Rector’s Regulation 4/2010 Habilitation procedures and Professor appointment procedures employed by Masaryk University (in force as of 5 May 2010) Compliant to paragraph 1, Section 10, Act 111/1998 of higher education, I issue this Regulation: Article 1 Scope This Regulation sets forth the rules of submitting proposals to open a habilitation procedure or a Professor appointment procedure (hitherto Procedure in common clauses), all requirements and the procedural steps taken in process used at Masaryk University (hitherto “MU”). Article 2 General Provisions (1) For habilitation procedures MU follows Sections 71 and 72 of the Higher Education Act 111/1998 in force (hitherto “Act”). (2) For the procedures of the appointment of Professor, MU follows Sections 73 and 74 of the Act. (3) The initiation, course and conclusion are registered in a habilitation/appointment file that includes the following: a) The proposal of procedure initiation together with all enclosures, b) Readers’ reports and all relevant written evaluations, c) Minutes of habilitation/evaluation board meetings and the records of board’s voting results, d) A written record of the corresponding part(s) of scientific board(s) session(s) and the record of applicant appointing associate professor / professor voting, e) Scientific board’s or boards’ proposals of conferring the applicant associate professor or professor degree; the board chairperson[1] submits such a proposal on behalf of the scientific board. (4) The entire file is archived following the provisions of MU Rector’s Regulation 12/05 Nomenclature and Document Destruction Regulations. Article 3 Procedure Initiation (1) A habilitation procedure is initiated by submitting a proposal to a) The Dean of the faculty that is accredited in the relevant field through faculty’s research and development office, or to b) The university Rector should it be MU to run the habilitation procedure in the field, through MU Research and Development Office. In order to launch the habilitation procedure, an applicant must submit a written proposal structured according to the template found in Annex No. 14 to this directive. (2) A professor appointment procedure is initiated a) by applicant’s proposal submitted to the scientific board of the faculty accredited in the relevant field for professor appointment procedure, or b) by applicant’s proposal submitted to MU Scientific Board, should the procedure be in a MU-accredited field, or c) by Dean’s or Rector’s proposal submitted to the scientific board of the faculty accredited for professor appointment in the relevant field, or d) by Dean’s or Rector’s proposal submitted to MU Scientific Board should the procedure be in a MU-accredited field, or e) on faculty scientific board own accord, or f) on MU Scientific Board own accord. (3) The person who submits the proposal mentioned in (2) is a) In case of 2a), the applicant to the Dean as the faculty scientific board chairperson via faculty research and development office, b) In case of 2b), the applicant to the Rector as the MU Scientific Board chairperson via MU Research and Development Office, c) In case of 2c), the Dean directly to the faculty scientific board or the Rector to the Dean as the faculty scientific board chairperson, d) In case of 2d), the Rector directly to MU Scientific Board, or the Dean to the Rector as MU Scientific Board chairperson. e) In case of 2e), the faculty scientific board own accord means the result of voting, f) In case of 2f), the MU Scientific Board own accord means the result of voting. According to letters a) and b), an applicant’s proposal must include at least two recommendations from professors in the same or related field. (4) The procedure under the terms of 1a) or 2a) initiates on the date the Faculty Research and Development Office receives the proposal. The procedure under 1b) or 2b) initiates on the date the MU Research and Development Office receives the proposal. The procedure under 2c) or 2d) initiates on the date of Dean’s or Rector’s proposal submission to Faculty/MU Scientific Board, respectively. The procedure under 2e) or 2f) initiates on the date of proposal accord by Faculty/MU Scientific Board, respectively. (5) The checks of the essentials of the proposals under 1 a), 2 a), c) or e) are under the responsibility of designated Faculty Research and Development officer. The checks of the essentials of the proposals under 1 b), 2 b), d) or f) are under the responsibility of designated MU Research and Development officer. The applicant is obliged to correct any formal faults of the proposal in 30 days otherwise the Dean or the Rector will terminate the procedure. (6) When the individual concerned is already a professor at a prestigious higher education university abroad, the Rector, following the provisions of item 1, Section 74 of the Higher Education Act, may waive the provision that the applicant must have been appointed an associate professor before the procedure for his appointment as a professor can begin. The Rector may make such an exception upon