Fields and research areas are (together with units) the basic elements of the evaluation. The structure of fields and research areas is defined by the internal classification of the University. At the moment there are 21 research areas grouped into 4 panels and 1 area conjoining highly interdisciplinary fields at the University that are subject to the evaluation.
Arts and humanities
Arts and Culture Studies
History and Archaeology
Linguistics
Literature
Philosophy and Religion
Social sciences
Economic Science
Law
Media and Communications Studies
Political Science and Area Studies
Psychology
Sociology
Teachers Education and Non-teaching Pedagogy
Natural sciences
Biology
Computer Science
Earth Sciences
Chemistry
Mathematics
Physics
Medical and health sciences
Medicine and Medical Disciplines
Pharmacy
Research area comprising fields with a high level of interdisciplinarity
Highly Interdisciplinary Fields
Every research area contains at least one field, e.g. Mathematics consists of Mathematical Analysis, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, Probability and Mathematical Statistics, and Structural Mathematics.
For a more detailed explanation see also: Internal ClassificationThe quality of a field and research area is assessed by the Expert Panel based on the outcomes of individual evaluation tools, i.e. research indicators, self-evaluation report of a unit, bibliometric analysis, peer review and site visit.
The quality of a field depends primarily on the quality of its outputs, contribution to outputs produced by other fields through interdisciplinary cooperation and its national and international standing. If the research in a field was performed in more than one unit of the University (which will be often the case), its quality is assessed also individually for the relevant units based on identical evaluation tools.
The quality of a research area is assessed by the Expert Panel based on the quality of the relevant fields and aggregate data on the given area obtained using individual evaluation tools.
The quality of a field is assessed by the Expert Panel. The following grades should be used for the evaluation outcome:
Excellent field, A. In all evaluated criteria the field produces excellent outputs whose quality is fully comparable to the standard of selected benchmark institutions. It includes a sufficient number of internationally reputed scholars, the production of high-quality outputs corresponds to its size and there are no cases of problematic outputs or research activities. The majority, i.e., for example 60% of outputs reviewed using bibliometric analysis falls within the first two quartiles of AIS score, or category A and B in the case of peer reviewed outputs, and a significant minority (approximately less than 10%) falls within the fourth quartile or category D. An excellent field of CUNI should be comparable to the the corresponding fields at respectable European universities that has been selected as the quality benchmarks.
Very good field, B. In all evaluated criteria the field produces very good outputs whose quality is close to the standard of selected benchmark institutions. The production of high-quality outputs corresponds to its size and there are almost no cases, or no cases, of problematic outputs or research activities. In the bibliometric analysis or peer review of selected outputs, the majority of outputs falls within the first three quartiles of ASI score, or categories A, B, and C in the case of peer reviewed outputs where for example less than 20% of outputs falls within the fourth quartile, or category D. A very good field approximates in terms of quality the corresponding fields at high-quality European universities that has been selected as the quality benchmarks.
Average field, C. In all evaluated criteria the field produces satisfactory or good outputs. Outputs evaluated using bibliometric analysis that fall within the first two quartiles of AIS score or peer reviewed as A or B are rather exceptional, similarly to outputs evaluated as D (fourth quartile). An average field approximates through its best outputs the quality of corresponding fields at very high-quality European universities that has been selected as the quality benchmark.
Below average field, D. In all evaluated criteria the field produces average or below average outputs. More than half of the peer reviewed outputs fall in category C or lower, majority of outputs in bibliometric analysis is in the third or fourth quartile of AIS score. In an international comparison, the field distinctly lags behind the quality of corresponding fields at very high-quality European universities that has been selected as the quality benchmark.
The above criteria are used with the necessary modifications for the evaluation of research areas.