Month: February 2020

Reacting to the announcement by Masa, which points to the brutal tabloid attacks on the professor of the Faculty of Traffic, academician Dušan Teodorović, more than 30 teachers and associates of the Faculty of Traffic expressed their solidarity with Professor Teodorović. In the statement of the colleagues from the Faculty of Traffic, among other things, it is said: "This was not only about support for respected professor Teodorović (who is not a member of MASA, nor did he initiate this action in any way, but he did agree with it) but also about our common need to raise a voice against phenomena in our society that can only be characterized as abnormal. Because how else to call a situation in which a member of parliament threatens physical and sexual violence against an academician and a university professor, and all this is reported by the media, which the state wholeheartedly finances through competitions, and REM does not advertise? Unfortunately, this is just one in a series of tabloid attacks that Professor Teodorović and many other colleagues were exposed to in the past months."

The members of Mass from the Faculty of Traffic especially thank their younger colleagues, who made up the majority of the signatories, for their high awareness and courage (because we have come to a situation where even a simple signature in the name of solidarity has become an expression of courage) and invite them to respond to such acts in the future as well occurrences in society, especially when their colleagues are threatened."

The University of Belgrade, as the largest educational institution in Serbia, has 11 scientific research institutes. These institutes, together with the faculties, contribute to the international and scientific affirmation of the University of Belgrade.

According to the Law on Higher Education, the autonomy of the university implies the right to arrange the internal organization and the election of the governing body. According to the Statute of the University of Belgrade, the autonomy of the university also includes the right to choose the management and management body. Based on the Law on Science and Research, the management board of the scientific institute has seven members, of which the president and three members are appointed by the Government, and three members are proposed by the Institute's Scientific Council from among the researchers in scientific titles employed by the institute (ratio 4:3 in favor of the Government). The scientific council of the institute gives an opinion to the management board about the candidates who applied for the director's competition, and the management board, based on the prior consent of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development (hereinafter referred to as the Ministry), appoints the director of the institute.

This arrangement of organization and membership in the management boards of scientific institutions, imposed by the Ministry as the proposer of the law, directly violates Article 72 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia. With this article, the Constitution guarantees the autonomy not only of universities and higher education institutions, but also of scientific institutions, which include all the aforementioned institutes. Therefore, the imposition by the competent Ministry of parity, which foresees a greater number of politically elected members in the board of directors of the institution in relation to the number of members coming from the institution itself, is evidently a roundabout way of violating the autonomy of scientific institutions guaranteed by the Constitution, which, among other things, foresees independent decision-making on its arrangement and work.

From such, for the autonomy of the university and the scientific community, a large number of abuses arise, and the reputation of not only the scientific community, but also society as a whole is damaged by a pure demonstration of force. In the following text, we will describe in more detail several examples that happened during 2019.

1. Institute for Medical Research, University of Belgrade: The scientific council of the institute supported one candidate by majority, but at the board meeting held on February 20, 2019. year, 4 external members of the management board (appointed by the Government) overvoted 3 internal members (appointed by the Scientific Council) and voted for the minority candidate.

2. Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, University of Belgrade: In March 2019, the Government of Serbia appointed a board of directors headed by Zoran Avramović, known for his political engagement and non-academic labeling of dissident colleagues. On January 17, 2020, the Government of Serbia replaced three members of the board of directors, but Zoran Avramović remained the president, and one of the appointed members has a conflict of interest. Four days after that, an acting director who is not an employee was appointed.

3. Institute for Nuclear Sciences "Vinča", University of Belgrade: The scientific council of the institute supported Zlatko Rakočević by two-thirds, who as acting director began to stabilize the situation that arose after the forced resignation of the previous director, Milica Marcheta Kaninski, but at the session held on 12.7.2019. the members of the board of directors did not vote for the proposed candidate. 30/8/2019 In 2008, the members of the board of directors appointed Snežana Pajović as acting director at the meeting of the board of directors, which was interrupted due to employee protests and ended in the Ministry.

4. Institute for Multidisciplinary Research, University of Belgrade: The scientific council of the institute supported one candidate for the director by a majority (11:2), but at the meeting held on 02.12.2019. year, 4 external members of the board of directors overrode 3 internal members and voted for a minority candidate who is not employed at the institute and does not meet the conditions of the competition.

