Rector's Directive No. 44/2018 as amended by Rector's Directive No. 8/2019 ****************************************************************************************** * ****************************************************************************************** ****************************************************************************************** * Strategy for Evaluating Creative Activities at Charles University ****************************************************************************************** Date of effect: 1 March 2019 *========================================================================================= * Preamble *========================================================================================= 1.Charles University (“the University”) in accordance with its aim to spread learning and knowledge; to cultivate free thinking, independent scholarly research, and original arti and to fully promote the creative spirit of human society, continuously places emphasis the quality of scientific, research, development, innovative, artistic or other creative (“creative activities”). 2.In order to support the development of a wide range of fields at faculties and higher ed institutes (“the units”), to contribute to achieving an international standard of qualit strengthen the standing of the University as a prestigious European research institution hereby introduces the evaluation of creative activities (“the evaluation”) in accordance of the Rules for the System of Internal Evaluation and Quality Assurance (“the Rules”). 3.It is the purpose of this directive to set out the details of the evaluation in accordan 7 (19) of the Rules. *========================================================================================= * Part I - Evaluation Concept *========================================================================================= ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Article 1 - Fundamental Principles ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.The objective of the evaluation is to obtain precise and verifiable information on the q creative activities at the University through national and international benchmarking, a the course of future development of the University based on the information obtained. 2.The purpose of the evaluation is to contribute to ensuring the quality of the fields dev University comparable to that achieved by leading European higher education institutions research institutions, and to further improve their quality. 3.The evaluation is governed by the principles stated in Article 3 of the Rules. 4.The evaluation is carried out in accordance with the Methodology for Evaluating Research approved by the government to maximise the use of existing sources of data and to preven duplication of work on collection and preparation of documents. 5.The commencement of the relevant evaluation cycle, and the determination of its timeline elements stated in this directive, is set out in a Rector’s directive under Article 10. 6.The evaluation process uses to the fullest possible extent the Věda information system f and evaluation of creative activities (“information system”) which forms part of the Uni information system (“CU IS”). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Article 2 - Definition of the Evaluation ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.The period consisting of entire calendar years (“the evaluation period”) extending over three and no more than five years for which the evaluation is performed, is set out in t directive under Article 10. 2.The basic organisational and content elements of the evaluation are as follows: a.A field, according to the internal classification of academic fields at the University classification”) described in Article 2 (1) of the Rector’s directive No. 24/2018 Regi Creative Activities (“registration rules”); b.A research area, according to the internal classification; and c.A unit. 3.The object of the evaluation is the academic quality of individual fields and research a during the evaluation period at the University in comparison to international stand-ards capacity for and the quality of creative activities at individual units. 4.The following sources are used for the purposes of the evaluation: a.Data on creative activities registered in the information system in accordance with th rules; b.Additional data registered in the CU IS; c.Documents of the University and the units; and d.External sources of information, in particular international bibliographic and citatio ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Article 3 - Tools and Mode of Evaluation ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.The following evaluation tools, which are described in more detail in Part II of this Di used as the basis of evaluation within the meaning of Article 4 of the Rules: a.Indicators of creative activities; b.Self-evaluation report of a unit; c.Bibliometric analysis; d.Peer review of selected outputs (“peer review”); and e.Site visit. 2.The quality of a field is assessed by a Field-specific Expert Panel (“Expert Panel”) bas outcomes of individual evaluation tools. 3.The quality of a field depends primarily on the quality of its outputs, contribution to by other fields through interdisciplinary cooperation and national and international sta auxiliary criteria listed in Appendix No. 6 to this Directive. 4.If a field was developed over the course of the evaluation period in more than one unit University, its quality is assessed also individually for the relevant units based on id evaluation tools. 5.The quality of a research area is assessed by the Expert Panel based on the quality of t fields and aggregate data on the given area obtained using individual evaluation tools. 6.The quality of a unit is assessed by the Creative Activities Evaluation Board in particu assessment of the quality of individual fields consistently developed by the unit taking the indicators of creative activities and the self-evaluation report of the unit, both o information on the concept, strategy, and organisation of creative activities, their rel society, potential for development (viability), and based on how the given unit contribu creative activities to the fulfilment of priorities of the University set in the valid s where auxiliary criteria provided in Appendix No. 7 are used. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Article 4 - Evaluation Outcomes ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.Research area evaluation reports, which are prepared for each area within which at least assessed based on a bibliometric report or peer review, constitute the interim evaluatio 2.The research area evaluation report includes also an assessment of its relative quality relevant units. 