research assessment -...

Research Assessment

Applied Physics

Delft University of Technology

Physics Leiden University

January 2004

Research Assessment Applied Physics Delft University of Technology - Physics Leiden University 2

Contents

Preface 3 1 Introduction 4 1.1 Outline of the Dutch System for Quality Assessment of Research 4 1.2 The Review Committee 5 1.3 Data provided to the Committee 6 1.4 Procedures followed by the Committee 6 1.5 Aspects and Assessment Scale 7 1.6 Structure of the report 7 2. Evaluation of Research 8 2.1 Department for Imaging Science & Technology, TU Delft 9 2.2 Department for Multi-Scale Physics, TU Delft 14 2.3 Department for Nanoscience, TU Delft 17 2.4 Interfaculty Reactor Institute, TU Delft 23 2.5 Leiden Institute for Physics, Leiden University 30

3. Answers to questions of the Boards 35 3.1 General questions submitted by the Board 35 3.2 Observations on the assessment process 36 Annex 1 Preliminary Assessment Form 38 Annex 2 Description of the main criteria 41 Annex 3 Description of the five-point scale 42 Annex 4 List of scores per institute/department and per programme 43 Annex 5 Curricula vitae 44 Annex 6 Programme of site visit 46


Preface The Review Committee Applied Physics Delft University of Technology and Physics Leiden University was entrusted with the task of evaluating research programmes of the Department of Applied Physics of the Faculty of Applied and of the Interfaculty Reactor Institute (IRI) – both Delft University of Technology - and the research programmes of physics of the Faculty Mathematics and Natural Science of Leiden University over the period 1998-2002. In total 9 experts from 6 countries, covering the various disciplines in question, were invited to compose the Review Committee, assisted by a secretary. The assessment of the Review Committee is based upon information on research input and output as supplied by the departments, key publications, interviews with the programme directors, visits to laboratories and meetings with the faculty boards and members of the Boards of both universities. Before finalizing the report a draft was submitted to the faculty boards for comments. As this is the third review of (applied) physics it may be considered as a follow-up on the previous assessments. The Review Committee would like to thank both faculties and IRI for their thorough preparation of the review of their research, their hospitality and the stimulating discussions during the site visits. The logistical support in the organization of accommodation, the secretarial assistance during the site visit and in preparing the final report is acknowledged. The members of the Review Committee are pleased to have participated as a team in this research assessment, simultaneously mirroring their own research activities against the programmes in Delft and Leiden. Finally, the Review Committee hopes that the review will contribute to the continuation of the international role played by both universities in physics and applied physics.


1 Introduction 1.1 Outline of the Dutch System for Quality Assessment of Research The quality assessment of research of Applied Physics (Delft University of Technology) and Physics (Leiden University) is conducted according to the new Standard Evaluation Protocol for Public Research Organizations 2003-2009. This protocol was recently defined by the three main Dutch organizations responsible for publicly funded research - the universities, the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) and the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). The Dutch system of quality assessment of research started in 1993 under the aegis of the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU). From 1993 until 1997 all University research, per discipline or scientific area, was assessed by means of peer review (international committees of experts within a certain discipline) according to the 1994 Protocol for the Quality Assessment of Research. In 1998, with some changes in the protocol to enhance the system, the VSNU Board decided to have the first round of quality assessments followed by another round; this according to the 1998 Protocol for the Quality Assessment of Research. In 2002 a new evaluation system of research for publicly funded research was adopted in the Netherlands as a consequence of a review - initiated by the VSNU, KNAW and NWO - of the existing evaluation system. The new system aims at operating with the least possible burden for the researchers: a self-evaluation once every three years, an external evaluation once every six years; this according to the Standard Evaluation Protocol for Public Research Organizations 2003-2009. These evaluations are intended to serve all regular public evaluation goals. Improvement and accountability are the main objectives of the system of quality assessment. Public accountability is both a requirement for publicly funded research and an inherent element in the improvement cycle in which this scheme of evaluation plays a dominant role. The evaluation system therefore aims at the following three objectives with regard to research and research management: • Improvement of the quality of research through an assessment carried out

according to international standards of quality and relevance; • Improvement of research management and leadership; • Accountability to higher levels of the research organizations and funding

agencies, government, and society at large. With regard to the objective of improvement, the system is directed toward both the research and its management. The Review Committee is explicitly asked to judge not only the performance of an institute’s research and researchers, but also its leadership, strategy and policy, and research organization. If applicable, the quality questions also may refer to the socio-economic impact of research and to multi- and interdisciplinary research. The evaluation system is a combination of retrospective and prospective analysis. The relationship between retro- and prospective evaluation is to some extent the result of acquired confidence for the future based on insight in the past. In other words: discussions about the future require knowledge of the past. The emphasis will be on the prospective analysis. Public accountability is a requirement in the case of publicly funded research. The Review Committee will report its findings to the board of the responsible research


organization. The responsible board will make policy decisions for the institute at hand based on the evaluation report and discussion with the institute. Together, the evaluation report and the decision of the board form the results of the evaluation. These results will be reported to the Minister of Education and Sciences as part of existing procedures in which the responsible research organizations report to the minister periodically (yearly) about evaluations conducted under their auspices. As such the results of the evaluation have a public character. The Standard Evaluation Protocol for Public Research Organizations 2003-2009 is primarily directed toward the evaluation of scientific research. Traditionally, such evaluation focuses on the quality of work conducted according to the standards of scientific disciplines, and the ways in which results are communicated to a scientific audience. However, the work done in scientific institutions often entails more; that is, institutions have a broader mission. These broader missions might refer to certain socio-economic goals or to particular technical or infrastructural functions. Also, scientific work can be of a multi- or transdisciplinary nature. In all these cases, standards of quality and relevance might differ, as do patterns of communication. The organization responsible for evaluating individual institutes should therefore see to it that procedures necessary to assess these particular aspects of an institute’s mission are employed. The results of the evaluation are intended to help the research organization, the management of the research units and the individual researchers to make better decisions about future research, research management and research policy. As mentioned, the evaluations are both retrospective and prospective. This is reflected in the assessment criteria (paragraph 1.5) for past performance and future plans that reflect the main questions that need to be answered by the Review Committee. The units of evaluation are ‘research programmes’, which is defined as ‘a group of researchers with an articulated shared mission operating under the same management’. The evaluation committee was asked to answer some additional questions from the Boards of the research organizations. These questions are addressed in chapter 3. 1.2 The Review Committee The Review Committee – henceforth ‘the Committee’ – was appointed on September 15th 2003 by the Boards of both Delft University of Technology and Leiden University, and consisted of: • Prof. dr. D. Frenkel (Chairman, FOM Institute for Atomic and Molecular

Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) • Prof. dr. S. Banerjee (University of California at Santa Barbara, USA) • Dr. C. Carlile (Institute Laue-Langevin, Grenoble, France) • Prof. dr. R. Dändliker, (Université de Neuchâtel and Ecole Polytechnique

Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland) • Prof. dr. J.P. Kotthaus (Ludwig-Maximillians-Universität München, Germany) • Prof. dr. T.M. Rice (ETH Zürich, Switzerland) • Prof. dr. M.L. Roukes (Caltech Pasadena, USA) • Dr. M.P.A. Viegers (Philips NV, Eindhoven, The Netherlands) • J.A. Vogel, MSc (TNO, Den Haag, The Netherlands)


Dr. G.J.L. Scheurwater, MPA (Head of Unit of Strategic Affairs, TU Delft) was appointed secretary of the Committee. During the site visit the review process also was facilitated by Mrs. J.K. Dekker M.A. (Secretary of Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, TU Delft) and dr. K.W. Maring (Advisor to the Board of TU Delft). A short curriculum vitae of each of the members is included in Annex 5. 1.3 Data provided to the Committee The Committee has received the following documentation: • Three self-evaluation reports (Applied Physics and Interfaculty Reactor

Institute- both of Delft University of Technology – and Physics of Leiden University containing a research profile and the key-data of the faculties concerned and documentation per programme.

