Lithuania: Research Assessment Exercise Panel T2 ... grupes...Annex 1: Evaluation process of...

Research Infrastructure Assessment

Final report

March, 2016

Contents

Introduction 4

Research Infrastructure Projects Ranking 6

Research Infrastructure Projects Evaluation Reports 8

Research Infrastructure of High Intensity and Wide Wavelength Range Ultrashort Pulse Lasers for

National and International Access (Laser RI) 9

Center for The Computational, Structural and Systems Biology (CossyBio) 16

Common Language Resources and Technology Infrastructure (E-Lingua) 23

Center of Spectroscopic Characterization of Materials and Electronic/Molecular Processes

(SPECTROVERSUM) 28

Human Biological Resource Center (HBRC) 35

Lithuanian Network of Distributed and Parallel Computing and E-services (LitGrid-HPC) 41

European Social Survey in Lithuania (ESS LT) 47

Molėtai Astronomical Observatory (MAO) 51

Center of Semiconductor Technology (PTC) 60

Center of Innovative Chemistry (INOCHEM) 66

Ultrasonic non-destructive testing, measurement and diagnostics (ULTRATEST) 73

Nuclear Research Centre (NRC) 81

Infratructure of national aerobiological scientific research (AEROINFRA) 86

Cluster of Applied Chemistry and Biopharmacy (AChePha) 91

Human well-being and development infrastructure (HUMRE) 98

Lithuanian Data Archive for Social Sciences and Humanities (LiDA) 102

Research Infrastructure of Experimental Animals in Lithuania (RIEA) 106

The creation of GAMMA KNIFE infrastucture (Gama Knife) 110

Plant Genetics and Biotechnology Centre (PlantGene) 118

Open access centre at the Institute of Materials Science of Kaunas University of Technology

(Santaka Valley) ((APC KTUMMI) 122

Environmental Metabolomics Research Infrastructure (INECOM) 127

Heritage and History Research Infrastructure (ARUODAI) 132

Institute of Mechatronics (MECHATRONIKA) 140

Annex 1: Evaluation process of Lithuania research infrastructure projects 146

Introduction

The Panel of international experts covered all major fields of science and came from a number of EU

member states. They were

Prof. Makara Gabor, Institute of Experimental Medicine, Hungary (Panel Chair)

Prof. Mare Ainsaar, University of Tartu, Estonia

Prof. Emeritus, Kristjan Haller, University of Tartu, Estonia

Prof. Esko Kauppinen, Aalto University, Finland

Prof. Juhani Klemola, University of Tampere, Finland

Prof. Vladimir Kren, The Institute of Microbiology, Czech Republic

Prof. Toomas Kübarsepp, Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia

Prof. Taina Pihlajaniemi, Oulu University, Finland

Prof. Yves Petroff, Brazilian Synchrotron Light Laboratory, France

Prof. Mathias Senge, Trinity College Dublin, Germany

Its major task was to rank 23 proposals based on the evidence in the proposals and the results of the

RAE*. In some cases, additional evidence collected during interviews with the proposers’

representatives have contributed details to the final assessment.

The important considerations were: Scientific excellence in the field potentially served by the

proposed RI, as assessed by the Lithuanian Research Assessment Exercise, the scientific excellence

of the proposers, true national importance of the RI and the possible linkage to European systems of

research infrastructure (as represented by ESFRI).

The Panel held evaluative sessions both before and after the short meetings with the representatives

of the proposers and discussed the details shown in the individual evaluations

The interviews personal meetings served for information gathering as well as an opportunity to clarify

some details as well as potential feedback to the proposers.

The Panel reached consensus in all but one of the cases (Gamma Knife), always weighing all the

aspects of the proposed RI.

The resulting ranked list may serve as input for a second round of proposals, for shortlisting those

proposals which can submit all their detailed plans. In order to arrive to a final selection shortlisted

proposers should submit a longer investment plan, survey of potential users, detailed arguments for

the need of the RI and more detailed technical information about their plans.

In the Panel’s view such a short list may include about 50% more proposals than will be funded at

the end of the procedures.

Detailed investment proposals may include plans for technical details, public procurement plans,

detailed plans for organization of the running, financial plans, maintenance costs, running costs,

planning for the prices charged to the outside open access users, detailed plans for recruiting and

selecting users. Cost-benefit analysis data, costs for maintaining the infrastructure beyond the

investment period.

* Research Assessment Exercise, http://www.mosta.lt/lt/mokslines-veiklos-palyginamasis-tyrimas/ataskaitos

http://www.mosta.lt/lt/mokslines-veiklos-palyginamasis-tyrimas/ataskaitos

The “Funding required” column in the tables give those numbers which were supplied by the

proposers. The Panel had no means to evaluate the financial details for lack of supporting documents.

The detailed plans and the necessary public procurement procedures might substantially alter these

sums.

The RI type column gives the Panel’s opinion which in some cases markedly differs from that of the

proposers. Some of the proposals are better described as large research projects than national RI and

in a number of other cases the proposals resembled more as institutional infrastructure requests than

national RI. The Panel also encountered two “dual use” proposals where the proposers failed to

highlight the fact that the infrastructure proposed would be used predominantly for providing medical

(clinical treatment and/or diagnostic) services and where research use is secondary to the clinical

usefulness (Nuclear Research Center and Gamma Knife).

The 5 and 4 scores given by the Panel reflect the opinion that all these RI proposals might be funded

if funds are available. Selection from the proposals scored 4 may involve another round of evaluation

where besides the criteria used for their ranking (Annex 1) also a cost-benefit analysis should help

the decision makers.

Research Infrastructure Projects Ranking

Rank Infrastructure Institutions

Final

Score

EU SF

Funding

required, EUR RI type

1

Research Infrastructure of High Intensity and Wide

Wavelength Range Ultrashort Pulse Lasers for National

and International Access (Laser RI)

VU, FTMC 5 6 038 380

National

research

infrastructure

2 Center for the computational, structural and systems

biology (CossyBio) VU, LSMU 5 5 813 786

National

research

infrastructure

3 Common Language Resources and Technology

Infrastructure – Lithuania (E-Lingua) VDU 4 867 698

National

research

infrastructure

4 Center of Spectroscopic Characterization of Materials and

Electronic/Molecular Processes (SPECTROVERSUM) VU 4 4 400 000

National

research

infrastructure

5 Human Biological Resource Center (HBRC)

VU,

LSMU,

NVI, IMC,

VU,

Santariškės

Clinics,

Kaunas

Clinics

4 8 130 017

National

research

infrastructure

6 Lithuanian Network of Distributed and Parallel

Computing and E-services (LitGrid-HPC) VU 4 7 612 500

National

research

infrastructure

7 European Social Survey in Lithuania (ESS LT) KTU 4 470 575

National

research

infrastructure

8 Molėtai Astronomical Observatory (MAO) VU, FTMC 4 2 953 720

National

research

infrastructure

9 Center of Semiconductor Technology (PTC) VU, FTMC 4 6 806 000

National

research

infrastructure

10 Center of Innovative Chemistry (INOCHEM) FTMC, VU 4 6 020 000 Institutional

infrastructure

11 Ultrasonic non-destructive testing, measurement and

diagnostics (ULTRATEST) KTU 3 4 900 000

Institutional

infrastructure

12 Nuclear Research Centre (NRC)

LSMU,

KTU,

Kaunas

Clinics

3 15 500 000

National

research

infrastructure

13 Infrastructure of national aerobiological scientific research

(AEROINFRA)

ŠU, VU,

LAMMC 3 3 701 681

Research

project

14 Cluster of Applied Chemistry and Biopharmacy

(AChePha)

KTU,

LSMU,

VDU,

ASU, KU,

LEI

3 3 891 600 Institutional

infrastructure

15 Human well-being and development (HUMRE) VU 3 2 247 722

National

research

infrastructure

16 Lithuanian Data Archive for Social Sciences and

Humanities (LiDA) VDU 3 937 227

National

research

infrastructure

17 Research infrastructure of experimental animals in

Lithuania (RIEA)

IMC,

LSMU 2 6 100 000

Institutional

infrastructure

18 The creation of GAMMA KNIFE infrastructure (Gama

Knife) LSMU 2 7 100 000

Institutional

infrastructure

19 Plant Genetics and Biotechnology Centre (PlantGene) LAMMC 2 2 900 000 Research

project

20

Open access centre at the Institute of Materials Science of

Kaunas University of Technology (Santaka Valley)

((APC KTUMMI)

KTU 2 1 800 966 Institutional

infrastructure

21 Environmental Metabolomics Research Infrastructure

(INECOM) GTC 2 580 000

Research

project

22 Heritage and History Research Infrastructure

(ARUODAI) VU 2 1 163 600

National

research

infrastructure

23 Institute of Mechatronics (MECHATRONIKA) KTU 1 1 949 600 Institutional

infrastructure

Total: 101 885 072

Abbreviations:

ASU – Aleksandras Stulginskis University

FTMC – Center for Physical Sciences and Technology

GTC – Nature Research Center

IMC – Center for Innovative Medicine

KTU – Kaunas University of Technology

KU – Klaipėda University

LAMMC – Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry

LEI – Lithuanian Energy Institute

LSMU – Lihtuanian University of Health Sciences

NVI – National Cancer Institute

VDU – Vytautas Magnus University

VU – Vilnius University

Research Infrastructure Projects Evaluation Reports

Research Infrastructure of High Intensity and Wide Wavelength Range

Ultrashort Pulse Lasers for National and International Access (Laser RI)

1. Does the proposed RI provide resources for high level of research comparable on

international area?

This RI is proposed by 3 Institutions:

VU-Department of Quantum Electronics & Laser Research Center (DQE&LRC)

Center for Physical Sciences and Technology-Department of Laser Technologies (FTMC-DLT)

Center for Physical Sciences and Technology-Department of Molecular Compound Physics

(FTMC-DMCP)

DQE&LRC carries out teaching and research in different fields of laser science: laser physics, extreme

power (TW) laser sources, advanced nonlinear optics, laser spectroscopy, biophotonics, laser 3D

micro/nanostructuring, laser 3D femtosecond micromachining, THz and ultrafast spectrometry, optics

characterization and laser damage testing.

The DLT objectives are: fundamental research of light interaction with materials, development of

laser, photonic, and optoelectronic technologies and implementing them in the fields of laser and

optoelectronics industry (in fact, the DLT was established in 2004 as an application laboratory of the

EKSPLA laser company, located next to the Department). It is using MBE technology for the research

and fabrication of various electronic and optoelectronic devices: IR lasers, light emitting diodes,

photodetectors, terahertz emitters activated by long wavelength fs lasers, detectors and bismide based

optoelectronic devices.

The Department of Molecular Compound Physics is specialized in ultra-fast spectroscopy of organic

systems: it is a smaller department than the two previous with a strong emphasis on basic science and

it is characterized by the high quality of the science produced and strong collaborations with very good

groups from Germany, Sweden, Ukraine, Japan using the DMCP facilities.

