To whom it may concern:
Action plan:
10 AVENUES LEADING TO
SHANGHAI TOP 500
(ALSO, THE-QS and WEBOMETRICS)
AND 10 ISSUES OF CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE
(5 issues, each one 2 sub-issues)
23.3.2016.
Author: Prof. Dr. Milutinović Veljko
Introductory Notes (10)

a. This is a study that I have completed
at the request of Prof. Lekovic,
Vice Rector of the University of Belgrade,
in charge of the National Top500 project.
It gives only the basic points
(details are obtainable on special request).
The first version was created in May 2009.
2/63
Introductory Notes (10)

b. To complete this study,
several experts were consulted;
primarily, Prof. Demsar (Ljubljana),
Prof. Neuhold (Wienna),
Prof. Valero (Barcelona), and
Prof. Mester (Szeged).
3/63
Introductory Notes (10)

c. Different universities
are taking different avenues
leading to the Shanghai Top 500 list,
and these avenues are defined next.
4/63
Introductory Notes (10)

d. The best approach
is to take all of them concurrently,
for synergistic reasons.
Examples of benefits
coming from synergistic interaction
of the 10 avenues
are obtainable on request.
5/63
Introductory Notes (10)

e. What I list below are the avenues,
and for each avenue
I specify a university
which got significant points
by taking that avenue.
For each university
I can supply the name of my contact,
who represents direct link
to the major driver along the specified avenue
(Rector, Director of NSF, etc.).
6/63
Introductory Notes (10)

f. Each issue defined below
has a price tag,
both to create and to maintain.
The price of each one
can be calculated on request.
7/63
Introductory Notes (10)

g. Each issue has a social dimension,
and without appropriate attention
given to the social dimension,
the success can be jeopardized.
8/63
Introductory Notes (10)

h. Each issue needs
a responsible person or institution,
to take a permanent care about,
plus a mechanism with elements of:
bible, stick, and carrot.
9/63
Introductory Notes (10)

i. Benefits of getting onto the Top500 list
are multifold,
and their elaboration
is a subject of a follow-up write-up.
10/63
Introductory Notes (10)

j. IMPORTANT NOTE:
Issues do not count for Shanghai500,
but act as crucial accelerators
of the process.
Avenues do count for the list.
Avenues bring Shanghai points,
and issues help the avenues
to bring more points.
11/63
Issues of Importance
12/63
a. DIRECT VISIBILITY
13/63
a. DIRECT VISIBILITY

No matter what are the results generated by faculty members, the
major issue is that all their results are clearly visible. One does not
apply to the Shanghai list. They use the Internet to find data themselves,
and that means that many results do not get noticed (my uneducated
feeling is that only 20% of the results generated by the U. of Belgrade
get noticed). Therefore, the crucial issue is that each university has a
portal, in which the data are sorted using the SAME structure as is the
structure of the Shanghai evaluation criteria, so they find ALL at one
place, EASILY. That portal should be the first Google hit, when the
official name of the university is typed, no matter what language is
used (English, Serbian, Chinese, Spanish). The Szeged Univerity has a
respectable portal, using 1:1 correspondence with what Shanghai looks
for (I do not know if that is so by accident, or due to a systematic
effort). My contact to Szeged Rector: Prof. Mester. I SUGGEST THAT
PROF. MESTER IS ADDOPTED INTO THE BELGRADE MISSION TEAM.

The portal must include
not only the data of interest for Shanghai,
but also the data of interest
for the other two lists getting popular
(one in UK, THE-QS,
and one in SP, WEBOMETRICS).
a1. Important for Shanghai
16/63
Nobels (NL) or Major Field Medalists (MFMs)
among alumni (10%)

Does Ivo Andric hold a degree from UB?
If yes, he will be bringing points for 100 years.
Another question is if HDs count?
There is some indication that these may count,
but with an order of magnitude lower weight.
That has yet to be proved.
In any way, it does not hurt them to list them
at the portal, in the HD category.
We have about 10 NLs and MFMs among correct and future
HDs (Honorary Doctors), plus some universities have
a practice to give HD post-mortem to NLs
(which could be done for Ivo Andric, if rules permit).
Also, leading researchers of SRB should be nominated
for MFMs that Shanghai accepts.
17/63
Nobels (NL) or Major Field Medalists (MFMs) among
staff (20%)

All NLs and MFMs who got our HDs,
did express an interest
to teach courses for credit in SRB,
via Internet or to come here.
What counts is not where the "radna knjizica" resides,
but where the courses for credit are taught.
Consequently, each school/department of UB (31),
and each school/department
of any other SRB university
has to create a TOPICS-IN course,
which brings transferable Bologna credits,
and can be taught only by NL of MFM
(the list of MFMs that Shanghai accepts,
can be found via the Shanghai portal).
18/63
Peak Researchers (20%).