3.The final outcome of the evaluation is the Final Report describing and evaluating the qu individual fields, research areas, and units which contains the recommendations for furt of the creative activities at the University. 4.The following appendices form part of the Final Report: a.Academic evaluation parameters under Article 11 (1); b.Information on the course of evaluation; c.Summary of creative activities indicators under Article 5; d.Outcomes of individual evaluation tools; e.Opinion of the units on the research area evaluation reports; f.Opinion of the units on the draft Final Report. 5.The Final Report and its appendices are drafted in the English language. 6.The Final Report is discussed upon the advice of the Rector by the International Board, and Internal Evaluation Board. The Academic Senate is informed of the Final Report. 7.After discussion of the Report under paragraph 6, the Final Report is made available to the University and the members of the academic community, its principal findings are pub publicly accessible section of the University’s website. 8.Evaluation outcomes are used in particular as a basis for the following: a.preparation of strategic documents; b.development of fields and research areas; c.internal administration of the University and its units; d.preparation of programmes for the support of science under Article 7 (2) of the Rules; e.decision-making on the funding of creative activities from the resources of institutio f.support of excellence; g.institutional accreditation of areas of study; h.accreditation and evaluation of study programmes; and i.development of educational activities of the University. *========================================================================================= * Part II - Evaluation Tools *========================================================================================= ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Article 5 - Creative Activities Indicators ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.The creative activities indicators include overviews of: a.Persons involved in creative activities; b.Outputs of creative activities; c.Grants, projects, licenses, and other components of creative activities; and d.Study programmes and numbers of students and graduates of the programmes. 2.The processing of creative activities indicators for an evaluation period is automated; the data contained in CU IS and carried out in accordance with the methodology stated in to this Directive. 3.The relevant creative activities indicators are used in the course of evaluation as foll a.As the basis for deciding whether the quality of a research area will be assessed usin analysis or peer review, or a combination of both methods; b.As input for processing the bibliometric reports and the basic overview of peer review c.As the basis for the distribution of the outputs reviewed by means of peer review amon units; and d.In the form of numeric overviews as the basis for assessment of the quality of fields, and units. 4.Before using the creative activities indicators for the purposes stated in paragraph 3, submitted to the units for review and for expressing their opinion. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Article 6 - Self-evaluation Report of a Unit ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.The self-evaluation report of a unit describes and critically evaluates, where appropria following: a.The mission, vision, and goals of creative activities; b.The principal measures adopted in the evaluation period to support development of the activities and the impact of the measures; c.The research policy of the unit with particular emphasis on doctoral students, post-do creating new research groups or schools, and attracting international stu-dents and st d.Funding of creative activities including the most important grants and projects invest e.Personnel policy and qualification growth; f.Interconnection of creative activities and educational activities; g.Social importance of creative activities including the most important outputs, and the application; h.The most prestigious prizes won; i.The national and international standing of the research areas developed in particular the benchmark institutions; j.Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and risks in the area of creative activities; an k.Plan for the further development of creative activities. • 2.The self-evaluation report of a unit is drafted in the English language. 3.The report is discussed by the Research Board of the relevant unit before it is uploaded information system and thus provided to the Expert Panels and Creative Activities Evalua accordance with Article 7 (12) of the Rules. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Article 7 - Bibliometric Analysis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.The bibliometric analyses of individual fields, research areas, and units of the Univers on the basis of: a.Data obtained from the information system in accordance with the definition stated in to this Directive; and b.Data contained in the Web of Science and Journal Citation Reports databases. 2.The analysis is prepared based on the bibliometric indicators of the frequency of creati and their quality derived from the reputation of the journals in which the outputs were from their citation indexes. 3.The data used as input for bibliometric analysis are first provided to the relevant unit for expressing their opinion before they are used in the analysis. 4.The outcome of the bibliometric analysis is a bibliometric report which is drafted in th language in a standardised structure in the form of analytical reports and comments, if individual fields and research areas and as a summary for individual units. 5.The following also forms part of the bibliometric report for each field: a.Internal comparison of the quality of the field at the University, if it was developed evaluation period in more than one unit; b.A comparison of the quality of the field at the University with the quality achieved b institutions specified by the Creative Activities Evaluation Board under Article 11 (1 . 6.The Rectorate is in charge of the methodology and completion of the bibliometric analysi ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Article 8 - Peer Review ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.Peer review consists in a review of the selected outputs by independent internationally experts (“reviewers") with the objective of stating the extent to which the outputs comp international and national standards of the field and what are the scientific or social outputs. 