a recommendation from the MU Scientific Board approved by a ballot. An application for the exception shall be submitted together with the professor appointment procedure initiation proposal observing the provisions of item 3. The proposal must include: a) All requirements itemised in this Regulation for professor appointment procedure initiation, b) A document showing the applicant has been appointed professor at a higher education institution abroad, c) When a proposal is submitted according to item 3a), c) or e), a written statement of the involved faculty scientific board on making an exception. The Dean forwards the proposal submitted in accordance with item 3 a), c) or e) to the Rector as the MU Scientific Board chairperson for discussion. (7) Should the professor appointment procedure initiation proposal be submitted according to item 6, the procedure is initiated as of the date the exception is granted. In case the Rector refused the exception, the procedure does not initiate and all provided documents are returned to the applicant. Article 4 The requirements of the proposal for procedure initiation (1) A proposal requesting the initiation of a habilitation procedure submitted according to Annex No. 14 must include the following evidence documenting the applicant’s scientific or artistic qualification: a) A curriculum vitae structured as shown in the Information System of Masaryk University (hitherto IS MU), b) Officially authorised copies of the documents attesting higher education acquired and conferred degrees/titles; an official authorisation may be either an authentic copy or a registry office certificate, or a faculty/MU research and development office personnel statement the copy is in accord with the original document with his/her hand and seal set to it, c) Documents proving teaching experience (see item 5), d) Technical characteristics of scientific or artistic work and achieved results (see item 6) – only in case of proposal originated by the scientific board or by applicant’s personal will, e) A list of scientific, scholarly or artistic works (see item 7), f) A list of responses to the works listed under item e), g) A list of scientific, scholarly or artistic research internships (see item 8)[2], h) Any other documents demonstrating scientific or artistic qualifications (see item 9), i) A summary of applicant’s works listed under item e) and a summary of responses to them (table under item 10 – Annex 3), j) Habilitation thesis according to subsection 11, letters a) and b) in four copies and in electronic version; habilitation thesis according to subsection 11, letter c) in four copies. Should a habilitation thesis consist of a work of art or artistic performance or a set thereof according to subsection 11, letter d), the applicant must provide information identifying such a work or performance. (2) The proposal of initiating professor appointment procedure includes the name of the field the applicant applies for professor degree and the following attests of his/her scientific or artistic qualification: a) Documents attesting in line with item 1, Section 74 of the Act the applicant is a recognised scientific or artistic personality in his/her field (particularly recommendations for proposals submitted under the terms of article 3, item 2 a) or b)), b) Documents mentioned in item 1 a) through i). (3) The documents presented to comply with item 1 except 1 j) or the documents presented for item 2 must be sorted in the order as mentioned and, except the documents for 1 b) and 2 a), signed by the applicant on each piece of paper. Should the papers were bound together permanently a signature on the last page of the resulting document is sufficient. The applicant shall also submit the documents mentioned in items 1 a) and c) through i) in electronic version the contents of which are identical with the written versions. Besides, the applicant shall present two additional sets of the documents required in item 1 a), e) and i), and a list of supervised doctoral theses (item 5 c)), again with a signature on each piece of paper. (4) The documents of achieved university education and conferred degrees mentioned in item 1 b) include a) A document of concluding higher education (university diploma plus annexes, such as final examination report, diploma supplement, etc.), or documents of equal education acknowledgement reached abroad, b) A document of conferring “MUDr.” Degree to the graduates from Czech medical faculties in the years of 1953-1964, c) A document of conferring CSc. or DrSc. (or DSc.) degree or a document of conferring the academic degree of Dr. or Ph.D., or documents attesting conferring equal degree(s) abroad, d) For professor appointment applicants, a document of previously appointed associate professor degree through the habilitation procedure unless such appointment was waived under the provisions mentioned in item 1, Section 74 of the Act. (5) The documents showing applicant’s teaching experience as mentioned in item 1c) include a) Employer’s acknowledgement of teaching