These 3 Laboratories were examined in the 2015 Lithuanian Research Assessment Exercise by the Physical

Sciences Panel and they received the highest grades (4/5) among the 19 units examined; this was due to the

quality of the science produced, the capacity to be strongly involved in European projects, the strong

interaction with industry, creation of spin-off companies, the capacity to train a large number of very good

students.

The 3 Departments have very modern equipment and the personnel to run the new RI.

Taking into account the financial resources of the country, the total amount of the budget is adequate for

continuing and developing internationally competitive research. The wish-list of equipment is

contemporaneous and necessary in order to be internationally competitive, with no excessive overlap of

requirements between well specialized partners. Equipment endeavored is in full correspondence with the

high quality of staff and research plans of the units. Nevertheless, some narrower specialization in research

topics and technologies (used or developed) would enable even more effective use of the existing high

research potential. The first principle to follow is more in-depth than in-width. This would also contribute

to involvement of more international staff and cooperation in order to occupy top quality and unique

research niches worldwide.

On the bases of data obtained it is difficult to make comments about salary budget. But this amount of

resources allows competitive hiring of less than ten FTE technicians and researches to run the RI. This

number of employees is hard to compare with the data presented in table 10.6 of the proposal. The human

factor and salaries may become an unfortunate bottleneck in the open international competition. The per

capita financing is currently still below that of the competitors. This highlights the need for narrower

2. How the proposed RI strengthens international competiveness of Lithuania in a relevant

field(s) of research?

As we have seen already the quality of the science produced in Lithuania in the field of lasers is recognized

by the International Scientific Community:

In 2013, FTMC was asked to coordinate and integrate the large F 7 project ‘’APPOLO’’

(2013/2017) worth 11 million € with 36 partners from 9 countries

In 2004 DQE&LRC became a full member of the integrated European laboratory “LASERLAB-

EUROPE” 1(2004/2008) providing international access and then “LASERLAB-EUROPE2”

(2008/2011) and “LASERLAB-EUROPE3” (2012/2015.)

The creation of the Laser RI will allow to go one step further:

It is very important for the Smart specialization priority, benefitting to photonics and laser

technologies

It will give opportunities to users from new fields

It will allow more cooperation with foreign laboratories (already numerous)

It will increase the capacity of the high-power fs laser NAGLIS

It will allow to integrate “LASERLAB-EUROPE4”

And the most important, it should allow the participation in the ESFRI RI “ELI” consortium: ELI

is a new Research Infrastructure of pan-European interest and part of the European ESFRI

Roadmap (Terawatts lasers in Hungary, Romania and Czech Republic, in operation in 2018)

The proposed RI strengthens international competitiveness via 1) possibilities to use more up to date

equipment in very technological fields thereby increasing competitiveness on the grant market and having

a better capacity for establishing contracts with industry, 2) being more attractive for high quality research

and industry partners, as well as increasing quality and feasibility rankings, 3) using the apparatus park

and research competence more effectively and in an interdisciplinary fashion, 4) increasing motivation of

talented students in and outside of the country to get involved, 5) improving motivation and abilities to

create and develop already existing high added-value SME of the country, 6) real implementation of smart

specialization of the country.

focusing as well. I would therefore recommend to find some additional salary money from the other

positions in the budget.

Talking about the human resources, there are many very good and some excellent researchers and their

groups working in the units involved in the RI.

Working in the priority research field of the nation, the Laser RI is equipped with very good to excellent

research facilities.

3. Does the proposed RI correspond to what can be defined as „RI of broad national interest“?

Please explain.

Until now the main focus has been the development of the laser field (very important for basic science and

applications in Lithuania). The new RI should allow:

To attract new users in many fields: chemists, biologists, medical scientists, geologists, nature

scientists, materials engineers.

To train high-technology specialists.

The services provided by the RI (fs laser microfabrication, ps laser microfabrication, measurements of the

laser-induced damage threshold of optical elements, fs multi-pulse absorption spectroscopy, ultrashort laser

interaction with matter, design and production of specific optical coatings, nonlinear optical processes and

generation of THz radiation with ultrashort pulses, testing of products with ultrashort pulse laser sources,

investigation of ultrashort pulses by nonlinear methods, laser nanophotonics research and services for

production of 3D micro and nanostructures) will broaden the number of users.

The proposed RI is in very good compliance with the determined national interests as several national

R&D strategic aims directly point out laser, photonic and material (functional, structural and composite

materials, coatings) science and technologies. Those are at the same time the flag topics of the research

groups involved as well as of the nation as a whole. The proposal is also compatible with the priorities in

the energy and sustainable environment area, as well as in the health and biotechnology areas. This RI is

developed also within the Lithuanian “Integrated Science, Study and business Valley” project.

4. Does the research performance of the applicants presenting the proposal justifies further

development of proposed RI? Please explain.

This has already been discussed in the first paragraph. However, one can add that the proposal is very

important for the Lithuanian industry. In the period 2010/2015 more than 70 projects (1.0599 M€) have

been done with companies for FTMC and 50 for DQE&LRC. 5 spin-off companies have been created. It is

not surprising that the Lithuanian Laser Association (which includes 23 companies) is strongly supporting

the LASER RI. Lithuanian laser companies (EKSPLA and Light Conversion) were provided with

knowledge on high power sub-10 fs OPCPA systems for development of 4 terawatt power laser at the ELI

infrastructure in Hungary. A consortium made of EKSPLA and National Energetics (USA) have won a

contract for the construction a 10 Pwatts laser for ELI in the Czech Republic and EKSPLA is participating

in the construction of the SYLOS laser system (4 Twatts) at the Hungarian ELI center (Szeged) for 4 M€.

This equipment is based on optical parametric amplification, not on the conventional laser amplification

method. It is worth noting that the researchers of Vilnius University are worldwide recognized in the field

of optical parametric processes for many decades. The current signed contract is the very first made between

a genuine consortium from a new EU Member State and the ELI facilities.

Yes, it definitely does!

Both the institutions and scientists involved are top ranked in the nation. The institutions that proposed the

RI proposal passed the 2014/2015 research assessment exercise with very high or even the highest scores

in the country. The age picture of the research group shows very good perspectives for development. At

the same time more graduate students, especially foreign ones, should be involved. The research topics

and technologies are contemporary and competitive. They present a major interest to the high-tech

industry and have wide application perspectives. It is really impressive how many high-tech spin-off

companies have already been created. There is a great chance to continue with this process. As a result,

this is one of the flag fields of research of the country, well known abroad as well.

5. Is the proposed RI technically, financially and organizationally feasible?

1. Technically: the 3 labs have been already very successful in running large projects like

LASERLAB-EUROPE and APPOLO

2. Financially: the proposed budget is quite reasonable. There is a good balance between equipment

(2325 k€), consumables (685), maintenance (470), member fee for ELI (1000), indirect costs (239)

and salaries (1320).

3. Organizationally: the personnel employed in the RI operations (2010-2015) was 52 (29 with a

PHD). This is quite correct. In addition, the RI is accustomed to run open-access facilities like VU

(NAGLIS OAC) and FTMC (Baltab OAC).

a) Technically: Yes, as it stands on an already well operating system and the research units are

operating with excellent and contemporary apparatus park. The experienced staff makes it possible

to successfully operate and upgrade of any kind of equipment of the field. The contemporary

facilities allow meeting technical requirements for operation of sophisticated equipment.

b) Financially: Prices of the equipment wanted are realistic. There is no evident overlap in the

equipment between different research groups. Without at least a bit narrower specialization,

including the apparatus park and the increase of per person financing it might be complicated to

achieve all goals planned in the big perspective.

c) Organizationally: The management structure is clear, reliable, flexible and of reasonable size.

There was not too much data available about the procedures how to determine equipment for the

open access use and its volume, price policy, operators who carry out service etc. But these

“minor” aspects are quite crucial for the offering an objective measure. They allow covering wider

interests than always typically exist for the owner of the equipment. This also allows developing

new projects and research directions.

6. Are the human resources adequate to ensure high quality research and efficient use of

proposed RI?

During the period 2010/2015 52 people (29 with a PHD) have been involved in the operation of RI: this

looks quite reasonable

There are many internationally recognized and some excellent researches involved. The younger staff

shows remarkable commitment and qualification and they are intensively involved in R&D. But there is

always a way to improve the situation. Taking into account very high research standards of the groups and

cutting edge technologies used or developed, much more leading foreign scientists and foreign (graduate)

students would be essential to involve. Without much higher internationalization level it is hard to reach

the topmost international market either academically or on the financial/industry contract basis. This is

especially crucial for a small country with limited financial and economic resources. The output of

industry-oriented activities needs to be international.

One of the lead researchers (Vidmantas Gulbinas) has been simultaneously shown as lead researcher of the

Laser RI project. He is a co-author of one of the top 10 papers in both projects.

7. Does the proposed RI contribute to achieving the Smart Specialization and other national

research and innovation goals?

Yes, it is compatible with:

New production processes, materials and technologies: photonics and laser technologies, functional

materials and coatings,

Health technologies and biotechnologies

Yes, it does that very well. This has been described in chapter 3.

8. Is the proposed RI organized in the way to be able to provide open access and/or services for

scientific community of the country and international researchers?

The organizational Laser RI structure seems to be good: The main applied open-access rules are the same

as those currently accepted and used in Open -Access Centers (OAC) of VU (Naglis OAC) and FTMC

(BaltFab AOC) as departments of VU and FTMC, involved in Laser RI, already provide open access to their

equipment.

It will be a networked RI with unified leadership

Both sites where RI departments will be located will have equal status,

Both RI departments, belonging to VU and FTMC, will maintain their institutional dependence.

However, they will act as one centralized RI, coordinating actions of additional networked

departments when national access is provided,

The principal Laser RI ruling organ will be the Member Assembly consisting of three VU and three

FTMC representatives, among whom will be the heads of the participating VU and FTMC

departments, and one representative of the Lithuanian Laser Association.

The chair of the Member Assembly is elected from among the VU and FTMC representatives by the

rotation principle for a one-year term,

The deputy chair is a representative of different institution in compare with institution of chair and he

will hold the chair for the following year,

Decisions on the main issues are passed according to the consensuses principle

Every department has its own project selection committee consisting of leading specialists from the

department,

The Member Assembly organizes annual user conferences where potential Laser RI users are invited

and introduced to RI opportunities.

Special structures, open access centers have been called into existence to assure open access use of

resources. Great attention has been paid to this part of the RI project. Several academic and industry

partners have already been involved and it is planned to remarkably widen this list. As mentioned above,

there were no sufficient data available about the procedures on how to determine the open access

equipment and volume, price policy, operators who carry out the service etc. The more intensive the use of

equipment, the more useful and productive it is this for the equipment owner. For example, the issue of a)

professional operators for standardized analysis, and b) their work regulation aspects to maximize the

efficiency and productivity of the use of expensive equipment arise here. It also allows covering wider

interests than are always typical for the “direct” owner of the equipment. It allows developing new

projects and research directions as well. These and similar aspects would be useful to become available in

order to answer this question in more details.

