Assessment HEI 2009

Report

Assessment of higher education institutions and their faculties (2009)

© ARRA, Bratislava 2009

ARRA, Bárdošova 2/A, 831 01 Bratislava, ID No: 30857091, Reg. No. VVS/1-900/90-245 03 phone: +421 2 5443 2246 www.arra.sk E-mail: [email protected] Bank details: Slovenská sporiteľňa, A/C No: 0178751805/0900

- 2 -

„This work was supported by the Research and Development Support

Agency under contract No APVV-0384-07”

The work of ARRA is supported by:

The partner of ARRA is


- 3 -

The authors of the Report would like to thank the members of the Board of Advisors of

ARRA, in particular the chairperson Prof. Štich, as well as the members of the Board of Trustees

(in particular the chairperson Ing. J. Kollár) for their comments, discussions, analyses and reviews.

The criteria and the methodology used have been adopted after several modifications from

previous ARRA reports1. Discussions with Don Thornhill and Lewis Purser, experts that the World

Bank arranged for ARRA, as well as with several other members of the academic community in

Slovakia and abroad, contributed significantly to criteria selection and dividing the faculties into

eleven groups.

1 http://www.arra.sk/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=15&MMN_position=11:5


- 4 -

1. About ARRA

ARRA is an independent civil association established in 2004 by Prof. Ferdinand

Devínsky, Prof. Ján Pišút, Renáta Králiková, and Juraj Barta with the objective of assessing the

quality of Slovak higher education institutions. In the course of its existence, it prepared and

published five reports assessing Slovak higher education institutions. In its beginnings, ARRA was

assisted by dr. Don Thornhill and dr. Lewis Purser, World Bank experts. After their departure,

ARRA continued its international collaboration and, in 2009, was at the birth of a global

organisation of ranking agencies, the IREG Observatory (International Ranking Expert Grou p

Observatory on Academic Ranking and Excellence) as its founding member. Prof. Ferdinand

Devínsky was elected a member of the Executive Committee of the IREG Observatory.2

ARRA is also engaged in other activities whose common denominator is the quality of

higher education institutions in Slovakia. Throughout the last year, projects were implemented

such as the Top Scientists project (identification of Slovak scientists comparable to world’s leading

scholars), a study mapping the interest of employers in higher education institution graduates, a

comparison of the scientific performance of Czech and Slovak higher education institutions, etc.

The primary objective of ARRA is to stimulate positive changes in Slovak higher

education.

2. Authors

• Mgr. Juraj Barta

• Dr. h. c. prof. Ing. Ferdinand Devínsky, DrSc.

• Mgr. Michal Fedák

• doc. RNDr. Ivan Ostrovský, CSc.

• Mgr. Mária Páleníková

• prof. RNDr. Ján Pišút, DrSc.

• Mgr. Michal Považan

• prof. Ing. Ivan Štich, DrSc.

• Mgr. Katarína Tichá Hudecová

2 More at http://www.arra.sk/index.php?module=documents&JAS_DocumentManager_op=downloadFile&JAS_File_id=60


- 5 -

3. Summary

ARRA presents the fifth assessment of Slovak higher education institutions which relies on

a detailed analysis of publicly available and verifiable data on their scientific activity, teachers,

numbers of students, interest in study, grants, and PhD studies.

The ARRA ranking has undergone significant changes this year. Some criteria were

dropped, some were replaced, but the most obvious change is that in the division of faculties into

individual groups. The previously used groups HUM and SPOL were divided into smaller, more

compact groups which better reflect the focus of individual faculties and are more comprehensible

for the user. This approach resulted in the creation of the groups of economic sciences, sciences of

law, theological sciences, sciences of education, philosophical sciences, arts, and other social

sciences.

In the new groups, the leaders among faculties of similar specialisation are more visible.

For example, Comenius University’s Faculty of Law has a moderate lead among faculties of law;

Košice University of Technology’s Faculty of Economics leads the group of economic faculties;

faculties of education have a leader in the Faculty of Physical Education and Sports, etc.

Looking back at five years of ARRA assessments, it can be concluded that the general level

of higher education institutions and their faculties in Slovakia is stagnating or slightly increasing. It

is not possible to determine the trend as to whether stagnation or slow growth is involved. After an

improvement in one year, the results of several institutions fall back to previous levels. The

development is fluctuating and unclear. Examples include Trnava University whose performance,

following continuous growth, culminated in 2007 and whose results have been deteriorating ever

since. Nevertheless, there are several faculties that are “traditionally” improving. These include, on

the one hand, established institutions such as Comenius University’s Faculty of Mathematics,

Physics and Informatics, the Faculty of Medicine of Pavol Jozef Šafárik University in Košice or

Zvolen University of Technology’s Faculty of Forestry, but also newer schools on the other hand,

for example, Catholic University’s Faculty of Philosophy or Comenius University’s Faculty of

Social and Economic Sciences.

A trend that can be revealed at least in some of the groups (e.g., PRIR, TECH) is the

continuing clear division between achievements of faculties established before 1989 and those

founded after 1989. The “younger” faculties, despite the relatively long period of time, failed to

come closer to the “older” ones in their results indicators.


- 6 -

Cases of inappropriate massification of higher education still occur. The case of the Faculty

of Social and Economic Relations of Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín involves as many as

about 800 students per one professor and associate professor. Other faculties, particularly those of

social sciences and humanities, suffer from this problem too but they are nowhere near the figures

of the Trenčín faculty.

Noteworthy is the case of Košice University of Technology’s Faculty of Economics which

has long been the leader among faculties of economic sciences. The faculty is characterised by its

ability to obtain relatively significant funds for science from foreign grants which gave it an

opportunity to be completely independent of the Slovak grant system. Presently, the faculty does

not have a single grant from the Slovak Ministry of Education agencies.


- 7 -

Table of Contents

1. About ARRA ......................................................................................................... 4

2. Authors ................................................................................................................ 4

3. Summary .............................................................................................................. 5

4. Introduction – changes, additions, findings ................................................................... 8

5. Brief overview of the assessment methodology ........................................................... 10

6. Main results of the assessment ................................................................................. 13

6.1 Universities and faculties of the AGRO group ...................................................................... 13 6.2 Universities and faculties of the MED group ........................................................................ 15 6.3 Universities and faculties of the TEOL group ....................................................................... 18 6.4 Universities and faculties of the FIL group ........................................................................... 21 6.5 Universities and faculties of the UMEL group ...................................................................... 23 6.6 Universities and faculties of the PRIR group ........................................................................ 25 6.7 Universities and faculties of the EKON group ...................................................................... 27 6.8 Universities and faculties of the PRAV group ....................................................................... 29 6.9 Universities and faculties of the PED group .......................................................................... 31 6.10 Universities and faculties of the TECH group ....................................................................... 34 6.11 Universities and faculties of the OTHER group .................................................................... 37

7. Trends in the assessment of individual faculties of higher education institutions ................. 38

8. Development of publication output ........................................................................... 47

9. List of acronyms used ............................................................................................ 54


- 8 -

4. Introduction – changes, additions, findings

ARRA is submitting the fifth Report assessing higher education institutions and their

faculties. The assessment was made on the basis of information for 2008. Thanks to already five

continuous years of assessment, the focus of this Report includes the trends in the quality of the

Slovak higher education institutions.