This is where both,
the number of SCI papers and SCI citations count,
as well as the fellow nominations.
SRB has to create a list of researchers
with SCI citations count over 50,
with SCI papers count over 50,
and the list of fellows (nonMFMmedalists)
of major societies and companies
(Fellows of the IEEE, ACM, Intel, IBM,
MS, Oracle, Cisco, Google,..).
Tesla and Pupin were Fellows of IRE (now IEEE),
and could count,
had their nominations in BG been not dropped
at the time they were alive.
19/63

For the peak researchers to count all their lifetime,
all those who satisfy criteria for Shanghai points,
should never be asked to retire.
In Slovenia,
no university professor is ever asked to retire.
What I propose for SRB is less merciful:
Only those who bring Shanghai points
should never be asked to retire.
Consequently, the current EMERITUS LAW IN SRB
has to be changed, and linked to Shanghai criteria.
Currently it is linked to the 3% condition,
which creates ambiguities and room for abuse.
20/63

Of course, in order not to cut jobs for youngers,
the teaching of non-retired post-65 professors
should be limited only to master and PHD studies,
and only to one course per semester.
Opening of a third, summer semester
(in addition to fall and spring)
should be considered,
and not only for TOPICS-IN courses
(visitors can easily come in summers,
and summers are ideal make-up periods
for courses difficult to pass
(at Purdue University, all tough courses are offered
also in summers).
21/63
Size (10%)

Our major Achilies heal. Legislature is needed
that moves non-productive staff to teaching services,
which do not count (like financial services, cleaning
services, student services, housing services, ...).
All privileges and titles should be kept intact,
to amortize frictions.
A grace period should be given to those who wish to improve. Full
professors should be kept intact,
so they become allies, not enemies.
Also, productive groups should be incorporated
(if the Jozef Stefan Institute
would become a part of LJ university,
LJ would get into Top100).
22/63
SCI (20%)


Both papers and citations are important.
However, here is the stress on SCI papers.
AGAIN, RETIRED PROFESSORS
WITH HIGH CUMULATIVE SCI
SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO TEACH
AND TO ADVICE PHD STUDENTS,
LIFELONG
(LIKE AT ALL MAJOR USA UNIVERSITIES).
23/63

Also, government has to give money
both for SCI papers and SCI citations,
but ONLY IF AND AFTER THE FACTS
BECOME VISIBLE BOTH
ON THE NATIONAL BULLETIN BOARD
(that motivates others in the nation, more than any money)
AND AN FP7 PROPOSAL
INCLUDING THESE PAPERS AND CITATIONS (SCI)
GETS SUBMITTED (SEE BELOW),
BECAUSE SUCCESSFULL PROPOSALS
BRING MONEY TO GOVERNMENT IMMEDIATELY,
and ALMOST-SUCCESSFUL ONES BRING MONEY
(VERY LIKELY) IN THE NEXT CALL (see below).
24/63

In other words, money is needed
for all these awards, and it can come from FP7.
Actually, if the work is relevant, money is more likely to come.
So, the criterion for awards should be not only SCI (quality),
but SCI and FP7 (quality and relevance).
Hybrid solutions are also possible,
i.e. small awards for SCI only,
and significant awards for SCI+FP7 (synergy).
25/63

Articles at Nature and Science (20%)
These should be awarded by Government and Press
(see part on MEDIA VISIBILITY given below).
Each such paper should be given nice money by government
and an article in Politika,
and an exposure at RTS.
26/63
The bottom line is that NSF of SRB
should be giving money as follows:

1. "Na kasicicu"
To all registered researchers,
just to keep them above bio minimum.
Recimo, nacionalni minimalac.
2. "Lopatom"
Kad generisu SCI bodove za Shanghai
(radove i citate).
Recimo, E100 za rad i E10 za citat.
3. "Bagerom"
Kad generisu rad za Nature and Science.
Recimo, E1000.
27/63
a2. Important for others
(UK and SP)
28/63
International students