• Five key publications per programme. • Citation-analysis by CWTS • Analysis of the age-distribution per programme 1.4 Procedures followed by the Committee The review of the Committee covered a total of 21 research programmes. Delft University of Technology submitted 17 research programmes in Applied Physics. Leiden University submitted 4 research programmes in Physics. The Committee started its review by reading the self-evaluation reports and the key-publications. For each research programme a first and second reviewer were selected. They were asked to read all information in detail and to assess the programmes with the help of a preliminary assessment form (see Annex 1). The assessment forms were collected as input for the meetings of the Committee with the programme directors during the site visit from Tuesday October 28th to Friday 31st October 2003 (Annex 6). During the first meeting, consensus was reached on the way to proceed. The Committee also prepared a list of general and specific questions to be asked by Committee members to the programme leaders and members of the scientific staff, the directors of institutes and the deans of faculties involved. During the site visits, the Committee met the programme leaders and members of the scientific staff, directors of institutes, deans of the faculties and members of the Boards of both universities. Furthermore the Committee visited the laboratories and experimental facilities. During its final meeting, the Committee composed a first draft of its report. Soon thereafter the chairman of the Committee informed the faculty boards in general terms about some main findings of the Committee. 1.5 Aspects and Assessment Scale The Committee was required to judge the following main criteria: • Quality (international recognition and innovative potential), • Productivity (scientific output), • Relevance (scientific and socio-economic impact), • Vitality and Feasibility (flexibility, management, and leadership). The main criteria were reviewed in relation to the mission of the institute or group. A description of these criteria is given in annex 2. A five-point scale was used to give scores on these criteria and an additional commentary was added for each


research programme. These commentaries are an integral part of the assessments. An extended description of the five-point scale is given in annex 3. The judgments of the Committee refer to the evaluation unit as a whole, and to relevant parts of the institute (research programmes). The assessment criteria used for an institute as a whole and those for the research programmes are similar, but differ in scope and depth. The institute assessment puts emphasis on strategy and organizational aspects, whereas the programme assessments focus on the results and quality of the scientific research and on the future. Together the criteria represent a comprehensive picture of the performance of an institute or research group in any given field, and of its future potential. One of the Institutes reviewed by the panel was the Interfacultair Reactor Instituut (IRI). The future of the neutron reactor in this centre is at present under review. A panel set up by the TUD is currently assessing the future of the reactor in the coming decade. At the time of writing this assessment, the TUD panel has not yet made its recommendations. Regrettably, uncertainty about the future of the reactor makes it impossible for the committee to make clear and meaningful statements about the continued feasibility and vitality of IRI as an institute. The Committee’s judgments in this report are unanimous. 1.6 Structure of the report The report has the following structure. First an assessment is given of the institute or department as a whole following the main criteria (see paragraph 1.5). Then an assessment is given of the programmes, which constitute the institute or department. In the last part of the report the additional questions of both Boards are addressed. In conclusion some observations and recommendations are formulated as regards the time involved for the programmes to prepare for this research assessment and the newly adopted system of research assessment in the Netherlands.


2. Evaluation of Research In total 21 research programmes are reviewed: 17 research programmes of Delft University of Technology and 4 of Leiden University. The research programmes are embedded in the following departments or institutes. Department / Institute Research Programmes Total Research Staff in

fte’s (2002) Acoustic Imaging and Sound Control 11,25 Charged Particle Optics 6,25 Optics 12,1

Department for Imaging Science & Technology TU Delft Prof.dr.ir. I.T. Young scientific director

Pattern Recognition 22,9

Total 52,5 Thermal and Fluid Sciences 13,55 Department for Multiscale Physics

TU Delft Prof.dr. H.E.A. van den Akker scientific director

Applied Fluid Dynamics & Transport Phenomena

15,4

Total 28,95 Centre for High Resolution Electron Microscopy

12,3

Molecular Biophysics 11,0 Nanophysics 17,6 Quantum Transport 21,6

Department for Nanoscience TU Delft Prof.dr. J.E. Mooij scientific director

Theoretical Physics 11,6

Total 74,1 Defects in Materials 10,0 Neutron scattering and Mössbauerspectrometry

21,3

Radiation Chemistry 12,1 Radiation Technology 20,5 Radiochemistry 9,7

Interfaculty Reactor Institute, TU Delft Prof.dr.ir. A.H.M. Verkooijen scientific director Reactor Physics 11,0 Total 84,6

Biological and Molecular Physics 32,3 Quantum Optics and Quantum Informatics

9,5

Condensed Matter Physics 32,5

Leiden Institute for Physics, Leiden University Prof.dr. P. Kes scientific director Theoretical Physics 25,2 Total 99,5


2.1 Department for Imaging Science & Technology, TU Delft University TU Delft Institute Department for Imaging Science & Technology Director Prof.dr. I.T. Young Research staff 2002 52,5 fte

Quality 4 Productivity 4 Relevance 4,5

Assessment

Vitality & Feasibility 3 Observations & remarks The academic reputations and productivity of the sections that comprise the department are on the whole very good. The bibliometric analysis of citations is somewhat uneven, but this may relate more to the fields than to lack of quality. Peer recognition is high, and individuals in the department, as well as sections, have received awards and prizes. As to societal relevance, this is perhaps the department in the Faculty of Applied Sciences at Delft that has had most direct impact on society. They have been successful in converting their discoveries into spin-offs, as well as having a high level of patent activity. Their work appears very relevant to the Dutch industrial infrastructure, as well as meeting direct societal needs. The Department for Imaging Science & Technology was created after the recent restructuring of the faculty. The common denominator of the programmes that participate in this Institute is the use of multiple, physical imaging techniques to solve problems in medical, molecular, and industrial imaging. Within this framework the groups have their own distinct focus. The Committee saw little evidence that the organizational structure of Institute as a whole had significant added value for the research effort. The Committee recommends that the existing, implicit unifying strategy should be made more explicit. This would enhance the potential synergy within the department. The Committee had the impression that the organisation of the department is still “under construction”. During the site visit, the more formal elements of the department’s leadership were emphasized. However, real integration has to come from enhanced scientific collaboration, in particular between younger staff members. Only in this way, the Department as a whole can achieve the international visibility and reputation that the individual constituting groups now enjoy.


University TU Delft TUD 01 Institute Department for Imaging Science & Technology Director Prof.dr. I.T. Young Programme Acoustic Imaging and Sound Control Programme director Prof.dr.ir. A. Gisolf Research staff 2002 11,25 fte

Quality 4 Productivity 3,5 Relevance 3,5

Assessment

Vitality & Feasibility 3 Observations & remarks Historically this program had an outstanding reputation in seismic imaging developed largely under the direction of the previous leader, who left in the late 1990s. The present group leader joined in 2000 and has made efforts to diversify their research portfolio to emphasize room acoustics and medical engineering, while continuing the effort in seismic imaging, primarily for the oil industry. However, the group at the time of writing has still to restore its vitality and enhance its scientific impact. The quality of work has been assessed to be very good based on the use made of seismic imaging work by industry, and the innovative work done recently on 3D acoustic imaging. Much of the group’s output is still in the form of conference proceedings. Efforts are being made to publish more in archival journals, but the success of this initiative remains to be seen. The productivity of the group and the academic relevance of its work are therefore between ‘good’ and ‘very good’ over the reviewed period. The vitality and vision of the group requires improvement and is classed as ‘good’, but would improve if more innovation and enthusiasm for the work become evident.


University TU Delft TUD 02 Institute Department for Imaging Science & Technology Director Prof.dr. I.T. Young Programme Charged Particle Optics Programme director Prof.dr.ir. P. Kruit Research staff 2002 6,25 fte

Quality 4,5 Productivity 4 Relevance 4,5

Assessment

Vitality & Feasibility 4 Observations & remarks This is a small, but vital group with good and original ideas. The incorporation of the group in the IST Institute seems somewhat arbitrary, as there are more relations with the nanoscience and material science department than with IST. Therefore the Committee is of opinion that the group is somewhat ‘out of context’. The group has impact on three major industries. It seems to rely more on contacts in industry than support from the faculty. The technology used and its applications are impressive. The MAPPER-initiative is considered as very challenging and promising, even though the hurdles facing practical implementation are formidable. The MAPPER project is now largely carried out outside the group, and the center of gravity of research will focus on other issues. The group has a large number of patents. The productivity of scientific articles could be better. The relation with the group of Zandbergen needs to have attention. Zandbergen is able to define future requirements for microscopes and scanners. Both groups, either in design or application, require special building facilities.


University TU Delft TUD03 Institute Department for Imaging Science & Technology Director Prof.dr. I.T. Young Programme Optics Programme director Prof.dr.ir. J.J.M. Braat Research staff 2002 12,1 fte

Quality 5 Productivity 4 Relevance 5

Assessment

Vitality & Feasibility 5 Observations & remarks The group shows considerable vitality and potential, that can largely be attributed to inspiring scientific leadership. The group developed and seem to apply a very consistent strategy away from integrated optics along the direction of light propagation and imaging. Challenging objects of Terahertz imaging, aperture synthetics, lithography and high-density optical recording were selected. Subjects are most relevant for space exploration, the advancement of lithography and optical recording. In addition the programme aims to create a necessary breakthrough for optimisations in multiparameter space. The group is relatively young, so that the productivity can be expected to increase soon. Otherwise the quality, vitality and relevance of the work are excellent.


