Research Review of Mathematics During 2003–2008 at the Six Dutch
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Research Review of Mathematics during 2003–2008 at the six Dutch Universities of Amsterdam (UvA), Amsterdam (VU), Groningen (RUG), Leiden (UL), Nijmegen (RU), and Utrecht (UU) June 22, 2010 Contents 1 Introduction 7 1.1 The Dutch System for Quality Assessment of Research . ............ 7 1.2 TheReviewCommitteeforMathematics. ........ 7 1.3 Independence .................................... ... 8 1.4 ScopeoftheAssessment .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..... 8 1.5 DataprovidedtotheCommittee . ...... 8 1.6 ProceduresfollowedbytheCommittee . ......... 8 2 General Remarks 10 3 Korteweg-de Vries Institute for Mathematics of the UvA 13 3.1 AssessmentatInstitutionalLevelUvA . .......... 13 3.1.1 Introduction .................................. 13 3.1.2 Leadership .................................... 14 3.1.3 MissionandGoals ............................... 14 3.1.4 StrategyandPolicy ............................. .. 14 3.1.5 Resources ..................................... 15 3.1.6 FundingPolicies ............................... .. 16 3.1.7 AcademicReputation . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 17 3.1.8 SocietalRelevance . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... 17 3.1.9 BalanceofStrengthsandWeaknesses . ...... 19 3.2 AssessmentperProgrammeUvA . ..... 20 3.2.1 UvA1 Algebra, Geometry and Mathematical Physics . ......... 20 3.2.2 UvA2 Analysis (Pure, Applied and Numerical) . ........ 22 3.2.3 UvA3Stochastics............................... .. 23 4 Department of Mathematics of the VU University Amsterdam (VU) 26 4.1 AssessmentatInstitutionalLevelVU. .......... 26 4.1.1 Introduction .................................. 26 4.1.2 Leadership .................................... 26 4.1.3 MissionandGoals ............................... 26 4.1.4 StrategyandPolicy ............................. .. 27 4.1.5 Resources ..................................... 28 4.1.6 FundingPolicies ............................... .. 30 4.1.7 AcademicReputation . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 31 4.1.8 SocietalRelevance . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... 31 4.1.9 BalanceofStrengthsandWeaknesses . ...... 32 4.2 AssessmentperProgrammeVU. ..... 33 4.2.1 VU1Analysis................................... 34 4.2.2 VU2Stochastics ................................ 35 4.2.3 VU3Geometry .................................. 36 2 CONTENTS 3 5 Institute of Mathematics and Computing Science of RUG 37 5.1 AssessmentatInstitutionalLevelRUG. .......... 37 5.1.1 Introduction .................................. 37 5.1.2 Leadership .................................... 37 5.1.3 MissionandGoals ............................... 38 5.1.4 StrategyandPolicy ............................. .. 38 5.1.5 Resources ..................................... 39 5.1.6 FundingPolicies ............................... .. 40 5.1.7 AcademicReputation . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 41 5.1.8 SocietalRelevance . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... 41 5.1.9 BalanceofStrengthsandWeaknesses . ...... 41 5.2 AssessmentperProgrammeRUG. ..... 43 5.2.1 RUG1 Dynamical Systems, Algebra, Geometry, Math. Physics ....... 43 5.2.2 RUG2Systems,ControlandAnalysis . ..... 44 6 Mathematisch Instituut of Leiden University (UL) 47 6.1 AssessmentatInstitutionalLevelUL . .......... 47 6.1.1 Introduction .................................. 47 6.1.2 Leadership .................................... 47 6.1.3 MissionandGoals ............................... 48 6.1.4 StrategyandPolicy ............................. .. 48 6.1.5 Resources ..................................... 49 6.1.6 FundingPolicies ............................... .. 50 6.1.7 AcademicReputation . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 51 6.1.8 SocietalRelevance . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... 52 6.1.9 BalanceofStrengthsandWeaknesses . ...... 53 6.2 AssessmentperProgrammeUL . ..... 54 6.2.1 UL1Number Theory,AlgebraandGeometry . ..... 54 6.2.2 UL2AnalysisandStochastics . ..... 55 7 Institute for Mathematics, Astrophysics and Particle PhysicsofRU 58 7.1 AssessmentatInstitutionalLevelRU. .......... 58 7.1.1 Introduction .................................. 58 7.1.2 Leadership .................................... 58 7.1.3 MissionandGoals ............................... 59 7.1.4 StrategyandPolicy ............................. .. 59 7.1.5 Resources ..................................... 61 7.1.6 FundingPolicies ............................... .. 61 7.1.7 AcademicReputation . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 64 7.1.8 SocietalRelevance . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... 64 7.1.9 BalanceofStrengthsandWeaknesses . ...... 65 7.2 AssessmentperProgrammeRU. ..... 66 7.2.1 RU1AlgebraandLogic ............................ 