9. Is the expected socio-economic impact realistic?

Obviously. Due to the links with EKSPLA, the collaboration with industry is in the “genes” of these

Departments (see item 4)

All socio-economic impact aspects described in the proposal are important, adequate, and realistic. They

are quite typical of the high-tech related developments and especially important for the country that wants

many highly experienced young countrymen and –women to come back to the homeland.

10. Will the opportunities for international cooperation be strengthened?

Obviously. See item 2.

Yes, they definitely will. All groups of researchers involved already have intensive international

cooperation, even with the industry partners from the well-developed countries which is not very common

in the region yet. As we all know, it would be useful to have long-lasting and capacious projects with

them. Some aspects already described above – higher internationalization rate of the staff, a little narrower

priorities, higher per capita financing etc. - will help to achieve quicker development here. It is crucial to

orient more to the international industry in order to feed R&D productivity and increase the financing

capabilities over the rate determined by local possibilities.

11. Is the RI project compatible with EU research infrastructure policy? Does the

existing/proposed involvement in European research infrastructure organizations and

networks is realistic?

Yes, the Laser RI project is compatible with European research infrastructure policy. The success in FP7

APPOLO and LASERLAB (1, 2, 3)-EUROPE shows clearly the capacity of these Departments to handle

this kind of projects. One can be very optimistic for LASELAB-EUROPE4 and joining the ELI Consortium.

This RI project is very well compatible with the EU research infrastructure policy. This statement is well

supported by the impressive list of EU projects such as FW programs (being even the coordinator of a

very large FP7 project “APOLLO” with large foreign companies and SMEs, the situation which is unique

for the region), different European RI structure “LASERLAB-EUROPE” projects, ESFRI RI “ELI”

consortium and others. On the basis of what has been done, the quality and capability parameters, there is

no doubt that the existing and proposed involvements in the EU RI organizations are realistic and will be

well operated.

12. Evaluation score – 5.

The RI is producing excellent basic and applied research, at the international level. It has very strong

coupling with companies and it is very important for the laser and optics industry in Lithuania. The RI is

highly relevant for the Lithuanian research environment and inevitable for the accomplishment of national

research and innovation priorities and for the competitiveness of Lithuanian research.

It is probably one of the top RI projects of the country because of its quality, impact and coherency with

the industry needs of Lithuania and the EU. This is why the evaluation score is 5. The RI shows really

high quality and research potential but does not reach the very top standards of international excellence

(relatively small amount of papers in journals with high IF in comparison with a relatively large number of

papers published in lower IF and local journals; papers in very top IF journals are practically missing);

The RI is highly relevant for the Lithuanian research environment being one of the well-known and flag

research structures of the nation. It substantially contributes to the competitiveness of the Lithuanian

research. It is crucial for accomplishment of national research and innovation priorities.

13. Recommendations for RI

1) A bit narrower setting of priorities for research enabling higher concentration of efforts and

increasing per capita financing; more in-depth than in-width;

2) To raise the level of internationalization both among the research staff and graduate students;

3) Not to “crumble” with projects, i.e. to prefer larger and longer lasting projects to the small ones in

different subfields;

4) To increase the number and share of papers in top ranked international journals;

5) More precisely determine the open access policy and rules for intensive run of equipment to better

reimburse the price and running cost of the equipment; it is an important aspect for the

sustainability of the financing as well.

14. Any additional comments

In order to not “crumble” the resources and to follow smart specialization, it would be useful to initiate

larger national grants.

Center for The Computational, Structural and Systems Biology

(CossyBio)



The RI mirrors similar RIs existing in the ESFRI Roadmap, which has been built to reflect the RI needs of

high-level research. In biosciences and medicine much of the RI needed is distributed in nature, meaning

that each country needs their own counterparts to the European RI. Moreover, research in biosciences and

medicine require a broad spectrum of approaches, and hence the CossyBio RI makes an excellent

contribution by pooling together several approaches to serve the needs of modern life sciences.

The proposed RI is existing and here its upgrading is proposed.

RI proposed aims at meeting growing demands for advanced infrastructure for both basic and applied

research. The proposed Center will address 3 large domains: computational biology, structural biology and

system biology. Due to fast penetration of key enabling technologies the experimental and computational

(theoretical) tools in these fields experienced significant advancement over the last decades. The field of

research (of this RI) is utmost important basically for all relevant fields of biology – it has thus a

translational dimension.


international area?

The proposed RI provides molecular level understanding to basic and medically relevant biological

processes. The molecular and cellular knowledge of disease processes is a prerequisite for developing

diagnostic and therapeutic measures. The RI responds to critical needs in biology and medicine, and lack of

these resources will surely compromise the potential of Lithuanian scientists to contribute internationally in

the relevant fields. The distinct components of the proposed RI, structural biology, systems biology and

computational biology, are highly interrelated and form a comprehensive, internationally relevant RI.

The bioscience-related fields contribute a high share of the country´s scientific publications and the two host

universities play here a significant part.

Yes, the proposed RI provides resources for high level of research comparable on international area. The

infrastructure proposed together with the existing infrastructure should bring the resulting RI among top EU

centers and it should thus become a high standard regional center (of excellence).


Please explain.

The proposed RI is a well-balanced and logical collection of high-end, demanding RIs that are in the core

of molecular, cellular and systemic studies of biological processes and disease mechanisms. Without this

type of services, it is hard to see how a country can make significant contributions to understanding diseases

and developing therapies. The RI is certainly of broad national interest if medically oriented research and

applications is part of the country´s research agenda.

The number of internal users is listed as 60, other national users as about 45 (expected to double), and

international users were 6. These are respectable numbers for this type of RI.

Computational Biology Center will provide high performance computing as well as large data handling

services for computational and structural molecular biology, including genomics and proteomics. At least

three categories of users will benefit: 1) bioinformaticians, who require computational resources, 2) users

of bioinformatics methods, and 3) trainees in bioinformatics. In addition, the Center will be used for

training and educating (or assisting) “wet” lab researchers on the use of the current biological data

resources data handling methodologies and software. Therefore, the RI proposed can be defined as RI of

broad national interest.



The coordinator, Prof. Siksnys has published an impressive number of scientific publications, over 30

since last five years, the publication venues being excellent and including such high-ranking series as

PNAS and EMBO J. The research includes internationally very topical work on the newly-identified

CRISPR-Cas genome editing system. The research clearly takes use of the proposed RI in an impressive

manner.

The other listed lead researchers work on lipid membrane properties, cardiac and neuro sciences, and

molecular interactions e.g. in replication. All provide a very good publication track record from the

international perspective.

The lead researchers convincingly represent the different angles of the RI setup in terms of expertise and

use.

The leading scientists publish in the top journals from the area; most of the selected publications are in the

Q1, many of them in the first decil. This and other results put the core scientific staff of the RI in first

league of the research in this field.


a) Technically:

The RI is divided between the Joint Life Science Center at the Vilnius University and the Neuroscience

Institute at the LSMU. The facilities already exist and provide expert help and equipped service platforms.

Computing power and data storage as well as expertise in bioinformatics are rapidly growing needs in life

science research. The proposed upgrade in supercomputing should help in serving such growing needs.

In the structural biology part there is a plan to augment protein crystallization with an automated system,

upgrade the X-ray diffraction facility, including a SAXS for proteins in solution, and install cryo electron

microscopy allowing visualization of molecular complexes and cellular details. The proposed new

equipment are well justified.

The third part consists of genomic, imaging and proteomics services. Here especially the imaging is

planned to be upgraded. Imaging is under fast development, including live cell and organ culture imaging,

use of atomic force imaging of molecular interactions, and super-resolution imaging (developments in the

latter being recognized by recent Nobel prizes). These approaches are highly relevant in understanding

cellular function and dynamic events in molecular interactions.

The proposed equipment represents further development of existing facilities and services, and are

therefore anchored in organizationally feasible settings.

b) Financially:

The proposed equipment costs are well within the line of such needs.

c) Organizationally:

The RI has a common management board and a director, supported by administration, finance and

communication and marketing. The 3 parts of the RI represent each a center with their specific user

support groups. Each will also include a project selection group. The fact that the leadership and SAB are

joint for the 3 parts is important in securing a united approach in running and developing the facilities.

The RI presents a merit-based open access policy, which applies to internal and external users.

Access seems to be well planned, and user cost strategies are outlined.

Some details of the organization warrant further clarification such as how the various boards and groups

are selected, what types of costs are included in access models 2 and 3, and is it viable/possible to offer

services at same cost to private and public customers.

a) Technically:

Technically the proposal will pose great demands onto logistic, infrastructure placement and preparation

of the premises. Some instruments, such as High speed scanning atomic force microscope and other will

require very special adjustments of the buildings to be used. All this may bring substantial supplementary

costs that must be taken in account.

b) Financially:

This is very demanding proposal, but all investments are well substantiated and well explained. Extra costs

for installation and start up will have to be carefully monitored.


Organization is well described both in terms of performance and also in terms of availability of the

qualified and well trained staff that will be absolutely essential to get maximum from very expensive

machinery.


proposed RI?

The personnel directly involved in the RI operation is about 15, which does not seem high considering the

spectrum of expertise and services involved. Although not high number of personnel, their expertise and

division of tasks may be such that the amount is sufficient.

It would be good to know how the total personnel is distributed among the 3 centers.

It is not entirely clear how this personnel is financially covered and whether there are increases in this

compared to current numbers.

Yes, it is obvious that the team has senior leading persons at the European level (of research) that is clearly

demonstrated by their results and achievements. Train staff for the operation of some special instrumentation

is already available but it is obvious that more training, secondments and interactions with other institutions

abroad will be essential. Also recruitment of foreign, highly qualified researchers to operate some of the

sophisticated instruments will be important – these people must be offered competitive salary – this must be

taken in account in the budget.



As part of the national “Valley” program several units were merged into the Joint Life Science Center,

including a new building. The web pages do not yet give information on 2015. However, a new building

for this joint activity was expected to be completed in 2015.

CossyBio is in the national 2011 research RI roadmap, and thus the renewal and upgrades can be

evaluated against goals set earlier for their RI.

The proposed RI contribute to achieving the Smart Specialization and other national research and innovation

goals – namely to Health technologies and biotechnology - Molecular technologies for medicine and

biopharmaceutics and also partly to Agro-innovation and food technologies.



The national service portal contains the services and their prizes.

Are there access routes also though the RI itself?

This is hard to assess with respect to international researchers’ perspective.

The governance model should ensure financial and technical sustainability of the infrastructure; strengthen

expertise, especially in the field of instrumental data analysis, and the competitive edge of the Center. The

system is designed according to analogous centers in EU, is well organized and is credibly designed.

Internal auditor is an advantage. System of three types of the access levels has been designed and this

should ensure optimal exploitation of the infrastructure. Overall the governance model of the open access

is realistic, fair and well established.


Life sciences and the proposed RI is expected to result in socio-economic impact through economic

bioscience-related industry, human resource capacity, innovation, increase of high quality research, and by

fostering cooperation of regional centers (Vilnius and Kaunas).

The descriptions on the above aspects are well taken and realistic.

