uef.fi
PUBLICATIONS OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND General Series
ISBN 978-952-61-3242-6 ISSN 1798-5854
GENERAL SERIES | LIIKANEN ANU, KANSANEN EMILIA, KETTUNEN MARJO (EDS.) | INTERNATIONAL... | No 29
General Series
PUBLICATIONS OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND
LIIKANEN ANU, KANSANEN EMILIA, KETTUNEN MARJO (EDS.)
INTERNATIONAL EVALUATION OF RESEARCH ACTIVITIES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND 2015-2018
The University of Eastern Finland performed a Research Assessment Exercise in 2019 to evaluate its research activities in 2015-2018
and to identify strengths for its strategy for 2021-2030. One evaluation panel assessed
16 research communities of the UEF. The panel evaluated their research excellence, collaboration, impact, operational conditions,
strategic visions and implementation plans.
The evaluation procedure and the assessments are published in this report.
LIIKANEN ANU, KANSANEN EMILIA,
KETTUNEN MARJO (EDS.)
INTERNATIONAL EVALUATION OF
RESEARCH ACTIVITIES AT THE UNIVERSITY
OF EASTERN FINLAND 2015-2018
Liikanen Anu, Kansanen Emilia, Kettunen Marjo (Eds.)
INTERNATIONAL EVALUATION OF
RESEARCH ACTIVITIES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND 2015-2018
Publications of the University of Eastern Finland General Series
No 29
University of Eastern Finland Kuopio
2019
Grano Oy 27.11.2019 Series Editor:
Jarmo Saarti Distributor:
University of Eastern Finland Kuopio Campus Library P.O. Box 1627 FI-70211 Kuopio, Finland
http://www.uef.fi/kirjasto ISBN (print): 978-952-61-3242-6
ISBN (PDF): 978-952-61-3243-3 ISSNL: 1798-5854 ISSN (print): 1798-5854
ISSN (PDF): 1798-5862
Liikanen Anu, Kansanen Emilia, Kettunen Marjo (Eds.)
International evaluation of research activities at the University of Eastern Finland 2015-2018
Kuopio: University of Eastern Finland
Publications of the University of Eastern Finland, General Series, No 29 ISSN (print): 1798-5854
ISSN (PDF): 1798-5862 ISSNL: 1798-5854
ISBN (print): 978-952-61-3242-6 ISBN (PDF): 978-952-61-3243-3
ABSTRACT
The University of Eastern Finland (UEF) performed a Research Assessment Exercise in 2019 (UEFRAE2019) to evaluate its research activities in 2015-2018 and to identify research strengths for its future strategy for 2021-2030. The unit of evaluation in the UEFRAE2019 was a research community; not an organisational unit of UEF, such as a department or a school. The research community was defined as “A thematic, multidisciplinary, internationally networked research community with an identified research focus”. Participation in the UEFRAE2019 process was voluntary and researchers formed research communities by themselves. The research communities selected for the UEFRAE2019 process had to conduct multidisciplinary research activities, be internationally networked, and have a certain critical mass in its research activities. Altogether 16 research communities participated in the evaluation, thus covering about 70% of all research activities within the UEF.. The research communities completed self-evaluation reports, which served as background information and evaluation material for the external evaluation panel.
One multidisciplinary evaluation panel assessed all the research communities participating in the UEFRAE2019. The research community under evaluation was assessed as one, single entity from an international perspective. The panel evaluated research excellence, collaboration, impact, operational conditions, strategic visions and implementation plan and gave a numeric evaluation on current research performance, future potential and renewal and overall performance. Evaluation results of the UEFRAE2019 are published in this report.
Library of Congress Subject Headings: Research; Evaluation; Performance; Strategic planning; Universities and colleges; Finland
Yleinen suomalainen asiasanasto: tutkimus; tutkimustoiminta; arviointi; laatu; strategiatyö;
yliopistot; Suomi
7
CONTENT
1 UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND ... 9
1.1 University of Eastern Finland in Brief ... 9
1.2 Strategy and Research Profile ...11
2 UEF RESEARCH ASSESSMENT EXERCISE, UEFRAE2019 ...15
2.1 Process of UEFRAE2019...15
2.1.1 Background and Objectives of UEFRAE2019 ... 15
2.1.2 Assessment Process ... 15
2.1.3 Assessment Criteria ... 16
2.1.4 Formation and Selection of Units of Assessment ... 16
2.1.5 Self-Assessment of Research Communities ... 17
2.1.6 Panel Assessment ... 18
2.2 UEF Assessment Organisation ...20
3 PANEL FEEDBACK TO UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND ...21
3.1 General Remarks ...21
3.2 University Level Recommendations ...21
3.3 Recruitment and Internationalisation ...22
3.4 Research Community Leadership Practices ...23
3.5 Innovation Ecosystem and Infrastructure...23
3.6 Summary ...24
4 PANEL FEEDBACK TO RESEARCH COMMUNITIES ...25
4.1 Bioeconomy Research (BIOECONOMY) ...25
4.2 Multidisciplinary Cancer Research (CANCER) ...30
4.3 Climate Forcing, Ecosystems and Health (CFEH) ...36
4.4 Interdisciplinary Study of Borders, Mobilities and Cultural Encounters (CULTCHANGE) ...41
4.5 Basic, Translational and Clinical Cardiovascular Medicine (CVD) ...47
4.6 Learning, Teaching, Support and Working in Digital Society (DIGISOCIETY) ...52
4.7 Effectiveness of Social and Health Services (EFFECTIVENESS) ...58
4.8 Micro-scale Agency in Sustainability Transformations (MAST) ...64
4.9 Minerals, Energy and Circular Economy in Sustainable Transitions (MECES) ...69
4.10 Metabolic Diseases (METABOLICS) ...74
4.11 Multifunctional Use and Management of Boreal Forests (MULTIFOR) ....79
4.12 Neuroscience (NEUROSCIENCE) ...84
4.13 Platform for Drug Discovery and Delivery Technologies (PDDT) ...89
4.14 Photonics (PHOTONICS)...95
4.15 Musculoskeletal Diseases (TULES) ...102
4.16 Sustainable Co-management of Water Resources and Aquatic Environments (WATER) ...109
4.17 Summary of the Numeric Evaluation of the Research Communities ...115
APPENDICES ...117
8
9
1 UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND
1.1 UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND IN BRIEF
With approximately 15,500 students and 2,500 staff members, the University of Eastern Finland (UEF) is one of the largest universities in Finland (Figure 1). UEF has four faculties – the Faculty of Health Sciences, the Faculty of Science and Forestry, the Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies and the Philosophical Faculty.