experience duration and records or an equivalent document attesting teaching experience at a higher education institution abroad, b) A summary of regular courses[3] in the last 5 years including the year the procedure initiated[4] structured as shown in Annex 1, c) The number of supervised Bachelor’s and diploma (Master’s) theses in the last 5 years to include the year the procedure initiated and a complete list of supervised doctoral theses as shown in Annex 1, d) Membership in the committees for final state, advanced state and doctoral state examinations and membership in doctoral boards and doctoral committees for doctoral degree programmes in the last 5 years including the year the procedure initiated, e) A list of textbooks / textbook chapters, f) A list of learning texts or other teaching aids for courses, g) A list of popularizing texts and a summary of popularizing activities significant from applicant’s point of view[5], h) A list of survey and learning texts and presentations[6], i) A list of university or education related projects, the applicant was the principal researcher or a cooperating researcher[7]; here please mention project title, provider, time of work on the project and principal researcher’s name (only if the applicant is a cooperating researcher), j) A list of artistic performances. The lists mentioned in item d) or items f) through j) include only the last 5 years including the year of procedure initiation. The applicants external of MU must have the lists mentioned in item b), c) or d) (Annex 1) confirmed by the dean of the faculty or the rector of the university that is not divided into faculties the applicant taught for. The applicant also includes an information summary of teaching works mentioned in items e) through j) without time limit, as mentioned in Annex 3. (6) A brief characteristic of researched issues the applicant has been involved in, state of solution in international context and appropriately described applicant’s key results that have contributed to research solution[8] should be considered technical characteristics of scientific or artistic work and achieved results as stated in item 1 d). (7) The list of scholar, scientific and artistic works mentioned in item 1 e) should include the following: a) monographs[9] reviewed (R) / not reviewed (NR), b) chapters in monographs or topic-oriented (monograph) collections, both reviewed (R) and not reviewed (NR), c) original scientific articles in journals or other periodicals, reviewed (R) and not reviewed (NR)[10], to include the IF aggregate value for impacted works at the moment of work publishing (IF=…), d) editorial work on subject-oriented collections, both reviewed (R) and not reviewed (NR), to include the IF value aggregate, if applicable, for impact collections as of the time of collection publication (IF=…), e) original scientific articles in collections, both reviewed (R) and not reviewed (N), to include the IF value aggregate for impact collections as of the time of work publication (IF=…), f) a list of invited papers including paper titles, and the name, month, year and venue of the specialised event the paper was presented at, g) abstracts related to active contributions to conferences[11], h) a list of significant presentations given for conferences that have not issued post-conference proceedings or a collection of abstracts, i) purpose-oriented publications[12], j) a list of research and development projects the applicant has been the principal (PI) or associated investigator (AI) (see note ^7) to include the closed projects reading results (see Annex 2), k) patents and other results under protection by special regulations, prototypes, pilot runs, approved procedures, operable samples, l) audiovisual/web research and development presentations, m) original artistic works, n) audiovisual/web art presentations, o) other works the applicant considers significant to mention. The works listed in each of the categories under items a) through h) differentiate to international (M) and national/local (N/L)[13]. The works in each of the categories are numbered in ascending chronological order (see Annex 2)[14]. The quotations are made in the manner usual for the field. The applicant shall complete the list with indications of the following (see Annex 2): p) three of his/her own works personally considered the key ones (plus applicant’s apt brief justification, if deemed appropriate) and a copy of each of the three works, q) three most critical quotations of his/her works plus brief apt justification. (8) Each item of the internship list under item 1g) for an internship lasting more than 1 month shall specify applicant’s internship institution and its department, year and duration in months. The internships under 1-month duration shall indicate the institutions and years. (9) Other documents demonstrating scientific or artistic qualification mentioned in item 1 h) include a) Membership in doctoral studies boards/committees of scientific foundations (Czech Science Agency - GAČR, University Development Foundation - FRVŠ, Czech Academy of Sciences Foundation - GA AVČR, international foundations) including the year/duration (from year – to year), b) Membership in scientific boards, technical panels, expert committees, or others including the year/duration (from year – to year), c) Hosting of conventions, conferences, working seminars, exhibitions, etc., with the restrictions to the membership in organizing (OC) or programme committees (PC) or convention/conference presidency (PC), specifying event name, time and venue and M or N/L marking, d) For professor appointment procedures the nature of collaboration with other centres – a list containing the institution, the issues of joint projects, period (from year –to year), e) Acknowledgements received at university level (rector’s price, medals) and technical/artistic institutions’ appraisals for lasting scientific, artistic or teaching contribution including the kind, reason and year of such an appraisal, f) Other documents the applicant considers worth mentioning. The documents listed in each of the categories under the items a) through e) are sorted in ascending chronological order (see Annex 5)[15]. The documents under items a) through d) shall be presented for the last 5 years including the year the procedure commenced. (10) The summarised information of applicant’s works and their responses (item 1 i)) shall be presented in the form of table containing numeric data as in Annex 3. the list of responses as in item 2 c) shall contain a catalogue of responses to applicant’s works excluding self-citations[16], categorised to International (M) or National/Local (N/L). Each entry comprises information, if applicable, of the registration in international databases, such as Web of Science-WOS, SCOPUS, etc. (see Annex 4). For the publications registered in an international database the list may take the form of a database statement. (11) A habilitation thesis may be one of the following options: a) A written thesis containing new scientific knowledge (item 3 a, Section 72 of the Act). The thesis shall be written in the Czech language accompanied with an abstract in a world language, or in a world language commonly used in the relevant field accompanied with a Czech abstract. The abstract shall contain a brief and apt characteristic of the matter, thesis goal(s), used method and obtained results. b) A collection of already published scientific or technical papers supplemented with a commentary (item 3 b, Section 72 of the Act) and an abstract. The commentary in the extent complying with the standards in the relevant field shall be written in the Czech language or in a world language, also according to common practices in the relevant field. It shall give appropriately detailed characteristics of the matter, thesis goal(s), used method, obtained results and, if corporate authors applicable, the quantity and content share of applicant’s contribution. The abstract shall be written in the Czech language if the commentary is in other than Czech language or in a world language for the commentary in Czech. The abstract shall contain a brief and apt characteristic of the matter, thesis goal(s), used method, obtained results and, if corporate authors applicable, the quantity and content share of applicant’s contribution. c) A published monograph introducing new scientific knowledge (item 3 c, Section 72). If there are more than one author of the monograph a commentary shall supplement the thesis to characterise the quantity (percentage) and content share of applicant’s contribution. d) A work of art or artistic achievement or a collection of these, such as outstanding public artistic activity (item 3 d, Section 72 of the Act)[17]. Article 5 Habilitation Procedure Course (1) The course of habilitation procedure, habilitation boards and readers consistence and appointments follow the provisions of Section 72 of the Act. (2) The Dean of the Faculty or the Rector of the university submits applicant’s application along with the proposal to set the Habilitation board members to the Scientific Board of the Faculty or university, respectively, following the provisions of item 1, Article 3, unless the procedure had been terminated complying the provisions of item 5, Article 3. There are five members of a Habilitation Board. It consists of professors, associate professors and other distinguished experts in the relevant or a related field. The Board is chaired by a professor, usually a MU staff. At least three members of the Board must be experts from an institution other than MU[18]. The Habilitation Board members including the chairperson are appointed by the Dean or the Rector after the respective scientific board as defined in item 1, Article 3 has approved them. (3) The habilitation board decides upon all proposals by absolute majority of votes from all its members. Except the final voting by ballot on whether to nominate the applicant as an associate professor that must be attended by all members, Habilitation Board sessions may be done by mail or by electronic means. Minutes