Several companies are apparently involved in the Joint Life Science Center, which strengthens the RI

proposal.

The infrastructure will bring together young talented scientists to create a research community that uses

new technologies to address important biomedical issues. It will also provide an excellent training ground

for the next generation of biomedical research scientists by offering, with local universities, joint graduate

programs leading to the BSc and MSc degrees. Number of scientists in population should increase. There

is a clear impact on innovation, on the scientific activity and also broader impact on society- joint

infrastructure project will bring scientists and researchers from Vilnius and Kaunas institutions together,

which should contribute to more harmonious and sustainable development of Lithuania’s regions.


There are in place good collaborations with other Baltic countries, Estonia, Latvia, Finland and Sweden.

Lithuania become a member of EMBC/EMBL in 2015, and negotiations to join ESS ERIC are being

pursued.

The RI is in cooperation with the ESFRI structural biology RI Instruct, and currently Lithuania, Latvia,

Estonia and Finland are negotiating on becoming ESFRI Instruct members, which certainly would be very

important for structural biology development in all of these countries.

In Biocomputing similar ESFRI links are pursued with respect to ELIXIR.

These plans and contacts appear very good and should the international links be formally established; it

would provide much enhanced possibilities for keeping the Lithuanian RI at international level plus bring

it more visible to international playground.

It is not clear from the application if linking imaging to the European RI system are under way.

Structural Biology Center at Vilnius University was a driving force behind a successful BioStruct-X

application enabling an access to the established a state‐of‐the‐art infrastructure for structural biology

including synchrotrons. Structural Biology Center in Lithuania coordinated BioStruct-X application with

partner institutions in Latvia and Estonia and was a leading applicant. Computational Biology Center and

Structural Biology Center will potentially serve as a national “nodes” within the proposed pan European

bioinformatics infrastructure (ELIXIR) and structural biology infrastructure (INSTRUCT). Overall the

opportunities for international cooperation will be strengthened.




Already for several years the links to European RIs have been in discussion and good international

consortia have been established, especially involving the broader range of Baltic states, for establishing

more formal involvement. The membership in EMBC/EMBL is a big step forward in the country´s

involvement in European life sciences.

The RI includes in its leading PIs Lithuania´s representation in the ESFRI process, which should support

good understanding of the European policies.

The CossyBio RI is an already functional RI, in the roadmap since 2011, and it clearly has supported high-

level research. The international links are very good and the plans realistic.

Yes, the RI project is completely compatible and it should definitely increase the chance of integration of

the scientific activities in the EU research space.


This is a highly relevant and professionally organized RI. The track record is excellent in terms of scientific

output, student training and support to companies. The RI will help to advance Lithuania´s international

roles with the strengthened formal involvement in relevant European operations.

The RI is of excellent quality compared to leading actors worldwide with respect to originality,

importance, quality and impact on the user community. The RI is highly relevant for the Lithuanian

research environment and inevitable for the accomplishment of national research and innovation priorities

and for the competitiveness of Lithuanian research. The infrastructure is well conceived, the staff is well

prepared and of good level, governance is well prepared. Overall the contribution to the competitiveness

of LT science and economy should be high. It will be a good value for money.


Building the services to the Lithuanian user base is of prime importance. Building the European links with

corresponding infrastructures is especially relevant in bio and medical sciences on account of the

distributed nature of the RIs in these fields. Attention should be paid to web pages and access policies,

including efficient recruitment of external users. Well-functioning joint management is essential in an RI

with separate centers located in two sites. It is important to build the different centers with joint policies.

I do not see any NMR facility in both previous acquisitions neither in the present one. This issue must be

properly addressed on the national level. For decent protein studies you need minimum 600 MHz machine.


This is an instrument-heavy RI and it also needs the dedicated and skilled personnel. Pooling the

equipment needs into joint, open access centers makes a viable operational model in providing these

expensive services to a large user base. The international developments in equipment and approaches is

fast, and care should be taken to develop the country´s research platform at pace with international

developments.

Common Language Resources and Technology Infrastructure (E-

Lingua)



E-Lingua CLARIN-LT is very important for the future development of Lithuanian Language Technology

research, including data and information mining, analysis of big data collections and automatic speech

recognition and transcription. Lithuania’s membership in the ESFRI CLARIN ERIC, coordinated by the E-

Lingua national consortium, ensures the international recognition of the work conducted in the Lithuanian

RI.

3. Does the proposed RI correspond to what can be defined as „RI of broad national

interest“? Please explain.

Yes. E-Lingua CLARIN LT provides tools and resources for Lithuanian Language Technology research.

The role of Language Technology is central for the development of data and information mining and big

data research in the humanities and social sciences. The automatic speech recognition and speech

transcription tools for Lithuanian language included in the agenda of the RI will also be of interest for a

wide range of private and public sector operators.

The long term benefits of a project can be essential. Due to the small market size, Lithuanian is not a

commercial language and there is a lack of interest to invest into language technologies from Lithuanian and

foreign companies. International CLARIN project result is broadly used by scholars of many disciplines, for

instance literature studies, history, political science, linguistics, sociology, psychology, computational

linguistics, philosophy, ethnology, etc.


international area?

Yes. The proposed RI provides resources that are sufficient for high level research comparable to the

international standards in the field.

E-Lingua is a part of an international consortium CLARIN-LT is closely related to its ESFRI ERIC CLARIN

and based on the national consortium. As such it should be supported and promoted. The data provide

resources for high level research, but do not guarantee it.

By integrating existing and new valuable language resources into the CLARIN infrastructure, CLARIN

provides easy access to language resources and expertise. Most of CLARIN's work and CLARIN's services,

are located at the many CLARIN centers across and even outside Europe. Each CLARIN center is a gateway

not only to local resources and technology, but also to the resources and technology in the whole European

CLARIN network.



Yes.

A number of the lead researchers behind the proposal have good track records in their respective fields of

research. At the same time, it must be emphasized that continuous efforts to increase publication through

high impact international publication channels are vital for the further development of the RI.

The research results of a project have not been very impressive so far (the lists of publications). It might be

result of different factors (lack of time) which need further investigation.


1. Technically:

Yes. The modular structure of the existing and proposed RI should ensure that the future developments will

be compatible with the existing technical base. Investment will have to be made in technical equipment in

the near future, though, as the planned projects of the proposed RI require considerable computing power.

The “big data” approach needs to be clarified and more precise data storage pools secured.

2. Financially:

Yes. The proposed budget for the RI is realistic and would enable to run the proposed RI.

3. Organizationally:

Yes. The three universities (VMU, KTU, and VU) forming the CLARIN_LT consortium form an existing

and well-functioning organization within the proposed RI.


proposed RI?

Yes.

The project asks more resources for academic personnel. This issue must be critically discussed.14 persons

have been involved so far in the work of a project. The project asks finances for 32 (part time?) persons, while

in the application 10-15 persons are counted as optimal for RI operations. The rest of stuff seems to be planned

for research activities. The previous scientific results are not at the highest level (amount at the highest level

is limited). At the same time the previous international submissions of data seem to be on the good level

(amount).



Yes.

E-Lingua will contribute to the Transport, logistic and information and communication technologies Priority

Area of the Smart Specialization programme through developing new technologies and products etc. It will

also contribute to the “Digital Agenda for Lithuania 2014-2020” in the fields of data and information mining

and analysis of Big Data, etc. and to “Promotion of Information Society 2014-2020” by developing

interactive e-services and through preservation of Lithuanian cultural heritage in digital form.

Yes.

1. New technologies and products are developed and introduced into the market,

2. Promotion of knowledge-rich business,

3. Promotion of clusterization and integration into international value networks, and investment into R&D

and innovations,

4. Promotion of cooperation between public and private sectors, transference of knowledge with the aim to

commercialize R&D results.

Services:

1. Data and information mining, and semantic search, and analysis in big data collections, while

performed by voice commands or keyboard,

2. Automatic speech transcriptions systems (still non-existing for the Lithuanian language). The

demand has been expressed by representatives of both private and public sectors,

3. Innovative solutions in the health sector.

Activities are also related to:

Development of public e-services that are user-oriented, user-friendly and interactive,

development of interactive e-health services;

preservation of Lithuanian cultural heritage in digital form;

development of services to business and public sector for accomplishing administrational procedures.



Yes.

All CLARIN-LT tools, services and resources are open access and free of charge, either for general public

or properly identified academic users. Membership in the ESFRI CLARIN ERIC Research Infrastructure

guarantees access for international researchers.

There are three kinds of license types, which cover different access conditions: public, academic, and

restricted. For this reason all tools, services and resources covered by public licenses are of open access for

all users, whereas tools, services and resources covered by academic and restricted licenses are open access

for all properly identified (authenticated) users.

Planned services are as follows:

Depositing Services with automatic authentication (planned by CLARIN-LT for 2016) Federated Content

search (planned by CLARIN-LT for 2016) Knowledge sharing infrastructure (planned by CLARIN-LT for

2016) Corpora search (existing, improved functionalities planned by CLARIN-LT for 2016) Semantic

search (existing porotype, prospective) Monitor services (existing porotype, prospective) Treebank search

and visualization (prospective) Multilingual language services and resources (prospective) Cloud-based Big

Data processing solutions (prospective) Speech recognition and synthesis (prospective).


Yes.

The importance of Language Technology is likely to continue to grow, and the type of tools and resources

provided by the E-Lingua CLARIN-LT are crucial for the future development of the field.

YES, also essential number of already existing projects proves the practical usefulness of a project. The

project plan that far majority of Lithuanians will benefits from their services. It might be true in longer

perspective (30% of private sector institutions, all academic sector institutions, all citizens, 40% of all Lithuanian

internet users)


Yes.

E-Lingua CLARIN-LT represents a national consortium that co-ordinates Lithuania’s membership of the

established ESFRI Research Infrastructure CLARIN ERIC. The membership of this organization acts as a

guarantee for strengthening the opportunities for international co-operation.

Project is part of CLARIN ERIC, which will be stopped if additional funding after 2016 will not be

provided.




Yes.

Lithuania has been a member of the CLARIN (Common Language Resources and Technology

Infrastructure) ERIC, an ESFRI Research Infrastructure, since 2015. CLARIN ERIC is a very well

functioning EU research infrastructure organization, E-Lingua CLARIN-LT’s involvement in the

organization is realistic and real.

12. Final score - 4.

1. It is an existing and well-functioning RI

2. the link with CLARIN ERIC should ensure that the proposed RI has a good potential for reaching a

high of international standing.

3. The proposed RI’s work in the field of Language Technology is highly relevant both for the

Lithuanian research environment and national research and innovation priorities.

1. RI is of the national importance and contributes to achieving the Smart Specialization and other

national research and innovation goals; The long term economic and practical benefits of a project

can be essential. The project and related teams seems to successful in international cooperation and

in joint work with private and public stakeholders.

2. The added value (economic and social impact in Lithuania) of a RI can be essential.

3. In international cooperation institution ensures environment that is fully comparable to the

international institutions in the discipline, in terms of the organization, strategy and infrastructure of

research (LT RAE results).

