Organization and Evaluation Bodies

Evaluated units, evaluation panels

Each evaluated unit consisted of an institute or a cluster of institutes.

• Each evaluated unit was evaluated by at least three evaluators.
• For each evaluated unit, a lead evaluator was appointed who is an expert in the field that the evaluated unit focuses on.
• The evaluation panel consisted of two or more other members of the panel who were also lead evaluators for other evaluated units falling under the evaluation panel.

Evaluation Panels

• Depending on the number of evaluated units, one to three evaluation panels were set up for each faculty or university institute.
• Each evaluation panel consisted of three to four evaluators.
• Members of the International Scientific Advisory Board were also involved in the evaluation process.
• The International Scientific Advisory Board members acted in a coordinating role, overseeing the entire evaluation process and ensuring consistency of the evaluation.

Evaluators

• The evaluators are internationally recognized experts in their respective fields. The evaluator might also be of Czech nationality, provided that he/she had more than seven years of experience at a foreign research institution. While selecting evaluators, an equal representation of nationalities and a minimum of 30% female representation was sought.
• A condition of the nomination was that the evaluator must not have a conflict of interest with the unit being evaluated.

The following situations are considered to be conflicts of interest for the lead evaluator:

• The evaluator has conducted research or other significant professional activities in the evaluated unit within the last ten years from the date of the evaluation.
• The evaluator has co-authored a publication or shared a grant with a member of the evaluated unit within the last seven years.
• The evaluator has or has had a mentor/mentee relationship with a member of the evaluated unit.
• The evaluator has close family ties (spouse, partner, child, sibling, parent, etc.) or another close personal relationship (close friendship) with a member of the evaluated unit.
• The evaluator has or has had a relationship of scientific rivalry or professional animosity with a member of the evaluated unit.