panel 2 report: biological sciences

Research at the Bulgarian Academy of SciencesPanel 2 Report: Biological Sciences

Volume 3 of 5

www.esf.org

Panel Level Report Biological Sciences

ESF-ALLEA Evaluation of BAS Institutes for Panel 2 Page 5 of 112

2. Overall summary of the Institute-level scores

In this Section, the scores given to all Institutes for the three criteria are summarised.

Table 1: Scores for all Institutes in PE-2

No. Institute Name Quality and Productivity

Socio-economic

Impact Prospects

401 Institute of Molecular Biology A A A

402 Institute of Neurobiology A A B

403 Institute of Biophysics A B A

404 Institute of Plant Physiology A B B

405 Institute of Genetics B A C

406 Stephan Angeloff Institute of Microbiology

A A A

407 Institute of Experimental Morphology and Anthropology with Museum

B A B

408 Institute of Experimental Pathology and Parasitology

C A B

409 Institute of Biology and Immunology of Reproduction

C A A

410 Institute of Botany B A B

411 Institute of Zoology B A B

412 Forest Research Institute C A C

413 Central Laboratory for General Ecology

C A A

414 Centre of Biomedical Engineering B A B

415 National Museum of Natural History B A C

Biological Sciences Institute of Botany (IB) -410


Institute of Botany (IB) -410

Executive Summary

IB of BAS covers a well defined research field that includes studies on biodiversity, palaeoecology and conservation, and biotechnological exploitation of medicinal plants. These research themes are very important and timely, although the focus on the study of global change impacts on biodiversity could be made more explicit.

The IB is an excellent Institute at the national level, and it is internationally visible. However, its publication record is not high enough taking into account the scientific level of the IB and its potential (Quality/Productivity score B). IB conducts highly relevant research, taking into consideration not only the science but also the broad spectrum of activities such as those done in the study and description of Bulgarian flora and nature conservation (Socio-economic Impact score A). The perspectives of IB are promising, looking at its attractiveness and training potential, but not so positive when the age structure of its personnel is considered. Therefore, the "Prospects" score cannot be higher than moderate (Prospects score B).

Overall strengths:

The IB attracts young scientists, conducts sound research, and disseminates results at very high level not only in Bulgaria, but also in the Balkans region. The Institute’s atmosphere is excellent, warm and science-exciting, favouring the establishment of a new generation of young scientists.

Overall weaknesses:

IB could improve its performance if more emphasis would be placed on taking the lead in first-class scientific projects, i.e., first-authorship of international publications rather than being only co-authors. Likewise, the IB has not yet taken on leadership functions for European projects, in which it is involved. The visibility of IB can be mainly attributed to its participation in large international projects rather than to publications with high citation impact. The potential for basic and applied research is high and should be exploited better. The training and integration of young scientists seems to be achieved, but the problem of the Institute’s age structure has to be solved.

Specific Panel recommendations:

The Panel warmly recommends the IB to follow its main directions, but to strongly focus on obtaining leadership in European collaborative projects and the resulting publications (already obtained by the "palaeo" group). The Institute should reconsider if the very large number of papers published in Bulgaria yields justifiable benefit in terms of visibility of the Institute and of the individual researchers. The Institute could also reconsider if it is worth keeping the current very high level of teaching activity, which most likely diverts considerable human resources from research. The Institute is advised look for a tighter cooperation with other research



institutions on themes regarding botany and on broader issues of regional and global relevance that nowadays should be addressed with a more interdisciplinary approach, including molecular and ecological tools. The impact of changing climate on the biodiversity of ecosystems is one good example along these lines.

Evaluation Summary

The scientific work of IB is organized into six departments: Flora and Florogenesis, Phytocoenology and Ecology, Applied Botany, Paleobotany and Pollen Analysis, Mycology, Laboratory for Plant Anatomy and Embryology. Most of the papers published in international scholarly journals are from the first three of these departments. The other departments need to improve their productivity in terms of scientific papers. The IB has well established scientific connections with many other institutes of BAS, and is a very active player in the Bulgarian scientific community. The researchers of IB are also active in international collaborations, particularly at the European level. Their presence is significant in the Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Program of UNESCO. In fact, during the reporting period, the IB was involved in 200 research projects, which shows a highly fragmented research. These projects were supported by 940 kEUR grant money in total, which is among the highest in the life science institutes of BAS. Additional 48 projects were conducted under bilateral and multilateral international agreements. However, the high number of projects doesn't allow to concentrate funds on promising large scale projects nor are they beneficial for obtaining better infrastructures.

The IB’s researchers are actively involved in teaching at the Bulgarian Universities. This activity involved eight individuals covering ca. 100 hours of lecturing, and four individuals covering 800 hours of seminars/practices on average per academic year. Taking into account the size of the Institute, this activity is rather heavy and seems to require a considerable effort and time from the research staff (some scientists seem to be teaching much more than full-time university teaching staff).