shall be recorded from every session of the Habilitation Board to become a part of the habilitation file (item 3 c, Article 2). (4) The Habilitation Board decides upon the appointment of three readers for the habilitation thesis, two of whom at least may come from other institution than MU (see note to paragraph 2). The Habilitation Board Chair appoints the readers. (5) The readers make written reports to include assessments of habilitation thesis technical quality (for the form see Annex 6). The report conclusion shall contain explicit statement without additional comments whether the habilitation thesis does or does not meet the standard requirements for a habilitation thesis in the particular field. The applicant is entitled to get acquainted with readers’ reports at least two weeks prior to the scientific board public session at which he/she would defend the thesis. (6) The habilitation procedure includes a lecture to be given to expert public by the applicant. The Habilitation Board selects the topic of the lecture out of the three options proposed by the applicant. Three or more accredited Habilitation Board members shall attend and assess the lecture and include the assessment into a written report to be submitted to the Board. The report conclusion shall include an explicit statement of whether the lecture has or has not approved applicant’s sufficient scholarly or artistic qualification and teaching abilities (for the form see Annex 7). (7) The Habilitation Board assesses the scholarly, scientific or artistic qualifications of the applicant in the relevant field, his/her previous teaching experience and the quality of the habilitation thesis on the basis of applicant’s written documents, readers’ reports and the assessment report of the lecture for expert public. The Habilitation Board then votes by ballot on whether to nominate the applicant as an associate professor. The assessment including the explicit statements on each of applicant’s proficiency aspects shall be recorded in the prescribed form (see Annex 8). (8) The approved nomination for an associate professor is presented to the appropriate Scientific Board by the Chair of the Habilitation Board or a member of this board designated by its Chair. The presented nomination makes the basis for habilitation procedure continuation according to items 9 and 10. If the nomination does not obtain a majority of the votes of all members of the Habilitation Board, the Board Chair or a member of this board designated by its Chair presents the appropriate Scientific Board a proposal for termination of the habilitation procedure. The Scientific Board decides by the majority of all members votes upon the proposed termination of the procedure. If the proposal is refused, the habilitation procedure continues as described in paragraphs 9 and 10. (9) Applicant’s habilitation lecture and habilitation thesis defence (paragraph 9, Section 72 of the Act) shall take place at a public session of the Scientific Board. a) A part of the session is a discussion, during which the applicant has the opportunity to comment on readers’ reports, defend his/her habilitation thesis and enlarge upon his/her previous scholarly, scientific or artistic and teaching work. b) The applicant shall choose the habilitation lecture topic so that it covers the characteristic matters of the branch of science and applicant’s own scientific results. The applicant shall communicate the topic to the Scientific Board Chair via the appropriate Research and Development Office at least two weeks prior to the session. The Scientific Board may accredit habilitation lecture evaluators from among its members who shall present brief lecture assessments at the closed part of the session in scholarly and teaching terms. The assessments make parts of session minutes. (10) Not later than five working days prior to the session of the faculty scientific board (or MU Scientific Board if the habilitation procedure is held in a field accredited for MU) the applicant may add information to update the documents of his/her scientific or artistic qualification as described in items 1 a) through i) of Article 4. (11) The agenda of the session on the nomination for associate professor follows the rules adopted by the appropriate scientific board, while the Habilitation Board members and the readers may attend the closed sessions too. At the end of the session, the scientific board shall decide by a majority of its members’ votes upon the proposal of whether to nominate the applicant for associate professor. The procedure then follows the regulations of paragraphs 10 trough 14, Section 72 of the Act. Article 6 Professor Appointment Procedure Course (1) The course of the procedure for the appointment of a professor, Evaluation Board consistence and appointment follow the provisions of Section 74 of the Act. (2) The Dean or the Rector submits applicant’s application along with a proposal to set the Evaluation Board to the Scientific Board of the Faculty or university, respectively, following the provisions