4. Level of current international cooperation and potential for future cooperation is good;

5. E-Lingua is a part of an international consortium. The data provide resources for high level research,

but do not guarantee it.

One problem of a project seems to be a fact that the research results have not been very impressive so far

(the lists on publications).


a. Pay more attention on research outcome as well (although RI is just a RI project and not

directly research project).

b. The “big data” approach needs to be clarified and more precise data storage pools secured (if

necessary).

Center of Spectroscopic Characterization of Materials and

Electronic/Molecular Processes (SPECTROVERSUM)


international area?

Taking into account the financial resources of the country, the total amount of the budget is adequate for

continuing and developing internationally recognized research.

The wish-list of equipment is contemporaneous and definitely supports international competitiveness. Most

of attention has been given to widening and upgrading different spectroscopic methods planned. On the

basis of materials presented it is difficult to comment in more detail but the question arises if it is possible

to obtain and use a modified femtosecond RI laser jointly with the Laser RI project. Equipment endeavored

is in correspondence with the high quality of staff and research activities of the unit. The list of equipment

supports activities described in the proposal. The motivation and necessity of spectroscopic equipment and

activities have been described in a relatively declarative way. Its uniqueness mentioned in proposal remains

unclear.

There were no data about the positions for what the salary budget is seeked. The total number of persons

involved in RI operations has been given to be 11 (incl. 7 with PhD degree). But even if the monetary

resources asked for the salaries (total 154 kEUR annually) is being planned to spend on the technically-

oriented staff only, it would allow hiring of very few specialists. This seems to be problematic for the unit

of 92,42 FTE researchers, especially to support the OA usage. In addition, there is no intention to increase

the salary budget until after 2020. I would like to pay more attention to supporting the human factor (salary).

The human factor and salaries may become an unfortunate bottleneck in the open international competition.

The per capita financing is currently still below that of the competitors. I would therefore recommend to

find some additional salary resources from elsewhere in the budget.

The purpose and need for the annual membership fee of 100 kEUR for years 2017 and 2018 only, have

remained unaddressed.

Talking about the human resources, there are many very high level researchers and their groups working in

the units involved in the RI.

The RI is equipped with the equipment of at least good international quality.

Yes, it does.

The proposed RI has clear indication of ambitions in international arena by combining together different

techniques in material spectroscopic studies. The proposed RI would provide platform for wide range of

scientific research aiming for novelty in physics and has clear focus of RI activities:

SPECTROVERSUM is one of the few EU institutions which provide possibility to analyze samples both in

(a) broad spectral range and (b) by mass spectroscopy.






and industry partners, as well as increasing quality and feasibility rankings, 3) using the apparatus park and

research competence more effectively and in an interdisciplinary fashion, 4) increasing motivation of



specialization of the country; 7) some of the equipment can be used for educational purposes of students.

The proposed RI provides sustainable competence and possibility for high level research in spectroscopy

for chemical composition, structures, interactions and processes regarding studies of physical properties of

materials:

Novel and high -quality information obtained in the center about molecular compounds results in

combination of competences provided by SPECTROVERSUM researches and the users.


Please explain.

The proposed RI is in good compliance with the strategic aims determined by “National study, scientific

research and experimental development (social and cultural) 2013-2020 years’ program”. The proposed RI

meets also strategic aims of the “Lithuanian innovation development program for 2014-2020”. This RI is

developed within the Lithuanian “Integrated Science, Study and business Valley” project as well.

The main national interest can be the continuous well-fare for the benefit of citizens and community. Any

increase of knowledge and its transfer is for this purpose.

Yes, the proposed RI corresponds to „RI of broad national interest“.

In the RI, main research goals are related to priorities set by Lithuanian Research and Innovation Strategy

for Smart Specialization and dedicated for development and characterization of new materials for photonic

and semiconductor technologies.



Yes, it does!

The Faculty of Physics of the Vilnius University is the prime site for training physicists in Lithuania.

With no high level research based on competitive and contemporary apparatus park this task couldn’t be

fully realized. Both the institution and scientists involved are highly ranked in the nation. Much attention

has been paid to aftergrowth policy.

At the same time more foreign graduate students should be involved. It would be reasonable to also hire

more highly ranked foreign researchers both into the teaching process and research. The research topics and

technologies are contemporary.

On the basis of supplied data, the international program and industry financings form about 10 and 3 percent

of the total budget at present, respectively. If this is correct, these shares should be remarkably increased. A

higher rate of internationalization should make a contribution to this. This issue is tightly connected to the

salary and sustainability questions. On the bases of data supplied, one can calculate less than 3 kEUR per

FTE researcher (not including graduate students) per month with all possible expenses including everything

related to salaries. It is really important to remarkably increase per capita financing in this equipment-

expensive field. At the same time, the amounts of financing presented in tables 10.2 and 10.3 of RI proposal

(international and national research project 2010-2015, respectively) show a much brighter picture. This

discrepancy should be addressed during the panel session.

The paper list published is really long but the share of articles in top ranked journals should be increased. It

promotes not only academic rankings but has a positive influence on finding better financing.

Yes, it does.

The spectroscopic characterization of materials for physical properties is diverse – the advanced methods

require additional capabilities of spectral analysis presently not available at proposed RI. The use of

proposed RI has potential development and can lead to new knowledge in analysis of semiconductors and

organic crystal structures.



operating with the apparatus park of good quality. The experienced staff makes it possible to

successfully operate and upgrade any kind of equipment of the field. The contemporary facilities

allow meeting technical requirements for operation of sophisticated equipment.

b) Financially: Prices of the equipment seeked are realistic. The list of equipment corresponds well to

the research field of the applicant. There is no evident overlap in the equipment with other RI of

the field (only a question about the femtosecond IR laser raised in paragraph 1 needs to be

clarified). The increase of per person financing definitely helps to meet goals planned in the big

perspective.

c) Organizationally: The management structure has been described in detail and it is reliable and

feasible. Taking into account not very big amounts of OA service and industry contracts, seven

persons’ expert jury for the evaluation of requested service is disputable. It is also not clear why

the services provided for science, industry and business must be definitely separately evaluated.

d) Technically: Yes, it is.

e) Financially: Yes, it is, but needs more clarification about employment of staff. During meeting session,

it was explained that the salary fraction will be for employment of PhD students mostly, but this could

be the risk for sustainability of the proposed RI.

f) Organizationally: Yes, it is.


proposed RI?

There are several internationally recognized good level researches in the unit assessed and without any doubt

the staff is able to ensure the high quality and efficient use of the proposed RI. From the list of lead

researches those form the Center for Physical Sciences and Technology show a little bit higher research

volume and academic ranking parameters. The younger staff shows commitment and qualification, they are

intensively involved in R&D, even the students with a Bachelor’s degree. But more high level foreign

scientists and foreign (graduate) students would be essential to involve. Without a much higher

internationalization level it is hard to reach the topmost international market either academically or on the

financial/industry contract basis. This is especially crucial for a small country with limited financial and

economic resources.

One of the lead researchers (Vidmantas Gulbinas) has been simultaneously shown as lead researcher of the

Laser RI project. He is a co-author of one of the top 10 papers in both projects.

Yes, the human resources are adequate.

One key indicator h-index reaches h=20 (excl self-citation).



Yes, it does that. This has been described in chapter 3.

Yes, it does. See p3 above.



The governance and how to select the open access partners have been described in necessary detail. The

proposed RI without a doubt is able to provide the OA service both for academic and industrial partners. An

increase in the volume of interdisciplinary cooperation with different fields (life and health science,

particularly) both nationally and especially internationally will definitely support finding higher financing

and raising academic visibility. Two questions of secondary importance, related to the management of the

OA service (the relatively large seven persons’ expert jury for the evaluation of requested service, and why

services provided for science, industry and business must be separately evaluated) were raised already in

paragraph 5c.

Yes, it is.


Because of its teaching, fundamental and applied research abilities and tasks the proposed RI definitely has

a visible and important social-economic impact on the nation. The methods used and the research topics

with which they work match the economic interests of the country well. Involvement in the Sunrise Valley

program and orientation to the Smart Specialization of the nation additionally confirm that the socio-

economic impact of the project is realistic.

Yes, it is. However, the impact is focused on the preparation of human resource, mainly:

SPECTROVERSUM center would service this purpose as up to 50 Physics and Chemistry students in

Vilnius University could carry out their internships and/or graduate projects here using modern spectrometry

equipment and methods.


Yes, they will. The existing international cooperation is at good level and what has been planned in the

proposal definitely helps in moving forward. They already have a remarkable number of international

contracts (the largest one has a high 721 kEUR financing for 5 years) but its total share in the budget should

aim to increase (see also my remark in paragraph 4). A higher internationalization rate of the staff and

(graduate) students along with higher per capita financing will definitely support this goal.

Yes, it will:

At present SPECTROVERSUM is waiting for decision of the steering committee concerning signing

cooperation agreement between SPECTROVERSUM and European XFEL.


existing/proposed involvement in European research infrastructure organizations and networks

is realistic?

This RI project is well compatible with the EU research infrastructure policy. This statement is also

supported by the list of international research projects 2010-2015 where several EU FP7 Marie-Curie and

COST programs are presented. The list of already existing involvements in different infrastructure

organizations or networks in the EU consists of 8 projects, including EU level on interstate programs.

Involvement in European XFEL and MAX IV (Sweden) are in preparatory phases.

The proposed RI project is compatible with EU research infrastructure policy: the key points have been

addressed and dealt in the proposal.

The existing/proposed involvement in European research infrastructure is realistic, although rather modest

description is given in description.


The score 4 was given because 1) the RI shows good to high quality and research potential but does not

reach the very top standards of international excellence (a relatively small amount of articles in journals

with high IF in comparison with a relatively large number of papers published in lower IF and local journals;

papers in very top IF journals are practically missing; citation indexes and impact factors of researchers do

not reach the top standards); 2) The RI is highly relevant for the Lithuanian research environment being

one of the well-known and flag research structures of the nation. It substantially contributes to the

competitiveness of the Lithuanian research. It is crucial for accomplishment of national research and

innovation priorities.

One of the purposes of RI is to serve the community. The RI relationship with Lithuanian industry

is still to be improved – the main contractual tide (according to proposal) is with mobile antenna

radiation modelling.

The human resource requirements are not enough described.

The quality of publications is modest – the fraction of 48.3% of publications is self-cited.


1) To raise the level of internationalization both among the research staff and graduate students;

2) To increase the share of international funding;

3) To increase the number and share of papers in top ranked international journals;

4) To rationalize the evaluation process of the OA as has been described in paragraph 5c;

5) Not to “crumble” with small service type projects with very different partners and in different

fields, i.e. to prefer larger and longer lasting projects to the small ones in different subfields.

Programme Horizon 2020 opportunities to be considered for further international co-operation.

This is related to attract more international users, also.

Explore use of Marie Curie scholarship advantages to involve top researchers in the NMR field.

Enhance the quality of publications in international co-operation for higher impact of RI and

higher visibility.