University TU Delft TUD04 Institute Department for Imaging Science & Technology Director Prof.dr. I.T. Young Programme Pattern Recognition Programme director Prof.dr. I.T. Young / Prof. L. van Vliet Research staff 2002 22,9 fte


Assessment

Vitality & Feasibility 3,5 Observations & remarks The scientific quality of the programme is graded between good and very good (3.5); this according to the current terms of reference of research assessments. The work is at the forefront in the field on a national level and in some aspects on an international level. It is recognized that the programme is focused on the development of science-based methodologies, which are fruitfully used in different fields of application worldwide both by industry and the scientific community. The programme has good international visibility. The majority of the scientific output consists of refereed conference proceedings. Taking the nature of this publication strategy into account, the productivity of the group is competitive, both nationally and internationally. The productivity of the programme is graded as very good (4). Taking into account the rather widespread utilization of the methodologies developed by the group the relevance of the work is graded between very good and excellent (4.5.) The Committee has been informed that the responsibilities of the senior programme leader will be transferred to the junior programme leader. At the time of writing of this report, the practical implementation of this future leadership structure was still unclear. The Committee supports transfer of responsibilities to younger staff members. At this stage, however, the committee can only indicate that this process, if carried out well, has the potential to be beneficial for the vitality and feasibility of the programme (3.5). The Committee was concerned about the lack of visibility of the senior (in age) staff in the publications. During the interview, this was explained as being a consequence of the policy to mention young staff members as first author of a publication. Nevertheless, the concerns of the Committee remained. The group is considering changing its name, since ‘pattern recognition’ is believed to be a too generic term. At the same time, the programme directors indicated that the group is well known under its present name, as it receives many questions on pattern recognition from both industry and the scientific community. Therefore, the Committee recommends not to change the name of the group too easily, since it might lead to an unnecessary loss of ‘brand-recognition’. The Committee was not convinced of the need to change the name of the programme from “Pattern Recognition” to “Quantitative Imaging” – the advantage of the name change is unclear, the potential disadvantage (loss of “brand recognition”) is obvious.


2.2 Department for Multiscale Physics, TU Delft University TU Delft Institute Department for Multiscale Physics Director Prof.dr.ir. H.E.A. van den Akker Research staff 2002 28,95 fte


Assessment

Vitality & Feasibility 4 Observations & remarks The informal management style practiced in the department is appropriate for its relatively small size. The coordination between sections could be improved, and it would help to present a more unified front with regard to strategy, funding and recruitment of students and faculty. However, it is probably not easy to integrate some of the activities of the two sections, while leaving others alone—especially considering the somewhat different cultures from which they arise. The Department has an excellent funding record, particularly from external agencies, as well as state-of the art equipment, instrumentation and computing facilities. It should consider putting out integrated proposals between the two research sections. The department produces high quality research in its two sections, with an excellent citations record, but could considerably improve its academic presence if the two sections would work more closely together. We understand that the integration of two quite different styles and cultures may take some time, but urge that the process continue as expeditiously as possible. Furthermore, the Department has maintained through its two research sections an excellent international position in transport phenomena and applied fluid/thermal sciences. The emphasis has correctly been on rather classical macroscopic problems, and it is important that this continue. However, the Department may wish to orient some effort in the future towards areas that are more product related, which often involve consideration of micro- and meso-scale transport processes. The research thrust in the sections towards sustainable processes and more efficient energy production as well as transport processes in the environment, are of considerable societal interest. More efforts to broadly disseminate and apply results to enhance the value to society would be desirable, and is probably essential in the long term to ensure support for the department. The visibility and external image could be improved by better integration of the activities of the two research units. The name given to the department – Multiscale Physics - is somewhat nontraditional, which may hamper their international visibility. Therefore, it is recommended to change the name of the department.


University TU Delft TUD05 Institute Department for Multiscale Physics Director Prof.dr.ir. H.E.A. van den Akker Programme Thermal and Fluid Sciences Programme director Prof.dr.dipl-ing. K. Hanjalic Research staff 2002 13,55 fte


Assessment

Vitality & Feasibility 3 Observations & remarks This is an outstanding group working in the area of turbulence modelling and simulation with emphasis on energy transfer and combustion. The work is of interest to a variety of industry and for environmental/geological problems. The leader is an eminent scholar, amongst the top few in the world in its field, and equipment and computational techniques deployed for the work are cutting edge. Taking all this into account, including the high impact of journal publication by the group, the quality of the work is considered between very good and excellent – the slightly less than perfect score being predicated on the very wide variety of areas tackled, which may somewhat attenuate the impact of the work in each area. The productivity is very good and it is noted that the group publishes long, thorough articles rather than many short papers or letters. Academic relevance is again between very good and outstanding based on the importance of the problems investigated, the strong collaboration with industry, and the impact of the work for more efficient energy production and utilization. With the exception of the leader, this is a relatively young group. As such, the impending retirement of the leader weighs heavily on its future, as it will be difficult to replace him with someone of equivalent capabilities. At the time of writing of this report, there are plans to restructure the MSP Department as a whole into smaller groups. The vitality and feasibility of the present program depend crucially on the way these changes are implemented. The present rating (3) expresses a compromise between the concern that the Committee feels and the awareness that the leadership of the Institute is taking action.


University TU Delft TUD06 Institute Department for Multiscale Physics Director Prof.dr.ir. H.E.A. van den Akker Programme Applied Fluid Dynamics and Transport Phenomena Programme director Prof.dr.ir. H.E.A. van den Akker Research staff 2002 15,4 fte


Assessment

Vitality & Feasibility 4,5 Observations & remarks This programme uses a good combination of state-of-the-art numerical simulation and experiment to investigate a number of challenging problems with a strong applied character. These range from those involving chemical reactions, as in CVD applications, to turbulent multiphase flow. In each case there is a clear link to industry. In addition, the group is contributing to novel developments in simulation and experiment in its field. Also the relatively high impact of journal publications by the group is taken into account. The programme is considered internationally competitive. For these reasons the panel judged their quality as very good (4). The panel was impressed by the productivity and enthusiasm that this young group displayed. The group expressed a strong desire to remain in a physics department especially because this is the source of their graduate students. The panel believes the programme would benefit by expanding their horizons to include topics in medical fluid dynamics, and in the physics of complex fluids where synergies with the activities in Leiden and Dutch industry should be possible.


2.3 Department for Nanoscience, TU Delft University TU Delft Institute Department for Nanoscience Director Prof.dr.ir. J.E. Mooij Research staff 2002 74,1 fte


Assessment

Vitality & Feasibility 4,5 Observations & remarks The department for Nanoscience is considered to be internationally outstanding. Its scientific director runs the institute in an excellent way. The director has been very successful in attracting a brilliant group of scientists. The non-hierarchical internal organisation of the department is considered to be a major factor in its eminent international role. The communication concerning the strategy and policy of the institute is a point of slight concern; this might be more communicated systematically.


University TU Delft TUD07 Institute Department for Nanoscience Director Prof.dr.ir. J.E. Mooij Programme Centre for High Resolution Electron Microscopy Programme director Prof.dr. H.W. Zandbergen Research staff 2002 12,3 fte

Quality 4,5 Productivity 4,5 Relevance 4,5

Assessment

Vitality & Feasibility 4 Observations & remarks The group has developed an internationally highly visible expertise of analyzing atomic scale structure with high-resolution electron microscopy and recently combined this with precision preparation with focused ion beams as well as electron loss spectroscopy. It very effectively uses its special instrumentation and expertise to address a variety of research projects encompassing atomic scale structural and local electronic properties. The experimental effort in atomic scale analysis and nanofabrication is well combined with theoretical modeling. The group actively engages in national and international collaborations and develops clear and convincing strategies towards its future scientific competitiveness. The arguments based on which the group decide to join with the nanoscience department are scientifically convincing. The scientific output of the group is impressive. One might wish that the number of finished PhD theses soon matched the general scientific productivity. In its ability to attract excellent students the group is likely to profit from its placement in the nanoscience department. With a conscientious restriction to specialized analytical methods the group achieves access to an impressive range of stimulating scientific problems. The group is a very valuable addition to the strong nanoscience department and nationally outstanding. It deserves full support by both the university and the national community in terms of future investments and staff support.


University TU Delft TUD08 Institute Department for Nanoscience Director Prof.dr.ir. J.E. Mooij Programme Molecular Biophysics Programme director Prof.dr. C. Dekker Research staff 2002 11,0 fte


Assessment

Vitality & Feasibility 5 Observations & remarks Dekker’s group is one of the strongest experimental physics group in the Netherlands. The group publishes consistently in top journals and the impact of the work is very large indeed. Not surprisingly, the group is very successful in attractive funding (mainly Dutch Science Foundation and EU), not to mention several prestigious prizes and awards for C. Dekker. In spite of the fact that Dekker and coworkers achieved an internationally leading position in the area of single-molecule electronics (and could safely have stayed there for many years to come), Dekker took the daring step to apply his unique skills to the area of molecular biophysics – a field in which the group has no previous experience. This move is clearly based on a critical assessment of the challenges in the field and the expertise of the group. Close collaborations with leading groups in the life sciences will be crucial for the impact of this research in that field. The group has attracted a number of brilliant young researchers, and is on the verge of hiring another one. The non-hierarchical internal organization of the group is designed to facilitate the exchange of ideas. In addition, many close contacts with groups in Delft, Leiden and elsewhere, are maintained.


