1
REPORT OF THE INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD OF
MASARYK UNIVERSITY, BRNO, CZECH REPUBLIC
17th-18th October, 2016
ISAB Composition: Thomas Henzinger, Vienna; Josef Jiřičný (chair), Zurich; Mary
O’Conell, Brno; Peter Williamson, Cambridge UK.
PREAMBLE
The ISAB was convened upon an invitation from Vice-Rector Petr Dvořák, with a brief to
assess the current standing of the Masaryk University (MU) and its various Faculties, and to
provide the leading organs of the University with an analysis of the overall strengths and
possible weaknesses of the institution. In the past years, the MU lost numerous places in the
world ranking tables, finishing in the 601-800 category as compared to Charles University in
Prague, which landed in the 401-500 range. Consequently, the MU leadership asked the ISAB
for help and guidance in its efforts to improve these rankings and to set the University on a
path to international recognition.
The ISAB heard brief presentations from the Rector, the Vice Rector and the Deans or ViceDeans
of all faculties. The ISAB was also supplied with a report of the International
Evaluation Board led by Prof. James Gosling, which visited the MU in July 2012.
The following brief report is based on the above information, as well as on informal
discussions held with some of the above persons during the business dinner, which was joined
also by the executive director of CEITEC, Markus Dettenhofer.
Day 1:
The ISAB heard a presentation by Roman Badík, Head of the Research Office, who provided
us with a global overview of the funds available for research. The ISAB is not familiar with
the costs of research (personnel and reagents) and infrastructure (scientific and teaching
equipment) in the Czech Republic (CR) to be able assess how the support received from the
state and industry compares to other European institutions. However, based on Roman
Badík’s presentation and on the standard of equipment, as well as the fixtures and fittings
seen in the various buildings and facilities of the university that the ISAB visited, the board
gained an impression that the MU was funded generously. (This point is discussed in greater
detail below.) The funds obtained from international agencies were very modest, but this
impression might be erroneous; it is likely that the CR funds include not only direct research
costs, but also indirect ones and costs of infrastructure, whereas the international costs
probably cover only personnel and reagents costs.
The Vice-Rector Petr Dvořák then gave the ISAB an overview of the overall situation in the
CR and reviewed the standing of the MU within the republic, as well as its international
ranking. The MU selected Sheffield University, an institution of comparable size, as a
reference target for comparison purposes. At the present time, the MU ranks lower than
Sheffield in all but one assessed criteria. In the Web of Science, the three most prominent
research areas are life sciences, physical sciences and clinical/preclinical sciences, followed
by engineering and social sciences. Arts & Humanities lag behind, in spite of having the
largest faculty.
The Vice Rector then outlined the strategic priorities of the MU: identify and implement
research priorities, improve international visibility, increase the social and economic impact
2
of research, introduce acquisition and sharing of large equipment, implement evaluation
strategy and provide professional research support.
In the second session of the day, the ISAB heard presentations by the rector and by
the deans or vice-deans of all the faculties. The rector described the administrative and
hierarchical organisation of the university. It appears that the powers of the rector’s office are
very limited; the decision-making body is the senate, in which all faculties are equally
represented (irrespective of size) and where professors, staff and students have equal votes. In
such a system, making changes that might improve the standing of the university in the long
term, but that might affect the power or budgets of the faculties (or even personal income of
staff members) was deemed to be extremely difficult if not impossible.
One aspect that raised concern within the ISAB was the archaic system of promotion. If the
ISAB understood correctly, candidates who remain at the MU and obtain a PhD remain at the
university and can become professors if they obtain a habilitation. This means that
professorships are not competitive, i.e. that a “Chair” is not openly and internationally
advertised with the goal of recruiting the very best international candidate.
The other worrying aspect concerned the salaries of the academics. These were said to be low,
but the income could be supplemented (up to 5 times!) through internal reward schemes,
where bonuses are paid for publications. Moreover, it appears that it is the number of
publications, not their impact factor or citations, that brings the rewards. In such a system, the
pressure is to publish anything anywhere in order to improve one’s income, rather than try to
publish in the best possible journal in an attempt to gain international recognition for one’s
science and for the university. It appears that there is also little demand for competitive grants
within faculties, which may indicate that the faculty members don’t need the funding, or that
winning a grant brings no benefits or prestige.
The final topic of discussion concerned the very high number and variable quality of PhD
students. Although PhD programs are in place, their standards appear to be variable and they
are failing to attract international candidates. A number of PhD students are working only part
time, they are internally financed and there is no quality control of project selection,
definition or output.