Since the very formation of ARRA, there were discussions about the assessment of

humanities and social science faculties. Many pedagogues and scientists from these areas were

pointing out that they were discriminated against in their faculties’ quality assessment, as

information on publications was accepted exclusively from WoK. Again, ARRA assesses social

science and humanities faculties using a slightly modified methodology, taking into consideration,

in criterion VV1, also the publications of authors from these faculties that are not covered by

international databases. This modification does not affect their ranking significantly, but it enables

distinguishing among faculties with zero records in international databases. ARRA continues to

work on enhancements to an assessment method for social science and humanities faculties, but

this is a very challenging task that will require more time and discussions. Publication and citation

traditions of other faculty groups are such that the WoK database sufficiently covers the quality

and quantity of their publications and citations, therefore ARRA uses only data from the WoK

database.

Data sources used by ARRA include, in addition to the WoK database, information

published in reprints of the Institute of Information and Prognoses in Education, in annual reports

on the state of higher education issued by the Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic, and

from the register of publication activity.

As in the previous year, the ARRA Report is divided into two parts, particularly to

facilitate its readability. The first part includes an overview of the most important results of this

year’s assessment as well as news and additional views described above. In the second part, there

are detailed assessments of individual groups, details of the methodology used, and other

appendices intended primarily for the professional public.

The most substantial change is the omission of certain criteria concerning scientific results.

This involves the criteria describing the number of publications cited 5 and 25 times per creative

worker and the criterion measuring the number of PhD students per professor and per student.

After expert discussion, these were replaced with a new criterion which, in the opinion of experts

from the academic community, better describes the qualitative and quantitative aspect of higher


- 9 -

education institutions. The new criterion is the proportion of PhD graduates and first-year PhD

students for three consecutive years.

After several years of discussions, the HUM and SPOL groups were divided into smaller,

more orientation-consistent groups PRAV, PED, EKON, TEOL, FIL, UMEL, OTHER. This

division was mainly motivated by a desire to form more consistent groups which will be clearer

and will have a higher informative value for the reader.

Table 1: List of criteria used in the Report

Area Code Description

Sci

ence

and

res

earc

h

VV1 Number of publications in the WoK for the years 1999 – 2008 per creative worker

VV1a Number of different journal publications outside of WoK for 2008 (for SPOL and HUM faculties)

VV1b Number of different book publications outside of WoK for 2008 (for SPOL and HUM faculties)

VV2 Number of citations in the WoK for the years 1999 – 2008 per creative worker

VV2a Number of citations in the WoK per publication in the WoK for the years 1999 – 2008

VV4a Proportion of PhD graduates and first-year PhD students for three consecutive years

VV5 Average annual number of PhD graduates in 2006 – 2008 in proportion to the number of professors and associate professors

VV6 The number of full-time PhD students divided by the number of bachelor’s and master’s degree full-time students

VV7 Grant funding from the KEGA and VEGA agencies per creative worker in 2008

VV8 Grant funding from the APVV agency per creative worker in 2008

VV9 Funding from foreign grants per creative worker in 2008

VV10 Total grant funding from agencies per creative worker in 2008

Edu

catio

n SV1 Proportion of the number of full-time and part-time

students per teacher in 2008

SV2 Proportion of the number of full-time and part-time students per professor or associate professor in 2008


- 10 -

SV3 Proportion of professors, associate professors and other teachers with PhD to the total number of teachers

SV4 Proportion of professors and associate professors to all teachers

SV6 Ratio of the actual number of applications received to the planned number in 2008

SV7 Ratio of registered and admitted students in 2008 SV8 Proportion of foreign students

5. Brief overview of the assessment methodology

The procedure that ARRA used in assessing Slovak universities in 2009 is essentially

similar to that used in 2008.

Similarly as in the previous assessments, the higher education institution assessment

procedure consists in the following steps in this Report:

• the selection of indicators for the quality of education and research in

individual universities and the assignment of a certain number of points to each faculty

for the performance in the particular indicator (indicators are arranged into groups and

each group of indicators gained a certain number of points),3

• the division of faculties into twelve groups in order to compare only faculties

that have the same orientation and similar working conditions,

• assigning point scores to faculties (the ranking of faculties in individual

groups is based on average points score in individual groups of indicators),

• calculating point scores for the higher education institutions in individual

groups (the ranking of the institution in the given group is given by the average

assessment of all its faculties included in that group).

The Report divides faculties into the following groups:

• natural sciences,

• engineering and technology,

• medical sciences,

• agricultural sciences,

3 In 2007 and in 2009 again, the indicators used were slightly modified with the objective to describe the quality of

higher education institutions under assessment as accurately as possible.


- 11 -

• sciences of law,

• economic sciences,

• pedagogical sciences,

• theological sciences,

• philosophical sciences,

• arts,

• other sciences.

ARRA does not prepare a cumulative table ranking all Slovak higher education institutions.

It is also true that the quality of a higher education institution is determined by the quality of its

faculties (except for the University of Veterinary Medicine the Academy of Fine Arts, and St.

Elizabeth University of Health and Social Sciences, which have no faculties and are therefore

assessed as a whole). ARRA, therefore, offers a ranking of higher education institutions in groups

of subjects on the basis of the prevailing orientation.

ARRA assigns compensation points in certain criteria to faculties existing less than 10

years. These are criteria where parameter value depends on time (ten years’ period is examined,

while faculties exist for less than ten years). A list of faculties with modified assessment including

the compensation factors for 2007 and 2008 is given in Table 2.

Table 2: Faculties assigned compensation points in the 2009 Report

University Faculty Year established

Compensation factor

Comenius University Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences 2002 - 10/7 University of Prešov Faculty of Healthcare 2002 - 10/7 Catholic University Faculty of Philosophy 2002 - 10/7 Catholic University Faculty of Theology 2003 - 10/6 St. Elizabeth University St. Elizabeth University 2003 - 10/6 Catholic University Faculty of Education 2002 - 10/7 Constantine the Philosopher University Faculty of Social Sciences and Healthcare 2002 - 10/7 University of Žilina Faculty of Special Engineering 2002 - 10/7 University of Economics Faculty of International Relations 2000 - 10/9 Slovak University of Agriculture Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences 2002 - 10/7

Slovak University of Agriculture Faculty of European Studies and Regional Development 2002 - 10/7

J. Selye University Faculty of Economics 2004 - 10/4 J. Selye University Faculty of Reformed Theology 2004 - 10/4 J. Selye University Faculty of Education 2004 - 10/4

Slovak University of Technology Faculty of Informatics and Information Technologies 2004 - 10/4


- 12 -

Technical University of Košice Faculty of Aeronautics 2005 - 10/3 University of Prešov Faculty of Management 2004 - 10/4 University of Prešov Faculty of Sports 2004 - 10/4 Catholic University Faculty of Healthcare 2004 - 10/4 Constantine the Philosopher University Faculty of Central European Studies 2004 - 10/4


- 13 -

6. Main results of the assessment

6.1 Universities and faculties of the AGRO group

AGRO

Students and Teachers (SV1 – SV4)

Applications for Study (SV6 – 8)

Publications and Citations (VV1 – VV2a)

PhD Studies (VV4a – VV6)

Grants (VV7 – VV10)

AVERAGE 2008

RANKING

2007 RANKIN

G

2006 RANKI

NG University of Veterinary Medicine University of Veterinary Medicine 91 90 80 59 95 83.1 1. 1. 1.

Faculty of Forestry Technical University in Zvolen 86 47 66 69 65 66.4 2. 2. 3.

Faculty of Biotechnology and Food Sciences Slovak University of Agriculture 72 56 49 64 43 57.0 3. 3. 2.

Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources Slovak University of Agriculture 70 53 27 75 42 53.5 4. 4. 4.

Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technology Technical University in Zvolen 62 67 15 60 31 46.9 5. 5. 5.

Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering Slovak University of Agriculture 58 53 3 79 26

43.8 6. 6. 6.

AGRO Students and Teachers (SV1 – SV4)





AVERAGE 2008 RANKIN

G

2007 RANKIN

G

2006 RANKIN

G University of Veterinary Medicine 91 90 80 59 95 83.1 1. 1. 1. Technical University in Zvolen 74 57 40 64 48 56.7 2. 2. 2. Slovak University of Agriculture 67 54 27 73 37 51.4 3. 3. 3.


- 14 -

The order in this group has changed only slightly compared to the previous assessment.

Zvolen University of Technology’s Faculty of Forestry confirmed second position it held in the

last two years. The University of Veterinary Medicine has a convenient lead on other faculties in

the group and has been ranking first in the group since the assessments started. It can therefore be

assumed that it will maintain the very good results in the assessment in the long term.

The faculty keeps the trend of marked improvements in citation rates of its publications.

In the number of citations per publication, it has outperformed the leader of the group, the

University of Veterinary Medicine, for the second year in a row and the difference between the

two even increases. A careful look at the publications that caused this shift shows that the Zvolen

faculty established international cooperation and that the scientifically “successful” publications

originate from this very cooperation. This qualitative shift is reflected in further increases in grant

funds.

Another trend is the decreasing performance of Zvolen University of Technology’s

Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technology concerning the results of scientific activity and the

ability to obtain grant funding for science and research. This fact is counterbalanced by the

students’ great interest in studying at this faculty which interest is significantly higher than that in

all other faculties of the AGRO group. It is apparent that the students do not make their decisions

on the basis of criteria of success in science and of obtaining funds but they decide on the basis of

other factors that are unrelated to the quality of the institution itself.

Slovak University of Agriculture’s Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering

has long been ranking last and has the poorest results in scientific activity. However, when we

correlate this situation with its PhD studies we find that it is achieving high figures in the

numbers of PhD graduates and in the numbers of PhD students at the faculty. This is an

interesting situation which shows clearly that the claim that the better scientific results an

institution has, the better and higher-quality PhD studies it provides does not hold in Slovakia

(other examples of this trend will be provided further in the text).


- 15 -

6.2 Universities and faculties of the MED group

MED






AVERAGE 2008

RANKING

2007 RANKIN

G

2006 RANKI

NG Jessenius Faculty of Medicine Comenius University 74 85 72 25 69 65.1 1. 1. 1.

Faculty of Medicine Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 70 61 66 21 86 61.0 2. 4. 5.

Faculty of Pharmacy Comenius University 67 69 93 9 48 57.2 3. 2. 2.

Faculty of Medicine Comenius University 81 77 49 24 21 50.3 4. 3. 4.

Faculty of Healthcare and Social Work Trnava University 68 33 60 56 25 48.4 5. 5. 3.

St. Elizabeth University St. Elizabeth University 37 73 40 50 27 45.6 6. 6. 6.

Faculty of Social Sciences and Healthcare Constantine the Philosopher University 36 46 7 49 36 34.9 7. 7. 7.

Faculty of Healthcare University of Prešov 28 44 3 0 0 15.1 8. 8. 8.

Faculty of Healthcare Catholic University 31 31 - - 12 14.7 9. 9. n.a.

MED Students and Teachers (SV1 – SV4)





AVERAGE 2008 RANKIN

G

2007 RANKIN

G

2006 RANKIN

G Comenius University 74 77 71 19 46 57.5 1. 1. 1. Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 70 61 66 21 86 61.0 2. 2. 3. Trnava University 68 33 60 56 25 48.4 3. 3. 2.

St. Elizabeth University 37 73 40 50 27 45.6 4. 4. 4.

Constantine the Philosopher University 36 46 7 49 36 34.9 5. 5. 5.

University of Prešov 28 44 3 - 0 15.1 6. 6. 6.

Catholic University 31 31 - - 12 14.7 7. 7. n.a.


- 16 -

In the MED group, a clear division into the faculties of medicine and pharmacy on the one

hand and the faculties of healthcare on the other hand can be seen. These two groups differ in all

indicators monitored, therefore the following text will analyse these two groups separately to

eventually compare them.

In the long term, faculties of medicine and the Faculty of Pharmacy are characterised by a

relatively low number of students per teacher (does not exceed 15 students per teacher) and by a

very good qualification structure of pedagogues. The interest in these faculties is consistently

high. This does not hold for third level of higher education, particularly in the case of Comenius

University’s Faculty of Pharmacy which sees a strong trend of decreasing interest in this level of

study as well as dropping numbers of successful graduates. The Faculty has long been the leader

of the group with respect to scientific production but considering the situation in its PhD courses

it is questionable as to whether the level and quantity of Faculty’s scientific production is

sustainable in the long term.

It can be concluded in general that the scientific production of faculties of medicine and

the Faculty of Pharmacy is at a good level which is reflected in the ability of these institutions to

obtain grant funding.

Comenius University’s Jessenius Faculty of Medicine has long been the leader of the

group. It has been holding this position for several years and it is not probable to be succeeded by

another faculty of the group.

In general, faculties of medicine and some faculties of healthcare have high numbers of

foreign students which indicates the attractiveness of these faculties for students from abroad.

Only a more detailed analysis (for example, using a questionnaire for foreign students) would

show whether the attractiveness is based on financial aspects or on the quality of the study – or

both.

In the case of faculties of healthcare, the situation is very different. The numbers of

students per teacher mostly considerably exceed 20. As for the number of students per professor

or associate professor, the figures exceed 100. A change occurred in the case of Catholic

University’s Faculty of Healthcare which reduced the numbers of students significantly. A

greater change in the number of foreign students occurred at St. Elizabeth University which

opened full-time studies at its workplaces in Germany, Serbia, Kenya, and Cambodia. As for

scientific production it can be concluded that faculties of healthcare by no means reach the

parameters of faculties of medicine. More significant scientific production with an increasing

trend was seen only at Trnava University’s Faculty of Healthcare and Social Work and at St.

Elizabeth University. Despite its short existence, St. Elizabeth University is the leader of the


- 17 -

entire MED group in the number of citations per publication.

A comparison of these two groups shows that faculties of healthcare differ particularly in the

numbers of students per teacher but in the remaining criteria, the two faculties of healthcare, i.e.,

Trnava University’s Faculty of Healthcare and Social Work and St. Elizabeth University, could

be included in the first group which is characterised by significant scientific production and

success in obtaining grants. In reference to obtaining grants, it should be mentioned that St.

Elizabeth University as a private higher education institution cannot apply for grants from the

VEGA and KEGA agencies.

Other faculties of healthcare considerably lag behind the results of the first 6 institutions

in the MED group.


- 18 -

6.3 Universities and faculties of the TEOL group

TEOL






AVERAGE 2008

RANKING

2007 RANKIN

G

2006 RANKI

NG Evangelical Theological Faculty Comenius University 67 45 104 70 - 57.0 1. 3. 2.

Faculty of Theology Catholic University 46 40 5 46 75 42.5 2. 7. 6.

Faculty of Reformed Theology J. Selye University 98 73 - 33 - 40.7 3. 1. n.a. Greek Catholic Faculty of Theology University of Prešov 52 63 5 29 25 34.7 4. 6. 5.

Faculty of Theology Trnava University 68 42 7 43 5 33.0 5. 5. 1.

Roman Catholic Faculty of Theology of Cyril and Methodius Comenius University 54 38 8 64 -

32.9 6. 2. 3.

Faculty of Orthodox Theology University of Prešov 54 21 6 54 24 31.7 7. 4. 4.