University TU Delft TUD09 Institute Department for Nanoscience Director Prof.dr.ir. J.E. Mooij Programme Nanophysics Programme director Prof.dr.ir. T.M. Klapwijk Research staff 2002 17,6 fte


Assessment

Vitality & Feasibility 4,5 Observations & remarks The research spectrum of the group encompasses a variety of highly relevant scientific problems of electronic transport on the nanoscale ranging from atomic scale electronics via molecular electronics to spin transport across interfaces and applied nano-electronics. The core team is rather young and has not long ago joined Delft University. It highly relies on adequate nanofabrication facilities and is very likely to profit essentially from the new nanofabrication laboratory planned for the department. In spite of the experimental and organizational problems associated with the transfer of the group from Groningen to Delft the scientific output of the group remained high. Both its collaborative effort on the metal insulator transition in two-dimensional systems and its scientific “ service” in detector development to the astrophysics community are internationally highly visible. The recent work on molecular electronics makes impressive progress. With its well-founded strategy focusing on nano-electronic transport one can expect an increasing scientific output in the near future. In its access to nanoscale materials the group would certainly profit from the addition of a professor within the nanoscience department focusing on the development of nano-materials. In summary the group is a very valuable addition to the Delft physics community and the nanoscience department.


University TU Delft TUD10 Institute Department for Nanoscience Director Prof.dr.ir. J.E. Mooij Programme Quantum Transport Programme director Prof.dr.ir. J.E. Mooij Research staff 2002 21,6 fte


Assessment

Vitality & Feasibility 5 Observations & remarks This is a truly exceptional group that is leading in the worldwide efforts to realise quantum information devices in the solid state. This is a very competitive field but the success of this group is very obvious, not least through the large amount of international funding they attract and through the very recent award of the first FOM concentration grant. The group continues to evolve in an exemplary manner with a smooth transfer of leadership to the younger generation and the spin off of the biophysics activities to avoid becoming too large. This field has great potential and the panel is confident that they will remain at the forefront of the race to fabricate quantum information devices in the solid state. The group maintains close contacts to the strong theoretical efforts in Leiden and Delft. Their new thrust, which seeks to marry the solid state with quantum information optical devices and which will be a major direction of the FOM concentration group, is a real challenge with a big potential payoff. However it is not beyond the reach of this remarkable group.


University TU Delft TUD11 Institute Department for Nanoscience Director Prof.dr.ir. J.E. Mooij Programme Theoretical Physics Programme director Prof.dr.ir. G.E.W. Bauer Research staff 2002 11,6 fte


Assessment

Vitality & Feasibility 4,5 Observations & remarks The Theoretical Physics Programme of the Nanoscience Department collaborates intensively with experimental groups both inside and outside the Department. But, in all these collaborations, the theory group acts as a strong, independent partner. The scientific output of the group is impressive, both in volume and in quality. Publications in top physics journals are standard practice. By any standard, this is a group that has a very strong international position. The group has been very successful in obtaining funding, mainly from the Dutch Science Foundation. The departure of Grifoni (Quantum Information) is a setback. As Grifoni’s position was externally funded, there is no “vacancy” to fill. However, the group is aware of the need to strengthen its senior staff in a field adjacent to the experimental research in the Nanoscience Institute. Whilst active collaborations with the Leiden Theoretical physics exist, the group is keen to maintain its independence. Also, the group is worried that a too diverse research portfolio might undermine its coherence. There is little enthusiasm to expand in the direction of biophysics and soft-matter physics. Such enthusiasm cannot be imposed.


2.4 Interfaculty Reactor Institute, TU Delft University TU Delft TUD12 Institute Interfaculty Reactor Institute Director Prof.dr.ir. A.H.M. Verkooijen Research staff 2002 84,6 fte


Assessment

Vitality & Feasibility n.a. Observations & remarks The director of the Interfaculty Reactor Institute has a clear focus on the future strategy and policy of the institute. Although not successful in every respect, the director was able to revitalize a rather stagnant organization. The facilities of the institute are of a high level. The institute serves a broad range of users effectively, for example in the field of radiation safety training and certification. In a number of areas, there are excellent contacts with groups in the Faculty of Applied Science of TUD. The Committee believes that there is more room for collaborations in the area of Multiscale Physics. The vitality and feasibility of the programmes of IRI is rather uneven: some programmes are graded on this aspect as between very good and excellent; others however rank sometimes significantly lower. In view of the pending decisions that will be taken by the Board of the university as regards the future of the institute, the Committee abstains from assessing its vitality and feasibility.


University TU Delft TUD12 Institute Interfaculty Reactor Institute Director Prof.dr.ir. A.H.M. Verkooijen Programme Defects in Materials Programme director Prof.dr. A. van Veen † Research staff 2002 10,0 fte


Assessment

Vitality & Feasibility 2 Observations & remarks The Committee received the tragic news that the programme director – prof.dr. A. van Veen – died in on January 3th 2004. The Committee offers its sympathies to the staff and management of IRI for the loss of a good friend and a respected colleague. The scientific focus of this research program seems to be twofold: 1. the application of instruments and methods derived from nuclear physics to a rather wide range of scientific questions and 2. more recently the use of the available instruments and techniques to more problem-driven research. The group is fully credited for the design and building by its own efforts an intense reactor based positron beam. This outstanding instrument enables high momentum resolution detection of electron-positron annihilation primarily near defects and interfaces. However, many other experiments are still being done by using the conventional beam. The new instrument relies heavily on the reactor but the scientific output in its use both within the group and in international collaborations is not highly visible. Recently (2002), the group initiated some international collaborations. It is too early to judge the fruitfulness of these future collaborations in terms of international visibility of the group. Existing expertise on gas desorption is now applied to hydrogen storage problem as this appears as the most promising access to funding. The groups scientific output on the whole is declining as seems its ability to attract excellent students and external funding. On the whole the group is internationally not very competitive in terms of its scientific impact. The group has relatively few, but longstanding collaborations with other groups within the university. Although the output of the group shows an increase in the period 1998-2003, with a jump in 2002 and 2003 due to the completion of the POSH and 2D-ACAR facility, the scientific impact of the group does not follow that pattern. Self-citations are high, presumably due to the smallness of the field but also reflecting the more inward-looking orientation of the group. Discontinuation of the groups program does not seem to have a large effect on the institute’s national and international visibility. On the whole, the vitality and feasibility of the programme is graded as satisfactory (2) in accordance with the terms of reference of the protocol for research assessments.


University TU Delft TUD13 Institute Interfaculty Reactor Institute Director Prof.dr.ir. A.H.M. Verkooijen Programme Neutron scattering and Mössbauerspectrometry Programme director Prof.dr. G.J. Kearley Research staff 2002 21,3 fte

Quality 3,5 Productivity 4,5 Relevance 4

Assessment

Vitality & Feasibility 4 Observations & remarks The average age of the group is relatively young and has therefore strong potential. The focus of research shows an evolution toward a more scientific orientation rather than instrumental. The productivity of the group has increased in the last 5 years by approx. 60% since an earlier review. The continuation of the programme seems feasible even if the reactor were to be closed down, even though this is not what the group considers desirable. The scientific focus relies upon instrumentation at other European facilities, but development work in novel instrumentation at the reactor continues to be strong. The group seems to have few direct contacts with the world at large. The programme was represented by a very youthful set of group leaders as well as professor Kearley himself. Such youthfulness brings with it possible risks due to a lack of experience. It was clear that a conscious (and successful) redirection of the scientific programme had taken place a few years ago under the new management, which had resulted in a significant lift in impact. A deliberate narrowing of horizons had also taken place to concentrate efforts into two main scientific areas. Given the very broad range of applications of neutron scattering the panel believed that this was a correct decision. The linkage of the programme to a nuclear reactor does not appear to have been a sensitive issue. In the event that the reactor were to close there would be a loss of the instrument development programme in-house, although the panel noted that other European nations without neutron sources had successfully pursued such programmes at other neutron facilities. Nevertheless the reactor does serve a cohesive function for this group and indeed for the whole of IRI. The productivity of the programme since 2000 shows a considerable growth and is graded as between very good and excellent (4.5). In accordance with the terms of reference of the new assessment protocol the scientific quality is graded as between good and very good (3.5). Likewise, the relevance of the programme is graded as very good (4). Despite a narrowing of horizons the panel were convinced that the team still remains open to new ideas within the scope of their programme. This was therefore very positive. The panel would like to see some effort towards public appreciation of the group’s work, which currently occupies a low priority, perhaps understandably given the need to adapt to the reorganization, which has taken place. There is concern in the group that IRI, having the status of an Institute rather than a Faculty gets a poor deal from the University. The panel shares this concern and found it to be a common sentiment within other IRI groups. Its geographic location, on the far end of campus, does not help the visibility of the place, but this may not be a total disadvantage.