Day 2:
This was devoted to the presentations of the deans and vice-deans. The ISAB was introduced
to the different MU faculties and departments in greater detail than on the previous day. The
presenters were all very candid and forthcoming. Interestingly, the topics that raised concern
with the MU directors were also mentioned by the deans and vice-deans.
The ISAB then met in a closed session, during which it discussed the presentations,
considered the specific points listed by the Vice-Rector as requiring close scrutiny, and
attempted to put the strengths and weaknesses of the MU as perceived by the various
presenters into perspective.
The ISAB also received a posteriori a set of documents including the presentations,
the minutes of the various meetings and also the report of the 2012 Evaluation.
What follows is a very concise synopsis of the ISAB deliberations and also a brief set of
recommendations.
OVERVIEW
The MU has 35,000 students and 1,600 faculty in 9 faculties. It has more than 3,000 PhD
students and ~300 postdoctoral researchers (50% international). It is thus a large university,
especially when the intake area is taken into consideration.
3
The ISAB was very impressed with the MU in general, as well as with the high standard and
candid nature of the presentations and the discussions.
The campus in Bohunice and CEITEC are modern infrastructures that even the very
top universities would be proud of, but also the older buildings are extremely well maintained
and are equipped with state-of-the art technology. The MU also appears to have extremely
capable leadership that is aware of the shortcomings and limitations, and that is eager and
willing to instigate the necessary changes. However, having read the report of the 2012
Evaluation Committee, the ISAB noted that the problems identified then have not been
rectified during the past four years. This is a worrying state of affairs, as it indicates either
that the political and administrative system does not allow the MU leadership to instigate the
necessary changes, or that their efforts are blocked at the local level. It is difficult for the
ISAB to distinguish between these two alternative scenarios. As a result, the ISAB resolved to
list several key points that it believes might help the MU achieve its ambitious goals in the
not-too distant future, but it has to leave the decisions as to which points should be addressed
first to the MU directors, because only they know what is possible and what may be a non-
starter.
STUDENTS
35,000 students is a high number for the relatively small intake area. This may signify that the
requirements for admittance may be somewhat lax, allowing individuals with limited
potential and motivation to study at the MU. The ISAB is aware that the funding of the
university is dependent on the number of students, but reducing the intake and raising its
potential will rapidly yield results. It is much more satisfying for the faculty to teach a class of
bright and highly-motivated students. Bright students also challenge the faculty to improve
teaching standards. This could be an ideal opportunity for the Faculty of Education to test the
latest interactive teaching methodology for example.
Recommendation 1: The ISAB recommends that MU consider continuing to reduce its
student intake, implementing higher admission standards and focusing on attracting the
most talented, well-equipped and motivated students.
PhD STUDENTS
The MU has over 3,000 PhD students. (Some faculties have more than 8 PhD students per
professor or assistant professor, and for almost all faculties this ratio is greater than 5.) It was
the impression of the ISAB that this number was too high, especially as the ISAB was
informed that quite a significant number of these candidates do not finish, work part time
(37% on average and over 50% in some faculties) and/or take too long (an average length of
study is 11.3 semesters). It is critical to select only the brightest, most highly-motivated
students to do a PhD. These individuals are the future ambassadors for the university and it is
in the MU’s interest to ensure that only the best have the privilege to carry the flag.
The MU appears to have PhD programs in place, but the ISAB was told that the selection
criteria were often unsatisfactory and that the projects were not subject to peer review. The
ISAB believes that this is something than can and must be changed as rapidly as possible.
Recommendation 2: The ISAB recommends the setting-up of program-specific
admissions committees composed of 3-5 faculty members and an administrator, who
would openly and internationally advertise their respective PhD Program each semester,
4
filter applications and invite for interview only the very top candidates. The invited
candidates should then be interviewed by the panel; they should be asked to present their
master projects, and tested on their knowledge and understanding not only of the project,
but also of the broader subject of study. (It is imperative that all PhD candidates, including
internal ones, be interviewed by the admission panel.)
The candidates who pass the interview should then be given the opportunity to visit
several laboratories offering PhD places and select their preferred options. The PIs should
also list their favourites and a matchmaking process should then ensure that the candidates
end up in the laboratories best suited to them. Within the first 6 months, the candidates
would have to develop their projects and defend them in front of a committee of at least
three people, which would consist of the direct supervisor, a second member of the faculty
and an external member from abroad if possible. This committee should then follow the
student annually during the course of the project and ensure that he/she is making
satisfactory progress, such that a thesis work can be written and defended within 3-4 years.