TEOL Students and Teachers (SV1 – SV4)





AVERAGE 2008 RANKIN

G

2007 RANKIN

G

2006 RANKIN

G Comenius University 61 42 56 67 - 44.9 1. 2. 2. Catholic University 46 40 5 46 75 42.5 2. 5. 4. J. Selye University 98 73 - 33 - 40.7 3. 1. n.a. University of Prešov 53 42 5 41 24 33.2 4. 4. 3. Trnava University 68 42 7 43 5 33.0 5. 3. 1.


- 19 -


- 20 -

For the first time, the group of theological faculties has been assessed separately in this

report. Previously, it was part of the HUM group. Theological faculties are characterised by large

diversity as far as the number of students per teacher or professor and associate professor is

concerned. Those that provide extensive part-time courses have high numbers of students relative

to teachers; the opposite is true of those that do not have part-time students. What is interesting is

the case of Faculty of Theology of the Catholic University which admitted significantly more

students than in the previous year but thanks to several inaugurations and habilitations at the

faculty, the ratio of students to professors or associate professors remained unchanged.

Theological faculties are characterised by very low scientific activity with respect to

publications in journals listed in Current Contents but also with respect to their ability to obtain

grant funding. On the other hand, they are successful in PhD studies which confirms the specific

feature of Slovakia that PhD studies are doing well at scientifically poor faculties.

Evangelical Theological Faculty of Comenius University ranks first again.


- 21 -

6.4 Universities and faculties of the FIL group

FIL






AVERAGE 2008

RANKING

2007 RANKIN

G

2006 RANKI

NG Faculty of Philosophy Comenius University 100 65 62 95 43 73.1 1. 2. 1.

Faculty of Humanities and Natural Sciences University of Prešov 76 47 102 57 56 67.7 2. 1. 2.

Faculty of Philosophy University of Prešov 80 69 54 67 15 57.1 3. 4. 4.

Faculty of Philosophy Trnava University 67 48 46 73 44 55.6 4. 5. 3.

Faculty of Philosophy Catholic University 75 40 29 47 79 54.0 5. 3. 7.

Faculty of Philosophy Constantine the Philosopher University 62 89 5 67 22 49.1 6. 6. 5.

Faculty of Humanities Matej Bel University 68 53 15 62 9 41.3 7. 7. 6.

Faculty of Philosophy University of SS. Cyril and Methodius 64 46 12 2 17 28.0 8. 8. 8.

FIL Students and Teachers (SV1 – SV4)





AVERAGE 2008 RANKIN

G

2007 RANKIN

G

2006 RANKIN

G Comenius University 100 65 62 95 43 73.1 1. 2. 1. University of Prešov 78 58 78 62 36 62.4 2. 1. 2. Trnava University 67 48 46 73 44 55.6 3. 4. 3. Catholic University 75 40 29 47 79 54.0 4. 3. 6. Constantine the Philosopher University 62 89 5 67 22 49.1 5. 5. 4. Matej Bel University 68 53 15 62 9 41.3 6. 6. 5. University of SS. Cyril and Methodius 64 46 12 2 17 28.0 7. 7. 7.


- 22 -

The FIL group is one of the newly formed groups. Previously, it was part of the HUM group. The

group comprises faculties of philosophy and faculties of humanities. The group is characterised

by a good ratio of the number of students to teachers and a relatively high interest in study.

Similarly as with theological faculties, scientific production in journals listed in Current Contents

is very low although it can be said to show a slightly rising trend. Prešov University’s Faculty of

Humanities and Natural Sciences is an unwavering leader in citations. A closer look shows that a

majority of its most cited publications involves papers from the natural science part of this

Faculty.

In PhD studies, the situation is similar as that at healthcare faculties. Again, the relatively

high proportion of PhD students does not correlate with poor scientific production of the

faculties.

The first five ranking faculties kept their positions from the previous year, Comenius

University’s Faculty of Philosophy coming first.


- 23 -

6.5 Universities and faculties of the UMEL group

UMEL






AVERAGE 2008

RANKING

2007 RANKIN

G

2006 RANKI

NG Faculty of Music and Dance Academy of Music and Performing Arts 74 69 35 90 - 53.6 1. 2. 1.

Academy of Fine Arts and Design Academy of Fine Arts and Design 54 73 3 51 66 49.2 2. 5. 4.

Film and Television Faculty Academy of Music and Performing Arts 88 53 2 95 4 48.4 3. 4. 3.

Theatre Faculty Academy of Music and Performing Arts 71 50 3 65 50 47.9 4. 3. 2.

Faculty of Music Academy of Arts 86 54 1 30 30 40.4 5. 1. 5.

Faculty of Fine Arts Academy of Arts 62 50 5 38 19 34.8 6. 6. 6.

Faculty of Dramatic Arts Academy of Arts 82 51 4 - 18 31.2 7. 7. 7.

Faculty of Arts Technical University of Košice 45 63 2 - 5 22.9 8. 8. 8.

UMEL Students and Teachers (SV1 – SV4)





AVERAGE 2008 RANKIN

G

2007 RANKIN

G

2006 RANKIN

G Academy of Music and Performing Arts 78 58 13 83 18 50.0 1. 1. 1.

Academy of Fine Arts and Design 54 73 3 51 66 49.2 2. 2. 2.

Academy of Arts 77 51 3 23 23 35.5 3. 3. 3.

Technical University of Košice 45 63 2 - 5 22.9 4. 4. 4.


- 24 -

Faculties of art are characterised by lower numbers of students compared to other schools.

This is caused by the specificity of studies in these disciplines, requiring individual approach by

teachers. According to ARRA criteria, the qualification structure of pedagogues at these faculties

is generally good. As for numbers of foreign students, the leaders include the Academy of Fine

Arts; the Faculty of Music and Dance, Academy of Music and Performing Arts; and the Faculty

of Music, Academy of Arts; of which the Faculty of Music and Dance, Academy of Music and

Performing Arts; and the Faculty of Music, Academy of Arts, lag behind in the interest of Slovak

students in studying at these institutions. In general, the high (measured by Slovak standards)

proportion of foreign students suggests a good reputation of these institutions abroad and

indicates their quality.

Considering scientific production in journals listed in Current Contents, the outputs of

these schools are minimal which can be explained by these schools being focused on arts rather

than on science.

For faculties of art, therefore, it is not possible to correlate PhD studies with scientific

outputs, as the mission of these institutions is primarily to have outputs in art and these are not

reflected in scientific databases.

These faculties are not very successful in obtaining grants which can be reflected in their

quality in the long term.

The ranking is dominated by all three faculties of the Academy of Music and Performing

Arts jointly with the Academy of Fine Arts and Design.


- 25 -

6.6 Universities and faculties of the PRIR group

PRIR






AVERAGE 2008

RANKING

2007 RANKIN

G

2006 RANKI

NG

Faculty of Mathematics, Physics, and Informatics Comenius University 86 56 100 67 89

79.8 1. 1. 1.

Faculty of Natural Sciences Comenius University 85 78 52 85 66 73.2 2. 2. 2.

Faculty of Natural Sciences Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 95 63 76 65 44 68.5 3. 3. 3.

Faculty of Natural Sciences Constantine the Philosopher University 67 62 18 65 22 46.5 4. 4. 5.

Faculty of Ecology and Environmental Sciences Technical University in Zvolen 64 53 18 53 10 39.6 5. 5. 4.

Faculty of Natural Sciences University of Žilina 43 76 5 43 4 34.1 6. 8. 8.

Faculty of Natural Sciences Matej Bel University 45 55 18 31 6 31.2 7. 6. 6.

