INSTRUCTION no. 1/2014
of the director of the NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CRIMINOLOGY
on
the individual performance assessment of researchers
On the basis of Section 6(1)(h) of Chief Prosecutor’s instruction no. 13/2012 (15 June) on the organisation and operation of the National Institute of Criminology, I hereby issue the following instruction:
Basic provisions
Section 1
(1) For the purpose of checking whether the criteria specified in Chief Prosecutor’s instruction no. 7/2012 (27 January) on the system of requirements and bonuses of the researchers of the National Institute of Criminology (hereinafter “Instruction”) are met, the performance system of researchers is measured by the director of the Institute and the heads of department, while the performance of individual researchers is assessed on the basis of a single score system. The scope of the Instruction covers all the researchers of the National Institute of Criminology (hereinafter “Institute”).
(2) Researchers only have access to their own data, while managers may have access to the data of the researchers of their department or team of researchers.
Section 2
(1) An opinion supporting the continuation of prosecutor service status may only be issued if the researcher’s assessment reaches the minimum score.
(2) If the researcher fails to reach the minimum score in a given period, their heads of department must disclose this in their annual report and analyse this person’s past performance and expected future performance. For the purposes of the assessment, both the performance of the given year and the average performance of the last three years are taken into account.
Section 3
(1) Any recommendation by the head of department for a bonus or a promotion (research fellow, senior research fellow, research advisor) must be supported also by the qualification score. Any successful performance in completing the tasks specified in Section 2(2) (a) to (d), Section 3(2) (a) to (d), Section 4(2) (a) to (d) and Section 5(2) (a) to (f) in the Instruction must be taken into account for the purpose of bonuses.
(2) For the purpose of performance assessment, the following factors must also be taken into account: the researcher’s international and domestic publication activities; their work in organising the Institute’s priority research projects and obtaining funding for projects; the given field of science; the expert’s non-scientific work; the domestic and foreign impact of their work (e.g. citations); participation in conferences and education, at scientific and professional events, and organising such events.
Section 4
(1) The researchers report data to the heads of department for the purposes of performance assessment. In issues affecting the score, the director, the deputy director, the heads of department, the deputy heads of department and the senior advisers hold a qualification meeting (hereinafter: qualification meeting) and they take a position by a majority of votes; this decision will serve as a precedent from then on.
(2) Researchers, on the basis of the Institute’s research plan, will prepare individual work, research and further training plans and a plan for the utilisation of the research results (publication, lectures, dissertation, final study report, etc.) and they will report on these plans at department meetings in the presence of the Institute’s director.
(3) On the basis of their qualifications and in the field of their non-scientific work, researchers shall assist the education and further training activities of prosecutor’s offices, law enforcement agencies and organisations of the justice system as trainers or otherwise (through the preparation of education materials and plans etc.), in accordance with Section 7(2) of the Instruction.
(4) Scores taken into account for assessment purposes:
| Description | Points |
| Participation in prosecutor training (per lecture) | 5 |
| University course abroad | 10 |
| University course in Hungary | 5 |
| Other higher education-related activities abroad | 5 |
| Other higher education related activities in Hungary | 3 |
| Thesis supervision per student | 2 |
| Obtaining a PhD | 15 |
| Obtaining Hungarian Academy of Sciences doctorate | 30 |
| Per lecture in the Institute’s internal training system | 2 |
(5) The score for lectures held in foreign languages in Hungary is 100% higher than for lectures held in Hungarian.
Publications
Section 5.
(1) Only those publications in which it has been indicated that the work has been prepared in the Institute or that the author is an employee of the Institute may be taken into account as part of the performance assessment.
(2) If there are multiple authors, as a general rule, the score is divided equally between them. If the content of the publication warrants a different distribution, this must be taken into account. The researcher must provide information and arguments if this is the case.
Section 6.
(1) Leading global periodicals, from the aspect of international publications, include learned journals with an impact factor on the basis of the Thomson Reuters list (Social Sciences Citation Index). The list may be expanded by an individual decision in the qualification meeting on the basis of the researchers’ arguments. The decision applies to all future publications in the given periodical. A periodical has an international board of editors if it is published in English, German or French and the mother tongue of the majority of the board is not Hungarian. Periodicals with a double blind peer review system in this category are preferred. The periodicals included in the list of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences’ (HAS) Doctoral Council are accepted as periodicals in this category.