Recommendation 3: It is recommended that the students leave the university at the end of
their PhD to seek opportunities elsewhere. Remaining as postdoctoral researchers in the
same laboratory for more then one year after completion of the PhD work should be
strongly discouraged. Students should be allowed to return to the alma mater only after a
period of at least two years.
At this academic level, turnover of talent is extremely important. It also ensures that
postdoctoral researchers are recruited from the outside, which offers a greater choice of
candidates and the possibility to select the very best.
Recommendation 4: Only PIs who have externally peer-reviewed and funded projects
should be allowed to take on PhD students. This ensures higher project quality and avoids
awkward situations when panel members sit in judgement of their immediate colleagues.
POSTDOCS
The MU has around 300 postdoctoral research assistants, at least a half of whom are
continuing staying on after their PhD studies. For the reasons outlined above:
Recommendation 5: Available postdoctoral researcher positions should be openly and
internationally advertised and postdocs should be hired from outside whenever possible.
There is a large choice out there and a university such as MU ought to be able to attract
very good ones.
The PIs should not be afraid of letting go of their best PhD students. When they return
from their postdoctoral stage(s), they will be even better. However, while they are abroad
they should not have an ongoing contract with the MU. Returning postdocs must compete
for positions with the rest of the world.
FACULTY
The current promotion procedure to professor (if understood correctly by the ISAB) must be
changed. The ISAB is not in a position to judge whether this is possible locally or whether it
will require major political effort. But if the quality of the research and teaching - and with it
the international standing of the MU - is to improve, we recommend:
5
Recommendation 6: Vacant faculty positions must be openly advertised in English in top
international journals and candidates must be selected by a committee composed of
existing faculty and at least three outside (international) members. Promotion of local
candidates should be the last resort. Successful candidates should be offered attractive
start-up packages, possibly help with housing, schooling etc. with the help of an
“international office” to attract top international candidates.
Recommendation 7: Mobility is a key aspect of modern science and existing faculty
should be strongly encouraged to take sabbatical leave every 6-7 years.
The fear that the professors may not return from their leave is largely unfounded in the
opinion of the ISAB. It is not easy nowadays to find positions in “The West”, certainly not
ones as well endowed as those at MU. Should some faculty stay out, this will provide the
MU with vacant positions to be filled in open competition - i.e. a possibility to find
someone even better. The ISAB is not aware how sabbatical leaves are compensated, but if
the MU were to pay the travel costs, salaries and housing costs of the professors during
their stay abroad, this would meet with higher compliance. How this scheme could be
funded is suggested below.
Greater visibility of the MU faculty abroad will bring with it the much-desired
international recognition, including possibly also the first EMBO members.
Recommendation 8: A revised tenure track process for assistant professors should be
created, including a transparent performance review by independent assessors including
international academics, which takes into account performance (research publications particularly
international), citations, and international sabbatical activities among other
usual criteria.
DISTRIBUTION OF RESOURCES
The ISAB had the impression that the MU, and especially the faculties, have considerable
resources at their disposal. It was also the impression of the ISAB that these resources are
distributed too widely, mostly in small amounts and without open competition. The ISAB was
not shown the budgets of the Rectory and the individual faculties, and it therefore cannot
make specific recommendations regarding their distribution. However, the ISAB feels that
transparency regarding the MU funds and their distribution would result in greater trust
towards the MU leadership, encourage open competition for these funds and most likely also
encourage the MU faculty to make suggestions regarding their fair and optimal distribution.
Paying bonuses for publications, irrespective of journal impact factor, language or citations
encourages publishing for personal gain rather than international recognition. Instead of
paying for publications, the MU should require the faculty to bring in international
competitive funding in return for providing them with excellent scientific environment and
infrastructure. Bonuses (e.g. a percentage of grant overheads) at this stage might be more
appropriate and would encourage the faculty to strive for the highest- rather than the lowesthanging
fruit.
The ISAB also noted that the MU distributes a substantial amount of funds in the form of
grants. It is difficult to judge how stringently peer-reviewed these grants are, but the ISAB
had the impression that the review process is only internal and possibly not very competitive.