In order to not “crumble” the resources and to follow smart specialization, it would be useful to initiate

larger national grants

Human Biological Resource Center (HBRC)



BBMRI was included into the first European RI roadmap in 2006, and it has gained impetus by becoming

a wide distributed biobank across Europe. Essentially all European countries are engaged in modernizing

their biobanks and building national setups that match the European RI initiative.

The biobanks serve as sources for material for studies on rare and common diseases, and combined with

modern omics approaches, ever larger amounts of samples can and should be analysed. The best research

now uses biobank material from different parts of the world, and thus biobanks are centrally involved in

internationally significant medical research. Sharing of samples and data is facilitated by common

practices, which in turn increases the value of any local biobank material.

The Lithuanian population has some medically interesting characteristics that already made Lithuania an

interesting collaboration partner for international consortia. The proposed distributed RI may considerably

strengthen international competitiveness of Lithuanian biomedical research and may play an enabling role

for a good number of international collaborations.


international area?

Recent biomedical advances made evident the need for disease-biomarker profile associations. This in turn

requires the availability of large epidemiological studies and samples from well-characterized patient

cohorts. Standardized, high-quality biospecimens are needed for the progress of research into various

diseases. The European Biobanking and BioMolecular resources Research Infrastructure (BBMRI) aims at

generating a distributed network in all Member States. The European Research Infrastructure Consortium

(ERIC) holds in its Directory over 500 biobanks and collections and enables users to explore the

infrastructure of the BBMRI-ERIC and to communicate with the biobanks.

HBRC is a proposal for a new Lithuanian RI, a distributed network forming a national biobank linked with

the European BBMRI-ERIC. The joint effort builds on existing separate facilities.

Various types of biospecimens form an important source for medical research. Forming a national biobank

with harmonized procedures should greatly facilitate access to valuable samples and thereby booster medical

research.

Medical operations have traditionally built patient and population cohort biobanks, but these tend to be

difficult to access for all but the local players, the procedures and types of sample collections and the digital

handling system have been set up in site-specific manner, planning of the future is not done jointly at national

level, and visibility of the sample collections internationally is insufficient. Yet with the development of

genomic, metabolomics, proteomic and systems biology approaches have rendered biobank collections even

more important sample sources than ever before.

Altogether, there is a clear impetus for national coordination, planning and harmonization of biobank

collections for boosting medical research.

In Lithuania, there are some disease-based and project-driven biorepositories which provide a good basis

for further development. With the proposed distributed RI Lithuania may move into systematic high-

capacity biobanking (made possible by new biobanking legislation, January 2016). The RI proposed may

provide international quality biobanking and an opportunity to become a full member of BBMRI.


Please explain.

The proposal is to establish a national biobank between the university hospitals in Vilnius and Kaunas, and

the research institutes the National Cancer Institute and State Research Institute Centre for Innovative

Medicine. The form of the RI will be a multisite network.

This type of material is at the core of medical research and thus a national biobank should be of broad

national interest.

The current user base appears large, with about 300 internal users, nearly 50 users from other Lithuanian

institutions, and 5 from abroad. The number of new users nationally and internationally is expected to

double.



The list of top 10 publications in 2010-2015 largely represents specialized journals of medium rank. One

of the examples is a highly-sited study in Nature, but with a very large number of international authors and

the Lithuanian contributors appearing in the middle of the list of names.

It would appear that more emphasis should be paid on high-level publishing involving use of the biobanks.

This would entail both developing the focus areas of own research based on the patient materials as well

as increasing the international contacts in the field. The studies presented by the State Research Institute

Centre for Innovative Medicine lists two studies in the area of joint/synovial research, possibly reflecting a

strong research line of the Institute, as do success in this area in EU project funding.

The researchers have participated in many EU projects in a range of clinical entities. This international

involvement is commendable and could be even enhanced with pooling together biobank resources.

The panel also considered that this question can be answered in an indirect way. A National Biobank and

the proposal may rest on the research performance of all or most of the biomedical research in the country.

The LT RAE identified a good number of very good research institutions in Lithuania, therefore the

biomedical research performance of the country justifies the investment into the NB.


a) Technically:

The proposal builds on existing separate facilities, which have in previous years been built to serve as

biobanks. The technical case is feasible, and solutions can also be found by help from similar efforts in other

countries.

There will be three storage facilities in Vilnius (which need to be reconstructed) and a new one in Kaunas,

where the plan is to build in Kaunas a separate building as a unit of the national biobank to serve as a

centralized biorepository for all types of samples.

Samples are received through the health care system and hence biorepositories cannot be fully centralized

to one location. Hence facilities in Vilnius and Kaunas seem justified. However, it is not clear why the

facilities in Vilnius are not brought together instead of reconstructing all three current facilities (their

addresses are all on the same street), and this question was not fully clarified in the panel meeting.

Equipment is needed as well as additional personnel. However, it is difficult to evaluate the proposed budget

for equipment as little details are provided for the setups consisting of a collection of equipment. The IT

system development is important to perform jointly.

With respect to personnel, it is not clear what the total number and types of expertise are in the

service/operational activities. Only a small part of the applied funds go to salaries. A membership fee is also

included, and its use was clarified in the panel meeting.

The array of services is appropriate. As a special service there will be cells and tissues collected from with

certain rare diseases), and if developed well this could provide an international profile for the biobank.

b) Financially:

There has been significant funding that has allowed building RIs at the national Center of Pathology, the

national Cancer Institute, and especially the State Research Institute Centre for Innovative Medicine. The

Lithuanian University of Health Sciences has been equipped with a range of small-to-medium cost

equipment for sample analysis.

Financial feasibility depends both on the investment and the national biomedical research policy. A system

of biobanking requires long-term commitment. Not only replacement equipment will be needed but also

operational costs should be covered. It is justified only if the financing of biomedical research has long-

term plans. It is an RI that has to be maintained for decades.

It is not possible to evaluate the requested budget in any detail (see above).


A steering committee with representatives from the partners, the relevant ministries and even patient

organisations will be set up for strategic developments and guidance of operation.

Two nodes (Vilnius and Kaunas) will be established with 3 + 1 biorepositories. A joint management board

and a director will be established, but their tasks and responsibilities are not outlined.

An additional item helping the organization work may be the membership as the national node for the

BBMRI, where technical and organizational help may be available.


proposed RI?

The personnel directly involved in RI operation is listed as about 300. This evidently covers the internal

user base and based on the written application it was not possible to assess how many of these are actually

running the facilities and providing services. In the panel interview the personnel needed for operational

tasks was clarified to be 10 + 10, which seems appropriate.



The proposed RI is highly relevant with respect to the Smart Specialisation Strategy, the Health 2020 and

the Lithuanian Health Programme 2014-2025. Building a national biobank would foster realization of the

mentioned strategies.



Drawing current separate operations together will lead to better access to the materials, through

harmonization of sampling and storage, sample annotation and retrieval, etc. both within the country and

internationally. Hence the proposal is important.

Provision of the samples and services is the raison d'être of the biobanking. International exchange of

samples and services is the main purpose of the BBMRI, and the national biobank will become a national

node for it.

Lithuania has a new biobanking legislation since 2016, and how this affects the prospects of biobank-based

research could be clarified.

With respect to the proposed structure, care should be taken to avoid overlaps in building the infrastructure,

especially regarding the three centers in Vilnius, affecting both cost-efficiency and the clarity and

accessibility of the services.

The status of the European BBMRI-ERIC plans could have been better elaborated.

Users can be both private and public and they need to apply for the services. The process of application and

the costs for different types of users are only superficially given.

It is of course clear, that a human biorepository is a complicated setup and includes ethical consideration,

which have to be taken into consideration in building and using such materials. It is indicated that the sample

donors and the general population will receive information about themselves and the ways the research is

using such samples.


The partners have been engaged with joint activities with good range of companies, national and also

some international. The funding received through these have been modest.

Biobank resources are important in developing new diagnostics and therapeutics, and hence could impact

the health care system.

However, the proposal presents a surprisingly brief and generic analysis of impact.

Altogether, no major direct socio-economic impact is expected. Indirect impact will consist of:

- International collaboration(s) with research institutions in EU and elsewhere

- International research projects in Lithuania will be easier to organize

- Country prestige will be strengthened by participating in a distributed EU RI


Initial contacts with the European ESFRI RI BBMRI-ERIC have been made and a plan of membership is

being drafted. The formation of a national biobank will certainly strengthen Lithuania´s position for

cooperation internationally in this field.




A European RI in biobanks, BBMRI, is an important part of the bio-medical RI roadmap. It seems that the

Lithuanian biobank community has not been a very strong contributor to the European process, so far.

BBMRI is a very inclusive RI model, and hence it would be realistic for Lithuania to become involved in

it. The proposed RI will clearly be eligible to become a national node of this network and the applicants

clearly intend apply for membership.

12. Evaluation score - 4

This is an important proposal, and already existing disease specific biobanks could form the starting point

of a new RI

However, the proposal requires further developments in terms of organizational structure and descriptions

of personnel and equipment needed, and the listed publications could have been more impressive.

The international links as biobank operation appear at this point somewhat immature, but promising with

respect to the ESFRI BBMRI and strengthening the potential for international collaboration.


The biobank repositories are important and expensive setups, requiring handling and storage of a range of

sample types. Coordination of this at the national level is important. It is recommended to consider if the

facilities in Vilnius could be brought together instead of reconstructing all three current facilities.

In biobanking the safe storage and backup system are very important and particular attention should be paid

to these aspects of the planning.


This is a proposal for RI which has real nationwide relevance for a wide array of biomedical research.

Care should be taken that relevant players are taken aboard when the RI becomes operational.

Lithuanian Network of Distributed and Parallel Computing and E-

services (LitGrid-HPC)


international area?

LitGrid-HPC is a national RI proposing computational possibilities and services to projects demanding

high performance computation (HPC) and supply HPC open access service.

It is concentrated at 2 sites of the Vilnius University:

HPC Sauletekis, located at the Sauletekis Campus, is an open access center of the of the VU

Faculty of Physics and the National Center of Physical and Technological Sciences (NCPTS) but it

is also used by scientists from technical universities like the Vilnius Gediminas Technical

University. It is devoted mainly to physical, technological and biomedical sciences: spectroscopy

and dynamics of molecular systems, chemistry, biochemistry, astrophysics, laser, and nonlinear

optics engineering. The center has also collaborations with the Hydrometeorology Center for

developing new forecast software and Lithuanian Radio and TV for coding of LRT video archive.

The existing HPC hardware work at 25, 7 Tflops. Since 2010, students of the Physics Faculty have

courses of parallel computing. More than 30 ISI scientific papers were published during that period

and 5 theses were obtained. Everybody knows that hardware and software have to be changed

roughly every 5 years, otherwise the maintenance costs increase a lot and the capacity goes down.

The last important investment was done in the period 2008-2013 (2. 9 M€, EC Str. Funds). In the

new building of the Sauletekis Campus rooms are completely equipped to receive new equipment.

At the moment, there are 5 partially employed people for software support and to help the users. If

an upgrade is decided, at least 3 HPC software specialists should be added.