of item 1, Article 3, unless the procedure had been terminated complying the provisions of item 5, Article 3. The provisions of items 2 and 3, Article 5, apply to evaluation board members and actions. (3) The procedure for the appointment of a professor includes a lecture to be given to expert public by the applicant. The regulations of item 6, Article 5, apply to the process and evaluation of the lecture where the actions taken by Habilitation Board shall be done by the Evaluation Board for the purposes of the procedure for the appointment of a professor. (4) The Evaluation Board assesses the scientific or artistic qualifications of the applicant, his/her previous teaching experience and his/her role of a distinguished and acknowledged scientific or artistic celebrity in the relevant field on the basis of applicant’s written documents, written recommendation statements, if applicable following item 3 a, Article 3, and the assessment report of the lecture for expert public. The Board votes by ballot on whether to nominate the applicant as a professor. The assessment including the explicit statements on each of applicant’s proficiency aspects shall be recorded in the prescribed form (see Annex 9). The Board is obliged to give an explicit statement whether the applicant is or is not a distinguished and acknowledged scientific or artistic celebrity in the relevant field, whether he/she plays an important role in profiling and the development of the relevant field and whether he/she represents a leading personality of the school of science or research team in the relevant field. (5) The approved nomination for appointment of a professor is presented to the appropriate Scientific Board by the Chair of the Evaluation Board or a member of this board designated by its Chair. The presented nomination makes the basis for professor appointment procedure continuation according to items 6 and 7. If the nomination for appointment does not obtain a majority of the votes of all members of the Evaluation Board, the Board Chair or a member of this board designated by its Chair presents the appropriate Scientific Board a proposal for termination of the procedure. The Scientific Board decides by a majority of all members votes upon the proposed termination of the procedure. If the proposal is refused, the procedure continues as described in items 6 through 8. (6) The Scientific Board invites the applicant proposed by the Evaluation Board for being appointed a professor to give a lecture at one of its public sessions (item 5, Section 74 of the Act). The applicant shall determine the lecture topic so that it presents the characteristic matters of the relevant branch of science, applicant’s technical results and his/her conception of teaching in the relevant field. The applicant shall communicate the topic to the Scientific Board Chair at least a week prior to the session. The Scientific Board may accredit lecture evaluators from among its members who shall present brief lecture assessments at the closed part of the session in technical and teaching terms. The assessments make parts of session minutes. (7) Not later than five working days prior to the session of the faculty scientific board (or MU Scientific Board if the procedure for appointment of a professor is held on the basis of an accreditation for MU) the applicant may add information to update the documents of his/her scientific or artistic qualification as described in item 2 b of Article 4. (8) The agenda of the session on the nomination as a professor follows the rules of procedure adopted by the appropriate scientific board, while the Evaluation Board members attend the closed sessions too. At the end of the session, the scientific board shall decide by a majority of its members’ votes upon the proposal of whether to nominate the applicant as a professor. (9) The procedure then follows the regulations of paragraphs 6 trough 9, Section 74 of the Act. Similarly, the provisions of items 8 and 9, Article 5, apply to MU Scientific Board sessions on the procedures for appointment of a professor, but only the Evaluation Board Chair attends the closed session. Applicant’s lecture has got undefined topic in advance but it has to contain applicant’s concept of the scholarly, scientific or artistic work and his/her concept of teaching in the relevant field. Article 7 Publishing Information on Procedures (1) Information of procedure initiation or termination as defined in item 1, Section 75 of the Act may be published by a) Publishing said information at www.muni.cz, b) Sending the relevant MEYS form, i.e. “Publishing Information on the Habilitation Procedure” or “Publishing Information on the Procedure for the Appointment of a Professor”, signed by the Dean, to the appropriate department of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports; sending a copy of the form to the MU Research & Development Office. (2) Proposals for initiating habilitation procedures as well as proposals for initiating procedures for the appointment of professors including all