2.Peer review may be used to review only such outputs which: a.Comply with the conditions for assignment to the indicator under Article 5 (1) (b); b.In case of a publication output, access is provided to full text of the output by uplo electronic version or an address from which it is free to download from the internet t section of the information system; and c.It was selected at least by one unit for review using this evaluation tool. 3.The maximum number of outputs that are reviewed within the given evaluation cycle using stipulated by the Rector’s directive under Article 10, ensuring that a well-founded asse overall quality of all fields using this evaluation tool is carried out. 4.The maximum number of outputs that may be submitted for review is distributed among the units by means of the information system using the procedure described in Appendix No. 4 distribution, each unit selects for every field the outputs to be submit-ted for peer re information system. 5.The process of selection of the outputs, among other things, takes into account the prin the author under Article 11 (3) (f) of the registration rules. 6.In addition to the basic information automatically processed by the information system, to enter, in the relevant section of the information system and in the English lan-guage for every selected output: a.Abstract, b.Description of the contribution of the unit, which submits the output, to creating the in case it was created in cooperation with other units of the University or other nati international research institutions; c.Justification of the importance; and d.Expert reviews issued so far, if any. 7.If the same output is submitted by two or more units of the University which contributed creation, it is reviewed for all of them jointly. 8.Every output is reviewed by two reviewers. 9.It is the task of the reviewer to assess the output using the grades listed in Appendix Directive and to add a brief justification of the grade in the English language. 10The final grade is decided by the Expert Panel which may for this purpose request a revi produced by a third reviewer. The final grade of the output is saved in the information with the reviews; any discrepancy between the final grade and the grades awarded in the justified in the English language. 11If the Expert Panel in the course of reviewing reaches the conclusion that the reviews c far are sufficient to evaluate the overall quality of the field as well as the quality o individual units, the Expert Panel may submit to the Creative Activities Evaluation Boar terminate peer reviewing in this field. 12The outcome of peer review consists in overviews of final grades of the outputs structur research areas, and units and created in the English language. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Article 9 - Site Visit ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.In order to complement the basis required for precise assessment of the quality of a fie area, or unit the Expert Panel or Creative Activities Evaluation Board may request a sit 2.The site visit for the purpose of complementing the basis for assessment takes place aft of individual parts of evaluation listed in Article 3 (1) (a) to (d) of this Directive a 3.The request for site visit includes the information on the components and content of the additional required materials, if any, and is sent with sufficient advance, usually one meeting is to take place, so that the relevant unit may prepare for the meeting. 4.The minutes of the meeting are drafted in the English language, and after approval of th both parties involved they are saved in the information system. *========================================================================================= * Part III - Course of Evaluation *========================================================================================= ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Article 10 - Commencement and Technical Parameters of Evaluation ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.The Rector stipulates in a Rector’s directive the timelines of the evaluation which incl the following: a.Commencement of the relevant evaluation cycle; b.Setting of the academic evaluation parameters under Article 11; c.Assignment of persons to fields, selection of outputs to be peer reviewed, submission the assignment of persons to the list of reviewers, and establishment of Expert Panels d.Checking of the material correctness of the input data; e.Consideration of the self-evaluation report of units, production of bibliometric repor review completion, and submission of the documents to the Expert Panels and the Creati Evaluation Board; f.Processing of research area evaluation reports; g.Expressing of opinion on research area reports by the units; h.Preparation of the Final Report; i.Expressing of opinion on the Final Report by the units; and j.Submission of the Final Report for discussion to the University bodies. 2.The same Rector’s directive also stipulates the technical parameters of evaluation inclu a.Evaluation period; b.Conditions for including a person as a member of key staff; and c.Maximum number of outputs to be subject to peer review. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Article 11 - Setting of Academic Parameters ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.The Creative Activities Evaluation Board sets, no later than on the date under Article 1 academic evaluation parameters, which include: a.Research areas to be subject to bibliometric analysis and research areas to be subject it is also possible to use both tools simultaneously for the assessment of a single re b.Combinations of fields and units where in particular due to a very low number of outpu unit is not assessed in the given field and its outputs in the field are not in-cluded calculation under Appendix No. 4; c.The minimum number of outputs that are subject to peer review in each field for which determined that this evaluation tool would be used; d.The number of total outputs per field which forms a decisive limit for determining whe field is subject to peer review based on minimum number of outputs or on a higher numb distributed among fields and units using the procedure de-scribed in Appendix No. 4; e.The list of operational areas of registration of components included in the indicator (1) (c); and f.The list and elements of the use of selected benchmark institutions primarily for the comparison within the framework of bibliometric analysis. 2.The Creative Activities Evaluation Board sets the academic evaluation parameters based o values of indicators under Article 5 (1) (b) and (c) prepared as of the date of commence evaluation under Article 10 (1) (a) using the stipulated technical parame-ters and made information system, and also takes into consideration the proposals of the assessed unit 3.If necessary, the Creative Activities Evaluation Board may convene an academic consultat reach a consensus on academic evaluation parameters. 