They will come if appropriate infrastructure exists;
quality of education is not the only issue of importance.
ALSO, BRING STANFORD or MIT programs to BG,
and foreign students from the region will hog our doors!
STUDENTS COUNT
NO MATTER WHAT COUNTRY THEY COME FROM!
29/63
International staff

Each faculty should have a 3-credit course TOPICS IN XYZ,
should be taught by a foreign professor
(they do not need high honoraria to come;
what is important to them is to spread their mission,
and what can also help is the LONELY PLANET #1 :)
FOREIGN PROFESSORS
COUNT ONLY IF THEY COME FROM
SHANGHAI TOP 500 AND TEACH FOR CREDIT.
30/63
Students accepted
for grad schools
at other top universities

This is our major strength,
since only ETF brings on average
10 grad students per year to Top10 USA schools
(especially after a course has been generated
which teaches students how to get there - ETF got money
equivalent to $1M now,
from a past student who became an alumnus of Stanford,
and the course was created to maximize the probability
that something like that happens again;
the course also includes FP7, MBA, and SCI,
plus parts on inventivity, creativity, effectiveness, and efficiency).
Also, 40 past students of ETF are now doing PHD in Barcelona,
which is treated the EU top in computer design.
IT COUNTS ONLY IF OUR STUDENTS REACH SHANGHAI 500.
NB: Mechanism needed to report progress beyond UB
31/63
Staff teaching at other top universities


All our professors visiting elsewhere have to be listed,
but only if "elsewhere" is Shanghai top 500.
The portal creation and maintenance
have a non-trivial price tag,
which can be calculated.
Prof. Jovanovic and RCUB, plus Prof. Popovic and ETF,
should be consulted
about the tender for the portal creation.
32/63
Webometrics



PageRank versus PaperRank
ProfessorRank versus FacultyRank
UniversityRank
33/63
b. GOVERNMENT IMPOSED
MOTIVATION MECHANISMS
In order to help generate good results,
GOVERNMENT has to introduce motivation
mechanisms,
both for national funding
and for EU funding:
34/63

b1. For national funding, the best example is Slovenia
(Ljubljana is at the position 402).
SLO funding criteria are very close to Shanghai criteria.
A possible solution is to ask a VIP from Slovenia to help
generate such criteria for Serbia,
and to add both, the mechanisms that make the Serbia criteria
IDENTICAL to Shanghai criteria (ALL 6 listed above), and also the
PREVENTIVE mechanisms that prevent frictions from stepping on
toes of seniors who are influential, but week in science, and
could generate frictions (ako si redovni profesor, niko nece da
te dira, ali nemoj da kocis, nego pomogni - prikljuci se ideji
koja dobija; a ako si asistent, docent ili vanredni,
zapni iz sve snage). This means that issues like
papers in Nature and Science have to be financially recognized;
not only the SCI papers. This means mechanisms that get
introduced gradually, selectively, and transparently.
The core of the financial mechanism is presented above.
35/63

b2. For international funding, the best examples are Germany and
Austria, where very good but unsuccessful proposals get
non-trivial reimbursements for preparation efforts.
Along the same lines,
Croatia has introduced a mechanism which cold for SRB, too:
Each FP7 proposal is rated with up to 15 points:
ST, Scientific and Technical, gets up to 5 points,
MF, Management and Finances, gets up to 5 points,
ED, European Dimension, gets up to 5 points.
36/63

If a proposal gets 12 points or more,
it has good chances to win an EU contract.
If a proposal gets 10 points or more,
but does not win a contract, it gets:
E10K for project leader, if from CRO
E4K for WP leader, if from CRO
E3K for each partner from CRO
All this on condition that none of the three parts is rated below
3 points (ovo ogranicenje je odlicno, da se ne bi desilo da se
neko uortacio sa firmom R&R koja garantuje 4.5. na ST i ED,
pa se 10 poena prebaci sa slabim ST delom od samo 1 poen).
Also, total given out is E10K (ako je iz CRO leader
i jos dva partnera, total koji se daje nije E16K, nego E10K,
ali to ogranicenje nije dobro).
37/63