University TU Delft TUD14 Institute Interfaculty Reactor Institute Director Prof.dr.ir. A.H.M. Verkooijen Programme Radiation Chemistry Programme director Prof.dr.ir. L.D.A. Siebbeles Research staff 2002 12,1 fte


Assessment

Vitality & Feasibility 5 Observations & remarks The group has been successfully revitalised since their last assessment (and the restructuring of IRI) in 1998. Both quality and productivity has increased substantially. In accordance with the new protocol of research assessments the quality of this programme is graded as ‘very good’ (4) and the productivity as between good and very good (3,5). With their mission statement to provide fundamental insight into the nature and dynamics of charge carriers and excited states in molecular materials of relevance to technological, biological and environmental issues they have developed a clear future oriented strategy and policy. The results are already visible in scientific, industrial and international collaboration (e.g. EU network), as well as participation in one of the TUD’s priority programmes on sustainable energy. They have unique experimental techniques for time resolved analysis of charged carriers and excited states and further improvement of the equipment (fsecond, THz) is in preparation. This group shows vitality and enthusiasm. They do not depend on the reactor facility. They are ready to be transferred in a more fundamental research oriented environment (university, faculty of TU Delft) to have better access to young people (MSc, PhD students). This possible transfer is also taken into consideration by the direction of IRI.


University TU Delft TUD15 Institute Interfaculty Reactor Institute Director Prof.dr.ir. A.H.M. Verkooijen Programme Radiation Technology - Subprogramme Instrumentation - Subprogramme Medical Physics Programme director Prof.dr.ir. C.W.E. van Eijk Research staff 2002 20,5 fte


Assessment

Vitality & Feasibility 3,5 Observations & remarks This double-programme focuses on the detection and medical usage of (ionizing) radiation. The group has long standing (inter) national collaborations in industry and society at large. In this respect, the programme has considerable societal relevance. The group makes use of up-to-date equipment. The Instrumentation sub-programme addresses all aspects of the problem of detector design: from theoretical modeling of electronic properties of detector materials to aspects of data handling and visualization. The publication output is good and the impact of the work is up to international standards. On the whole, the research is strongly application-oriented. This is also clear from the sources of external funding. The societal relevance of the work is high: radiation detection and radiation-assisted imaging are increasingly relevant in fields ranging from archeology and geology to dosimetry and de-mining but also high-energy physics. The scientific focus of the work has shifted to the study of luminescence, although the impact of publications in this field is still rather limited. The Medical Physics sub-programme focuses on measuring and modeling the way in which radiation is absorbed during medical imaging or radiotherapy. As in the Instrumentation program, the research is strongly application oriented. In fact, for this work, most grants are obtained from sources other than the Dutch Science Foundation. The number of refereed publications per staff member is lower for this group than for the Instrumentation group. Also the impact seems to be lower than the international average for this field. The societal relevance of this work is obvious from the strong links with many medical and public health organizations. Past assessments had little impact on the strategy of the group. Yet it would be wise if the group were to develop a more strategic vision on its own coherence, embedding and collaborations.


University TU Delft TUD16 Institute Interfaculty Reactor Institute Director Prof.dr.ir. A.H.M. Verkooijen Programme Radiochemistry Programme director Dr. J. Kapteijn (director a.i.) Research staff 2002 9,7 fte


Assessment

Vitality & Feasibility 2,5 Observations & remarks This program is active at the interface of physics, chemistry and the life sciences. For this reason, the Committee has submitted its draft report on this program for comments to a number of international experts in this field. The choice of these experts was made in consultation with the program leader. The input of these experts did, in fact, result in some adjustments of the draft assessment. Combining the information obtained during the site visit with the comments of the external experts, the Committee concludes that this program has international visibility. In accordance with the new protocol of research assessments the quality of this programme is graded as good (3). Due to the retirement of the former professor in this field several years ago, the group suffers from a lack of clear scientific leadership and has an unclear focus on future work. Therefore the vitality and feasibility is graded as between ‘satisfactory’ and ‘good’ (2,5). However, the group maintained an acceptable level of productivity, which therefore is graded as between ‘good’ and ‘very good’ (3,5). The potential relevance of research in the medical field was clearly demonstrated and is worth to be considered for its full potential. The research depends for 50% on the reactor. The Committee has the impression that the societal relevance of the research depends strongly on intimate collaboration with a medical group. The unique chemical/physical expertise of the group would bring much added value to such collaboration. Therefore the relevance of the work is graded as between ‘good’ and ‘very good’ (3,5).


University TU Delft TUD17 Institute Interfaculty Reactor Institute Director Prof.dr.ir. A.H.M. Verkooijen Programme Reactor Physics Programme director Prof.dr.ir. T.H.J.J. van der Hagen Research staff 2002 11,0 fte


Assessment

Vitality & Feasibility 5 Observations & remarks The group has clear scientific leadership and a good scientific focus. The group shows considerable enthusiasm and is strongly motivated. The group is outward looking and open to new ideas. Since the previous review strong and positive refocusing of the scientific orientation has taken place. There is a strong orientation on implementation of scientific results. It is recommended to orient the publication of scientific results to a wider audience (fluid mechanics rather than reactor technology); now it is too narrow; this implies a reconsideration of their publication policy. The sources of income are good and promising but European rather than national. The panel was impressed by the enthusiasm and drive with which the subject of reactor physics has been revitalized at TU Delft by this youthful team. There is a broad programme of experimental and simulation work of current and possible future designs of reactors based upon very relevant topics. Strong collaborations exist both within the University and outside. National funding for this subject, deemed politically sensitive, has dried up, but the programme managers have been very successful in attracting European funding despite this policy, which appears to be politically rather than scientifically motivated. The group acts as co-coordinator of the EU network NACUSP for example. The team considers that they have a duty to pursue outreach work in this area, from public information on TV to the training of the next generation of nuclear-literate scientists, engineers and technicians in Holland and elsewhere. They are very energetic in this area. Equally well they consider that the reactor is essential for their work since it is a training tool for many hundreds of people. In addition it has a symbolic role for them. Publications have only modest “impact” and the panel advised that in future papers should be published in more widely-read journals, where impact is higher and that preprints should be circulated to the relatively small number of groups directly in the field instead of publishing in “family” journals with limited readership. The team embraced this idea willingly. The panel liked the manner in which publications from the group members were managed.


2.5 Leiden Institute for Physics, Leiden University University Leiden University Institute Leiden Institute for Physics Director Prof.dr. P.H. Kes Research staff 2002 99,5 fte


Assessment

Vitality & Feasibility 4,5 Observations & remarks The Committee has a very positive impression of the Leiden Institute of Physics. As a whole it is well run by its scientific director. The institute has a clear focus on its future strategy and policy, although this might be made more explicit. After a period of cuts on its budget, the future financial situation of the institute seems to be healthy again, due to the successful actions taken by the dean of the faculty to attract funds from the university in a very short time. The working environment and atmosphere is assessed as between very good and excellent. The quality and academic reputation of the institute is rated as between very good and excellent. The outreach-programme to establish more systematic relations with schools is considered as a very sensible policy and has already paid off in an increase in the number of students. A point of some concern might be the age distribution of the institute as a whole. It is recommended that in this respect a clear policy is drawn out and implemented.


University Leiden University UL01 Institute Leiden Institute for Physics Director Prof.dr. P.H. Kes Programme Biological and Molecular Physics Programme director Prof.dr. Th. Schmidt Research staff 2002 32,3 fte


Assessment

Vitality & Feasibility 4 Observations & remarks This group combines two strong (and sustained) traditions in physics in Leiden: one is Molecular Physics, the other Biological Physics. Both have now been combined in a single programme. The programme has consistently been very productive and is publishing in high-quality journals. The impact of the publications is significantly above average. During the past few years the research on single-molecule spectroscopy, imaging and manipulation has been strengthened both by extending existing lines of research and by attracting new staff members with unique expertise in these fields. As a result, BM is a strong player internationally, and has a leading position in its field in the Netherlands. In the area of high-frequency EPR, this programme belongs to the world top. The group has no natural peers in the Netherlands. For this reason, the group made the strategic choice to seek a strong international partner for this line of research. The programme has active collaborations with several groups in adjacent fields (both inside and outside LION). Success in raising research funds, mostly through grants from the Dutch Science Foundation and the EU, guarantees the availability of state-of-the-art equipment. With the substantial increase of the university funding of the LION, it should be possible to address the concerns of the group about the maintenance of the local infrastructure (including the supply of liquid helium). Whilst some of the (bio) sample preparation is (or will be) done locally, an appreciable fraction is done in the chemistry department, as part of a mutually beneficial scientific collaboration. Collaborations with partners at the TUD in the area of biophysics are natural and are initiated by the staff members.