Faculty of Natural Sciences University of SS. Cyril and Methodius 54 44 22 5 14 27.8 8. 7. 7.

PRIR Students and Teachers (SV1 – SV4)





AVERAGE 2008 RANKIN

G

2007 RANKIN

G

2006 RANKIN

G Comenius University 86 67 76 76 78 76.5 1. 1. 1. Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 95 63 76 65 44 68.5 2. 2. 2. Constantine the Philosopher University 67 62 18 65 22 46.5 3. 3. 4. Technical University in Zvolen 64 53 18 53 10 39.6 4. 4. 3. University of Žilina 43 76 5 43 4 34.1 5. 7. 7. Matej Bel University 45 55 18 31 6 31.2 6. 5. 5. University of SS. Cyril and Methodius 54 44 22 5 14 27.8 7. 6. 6.


- 26 -

Similarly as in the MED group, these faculties can be divided into faculties of natural

sciences and Comenius University’s Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics at

universities with a longer tradition on the one hand and faculties of natural sciences at newer

universities on the other hand. Faculties of natural sciences are characterised by a considerable

number of pedagogical study programmes. This implies a higher ratio of students to teachers at

these faculties and also a lower scientific performance. The lower scientific performance of

faculties with a shorter history can also be explained by the fact that these faculties have been

established after 1989 without a deeper tradition of natural science research in the given region.

In several recent years, however, these institutions failed to close the gap on faculties of natural

sciences, although, for example, University of SS. Cyril and Methodius’ Faculty of Natural

Sciences, by establishing cooperation with a workplace of the Slovak Academy of Sciences,

increases its scientific potential. Similar process can be seen at Matej Bel University’s Faculty of

Natural Sciences.

Faculties of natural sciences are characterised by strong scientific production. The PRIR

group has been long led by Comenius University’s Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and

Informatics. Since the beginning of assessments, it holds the first rank. By involvement in

numerous transnational scientific initiatives, the Faculty continues to increase its scientific

potential.

The second and third ranks are traditionally held by faculties of natural sciences of

Comenius University and Pavol Jozef Šafárik University. Comenius University’s Faculty of

Natural Sciences maintains its lead on Pavol Jozef Šafárik University’s Faculty of Natural

Sciences but the difference is shrinking considerably. Particularly in scientific production, Pavol

Jozef Šafárik University’s Faculty of Natural Sciences increases its lead. Its scientific production

is not yet reflected in grant funding per creative worker in which it lags behind Comenius

University’s Faculty of Natural Sciences by about 1/3 but in the long term, this criterion can also

be expected to change.

What is encouraging is the growth in the number of publications per creative worker at

Comenius University’s Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics and Faculty of Natural

Sciences, Pavol Jozef Šafárik University’s Faculty of Natural Sciences but also at University of

SS. Cyril and Methodius’ Faculty of Natural Sciences, and a similar growth of citations. The

number of citations per paper at the above-mentioned faculties increases too, albeit at a slower

pace.

In general, the ranking of faculties in this group has been very steady since the

assessments started and most of the faculties maintain their positions.


- 27 -

6.7 Universities and faculties of the EKON group

EKON






AVERAGE 2008

RANKING

2007 RANKIN

G

2006 RANKI

NG Faculty of Economics Technical University of Košice 87 54 82 62 80 72.9 1. 1. 1.

Faculty of Economics and Management Slovak University of Agriculture 87 57 84 87 22 67.5 2. 2. 2.

Faculty of National Economy University of Economics 95 34 90 66 37 64.4 3. 4. 4.

Faculty of Business University of Economics 70 51 65 86 6 55.7 4. 5. 5.

Faculty of Operation and Economics of Transport and Communications University of Žilina 85 78 8 86 20

55.5 5. 3. 3.

Faculty of Business Economics University of Economics 70 33 54 72 26 51.1 6. 7. 8.

Faculty of Management Comenius University 62 62 40 73 2 48.0 7. 6. 9.

Faculty of Economic Informatics University of Economics 76 35 62 54 12 47.7 8. 9. 10.

Faculty of Economics Matej Bel University 82 36 45 59 9 46.2 9. 10. 6.

Faculty of Business Management University of Economics 82 34 19 59 8 40.2 10. 8. 7.

Faculty of Management University of Prešov 38 51 8 15 29 28.4 11. 11. n.a. Faculty of Economics J. Selye University 38 43 13 - 1 19.0 12. 12. n.a.

EKON Students and Teachers (SV1 – SV4)





AVERAGE 2008 RANKIN

G

2007 RANKIN

G

2006 RANKIN

G Technical University of Košice 87 54 82 62 80 72.9 1. 1. 1. Slovak University of Agriculture 87 57 84 87 22 67.5 2. 2. 2. University of Žilina 85 78 8 86 20 55.5 3. 3. 3. University of Economics 78 37 58 67 18 51.8 4. 5. 5. Comenius University 62 62 40 73 2 48.0 5. 4. 4. Matej Bel University 82 36 45 59 9 46.2 6. 6. 6. University of Prešov 38 51 8 15 29 28.4 7. 7. n.a. J. Selye University 38 43 13 - 1 19.0 8. 8. n.a.


- 28 -

In the previous years, the EKON group was evaluated within the SPOL group. The

separation of the faculties of economics will facilitate orientation of secondary-school graduates

as to the level of individual faculties of similar focus.

Faculties of economics generally exhibit higher numbers of students per teacher than, for

example, natural science schools. This situation is natural, since the teaching of economic

sciences involves only a limited use of experimental laboratories and similar technical facilities at

schools.

Higher students-to-teacher ratios compared to the other faculties can be seen at Comenius

University’s Faculty of Management, Prešov University’s Faculty of Management, and J. Selye

University’s Faculty of Economics. Considering the ratio of students to professor or associate

professor, the situation at Prešov University’s Faculty of Management with 377 students per

professor or associate professor is very difficult to imagine, particularly as far as the teaching

process is concerned.

The interest in these schools is relatively large, particularly in the east of Slovakia where

there are only two institutions of a similar focus.

Scientific production at these schools ranges at low figures. Faculties of economics have

great opportunities to publish in journals listed in Current Contents; however, this possibility is

used to a small extent only, although it should be noted that a moderate improvement occurred in

recent years.

There is an interesting situation in the ability to obtain grant funding concerning Košice

University of Technology’s Faculty of Economics, which has been long showing the ability to

obtain foreign grants at significant levels, having no domestic grant and having apparently

decided for independence from Slovak grant schemes. Yet in the volume of funds obtained per

creative worker it has significantly outperformed other faculties in the group.

The order in the resulting table changes only little. Košice University of Technology’s

Faculty of Economics has been invariably ranking first.


- 29 -

6.8 Universities and faculties of the PRAV group

PRAV






AVERAGE 2008

RANKING

2007 RANKIN

G

2006 RANKI

NG Faculty of Law Comenius University 87 78 23 99 49 67.3 1. 1. 2.

Faculty of Law Trnava University 80 90 6 83 40 59.9 2. 3. 1.

Faculty of Law Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 100 56 37 30 59 56.3 3. 2. 3.

Faculty of Law Matej Bel University 71 61 3 32 31 39.6 4. 4. 4.


- 30 -

Faculties of law form a special part of the former SPOL group. They exhibit high

application for study rates which are lower only at Pavol Jozef Šafárik University’s Faculty of

Law, nevertheless still ranging at levels that faculties of other specialisations (except for certain

faculties of art) are unable to even approach. The number of students per teacher is similarly high

as at faculties of economics and ranges from about 30 to 45 students per teacher. In the ratio of

students to professor or associate professor, the situation is less favourable with all faculties

except Pavol Jozef Šafárik University’s Faculty of Law exceeding the value of 100.