UEF is one of the most multidisciplinary universities in Finland, offering teaching in more than 100 major subjects and in 13 fields of study. In its strategy, UEF has identified four global challenges for which it aims to find solutions through strong research and research-based education. The challenges are:
► Ageing, lifestyles and health,
► Cultural encounters, mobilities and borders,
► Environmental change and sufficiency of natural resources, and
► Learning in a digitised society.
Figure 1. UEF in numbers.
UEF’s achievements in education and research have been recognized by several international university rankings. UEF is ranked among the world’s leading 50-250 universities in our selected strategic fields (Table 1). Among the Finnish universities, UEF ranks 2nd in many disciplines that support our research addressing the above-
10
mentioned strategic challenges. With its extensive networks, this multidisciplinary and international university constitutes a significant competence cluster in Eastern Finland, in addition to its national and international impact. UEF’s campuses in both Joensuu and Kuopio are important research and innovation centres. The campuses are located in close vicinity to several national-level research institutes (National Institute for Health and Welfare, Finnish Meteorological Institute, Natural Resources Institute Finland, VTT Technical Research Center of Finland, Geological Survey of Finland), the European Forest Institute, Kuopio University Hospital, technology parks and knowledge-based enterprises.
Table 1. Performance of UEF in university rankings on national and international level.
UNIVERSITY RANKINGS 2018 RANKING IN
FINLAND
RANKING IN THE WORLD
QS World University Rankings #7 #451-460
Nursing
Agriculture and Forestry Life Sciences and Medicine Educational Sciences Pharmacy and Pharmacology Medicine
Biological Sciences
#2
#2
#2
#4
#2
#2
#3
#49
#101-150
#245
#201-250
#251-300
#251-300
#301-350
ARWU (Academic Ranking of World Universities) #4 #401-500 Nursing
Atmospheric Science
Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences Biological Sciences
Biomedical Engineering Human Biological Sciences Agricultural Sciences Clinical Medicine Public Health Education
#2
#2
#2
#2
#2
#2
#2
#2
#2
#5
#51-75
#51-75
#151-200
#151-200
#151-200
#201-300
#201-300
#201-300
#201-300
#301-400
THE (Times Higher Education World University Rankings) #5 #301-350
QS Top 50 Under 50 #3 #61-70
THE, Young University Rankings #2 #43
The University of Eastern Finland is a public university receiving most of its funding from the Ministry of Education and Culture. However, a significant source of funding, approximately about 38% originates from other external sources. The total amount of funding in 2015–2018 was on average 232 M€ a year.
The UEF is administered by the Board, Rector and Academic Rector, University Collegiate Body, Faculty Councils and Deans. The practical administrative tasks of the University are carried out by the University Services. The Board decides on the strategy and central goals of the University’s operations and is in charge of the University’s finances. The Board elects the Rectors of the University.
11 The UEF has a Rector and an Academic Rector, both of whom are based at a different campuses of the University. The Rector attends to the tasks defined in the Universities Act, while the Academic Rector attends to tasks relating to education and research. The University comprises four Faculties and 19 Departments (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Organisation of the UEF.
1.2 STRATEGY AND RESEARCH PROFILE
UEF’s strategy for the years 2015-2020 calls for interdisciplinary solutions to four global grand challenges. UEF’s strategic research is not confined to the university’s organisation structure (i.e. schools, departments and faculties), but rather aims at strong multidisciplinary collaboration. UEF’s research profile is built on the global challenges defined in the strategy (Figure 3):
► Ageing, lifestyles and health, HEALTHLIFE
► Cultural encounters, mobilities and borders, CULTCHANGE
► Environmental change and sufficiency of natural resources, SUSTENVIRON
► Learning in a digitised society, DIGILEARN
12
Figure 3. The four global challenges to which the University of Eastern Finland is seeking solutions through scientific research and research-based education.
The current strategy (2015-2020) has been formulated in cooperation with the scientific community at UEF, as well as with external scholars (International Research Assessment Exercise, UEFRAE2013) and the most vital stakeholders (via a survey among the most important stakeholders, 2013). Thus, the strategy is based both on our proven strengths in research and on the most critical needs of society. The Board of UEF approved the strategy in 2014 and updated the strategic visions and goals in 2018. In a mid-term evaluation carried out in 2018, UEF’s strategy was revised to meet today’s demands for a modern university. The demand for stronger impact, internationalisation, renewal, digitalisation and open science has been the main driving force of the strategy revision. However, the main mission has remained intact: UEF is seeking solutions for the selected global challenges through high- quality research. UEF’s strategy, Interdisciplinary Solutions – Strategy of the University of Eastern Finland for 2020: UEF2020 is available online at https://strategia.uef.fi/?lang=en. In 2019, UEF is formulating a new strategy for the years 2021-2030. UEFRAE2019 is expected to provide guidelines for identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed research communities, and recommendations for their future development. It is expected that the Board of the UEF will accept the new strategy in the beginning of 2020.
During the strategy period for 2015-2020, UEF has also identified strategic research areas.The strategic research areas were defined in 2014 and those have been a tool to develop research excellence and the focus in our profiling areas CULTCHANGE, DIGILEARN, HEALTHLIFE and SUSTENVIRON. UEF has supported the development of these research areas with its own, strategic funding
4 global challenges
13 (core funding from the Ministry of Education and Culture, MEC) and PROFI-funding (see page 14). The research areas are multidisciplinary in nature and do not follow the organisational structure of UEF; instead, researchers from different schools, departments and faculties are collaborating within these themes. The university’s current strategic research areas for 2015-2020 have been classified into 1) Top-level international research areas, 2) Advanced-level strong research areas, and 3) Emerging research areas.