University Leiden University UL02 Institute Leiden Institute for Physics Director Prof.dr. P.H. Kes Programme Quantum Optics and Quantum Informatics Programme director Prof.dr. J.P. Woerdman Research staff 2002 9,5 fte


Assessment

Vitality & Feasibility 4,5 Observations & remarks The group has chosen a very adequate research style for the relatively small size of the group: focus outside mainstream, high risk/high reward, small-scale experiments/large flexibility, integrating experimental and theoretical work. There is good cooperation with Delft (Braat, Kouwenhoven). The group has successfully changed from laser physics (quantum electronics) to quantum optics and quantum information, which fits well with the research activity on electronics quantum transport phenomena at the TU Delft (Kouwenhoven) and the theoretical physics group in Leiden (Beenakker). As a result, they are part of the newly established FOM concentration group for quantum information. Fitting the new staff positions (concentration group) and replacing the 2 most senior staff members is of critical importance. One option is to have the new staff position (concentration group) with an appreciable solid-state background to promote the collaboration with theoretical physics in Leiden (solid-state entanglement) and quantum transport at TU Delft (quantum dots).


University Leiden University UL03 Institute Leiden Institute for Physics Director Prof.dr. P.H. Kes Programme Condensed Matter Physics Programme director Prof.dr. J.W.M. Frenken Research staff 2002 32,5 fte


Assessment

Vitality & Feasibility 4 Observations & remarks The highly appealing research programme of the group has been evolving from the classic area of low temperature physics towards nanophysics, replacing ultra low temperature instrumentation by scanning probe technology. The group is establishing a variety of promising links such as with biophysics. Minigrail is a challenging project with a large publicity effect, not particularly drawing too much upon the resources of the group. Future developments of the project depend on the progress of the project and the succession of the current project leader, who will retire in 2 years. A relatively large number of staff members will retire in the near future. The strategy is to attract excellent people first, and to reformulate the programme thereafter. The group is inspired by trends and challenges in the outside world, but highly estimates its academic freedom. Staff members contribute to directing the evolution of science by membership of boards of a variety of funding foundations. The quality and productivity of the group is outstanding. The relevance to both the advancement on science and to practical applications through STW is very large. The group has 3 spin offs. Some concerns relate to the vitality of the group because of the relatively large number of retirements expected soon.


University Leiden University UL04 Institute Leiden Institute for Physics Director Prof.dr. P.H. Kes Programme Theoretical Physics Programme director Prof.dr. C.W.J. Beenakker Research staff 2002 25,2 fte


Assessment

Vitality & Feasibility 5 Observations & remarks The Theoretical Physics programme aims to cover a broad range from formal to applied topics in theoretical physics, stressing the unity to be found in this diversity. In the general area of condensed matter physics there are internationally renowned activities in the areas of strongly correlated electron physics, pattern formation and flow instabilities in complex fluids, and in mesoscopic physics. The latter activity is developing strongly in the direction of quantum information theory with strong connections to the nanoscience department in Delft. These will be enhanced in the future by their joint FOM concentration grant. The long-standing effort in phenomenological particle physics is moving towards astroparticle physics and cosmology with the recent appointment in this field. This brings clear advantages through the links to astronomy and also complements the programmes in Amsterdam in string theory. The panel judged this to be a high-class programme with an outstanding international reputation well embedded in physics in Leiden and Delft. The panel commends the programme for its outreach programme to bring physics into the high schools and notes the recent rise in number of physics students. The programme is actively searching for a new member in the field of life sciences which should fit in well with the new thrusts in Leiden and Delft. This again demonstrates the vital nature of this broad and very active programme.


3. Answers to questions of the Boards 3.1 General questions submitted by the Board In addition to the questions that form part of the standard Research Evaluation Protocol, the Boards of Universities of Leiden and Delft asked the panel to reflect on the following questions: 1. The Review Committee is requested to reflect on the critical success factors for

improvements in research of both universities and to present recommendations in order of priority

2. The Review Committee is asked to assess (not included in SEP) the training and supervision of the PhD students, the quality of the courses, the effectiveness of the policy concerning PhD’s and the results of the activities.

3. The Review Committee is asked to consider the opportunities and threats with respect to the cooperation between the Faculty of Applied Sciences in Delft and the Faculty of Mathematics & Natural Sciences in Leiden, both in general and specifically for physics. What are the strengths and weaknesses? Should the collaboration be extended? In what direction?

The Review Committee discussed these questions and arrived at the following, tentative answers: Ad 1.) a) In both universities, there is a trend to move towards the US tenure track

system. This includes giving a high degree of independence to junior staff members. This approach seems wise, as it makes the research organization more flexible and less vulnerable to the consequences of the departure or retirement of senior researchers.

b) That being said, important progress in science is usually the work of a few brilliant individuals. For the national and international reputation of a university, such scientists are invaluable. The universities should cherish and protect their top scientists. These scientists should have an important voice in matters concerning the structure and running of the research organization.

c) PhD students do most of the research. It is therefore essential to maintain a steady influx of excellent graduate students. Although the picture is far from complete, the involvement of top scientists in “outreach” programs aimed at high-school students, seems to make a real difference to the influx at the undergraduate level. On an international level, visibility in research itself provides a “beacon” that is likely to attract good students, and postdocs from other countries. It goes without saying that a steady influx of highly skilled students and researchers is also of wider (national) importance.

d) At some stage, a unique historical infrastructure may evolve from an asset to a liability that limits the flexibility of the research organization. The scientists within the research organization should be encouraged to think critically about the future of the research infrastructure. They should be made to feel secure that moves to modernize the infrastructure will be in their own best interest.

e) In contrast to physical infrastructure, well-known names of institutes remain an asset even if they no longer reflect the organizational structure of the departments. These names should remain visible to the outside world.

Ad 2.) All institutes assessed by the panel appear to have clear and workable procedures for planning, assessing and steering the research of PhD students. Moreover, education (courses) is an integral part of the planning. Some programmes focused


on regular courses given at a university (sometimes in collaboration with other universities): this approach seems appropriate in emerging or interdisciplinary fields that attract PhD students who may have had little previous exposure to (parts of) the field. Other programmes made use of the training opportunities offered by summer schools. This would seem more appropriate in research areas that are well represented in the undergraduate curriculum. Ad 3.) From the perspective of physics there is unique synergy and complementarities between the activities in Leiden and Delft. The decisions to initiate joint research programs in Life Sciences and Technology and in Nanoscience are likely to strengthen both partner organizations in research as well as in education. There could be more areas of collaboration (e.g. in multi-scale physics). In general, however, such collaborations may be difficult to initiate if the participating institutes are of very disparate size: the smaller partners may fear that they will be marginalized. In this context, it may be counterproductive split up larger departments into relatively small institutes with a focused mission. Such reorganization carries the risk that it may result in the emergence of sub critical institutes with limited synergy. To maintain the flexibility of the research organization, other forms to concentrate research efforts may be preferable (e.g. centers and joint research schools). These, more flexible structures have the advantage that they can easily cross the boundaries of departments and universities. The panel saw several examples (e.g. in the area of imaging) where such broader collaborative efforts might be fruitful. The panel considers close collaboration between Leiden and Delft in the area of education as a fertile breeding ground for new (bottom up) research collaborations. 3.2 Observations on the assessment process During the interviews with programme leaders the Committee enquired into the time needed to prepare this research assessment, including the preparation of the self-studies. All programme leaders accepted the principle of accountability that underlies the Research Assessment. Most programme leaders invested between 1 and 2 man-weeks in the preparation, but there were exceptions in both directions. Provided that the present assessment will not be followed by others that follow a different protocol, such an investment in time was considered by most to be acceptable. A number of programme leaders found the process of preparing the self-evaluation a useful opportunity to take stock and (re) consider plans for the future. However, equally many felt that they were continually considering future strategies anyway, and that the self-evaluation document simply recorded the outcome of this process. The Committee is of the opinion that, in the first case, the time needed to prepare the self-assessment was well invested. In the second case, the benefit was less, but so was the effort required.


Annex 1 Preliminary Assessment Form The Committee used the following checklists for the assessment of an institute and its research programmes. Filled in checklists are not published but were used as a tool only. 5 = excellent, 4 = very good, 3 = good, 2 = satisfactory, 1 = unsatisfactory. Institute How do you evaluate the institute with respect to 5 4 3 2 1 1.1 Leadership Focus on the decision-making procedures, management style, means of motivation, communication and control and processes of improvement and innovation.