Trying to prevent the obvious violation of the university's autonomy, the institutes have so far unsuccessfully appealed to the minister, the state secretary for science, the Anti-corruption Agency, the media, SANA, female rectors, founded unions and staged protests. We will list a few examples of the Ministry's excuses for denying the systematic violation of university autonomy:

The Ministry's reply sent to the Institute for Nuclear Sciences "Vinca": "The scientific council is the scientific body of the institute and it only gives an opinion to the board of directors about the candidates who applied for the directorship. Every researcher has the right to express his opinion through petitions or in any other way, but the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development will adhere to the Law on Science and Research and the procedure for electing directors defined by this law."

The Institute for Nuclear Sciences "Vinča" has for years sent complaints to the Ministry to restore the management autonomy of the institute (one of them, for example, on 05/22/2015), and Minister Šarčević recently compared Vinča researchers to bandits.

The Ministry's response sent to the Institute for Medical Research in February 2019: "It is a legitimate right of the scientific council of the institute, founded by the Republic, to give an opinion on the registered candidates for the election of the director, that is, to decide and give support to a certain candidate ..., as is the legitimate right of the board of directors to at its meeting it decides on the proposal of a candidate for the director, in order to give the prior consent of the minister. Giving an opinion in legal theory and practice is not legally binding, nor is it prescribed as binding by the Law on Forensic Research."

Such answers by the Ministry are purely a cover-up behind formal provisions, which, as we stated at the very beginning, are arbitrary and in contradiction with the Constitution. How can someone who comes from outside, that is, outside the institute, know who is a better candidate for director? How can someone who appears at the institute 5-6 times a year, as a member of the Board of Directors, wish more good and success to the institute than the employees themselves who are there every working day? Why do four external members of the Board of Directors vote against the decision of the Scientific Council of employees at the institute?

Finally, once again from a legal point of view, this behavior of the Ministry and the management boards of the aforementioned institutes violated both the old Law on Scientific Research Activities and the new Law on Science and Research. The Board of Directors does not choose or prejudge the choice of the director of the institute, but only on the basis of the prior consent of the Ministry, appoints the director of the institute. Nowhere in the Law is it stated that the board of directors elects or proposes the director of the institute, but it is stated that the Scientific Council of the institute issues an opinion for the director. The interpretation of the Ministry is free that "it is the legitimate right of the board of directors to decide on the proposal of a candidate for director at its meeting". The Board of Directors decides on the proposal of a candidate for the director only when the opinion of the Institute's Scientific Council is forwarded to the Ministry for approval.    

We state with indignation that it is unacceptable to us that the Secretary of State Vladimir Popović in the daily newspaper "Politika" accuses the academic initiators of this initiative of political coloration. We believe that this actually shows that he cannot state counter-arguments that would possibly call into question our indication of the violation of the institute's autonomy as a member of the university. It is inappropriate that from a public position in the relevant ministry, someone who is politically appointed there, gives himself the right to arbitrarily label colleagues from the university for expressing political views. State Secretary Vladimir Popović, although in his position of power he has already alienated himself from his colleagues yesterday, we still advise him to read the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, as well as the code of professional ethics of the University of Belgrade, before publicly stating his position on our initiative and activities.

*An abbreviated version of this text was published in Politics, February 24, 2020.

Representatives of the Network of Academic Solidarity and Engagement, Galjina Ognjanov and Gazela Pudar Draško, attended a meeting on February 18 at the invitation of the Science Fund, and on the occasion of a letter from the Mass for Improving the Transparency of the Fund's competition.

The meeting discussed the progress of the Promis competition, as well as the new planned program Ideas. The following was pointed out to us regarding the objections that were submitted:

1. The Science Fund strives to organize the application process in the way it is done in the countries of the European Union, in which it has the support of the EU Delegation and the World Bank. These two institutions are also donors who provided funds for the functioning of the Fund, and therefore the Fund must respect the rules they set. The implementation of the Fund is accompanied by visits to other similar institutions in the EU countries, on the advice of the donor, in order to get a picture of the rules and practices that can be transferred to our context.

2. The problem of uneven reviews was noticed and this aspect will be improved in the next calls in such a way that all three reviewers must agree on the evaluation, that is, exchange arguments related to the evaluation of the projects. 

3. The request to publish the complete list of reviewers was temporarily rejected, because the Fund has a small number of reviewers in the medical and social sciences, so there is a fear that the anonymity of the procedure will be compromised. There is a need to expand the base of reviewers through a competition that is always open. The reviewer base of the Fund for Science includes exclusively foreign researchers, from more than 60 countries at the moment, as stated to us.

