1 / 8

Food Sciences Field Evaluation Publishing Seminar 17.3.2006 Kaisa Immonen

Food Sciences Field Evaluation Publishing Seminar 17.3.2006 Kaisa Immonen. You are holding the report !!. Why Evaluation?. Not carried out previously Field deserves national and international recognition First specific funding program upcoming. Evaluation material.

arva
Télécharger la présentation

Food Sciences Field Evaluation Publishing Seminar 17.3.2006 Kaisa Immonen

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Food Sciences Field Evaluation Publishing Seminar 17.3.2006 Kaisa Immonen You are holding the report !!

  2. Why Evaluation? • Not carried out previously • Field deserves national and international recognition • First specific funding program upcoming

  3. Evaluation material Participating units (23) were asked to • provide data on staff (FTE), output and funding • describe main research lines and activities • provide copies of best publications • list dissertations, degrees and present employment of doctorates • list awards, honours, invited presentations, expert tasks, memberships • list visits in and out of the unit • list important collaborators, and evaluate the outcome • conduct a self-assessment exercise • SWOT-analysis • benchmarking • research strategy 2006-2008 • societal impact • need for doctoral training

  4. Evaluation criteria Panel received the Terms of Reference. Evaluation was based on the written material submitted by the units and the general additional material provided by the Academy, and complemented with discussions during site visits. Panel was asked to provide • Statement of the quality of research, achieved results, scientific contribution as well as doctoral training • Statement of the quality and efficiency of research environment and organization • Feedback on the interaction between research and society, and the impact of it, as well as • Recommendations for the future of the field

  5. Evaluation process • March 2005 (week 13), Board of the Academy of Finland decided to carry out the evaluation. • Units received Submission Forms on May (wk 20). • Submissions were due August 30 (wk 35). • Panelists received written material in September (wk 38). • Panel visited units in October (24.–28., wk 43). • Panel decided to split, and each unit was assigned adequate and representative team. • Recommendations (1-13) were well set by the end of week. • Report draft was circulated among panelists (Nov–Jan), and the version submitted for press was nr. 24.

  6. Composition of Panel G. Harvey Anderson, Professor, Canada, Chair University of Toronto Dietrich Knorr, Professor, Germany Berlin University of Technology Alice H. Lichtenstein, Stanley N. Gershoff Professor, USA Tufts University, Boston John Prescott, Associate Professor, Australia James Cook University, Cairns Catherine Stanton, Principal Investigator, Ireland Moorepark Food Research Center, Teagasc Willem M. de Vos, Professor, the Netherlands Wageningen University and Wageningen Center for Food Sciences

  7. Content of Evaluation Report • Panel devided the field into three subfields • Food Bioprocessing and Technology • Food Safety, Microbiology and Diagnostics • Nutrition and Consumer Sciences • Units were asked to place their research activities (portfolio of 100%) into the three subfields • Evaluation of Scientific Quality of Research (6.1) is reported for the entire field as well as separately for each subfield • Evaluation of Research Environment and Organization (6.2) is reported for the entire field, as is Societal Impact (6.3) • 13 Recommendations are given (7) • Appendices A-G

  8. Then what…??!! Dietrich Knorr and Willem de Vos will now present the Recommendations.

More Related