4.If a research area comprising fields with a high level of interdisciplinarity is created internal classification, where the fields go beyond the limits of one panel, the Creativ Evaluation Board determines which Expert Panel will coordinate their assessment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Article 12 - Preparation of Input Data and Academic Background ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.The units must ensure, no later than on the date stipulated under Article 10 (1) (c), th a.Assignment of persons to fields under Article 4 of the registration rules; b.Selection of outputs for peer review in accordance with the rules stated in Article 8; c.Nomination of reviewers for the fields subject to peer review. 2.In the period between the date under Article 10 (1) (c) and the date under Article 10 (1 must check the material correctness of creative activities indicators and data to be use for producing bibliometric reports. The fact that the check was completed must be indica designated persons for individual units in the information system. 3.If the check is not carried out within the stipulated deadline, the relevant indicators presumed to be correct and it is stated in the information system that the relevant chec carried out. 4.The basis and the data under paragraph 1 and 2 are closed no later than on the date unde (1) (d). They may be corrected only based on a decision of the Creative Activities Evalu otherwise the evaluation results would be substantially distorted. 5.The Rector establishes the Expert Panels no later than on the date under Article 10 (1) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Article 13 - Evaluation Implementation and Preparation of Final Report ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.The following is saved in the information system within the deadline under Article 10 (1 a.Creative activities indicators; b.Self-evaluation reports of units; c.Bibliometric reports; d.Peer review outcomes. 2.Based on the available source documents, the Expert Panels decide whether it is necessar any site visits. After the site visits they draft the evaluation reports of research are available in the information system to the designated persons for units and to the membe Activities Evaluation Board and of all Expert Panels within the deadline under Article 1 3.No later than within the deadline under Article 10 (1) (g) the units may, via the inform add to the research areas evaluation their opinions written in the English language. 4.After making the evaluation reports on the research areas available, the Creative Activi Board decides whether it is necessary to organise further site visits in order to supple required for assessing the quality of individual units. 5.After carrying out the site visits, if any, the Creative Activities Evaluation Board per assessment of the quality of the units and no later than on the date under Article 10 (1 available in the information system the draft Final Report to the designated persons of members of all Expert Panels. 6.No later than on the date under Article 10 (1) (i) the units may, via the information sy the Final Report with their opinion written in the English language. 7.Within the deadline under Article 10 (1) (j) the Creative Activities Evaluation Board fi Final Report and hands it over to the Rector who submits it for discussion to the Univer under Article 4 (6). *========================================================================================= * Part IV - Organisation *========================================================================================= ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Article 14 - Creative Activities Evaluation Board ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.The Creative Activities Evaluation Board is responsible for the management of the evalua 2.The Creative Activities Evaluation Board in particular: a.Sets the academic evaluation parameters under Article 11; b.Supervises the course of evaluation from the perspective of compliance with principles organisation; c.If required, brings to the attention of the chairs of Expert Panels any deficiencies, materially incorrect facts, internal discrepancies or differences in requirements appl assessment of quality of fields within individual research areas; d.Decides any disputed matters; e.Visits the units in accordance with the conditions set out in Article 9; f.In cooperation with the chairs of Expert Panels, carries out the assessment of quality g.Produces the Final Report and refers it to the Rector under Article 4. 3.The following applies to establishment of the Creative Activities Evaluation Board: a.The composition of its members guarantees the academic competence for the assess-ment b.The Board members are outstanding scientists primarily from abroad or having signifi-c international experience; c.The chairs of Expert Panels are members of the Board; d.The following are members of the Board without the right to vote: i.Vice-Rector of the University vested with the powers of evaluating creative activiti iiA representative of the Academic Senate; iiA representative of the Research Board; and ivA representative of the Internal Evaluation Board. v.A representative appointed by the Rector. 4.The chair, deputy chair, and other members of the Creative Activities Evaluation Board a by the Rector after discussion of the nomination by the Research Board and the In-ternat later than on the date of commencement of evaluation. 5.The meetings of the Board are governed by the code of procedure approved by the Creative Evaluation Board. 6.The Creative Activities Evaluation Board may decide on organisational matters remotely; decisions concerning the content of the evaluation such decisions are made in a for-mal usually takes place in the premises of the University. 7.The secretary to the Creative Activities Evaluation Board participates in its meetings a responsible for ensuring the required support and administrative activities. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Article 15 - Expert Panels ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.The content part of evaluation dealing with the assessment of the quality of fields and is the responsibility of the Expert Panels for the following fields: a.Arts and humanities; b.Social sciences; c.Medical and health sciences; and d.Natural sciences. 2.The distribution of fields and research areas among the Expert Panels reflects the inter classification. 3.The Expert Panels in particular: a.Ensure the course of peer review and prepare the outcomes; b.Visit the units in accordance with the conditions stipulated in Article 9; c.Carry out the assessment of the quality of fields and research areas on the basis of d outcomes of individual evaluation tools; d.Submit the outcomes of their activities to the Creative Activities Evaluation Board. 