4. Problems with reviews were pointed out to us, which were late and used to be of poor quality. To the remark that the deadlines for completing the entire Promise cycle were initially unrealistic, the answer was that they had to launch Promise in order to be able to withdraw funds from the World Bank and that this was done even though they were aware that the system was not ready. 

5. We were pointed out to the problems coming from institutions and researchers (lack of information about their status/title, ignorance of the administration at the institutions, issuance of invalid title certificates, instead of delivering a decision, etc.). The fund intends to work on strengthening institutions for applying. However, it was clear from the discussion that many problems stem from the fact that the competent Ministry does not have adequate and complete databases with data on researchers. Also, the problems that the scientific community already has regarding the method of payment of compensation for work on projects and related to other aspects are transferred to Promis and other programs, which would be solved by specific by-laws that are currently missing in relation to institutional funding.

The general impression is that the Fund is open to communication and that, within its competences, it wants to work on improving its work and to build a relationship of trust with the scientific community.  

It is with great indignation that we condemn the new media attacks on the professor of the Faculty of Transportation and academician Dušan Teodorović, in which critics without professional qualifications, moral scruples and a single argument accuse him of incompetence, plagiarism and lack of patriotism.

The accusations against Academician Teodorović are getting more and more mundane every day, but they come from people who, in addition to not having the necessary qualifications to evaluate scientific works, do not even have elementary decency. We are witnessing accusations that he "went over to the side of the aggressor", that he is "the stupidest of all academics", that he is a plagiarist, and the climax is the sick threat sent to academician Teodorović by Vojislav Šešelj. The academic community must not pass over such insults and discredits in silence.

We remind you that Academician Teodorović is one of the most respected and influential Serbian scientists at the world level. He has published dozens of articles in journals from the SCI list. The Google scholar database records almost 7,000 citations of his scientific works and an extremely high citation index (H-index=44). Academician Teodorović is a full professor at the Faculty of Traffic, a professor emeritus at the American University of Virginia Tech, an honorary senator of the University of Ljubljana, a member of the European Academy of Sciences and Arts and a full member of SANU.

On behalf of MASA, we reject the aforementioned accusations and see them as attacks on the personal and scientific integrity of Professor Teodorović, but also as attacks on the dignity of the entire academic community. The attacks directed at him have the same stamp - none of them are reasoned, and all of them are aimed at discrediting the person and contain a tacit threat addressed to all those who publicly express their opinion. At a time when an increasing number of Serbian citizens are leaving Serbia, one of the reasons is certainly that by keeping silent about such cases, people are further encouraged to leave a country where insulting those who dare to think for themselves not only has no limits, but is rare gets an appropriate response.

Therefore, we invite SANA, the University of Belgrade, the Faculty of Transportation and the general public to join our support and show solidarity with their colleagues, thereby standing up for the protection of science and education in Serbia.

The Network of Academic Solidarity and Engagement - MASA is a non-partisan association formed with the aim of bringing together all members of the academic community who are ready to engage in strengthening the voice of the profession by advocating for the consistent application of the basic principles of academic work and their defense when threatened.

In its action, the Mass is directed to negotiations and cooperation with all relevant actors on the public scene of Serbia in order to improve the overall situation in the academic community of Serbia, as well as in the wider community. We base our work on critical but constructive action towards decision makers.

Massa supports every single engagement of representatives of the academic community, as long as it is aimed at protecting the public interest. The question of the members of the Regulatory Body for Electronic Media does not fall directly within the scope of work of the Mass. Bearing in mind that the ruling party is the most responsible for the situation in the media, which is the subject of a series of negative evaluations by experts and the international public, as well as that its MPs insult members of the academic community using media whose control should be carried out by REM, we understand the suspicion on the occasion of proposing members in front of the "Aleksandar Vučić - Serbia wins" list. In the future, the masses will carefully monitor such abuses of the media and independent institutions and react to them.

Bearing in mind the importance of REM for monitoring the media and improving their reporting in the interest of citizens, we expect Slobodan Cvejić, as a member of Masa, to be an independent and strong voice in defense of the public interest if he is elected as a member of REM. Any other action would directly violate the principle of social responsibility, which is the basic principle of Massa. 