The proportion of foreign students at these schools is low which can be explained by the

specificity of the national system of law but a significant barrier is the lack of courses in any

language other than the state language.

Scientific outputs in journals listed in Current Contents per creative worker approach or

are equal to zero. It should be noted, however, that the availability of publishing in journals listed

in Current Contents is very low compared to, for example, institutions of economics.

PhD studies are undergoing development similarly as those in other social sciences and

humanities in Slovakia. Comenius University’s Faculty of Law defended its first place, the last

position being traditionally held by Matej Bel University’s Faculty of Law.


- 31 -

6.9 Universities and faculties of the PED group

PED






AVERAGE 2008

RANKING

2007 RANKIN

G

2006 RANKI

NG Faculty of Physical Education and Sports Comenius University 75 71 63 73 19 60.0 1. 1. 1.

Faculty of Education Matej Bel University 64 87 43 35 26 51.1 2. 3. 3.

Faculty of Sports University of Prešov 74 59 1 69 50 50.4 3. 4. n.a. Faculty of Education Trnava University 58 39 104 30 16 49.3 4. 2. 2.

Faculty of Education Comenius University 81 55 16 45 9 41.1 5. 5. 5.

Faculty of Education University of Prešov 50 61 5 29 55 40.1 6. 7. 7.

Faculty of Education Constantine the Philosopher University 56 56 10 61 10 38.7 7. 6. 4.

Faculty of Education J. Selye University 66 71 29 - 15 36.3 8. 8. n.a. Faculty of Education Catholic University 62 62 18 23 7 34.4 9. 9. 6.

PED Students and Teachers (SV1 – SV4)





AVERAGE 2008 RANKIN

G

2007 RANKIN

G

2006 RANKIN

G Comenius University 78 63 39 59 14 50.6 1. 2. University of Prešov 74 59 1 69 50 50.4 2. Trnava University 61 63 73 32 21 50.2 3. 1. University of Prešov 50 61 5 29 55 40.1 4. Constantine the Philosopher University 56 56 10 61 10 38.7 5. J. Selye University 66 71 29 - 15 36.3 6. Catholic University 64 67 23 12 11 35.4 7.


- 32 -


- 33 -

The students to teacher ratio at faculties of education measured by ARRA criteria is good

and ranges from about 10 to 30 students per teacher. As for the ratio of students to professor or

associate professor, the situation is considerably different. The low proportion of professors and

associate professors is caused by the high number of students in this ratio which, for Prešov

University’s Faculty of Education, still reaches 100 students.

It can be concluded in general that for a large majority of schools in the group, the number

of students decreases although the interest in study remains relatively good. These faculties also

failed to internationalise their courses.

As for scientific outputs, low figures are involved, although gradual growth can be seen in

the case of faculties of education of Trnava University and Prešov University. On the other hand,

once a leader of the group in science, Comenius University’s Faculty of Physical Education and

Sports is gradually receding.

Scientific production correlates with the relatively low success rate in grant awards. On

the other hand, it has been shown again that poorer scientific results are without impact on the

quantitative increases in PhD studies.


- 34 -

6.10 Universities and faculties of the TECH group

TECH






AVERAGE 2008

RANKING

2007 RANKIN

G

2006 RANKI

NG Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology Slovak University of Technology 100 50 92 64 72 75.6 1. 1. 1. Faculty of Civil Engineering Slovak University of Technology 60 70 24 45 60 51.8 2. 4. 9. Faculty of Mechanical Engineering University of Žilina 75 38 10 71 61 51.0 3. 3. 3. Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Informatics Slovak University of Technology 67 58 36 38 54 50.6 4. 2. 2. Faculty of Metallurgy Technical University of Košice 83 32 22 67 40 49.0 5. 7. 6. Faculty of Industrial Technologies Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 55 40 39 65 26 45.1 6. 10. 8.

Faculty of Mining, Ecology, Process Control and Geotechnology Technical University of Košice 49 53 18 54 46

44.0 7. 9. 5. Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Slovak University of Technology 66 64 15 33 39 43.3 8. 5. 4. Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Technical University of Košice 55 38 6 48 62 41.7 9. 12. 13. Faculty of Management Science & Informatics University of Žilina 52 51 18 71 12 40.7 10. 20. 18. Faculty of Architecture Slovak University of Technology 57 79 1 51 14 40.4 11. 11. 7. Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Informatics Technical University of Košice 62 35 19 45 39 40.1 12. 13. 10. Faculty of Electrical Engineering University of Žilina 66 41 10 48 26 38.3 13. 17. 15. Faculty of Manufacturing Technologies Technical University of Košice 54 47 1 45 40 37.5 14. 15. 14.

Faculty of Informatics and Information Technologies Slovak University of Technology 45 43 49 19 30

37.3 15. 6. n.a.

Faculty of Civil Engineering Technical University of Košice 49 51 19 37 29 37.1 16. 8. 12. Faculty of Engineering Slovak University of Agriculture 59 50 12 49 13 36.6 17. 14. 19.

Faculty of Environmental and Manufacturing Technology Technical University in Zvolen 70 39 0 40 29

35.7 18. 19. 17. Faculty of Material Sciences and Technology Slovak University of Technology 47 53 14 39 23 35.1 19. 16. 16. Faculty of Civil Engineering University of Žilina 48 57 1 39 22 33.5 20. 21. 11. Faculty of Special Engineering University of Žilina 44 52 - 33 11 28.0 21. 18. 20. Faculty of Special Technology Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 46 33 0 25 1 21.0 22. 23. 21. Faculty of Aeronautics Technical University of Košice 38 41 6 11 9 20.8 23. 24. n.a. Faculty of Mechatronics Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 39 38 4 11 7 19.6 24. 22. 22.


- 35 -

TECH Students and Teachers (SV1 – SV4)





AVERAGE 2008 RANKIN

G

2007 RANKIN

G

2006 RANKIN

G Slovak University of Technology 63 60 33 41 42 47.7 1. 1. 1.

Technical University of Košice 56 43 13 44 38 38.6 2. 3. 2. University of Žilina 57 48 8 53 26 38.3 3. 4. 3. Slovak University of Agriculture 59 50 12 49 13 36.6 4. 2. 5. Technical University in Zvolen 70 39 0 40 29 35.7 5. 5. 4. Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 46 37 14 34 12 28.5 6. 6. 6.


- 36 -

The ranking of universities in the TECH group of faculties is relatively stable but there is

a perceptible trend of decline in the amount of points obtained for most of the group’s faculties.

The ranking does not change significantly. Although there are several faculties that improved

their point scores more markedly, in general, individual faculties’ point scores decrease rather

than increase.

The Faculty of Industrial Technologies of Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín and

Slovak University of Agriculture’s Faculty of Engineering (previously known as the

Mechanisation Faculty of the Slovak University of Agriculture) can be mentioned as positive

examples. The Faculty of Industrial Technologies grows more significantly in the criterion of the

number of publications per creative worker and also in the PhD studies. The Faculty of

Engineering, among other indicators, saw a more significant increase in the number of citations

per publication.

There is an interesting situation at Slovak University of Technology’s Faculty of

Chemical and Food Technology, which has been the leader of the group in the long run, but is

nevertheless unable to attract the interest of students and in fact, its teaching activity is

continuously declining. This provides the creative workers with more room for research but on

the other hand, in the long term, this situation is dangerous for the Faculty, as it can find itself in

a situation of lacking a pool of young, high-quality scientific workers.