4.The following applies to the establishment of Expert Panels: a.The number of its members is based on the size of research areas and fields which fall responsibility of the Panel; b.The Panel members are outstanding scientists from abroad or scientists having signifi- international experience; c.An executive deputy chair (without the right to vote) who is a renowned scientist know Czech higher education is always a member of the Panel; d.The members of the Panel are not in conflict of interest with the assessed units. 5.The chairs, deputy chairs, and other members of the Expert Panels are appointed by the R advice of the Creative Activities Evaluation Board based on the nominations sub-mitted b members of the Rector’s Board, the Research Board and the International Board. 6.The chair of the Expert Panel: a.Ensures that it is functional; b.Manages its activities; c.Submits for discussion any issues with a significant impact on the course, correctness evaluation to the Creative Activities Evaluation Board together with the proposed solu d.Cooperates with the chairs of other Expert Panels. 7.An Expert Panel may decide on organisational matters remotely; if it makes decisions con content of evaluation such decisions are made in a formal meeting which usually takes pl premises of the University. 8.The secretary to an Expert Panel participates in its meetings and is also responsible fo required support and administrative activities. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Article 16 - Reviewers ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.It is the task of the reviewer to provide to the Expert Panel, within the given time lim relevant section of the information system, the reviews of the outputs the reviewer was by the Panel in the form stated in Article 8 (9). 2.The reviewers are, within the deadline under Article 10 (1) (c), and further as required by the units and by the members of the Creative Activities Evaluation Board, Ex-pert Pan Board, Internal Evaluation Board, and International Board together with a statement of t which they are qualified to review the outputs. 3.The nominated reviewers are approved by the Expert Panel. 4.The list of approved reviewers is registered in the information system on the basis of a relationship; in addition to the activities listed in paragraph 1, the signature of the agreement binds the reviewer: a.To keep confidential the facts the reviewer becomes aware of in the course of evaluati b.To protect the intellectual property in relation to the outputs submitted to the revie purpose of review; and c.To the duty to disclose any conflict of interest defined in Appendix No. 8 to this Dir 5.The reviewer reviews only those outputs where a conflict of interest as described in App this Directive was ruled out. 6.The reviews of other reviewers are not made available to the reviewer. 7.The reviewer is entitled to receive a remuneration for every review produced. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Article 17 - Units ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.A unit has a right to: a.Express its opinion on matters that are the subject of the Rector’s directive under Ar b.Propose the academic evaluation parameters; c.Nominate the members of the Expert Panels and reviewers; d.Submit to the Creative Activities Evaluation Board motions concerning the failure to f violation of the evaluation rules; e.Carry out a check of the material correctness of data serving as input for the calcula indicators and data sets submitted for the purpose of bibliometric analysis; f.Express its opinion on interim and final evaluation outcomes. 2.A unit has a duty to: a.Cooperate in ensuring the course of the evaluation in accordance with the requisites s this Directive; b.Ensure the maximum possible correctness and completeness of information based on which is carried out; c.Appoint a person that is designated to coordinate the administrative and organisationa related to evaluation (“evaluation coordinator”); d.Ensure the participation of the evaluation coordinator and, in the case of a faculty, relevant vice-dean at consultation meetings convened by the Vice-Rector vested with th evaluating creative activities. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Article 18 - Administrative and Technical Support ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.Administrative and technical support for evaluation at the level of the University is pr a.The Department of Science and Research of the Rectorate; and b.The Computer Science Centre. 2.The Department of Science and Research ensures: a.Methodological support for the participants in the evaluation; b.The background for the activities of Creative Activities Evaluation Board and the Expe c.The preparation of employment agreements with the reviewers and administration of thei Article 16 (4) of this Directive; and d.In cooperation with the Computer Science Centre, the correct setting of parameters of system and administration of access rights. 3.The Computer Science Centre ensures: a.The operation and development of information system; and b.In cooperation with the Department of Science and Research, the technical support for information system. 4.The participants of evaluation have preferential access to the tool for remote user supp part of the information system. *========================================================================================= * Part V - Common and Final Provisions *========================================================================================= ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Article 19 - Final Provisions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.The following are the appendices to this Directive: No. 1 – Diagram of the Course of Evaluation; No. 2 – Methodology for Producing Creative Activities Indicators; No. 3 – Data Sets for Producing Bibliometric Analysis; No. 4 – Determination of the Number and Structure of Outputs for Peer Review; No. 5 – Determination of Quality of an Output Subject to Peer Review; No. 6 – Assessment of the Quality of Research Areas and Fields; No. 7 – Assessment of the Quality of a Unit; No. 8 – Conflict of Interest of Participants in Evaluation. 2.This Directive becomes effective on 1 November 2018. Prof. MUDr. Tomáš Zima, DrSc. Rector *========================================================================================= * Appendix No. 1 • Diagram of the Course of Evaluation *========================================================================================= *========================================================================================= * Appendix No. 2 • Methodology for Producing Creative Activities Indicators *========================================================================================= ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Persons Involved in Creative Activities ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.The source data for the indicator is retrieved from the register of authors maintained i with the registration rules. 