We invite you to a press conference on the occasion of the launch of the initiative to evaluate the constitutionality of the Law on Science and Research. The conference will be held in Media Center (Terazije 3, Belgrade) on Tuesday, February 11, starting at 12 noon.

Janko Baljak (Academic Solidarity and Engagement Network), Vladan Čokić (Institute for Medical Research, University of Belgrade), Suzana Blesić (Institute for Medical Research, University of Belgrade), Gazela Pudar Draško (Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory, University of Belgrade) will speak at the conference. Belgrade) and Tomislav Živanović (GSPRS Nezavisnost).

The experiences of at least four scientific institutes within the University of Belgrade, in which there has been a change of leadership over the past year, testify to the fact that the grossest violation of Article 72 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, which guarantees the autonomy of universities and scientific institutions, is currently taking place. The Network of Academic Solidarity and Engagement (MASA) believes that it is a particularly devastating fact that the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia is behind the aforementioned violation of the Constitution, although it should rightly be expected that it is the guarantor of its implementation.

Over the past year, several scientific institutes within the University of Belgrade have received new leadership, appointed by the competent Ministry. In no institute did the appointed candidates have the support of the employees. Among the new directors, even two were not previously employed in those institutes, and one did not even meet the legal minimum to be appointed to the position of director of a scientific institute. On the other hand, the candidates who received the majority support of their colleagues based on their competence and reputation in the scientific community, did not receive the support of the Ministry.

Since it is clear that there is a violation of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, i.e. the stifling of the autonomy of scientific institutes, MASA demands the urgent initiation of the procedure for changing the Law on Science and Research (Article 60), in order to end the existing autocracy in accordance with the law and guarantee autonomy according to the reputation of faculties and universities in Serbia. In the period until the adoption of the proposed changes, we also demand that the appointment of directors who do not have the support of the employees be suspended, and that in those institutes where the will of the employees has already been violated, the Ministry appoints as acting directors candidates who received the majority support of their colleagues at the Scientific Councils.

The Network of Academic Solidarity and Engagement (MASA) was formed with the aim of gathering under the umbrella of an open network organization all members of the academic community who are ready to engage in strengthening the voice of the profession by advocating for the consistent application of the basic principles of academic work and their defense when they are threatened. . MASA advocates respect for the principles of university autonomy, honesty, solidarity, freedom of critical thinking, publicity and transparency, and social responsibility in the academic community.

Mreža akademske solidarnosti i angažovanosti (MASA) osuđuje praksu zapošljavanja kadrova na Akademiji vaspitačko-medicinskih strukovnih studija, odsek u Ćupriji, zbog koje je, do sada, osam kvalifikovanih nastavnica izgubilo radno mesto u poslednjih godinu dana.

Svaka od ovih nastavnica uredno se prijavila na konkurs za mesto predavača iz svoje stručne oblasti. U pitanju su Zdravstvena nega, Integrativna zdravstvena i socijalna zaštita i Javno zdravlje. Svaka je kvalifikovana za posao nastavnika veština, višeg predavača ili profesora strukovnih studija, jer ima master ili doktorat, kao i višegodišnje radno iskustvo u nastavi iz ovih naučne oblasti. Umesto njih, primljene su osobe čije su naučne kvalifikacije iz potpuno drugih naučnih oblasti za koje konkurs uopšte nije raspisan – menadžment u ekonomiji, civilna bezbednost, veterina i društveno-humanističke nauke.

Ovim je grubo narušena procedura konkursa da se na predavačka mesta biraju osobe koje imaju predavačko iskustvo iz naučne oblasti za koju je konkurs raspisan. Takođe, nisu ispoštovani principi akreditacije nastavnih programa po kojim predmete mogu predavati osobe koje imaju kvalifikacije iz relevantnih naučnih oblasti.

Nastavnice koje su izgubile radno mesto, odnosno za koje je po Zakonu o visokom obrazovanju čl.75 trebalo raspisati konkurs pre pokretanja akreditacije, navedene su u elaboratu za akreditaciju i reakreditaciju programa Strukovni master medicinska sestra i Strukovna medicinska sestra, predatom Nacionalnom akreditacionom telu. Zloupotreba je na ovaj način dosegla vrhunac, jer one nisu angažovane na pomenutim radnim mestima.  Prikazivanjem lažnih podataka prekršen je etički kodeks. Dodatno, nastavnice su ukazivale i na niz drugih nezakonitosti, kao što je nerealno prikazivanje radnog opterećenja zaposlenih kako bi se dobila akreditacija.

