International Evaluation of Research and Doctoral Training at ......INTERNATIONAL EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI 2005–2010 Seppo Saari

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


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


Layout Unigrafia

Printed by Unigrafia, Helsinki 2012

www.helsinki.fi/julkaisut

http://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.


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


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.

http://www.helsinki.fi/tutkinnonuudistus/materiaalit/Policies%20concerning%20doctoral%20degrees%20-%20engl.pdf


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.


• 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.


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.


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.


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).

https://wiki.helsinki.fi/download/attachments/70911363/UH_introduction_27052011ES.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1307360471459

https://wiki.helsinki.fi/download/attachments/70911363/UH_DoctoralTraining.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1307360051433

http://www.helsinki.fi/arviointi2010-2012/tutkimuksenarviointi_raportti_1999.pdf

http://www.helsinki.fi/arviointi2010-2012/tutkimuksenarviointi_raportti_2005.pdf

https://wiki.helsinki.fi/download/attachments/70911363/HE_Finland_introduction_27052011ES.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1307359986235

https://wiki.helsinki.fi/download/attachments/70911363/InnoEvaluation_Report2009.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1307359607255

https://wiki.helsinki.fi/download/attachments/70911363/StageQualityResearch_Summary2009.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1307359740024

https://wiki.helsinki.fi/download/attachments/70911363/StageQualityResearch_Summary2009.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1307359740024


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)


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


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


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



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


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


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)


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.


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.


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


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.



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.














13 APPENDICES



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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.










13 APPENDICES




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.


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


Evolutionary Biology

Cell Biology Pediatrics, Dentistry

INBIOS Biodiversity Conservation


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

- -



MUSGEN Genetics and Heredity



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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.



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.


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


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:



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


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.



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


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.


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.


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)


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.



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


6 The number of publications of RC was under a critical point, i.e. 50 publications although the internal coverage was over 40 percent.










13 APPENDICES




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


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.


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


Cell Biology

CardioMed Cardiac and Cardiovascular System

Pharmacology and Pharmacy

Nutrition and Dietetics

Medicine, Research and Experimental

CompDisGen Genetics and Heredity


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


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


- 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


NEUROMED Neurosciences Pharmacology and Pharmacy

Physiology Neuroimaging

Neuron Neurosciences - - -



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.


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.


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


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


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


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.


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.



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


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.


PUBLICATION STATISTICS


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.


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



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.





Table 7. Medicine, Biomedicine and Health Sciences: publications, citations and field-normalized figures in the CWTS/Leiden analysis (2005−2010)


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).








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.



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


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.









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)


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.










13 APPENDICES




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


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.


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


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


Inv Mathematics, Applied

- - -

LIC Chemistry, Inorganic and Nuclear

Materials Science, Coatings and Films


Chemistry, Multidisciplinary

LTCC Geosciences, Multidisciplinary

Geology Geography, Physical

-

MAC Chemistry, Analytical Pharmacology and Pharmacy


- Microtechnology

MATENA Physics, Condensed Matter

Materials Science, Characterization, Testing


Materials Science, Coatings and Films



MEDCHEMBIO Chemistry, Medicinal Pharmacology and Pharmacy

Chemistry, Organic


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, 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.


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


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.


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


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


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.


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.


• 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.


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.


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.


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.


Table 9. Numeric evaluation of RCs in the Panel of Natural Sciences


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.



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


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).







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.


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



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



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



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






Table 10. Natural Sciences: publications, citations and field-normalized figures in the CWTS/Leiden analysis


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









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.


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


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.


Square 1: RCs publish their papers in high-impact journals and the number of citations they receive exceeds the world average in their field.











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.


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)


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.



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


4 NODES and SOFTSYS did not fulfil the criteria requirement of CWTS/Leiden (P ≥ 50 and int_cov ≥ 0.40).


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)

http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm











13 APPENDICES




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


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



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


Humanities, Multidisciplinary

Engineering sciences

ART Literary Theory and Criticism

Theater Film, Radio, Television

Philosophy

BAULT Language and Linguistics Theory


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


Literary Theory and Criticism

Literature Translation studies

Interaction Social Sciences Behavioral Sciences

Education and Educational Research


LDHFTA Language and Linguistics Theory


- -

LFP Language and Linguistics Theory

Applied Linguistics

- - Lingua franca, bilingualism, plurilingualism, second language use



LMPS Philosophy History and Philosophy of Science



Logic, philosophy of logic, foundations of mathematics, game-theory, philosophy of economics

LMS Language and Linguistics Theory

Applied Linguistics


- 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


Medieval and Renaissance Studies


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.


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


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


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


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,


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.