1) TOP-LEVEL INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH AREAS
► Aerosols, Climate Change and Human Health
► Borders, Mobilities and Cultural Encounters
► Cardiovascular and Metabolic Diseases
► Forests, Global Change and Bioeconomy
► Neurosciences
2) ADVANCED-LEVEL STRONG RESEARCH AREAS
► Learning in Interactive Environments
► Musculoskeletal Disorders
► Photonics – Theory, Materials and Applications
► Sustainable Governance of Natural Resources
► Translational Cancer Research
3) EMERGING RESEARCH AREAS
► Aquatic Research in Changing World
► Bioinformatics in Health Sciences
► Effectiveness in Healthcare and Social Services
► Methods and Applications of Uncertainty Modelling
► Targeted Drug Delivery with Emphasis on Ocular Drug Treatment
► Welfare Ruptures: Recognising Uncertainties, Finding Solutions
In UEFRAE2019, research communities were under evaluation. The research communities were either 1) existing communities already having strong research collaboration, e.g. the research areas identified in the current UEF strategy, or 2) new communities with a common research focus but not yet having strong collaboration within UEF, or 3) mixtures of these, e.g., existing communities with strong collaboration and new avenues.
14
UEF has provided strategic funding for its profile areas and strategic research areas to strengthen their research profile in 2015-2019 through following strategic funding instruments:
► UEF doctoral student positions: 150 salary-paying positions for doctoral students each year.
► UEF post doc programme: 10 three-year post doc positions each year since 2010.
► Tenure track programme for researchers with strategic funding.
► Proactive bridge funding for new recruitments to support upcoming key recruitments. UEF strategic funding provides a start-up funding for these key recruitments, before the funding can be fully re-allocated from the current activities.
► PROFI-funding for new recruitments. From 2015 onwards the Ministry of Educations and Culture has allocated 50M€ a year to Finnish universities to carry out profiling measures to support and speed up their strategic profiling in order to improve the quality of research. The Academy of Finland manages this funding and has opened a call for Competitive Funding to Strengthen University Research Profiles (PROFI funding) five times in 2015- 2019. UEF has received altogether 15M€ from the total 250M€ awarded to the Finnish universities. Building strong and distinct research profiles for Finnish universities will be on the agenda also in the future, and competitive funding for collaboration and strategic distribution of work between the Finnish universities will continue.
15
2 UEF RESEARCH ASSESSMENT EXERCISE, UEFRAE2019
2.1 PROCESS OF UEFRAE2019
2.1.1 Background and Objectives of UEFRAE2019
UEF’s strategy for the years 2015-2020 defines four global challenges (Ageing, lifestyles and health, HEALTHLIFE; Cultural encounters, mobilities and borders, CULTCHANGE; Environmental change and sufficiency of natural resources, SUSTENVIRON; and Learning in a digitised society, DIGILEARN) for which UEF aims to find solutions through strong research and research-based education. During the strategy period, the Ministry of Education and Culture in Finland has guided Finnish universities to profile their research activities. The ministry has allocated 50M€ a year to Finnish universities to carry out profiling measures to support and speed up their strategic profiling in order to improve the quality of research. The Academy of Finland manages this funding and has opened a call for Competitive Funding to Strengthen University Research Profiles (PROFI funding) five times in 2014-2018. With this PROFI funding and with UEF’s own strategic funding, UEF has built its research profile on the above-mentioned four strategic challenges. The next strategy period of Finnish universities will focus on years 2021-2030. Building strong and distinct research profiles for Finnish universities will be on the agenda also in the future, and competitive funding for collaboration and strategic distribution of work between the Finnish universities will continue.
UEF’s current strategy work and national profile building of Finnish universities are the main drivers for the UEFRAE2019. In the current strategy, UEF looks for interdisciplinary solutions to the above-mentioned global challenges. The research activities will continue to be strongly developed towards international excellence, multidisciplinary collaboration and constant renewal also in the future. UEF will utilise the results and recommendations from the UEFRAE2019 in its future strategy work and profile building actions.
2.1.2 Assessment Process
The UEFRAE2019 process included the following steps:
► Definition of assessment criteria
► Formation and proposals for RCs
► Selection of RCs for the UEFRAE2019 process
► RC Self-Assessment report preparation
► RC assessment by the external panellists
16
2.1.3 Assessment Criteria
The UEFRAE2019 was used to evaluate i) current research performance and ii) future potential and renewal. The following aspects were evaluated from an international perspective:
A. Research excellence and scientific quality B. Research collaboration
C. Novelty, societal relevance and impact of research activities D. Operational conditions
E. Strategic visions F. Implementation plan
The research activities and visions were compared to top international research within the same field of science, while paying attention to scientific characteristics of the disciplines.
2.1.4 Formation and Selection of Units of Assessment
The unit of evaluation in UEFRAE2019 was a research community (RC); not an organisational unit of UEF, such as a department or a school. A research community could be 1) an existing community already having strong existing research collaboration, e.g. research areas identified in the current UEF strategy for 2015-2020, or 2) a new community with a common research focus but not yet having strong collaboration or 3) mixture of these, e.g. an existing community with strong collaboration and new avenues. The definition of a research community was as follows: A thematic, multidisciplinary, internationally networked research community with an identified research focus.
UEF set up the following criteria for an RC:
Multidisciplinary research activities
Internationally networked
A certain critical mass in its research activities: an RC should have at minimum 10 Principal Investigators and significant external research funding (at least about 1M€/year).
UEF researchers were asked to propose research communities for the UEFRAE2019 process by filling out the template: UEFRAE2019 Proposal for Research Community (Appendix 1). Participation in the UEFRAE2019 process was voluntary and researchers formed RCs by themselves. The RCs selected for the UEFRAE2019 process have had to fulfil the above-mentioned criteria for an RC. The UEF Rectors and Deans selected 16 RCs for the UEFRAE2019 process (Table 2).