MASA oštro protestvuje protiv ovakve prakse i poziva prosvetnu inspekciju da neodložno preispita svaki od ovih konkursa, a Nacionalno akreditaciono telo da preispita akreditaciju studijskih programa u kojima bar 15 predmeta predaju osobe koji za njih nemaju potrebne naučne kvalifikacije. Takođe, ukazujemo da je nedopustivo da Ministarstvo prosvete, nauke i tehnološkog razvoja propušta da reaguje na dostavljene prijave i poslovanje Akademije vaspitačko-medicinskih strukovnih studija, odsek u Ćupriji vrati u zakonske okvire.

MASA is concerned about meeting the standards that would allow the lifting of the suspension of the National Accreditation Body (NAT) within the European Higher Education Association (ENQA). NAT is a key body in the Serbian higher education system, because it monitors the quality of studies and approves study programs at all faculties and higher schools.

In 2012, this body received the status of a full member of ENQA, thus Serbia received confirmation that the accreditation system is in accordance with European standards. Unfortunately, at the beginning of 2018, the membership of NAT was suspended and placed under observation. ENQA has informed the management of NAT that it is not satisfied with the way in which it awards accreditations to Serbian faculties and higher schools.

The main objection raised is that the same people do the evaluation and make decisions about accreditations. Another complaint is the excessive number of local reviewers compared to external reviewers. The third is that evaluation reports do not reflect the teamwork of reviewers. ENQA gave NAT a two-year deadline to correct the perceived failings and placed it under observation. That deadline expires on March 22, 2020.

The Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development informed the public that all observed deficiencies have been eliminated and that NAT will once again become a full member of ENQA. It is in the interest of the entire academic community that this process ends successfully and that all doubts about the accreditation process are removed. MASA asks the Ministry to inform the public about concrete steps taken in accordance with ENQA's objections.

The establishment was welcomed by the academic community Science Fund of the Republic of Serbia (Fund), which should encourage the development of scientific research and the application of their results for the sake of faster social, technological, cultural and economic development of the Republic of Serbia. In this context, the news that the Fund will use the best comparative experiences and practices, such as those used in Horizon 2020, in the evaluation of project proposals within its programs, met with the undivided support of the academic public.

How is it Program for excellent projects of young researchers (PROMIS) is the first program of the Fund, it establishes standards, and it is certain that the experiences in all phases of its implementation will determine the way in which the Fund will lead subsequent programs. At this point, it is necessary to point out the following shortcomings of the current process of project selection within PROMIS.

Reviewers play a key role in the evaluation of received projects. The standard in similar European calls is for the list of reviewers to be publicly available before the call is published, which was not the case with PROMIS. A publicly available list of reviewers removes doubts about the review process and contributes to transparency in competitive research funding programs. Therefore, publication of the complete list of reviewers, their names, titles, and affiliations, as well as review instructions, is required.

During the first stage of evaluation, the reviewers rate the projects, and the reviews and comments of the reviewers are known only to the project managers. The second level of evaluation foresees that the Program Board of the Fund gives up to 35 points to the projects from the preliminary list of projects, which completes the selection process. Considering that the distance between the worst and the best placed project from the preliminary ranking list is only 10 points (55 to 65 points), it is clear how important the evaluation of the Program Board is for the final outcome. That is why we believe that it is of crucial importance that this stage of evaluation be transparent, and we request that the evaluations of the Program Board be clearly indicated in the final balance of points for each project that has entered the second stage of evaluation.

This is especially important considering that Act on procedures for the preparation of the Program and selection of Science Fund project proposals publication of the preliminary ranking list in the second stage of evaluation is not foreseen. We believe that it is necessary for the Science Fund to clearly demonstrate how the scoring of project proposals was carried out at all evaluation stages so that all registered researchers and the entire academic public can clearly, unequivocally and transparently make sure that the entire process was carried out in accordance with Act. We invite the Fund to publish on its website not only the final ranking list for PROMIS and all future programs, but also:

1) a complete list of reviewers, their names, titles and affiliations;

2) review instructions;

3) the final list of all proposals that have passed the evaluation with a clearly indicated structure of points won.

These are crucial and minimal steps for establishing and maintaining trust between the academic community and the Science Fund, a body that will play a key role in the system of financing scientific research in the Republic of Serbia.