(2) The foreign publishers in the list of HAS’s Doctoral Council and other English, German and French scientific publishers qualify as international publishers. Privately published works and “print on demand” publishers are excluded.
(3) Paragraph (2) excludes publishers and periodicals operating outside of Hungary and publishing in a language other than Hungarian, French, English or German; they are considered foreign publishers/periodicals.
(4) The assessment of encyclopaedia articles and other short sections of books must be made on a case by case basis. The list of publishers must be taken into account for the purposes of the assessment.
| Description | Points |
| Article published in a leading international periodical | 40 |
| Article published in a preferred international periodical (double blind peer review) | 25 |
| Article published in a periodical with an international board of editors | 20 |
| Article published in a foreign periodical | 15 |
| Writing a (leading international/international/foreign) textbook | 144/96/48 |
| Writing a chapter in a textbook published by a foreign publisher (leading international/international/foreign) | 40/20/10 |
| Editing a textbook published by a foreign publisher (leading international/international/foreign) | 50/40/30 |
| Encyclopaedia articles and other short sections of books | max. 20 |
| Editing domestic periodicals | 20 |
Section 7.
(1) A leading Hungarian periodical is a periodical whose articles are subject to peer review, editing by an editor and language editing. Periodicals that are considered as leading Hungarian periodicals by the HAS’s Doctoral Council qualify as such for the purposes of this document.
(2) Heads of department shall decide on the classification of book publications individually. The decision may be reviewed by a qualification meeting. A peer reviewed textbook is a publication that
a. has received at least two written peer review opinions,
b. its content has been edited by at least one editor,
c. its has been edited from a language quality aspect, and
d. the author has taken the opinions of the reviewers and editors into account through rewriting, corrections or responses to the opinions.
(3) The editing in paragraph (2) point “a.” above may be replaced by a documented debate within the Institution. The documentation must include the minutes of the debate recording the contributions of individuals.
(4) The researcher is required to give evidence regarding the content of paragraphs (1) to (3) through written documents.
(5) The score for domestic foreign language publications is 100% higher than publications in Hungarian.
(6) The assessment of encyclopaedia articles and other short sections of books must be made on a case by case basis, taking the method of editing into account.
| Description | Points |
| Article published in a leading Hungarian periodical | 20 |
| Article published in any other Hungarian periodical | 15 |
| Writing a peer-reviewed Hungarian textbook | 60 |
| Writing any other domestic textbook | 40 |
| Writing a chapter in a peer-reviewed Hungarian textbook | 20 |
| Writing a chapter in any other Hungarian textbook | 15 |
| Editing a peer-reviewed domestic textbook | 30 |
| Editing any other domestic textbook | 15 |
| Encyclopaedia articles and other short sections of Hungarian books | max. 20 |
| All of the above in a foreign language | +100% |
Interpretation and explanatory provisions concerning the impact of the researcher’s work
Section 8.
(1) “Domestic” or “Hungarian” includes any activity in Hungary and in Hungarian, regardless of the location. Foreign universities operating in Hungary (Central European University, Andrássy University Budapest) fall into the international category.
(2) The score of a foreign language activity in Hungary is 100% higher than the Hungarian language activity (e.g. the delivery of a plenary lecture in a foreign language at a Hungarian conference is 3 points).
(3) A citation or reference qualifies as such if it is recognised by the rules of the Register of Hungarian Scientific Works (Magyar Tudományos Művek Tára or MTMT). In the performance review of the author, all citations to any previously published work of the author and recorded by the deadline in the MTMT in the given year must be taken into account.
Section 9.
(1) The list of global conferences are the conferences included in the relevant list of the HAS Centre for Social Research, which is updated by the heads of department based on researcher feedback and reports.
(2) A significant conference is a scientific conference that is considered the leading conference in a scientific field in Hungary or that is organised by a permanent international professional association, the prosecutor’s offices or the Association of Hungarian Prosecutors. Project conferences are excluded from this category.
Section 10.
(1) The researcher must document and provide reasoning for the significance of the international positions and participations they have.
(2) The organisation of conferences and scientific/professional events include the following items:
a. specifying the objectives and compiling the invitation,
b. obtaining funding for the event,
c. inviting and selecting the participants,
d. organising the logistics of the event and
e. finalising the schedule of the event.
