Guidelines for assessing postdoctoral applications MOF, UiB
Approved by the Research Committee of the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, 02.02.2011, with
adjustments made by the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry 16.06.2014.
Assessments must take a number of factors into account and it is important that those assessing
applications are aware of this and use the entire grading scale. The guidelines describe what the
various grades entail. These descriptions are intended to aid the assessment process and help ensure
the most consistent possible application of the grading scale by all evaluators.
Postdoctoral positions
Candidate (weighted 40 %)
Factors that must be considered in the assessment process:
•
•
•
scientific qualifications and previous scientific production
planned international sojourns and/or exchanges/affiliations with new research communities
mentor declarations
The number and quality of publications during and after their doctoral studies can be used as an
indication of the strength of candidates. Account must be taken of when the research was
conducted/published, meaning it is possible for candidates to meet the standard even a relatively
short time after completing their doctoral studies. The candidate's contribution to the publications
must be assessed (e.g. by considering the order of authors and type of publication).
Grading - Grading scale 1-5
Grade 5: Applicants who have published at least once in a leading international periodical (level 2).
Applicants who have published more than once after their PhD.
Grade 4: Applicants who have published at least twice in very good international periodicals (level 2).
Applicants who have published more than once after their PhD.
Grade 3: Applicants who have published at least twice in good international periodicals (level 1 or 2
depending on the field of study). Applicants who have published more than once after their PhD.
Grade 2: Applicants who have only published a few times after their PhD (NB: see comments above).
Grade 1: Applicants who have not published after their PhD (NB: see comments above).
Project (weighted 30 %)
Factors that must be considered:
•
•
•
is the scientific concept in the application sensible?
is the project's goal original and clearly described?
is the methodology proposed adequate for the project's goal?
•
•
•
•
•
•
is the methodology proposed available in the community?
is the project feasible within the time frame?
is the proposed timetable reasonable?
are the necessary ethical considerations addressed?
are there plans for publication?
is there a realistic budget?
Grading - Grading scale 1-5
Grade 5: Original, innovative and very good project, focused and realistic. Expectation of publication
of parts of the project in a highly acclaimed periodical.
Grade 4: Good project, expectation of publication in good periodicals
Grade 3: Good project, but no documentation that the project will lead to high quality publications.
Grade 2: Good project, but cannot compete.
Grade 1: Poor project that does not merit support.
Comments: It is important that the assessment of the project does not just reflect an assessment of the
research community, even though this is relevant to some extent. It should meet the standard required to
compete with a very good project, including in relation to communities that are not regarded as excellent.
However, in such cases potential, realism and the feasibility of completion must afforded significant weight.
Researchcommunity (weighted 30 %)
Factors that must be considered:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
the research community's, and especially the main supervisor's/mentor's, research merits1
the community's2 international reputation
the community's2 international contacts
relevant2 publishing activities by the community as a whole
the community's2 academic supervision experience
the community's2 candidate production
multi or interdisciplinary cooperation in the community2
the community's2 methodological strengths and breadth, as well as access to resources in the
community
1
: Here the use of bibliometric tools where appropriate. Link to this: http://apps.isiknowledge.com/ (You'll be taken to the "Web of
Science", choose "All databases" and seeking for supervisors (for example: Couchman J). Relevant publication profile is interpreted by
pressing: citation report: _) If logged in via iPad or PC / MAC outside UiB network, use the following link:
http://apps.isiknowledge.com.pva.uib.no/ plain UiB name and password.
Nonetheless, it must be stressed that bibliometrics is only an aid and that the faculty has good research communities and traditions that
would not meet the standard were these tools to be used uncritically.
2
: Weight must also be afforded to partners in the assessment of the research community.
Grading - Grading scale 1-5
Grade 5: Internationally leading community that publishes in the best periodicals; h index> 30; the
community receives/has received funding from the EU and/or the Research Council of Norway and
the cooperative body.
Grade 4: Nationally leading community that publishes in very good periodicals (impact factor > 5); h
index 20-30; the community receives/has received funding from the EU and/or the Research Council
of Norway and the cooperative body.
Grade 3: Leading local community that publishes in good international periodicals (impact factor > 3);
the community receives/has received funding from the cooperative body.
Grade 2: Non-established research communities.
Grade 1: Unqualified research communities.
Generalcomments:
It is important that the potential of the applicant, project and mentor be assessed. This means that if
the candidate has made a very good start to his or her research career and has the potential to
become a leader, nationally or internationally, he or she may be awarded the highest grades. The
same applies to a very promising project, and in those cases where the supervisor is still young but
exhibits very good scientific development and an ability to build a very productive and high quality
research community.