2.The indicator uses data on persons involved in creative activities during the evaluation structured into categories. The categories are created automatically using the rules ari compliance with the requirements stated in the relevant paragraphs of Article 4 of the r rules: a.A person that complies with the requirements under paragraph 2 (a) is included in the staff” for the given unit; b.A person that complies with the requirements under paragraph 2 (b) and at the same tim comply with the requirements for being included in the core staff is in-cluded in the “doctoral students” for the given unit; c.A person included in the register of author’s under paragraph 2 (c) or (d) is included “others” for the given unit. 3.The outcome of the indicator consists in overviews of physical numbers of persons and nu converted using the involvement rate of persons involved in creative activities structur fields, and research areas. 4.The overviews may also be displayed in the following ways: a.In the case of core staff, sorted by pay bands, age groups, and nationality; b.In the case of doctoral students, sorted by nationality and the language of study; and c.In the case of “others”, sorted by the type of relation to the University. 5.The processing of personal data is carried out in a way that complies with the principle personal data protection stipulated in the relevant Rector’s directive. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Outputs of Creative Activities ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.The source of data for the indicator is the register of outputs maintained in accordance registration rules. 2.The indicator uses data on outputs of creative activities produced during the evaluation following aspects are decisive for an output to be included in evaluation: a.The year of publication falling within the evaluation period; and b.Achievement of correct and complete data as a result of compliance with the registrati is evidenced in the information system in the appropriate record status. 3.The outcome of the indicator consists in absolute numbers of outputs and converted num-b the deduction of contributions of authors who in relation to this output were nei-ther e the University nor studied at the University (“external authors”), where the contributio authors is determined proportionally to their representation in the overall number of an 4.The overviews may be sorted by the following: a.Individual years of evaluation period; b.Units; c.Research areas and fields; d.Individual types and subtypes of outputs including the attribute of the usual type of e.Statement of Web of Science identifier; f.Language of the output. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Components of Creative Activities ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.The source of data for the indicator is the register of components of creative activitie accordance with the registration rules. 2.The indicator uses data on components of creative activities produced during the evaluat following aspects are decisive for a component to be included in evaluation: a.Operational area within which the component falls; b.The period of investigation falling at least partially within the evaluation period; a c.Achievement of correct and complete data as a result of compliance with the registrati is evidenced in the information system by an appropriate record status. 3.The outcome of the indicator consists in lists of components of creative activities whic by: a.Individual years of evaluation period; b.Units; c.Academic fields; d.Operational areas; and e.Provider and programme. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Study Programmes, Students and Graduates ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.The source of data for the indicator are the data stored in the Student Information Syst transferred in batches to the national register of students. 2.The indicator uses data on study programmes, students, and graduates. 3.The outcome of the indicator consists in overviews of related study programmes and num-b students and graduates which may be sorted by: a.Individual years of evaluation period; b.Units; c.Related academic fields; d.Study programme type. *========================================================================================= * Appendix No. 3 • Data Sets for Producing Bibliometric Analysis *========================================================================================= ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Data Set Containing Persons ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.The set of persons included in the data set is identical to the set of persons listed in under Article 5 (1) (a) of this Directive. 2.Every person is listed in the data set separately for every unit for which the person wa the register of authors. 3.The data set contains the following data for each person: a.Name of the unit to which the person is assigned; b.University identification number; c.Date of birth; d.Gender; e.Nationality; f.Assignment to a field or fields; g.Category with respect to the evaluation period; h.Involvement rate; i.Full time equivalent as of the last day of the evaluation period; j.Category with respect to the last day of the evaluation period; k.The list of codes of PROGRES programmes in which the person was involved for at least evaluation period. 4.The processing of personal data is carried out in a way that complies with the principle personal data protection stipulated in the relevant Rector’s directive. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Data Set Containing the Outputs ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.The set of outputs included in the data set is identical to the set of outputs listed in under Article 5 (1) (b) of this Directive. 2.The data set of outputs lists every output for every unit whose workplace is recorded in any of the authors. 