necessary materials as stipulated in article 4 must be made publicly available from the beginning of the procedure. Habilitation as well as professorship dossiers supplemented by updated information according to section 5, subsection 10 and section 6, subsection 7, respectively, are made available to the public via the MU Science & Research Office. Article 8 Habilitation Theses Archiving and Publishing (1) In accordance with the provisions of section 4, subsection, 1 letter j), and under the provisions of section 4, subsection 11, letters a) and b), habilitation theses are submitted electronically and stored in the electronic archive in the MU Information System from the day the habilitation procedure officially commences according to section 3, subsection 4 of the directive. (2) The science and research department of the faculty where the proposal for initiating habilitation procedure is lodged is responsible for storing the habilitation thesis in an electronic archive. However, each applicant is responsible for ensuring that the printed and electronic versions of the work submitted are identical. In case the habilitation thesis comprises a monograph previously issued in print according to section 4, subsection 11, letter c), the electronic archive is only used to store information regarding the title as well as date, place and other publication information. In case the habilitation thesis comprises a work of art or artistic performance or a set thereof according to section 4, subsection 11, letter d), the electronic archive must include information identifying them. (3) Habilitation thesis reviews and the verdict of the habilitation committee are stored in the electronic archive at least five days prior to the habilitation defence. The science and research department of a given faculty is responsible for storing the habilitation thesis reviews in the electronic archive (cf. section 2). Reviews and the verdict of the habilitation committee are thus available to the public. (4) A license for the publication of the habilitation thesis or parts thereof according to conditions stipulated by this directive forms an inherent part of the proposal for initiating a habilitation procedure. In case the publication of the habilitation thesis or parts thereof results or could result in damages to third-party rights, the applicant is required to list such circumstances in the proposal for initiating a habilitation procedure as well as clarifying the reasons and specifying the parts of his/her habilitation thesis which are thus not to be made publicly available. (5) The electronic version of the habilitation thesis (or parts thereof), thus licensed to Masaryk University by the author, is available in the electronic archive starting on the day of the habilitation procedure. In case the applicant concerned in the proposal for initiating a habilitation procedure indicates that the habilitation thesis or any part thereof is not to be published, and thus fails to provide MU with a license to do so or alternatively restricts the license to selected parts of the habilitation thesis, he or she is obliged to declare this fact as well as any reasons for not providing the habilitation committee with a license; this statement is subsequently published in the electronic archive. Article 9 Interim and final provisions 1.1. For the purposes of administration, organization and conduct of the habilitation procedure and procedure for the appointment of a professor commenced prior to the publication of this directive, the conditions under which said procedures were commenced apply. 1.2. This directive repeals Rector’s directive No. 14/2006 1.3. The vice-rector for science and research is responsible for ensuring observance of this directive. 1.4. The vice-rector for science and research is responsible for interpreting this directive. 1.5. This directive becomes effective on the day of publication. In Brno on 5 May 2010 Petr Fiala rector Annexes It is necessary to maintain the structure of the charts shown in the annexes. However, any specific data (publication/citation examples) are intended for demonstration purposes only. The manner they are given does not represent any standard. Work citations should be done in a manner that is usual in the relevant field. Annex 1 – Documents Certifying Teaching Experience Annex 2 – List of Scholarly, Scientific and Artistic Works Annex 3 – The summarised information of applicant’s works and their responses Annex 4 – Responses to published works (or database statement – WOS, SCOPUS, …) Annex 5 – Other documents demonstrating scientific / artistic qualification Annex 6 – Habilitation Thesis Reader’s Report Annex 7 – Lecture Assessment for Expert Public Annex 8 – Habilitation Board’s proposal for conferring Associate Professor degree Annex 9 – Evaluation Board’s proposal for Professor appointment Annex 10 – Faculty Scientific Board nomination of the applicant for conferring Associate Professor degree Annex 11 – Faculty Scientific Board nomination of the applicant for the appointment of professor