QANU Research Review Chemistry

QANU Research Review Chemistry QANU, April 2011 Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities (QANU) Catharijnesingel 56 PO Box 8035 3503 RA Utrecht The Netherlands Phone: 030 230 3100 Telefax: 030 230 3129 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.qanu.nl © 2011 QANU Q208 Text and numerical material from this publication may be reproduced in print, by photocopying, or by any other means with the permission of QANU and if the source is mentioned. 2 QANU / Research Review Chemistry Contents: Foreword 5 Preface 7 1. The Review Committee and Review Procedures 9 2. General Remarks 13 3. University of Groningen 15 4. Wageningen University 41 5. Radboud University Nijmegen 45 6. University of Amsterdam 65 7. Utrecht University 81 8. VU University Amsterdam 107 9. Leiden University 123 Appendix: Short profile of the committee members 143 Appendix: Explanation of the SEP criteria and scores 145 QANU / Research Review Chemistry 3 4 QANU / Research Review Chemistry FOREWORD This report follows the Standard Evaluation Protocol 2009-2015 (SEP) for Research Assessment in the Netherlands that was developed by VSNU, KNAW and NWO. The purpose of this report is to present a reliable picture of the research activities submitted for this review and to give feedback on the research management and quality assurance. The review Committee was supported by QANU (Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities). QANU aims to ensure compliance with the SEP in all aspects and to produce independent assessment reports with peer review Committees of international experts in the academic fields involved. QANU wishes to thank the chairperson and members of the review Committee for their participation in this assessment and for the dedication with which they carried out this task. We also thank the staff of the units under review for their carefully prepared documentation and for their co-operation during the assessment. Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities Mr. Chris J. Peels Dr. Jan G.F. Veldhuis Director Chairman of the Board QANU / Research Review Chemistry 5 6 QANU / Research Review Chemistry PREFACE An evaluation of the quality of the science performed within the Chemistry Departments at the Universities requires much effort, first and foremost from all the members of the Departments that are being evaluated. The self-evaluation documents, which together with the very important personal contacts and discussions during the site-visits form the basis of this report, are the result of many discussions and careful writing within the departments visited. This is an important first step in a process that should lead to a better insight into the performance of a research group. The present evaluation report is the result of constructive interactions in a strongly collaborative atmosphere between the staff at the universities and the committee members. As Chair I want to thank all of them for the open, harmonious and hospitable way in which this operation could be brought to a good end. The quality of chemical research at the Universities is generally very good. The average score for quality of the fifty-eight programmes in this review is 4,2. The score of 4 or 5 (‘Very good’ or ‘Excellent’) can only be given to programmes that are nationally or internationally leading and contribute significantly to their field. This means that the scores clearly show that Dutch chemical research is not only a very important national player, but also contributes very substantially to the development of several important areas of the field at the international level. Some programmes are even among the international leaders in their field. The scores as such do not paint the whole picture. Quality assessment is a multi-dimensional excercise and policy decisions should not be taken without carefully considering the whole context, including the mission, the stage of development and the links with teaching. Societal relevance or ‘valorisation’ should also not be regarded as a simple isolated criterion. University research aims at maintaining, expanding and disseminating knowledge at the cutting edge of science. These functions are strongly interrelated and should always be carefully balanced. Strong support is essential for Chemistry to maintain its very high level of quality and to perform its role as an important stimulator of innovation, economic growth and welfare. Full and fast implementation of the joint Sector Plan for Chemistry and Physics will be of major importance for the future development of Chemistry in the Netherlands. As Chair I strongly hope that the efforts of all involved in this review will contribute to the further success of Chemistry in the Netherlands, in the interest of science and society. Frans De Schryver Chairman of the Review Committee QANU / Research Review Chemistry 7 8 QANU / Research Review Chemistry 1. THE REVIEW COMMITTEE AND REVIEW PROCEDURES Scope of the assessment The Committee was asked to perform an assessment of the research in Chemistry at the University of Groningen (RUG), Wageningen University (WU), Radboud University Nijmegen (RU), University of Amsterdam (UvA), Utrecht University (UU), VU University Amsterdam (VU) and Leiden University (LEI). This assessment covers the research in the period 2001 - 2009. In accordance with the Standard Evaluation Protocol 2009-2015 for Research Assessment in the Netherlands (SEP), the Committee’s tasks were to assess the quality of the institutes and the research programmes on the basis of the information provided by the institutes and through interviews with the management and the research leaders, and to advise how this quality might be improved. Composition of the Committee The composition of the Committee was as follows: Prof. F.C. De Schryver (chair), University of Leuven Prof. S. Larsen, University of Copenhagen Prof. J. Michl, University of Colorado Prof. J.K.M. Sanders, Cambridge University Additional members per university: University of Groningen Prof. R.J. Cava, Princeton University Prof. G. von Heijne, Stockholm University Prof. E.L. Cussler, University of Minnesota Prof. Ka Ming Ng, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Wageningen University Prof. C.E.D. Chidsey, Stanford University Prof. H. Hirt, University of Vienna Radboud University Nijmegen Prof. M. Levitt, University of Southampton Prof. P. H. Seeberger, Max Planck Institute of Colloids and Interfaces, Potsdam-Golm University of Amsterdam Prof. J. Pawliszyn, University of Waterloo Prof. K. Kremer, Max-Planck Institut für Polymerforschung, Mainz Utrecht University Prof. B. Bukau, Zentrum für Molekulare Biologie der Universität Heidelberg Prof. B.F. Chmelka, University of California VU University Amsterdam Prof. M. Rowland, University of Manchester and University of California Prof. M. Hibert, Université de Strasbourg QANU / Research Review Chemistry 9 Leiden University Prof. G.J. Davies, University of York Prof. D. Crich, Institut de Chimie des Substance Naturelles (ICSN), Gif-sur-Yvette, France. A short profile of the committee members is given in the Appendix.. Roel Bennink of the Bureau of QANU (Quality Assurance Netherlands Universities) was appointed secretary to the Committee. Independence All members of the Committee signed a statement of independence to safeguard that they would assess the quality of the Institutes and research programmes in an unbiased and independent way. Any existing personal or professional relationships between Committee members and programmes under review were reported and discussed in the committee meeting. The Committee concluded that there were no unacceptable relations or dependencies and that there was no specific risk in terms of bias or undue influence. Data provided to the Committee The Committee has received detailed documentation consisting of the following parts: 1. Self-evaluation reports of the units under review, including all the information required by the Standard Evaluation Protocol (SEP), with appendices 2. Copies of three key publications per research programme 3. Results of the bibliometric study on Dutch academic chemistry research 1999-2008, Center for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), May 2010. Procedures followed by the Committee The Committee proceeded according to the Standard Evaluation Protocol (SEP). Prior to the Committee meeting, each programme was assigned to two reviewers, who independently formulated a preliminary assessment. The final assessments are based on the documentation provided by the Institutes, the key publications and the interviews with the management and with the leaders of the programmes. The interviews took place in September 2010 (see the schedule in Appendix C) on location at the Institutes. Through the interviews with representatives of the research community, the Committee developed an impression of the research programmes submitted for this review. Preceding the interviews, the Committee was briefed by QANU about research assessment according to SEP, and the Committee discussed the preliminary assessments. The Committee also agreed upon procedural matters and aspects of the assessment. After the interviews the Committee discussed the scores and comments. The texts for the committee report were finalised through email exchanges. The final version was presented to the faculties for factual corrections and comments. The final report was presented to the boards of the participating universities and was printed after their formal acceptance of the report. The Committee used the rating system of the Standard Evaluation Protocol

Load more