17 Table 2. Research communities selected for the UEFRAE2019 process.
RC ABBREVIATION FULL NAME OF THE RC BIOECONOMY Bioeconomy Research
CANCER Multidisciplinary Cancer Research CFEH Climate Forcing, Ecosystems and Health
CULTCHANGE Interdisciplinary Study of Borders, Mobilities and Cultural Encounters
CVD Basic, Translational and Clinical Cardiovascular Medicine DIGISOCIETY Learning, Teaching, Support and Working in Digital Society EFFECTIVENESS Effectiveness of Social and Health Services
MAST Micro-scale Agency in Sustainability Transformations
MECES Minerals, Energy and Circular Economy in Sustainable Transitions METABOLICS Metabolic Diseases
MULTIFOR Multifunctional Use and Management of Boreal forests NEUROSCIENCES Neurosciences
PDDT Platform for Drug Discovery and Delivery Technologies PHOTONICS Photonics
TULES Musculoskeletal Diseases
WATER Sustainable Co-management of Water Resources and Aquatic Environments
2.1.5 Self-Assessment of Research Communities
The self-evaluation reports completed by the research communities served as background information and evaluation material for the evaluation panel. RCs followed the structure given in the UEFRAE2019 Self-Assessment Report Template (Appendix 2). The report included the following sections:
PART 1. RESEARCH ACTIVITIES AND PERFORMANCE IN 2015-2018 A. Research profile
B. Research personnel and multidisciplinary activities at UEF C. Operational conditions and research environment
D. Scientific quality and excellence
E. National and international collaboration F. Impact of research
PART 2. STRATEGIC VISION
A. Strategy of the RC for 2020-2030
B. Implementation plan to achieve the strategic goals
PART 3. SELF-ASSESSMENT Numeric evaluation on i) Current research performance and ii) Future potential
APPENDIX 1: Bibliometric indicators of Principal Investigators
18
Each RC chose in how much detail they described their activities in the various sections; however, the maximum length of the report was set to 30 pages. Numeric data on funding and publications was collected by the UEF central administration.
The UEF Library produced the bibliometric analyses of the Principal Investigators.
Part 3 of the self-assessment report, i.e. the numeric evaluation, was not given to the evaluation panel.
2.1.6 Panel Assessment
One external evaluation panel assessed all the research communities participating in the UEFRAE2019. The research community under evaluation was assessed as one, single entity. The research activities of the RC were assessed from an international perspective. The RC’s research was compared to top international research within the same field of science, while paying attention to scientific characteristics of the disciplines. The panel assessed and gave a numeric evaluation of i) current research performance, ii) future potential and renewal and iii) overall rating and give written feedback on the following aspects:
A. Research excellence and scientific quality B. Research collaboration
C. Novelty, societal relevance and impact of research activities D. Operational conditions
E. Strategic visions F. Implementation plan
The panel gave numeric evaluation of i) current research performance and ii) future potential and renewal, and one overall assessment with the following scale:
6 = Outstanding, 5 = Excellent, 4 = Very good, 3 = Good, 2 = Fair, 1 = Poor.
Detailed panel assessment instructions and guiding questions were given in the UEFRAE2019 Panel Assessment Instructions (Appendix 3), and the evaluation report was constructed according to the UEFRAE2019 Panel Assessment Template (Appendix 4).
UEFRAE2019 Evaluation panel members:
Panel Chair, Professor Tuija Pulkkinen, Chair in Climate and Space Sciences and Engineering Department, University of Michigan, USA
Professor Phil Cardew, Deputy Vice Chancellor, Leeds Beckett University, UK
Professor Sven Frøkjær, Vice-Dean, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Professor Hubert Hasenauer, Rector, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Austria
Professor Pirkko Härkönen, Emerita, University of Turku, Finland
19
Professor Riitta Keiski, Dean, Environmental and Chemical Engineering, University of Oulu, Finland
Professor Jouni Paavola, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, UK
Professor Flemming Pociot, Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Professor Dominick Spracklen, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, UK
Professor Juha Teperi, Vice President (Research) Tampere University, Finland
Professor Robert Vassar, Department of Neurology, Northwestern University, USA
Professor Urban Wråkberg, Department of Tourism and Northern Studies, The Arctic University of Norway
Panel Secretary, Development Manager Marjo Kettunen, Aalto University, Finland
Figure 4. UEFRAE2019 Evaluation panel. Backrow from left: Sven Frøkjær, Jouni Paavola, Pirkko Härkönen, Flemming Pociot, Janne Pietarinen (Dean), Dominick Spracklen, Juha Teperi, Jukka Jurvelin (Dean), Riitta Keiski, Hubert Hasenauer, Jarkko Tirronen (Coordinator), Matti Turtiainen (Vice-Dean), Urban Wråkberg. Front row from left: Phil Cardew, Robert Vassar, Tuija Pulkkinen, Jukka Mönkkönen (Rector), Anu Liikanen (Research Development Manager), Jussi Pihlajamäki (Dean), Marjo Kettunen, Harri Siiskonen (Academic Rector).
20
2.2 UEF ASSESSMENT ORGANISATION
Head of the UEFRAE2019: Academic Rector Harri Siiskonen Coordinator of the UEFRAE2019: Research Development Manager Anu Liikanen.
Steering group of the UEFRAE2019: UEF’s Research Council acted as a steering group for the UEFRAE2019 process. The steering group planned the evaluation process and instructions. Some members of the steering group were also involved in the research communities under evaluation. Thus, after the selection of the research communities, only the Rectors and Deans have influenced decisions concerning the UEFRAE2019 process.
The UEFRAE2019 Steering group members:
Dean Janne Pietarinen (Vice Dean Jopi Nyman), Philosophical Faculty
Professor Eija Kärnä (Professor Antti Raunio), Philosophical Faculty
Dean Jukka Jurvelin (Vice Dean Elina Oksanen), Faculty of Science and Forestry
Professor Heli Peltola (Professor Rami Korhonen), Faculty of Science and Forestry
Dean Jussi Pihlajamäki (Vice Dean Anna-Liisa Levonen), Faculty of Health Sciences
Professor Asla Pitkänen (Professor Kai Kaarniranta), Faculty of Health Sciences
Dean Sari Rissanen (Vice Dean Matti Turtiainen), Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies
Professor Irmeli Mustalahti (Professor Ismo Linnosmaa), Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies
Doctoral Student Markus Raatikainen, Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies, (Doctoral Student Juho Suokas, Philosophical Faculty)
Doctoral Student Jonna Weisell, Faculty of Health Sciences (Doctoral Student Ville Vestman, Faculty of Science and Forestry)
21
3 PANEL FEEDBACK TO UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND
3.1 GENERAL REMARKS
The 2019 UEF Research Assessment Panel wishes to thank the university’s research communities for providing thoughtful and careful self-assessment materials, and Academic Rector Harri Siiskonen, Research Development Manager Anu Liikanen and Panel Secretary, Development Manager Marjo Kettunen from Aalto University for a professional and well-organized assessment process. We also thank Rector Jukka Mönkkönen for his support and commitment to the assessment process.