Consequently, in 2008, CRO output to EU was E2M,
and the input from EU was E17M
(based on what I have, SRB data are E1M8 and E2M4).
For CALL 5 (closed Oct 26, 2009),
success rate of Croatia is excellent;
of SRB is tragic.
Please, note that ETF has a course which teaches students
how to do FP7 proposals.
This course is also available at
PMF (obligatory at MasterFFH),
FON (elective at PHD level), and
Singidunum (obligatory at PHD).
38/63

My proposal for SRB (which is what SLO may introduce soon):
E5K if leader
E2K if WP leader
E1K if partner
Condition: min 3 at either ST, or MF, or ED.
Important: money in one week after application for money!
39/63

This money comes from the Minister of Finances,
via the Minister of Science,
since each almost-successful project may win next time,
and then the government funds
get loaded with orders of magnitude more money that
given for reimbursements (socijalno, zdravtveno, penziono, etc).
Primer: Ako SRB univerzitet, kao jedan od partnera
donese E350K za plate,
od toga E150K ostaje SRB drzavi (faktor oko 1.75),
pa zato ima smisla da drzava stimulise almost-successful proposals,
jer se buduci uspesni generisu upravo iz ove grupe.
Sada drzava daje 10% uspesnima, ali to nije neophodno,
jer ako je neko dobio pare od EU, on ima para,
i ne treba dodatno opterecivati budzet
(zasto podmazivati rep debeloj guski?).
40/63
c. UNIVERSITY IMPOSED
MOTIVATION MECHANISMS
41/63
In order to help generate good results,
UNIVERSITIES have to introduce
good motivation mechanisms for:


c1. PHD student publications
LJ is now asking 2 SCI papers for PHD.
c2. faculty promotions
LJ has made the promotion criteria much tougher than BG
Crucial principles to apply:
PRIMENA SA ZADRSKOM, POSTEPENOST, SELEKTIVNOST,
TRANSPARENTNOST, i RELEVANTNOST
(source: Franci Demsar, Director of the NSF of Slovenia).
Razrada ovih 5 kriterijuma je predmet posebnog dopisa
(poseban rad istih koautora, Milutinovic, Lekovic, Tomazic, Demsar).
42/63
Suggestion for SRB, based on statistical
analysis:

1. for natural and medical sciences, 3 SCI papers for PHD.
2. for electrical and computer engineering, 2 SCI papers
3. for other engineering, 1 SCI paper
4. for social sciences (laws, economy, etc), 1 SSCI paper
5. for arts and humanities (languages, etc), 1 paper, in one of:
AHCI or ERIH A or ERIH B.
ERIH C NOT ACCEPTABLE.
GOOD DOMESTIC JOURNAL HAVE TO GET INTO ERICH A OR B.
43/63
A GUIDELINE ON HOW TO MAKE A JOURNAL FOR
SCI, SSCI, AHCI, OR ERIH,
ON SPECIAL REQUEST.

It should be announced that the above rules
will be applied in 5 years from now,
and will be made tighter every 5 years.
Another possibility is that
the rule for sciences/medicine be applied in 1 year,
for EE/CE in 2 years, for other engineering in 3 years,
for SSIi in 4 years, and for arts and humanities in 5 years.
Absolutely everything has to be transparent
to the entire nation!
44/63
d. INDIRECT VISIBILITY
45/63

In order to generate visible results (that get easily publishable),
mentors have to be motivated to focus on the relevant problems,
so that money, time, effort, and talent is not wasted.
So, mechanisms (offices) are needed to help:
d1. Effectiveness,
how to select the right road
to reach the target destination
d2. Efficiency,
how to be fast on that road
46/63

One possible scenario (related to effectiveness)
that wastes talent and time is the following one:
Assistants are typically recruited among the best students,
and very often end up doing PHD
with the politically most influential professor
in the Area (Katedra), who is not productive (effective),
so they are given a suva-drenovina topic for PHD.
How to prevent this?
National list of topic priorities and consultation
of that list when the thesis topic is to be approved,
or even better,
asking for a SCI paper at the time of thesis topic adoption.
47/63

One possible scenario (related to efficiency) needing improvement
is that promotion committees waste their time on clear cases
(promote vs reject), which can be treated automatically.
They should concentrate their time only on gray-zone cases
(details on request).
Also, each promotion should be evaluated by an ethics committee
(important topic not covered here).
This issue has a price tag, not only in money, but also in social issues,
and can be calculated with an appropriate effort.

