Metodika atestace výzkumných pracovníků

Objectives of performance evaluation („atestace“)

The evaluation of researchers:

contributes to improving the Institute’s research performance
provides inputs for the personnel policy
helps to compare the performance of researchers of the same qualification level
stimulates the continuous professional development of researchers
provides regular feedback to researchers on their performance

Evaluation rules

The evaluation of researchers is conducted:

at regular intervals, at least once every 5 years
outside the regular intervals, on request from the Institute director
outside the regular intervals, on request of the researcher

The Institute director will announce the evaluation methodology in advance to allow the evaluated employees to get acquainted with the evaluation criteria and prepare the required documents. Researchers are evaluated by an evaluation committee, which serves as an advisory body of the Institute director. The evaluation committee consists of at least 5 members, of which at least 1/3 are external members. The committee and its chairman are appointed by the Institute director after discussion in the Institute Board. The expertise of the evaluation committee members must cover the research focus of the whole Institute. The evaluation committee usually meets once a year to discuss evaluation proposals submitted outside the regular intervals.

The evaluation is carried out in the presence of the superior of the evaluated employee. The superior can provide career advice to the evaluated employee in the form of recommendations. The evaluated employee may request to be present at the proceedings. The evaluation criteria include scientific, professional and teaching activities, i.e. publications, research grants, contract research, patents and inventions, teaching and supervising PhD students. During the evaluation the committee takes into account other employee’s activities such as mobility, international collaboration, science promotion and leadership/management functions. The evaluation committee proceeds as follows:

The committee shall verify that the evaluated researcher has been informed of the evaluation criteria.
The evaluated researcher must submit to the committee a completed evaluation form with relevant documentation of his/her activity since the last evaluation.
The committee shall request the expert opinion from the immediate superior of the evaluated researcher. The superior may propose a change of qualification grade and employment contract terms.

Who is evaluated

The following employee grades appointed to research departments are evaluated:

V3 – Postdoctoral Researcher
V4 – Associated Scientist
V5 – Research Scientist
V6 – Senior Research Scientist

Research Assistants (V1) are not subject to evaluation, however, they can apply for promotion to grade „V2 – PhD student“ when they start their PhD studies. PhD students (V2) are evaluated by the Committee for PhD Students (see „Training and Supervision“ below).

Evaluation report

The evaluation committee will:

Determine the employee performance rating on the scale A – above average, B – average and C – below average.
Recommend to the Institute director to promote, maintain or demote the employee grade.
Propose a change of the employment contract terms (permanent/fixed-term contract).
If the evaluated employee is found to lack the required qualification according to Article 23 of the Annex to the CAS Statutes, the evaluation committee shall propose to the Institute director to request the employee in writing to address the performance issues and shall propose the date for the next evaluation by which the issues must be addressed by the employee. In case the issues are not addressed at the next evaluation the committee will propose to the Institute director termination of employment.

The Institute director shall decide on the evaluation result and appoint the employee grade on the basis of the evaluation committee proposal. The evaluated employee will be acquainted with the conclusions and has the opportunity to comment on them. If there is no agreement between the opinions of the evaluation committee and the evaluated employee, the evaluated employee may request a review of the evaluation through a public adversary procedure (Article 23 of Appendix B of the CAS Statutes).

Links:
Career Development Rules of the CAS Employees with a University Degree
Reflection of CoARA Principles in the Institute Evaluation Strategy