KoN

Background
KoN ("Kunskap och Nytta") is an evaluation of the Research at SLU (Swedish University of Agricultural Science) made by SLU. Information about KoN (Kunskap och Nytta) is found at http://kon.adm.slu.se/   In English just press "In English".

This page (web) is mainly Dag Lindgren's. Dag Lindgren is responsible and coordinator and contact with the central evaluation for this UoA. The UoA (Unit of Assessment) is "Forest Genetics" (330_2), a part of Dept of Forest Genetics and Plant Physiology, Umeå. I do not do this quite willingly or enthusiastically, I wanted Bengt Andersson to do it. But now, when I do it, I do the best of it. SLU is broken down in 130 UoA with 1118 PhDs. Forest genetics is 6/1118 = half a percent of SLU. It is 6/38=16% of the department of forest genetics and plant physiology.

The UoA is since early 2004 mostly a part of the research school with investments in the two junior research fellows and three doctorands listed below and the postdoc and technician can also be seen as an extension of the research school. The research school with a board, a chair, a director, rectors of study and a secretary has very much taken over the role a professor of forest genetics could have filled. The research school mainly expire at the same time as I retire. The evaluation is much an evaluation of the research school.

Scientific panels will meet with representants for the evaluated UoA at Uppsala. There will be no "site visits". Our UoA, "forest genetics", will meet with panel 14 "genetics and breeding" in Uppsala May 4th pm. Steve McKeand is the forest geneticist at this panel. We are the first to confront the panel, it meets 6 more UoA after us. For most other UoAs forest genetics is absent or marginal, but there is an Uppsala UoA there Sara von Arnold plays a role and as Gunnar Jansson's salary at Skogforsk is partly paid by SLU he is considered associated to SLU and his publication is considered SLU publications. Our UoA is not allowed to use Bengt Andersson in the same way. Compared with our size, I think we get some attention, but as a pessimist, I do not think that helps.

The UoA "Forest genetics" is composed of the following ten persons, six doctors, three doctorands (one of them, Jon, is now considered doctor) and one technician:

Self-evaluation
One of the basis for KoN is a self-evaluation, KoN asks the UoA to fill a form. The self-evaluation form was filled so all PIs could follow how the work progressed and were encouraged for assistance and have been able to give their view or make additions or corrections. The senior scientists did contribute. The prefect and research school director has also got the opportunity to comment. Basically, only the senior researchers at the UoA contributed information and ideas for filling the form. KoN emphasised (which I agree in principle although it did not work for this UOA) that part of the reason for the self-evaluation was to stimulate analyses on the UoA level and not just to supply material for the evaluators. Part of the self-evaluation is done by administrative offices so the UoA has not made everything by themselves, for some part (mainly publication data, staff data and economy) administrative offices have contributed.

The self-evaluation of Forest Genetics as given to the panel is on this link (the panel has inserted e.g. the publication counts).

Publication statistics and evaluation
KoN collected information about publication records from the members of a UoA from three sources. The most important (phase 1) is Web of Science, when some other similar databases are searched (phase 2) and finally SLU's own data base (phase 3).

The publication analyses of the UoA given to the panel made by the administration is here.  The list of publications delivered by the administration to the panel, I suspect it is incomplete.  My comments on the KoN publication analyses of Forest Genetics.

In my opinion SLU overemphasizes citation measures and "impact". E.g. proceedings papers and reports and fact sheets are not given any value at all in the publication based output analyses whereby indicating that they have no quality. More of my comments here.

The first step in KoN was that scientists were asked to upload their publications on Web of Science into a database especially for the evaluation. I made some readings and reflections based on this Web of Science statistics. 
The Web of Science input in KoN, some results are presented

After that the scientists were asked to upload "other" material from accepted publishers in fas2 and fas3 is just the records which SLU and the department anyways keeps including e.g. proceedings and popular science, those who did not enter in fas 2 and 3.

I made some copublication analyses myself and hope this is in the spirit of KoN. I limited that to 2006-2008 and included also material submitted and in press to get it updated and so the strengthening with the research school and junior research fellows and associated foreign lead scientists made early 2004 should get full effect. The UoA has been almost constant from beginning of 2005 till mid 2009, so from that point of view it is a good time to evaluate what it had done.  I compiled the publications of the UoA.

Analyses of publication I performed in connection to the self-evaluation

Early versions of the self-evaluation
To stimulate input from the whole UoA and fill the form in a "democratic way", I filled the form on this web, welcoming input from everyone and asking for it from the scientists of the UoA. This is some remains from the early part of this phase and which will not stay here for long and it is only for documenting the process, I do not recommend looking into it.

A submitted self-evaluation modified mainly concerning literature 090319

Self-evaluation - draft. Activities and Outputs with views and background, C4-D

Self-evaluation - draft. Activities and Ouputs with views and background, A-C3

Self-evaluatiuon - draft. A3 and A5

Self-evaluation - filling the form to submit,

Last edit 090417