Moreover, the sums distributed appeared to be rather low. Distribution of funds “with a
watering can” is popular, because (almost) everyone gets something. But competitive
distribution of larger sums means that only those who really merit the awards succeed in
6
obtaining them. This may create shortages among the less successful and will force them to
try harder. The MU is privileged to have these resources, but the ISAB would recommend:
Recommendation 9: That resources be distributed subject to stringent peer-review and
that the grants are fewer in number, but the sums are more substantial, so as to permit the
successful applicants to fund, for example, an international postdoc for 5 years plus
consumables (paid on e.g. the EMBO scale).
Recommendation 10: That MU design a system for distributing internal funds with
mechanisms that reward the desired performance (e.g. by considering the international
impact of publications, rewarding rather than punishing the acquisition of external funds
through the allocation of overheads).
This will mean deviating from distribution according to how the funds are received based on,
for example, the number of students taught or papers published.
Another important aspect of the resources available to researchers is the use of assets (e.g.
equipment) and other services provided by MU. The ISAB has concerns about the
effectiveness, efficiency and equity with which these services are currently allocated. We
believe that it is important that the system for allocating asset capacity and services makes
them available for the most promising potential use and ensures that users take into account
both the direct costs and the opportunity costs of their use of these services. The ISAB
therefore recommends:
Recommendation 11: That MU charge for scientific services on a “pay-per-use” basis to
research groups and external users based on tariffs that reflect both the true costs and the
research priorities of MU.
RANKING
The MU is dissatisfied with its current position (601-800) in the tables of world rankings. The
ISAB believes that adopting the measures outlined above will bring rapid benefits to the MU,
which will be soon reflected also in the ranking position of the university.
In addition, however, it needs to be recognized that any ranking system may generate
potentially large changes in the position of an institution based on a few specific criteria.
These cannot be neglected if MU is to sustainably improve its position and are probably
partly the reason for the recent drop.
The ISAB advises the leadership of the MU to scrutinise closely the criteria that the various
ranking organisations take into account and - most importantly - their relative weighting. It is
possible that an improvement in one or a few specific areas may bring about an upward jump
without much effort.
Looking at the most recent QS and THE rankings, the ISAB noted four criteria where MU’s
scores have been particularly harmful to its ranking: citations, industry income, teaching
reputation, and research reputation. Targeting some of these areas can lead to a rapid
improvement in MU ranking, supporting longer-term actions to improve its position. We
believe this can be achieved by implementation of the following recommendations:
7
Recommendation 12: That MU improve its citation score by shifting faculty incentives to
strongly encourage publication in international journals (rather than focussing on the
number of publications, many of which are in journals that are seldom cited).
Recommendation 13: That MU improve its industry-income score by more active efforts
to secure industry income, backed by shifting faculty incentives and overhead allocation
mechanisms to encourage sourcing of industry income (notwithstanding that we appreciate
that industry income available in the local region may be limited and so efforts may need
to look further afield or abroad).
Improving teaching and research reputation scores will require sustained efforts, but the ISAB
believes its recommendations on students, PhDs and post-docs, faculty recruitment and
promotion (including encouragement for sabbaticals abroad) can make an important
contribution to improving these scores, helping MU to consistently climb in the rankings.
Because reputation is based on visibility and exposure of the institution, the ISAB further
recommends:
Recommendation 14: That MU make an effort to increase its international visibility by
opening its doors to more senior academics from abroad. These should be invited to give
lectures, courses and also to spend their sabbatical leave at the MU. Although the latter
might require that the MU help the visitors with housing costs, school fees etc., it is an
investment worth making, given that the visitors are likely to recommend the MU to their
students e.g. as a place to do their postdoc or to start their independent academic careers.
CLOSING REMARKS
The ISAB is grateful for having been given the opportunity to visit the MU. The leadership of
the university should be congratulated on its efforts to improve the national and international
standing of the university. The ISAB is aware of the enormity of the task, especially given the
political and administrative restrictions that make autonomous governance and
implementation of changes extremely difficult. But the ISAB is of the opinion that
implementation of at least some of the concepts listed above might bring about rapid
improvements.
Even though some of these changes might appear to be small, their implementation will help
motivate the staff and students. This is important, because the ISAB noted a certain air of
despondency among the faculty, possibly because they believe that nothing will change. The
MU leadership could change this situation by openly communicating the recommendations of
the ISAB, by rapidly implementing the changes within its powers and by actively involving
the faculty in bringing about the changes requiring a joint effort. This might aspire everyone
to fight for the bigger goals with energy and enthusiasm, rather than seeing their up-to-date
efforts go unrewarded.
The MU is a very good university with a substantial future potential. Its leadership set itself
the task of realising this potential and the ISAB is going to do its very best to try and help it
achieve this ambitious goal.