLINARITY
TRA
ININ
G
TRA
NSD
ISCIPLINA
RITY
VOLU
NTA
RY
VOLU
NTA
RY
VOLUNTARY
VOLU
NTA
RY
VOLU
NTA
RY
FLEXIBLE STR
UCTU
RES
FLEXIBLE STR
UCTU
RES
FLEXIBLE STR
UCTU
RES
FLEXIBLE STR
UCTU
RESH
ELSINK
I MO
DEL
HELSINKI MODEL
HEALTH SCIENCES
HEA
LTH SCIEN
CES
RESEA
RCH
ER
OR
IENTED
R
ESEAR
CHER
O
RIEN
TED
SCIENTO
METR
ICS
PEER R
EVIEW
MU
LTIDIM
ENSIO
NA
L
MU
LTIDISCIPLIN
AR
ITY
FUTURE POTENTIAL
FUTUREPOTENTIAL
TRANSDISCIPLINARITY
FLEXIBLESTRUCTURES
SCIENTO
METR
ICS
AL
AGR
I
AGRICULTURAL
AUTO
NO
M
CS
S
BIB
LIOM
ETRICS
BIBLIOMETRICS OTTOU
MA
NO
M-
P
COM
MU
NITY
CRO
SSING
TRA
DITIO
NA
L BO
RD
ERS
CROSSING TRADITIONAL BORD
CRO
SSING
TR
AD
ITION
AL
BO
RD
ERS
NIN
DO
CTOR
AL
TRA
ININ
GD
O
ENHANCEMENT-LED EVALUATAA
-LED EVALUATIONAA
INTER
NATIO
NA
P
FIVE INTER
FIELD A
DJU
STEDB
IBLIO
METR
IC AN
ALYSIS
AD
JUSTED
TRIC A
NA
LYSIS
FIELD ADJUSTED BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS
D
SOCIAL IMPACT
SOC
PACPP
QUALITY RESEARCH
ALITY R
ESEAR
CH
HIG
H Q
UA
LITY RESEA
RCH
TRA
ININ
RAINING TRANSDISCIPLINARITY
TRA
NSD
ISCIPLINA
R
VO
VOLU
NTA
RY
UN
TARY
FLE
LE STRU
CTUR
ESHELSIN
KI M
OD
E
HEALTH SCIENCERESEA
RCH
ER
ACT
EME
NAL
OR
IENTED
RES
OR
TOM
ETRICS
LTIDISCIPLIN
AR
IT
POTENTIAL
IAL
NSD SCIPLINARITY
EXIBLESTRUCTURES
L
RN
O
SB
OTTH
UM
AM
-UP
RDERS
NG
EVALUA
ERN
ATPA
NELS
VE INTE
JUSTED
IC AN
ALY
ANALYSIS
ACT
TY RESEA
AIN
TRA
ININ
G
TRA
NSD
ISCIPLINA
RITY
NTA
STRU
CES
MET
LERUCTURES
CCRREERR
S
OOOOCCCCIAAAA
LLLL IIMP
MP
MP
MAAAAACCCCTTTT
ALILITYTTD
HHHEELLLSSSIN
MMOOO
DDDEELL
MMENTENTENT L-LELE GG
D VVFRROO
DDISSSCCIIPPPLLINN
AA
OOTTTTEEEENNNNTTIIALSSSDIDIDIDISSSCSC
UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI – EXCELLENCE FOR SOCIETY – HELSINKI MODEL OF RESEARCH EVALUATION
The Evaluation of Research and Doctoral Training is a new model and innovative endeavour to interpret the diversity of the research of a multidisciplinary university. The present evaluation method can be considered to be enhancement led, supporting a bottom-up approach that begins from the researchers. The voluntary-based evaluation succeeded in attracting 1,059 Principal Investigators, and altogether 5,857 researchers participated in the evaluation.
The participants were Researcher Communities – a new concept to be used for evaluation and to plan future research which crosses faculty and departmental borders and proves the collaboration of researchers. The Researcher Communities chose one of the options of participation categories describing their special status or the character of their research:
• Outstanding• Close to outstanding• Exceptional• Innovative opening• Societal impact
The University of Helsinki has carried out previous research assessments in the years 1998 and 2005. The planning of the present evaluation started in 2010. The data in the evaluation material covered the years 2005–2010.
One exceptional feature in the evaluation was the two types of bibliometric analyses available to the Panels.
The Helsinki University Library prepared tailored bibliometric figures for the entire University and for the Researcher Communities in Social Sciences, Humanities and Computer Sciences. The publication rankings of the Norwegian and Australian models were applied in the evaluation as well. The library analyses proved its innovativeness in the publication analyses. The University of Leiden provided traditional bibliometric analyses for the University and for the Researcher Communities.
The TUHAT Research Information System provided an excellent opportunity to test the publication metadata stored in the database of the University.
The 50 international Panellists represented the five main fields of sciences. The Panels scored the four main evaluation questions and category fitness using the scale 1–5. The mean of the scores for most of the evaluation objects was four or close to that number. The performance of most RCs can be considered outstanding or high quality. The performance of the entire University is outstanding or high quality when compared to the international field-normalised indicators.
The evaluation results with its recommendations offer tools for the strategic planning of the University.
INTERN
ATION
AL EVA
LUATION
OF RESEA
RCH A
ND
D
OCTO
RAL TRA
ININ
G AT TH
E UN
IVERSITY OF H
ELSINKI 2005–2010
INTERNATIONAL EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI 2005–2010Seppo Saari & Antti Moilanen (Eds.)
Seppo Saari & Antti M
oilanen (Eds.)
ISBN 978-952-10-7557-5 (Paperback)ISBN 978-952-10-7558-2 (PDF)ISSN 1795-5408 (Print)ISSN 1795-5513 (Online)