MENTORS MUST SATISFY THE MINIMUM SCI PAPER REQUIREMENT.
AGAIN,
THE RULE SHOULD BE APPLIED WITH DELAY, AND TRANSPARENTLY.
48/63
e. PRESS VISIBILITY
49/63

Researcher get better informed via media and newspapers,
then via official channels. Consequently,
e1. Politika (and others) have to write about the issues
and mechanisms presented here.
e2. Rectors and ProRectors have to talk for TV,
as well.
The Mission Team must include reps from media!
50/63
Avenues

1. NLs and MFMs among alumni. An excellent example:
Stanford.
It is not that there is nothing that SRB can do here :)
My contacts: Flynn+Hennessy
(president, co-author on a recent book)
51/63


2. NLs and MFMs among staff. An excellent example: Texas.
My contact: Patt (MFM)
There are several sub-avenues that SRB can take :)
Non-resident staff does count on certain conditions.
OUR ALUMNI WHO ARE PROFESSORS ELSEWHERE,
SHOULD BE ASKED TO TEACH!
SUGGESTION: ASK THE STUDENT ORGANIZATION
IF IT IS OK THAT AN MFM MAKES A 20 MINUTE LECTURE AT
THE APRIL 4 CELEBRATION,
AND THEN CONTINUES WITH A TOPICS-IN COURSE
AT ETF!
52/63

3. Peak Researchers.
Best example: Politechnic of Valencia.
The avenue boils down to hiring good researchers.
My contacts: Pont + Jil. Details on request.
53/63

4. Size. Best example: Milano.
The avenue boils down
to moving weak researchers to teaching
services,
which is easily doable at private universities,
and very difficult at state universities.
Detailes on request. My contact: Sami.
54/63

5. SCI. Not only papers, but citations, too,
have to be clearly visible at the portal.
Best example: Ljubljana.
Details on request.
55/63

6. Articles in Science and Nature.
Best example: Ljubljana
Contacts: Demsar and Tomazic.
Details on request.
56/63

7. International Students.
Best example: U. of Tokyo.
The avenue implies excellent infrastructure
for foreign students
(instant nostrification of diplomas, mobility,
dorms, services).
My contact to rector: Prof. Fujii.
57/63

8. International Staff.
Best example: Waseda.
Details on request.
My contact to Rector: Prof. Iwai
58/63

9. Student acceptance rate at other universities.
Details on request.
Best example: Technion.
My contact: Prof. Valero.
59/63

10. Staff teaching elsewhere.
Details on request.
Best example: Weizman.
My contact: Prof. David.
60/63
Final Notes (10)

a. Someone has to be responsible for generation of data for the portal.
b. Someone has to be responsible for the portal implementation.
c. Someone has to calculate the points from the BGD portal,
and to report to the Shanghai administration,
if a difference is noticed - a watchdog is needed (same as above).
d. Someone has to be responsible for implementation of all
motivation mechanisms in the Gov domain (Minister of Science).
e. Someone has to be responsible
for implementation of motivation mechanisms at SRB universities,
both public and private (Rectors).
f. Someone has to be made responsible for national priorities
(effectiveness and efficiency).
61/63

g. Someone has to be responsible for MEDIA VISIBILITY
(suggestion: Stanko Stojiljkovic and Olivera Kosic).
Stanko bi bili zaduzeni za vizibilitet cele akcije!
h. Someone has to be made responsible
for PUSH at universities outside BGD
(e.g. Filipovic KG, Milovanovic Nis, NS, etc...)
i. Someone has to be responsible for PUSH at private universities.
Given the fact how little the government gives for public
universities, some of the private universities may overpass UB.
j. Someone has to be responsible for continuity
(universities come to Top500, and some of them stay there for only
one year - make sure that does not happen to us,
once one successful administration term expires).
A SELF ORGANIZING SYSTEM IS NEEDED!
62/63
FINAL COMMENTS

1. According to Prof. Mester talk in Amalfi,
Shanghai analyses 3000 and reports 500.
If UB is among 3000, our job is easier.
If not, our job is tough.
Someone has to find out if UB is among 3000, and where?
2. According to Prof. Mester,
all top 500 universities have a strong central governance,
which makes it easy to introduce and reinforce wise rules.
If UB likes to become a member of the top 500 family,
the university statute has to be modified.
63/63