1.2 Strategy and policy Focus on the strategy and mission of the institute in a historical and future context: changes in research subjects and strategies and plans for the short and long term. Also, if applicable, focus on strategy and policy within the wider organizational context of the institute, such as university, research school, national body, etc.

1.3 Recourses, funding & facilities Focus on 1) the financial situation and policy of the institute in terms of funding and expenditure, including the future funding situation and consequences, 2) the (condition of) research facilities and/or substantial capital investments (installations, equipment, computers, library, etc.) with their budget, 3) funding trends and future funding targets. Explanatory note: Direct funding: funds provided directly by the higher authority for research and exploitation. Research funds: funds received in competition from national and international science foundations (NWO, KNAW, ESF). Contracts: funds from third parties for specific research activities, from charities, EU-framework programmes, industry, etc. Other funding: include interest from property, legacies, etc.

1.4 Academic reputation of the institute Focus on the academic reputation of the institute indicated in the following ways: bibliometric analysis of the citations of the scientific results, previous peer reviews, rewards and prizes.

1.5 Societal relevance of the institute Focus on the effects of collaboration and dissemination of research results outside the scientific community (indications: bibliometric analysis, analysis given of the institute’s environment and its appreciation of the institute’s conduct).

1.6 Balance of the strengths and weaknesses of the institute Overall assessment of the institute Remarks & questions


Research Programme How do you evaluate the programme with respect to 5 4 3 2 1 1.1 Leadership Focus on management style, means of motivation, communication and control and processes of improvement and innovation.

1.2 Strategy & policy Focus on the strategy and mission of the research area in a historical and future context: changes in research subjects and strategies and plans for the short and long term. Also, if applicable, focus on strategy and policy within the wider organizational context of the programme, such as training obligations and national affiliations.

1.3 Recourses, funding & facilities Focus on 1) the (condition of) research facilities (installations, equipment, computers, library, etc.) as described, 2) personnel funding trends as described, 3) future funding targets. Explanatory note: Direct funding: funds provided directly by the higher authority for research and exploitation. Research funds: funds received in competition from national and international science foundations (NWO, KNAW, ESF). Contracts: funds from third parties for specific research activities, from charities, EU-framework programmes, industry, etc. Other funding: include interest from property, legacies, etc.

1.7 Academic reputation The evaluation of the academic reputation of the programme will meet the approach taken at the level of the institute as a whole. Focus on previous peer reviews of the programme, rewards and prizes, editorships in academic journals, memberships in scientific boards and other proofs of academic reputation.

1.8 Societal relevance Focus on the effects of collaboration and dissemination of research results

outside the scientific community is evaluated.

1.9 Balance of the strengths and weaknesses Overall


Quality How do you evaluate quality with respect to

5

4

3

2

1

1. originality of the approach and ideas 2. significance of the contribution to the field 3. coherence of the programme 4. publication strategy 5. prominence of the programme director 6. prominence of the other members of the research group 7. quality of scientific publications (scientific impact) 8. quality of other results Overall assessment of quality Productivity Considering the number of staff, how do you evaluate the productivity with respect to

5

4

3

2

1

1. number of Ph.D. theses 2. number of scientific publications 3. number of professional publications 4. other results (if applicable) 5. distribution of published output within the group Overall assessment of productivity Relevance Considering the stated mission of this programme how do you evaluate the relevance of the research with respect to

5

4

3

2

1

1. the advancement of knowledge 2. the dissemination of knowledge 3. the implementation of knowledge Overall assessment of relevance Vitality and feasibility Considering the present status and future developments (if known) of staff and facilities, how do you evaluate the long-term viability of the programme:

5

4

3

2

1

1. in view of the past scientific performance 2. in view of future plans and ideas 3. in view of staff age and mobility Overall assessment of vitality


Annex 2 Description of the main criteria

The main criteria were reviewed in relation to the mission of the institute or group, for instance, if the mission of the institute or group is restricted to national scientific tasks. The criteria were interpreted in the following way. Quality is to be seen as a measure of excellence and excitement. It refers to the eminence of a group’s research activities, its abilities to perform at the highest level and its achievements in the international scientific community. It rests on the proficiency and rigour of research concepts and conduct; it shows in the success of the group at the forefront of scientific development. When an institute provides high quality state of the art facilities to the research community this can be considered as a measure of excellence. Productivity refers to the total output of the group; that is, the variegated ways in which results of research and knowledge development are publicised. The output needs to be reviewed in relation to the input in terms of human resources. Relevance is a criterion that covers both the scientific and the technical and socio-economic impact of the work. Here in particular research choices are assessed in relation to developments in the international scientific community or, in the case of technical and socio-economic impact, in relation to important developments or questions in society at large. Vitality and feasibility This dual criterion refers to the internal and external dynamics of the group in relation to the choices made and the success rate of projects. On the one hand, this criterion measures the flexibility of a group, which appears in its ability to close research lines that have no future and to initiate new venture projects. On the other hand, it measures the capacity of the management to run projects in a professional way. Assessment of policy decisions is at stake, as well as assessment of project management, including cost-benefit analysis.


Annex 3 Description of the five point scale Excellent = 5 Work that is at the forefront internationally, and which most likely will have an important and substantial impact in the field. Institute is considered an international leader. Very good = 4 Work that is internationally competitive and is expected to make a significant contribution; nationally speaking at the forefront in the field. Institute is considered international player, national leader. Good = 3 Work that competitive at the national level and will probably make a valuable contribution in the international field. Institute is considered internationally visible and a national player. Satisfactory = 2 Work that is solid but not exciting, will add to our understanding and is in principle worthy of support. It is considered of less priority than work in the above categories. Institute is nationally visible. Unsatisfactory = 1 Work that is neither solid nor exciting, flawed in the scientific and or technical approach, repetitions of other work, etc. Work not worthy of pursuing.


Annex 4 List of scores per institute/department and per programme

Qua

lity

Prod

uctiv

ity

Rel

evan

ce

Vita

lity

&

feas

ibili

ty

Faculty of Applied Physics Imaging Science & Technology 4 4 4,5 3 TUD01 4 3,5 3,5 3 TUD02 4,5 4 4,5 4 TUD03 5 4 5 5 TUD04 3,5 4 4,5 3,5 Multi-Scale Physics 4 4 4 4 TUD05 4,5 4 4,5 3 TUD06 4 4 4 4,5 Nanoscience 5 5 5 4,5 TUD07 4,5 4,5 4,5 4 TUD08 5 5 5 5 TUD09 4,5 4,5 4,5 4,5 TUD10 5 5 5 5 TUD11 5 5 5 4,5 Interfaculty Reactor Institute

3,5 3,5 3,5 n.a.

TUD12 3 3 2,5 2 TUD13 3,5 4,5 4 4 TUD14 4 3,5 4,5 5 TUD15 3 4 3,5 3,5 TUD16 3 3,5 3,5 2,5 TUD17 3,5 3,5 4,5 5 Leiden Instute for Physics 4,5 4,5 4,5 4,5 UL01 4 5 4 4 UL02 4,5 4,5 4,5 4,5 UL03 4,5 5 4,5 4 UL04 5 5 5 5


Annex 5 Curricula vitae Prof. dr. D. Frenkel is group leader in Computational Physics at the FOM Institute for Atomic and Molecular Physics in Amsterdam, and Professor of Computational Chemistry at the Universities of Amsterdam and Utrecht. He is co-author of one of the most widely read books on Molecular Simulation. Some of the honors he received are: "Physica'' lecturer of the Dutch Physical Society, "Lennard-Jones'' lecturer of the Royal Society of Chemistry (UK). Regents lecturer (University of California at Los Angeles), Bourke lecturer and medalist of the Royal Society of Chemistry (UK), James Franck Institute Distinguished Lecturer, University of Chicago, Eli Burstein Lecturer in Materials Science (University of Pennsylvania). He is recipient of an NWO/SPINOZA-stipend and member of the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences since 1998. Prof. dr. S. Banerjee is Professor (abovescale) in the Department of Chemical Engineering, with a joint appointment in Mechanical Engineering, at Santa Barbara, where he has been since 1980, serving as Department Chair from 1984-89. Previously, he taught at McMaster University in Canada, and UC Berkeley. His research focuses on the fluid dynamics of multiphase and complex fluid systems, including transient and turbulent behavior. Professor Banerjee has received several honors for his work, including the Danckwerts Lecturership of the Institution of Chemical Engineering (UK), the Melville Medal and the Heat transfer Prize of the American Society of Mechanical Engineering, and the Outstanding Achievement Award (Thermal Sciences) of the American Nuclear Society. He was also selected as the Mitsubishi Visiting Professor at the University of Tokyo, the Burgers Visiting Professor in Fluid Dynamics at TU Delft and, currently, the MM Sharma/Dow Distinguished Fellow at the University of Mumbai. Dr. C. Carlile studied neutron and reactor physics at University of Birmingham (PhD, 1972). After a postdoctoral period at the EU Joint research Centre Ispra (Italy), he joined the Neutron Beam Research Unit Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, near Oxford UK. He has worked on many areas concerning spectrometry. In 2001 he became director of the Institute Laue-Langevin, Grenoble, France and is editor in chief of the Journal of Neutron Research. He is member of various Committees, including UK NBRC, IUCr Neutrons, SNS EFAC. Prof. dr. R. Dändliker studied at the ETH Zurich (diploma in physics) and at the University of Berne (Ph.D.). Subsequently he worked at Philips Laboratories, Eindhoven, and at the Brown Boveri Research Center, Baden, Switzerland. His expertise includes applied optics, holography, interferometry, optical fibers and sensors, diffractive optical elements, micro- and nano-optics. Since 1978 he holds a position as professor of applied optics at the University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland, and since 1989 also at the EPFL (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne). He is president of the International Commission for Optics (ICO) and vice-president of the Swiss Academy of Engineering Sciences (SATW). Prof. dr. J.P. Kotthaus is a Professor of Experimental Physics at the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München since 1989 concentrating his research on electronic, electromechanical and optoelectronic properties of semiconductor-based nanostructures. After his Ph.D. at UC Santa Barbara (1972) and his Habilitation at TU München (1977) he held a chair of Applied Physics at U. Hamburg from 1978 until 1989. He is cofounder and spokesman of the interdisciplinary Center for NanoScience (CeNS) at LMU München established in 1998.