Table 15. Numeric evaluation of RCs in the Panel of Humanities


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.



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


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).


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


TUHAT CWTS/LEIDEN


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


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


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


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



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


Figure 18. Norwegian publication ranking application in Humanities

Coefficients applied in the publication rankings


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



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


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


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




A and C publications belong to the type of scientific publications in TUHAT RIS.



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


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










13 APPENDICES




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


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


ACRONYM 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


Fields of sciences of the Researcher Communities in the Panel of Social Sciences


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

-


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.


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


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


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. - -


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


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).


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


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


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-


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.


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.


Table 19. Numeric evaluation of the RCs in the Panel of Social Sciences


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



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.


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


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).



Table 20. Publications in the Social Sciences

TUHAT CWTS/LEIDEN


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.


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


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


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


COEFFICIENTS APPLIED IN THE PUBLICATION RANKINGS



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.


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


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




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


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


7.12 PUBLICATION STATISTICS OF THE CWTS/LEIDEN – SOCIAL SCIENCES


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


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).


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



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).


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



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



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.






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.





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)



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.










13 APPENDICES




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.


Number of PIs and other members in RCs in the evaluation panels


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


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


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.


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.


Table 28. Number of RCs in focus areas of research organised according to evaluation panels

Focus area BIO37 MED38 NAT39 HUM40 SOC41 Total


5 8 13






7. Exact thinking 6 1 7





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


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


19 36 10






7. Precise reasoning 27 3 5





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


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



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


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


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


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.


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


NATURAL SCIENCES

Average 4.16 4.02 3.82 4.09 4.50


HUMANITIES

Average 4.02 4.30 4.18 4.07 4.16


SOCIAL SCIENCES

Average 3.72 3.86 3.94 4.08 4.56


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


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


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



Table 37. Percentage of publications by type in evaluation panels

Type of publication

Evaluation panel A B C D E F H I Total


67.9 11.4 1.7 6.5 11.9 0.0 0.2 0.3 100%


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.


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.











13 APPENDICES




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


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.


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


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.


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-


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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).


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


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).


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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).


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.


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


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


25

Trend analyses



Collaboration



25

Trend analyses



Collaboration


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)


MICROBIOLOGY (0,92)


BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY (0,75)

VETERINARY SCIENCES (0,77)

AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING (0,34)

REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY (0,97)

P

Categ

ory



27

Trend analyses



Collaboration


Research profile - ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350


PHYSICS, PARTICLES & FIELDS (1,43)

P

Categ

ory



27

Trend analyses



Collaboration


Research profile - ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350



P

Categ

ory


28

Basic life sciences

Basic statistics


Trend analyses



Collaboration



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



MICROBIOLOGY (1,12)

CELL BIOLOGY (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



30

Trend analyses



Collaboration



31

Research profile - BASIC MEDICAL SCIENCES

Biological sciences

Basic statistics


0 10 20 30 40 50 60

CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL (0,88)

ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL (0,80)


MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS (0,86)

CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY (1,21)

MEDICAL INFORMATICS (0,58)

CHEMISTRY, ORGANIC (0,58)


HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES (0,65)

RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING (1,11)


P

Categ

ory



32

Trend analyses



Collaboration



33

Research profile - BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

Biomedical sciences

Basic statistics


0 50 100 150 200 250 300


BIOLOGY (1,37)


ZOOLOGY (1,06)

ECOLOGY (1,44)

MARINE & FRESHWATER BIOLOGY (1,26)

ENTOMOLOGY (1,03)

BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES (1,20)



FISHERIES (1,29)

MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY (1,42)

MYCOLOGY (0,85)

ORNITHOLOGY (1,66)

P

Categ

ory



34

Trend analyses



Collaboration



35

Research profile - BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES

Chemistry and chemical engineering

Basic statistics


0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500



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)


ALLERGY (1,95)



P

Categ

ory



36

Trend analyses



Collaboration



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)


ENGINEERING, CHEMICAL (1,07)

P

Categ

ory



38

Trend analyses



Collaboration


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



39

Clinical medicine

Basic statistics


Trend analyses



Collaboration



40

Research profile - CLINICAL MEDICINE

Computer sciences

Basic statistics


0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500


ONCOLOGY (1,50)


MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL (8,91)


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



41

Trend analyses



Collaboration



41

Trend analyses



Collaboration


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



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



42

Research profile - COMPUTER SCIENCES

Creative arts, culture and music

Basic statistics


Trend analyses



0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40





COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING (1,28)



P

Categ

ory



43

Collaboration


Research profile - CREATIVE ARTS, CULTURE AND MUSIC

Earth sciences and technology

Basic statistics


0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5

MUSIC (0,31)

PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL (0,31)

P

Categ

ory



44

Trend analyses



Collaboration



44

Trend analyses



Collaboration


45

Research profile - EARTH SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY

Economics and business

Basic statistics


0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350


GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY (1,65)

GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS (1,10)


GEOGRAPHY, PHYSICAL (1,69)

OCEANOGRAPHY (1,04)

ECOLOGY (2,36)

GEOLOGY (0,87)

PALEONTOLOGY (1,55)

REMOTE SENSING (2,20)

P

Categ

ory



46

Trend analyses



Collaboration



46

Trend analyses



Collaboration


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



48

Trend analyses



Collaboration


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)


EDUCATION, SPECIAL (0,75)


P

Categ

ory


48

Trend analyses



Collaboration



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80







P

Categ

ory


48

Trend analyses



Collaboration



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80







P

Categ

ory



48

Trend analyses



Collaboration



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80







P

Categ

ory


49

Electrical engineering and telecommunication

Basic statistics


Trend analyses



Collaboration



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


PHYSICS, APPLIED (0,44)

TRANSPORTATION (1,62)



NANOSCIENCE & NANOTECHNOLOGY (0,46)

OPTICS (0,73)

TELECOMMUNICATIONS (0,90)


AUTOMATION & CONTROL SYSTEMS (2,84)


PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED (2,18)


P

Categ

ory



51

Trend analyses



Collaboration



52

Research profile - ENERGY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Environmental sciences and technology

Basic statistics


0 10 20 30 40 50 60


INSTRUMENTS & INSTRUMENTATION (0,62)

SPECTROSCOPY (0,44)



PHYSICS, NUCLEAR (0,91)


CHEMISTRY, INORGANIC & NUCLEAR (0,35)

MINING & MINERAL PROCESSING (2,33)


ENERGY & FUELS (0,94)

P

Categ

ory



53

Trend analyses



Collaboration



54

Research profile - ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY

General and industrial engineering

Basic statistics


0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

ECOLOGY (1,62)


FORESTRY (1,27)


BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION (2,18)



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



55

Trend analyses



Collaboration


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



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



Collaboration



57

Research profile - HEALTH SCIENCES

History, philosophy and religion

Basic statistics


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY (1,03)


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)



SOCIAL WORK (0,72)

PHYSIOLOGY (2,01)

P

Categ

ory



58

Trend analyses



Collaboration



58

Trend analyses



Collaboration


59

Research profile - HISTORY, PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION

Information and communication sciences

Basic statistics


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)


P

Categ

ory



60

Trend analyses



Collaboration


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)


P

Categ

ory


60

Trend analyses



Collaboration



0 5 10 15 20 25




LINGUISTICS (0,68)


P

Categ

ory



60

Trend analyses



Collaboration



0 5 10 15 20 25




LINGUISTICS (0,68)


P

Categ

ory


61

Instruments and instrumentation

Basic statistics


Trend analyses



Collaboration



62

Research profile - INSTRUMENTS AND INSTRUMENTATION

Language and linguistics

Basic statistics


Trend analyses



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80



SPECTROSCOPY (0,47)




MICROSCOPY (3,11)

P

Categ

ory


62

Research profile - INSTRUMENTS AND INSTRUMENTATION


Basic statistics


Trend analyses



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80



SPECTROSCOPY (0,47)




MICROSCOPY (3,11)

P

Categ

ory



63

Collaboration


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



64

Trend analyses



Collaboration


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


64

Trend analyses



Collaboration



0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20


LAW (0,46)



P

Categ

ory



64

Trend analyses



Collaboration



0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20


LAW (0,46)



P

Categ

ory


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



Collaboration


Research profile - LITERATURE

N/A


66

Management and planning

Basic statistics


Trend analyses



Collaboration



67

Research profile - MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING

Mathematics

Basic statistics


Trend analyses



0 5 10 15 20 25

MANAGEMENT (1,00)

PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT (1,09)


AREA STUDIES (1,09)

ECONOMICS (0,65)

P

Categ

ory



68

Collaboration


Research profile - MATHEMATICS

Mechanical engineering and aerospace

Basic statistics


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)




P

Categ

ory



69

Trend analyses



Collaboration


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



70

Multidisciplinary journals

Basic statistics


Trend analyses



Collaboration



71

Research profile - MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNALS

Physics and materials science

Basic statistics


Trend analyses



0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES (3,08)


P

Categ

ory



72

Collaboration


Research profile - PHYSICS AND MATERIALS SCIENCE

Political science and public administration

Basic statistics


0 50 100 150 200 250


PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY (2,60)


