UPLB Research performance Evaluation

Evaluating Research Performance of the
University of the Philippines Los Banos
Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research and Extension
Outline of Presentation
• 
Current System of Research
Performance Evaluation
• 
UPLB Research, Development and
Extension Data 2006-2011
• 
Improving UPLB’s Research
Performance System of Evaluation
UP as a National University (Republic Act 9500 or the New UP Charter) UP as a research university.
Basic Procedures of Research Project Evaluation
at OVCRE-UPLB
4 Current System of Research Performance Evaluation •  Research funds generated •  Human resources •  Intellectual productivity –  Publications (ISI, refereed papers and citations in refereed journals) –  Patents –  Commercialized products •  Awards and recognition •  Activities directed to clientele –  Extension programs Institutional performance evaluation • 
Annual data gathering by UP System o 
For DBM reviews, whole university performance assessments, etc.) • 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
UPLB Form17 – Extension UPLB Form18 – Extension Profile UPLB Form19 – Intellectual Property UPLB Form20 – International Publication Awards UPLB Form22 – Research UPLB Form23 – Research Profile UPLB Form26 – Units Profile UPLB Form38 – Refereed Publications UPLB Intellectual Productivity
Articles published in ISI-Indexed
Journals
Individual Research Performance Evaluation: Promotion criteria for faculty Promotion criteria for REPS Scholarly/Creative Work Applicable to All Units There are also scholarly/
creative work distinct to
the unit, e.g. varieties,
equipment, exhibits,
novels, scripts, etc.
Publication Requirements for Appointment/
Promotion to Appropriate Rank for UPLB Faculty Minimum Qualification Standards for Appointment/Promotion to Appropriate Rank for REPS *NOTE: One (1) ISI Publication = 1.5 Non-ISI refereed publication
Equivalencies to ISI Publications Rewarding Exemplary Researchers • 
• 
• 
International publications award UP Scientific Productivity System Expanded Academic Support grant UPLB Scientists, 2006-­‐2011 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 UP Scientific Productivity System
Title Reward (Php/
annum) Points for appt Points for renewal (after 3yrs) UP Scientist I 120,000 1-­‐min 35 and II Total 55 1-­‐min 25 and II Total 35 UP Scientist II 144,000 1-­‐40 min-­‐50 max Total 75 1-­‐25 min-­‐30 max Total 45 UP Scientist III 180,000 1-­‐45 min-­‐ 55 max Total 95 1-­‐25 min-­‐ 35 max Total 55 Criteria 1.  Scientific productivity 2.  Scientific recognition UPLB Outstanding Awards for Researchers/
Research Project, Extensionist/Extension Projects, and Creative Artists o 
o 
System to award exemplary performance Includes several criteria such as: • 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Originality and productivity Research/Creative work and publications Significance of research findings and creative works Recognition given to the research/creative work Commitment/Dedicated service to clientele Technical competence Effectiveness Impact of performance Impact on profession/clients Contribution to institutional development Intellectual Property of UPLB Benchmarking of UPLB Research Knowledge Products and Technology Evaluation (www.uplb.edu.ph/ovcre) Establishment of Center for Technology Transfer and Enterpreneurship (CTTE) in 2007 List of UPLB patents /trademarks, licensing agreements *Innovation and Technology Support Office (ITSO)– a patent library that provides
access to global IP Search
Improving Research Performance Evaluation@UPLB
• Assessing impacts of research programs
• Benchmarking of R&D knowledge products (e.g. value chain analysis)
• Use of citation index (ISI, Scopus) and H-index (Google scholar) as
indicators of research performance of a unit and faculty/REPS/
students
22 H-­‐index (Hirsch index or Hirsch number) • 
The index was suggested by Jorge E. Hirsch, a physicist at UCSD • 
The h-­‐index is intended to measure simultaneously the quality and quantity of scientific output, reflecting both the number of publications and the number of citations per publication. • 
The index, however, works properly only for comparing scientists working in the same field; citation conventions differ widely among different fields. Hirsch Index of selected UPLB Faculty and Researchers (c/o Dr Mae TecsonMendoza)
Google Scholar
gadget search
Citations
Number of
Publications
Hirsch Index
Florinia E. Merca
37
12
3
FE Merca
105
26
4
same
399
22
10
WG Padolina
513
32
10
same
419
28
13
EMT Mendoza
512
64
13
Christian Joseph
Cumagun
same
102
8
5
Antonio C.
Laurena
same
298
21
13
AC Laurena
318
30
9
same
565
27
9
AC Rola
851
73
9
Florinia E. Merca
William G.
Padolina
Evelyn Mae T.
Mendoza
Agnes C. Rola
Hirsch Index of selected UPLB Faculty and Researchers (Dr Mae TecsonMendoza, 2012)
Google Scholar
gadget search
Citations
Number of
Publications
Hirsch Index
633
30
8
JM Pulhin
270
51
9
Merdelyn Lit
154
5
3
87
7
5
AK Raymundo
133
24
6
N Bantayan
133
16
6
same
68
9
3
V Espaldon
484
22
8
17
10
2
123
47
5
633
30
8
270
51
9
Juan M Pulhin
Merdelyn C. Lit
Asuncion
Raymundo
Nathaniel
Bantayan
MVO Espaldon
Rex Victor O. Cruz
RVO Cruz
Juan M Pulhin
JM Pulhin
R & D budget Income from generated technologies Stanford University University of Cambridge US$1.13 B $65 M (2009-­‐10) (2008-­‐9) £240.5 M or £149M $386 M Iowa State University Kyoto University KAIST $305 M $9.32 M $157 M $51,000 $248 M No. of publi-­‐
ca;ons Reference www.stanford.edu Univ Cambridge (2010) Kyoto Univ (2008) 1716 (2008) KAIST (2010) UniversiM Putra US$36.6 M Malaysia 15,345 (5 yr) www.upm.edu.my University of PhP234 M or the Philippines $5.2 M Los Baños 105 (2009) Source: Mendoza et al, 2010
OVCI, UPLB (2010) Professorial lecture (Tecson-­‐Mendoza et al., 2010) entitled Establishing UPLB as a Research University concluded that While UPLB meets the minimum requirements of a research university, it has scored low in most of the criteria for research universities. In particular, it suffers from poor quality profile and number of faculty, low research budget, and low level research activities and outputs such as publications . Targets 2010 Present 1. Improve the quality of faculty (Reduce 296 assistant professors number of instructors, replace with assistant professors with PhD) 2.Maintain ratio of faculty to students at 0 teaching associates 1:13 by increasing number of faculty to 1000, balance of 156 will be teaching associates (TA) 3. Increase in budget for increase in number and quality of faculty 4. percentage of faculty with PhD Presently 32% (270/844) 5. Reduction in teaching load of faculty 12 units 6. faculty/researchers with research 270 faculty members/ grants of at least P0.3 M Researchers (32%) 7. increase in research budget PhP252 ($5.6 M) 8. increase in the number of graduate 1,200 students (11% to 19%) 9. percent of international graduate 150 students (1.3% to 7.7%) 10. number of publications (ISI) 0.35 Source: Mendoza et al. 2010
2015 Additional professors 298 assistant Total of 156 TAs 50% of total (additional 152) 6.0 or lower 590 70% of total number PhP500 ($11.1 M) 2,500 1,000 2 per faculty/ researcher