Annex 12 – Publishing Information on the Procedures for the Appointment of a Professor Annex 13 – Publishing Information on the Habilitation Procedure Annex 14 – Proposal for Initiating a Habilitation Procedure ________________________________ [1] The Dean chairing faculty scientific board to the Rector or the Rector chairing MU scientific board to the Minister of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic [2] The Act in item 2, Section 72 defines a fellowship as a long-term research and/or teaching activity of an institution employee done for another institution either in the same country or abroad. [3] Regular courses for this purpose mean teaching subjects of required or selective nature that profile the degree programmes, fields or specialisations. Then they include intensive or specially scheduled courses or courses taught for other higher education institutions. [4] The fact the applicant has been involved in teaching regular courses for less than five years does not mean the proposal should be rejected. [5] Such as the University of the Third Age, a series of lectures on radio, television, for secondary school students, and others. [6] For example: special abstract articles with stress placed on other than applicant’s own results, scholarly and teaching reviews, casuistries in medical branches, etc. [7] Such as university development fund projects, development projects, expert analyses for the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, etc. The terms “principal researcher” and “cooperating researcher” are defined in Rector’s Regulation 08/05 “Project Control and Management at Masaryk University”. [8] The special characteristic volume is usually 3 to 10 pages, depending on the field. [9] Conference/seminar proceedings are not considered monographs or topic-oriented collections. An article in conference/seminar proceedings is not a chapter of a monograph. A publication containing works of various artists oriented on a previously specialised topic defined by the collection editor is considered a topic-oriented collection. A reviewed monograph (topic-oriented collection) is the one that had been processed in the standard way of reading controlled by the publisher prior to publication. A review of a monograph written and released after the publication of the latter is considered a quotation. [10] The journal/collection containing works that had been assessed and reported in writing by independent readers is considered a reviewed journal (periodical) or a reviewed collection. This is standard information provided for such a periodical/collection. A special issue of a journal publishing a conference works collection is considered a periodical. [11] The abstracts of technical conference presentations published in the conference proceedings. Authorship or associated authorship of a conference presentation (a lecture, a poster) is considered active contribution to conference. If any two items of e) and g) or f) and g) concur (i.e. the abstract had been published in the conference preliminary proceedings and then the article in the post-conference proceedings, or the abstract of requested lecture was included in the proceedings), the result may only be listed under e) or only under f). If there is the concurrence of items e), f), or e) through g), the result may be mentioned in the lists e) and f) with particular commentary. [12] Such as collected works related to conferred scientific/academic degrees (doctoral thesis, ….), comprehensive technical reviews, research reports and studies, or similar. [13] In the categories under a) and b), international means a monograph written in a world language usual for the field. In other categories, a work is considered international if it is written in a world language usual for the field and published in an internationally acknowledged journal or proceedings registered in a world database (such as ISI, SCOPUS, Current Contents, etc.) or in international conference proceedings regardless publisher’s address. Other works than that enter the national/local works category. Example: An article in English published in the international journal Czech. J. Phys B (published in CR) is international. An article dealing with national issues published in a journal of international significance (such as IF) is international. A monograph written in Polish is a national/local publication. An article in French published in the university collection l’Université VII-eme de Paris is a national/local work. [14] For easier additions to the list in the electronic version of the document, if available. [15] For the entries under items 9 a), b) and d) by the period starting date. Graphics similar to that of Annex 2. [16] Self-quotation is a quotation of the work by any of the associated authors. [17] Applicable to artistic fields only. No artistic field was accredited by MU as of the effective date of these regulations. [18] They are experts MU has not made employment contract or a contract for work with. However, contract for purchase of services is acceptable.