Faculties of the TECH group maintain their marked research potential and there are

signals that along with traditionally high-quality faculties, additional ones that put emphasis on

research will come to the forefront.


- 37 -

6.11 Universities and faculties of the OTHER group

OTHER






AVERAGE 2008

RANKING

2007 RANKIN

G

2006 RANKI

NG Faculty of International Relations University of Economics 88 67 35 88 38 63.4 1. 1. 1.

Faculty of Political Sciences Matej Bel University 95 70 42 68 40 63.1 2. 3. 4.

Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences Comenius University 75 61 86 33 50 61.0 3. 2. 2.

Faculty of European Studies and Regional Development Slovak University of Agriculture 54 50 8 31 9

30.4 4. 4. 3.

Faculty of Mass Media Communication University of SS. Cyril and Methodius 49 69 2 8 18 29.4 5. 5. 5.

Faculty of Central European Studies Constantine the Philosopher University 64 24 25 2 18 26.6 6. 7. n.a. Faculty of Public Administration Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 56 40 20 - 15 26.1 7. 6. 6.

Faculty of Social and Economic Relations Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 26 40 3 - 26 19.2 8. 8. 7.

OTHER Students and Teachers (SV1 – SV4)





AVERAGE 2008 RANKIN

G

2007 RANKIN

G

2006 RANKIN

G University of Economics 88 67 35 88 38 63.4 1. 1. 1. Matej Bel University 95 70 42 68 40 63.1 2. 3. 4. Comenius University 75 61 86 33 50 61.0 3. 2. 2. Slovak University of Agriculture 54 50 8 31 9 30.4 4. 4. 3. University of SS. Cyril and Methodius 49 69 2 8 18 29.4 5. 5. 5. Constantine the Philosopher University 64 24 25 2 18 26.6 6. 7. n.a. Pavol Jozef Šafárik University 56 40 20 - 15 26.1 7. 6. 6. Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín 26 40 3 - 26 19.2 8. 8. 7.

The OTHER group consists of faculties focused on public administration, diplomacy,

political and economic sciences and similar disciplines. Students continue to be interested in

these institutions which is reflected in the students-to-teacher ratios. This group also includes the

holder of the record in the number of students per professor or associate professor: The Faculty of

Social and Economic Relations of Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín has almost 800

students per one professor or associate professor. Two faculties stand out from the average:

University of Economics’ Faculty of International Relations and Matej Bel University’s Faculty

of Political Sciences and International Relations. Despite the great interest in their courses, both

maintain relatively low student ratios compared to other faculties of the group.

In scientific production, a marked progress can be seen at Comenius University’s Faculty

of Social and Economic Sciences which, despite its short existence, is one of the fastest growing

among all faculties of humanities and social sciences.

Trends in the assessment of individual faculties of higher education institutions

institutions

ARRA has been publishing its report evaluating the standard of higher education

institutions for the fifth year in a row which allows to monitor individual faculties in a relatively

extended period of time. On the basis of the results achieved in the past, it should be possible to

recognise trends which, ceteris paribus, should continue in the future.

As can be seen in the following charts, a clear general trend cannot be identified. Many

faculties are improving, other are stagnating, the standard of some is deteriorating. In the PRIR

group it can be seen that the “traditional” faculties maintain their convenient lead on faculties

established in the last twenty years. However, when we try to apply this model to other groups we

find that it could perhaps be identified in the TECH group with Slovak University of

Technology’s Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology on the one hand and all other faculties

of the group on the other hand. The MED group is a different case where the Faculty of

Healthcare and Social Work of Trnava University in some of the years outperformed, for

example, Pavol Jozef Šafárik University’s Faculty of Medicine.

Rather than attempting more general statements about individual groups of faculties or

about the entire higher education landscape in Slovakia, it will be more effective to focus on

particular faculties and their development in the last five years. For example, we can see a

gradual growth of Catholic University’s Faculty of Philosophy and a more significant decline of

the Faculty of Social and Economic Relations of Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín.

The development of Slovak higher education from the standpoint of its individual

components has been varied in recent years. All higher education institutions or their faculties


- 39 -

existed in the same external environment but their ability to cope with this environment differed

and therefore it is not possible to determine a unifying characteristic trend apart from making a

relatively broad statement that Slovak higher education institutions are somewhere between

stagnation and moderate growth.

The charts show selected faculties and their assessment in ARRA reports for the last 5

years.


- 40 -

Chart 1. AGRO group

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

ave

rag

e

year

University of Veterinary Medicine

TUiZ´s Faculty of Wood Sciences and Technology

SUoA´s Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering

Chart 2. UMEL group

20,0

25,0

30,0

35,0

40,0

45,0

50,0

55,0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

aver

age

year

AoMA´s Faculty of Music and Dance

AoA´s Faculty of Fine Arts

TUiK´s Faculty of Arts


- 41 -

Chart 3. MED group

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0

80,0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

aver

age

year

PJŠU´s Faculty of Medicine

CU´s Faculty of Pharmacy

TU´s Faculty of Health and Social Care

UoCP´s Faculty of Social Sciences and Health

Chart 4. PRIR group

35,0

45,0

55,0

65,0

75,0

85,0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

aver

age

year

CU´s Faculty of Mathematics, Physics andInformaticsCU´s - Faculty of Natural Sciences

PJŠU´s Faculty of Natural Sciences

TUiZ Faculty of Ecology and EnviromentalSciences


- 42 -

Chart 5. EKON group

25,0

30,0

35,0

40,0

45,0

50,0

55,0

60,0

65,0

70,0

75,0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

aver

age

year

TUiK Faculty of Economics ŽU Faculty of Operation and Economics ofCommunication

UoE´s - Faculty of Business Management UoE´s Faculty of Economic Informatics

UMB´s Faculty of Economics

Chart 6. TECH group


- 43 -

20,0

25,0

30,0

35,0

40,0

45,0

50,0

55,0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

aver

age

year

SUoT´s Faculty of Mechanical Engineering

ŽU´s Faculty of Management Science and Informatics

TUiK´s Faculty of Manufacturing Technologies

ŽU´s Faculty of Special Engineering

ADUiT´s Faculty of Special Technology

Chart 7. TEOL group

15,0

20,0

25,0

30,0

35,0

40,0

45,0

50,0

55,0

60,0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

aver

age

year

CU´s Evangelical Theological Faculty

PU´s Greek Catholic Theological Faculty

TU´s Theological Faculty

PU´s Ortodox Theological Faculty

Chart 8. FIL group


- 44 -

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

aver

age

year

CU´s Faculty of Philosophy

UoSCM´ Faculty of Arts

Chart 9. PRAV group

-

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0

80,0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

aver

age

year

CU´s Faculty of Law

TU´s Faculty of Law

PJŠU´s Faculty of Law

MBU´s Faculty of Law


- 45 -

Chart 10. PED group

20,0

25,0

30,0

35,0

40,0

45,0

50,0

55,0

60,0

65,0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

aver

age

year

CU´s Faculty of Physical Education and Sports

MBU´s Faculty of Education

UoCP´s Faculty of Education

CathU´s Faculty of Education

Chart 11. OTHER group


- 46 -

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

30,0

35,0

40,0

45,0

50,0

55,0

60,0

65,0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

aver

age

year

UoE´s Faculty of International Relations

CU´s Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences

UoSCM´s Faculty of Mass Media Communication

PJŠU´s Faculty of Public Administration

ADUiT´s Faculty of Social and Economic Realtions


- 47 -

8. Development of publication output

Important quality parameters of higher education, particularly at the third (PhD) level of

study, include the quantity and quality of scientific work at the institution. The quantity can be

expressed as the number of publications and the quality as the number of their citations.

