The Network of Academic Solidarity and Engagement has, on several occasions, received complaints about non-transparency and uneven criteria for evaluating researchers in the same field in the structures of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development. Also, despite multiple calls to edit the database of researchers and their results, no progress has been made in the past years, and this segment has been completely neglected.
When it comes to the bodies of the ministry, first of all the parent scientific committees, there is a uniform assessment that all parent scientific committees and the commission for appointments should make their work more transparent and that it is necessary to make the procedures for the appeal of researchers who feel that they are damaged in the evaluation process. There are differences in efficiency and accessibility to the academic community among the parent boards, but the assessment is unanimous that there is significant room for improvement. Particular dissatisfaction is caused by the actions of the selection committee for scientific titles, which often does not respect the reports submitted by the competent matriculation board, but conducts the evaluation at its own discretion without explanation.
In this sense, we request the Ministry to take measures that would enable the transparency of the process of collecting and evaluating data on scientific research results in MPNTR:
| Issue | Recommendation |
| Locking of the RIS database, impossibility of checking references and points | Transparency of the results base, their visibility and availability |
| Out-of-date verification of results entered in RIS | Prompt update of all entered results for 2018, 2019, and soon 2020 |
| The commission for professional elections often, during the professional elections, changes the scoring on the reports submitted to it by the MNO | It is necessary to submit an explanation for all changes in the reports during the selection process in order to make the process transparent and to make it clear where the errors in the categorization are. |
| Vocational elections are taking too long (the legal deadline of 6 months is not respected) because the MNO is late in reviewing the reports | The period prescribed by law for the duration of the selection process must be observed; all instances in that process must work more efficiently and comply with laws and regulations |
| In most MNOs, the professors of the faculty dominate numerically, although the associates of the institute are much more dependent on the decisions of the MNO | To ensure that in the future convocations of all MNOs, members from the institute and the faculty are equally represented |
| Ignorance of interdisciplinary degrees and programs in the structure of parent boards, which is why researchers with interdisciplinary results are inadequately evaluated | Enable the recognition of interdisciplinary results through the establishment of a different way of evaluation that would not force researchers to choose only one discipline, because this is in complete contradiction to the spirit of interdisciplinarity |
| The evaluation of monographs, collections and other results is not transparent at individual MNOs | Make publicly visible the categorization of all MNOs for publications submitted to them for inspection, with explanations |
| Different practices among different MNOs regarding the assignment of categories to publications - some MNOs decide upon request, and some only within the framework of the election for the title or the annual reports of the NIO | Define a uniform practice of evaluation of publications, which would be independent of the election of individual researchers and annual reports |
| Technical solutions do not have a defined evaluation process outside of previous project reports or job selection | It is necessary to define a procedure for the evaluation of technical solutions on demand, instead of related to the selection of positions, because this categorization is important for cooperation with the economy. |
| Requests for submission of printed copies with requests for appointment and sealed invitations | In addition to responsibility towards the environment, the process would be further facilitated if all documentation were sent in electronic form and without the requirement for stamped invitations, which have long since gone out of world practice, and with respect to email invitations. |
| Researchers are not instructed in the procedure for appeals against decisions on elections to positions | Make the complaint procedure available on the Ministry's website so that researchers who feel they have been harmed in the process can refer |
| There are no reports from the sessions of parent scientific boards or commissions for elections to titles | Publish regularly the minutes from the meetings of the parent scientific committees and the commission for the selection of titles with clearly indicated changes in relation to the reports of the selection commissions for the title from the parent institutions |
Also, we hereby appeal to the Ministry to make transparent the procedure for amending the Rulebook on the procedure, method of evaluation and quantitative presentation of scientific research results of researchers and the selection of members of the Working Group for drafting the new rulebook. It is inadmissible that the members of the working groups of the Ministry are unknown to the academic community, as well as that the remarks coming from researchers are ignored. Also, we ask that the suggestions coming from individual scientific fields be taken into account for a fairer evaluation of the results.
Belgrade, 16.12.2020.