The panel assessed sixteen research communities, which roughly fall under the four profile areas of the UEF strategy, and cover about 70% of the research activity within the university. While some of the communities have long history of working together, others are more recent ensembles, which is reflected in their level of integration and leadership of the activities. This should not be viewed as criticism towards the newcomers, but as an acknowledgement of the evolving nature of the research questions and the university’s ability to respond to the most pressing needs.
At the university level, the four grand challenges build on existing strengths, and these profile areas frame the research communities. This setup allows a stable framework for the RCs, which may then refocus and reorganize over time as research questions develop. In some cases, the RCs can be viewed as enablers for internationally high quality and strategically important research, while the more established teams consider the Community as a label and strategic commitment from the UEF part. A clear stronghold of the university recognized by the panel is the solid strategic framework wherein multidisciplinarity (using the word interchangeably with inter-, cross-, or transdisciplinarity) is a well-established mode of operation in most if not all research communities.
3.2 UNIVERSITY LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS
The panel view is that the research community (RC) is a valuable concept, which the UEF may wish to develop further. The panel concludes that the RCs are most efficient when they have a rather well-defined focus and somewhat limited scope, which allows development of an international status, shared vision and academic leadership in identifying future directions. Therefore, even if there are some overlaps across the research communities assessed by the panel, the panel thought that finding the optimal structure warrants further discussion, but the best knowledge for the decision-making lies within the university and its grassroots level. That said, the UEF
22
may wish to organize the RCs under the umbrella of the university-level grand challenges and provide a structure for coordination over the broader areas covered by the UEF.
As the concept of a research community is still developing at the UEF, the leadership and management processes and practices vary across the different RCs.
Some shared leadership and management processes and practices would help if the UEF wishes to develop the RC concept as a mechanism to foster multidisciplinary or cross-departmental research (and education). Furthermore, the panel identified several excellent leadership practices within the RCs and thought that sharing best practices across the RCs would give a jump start for the newer communities, while benefitting everybody through improved communication of available assets and talent as well as through improved quality of research and operations.
Neither the research community self-assessment reports nor the interactions with the panel during the interviews communicated clear diversity, equity and inclusion policies, processes or practices at the UEF. While increasing the share of female and international faculty can be viewed as a major means for widening the talent pool, it is important to recognize also other groups with specific identities, be they related to nationality, race, socioeconomic status, age, religion, political views, gender identity or sexual orientation. Conscious efforts for inclusivity can greatly contribute to the success of both recruitment and retention of especially the highly agile academic personnel. Especially, the university should strive to lower the language barrier which sometimes limit opportunities to take part in the university’s research and educational activities or seek leadership and management positions.
Open science and open publishing are internationally growing themes and identified as one of the development areas UEF considers strategically important for the future. While many RCs communicated good practices in open science, the panel did not observe clearly spelled out targets or plans in that area.
3.3 RECRUITMENT AND INTERNATIONALISATION
All RCs commented on the challenges of recruiting the best talent – a key issue for every academic community everywhere. In the interviews, the RCs both expressed their concerns and described solutions that had proven successful in attracting highly competitive students, postdocs, researchers, and faculty in all ranks.
It was evident that RCs with internationally recognized research and networks had also been successful in international recruitment. The panel congratulates the groups, which have found and implemented those strategies, and recommends that these best practices be shared university-wide.
Many best practices for professor recruitment focused on increasing awareness of UEF and its research already in an early career stage: International doctoral student and post-doctoral programs as well as part-time and visiting professor positions have been successfully used to develop a recruitment pool for future needs. During
23 the recruitment process, moving support, startup packages, teaching arrangements, or other accommodations of duties have been effective in completing the negotiations. Identified challenges related to the local environment include scarcity of dual career opportunities and international schools. These are important issues, as a key for retention is integration to both the university and to the local community.
The panel made a general observation that the specific advantages, from an international perspective, of the Finnish society and the local environments in Joensuu and Kuopio are not uniformly appreciated or sufficiently spelled out among those responsible for recruitment.
3.4 RESEARCH COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP PRACTICES
The panel recommends implementation of some basic leadership and management principles across the RCs. A key element of success is that all RCs share an understanding of the role and expectations of the RCs and their leaders: The RCs expressed unclarity and non-uniformity of incentives and rewards for the RCs and their leaders, availability and means of distribution of strategic funding, principles of financial support (e.g. matching funds or overhead returns), as well as availability of operational support for application writing or internationalisation and mobility practices.
The panel urges the RCs to consider coordinating faculty recruitment processes in the different departments to avoid gaps and overlaps. Furthermore, several RCs commented on the opportunity to develop multidisciplinary education within the RCs as well as opportunities for better coordination of infrastructure investments.
The panel thinks that such coordination would be beneficial within the RCs, and at times might extend over several RCs working on related themes or with shared infrastructure. A clearly identified theme across most RCs observed by the panel is the need to increase competence and capabilities regrading machine learning and data science.
3.5 INNOVATION ECOSYSTEM AND INFRASTRUCTURE
While the assessment was focused on research, the self-assessment reports comment also on the wider impact beyond the research community. The research at UEF generally focuses on topics that are important globally and significant for the local community; wellbeing, global change or bioeconomy being just a few examples.
While especially the (bio)medical groups have a long tradition of translational research, in many RCs the practices are not well developed and there is no shared understanding of how to operate within or develop an innovation ecosystem. The panel recognized several RCs where the societal impact of the research topic and the existing expertise and innovativeness are evident, but not utilised to maximum
24
capacity. Further efforts to increase the societal reach within the UEF profiling areas have the potential for local, national, and global impact.
The panel recommends the UEF to systematically develop practices to foster creation and development of innovations both within the university and in collaboration with the local and global industries and other actors. As well appreciated by the RCs, a key attraction element for companies is the high-quality research infrastructure, and maintaining and continuously upgrading the infrastructure as well as resourcing their operations by also external users is vitally important for success in this area.
As the academic community tends to recognize only scientific results, it is important to discuss and define metrics and measures to assess the societal impact of both the RCs and individuals, in order to incentivize such activities. Several RCs commented on insufficient resources in the technology transfer office and legal services – smooth and proactive services can greatly improve the interest of the faculty in commercialization as well as the success of these activities.
3.6 SUMMARY
The detailed comments on each of the RCs convey the panel’s opinion that generally the research is of high quality and has strong societal impact. The RCs are in different development stages with varying maturity of focus, strategy and leadership. However, all RCs conveyed their interest in further developing cohesiveness and collaboration.