66 7.2.2 RU2FinancialMathematics. .... 68 7.2.3 RU3MathematicalPhysics . ... 70 8 Mathematical Institute of Utrecht University (UU) 72 8.1 AssessmentatInstitutionalLevelUU. .......... 72 8.1.1 Introduction .................................. 72 8.1.2 Leadership .................................... 72 8.1.3 MissionandGoals ............................... 73 8.1.4 StrategyandPolicy ............................. .. 73 8.1.5 Resources ..................................... 74 8.1.6 FundingPolicies ............................... .. 76 4 CONTENTS 8.1.7 AcademicReputation . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 79 8.1.8 SocietalRelevance . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... 79 8.1.9 BalanceofStrengthsandWeaknesses . ...... 79 8.2 AssessmentperProgrammeUU. ..... 82 8.2.1 UU1Algebra,GeometryandLogic . .... 82 8.2.2 UU2 Mathematical Analysis (Applied, Numerical, Pure)........... 84 8.2.3 UU3StochasticsandDecisionTheory . ...... 87 8.2.4 UU4HistoryofMathematics . ... 89 A CVs of the Committee Members 92 B Schedule of the Meetings 95 C Explanation of the SEP-scores 97 D Preliminary assessment forms 98 E List of abbreviations 101 Preface This report summarizes the results of the peer review assessment of the research programmes in mathematics of six universities, UvA, VU, RUG, UL, RU, and UU, in The Netherlands during the period 2003-2008. According to the Plan van aanpak onderzoeksbeoordeling Wiskunde 2003-2008, the evaluation was carried out by a Committee consisting of a chair and seven members, plus a secretary. The areas of expertise of the Evaluation Committee covered Algebra, Analysis, Applied Analysis, Dynamical Systems, Geometry, Numerical Analysis, Probability Theory, Systems and Control, and Decision Theory. The information in print provided to the Evaluation Committee consisted of a Self Assessment Report 2003-2008 by each university, the evaluation Research As- sessment Mathematics, QANU, August 2004 (1996-2001), and the Standard Evaluation Protocol 2003-2009. Data over the year 2002 was presented in order to ensure continuity with the previ- ous review. The chair of the Committee also served as chair for the assessment of the research programmes in Applied Mathematics for the three Dutch technical universities. The assessment procedures were largely the same for both assessments. In discussions of the Committee, the chair explained how the assessments for the technical universities were carried out. The Committee wishes to express its gratitude for the efforts made by all involved parties to prepare the documentation required for this evaluation. This documentation contained valuable information and formed a very useful basis for the evaluation procedure. The Committee received also a CWTS bibliometric analysis report for all groups involved1. The Committee has not made an evaluation of this CWTS study. It was used as additional information in order to support the findings of the Committee, and to help prevent possibly wrong conclusions. The CWTS report was used only in a late stage of the evaluation procedure and did not influence our initial findings, nor did it contribute significantly to any of our final conclusions. Preliminary reviews of each institute and programme were prepared independently by two members of the Committee in the fall of 2009. These preliminary reviews were not distributed over the Committee: they served merely to ensure that each part of the documents had been studied more carefully by at least two members. These reviews were summarized and defined the basis for the the main part of the evaluation process. During November 15–20, 2009, the Committee met in person in Utrecht in meeting rooms hired from the Department of Law of Utrecht University. All groups involved were invited to come to Utrecht. This helped to make the assessment more efficient, because no time was lost in travelling for the Committee members so that the whole procedure could be completed within five days. A disadvantage was that the Committee could not smell the atmosphere, nor inspect the working circumstances at the universities. During the meeting days, the Committee met with directors of the institutes, representatives of each group, and a selection of PhD students. The Committee also met with representatives of each faculty, usually the Dean and the “Onderzoeksdirecteur”. The discussions, which took in the order of 45 minutes for each group, took place in a pleasant informal atmosphere and they proved essential for the convergence of the opinions within the Committee to their final state. The Committee is very thankful to all involved representatives for their willingness to share their opinions and concerns with us in a very frank manner. At the end of the meetings for each university, the chair reported the first impressions at an informal meeting. 1Alesia A. Zuccala, Martijn S. Visser and Henk F. Moed, “Bibliometric Study for the Mathematics Departments