3.The data set contains the following data: a.Name of the unit which contributed to creation of the output; b.Unique internal identifier of the output in information system; c.Title of the output in the language of the original; d.Year of publication; e.ISSN; f.Type of output according to the information system; g.Type of output according to the Register of Information on Outputs (RIV); h.Field of the output according to internal classification; i.Information whether the output is or is not selected for peer review; j.Number of authors according to the RIV definition; k.Field according to the code list of CEP/RIV, l.Field according to the code list of RIV/FORD, m.List of codes of PROGRES programmes in which the output was created; n.Unique identifier of output in Web of Science database if provided in the information o.Type of output according to the classification of Web of Science, if provided in the i system; and p.List of the University identification numbers of all internal authors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Supplementary Data Sets of Code Lists ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.The supplementary data sets include: a.Code list of fields according to internal classification; b.Code list of units; c.Code list of types and subtypes from the information system; and d.Code list of PROGRES programmes. *========================================================================================= * Appendix No. 4 • Determination of the Number and Structure of Outputs for Peer Review *========================================================================================= 1.The Rector’s directive under Article 10 sets out the maximum number of outputs that may to operational and organisational reasons within the given evaluation cycle us-ing peer number of outputs”). 2.The Creative Activities Evaluation Board sets out: a.The lower and upper limit on number of outputs that are reviewed in the field (“the lo “the upper limit”); and b.The limit for the field size determined on the basis of the number of outputs in the f evaluation period, that is decisive for determination whether the lower limit on the n is sufficient to assess the quality of the field (“the field size limit”). 3.Based on the above parameters, the number of outputs to be submitted for peer review is individual fields and units as follows: a.After allocation of the lower-limit number of outputs to each peer reviewed field the of the maximum number of outputs is distributed among the fields that ex-ceeded the li field size in proportion reflecting their contribution to all outputs of research area reviewed; b.If the number of outputs determined in this way exceeds in a given field the upper lim exceeding the limit are released for subsequent allocation using the proce-dure descri 5; c.The number of outputs determined in this way that are reviewed in the given field is d among units in proportion to their contribution to the total of outputs achieved in th 4.In the calculations under paragraph 3 the numbers are rounded down. 5.If the procedure under paragraph 3 does not use up the available number of outputs, the outputs are distributed among individual units based on the ranking of units by total nu which are subject to evaluation, for all fields from the highest number to the lowest nu unit starting from the top of the list is allocated one output until the maximum number used up. *========================================================================================= * Appendix No. 5 • Determination of Quality of an Output Subject to Peer Review *========================================================================================= Excellent output, A An output representing global top quality in terms of originality, importance, academic co practical application. Very good output, B An output that is excellent on the international scale in terms of originality, importance correctness. Average output, C An output that is standard in terms of originality, importance, and academic correctness. Below average output, D An output that is irrelevant or weak or does not comply with the essential methodological *========================================================================================= * Appendix No. 6 • Assessment of the Quality of Research Areas and Fields *========================================================================================= The quality of a field is assessed by the Expert Panel where, among others, the below crit followed: Excellent field, A The field produces in all evaluated criteria excellent outputs whose quality is fully comp the standard of selected benchmark institutions. It includes a sufficient number of in-ter reputed persons, the production of high-quality outputs is in line with its size and there problematic outputs or components of creative activities. The ma-jority, i.e., for example reviewed using bibliometric analysis falls within the first two quartiles, or category A a of peer review, and a significant minority (approximately less than 10%) falls within the or category D. An excellent field reflects in terms of quality the corresponding fields at quality European universities predetermined as the quality benchmarks. Very good field, B The field produces in all evaluated criteria very good outputs whose quality is close to t selected benchmark institutions. The production of high-quality outputs is in line with it are almost no cases, or no cases, of problematic outputs or compo-nents of creative activi bibliometric analysis or peer review of selected outputs, the majority of outputs falls wi three quartiles, or categories A, B, and C where for example less than 20% of outputs fall fourth quartile, or category D. A very good field approximates in terms of quality the cor at high-quality European universities predetermined as the quality benchmarks. Average field, C The field produces in all evaluated criteria satisfactory or good outputs. Outputs evaluat bibliometric analysis that fall within the first two quartiles or peer reviewed as A or B exceptional, similarly to outputs evaluated as D (fourth quartile). An average field appro through its best outputs the quality of corresponding fields at very high-quality European predetermined as the quality benchmark. Below average field, D The field produces in all evaluated criteria average or below average outputs. More than h peer reviewed outputs fall in category C or lower, majority of outputs in bibliometric ana third or fourth quartile. In an international comparison, the field distinctly lags behind corresponding fields at very high-quality European universities predetermined as the quali The above criteria are used with the necessary modifications for the evaluation of researc *========================================================================================= * Appendix No. 7 • Assessment of the Quality of a Unit *========================================================================================= The quality of a unit is assessed by the Creative Activities Evaluation Board with respect of selected benchmark institutions and following the below criteria, among others: Excellent unit, A An excellent unit is an internationally competitive unit in terms of the research paramete fields. More than half of the fields of the unit, representing the majority of its academi staff, was graded as A, a small minority, e.g., less than 10% of the fields (representing or less percent of academic and research staff) is graded as C and none of the fields are unit is successful in the competition for top in-ternational grants of the ERC type, it ha system for