The panel supports the relatively focused nature of the RCs, while urging the UEF to continue discussion of their number, foci and relation to the university’s strategic grand challenges. For successful operations, expectations for the RCs, their relation to the Faculties and Departments, as well as their leadership and management practices need to be clearly spelled out.
Tuija Pulkkinen
Chair, on behalf of the Research Assessment Panel
25
4 PANEL FEEDBACK TO RESEARCH COMMUNITIES
4.1 BIOECONOMY RESEARCH (BIOECONOMY)
PART 1. Evaluation report on research activities and performance in 2015-2018 (BIOECONOMY)
A. Research excellence and scientific quality
The work of the Bioeconomy RC focuses on processes, products and services, food and health, innovation ecosystems, business models and consumer behavior related to green (terrestrial) as well as blue (aquatic) bioeconomy. Many researchers are very good and some of them are at the international research frontier. The number of publications in leading journals and the number of citations of the published work is very good.
The chosen value chain orientation means that excellence is not confined to specific area or topic. This is a very good solution and emphasizes the ambition to foster linkages between members coming from different areas of expertise. This is also needed as the RC has a broad focus with number of involved units of different expertise – the integration of such an entity is a challenge and the value chain approach should help creating that interaction.
Strengths:
Strong multidisciplinary research approach within the RC itself.
Development areas:
Collaboration between the disciplines within UEF and with scientists elsewhere in the world could be stronger.
Recommendations:
Strengthen collaborations with the best researchers in Finland and particularly elsewhere in the world;
Pay more emphasis on developing means to influence policy makers.
B. Research collaboration
The RC is involved in rather extensive national collaboration networks with national research institutes and centres and other universities. The domestic networks include complementary expertise as well as user organisations which means that the collaborations can foster societal impact in addition to collaborative research activities. The RC obtains additional engineering and natural science expertise through the domestic collaborations in addition to achieving critical mass
26
of expertise for the RC. One would expect a stronger top-down management approach with a more concrete goal setting for the different groups.
The international collaboration networks are not quite as extensive and established as the national ones, as they often need to be underpinned by funding.
However, the existing international collaborations have yielded a substantial number of joint publications published in leading journals. The RC has also played a coordinating role in some of these projects. However, there is scope for further prioritizing the development and extension of international networks of collaboration and seeking funding to help to underpin them, as they clearly are a part of the solution for further strengthening the RC.
Strengths:
Multidisciplinary research can be performed inside the RC;
The RC has widened the competence through the national and
international collaboration and has in this way increased its critical mass of scientists;
Wide collaboration with several universities and companies.
Development areas:
Collaboration between the disciplines could be deeper and more strategic;
Joint research activities inside the RC could be at a higher level;
Collaboration with the third sector to have a unique impact on the society and individuals could be more active;
International collaborations could be more numerous and have more depth.
Recommendations:
Develop shared researcher positions, e.g. professors, senior researchers between the RC and research institutes and/or other universities;
Develop a strategic approach towards collaboration with the best researchers in the world;
Develop joint funding applications to Horizon Europe in the future.
C. Novelty, societal relevance and impact of research activities
The RC identifies and gives examples of several areas of work that relate to the key interests of stakeholders, e.g. companies in biorefining, food and forest sectors, tourism, and policy makers. For example, the studies on the use of biomaterials and recycled materials and their business and innovation opportunities are very timely topics. However, the impact agenda as well as its documentation could be further developed. While the impact itself is identified, and the stakeholder and research user engagement are highlighted, limited attention is given to how the impact was achieved. That is, were the solutions developed collaboratively with the research users from the inception of the research, or were they assessed together at the end of the research dissemination stage? Or was the process carried out in another way?
27 More attention and more transparency could have been given to the nature of the achieved impacts. It is not that the cases for impacts are not convincing. The important issue is to be able to characterize what changed and how as a result of the research of the RC and impact activities, i.e. what was the essence of the impact that was achieved and how it was underpinned by research.
Recommendations:
Adopt, e.g. Customer Relations Management (CRM) inside the RC (if not yet in place);
Apply research funds from Horizon Europe in the future together with companies;
Provide more UEF support to realize innovations and have a kick-off for startup companies.
D. Operational conditions
The RC has obtained substantial external research funding from both national and international sources and has substantially increased its funding during the assessment period. The volume of funding per professor per year is laudable. The increase in research funding has primarily come from greater success in obtaining competitive national research funding from the Academy of Finland. However, also personal funding from foundations has grown. This suggests that more attention could be given to efforts to obtain international research funding.
The RC has large number of senior researchers, post-docs and doctoral students that make the bulk of the RC personnel and amount to a critical mass together with the nearly 20 members of professorial staff. The proportion of doctoral students and post-docs to professorial staff is high, in the positive sense of evidencing active research culture and researcher development under way. Publication output and number of graduated PhD students per senior member of staff is also very good.
The RC (in part) depends on research facilities and equipment located in different places. The facilities and equipment are of high standard and they have supported the attainment of demonstrable research excellence. There is evidence of an active programme of maintaining and enhancing the research infrastructure.
Strengths:
Academy of Finland funding shows that the research quality is high and the Strategic Research Council funding indicates the high quality and societal relevance of the research.
Development areas:
Collaboration between the disciplines could be more substantial;
Joint research activities inside the RC could be developed further;
Research outcomes per professor could be further improved (publications, degrees, gained research funding).
28
Recommendations:
Pay more emphasis on international competitive research funding;
Recruiting new senior staff to some fields (e.g. technology, law);
Develop a recruitment strategy to develop sufficient expertise for multidisciplinary work;
Use collaboration networks (national and international) further to increase the critical mass of scientists in the less covered areas;
Focus on improving researcher education and development (increase number of doctoral degrees).
PART 2. Evaluation report on strategic visions (BIOECONOMY) E. Strategic visions
The strategic vision is ambitious and innovative, and the RC has great potential for academic and societal impact, because its focus area is gaining in importance and attention. The strategic vision also covers several key areas which helps to bridge the vision with an implementation plan. However, the strategic vision remains somewhat broad and general or in one word aspirational. It would be good to identify measurable objectives or indicators to characterize where the RC is now and where it wants to be in five to ten years’ time frame. A greater effort at translating the strategic vision into objectives would help ensuring that the implementation plan is designed so that it very likely helps deliver the vision.