In the text below, we will deal with the quantitative aspect of scientific work.

Chart No 12 suggests that for most of the monitored period, publication activity of both

kinds of institutions stagnated or moderately grew. An increasing trend occurs after 2003 which

approximately coincides with the change in the funding of scientific activity. The new model of

funding is more “motivating” and reflects the number of publications.

Chart 12. Development of publication activity of Slovak higher education institutions and

Slovak Academy of Sciences’ institutes in the period 1995 to 2008

0200400600800

100012001400160018002000

Number of WoK publications from universities and fr om SAV

in 1995-2008

Publications from universities

Publications from SAV

However, when comparing the trends in the growth of Slovak scientific production with


- 48 -

growth trends in the countries of the region we find that the increase is insufficient and that the

increase in the number of scientific publications for these countries is faster than in Slovakia

(Chart 13).

Chart 13. Trends in the growth of publication productivity in central European countries

1879 1907 2567

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

1995 2000 2007

Growth of the number of publications in Central Eur ope

Slovakia

Czech RepublicHungary

Poland

Austria

The series of charts below shows several examples of faculties that demonstrate rather

mixed developments. There are examples of faculties that actually started to grow in the period in

question but there also are faculties in Slovakia that rather reduced their publication activity in

the last five years. The first case can be explained in two ways: 1) faculties had a certain extent of

research capacities that were unused in the previous period until the financial incentive helped to

initiate their utilisation, or 2) a coincidence is involved where other factors at the faculty or

higher education institution caused the scientific production to gradually increase. Of course, it

can be suggested that these are rather extreme cases and the reality involved a combination of

both models.

On the account of the decrease in publication activity in the recent period it can be

concluded that even the change in financing has not been a sufficient impulse for the

development of scientific work and the causes of the decline need to be sought within the

institutions. The causes can include termination of collaboration with another scientific institution

that dominated the partnership, high-quality scientific workers retiring or leaving for another job,

a change in the orientation of the faculty to a more educational than research institution, etc.

Whatever the developments at individual faculties, the Slovak science measured by the

indicator of absolute number of publications per year is growing as a whole.

The selected faculties contribute relatively high numbers to the total number of publications


- 49 -

or they have only been established recently and therefore faster changes can be expected.

Chart 14. Trends in the growth of publication productivity at Comenius University’s

Faculty of Mathematics, Physics and Informatics

0

50

100

150

200

250

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Comenius University’s Faculty of Mathematics, Physics

and Informatics

Among our higher education institutions, Comenius University’s Faculty of Mathematics,

Physics and Informatics is among those with the greatest numbers of publications and in 2008 it

was the most successful faculty in this criterion. Despite a fluctuation in 2005, a continuous

growth in the number of publications can be seen. In addition to the scientific qualities of the

faculty, this is the result of its participation in several transnational scientific projects of

importance.


- 50 -


Jessenius Faculty of Medicine

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Comenius University’s JesseniusFaculty of Medicine

Jessenius Faculty of Medicine is an excellent example of a faculty at which the numbers of

publications grow continuously and significantly. Since 2005, the publication activity more than

tripled.


Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences

0123456789

10

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Comenius University’s Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences

This representative of newly established faculties sees an increase in the number of

publications every year. Although this involves only single-digit figures, it is important for the

Faculty to continue in this trend.


- 51 -

Chart 17. Trends in the growth of publication productivity at Slovak University of

Technology’s Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Slovak Universityof Technology’s Faculty of Chemical and Food

Technology

Slovak University of Technology’s Faculty of Chemical and Food Technology has long

been one of the top publication producers being able to generate over 200 publications a year for

3 years in a row. A drop occurred in 2008 and it remains to be seen in the next year whether this

was a short-term fluctuation or the beginning of a new development trend. Still, however, this

faculty can be an example for other faculties.

Chart 18. Trends in the growth of publication productivity at Slovak University of

Technology’s Faculty of Material Sciences and Technology

0

5

10

15

20

25

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Slovak Universityof Technology’s Faculty of Material Sciences and

Technology

In 2006, Slovak University of Technology’s Faculty of Material Sciences and Technology

reached a culmination point after a long period of growth, but for the second year in a row, a


- 52 -

significant drop in publications occurs. Should this trend continue, it will most certainly be

reflected in a reduction of the quality of the entire Faculty.

Chart 19. Trends in the growth of publication productivity at Faculty of Natural Sciences of

Constantine the Philosopher University

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

University of Constantine the Philosopher´s Faculty of Natural Sciences

Chart 20. Trends in the growth of publication productivity at Matej Bel’s Faculty of

Natural Sciences

0

5

10

15

20

25

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Matej Bel University´s Faculty of Natural Sciences

At faculties of natural sciences of Matej Bel University and Constantine the Philosopher

University, the growth trend continues, being apparent for several years. When comparing the

performance of these two faculties with the best faculties in the PRIR group we find that while

the best ones reach about 150 scientific publications per year, as seen in charts 19 and 20, the


- 53 -

performance of these two faculties is one fifth or even eighth.

Chart 21. Trends in the growth of publication productivity at University of Economics’

Faculty of National Economy

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

University of Economics´s Faculty of National Economics

The largest faculty of the University of Economics is one of those publishing the most.

What is worrying is the drop in 2007 when the Faculty produced only two publications compared

to eleven in 2006 and five in 2008. As with almost all faculties focused on social sciences and

humanities, this involves low figures where one or two publications per year can change the

entire picture of the faculty.

The charts shown clearly imply that the picture of scientific work at Slovak higher

education institutions is not homogeneous and it cannot be said that a general trend can be

identified. In general, science in Slovakia is growing but at an insufficient pace compared to other

countries of the region.


- 54 -

9. List of acronyms used

AGRO – faculties of agricultural sciences

EKON – faculties of economic sciences

FIL – faculties of philosophic sciences

MED – faculties of medical and health sciences

OTHER – other faculties of social sciences

PED – faculties of education sciences

PRAV – faculties of law sciences

PRIR – faculties of natural sciences

TECH – faculties of technical sciences

TEOL – faculties of theological sciences

UMEL – faculties of arts

APVV – Research and Development Support Agency

ARRA – Academic Ranking and Rating Agency

AoA – Academy of Arts in Banská Bystrica

UoE – University of Economics in Bratislava

IREG – International Ranking Experts Group

CathU – Catholic University in Ružomberok

MoEdu SR – Ministry of Education of the Slovak Republic

PU – Prešov University in Prešov

SAV – Slovak Academy of Sciences

SUoA – Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra

SUoT – Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava

TU – Trnava University in Trnava (other – TVU)

ADUiT – Alexander Dubček University in Trenčín


- 55 -

TUiK – Technical University in Košice

TUiZ – Technical University in Zvolen

UoSCM – University of SS. Cyril and Methodius in Trnava

IIPE – Institute of Information and Prognoses in Education

UJS – J. Selye University in Komárno

CU – Comenius University in Bratislava

UoCP – Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra

MBU – Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica

PJŠU – Pavol Jozef Šafárik University in Košice

UVM – University of Veterinary Medicine in Košice

St. Elizabeth Univ. – St. Elizabeth University of Health and Social Sciences in Bratislava

AoMA – Academy of Music and Performing Arts in Bratislava

VŠVU – Academy of Fine Arts and Design in Bratislava

WoK – Web of Knowledge

ŽU – Žilina University in Žilina

Documents

Assessment HEI 2009