Prof. dr. T.M. Rice studied physics at University College Dublin and Cambridge University. After a postdoctoral period at UC San Diego he joined Bell Laboratories and in 1981 took up his present appointment in the Institute of Theoretical Physics of ETH Zurich. He has worked in many areas of condensed matter physics, most recently on unconventional superconductivity. He received the 1998 Hewlett-Packard Prize of the European Physical Society and the John Bardeen Prize. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and a Fellow of the Royal Society. Prof. dr. M.L. Roukes received a BA in Physics and a BA in Chemistry from the University of California, Santa Cruz in 1978, and a PhD in Physics from Cornell University in 1985. He is Professor of Physics, Applied Physics, and Bioengineering (joint appointment with Physics, Mathematics, and Astronomy) at Caltech. His research activities are currently focused upon developing and using nanodevices in the exploration of single-quantum and single-molecule phenomena. Dr. M.P.A. Viegers received his PhD degree in Science from the University of Nimeguen in 1979. He then joined Philips Research Laboratories in Eindhoven, where his research activities included studies of electronic materials. As member of the Philips Research Bureau he managed the portfolio of Components and Materials. Since 1990 he has headed the Analytical and Inorganic Materials Group of the Philips Research Laboratories, and integrated this group with the departments of Molecular Analysis, and Structure Analysis. In 1999 Thijs Viegers became the Strategy Manager of Philips CFT (1200 empl. world-wide). He manages the strategic review process, benchmarking, government contracts, and IPR, and he owns the Advanced Competence Development program. In 2001 he became the head of the department for parts processing. Recently he was appointed Chief Technology Officer for Process Technology of Philips CFT. J.A. Vogel, MSc Following his study electrotechnics at the Technical University Delft and fulfilling his Military Service as a Marine Officer, he started his career at the University of Rotterdam. On an industrial contract he developed a product line for echo-acoustic diagnosis. At the Institute of Applied Physics of TNO (TNO-TPD) he developed new business areas for inspection and diagnosis. As senior division head he was responsible for system innovation and IT development. In 1993 he became Deputy Director of TNO Physics and Electronics Laboratory (TNO-FEL) . In 1998 he became the Director of TNO-FEL, the branch of Defence Research that is responsible for operations research, command and control, intelligent electronics and observation systems. This laboratory employs approximately 520 staff and conducts applied research for the Dutch Ministry of Defence and other organisations.


Annex 6 Programme of site visit

Tuesday October 28th

17.00 h Reception Committee Full Committee, Deans, Member Boards 18.00 h Site visit:

- Focus assessment - Schedule & procedures - Organization site visit - Presentation CWTS-analysis

Full Committee

19.30 h Dinner - exchange observations on preliminary assessments

Full Committee

22.00 h End of 1st session Wednesday October 29th

Leiden Institute for Physics, Department for Imaging Science & Technology, Department for Multiscale Physics

8.30 h Reception by Dean (Saris) and presentation of the Institute (Kes)

Full committee

9.00 h 1. Biological and Molecular Physics (Schmidt)

Frenkel, Banerjee, Viegers, Carlile

9.00 h 2. Quantum Optics and Quantum Informatics (Woerdman)

Daendliker, Kotthaus, Vogel, Rice, Roukes

10.15 h Return from the site visits 10.25 h 3. Condensed Matter Physics (Frenken)

and site visit CM Vogel, Banerjee, Kotthaus, Viegers, Roukes,

10.25 h 4. Theoretical Physics (Beenakker) and site visit TP

Daendliker, Frenkel, Carlile, Rice

11.45 h Return from site visits Exchange of observations (incl. lunch)

Full committee

12.15 h Interview Director institute / Dean faculty (Kes, Saris)

Full committee

13.15 h Exchange of observations Full committee 14.15 h Reception by Dean (Luyben) Full committee 14.45h 5. Acoustic Imaging and Sound Control

(Gisolf) Viegers, Banerjee, Carlile, Kotthaus

14.45 h 6. Charged Particle Optics (Kruit) Vogel, Roukes, Daendliker, Rice, Frenkel 16.00 h 7. Optics (Braat) Viegers, Roukes, Kotthaus, Rice 16.00 h 8. Pattern Recognition (Young/v. Vliet) Vogel, Frenkel, Daendliker, Banerjee,

Carlile 17.15 h Exchange of observations Full committee 17.45 h Interview Director institute / Dean

faculty (Young / Luyben) Full committee

18.45 h Exchange of observations (dinner) Full committee 19.30 h 9. Thermal and Fluid Sciences

(Hanjalic) Vogel, Banerjee, , Daendliker, Kotthaus,

19.30 h 10. Transport Phenomena (v.d. Akker) Viegers, Frenkel, Roukes, Carlile, Rice 20.45 h Interview Director institute / Dean

faculty (v.d. Akker/ Luyben) Full committee

21.45 h Exchange of observations Full committee 22.15 h End of 2nd session l


Thursday October 30th

Interfaculty Reactor Institute, Department for Nanoscience

8.30 h Reception by Director IRI Full committee 8.45 h 9. Neutron scattering and

Mössbauerspectrometry (Kearly) Vogel, Banerjee, Daendliker, Carlile

8.45 h 10. Defects in Materials (v.Veen) Frenkel, Rice, Roukes, Kotthaus 10.00 h 11. Radiation Chemistry (Siebbeles) Daendliker, Carlile, Rice, Roukes 10.00 h 12. Radiation Technology (v. Eijk) Frenkel, Banerjee, Roukes, Kotthaus, Vogel 1115 h 13. Radiochemistry (Kapteijn) Vogel, Roukes, Daendliker, Rice 11.15 h 14. Reactor Physics (v.d. Hagen) Banerjee, Carlile, Kotthaus, Frenkel 12.30 h Exchange of observations (incl. lunch) Full committee 13.00 h Interview Director IRI (Verkooijen) Full committee 14.00 h Exchange of observations Full committee 14.45 h 15. Theoretical Physics (Bauer) Frenkel, Rice, Banerjee, Roukes 14.45 h 16. Centre for High Resolution Electron

Microscopy (Zandbergen) Daendliker, Kotthaus, Carlile, Vogel

16.00 h 17. Nanophysics (Klapwijk) Rice, Banerjee, Kotthaus, Vogel 16.00 h 18. Molecular Biophysics (Dekker) Frenkel, Carlile, Daendliker, Roukes 17.15 h 19. Quantum Transport

(Mooij/Kouwenhoven) Rice, Kotthaus, Daendliker, Roukes

18.30 h Exchange of observations Full committee 19.00 h Interview Director insitute / Dean

faculty (Mooij / Luyben) Full committee

20.00 h Exchange of observations 20.30 h Dinner & discussion Full committee 22.30 h End of 3th session Friday October 31st

8.30 h Meeting of Committee on general observations, preliminary conclusions, recommendations & final report

Full committee

11.30 h Meeting with deans & director IRI Full committee 12.30 h Lunch Full committee + Rectores Magnifici Leiden

/ Delft 13.30 h Meeting of Committee continued Full committee 15.30 h Presentation preliminary conclusions &

observations to joint session of programme leaders, directors, deans, Boards of Universities

Frenkel & members committee

16.30 h End of site visit

research assessment -...

Documents