(a) Quality and Productivity

Quality

Strengths:

The Institute as a whole is visible internationally, with research spanning from environmental studies to conservation and biodiversity assessment, with special emphasis on the latter. Very good research papers have been published in international top impact journals (e.g., J. Chem. Ecol., Mol. Ecol., and Science). The IB has published one paper that has received over 100 citations in total. In the reporting period the best five publications received 18-97 citations, which is quite good considering the publication standards in the botanical field. The innovative potential of the research is good for current and future biotechnological applications.

Weaknesses:



The research quality within the IB is rather uneven, and besides the few high quality papers, a high number of publications were published in Bulgarian journals without impact factor.

Productivity

IB’s researchers publish actively, but many papers are published in low impact journals or in Bulgaria. As a total, the IB published 241 papers abroad. Of those only 122 can be found in the Web of Science database, meaning that the others have been published in low visibility journals. An additional 286 papers were published in Bulgaria. The Institute itself publishes a scientific journal, “Phytologia Balcanica”. In the five years subjected to review, each researcher has published about three papers. This is not a very good score according to international standards, but a good score when compared to other BAS Institutes and among the best when compared to BAS Institutes active in plant biology. It also suggests that the scientific output of this Institute may further improve, especially if a more leading role in international collaborations is achieved. The editorial policy of the scientific home journal should aim at obtaining an impact factor. This will naturally lead to submission of more international papers from the botanists of the region and the scientific community at large.

Overall score for Quality and Productivity: “B”, for “Work that is internationally visible. The Institute has made valuable international contributions in the field.”

(b) Socio-economic Impact

Strengths:

The Institute carries out research with strong socio-economic impact concerning

biotechnological applications, bio-monitoring and climate change research (palaeo group

included). The socio-economic impact is also shown by the success of the Institute in

obtaining European grants. Members of the IB-BAS staff are chairing (chairperson and

secretary) the National Committee of The Man and the Biosphere (MAB) Program of

UNESCO.

Weaknesses:

Only one patent application has been reported for the evaluation period (2004-2008). The research themes studied are not unique to the IB and could be tackled using a cooperative approach together with other BAS Institutes. For instance, this could also include the joint use of new analytical tools and modern infrastructures. A suggestion in this direction will be addressed to the BAS by this evaluation panel.

Overall score for Socio-economic Impact: A - “Highly relevant.”

(c) Prospects

Strengths:



The future prospects of the IB are fairly good. The IB attracts young scientists, mainly because of the presence of good scientists at the Institute and of a very stimulating atmosphere.

The “maintenance” of a high scientific level is one of the Institute’s important objectives for the future.

Weaknesses:

The research plans for the future remain rather undefined, representing often a continuation of present studies without identifying concrete new research goals, or significant new research targets. Improving research infrastructures and qualification of personnel will be vital for the IB. Training of young students is also important for the future potential of the Institute.

The current rate of PhD students per researcher should be improved. Transfer of knowledge and collaborations with other parties, in Bulgaria and abroad, is also beneficial. However, the Institute has to focus on building up solid in-house research quality, as noted above.

Overall score for Prospects: B - “Moderate.”

Overall Strengths and Weaknesses

Strengths:

The Institute has a well defined role in the BAS system. It is a high-level, active and attractive (for young generations of scientists) Institute in the Bulgarian academic system, with highly active cooperation with other BAS Institutes and with Universities, as well as with foreign scientific organizations. The Institute acts as a reference institution for botanical studies in Bulgaria and should build on this unique trait. The Institute has a good capacity and potential to attract science funding but, as financial resources are apparently a problem, industrial and pharmaceutical exploitations of the scientific findings could be further implemented. Weaknesses:

During the five year reporting period, the Institute was involved in a very high number of research projects (>200). Their successful completion is probably only possible with a descriptive type of work. It is possible that this funding policy accounts for over 60 % of IB’s results being published in Bulgarian journals, which have very low/no impact at the international level. The Panel has noted and is pleased to see that NSF has changed its funding policy towards larger projects and support for equipment, which is a prerequisite for Bulgarian scientists to become leaders in their field.

As in the case of other BAS Institutes, the unfavourable age distribution could create problems in mid-term future when the now >55 years old scientists will retire. Recruiting and training young scientist needs to be more successful.

The teaching load seems to be exaggerated when compared to the size and the other activities of the Institute.


ESF-ALLEA Evaluation of BAS Institutes for Panel 2 7 of 112

Recommendations

General Panel recommendations are listed in the Panel Level Report. Specific Panel recommendations

The Panel warmly recommends the IB to follow its main directions, but to strongly focus on obtaining leadership in European collaborative projects and the resulting publications (already obtained by the "palaeo" group).

The Institute should concentrate efforts on important scientific targets and decrease its involvement in the large number of diverse topics, which often receive minor funding.

The Institute and the BAS should reconsider if the very large number of papers published in Bulgaria yields justifiable benefit in terms of visibility of the Institute and of the individual researchers.

The Institute could also reconsider if it is worth keeping the current very high level of teaching activity which most likely diverts considerable human resources from research.

The Institute is advised to look for a tighter cooperation with other research institutions on themes regarding botany and on broader issues of regional and global relevance that nowadays have to be addressed with a more interdisciplinary approach, including molecular and ecological tools. The impact of changing climate on the biodiversity of ecosystems is one good example along these lines.

panel 2 report: biological sciences

Documents