VU MIF research Center

The fields covered are: astrophysics, biochemistry, chemistry, spectroscopy and dynamics of

molecular systems, lasers, non-linear optics, medicine and engineering. The Center has 4 HPC

clusters (2010) and one Cloud cluster (2014). Actually there are 9 people employed but in case of

an upgrade at 3 more should be added.

It is clear that to stay at the international level, an upgrade of the 2 facilities should be undertaken in the

next 2 or 3 years. Recent technologies implemented in clusters should allow to do leading edge

experiments.

In principle one can ask why there are 2 centers: after examination one can see that they offer different

services and that there are rather complementary.

Yes, it does.

The RI is devoted for physical, technology and biomedicine sciences mainly: spectroscopy and dynamics

of molecular systems, chemistry, biochemistry, astrophysics, laser, and nonlinear optics engineering. The

HPC center of its collaboration with Lithuanian Radio and Television (coding of LRT video archive) and

Lithuanian Hydrometeorology center.



If Lithuania is willing to play a role in important areas like biology, bioinformatics, astrophysics, dynamical

systems, climate studies it must have strong HPC centers.

Provides computational capability of users in Lithuania, which is important part of scientific infrastructure,

although in limited field of use, e.g. quantum physics modeling.

The users are offered to use range of capabilities: grid, cloud computing, high-performance computing,

virtual repositories, related data sets in the RI functioning.


Please explain.

Obviously because it is covering many fields.


increase of knowledge and its transfer is for this purpose. Computing capability is necessary to maintain in

any country.




HPC-Sauletekis

The 10 top publications have been published in good international journals but none in very high profile

journals

VU-MIF

Again the publications are published in international journals but with smaller impact factor excepted for

the astrophysics papers and some work of high quality on exciton scattering in molecular nanotubes.

As discussed already HPC is absolutely necessary in many fields and necessary to compete at international

level, so I think that the upgrade should be done.

Yes, it does.

The need is towards to maintain and, if possible, provide higher computing capabilities. This is needed to

use and develop methods of molecular quantum mechanics, mainly.

During meeting session, the participation in PRACE network was discussed. The termination of the

participation remained unclear. Owing to importance of further development and enhanced use of

proposed RI it is recommended to re-gain participation in PRACE for leading edge computational

capabilities in Lithuania.


a) Technically: there are no big problems, it is an existing technology, you just need to buy the

equipment

b) Financially: the upgrade budget is 7. 565 M€. This includes:

Salaries: 0. 49

Equipment: 5. 49

Consumables: 0. 12

Maintenance: 0. 88

Membership fee: 0. 5

Indirect costs: 0. 05

Other: 0.035


We don’t have too many details about the actual organization but it seems to be functioning

a) Technically: Yes, it is.

b) Financially: Yes, it is.

c) Organizationally: Yes, it is. However, the distribution of tasks in between two faculties remained

unclear.


proposed RI?

HPC-Sauletekis

At the moment there are 5 partially employed persons for system software support and to help the users.

Each year, the teaching staff of the VU Physical Faculty and of the RI “HPC improve their qualification

during BUX group meeting of the European Bull users of HPC centers, attending HPC conferences or

PRACE (Partnership for Advanced Computing in Europe) sessions. In case of an upgrade, at least 3

HPC software specialists should be added.

VU-MIF

Actually there are 9 people in charge, in case of an upgrade 3 more should be added.

Yes, they are.



Yes, because the RI covers many priorities of “Smart specialization”:

Energy and sustainable environment

New production processes, materials and technologies (photonics, laser technologies, functional

materials, coatings, structural and composite materials)


Information and communication technologies

No, but indirectly it provides platform for physical sciences.



We don’t have much information in thedocument but it seems to be working well and the upgrade should

improve it. Both centers are working according to VU approved OAC rules :

OAC “HPC Sauletekis” is supervised by the vice-dean . For HPC hardware, software and users

management the “Process modelling laboratory” was created at the Faculty of Physics in 2008. All

researchers can apply electronically for HPC resources according to VU rules. The council of OAC

“HPC Sauletekis” is responsible for approving the applications : this is done 3 times/year (for 3-4

months periods). The application forms and the decisions of the council are published on the web.

MIF-ITRC has a very similar procedures.

Yes, it is.

However, it has to be noticed that there is no free services, especially for commercial users. The management

of services needs to be improved.


Computing resources are needed in a number of R&D activities in both the scientific and industrial fields,

as many innovation process include numerical modelling, during the testing period of a model high-

capacity and specialized technical resources are often needed, for this reason, investment in infrastructure,

will support the development Lithuanian innovation policy.

▪ It is planned to have a new building for the VU MIF in Santara Valley, which is one of the 5 technology

clusters in Lithuania, developed to accelerate transfer of research results into business applications. In

order for researchers to be able to meet business requirements it is essential to provide high quality HPC

resources. Newest technologies being implemented in HPC clusters should allow scientists to execute

leading edge experiments, simulations and allow collaborations with business on tasks having a great

national priority.

▪ The new built Centre of Life Sciences, the National Centre of Physical and Technological Sciences at the

Saulėtekis Campus and the Vilnius Gediminas Technical University will benefit from modern OAC “HPC

Saulėtekis” RI in the fields described already but also in Meteorology and Hydrology.


European Grid Infrastructure (EGI) is a series of efforts to provide access to high-throughput computing

resources across Europe using grid-computing techniques. The EGI links centres in different European

countries to support international research in many scientific disciplines. The EGI.eu organization was

formed in 2010 to sustain the services of the EGI. Science today uses high-capacity computing to model

complex systems and to process experimental results. Grid computing became popular for many scientific

disciplines to share and combine the power of computers and sophisticated, often unique, scientific

instruments. Last year HPC-Sauletekis dropped out of EGI but the participation of IMF-ITRCshould be

restablished because it is essential for participation in European projects.

The mission of PRACE (Partnership for Advanced Computing in Europe) is to enable high impact

scientific discovery and engineering research and development across all disciplines to enhance

European competitiveness for the benefit of society. PRACE seeks to realize this mission by

offering world class computing and data management resources and services through a peer review

process. PRACE also seeks to strengthen the European users of HPC in industry through various

initiatives. PRACE has a strong interest in improving energy efficiency of computing systems and

reducing their environmental impact. It has 25 member countries whose representative

organizations create a pan-European supercomputing infrastructure, providing access to computing

and data management resources and services for large-scale scientific and engineering applications

at the highest performance level. In 2015, HPC-Sauletekis started negociations for membership in

PRACE to obtain for the moment a membership without voting right., to prepare full

membership(60k€/year).

HPC Sauletekis is a member of BUX group (users of Bull supercomputers). The BUX group meets

periodically 1-2 times/year. At the moment 48 HPC centers from all Europe are members of the

group. From contacts in the group, there are possibilities to start joint work with researchers using

HPC resources from the biggest centers in Germany, France and Spain.

Participation in the SESAME NET project (HPC competence centers have been set up in some

Member States to facilitate access to companies, in particular small and medium entreprises, to

HPC services) has allowed to join leading HPC centers in Europe (Wales, Fraunhofer,

IT4Innovations…) and get their support for providing services to SMEs (VU-MIF).

HPC-Sauletekis facilities have attracted scientists from foreign countries :

Biochemistry Department of London Queen Mary University (Uk)

Saclay Institute of Biology and Technology (Fr)

Some other projects are under discussion

CERN

Students visiting VU through Erasmus Mundus (Argentina, Malaysia, India…

These possibilities should be increased.






The existing/proposed involvement in European research infrastructure is realistic, although rather modest

description is given.


The RI shows high quality and research potential but does not reach the top standards of international

excellence. The RI is highly relevant for the Lithuanian research environment, substantially contributing to

the competitiveness of Lithuanian research. It is crucial for accomplishment of national research and

innovation priorities.

The initial score was’3’. During the meeting session clarifications were given on how to ensure RI

functioning and to enhance the number of users. Also, the need for maintenance of the RI was clarified in

detail. However, the need for distributed RI remained unclear, due to administrative decisions pending.

The number of users is small.

The maintenance costs are high.

The risk of employees’ loss is high.


Increase the quality of the scientific production.

Risk assessment should be performed for enhanced capabilities.

When financed, then RI should seek for environmental friendly solution, eg re-use the heat.

European Social Survey in Lithuania (ESS LT)



Data collected in the ESS enable studies of various aspects of European societies from both longitudinal

and comparative perspectives. And this type of analysis (longitudinal and international) is best suited for

testing theories about human social, economic and political attitudes and behavior. The ESS data are used

intensively internationally (see http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/bibliography/). Further collection of

the data would the data even more valuable.

The participation of the proposed RI in the ESS ERIC promotes the development and improvement of the

methodological tools and standards in the field in Lithuania. Furthermore, access to a wide range of

similar European survey data sets will also foster the further development of internationally recognized

comparative and longitudinal research in social sciences.


Please explain.

Yes, the ESS data are very suitable and with easy access for different studies, writing journal articles,

dissertations and other scientific publications as well as received quite broad publicity in the media.

Further collection of the data will increase the benefits even more. Availability of the ESS data is also

important for broadening and deepening of training opportunities for Lithuanian scholars in the field of

comparative research data analysis.


international area?

European Social Survey (www.europeansocialsurvey.org, ESS) is an academically-driven biennial social

survey designed to chart and explain the interaction between Europe's changing institutions and the

attitudes, beliefs and behavior patterns of its diverse populations. It is specifically designed to meet the

exacting demands of academics, policy-makers and civil society alike for rigorous cross national data on

social attitudes and behavior. This biennial cross-sectional survey covers more than thirty nations and

employs the most rigorous methodologies of cross-cultural research. The ESS is fielded every two years in

Lithuania since 2008. The survey provides resources for high level of research, although the Lithuanian

researches can be more active in using these data for publications.

The social survey data collected by the proposed RI, and RI’s active role in the ESS ERIC, provides data

for comparative and longitudinal research on an international level.



YES, the project has good prospects. The international cooperation helps to maintain scientific level.

However, the local usage (number of projects) and scientific outcomes (number of publications) should be

more numerous. It might be a question of limited information about publications, but in order to achieve

higher impact in society the collection of publications is very helpful.

Yes, the h-indices of the lead researchers of the proposed RI are relatively good, and their publication

record also shows evidence of output in good international journals.


Technically – yes

The scientific and technical competence acquired from the beginning of the participation in the ESS

allows further implementation of the survey in Lithuania and provision of related services detailed above.

The focus of the work in the proposed RI is very clear, and Lithuania’s membership in the ESS ERIC,

where the RI is the Lithuanian service provider, ensures the international standard of the work conducted

in the RI.

Financially - yes

The budget of the proposed RI is relatively modest, but realistic.

Organizationally – yes

The organization of the proposed RI is transparent and clear.


proposed RI?

Lithuania has long record in conducting ESS (since 2008), what is the best guarantee for adequate

scientific level.

Majority of the staff participated in all the rounds of the survey conducted in Lithuania.