PHYSICS, CONDENSED MATTER (1,12)







OPTICS (1,12)

CRYSTALLOGRAPHY (0,83)



P

Categ

ory


72

Collaboration


Research profile - PHYSICS AND MATERIALS SCIENCE


Basic statistics


0 50 100 150 200 250


PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY (2,60)


PHYSICS, CONDENSED MATTER (1,12)







OPTICS (1,12)

CRYSTALLOGRAPHY (0,83)



P

Categ

ory



73

Trend analyses



Collaboration


Research profile - POLITICAL SCIENCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35


POLITICAL SCIENCE (0,50)

ECONOMICS (0,41)

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (0,50)

P

Categ

ory



74

Psychology

Basic statistics


Trend analyses



Collaboration



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



0 20 40 60 80 100 120

PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY (1,48)


PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL (0,85)


PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL (1,18)



PSYCHIATRY (1,36)

P

Categ

ory


75



Basic statistics


Trend analyses



0 20 40 60 80 100 120








PSYCHIATRY (1,36)

P

Categ

ory


75



Basic statistics


Trend analyses



0 20 40 60 80 100 120








PSYCHIATRY (1,36)

P

Categ

ory



76

Collaboration


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)


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



77

Trend analyses



Collaboration



78

Research profile - SOCIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY

Statistical sciences

Basic statistics


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



79

Trend analyses



Collaboration


Research profile - STATISTICAL SCIENCES

0 5 10 15 20 25 30




ECONOMICS (0,97)

OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE (1,29)


P

Categ

ory


79

Trend analyses



Collaboration



0 5 10 15 20 25 30




ECONOMICS (0,97)



P

Categ

ory


79

Trend analyses



Collaboration



0 5 10 15 20 25 30




ECONOMICS (0,97)



P

Categ

ory












13 APPENDICES




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.

https://tuhat.halvi.helsinki.fi/portal/en/

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


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.


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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


Chemistry and chemical engineering Sciences: comprehensive works

Environmental sciences and technology Health sciences

Pharmacy and pharmacology Medical sciences


Veterinary sciences No. of publications




Faculty of Veterinary Medicine

1.4.10 Faculty of Theology



1.4.11 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


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


Chemistry and chemical engineering Sciences: comprehensive works

Environmental sciences and technology Health sciences

Pharmacy and pharmacology Medical sciences


Veterinary sciences No. of publications


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.


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.


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


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











13 APPENDICES




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.

http://www.helsinki.fi/strategia/pdf/STRATEGIA_web.pdf

http://www.helsinki.fi/strategia/pdf/STRATEGIA_web.pdf

http://www.helsinki.fi/strategia/pdf/Tutkimuspoliittinen_web.pdf







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)














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.


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).



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


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


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


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




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).


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


(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.


(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.


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).


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


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.


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%).


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.


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.


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.


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.










13 APPENDICES




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.












13 APPENDICES


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


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


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


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


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


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)



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



CommunicationInformation science & library science

Language, linguistics and literature


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




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



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






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



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


International relationsPolitical sciencePublic administration

Psychology Psychology, appliedPsychology, biologicalPsychology, clinicalPsychology, developmentalPsychology, experimentalPsychology, mathematicalPsychology, multidisciplinaryPsychology, psychoanalysisPsychology, social

327Appendices




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.

https://wiki.helsinki.fi/download/attachments/63116078/Guidelines.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1287758098095



https://wiki.helsinki.fi/download/attachments/63116078/ExcelAttachment_stage1.xlsx?

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).

https://wiki.helsinki.fi/display/evaluation2011/Home

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.


* 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


* 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

https://wiki.helsinki.fi/display/evaluation2011/Frequently+asked+questions

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).

http://wiki.helsinki.fi/download/attachments/63116078/UH_KeyFocusAreas%2B%28English%2Bversion%29.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=1296210255636


mailto:[email protected]



http://wiki.helsinki.fi/display/evaluation2011panel/Instructions

http://wiki.helsinki.fi/display/evaluation2011panel/Instructions

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


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



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



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



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.


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



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


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


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



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.


https://wiki.helsinki.fi/download/attachments/63116078/Guidelines_Stage2updated210110.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=1295591252115

https://wiki.helsinki.fi/download/attachments/63116078/Guidelines_Stage2updated210110.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=1295591252115

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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 %


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


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


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 - - - - - - -


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


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


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?_____________________


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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?


Are the grounds for the grading scale of doctoral dissertations publicly available?


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


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


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


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


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



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



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.)


Documents

International Evaluation of Research and Doctoral Training at ......INTERNATIONAL EVALUATION OF RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL TRAINING AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI 2005–2010 Seppo Saari