F. Implementation plan
The implementation plan is plausible and well-aligned with the level of resources and ambition. It clearly has perceptive emphases and sound solutions, for example in the area of the recruitment of additional research expertise that help to bridge the gaps between existing areas of expertise, and the development and augmentation of the research infrastructure. However, the RC could refine its focus and clarify its interpretation of bioeconomy.
Moreover, the implementation plan remains somewhat general. The plan could be more concrete on the necessary actions, activities and processes to carry out the strategic vision. This is true for example of recruitment strategies and solutions to attract leading researchers to the RC from elsewhere in Finland or from abroad.
Innovative solutions are also needed to foster their mobility and support their start at UEF. But as such, the targeting of recruitment of expertise that would help to bridge the gaps between existing areas of expertise is a very well received idea.
Another area of development relates to measures that would increase the international visibility and profile of the RC. Does it require changes to the ways in which research leaders are supported or incentivized? How could potential international collaborators be attracted and persuaded to commit to collaboration?
Can leaders of large funding initiatives be provided strategic support, and can
29 internal processes be developed to better harness peer support for the development of such initiatives? Should there be investment in and incentives for measures that increase international visibility of individuals and the RC, such as international visitor schemes, organisation of international academic events, or active seeking of international academic roles in editorial teams and scientific associations?
PART 3: Numeric evaluation (BIOECONOMY)
CRITERIA NUMERIC EVALUATION
SCALE 1-6
1. Current research performance 4
2. Future potential and renewal 5
OVERALL ASSESSMENT 4
30
4.2 MULTIDISCIPLINARY CANCER RESEARCH (CANCER) PART 1. Evaluation report on research activities and performance in 2015-2018 (CANCER)
A. Research excellence and scientific quality
The Cancer Research Community (CRC) has been successful and their future vision has very good potential. An area of development may be to work on defining their current interactions and focus.
The research is at very good level, with several projects reaching excellent and even outstanding level when related to the international field of research. In particular, the CRC has great strength in cancer genetics and genomics, particularly in breast cancer, and they are also strong in data analysis. They have excellent molecular studies on the mechanisms of cancer cell transcriptomics and nuclear receptor regulation of gene expression. They have also established advanced level of in vitro and in vivo modelling and imaging of tumors and a facility for radiobiological studies.
Overall, the CRC has achieved excellent research quality in this reporting period (2015-2018). The CRC publications with a total of 423 papers include top tier journals like Nature, Nature Genetics, and Nature Medicine. This represents excellent productivity at 423 papers/15 faculty (Profs+Assoc. Profs) = 28 papers/faculty over the reporting period. There is, however, a declining trend in a number of peer- reviewed publications, which should be paid attention to in the RC. The CRC total research funding over the reporting period is 7.1M euro, also excellent. The CRC has numerous strengths and relatively few weaknesses.
Strengths:
Research excellence in long-term projects on molecular pathology and genetics of breast cancer, and on transcriptomics and the mechanisms of nuclear receptor regulation of gene expression
Solid and relevant goals
A multidisciplinary approach Areas of development:
Large number of PIs and groups that need to be united Recommendations:
Development of leadership and joint work for the selected goals
Increasing cohesion within the newly formed RC
Aiming at increasing numbers of international publications in high-impact journals
31
B. Research collaboration
During the reporting period some groups of the CRC have been highly collaborative with 10 national and 10 international collaboration projects. Notably, the CRC has published 179 joint international publications, many in high impact journals like Nature, Nature Genetics, and Nature Medicine. The CRC has been particularly successful with their collaborations on the NoSCaP program, GERoNiMO project, and BCAC guidelines. This all represents excellent research collaboration.
In key areas the work has been done in wide collaboration primarily with international but also with national partners. The collaboration has primarily been academic or with the public sector.
Strengths:
Participation in strong international long-term collaborative projects
National and local infrastructures such as National Cancer Center-East, Biobank of Eastern Finland and other
Areas of development:
Collaboration within the RC and other RCs Recommendations:
Aiming at a coordinating role in national and international collaborative projects
C. Novelty, societal relevance and impact of research activities
The CRC during the reporting period has made significant novel, societally relevant, and impactful research contributions. For example, the CRC 1) maintains the Eastern Finland Biobank for clinical sample and data collection, 2) identified over 150 genetic risk factors for breast cancer, 3) developed a novel machine learning approach to identify cancer SNPs, 4) actively involves its faculty in public education about cancer prevention, and 5) collaborates with the private sector on database analysis to improve cancer therapy. This represents excellent impact of research activities.
The current projects aim at exploiting this knowledge in and producing new data and understanding for tackling important problems in cancer therapy such as development of treatment resistance, morbidity and mortality due to drug toxicity, poor outcome due to societal factors and lack of tools for precise targeting and follow- up of treatments.
The goals of the research are of high scientific significance and social relevance.
Strengths:
Important scientific findings such as identification of genetic risk factors for breast cancer
Experience in and tools for handling large clinical cohorts and materials
32
Possibilities for developing new applications and improved clinical practices
Areas of development:
Increasing technologies and expertise in data handling Recommendations:
Focus on the models and mechanisms of radiobiological and drug toxicities to make them nationally and internationally important core areas of the RC
D. Operational conditions
The CRC during the reporting period has done an excellent job in leveraging their operational conditions to promote their research activities. The CRC has secured total research funding over the reporting period of 7.1M euro, which is excellent. In addition to being very successful in obtaining national funding, the CRC has also received EU funding and one US DoD grant, which is impressive. Obtaining US funding is a particularly high bar and the CRC should be proud of it.
It is clear from their research productivity that the CRC has a sufficient critical mass and adequate expertise of researchers. In addition to the 15 profs/assoc. profs.
that constitute the primary faculty, the CRC has 97 total personnel in 2018, including 18 and 40 postdocs and grad students, respectively. This is about a 6:1 staff to faculty ratio, which is very good. The structure of personnel is balanced in terms of the numbers of professors and senior researchers vs postdoctoral fellows and doctoral students. Recent new recruitments complete the areas of expertise in a successful way. However, it would be beneficial if the numbers of international students and researchers were higher.
The CRC has excellent infrastructure and facilities to support its research endeavours. Some of its major strengths include outstanding state of the art sequencing and genomics platforms, including single cell RNAseq, supercomputing and data analysis, cell and tissue imaging, biomedical MRI/PET imaging, Biobank, UEF Sept. Environmental and Biological Sciences exposure systems for non-ionizing radiation, Kuopio University Hospital Facilities, as well as external infrastructures.