(3) Points may be granted if the given person carries out at least two (or more in the case of a smaller event) of the activities specified under paragraph (2) points “a. to e.”.
| Description | Points |
| Title/position in a professional organisation requiring personal contribution | 15 |
| Membership in a professional organisation requiring personal contribution | 5 |
Section 11.
(1) Titles and memberships not involving personal contributions do not add points. With regard to activities, the researcher is required to document their active contribution. The purpose of performance assessment is to assess their level of activity and not professional reputation.
(2) The editing of the thematic special edition of a periodical qualifies as a publication, and the points and criteria of volume editions apply.
| Description | International | Domestic |
| Reference in an article published in an SSCI periodical | 6 | 3 |
| Reference in an article published in a peer-reviewed periodical | 3 | 1 |
| Reference in an article published in any other periodical | 2 | 1 |
| Reference in a textbook or chapter of a book published by an international publisher | 4 | 2 |
| Reference in a textbook or chapter of a book published by a foreign publisher | 2 | 1 |
| Reference in other textbooks | 2 | 1 |
| Plenary lecture or presentation based on an invitation at a global conference | 20 | 10 |
| Presentation at a significant conference (written study and presentation) | 10 | 5 |
| Presentation at any other conference (written study and presentation) | 10 | 5 |
| Written study for a conference (not presenting) | 5 | 2,5 |
| Poster at a conference | 5 | 2,5 |
| Presentation without a study or a round-table discussion at a conference | 5 | 2,5 |
| Discussant or opponent of a study or presentation at a conference | 5 | 2,5 |
| Chairing a meeting at a conference | 5 | 3 |
| Organising a conference or a professional/scientific event | 10 | 5 |
| Article in a peer-reviewed conference publication | 2 | 1 |
Non-scientific and other special professional activities
Section 12.
(1) The recording of the individual work and research plan and the results of the projects in the Institute’s annual work plan are 10 points per study but a maximum of 40 points. Active participation in the Institute’s education and further training plan (organisation, presentation, opponent activities) are 10 points.
(2) The head of department may grant a maximum of 10 points in addition for activities that fall out of the scope of the scoring system (supporting functions at the Institute, for instance). A detailed explanation must be provided for the points awarded.
(3) The preparation of expert materials and databases is of the same worth as a publication of the given level if the prosecutors’ organisation or another entity with the agreement of the prosecutors’ organisation accepts the material or the database.
(4) It also qualifies as a publication of the given level if the expert supports the work of prosecutors and the application of the law by scientific means, i.e. through a paper.
(5) The main personal project of an assistant research fellow or a research fellow is the writing of their dissertation/thesis, which does not result in an immediate publication, but points are awarded for successful defence.
| Description | Points |
| Outstanding scientific performance | max. 20 |
| Atypical scientific performance | max. 10 |
| Successful defence of a PhD thesis | 10 |
| Expert material prepared at the request of a prosecutor’s office, government agency or international organisation | max. 20 |
Minimum and expected performance
Section 13.
(1) Each researcher is required to obtain a certain number of points in a given year or in the average of three years. Those not obtaining this number of points will be included in the annual report of the head of department, and the director will assess their suitability for the position.
(2) The Institute expects the researchers to show a certain level of annual performance expressed as a number of points in the table. As a general rule, the researcher must reach this level before being promoted to a higher job classification. If the annual score of the researcher is lower than the expected level in a given year, the researcher will be required to explain the lower score in the annual report and will prepare a plan for improvement in agreement with their superior.
(3) If the researcher’s annual score is lower than the minimum in a given year or on the basis of a three-year average, this may have consequences.
(4) The performance expectations of a given year do not apply to the researcher if the researcher is an active prosecutor in the given year.
Section 14.
(1) The computer program registering the researcher’s assessment also shows a three-year average in order to give a more accurate picture of performance. Similarly to personnel data, the researchers’ data may only be handled by the head of the office and they may not be accessed by unauthorised persons.
(2) The following table shows the annual minimum and expected scores.
| Qualification | Minimum | Expected |
| Assistant research fellow | 15 | 30 |
| Fellow | 25 | 50 |
| Senior fellow | 50 | 80 |
(3) The qualification category must be set on the basis of the classification valid on the first day of the reporting year.
Entry into force
This instruction shall enter into force on 1 January 2015.
Budapest, 10 November 2014
Dr. György Vókó
Director