attracting and supporting junior researchers, it is significantly involved in i research networks, it is clearly internationalised in terms of both the members of the aca students, it is successful in competing for national grant funds. It makes a substantial c the pro-filing of the relevant academic fields on the national and European levels and in is comparable to the relevant institutions of high-quality European universities that were the quality benchmarks. Very good unit, B A unit of well balanced and very good quality fields with very good or excellent research example, more than half of the fields of the unit fall in category A or B, and none or in cases only one field falls in category D (for example a new field without history). The un successful in the competition for top international grants of the ERC type, it has a syste and supporting junior researchers, it is involved in international research networks, it h members of academic staff and students, it is successful in competing for national grant f contributes to the profiling of the relevant academic fields on the national and European the criteria monitored, the unit is comparable to the relevant institutions of high-qualit universities that were predetermined as the quality benchmarks. Average unit, C A unit whose fields are not so well balanced in terms of quality (ranging from below avera Excellent fields are rather rare, the majority of fields fall in category B or C, fields g B represent a small proportion (e.g., less than 20 %) of the academic and research staff o The unit is rarely successful in the competition for top international grants of the ERC t limited extent involved in international research net-works, it has very few or no interna of academic staff and students, and it obtains national grant funds. It contributes to the the relevant academic fields on the national and European levels. The unit is above averag comparison, in the criteria monitored it lags behind the relevant institutions of high-qua universities that were predetermined as the quality benchmarks. Below average unit, D A unit that is below average in the vast majority of parameters of its fields. More than a fields are graded as C or D, no field is graded as A. The unit is not successful in the co top international grants of the ERC type, it is to a limited extent involved in internatio networks, it has very few or no international members of academic staff and students, it o limited amount of national grant funds. It contributes to the profiling of the relevant ac the national and European levels. The unit is average in the national comparison, in the c it distinctly lags behind the rele-vant institutions of high-quality European universities predetermined as the quality benchmarks. *========================================================================================= * Appendix No. 8 • Conflict of Interest of Participants in Evaluation *========================================================================================= ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Definition of Conflict of Interest ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For the purposes of the evaluation of creative activities, a reviewer or a member of an Ex deemed to be in conflict of interest in particular if he: 1.Was involved in the preparation of, or is an author or co-author of, outputs that he sho 2.Has close family relations (e.g., a spouse or partner) or other close personal relations that is author or co-author of the reviewed outputs, or holds a management posi-tion in unit; 3.Is in any manner involved in the management of the relevant unit; 4.Has an employment contract at the unit he should evaluate or an agreement to produce cre at the unit he should evaluate; 5.Has or had a relationship of research rivalry or professional hostility with any of the outputs that are reviewed or with a person in a management position in the unit that is 6.Is or was in the past the mentor of the author of outputs that are being reviewed or was by him. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Procedure to Resolve Conflict of Interest ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.Based on notification from the reviewer, Expert Panel member, or from a unit, the Creati Evaluation Board decides whether there is a situation that could challenge the capacity or member of Expert Panel to independently assess the unit or review its outputs. 2.If it turns out during the evaluation that a reviewer or a member of an Expert Panel in- failed to disclose a conflict of interest, he will be immediately excluded from the eval Creative Activities Evaluation Board and the recommendations or opinions in which he was be subject to review. Article 2 (1) of the Constitution. If a research area comprising fields with a high level of interdisciplinarity is created w internal classification, the fields associated within this area are evaluated individually aggregate evaluation of the entire area is not carried out. S. 3 (3) (a) of Act No. 130/2002 Sb. to regulate support of research, experimental develop innovations from public resources and to change other laws, as amended. Pat II of the Accreditation Code of the University. Part III and IV of the Accreditation Code of the University and Article 5 (2) (a) of the R If a unit uses for comparison other benchmark institutions than those specified under Arti it must justify the choice and provide the reasons why the specified benchmark institution The subsequently allocated outputs under paragraph 5 of the Appendix No. 4 may be used by any field it develops which is at the given unit assessed using peer review and the unit m subsequently allocated outputs up to the allocated number. In accordance with Article 4 of the registration rules, this is a list of relevant pay ban of minimum involvement rate. “Involvement rate” is defined in Article 4 of the registration rules. Status “Accepted” or “Accepted (do not publish)”. The list of operational areas for the registration of components of creative activities th for the given evaluation cycle represents an academic evaluation parameter under Article 1 Directive. The end status for individual operational areas is determined by the rules of methodology registration of components of creative activities. Only outputs of usually valuable types or subtypes in the given academic field under Artic the registration rules are included in the calculations and comparisons carried out within described herein. The units, however, may include in their selection any outputs without l or subtype. This distribution takes into account the decision of the Creative Activities Evaluation Bo 11 (1) (b). The fields with a prevailing national audience may also achieve excellent international qu application of state-of-the-art internationally respected methods.