Major deficiencies noted were lack of large scale protein production, computing job scheduling, fragment-based lead discovery for drug design, Biobank post-treatment samples for understanding resistance, and spatial single cell genomics technologies.
Strengths:
Several groups with excellent research record and advanced expertise
Successful new recruitments with completing areas of expertise
Strong infrastructures (e.g. genomics, biobank, radiobiological laboratory, imaging facilities, wide array of in vitro and in vivo experimental models) Areas of development:
Recruiting international doctoral students and faculty
33
Increased server space and bioinformatics expertise and services Recommendations:
Focus on obtaining increased funding from international sources such as EU
Increase the mobility of young researchers
Develop core areas and expertise within the National Cancer Center
PART 2. Evaluation report on strategic visions (CANCER) E. Strategic visions
The CRC has three major strategic visions for 2020-2030: 1) understanding treatment resistance, 2) cancer prevention and outcomes in defined populations, and 3) intelligent cancer drug targeting based on data science. These are ambitious and highly significant strategic visions for the future that build upon the existing strengths and expertise of the CRC. Understanding treatment resistance to chemotherapy is particularly a challenge in oncology globally, and the CRC has a great opportunity to make an impact in this arena, although the approach is rather new to participating groups. The second vision for cancer prevention and outcomes is realistic and well based on the expertise and previous work of the CRC. The third vision for intelligent cancer drug targeting based on data science is relevant but very challenging considering the previous expertise of the RC. Great efforts and extended expertise beyond possible recognition of the target molecules and mechanisms are needed. Therefore, collaboration with relevant partners would be necessary.
Some of the objectives such as clinical trial aiming at prevention and early diagnosis, and to recognition of the reason for delays in diagnosis and starting treatment could lead to clear improvements in clinical practices within a not so long a timeframe.
The RC partners represent both basic and clinical researchers, which could lead to true translational research. To this end, the collaborative efforts need to be consolidated to create real interaction and co-operation with basic researchers and the clinics.
Strengths:
Relevant, scientifically and clinically justified aims
Good expertise, collaboration and infrastructures for research on treatment resistance and cancer prevention and outcomes in defined populations Areas of development:
Challenging vision for drug development Recommendations:
Maintain and develop active collaboration between the basic and clinical researchers
34
Create collaboration with relevant partners (e.g. the PDDT RC) to evaluate and forward drug development ideas and plans
F. Implementation plan
The CRC has excellent implementation plans to move its future goals forward.
The CRC has a plan to recruit a professor in cancer systems (data scientist), senior positions for nextgen omics methodologies, and replacements for retiring faculty.
These faculty positions are key to achieving the strategy laid out by the CRC. The CRC will promote open science by following the UEF guidelines and making published data available through UEF services. The CRC will put special emphasis on increasing EU funding, and mobility will be further developed to promote collaboration. The CRC will monitor progress through innovation presentation meetings, public media presentations, short and long term milestones, secured communication platform, RC board meetings. Risks will be managed by focus on obtaining EU funding, as well as continued national funding. Recruiting efforts will be tackled by the whole community: KUH, UEF, and Kuopio city. Implementation plans for the three major strategic visions for 2020-2030 are mainly excellent but need in some aspects (such as in goals for drug development) strong collaboration and focusing to be realistic.
The plans for implementing the aimed research on 1) Treatment resistance and precision medicine and 2) Prevention and clinical outcome within a defined population are good and for example the outcome from the Kuopio Breast Cancer Project and the individual radiotherapy project could have great impact. Concerning the plans for Intelligent drug targeting based on (gen)omics profiling the RC is strongly advised to collaborate with the Platform for drug discovery and delivery technologies (PDDT) for realistic implementation.
Strengths:
Newly-formed RC with high-level researchers from multidisciplinary backgrounds able to forward and strengthen cancer research at UEF
Possibilities for truly translational research
Relevant measures and plans for new recruitments and renewal of personnel
Areas of development:
Recruitment and retention of international faculty and students
Measures of the RC and the UEF administration to increase
internationalisation of the faculty and the mobility of PhD students and postdocs.
Recommendations:
Focus on increasing interactions within the RC
Collaboration in drug discovery with PDDT and other relevant partners
35
PART 3: Numeric evaluation (CANCER)
CRITERIA NUMERIC EVALUATION
SCALE 1-6
1. Current research performance 4
2. Future potential and renewal 5
OVERALL ASSESSMENT 5
36
4.3 CLIMATE FORCING, ECOSYSTEMS AND HEALTH (CFEH) PART 1. Evaluation report on research activities and performance in 2015-2018 (CFEH)
A. Research excellence and scientific quality
The RC conducts world-leading research in air quality, climate change and biosphere interactions. UEF is ranked 42nd in the world for Atmospheric Science in the Shanghai Academic Ranking of World Universities (ranked 2nd in Finland).
Research outputs, in both quality and quantity, are outstanding at the international level. Total scientific output in peer-reviewed scientific journals is >7 articles per PI (Professor and Associate Professor) per year. There is a strong record of publication of high impact articles in prestigious journals, with a substantial fraction graded as Level 3 by the Finnish Publication Forum system. Publication output has increased in recent years (partly due to increased staff numbers). The RC includes internationally recognized researchers across a range of career stages. The RC supervises a strong PhD cohort, with 2.4 doctoral students per PI.
The research focus of the RC is clearly established. Key strengths of the RC are the international recognition and experience of the group, the international network and the strong conceptual approach. The broad topic on climate – air quality – biosphere interactions is carefully focused to specific topics where there is real excellence, including aerosol-cloud interactions, organic aerosols, biosphere – atmosphere exchange, and climate law. A recommendation is that there should be a stronger focus on providing specific scientific-driven solutions.
Strengths:
World leading research in air quality, climate change and biosphere interactions
Internationally recognized researchers
Excellent research outputs, in both quantity and quality
A very clear research focus.
Areas of development:
Few weaknesses.
Recommendations:
A focus on scientific-driven solutions to climate and air quality issues could help further differentiate this RC from national and international
competition.
B. Research collaboration
The RC is involved in a diverse range of multidisciplinary activities. There are clearly defined examples of important multidisciplinary collaboration (e.g., air pollutant emissions and impacts on human health) and research facilities that are