National Representative at the General Assembly of the ESS ERIC appointed by the Ministry of Education

and Science of Lithuania is prof. Algis Krupavičius. He was elected as a Deputy Chair of the General

Assembly of the ESS ERIC. National Coordinator for Lithuania is Vaidas Morkevičius (Chief

Researcher). There are three other members of the National Scientific Team: Eglė Butkevičienė, Ligita

Šarkutė and Giedrius Žvaliauskas (all Senior Researchers).Fieldwork and Russian translation services are

outsourced from the experts in their respective fields. Two major companies have conducted the fieldwork

of the ESS in Lithuania: Baltic Surveys/Gallup Ltd and RAIT Ltd.



Yes.

Participation in the ESS ERIC strengthens the potential and capacity of institutions of higher education

and research to develop knowledge about attitudes, values and behavior of Lithuanian population from

comparative and longitudinal perspective and is conducive to training survey research and data analysis

professionals in line with the Objective 5 and Measure 5.2 of the priority area inclusive and creative

society in the Smart Specialization goals.

Participation in the ESS ERIC will allow further developing R&D infrastructure of Lithuanian social

science and survey research in particular. It will foster creation of scientific knowledge of highest quality

about attitudes, values and behavior of Lithuanian population in comparative and longitudinal context.



Yes, ESS offers immediate, unconditional and fully open access arrangements. There are 500 users of ESS

data in Lithuania and it is planned to grow up to 1300 in the end of 2020.

The proposed RI’s close association with ESS ERIC guarantees open access of all the material produced

by the RI, both at national and international levels.


The expected socio-economic impact of the work conducted in the proposed RI, as described in the

proposal, is clearly outlined and realistic, but it requires more publication based on ESS Lithuania data,

than currently listed in ESS database. It might partially be influenced by limited resources of a team to

collect this information, but collection of publications will also allow increase the impact.


Yes, without doubt, participation in ESS makes is possible to acquire project in collaboration with other

countries internationally.

The proposed RI as ESS ERIC will help to strengthen the opportunities for international cooperation in

the field of Social sciences.




Yes, Lithuania is a member of the ESS ERIC.

12. Evaluation score- 4.

The project is part of ESS ESFRI and the level of current international cooperation and potential for future

cooperation is good. Results achieved with previous investments from EU structural funds and national

funds are good, but more data about scientific achieves needs to be added. The project must make efforts

to increase number of publication based on ESS Lithuania and international cooperation projects. The

number of publications will also help to increase the added value (economic and social impact in

Lithuania).

The other strengths of a project are as follows:

1. The critical mass of experienced researchers working on international arena in the discipline exists.

2. Present RI managers (institution, division or particular group) are capable to continue good work;

3. RI ensures environment that is fully comparable to the international institutions in the discipline, in

terms of the organization, strategy and infrastructure of research.

4. The project has capability of attracting the PhD students and high competence researchers.

5. RI has technical and financial feasibility. RI project costs are feasible, funding sources are diversified

and the plan for the future maintenance of RI is realistic;

6. RI is developed and organized based on totally open access principle for the public and private sector

researchers on national and international level.


Make efforts to increase number of publication based on ESS Lithuania and international

cooperation projects.

Molėtai Astronomical Observatory (MAO)


international area?

This RI project is termed as single-sited. At the same time, in addition to the Vilnius University the Center

for Physical Sciences and Technology has been involved as “supporting partner”. This hints to the shared

type RI, a fortiori because two scientists from the so called supporting partner have also been treated as

lead researchers of the project.

The supporting partner passed the international assessment exercise 2014 with significantly lower scores

than the implementing institution as a whole. But the only thing mentioned was a general critical remark

about the proposal’s format. Proposal of the MAO is well argued. It is written in a very logical and

transparent style showing well-focused activities and goals. Technically this is the best-written document

among the ones I have had the opportunity to evaluate.

Astronomy has some special aspects to it. Nowadays a “big” observational astronomy is carried out using

very powerful equipment either in cosmos or at stations located in climatically suitable mountainous areas.

The observational astronomy with small telescopes is mostly a thing of the past.

At the world level these telescopes play mostly an educational and training role to prepare the astronomers

to work with large top equipment. To carry out internationally top level astronomy research, small

astronomy observatories have three main possibilities. First, big stations generate much more data they

can analyze.

With unique and good ideas one can work with their data and carry out top ranked astronomy (quasi-

theoretical) research. Second, one can find some niches in the “big game” to work in top powerful

stations. And third, not to carry out “classical astronomy” research but to find new possibilities in

monitoring, space or environmental projects etc. All the mentioned aspects can be found in the MAO

proposal and this is why this RI provides resources for high level research compatible with the

international level.

The required equipment is well argued, has reasonable price level and is compatible with the real

possibilities and needs of the relatively small observatory.

The presented operational budget seems very reserved for all positions but the equipment and membership

fee. The 45 kEUR plus 33 kEUR annual budget (including taxes) for salaries is definitely not competitive

to hire specialists for whom these resources are there.

In addition, no increase in the salary fund is in sight for the coming years. The human factor and salaries

may become an unfortunate bottleneck in the open international competition. The per capita financing is

currently still below that of the competitors. It should is essential to find additional salary money, even at

the expense of the other positions in the budget.

This RI is proposed by 3 Institutions:

Institute of Theoretical Physics and Astronomy-VU

Faculty of Physics-VU

Institute of Semiconductors Physics-CPST

Lithuania has today 3 telescopes:

1.65 m Ritchey-Chretien

63 m Cassegrain

5 m Maksutov

To be able to compete at the international level, due to the small size of the telescopes, there are only 3

possibilities:

Modernize the existing systems

Focus on several long-term research programs listed below. Long term programs are difficult to run

at large internationally owned astronomical facilities, unless such facilities are specifically dedicated

to these particular tasks. Additionally, long-term programs typically require that a major fraction of

a telescope time is dedicated to a single research program. This again is difficult to achieve at large

international observatories where instruments and telescope time must be shared between various

short-term research programs. Dedicated focus on several long-term programs at MAO will make

its input truly unique and thus scientifically relevant on the international level : this should allow to

attract foreign users.

Receive observing time on the 10 m Gran Telescopio Canarias at the observatory of Roque de los

Muchachos of the Institute of Astrophysics Canarias (ORM IAC).

The services to be provided will be:

Stellar spectroscopy

Measurements of stellar radial velocities

Multicolour photometry

Time-resolved photpmetry

Atmosphere monitoring




equipment thereby increasing competitiveness on the grant market, 2) being more attractive for high

quality research partners, as well as increasing quality and feasibility rankings, 4) increasing motivation of

talented students in and outside of the country to get involved 5) some of the equipment can be used for

educational purposes of the staff and students, to prepare them to work with big instruments in top

observatories.

The RI is planning 3 long-term programs:

Near Earth Object Search (NEOS)

The project is carried out since 2004, in close collaboration with researchers of the Mount Palomar, the

Vatican, and the Baldone (Latvia) observatories and now EUROPLANET 2020-Research Infrastructure

Consortium. It is done on the 0. 5 Maksutov. With the upgrade, it should be possible to replace the 2Kx2K

CCD camera by a 4Kx4K, install a computer cluster helping in automatic new object search and reduction

of time of observation. With the new CCD, the large field of view, 80% of the time dedicated to this program,

and an automated procedure data analysis, this set-up will be competitive at the international level.

Asteroseismic Stellar Observations

This is an international project that has been successfully run at MAO for more than 10 years. Having MAO

in the previous Whole Earth Telescope observing campaigns has already proved to be very advantageous,

in some cases it being the only observatory at this longitude to provide data during the campaign. It is

foreseen that this program will be expanded in the future, by possibly joining the delta Scuti network and

several similar networks where fast-speed high precision photometry is crucial. Multicolor CCD

photometry has been widely applied in astronomical observations: the main purpose is to measure the

spectral energy distribution and/or its evolution in terms of variable objects, such as variable stars, active

galactic nuclei or gamma-ray burst (GRB) afterglows in order to identify the underlying mechanism and

physical origin of the observed properties. Relatively modest costs will be needed to continue the program

while providing substantial scientific output. The expertise is available, small instrumental upgrades can be

achieved with minor expenditure. It is foreseen that this program will use up to 10% of the 1.65 m telescope

time.

CHEmoDYnamics of the GAlaxy (CHEDYGA).

The primary goal of this new program will be to perform a large area survey of Galactic disk and bulge

populations, as well as star clusters in order to obtain chemical abundances and radial velocities of individual

stars down to V ~ 12. This program will be carried out in close coordination with the ground-based follow-

up programs of the recent and future ESA space missions (e.g., Kepler, Gaia, Plato in particular). A study

of binary/multiple systems among K-M dwarfs will be accomplished as well. The observations will be

carried out using new high-resolution (R =60000) fibre-fed spectrograph at the primary focus of the 1.65 m

telescope. It is foreseen that 50% of the telescope time will be dedicated to this type of research.


Please explain.

The proposed RI is in compliance with the agreements between the government of Lithuania and ESA

(European Space Agency) from the years 2011 and 2015. The MAO activities correspond well to the

“Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialization” (priority “Inclusive and Learning Society).

If Lithuania is willing to stay in the field of Astronomy, this RI upgrade is absolutely necessary



The list of top 10 articles is impressive. Everything that has been presented there belongs to the top

ranked journals of the field. The lead researches given in table 14, have somewhat lower performance

indicators (number of publications, citation (<100) and H (0-4) indexes). However one needs to consider

that astronomy has intrinsically somewhat lower H and citation indexes than the fields of high industry

interests do. Nevertheless, it would be reasonable to hire some highly ranked foreign researchers.

One (EUROPLANET 2020) international (EU) research project has been presented in table 10.2 and three

contracts with foreign governmental institutions have been listed in table 10.5. In addition, there is a long

list of international RI users presented in the proposal.

The bottom line answer to the question of this paragraph is: the research performance and especially the

international financing of the applicants should be strengthened; taking into account the uniqueness of this

RI in the country and the cultural role the observatory, as well as astronomy as such, play in the nation, the

further development of the MAO RI is justified.

Clearly yes. The top 10 publications have been done in very good Astrophysics journals with impact factor

between 5 and 6.

The number of internal users (researchers, scientists and students) during the period 2010/2015 has been 65,

the number of national users 4 and number of international users 45 (from the USA, Germany, France,

Belgium, Italy, Poland, Latvia, Hungary, Turkey, Taiwan, China and South Africa.

These international users have produced 45 papers in very good journals with impact factor between 5 and

6.



operating with the apparatus park of good quality. The experienced staff makes it possible to

successfully operate and upgrade any kind of equipment of the field.

b) Financially: Prices of the equipment seeked are realistic. The list of equipment corresponds well

with the research field of the applicant. There is no evident overlap in the equipment with other RI.

The need to increase the total and per person financing is inevitable in the big perspective.

c) Organizationally: The governance and OA service have been described in necessary detail, this

should function well and feasibly. The OA service is planned to run jointly with the supporting

partner. This fact again forces one to ask why this RI has not been planned as a shared one with

this “supporting partner”? Everything related to the functioning of the OA has been described

transparently covering all important issues.

Technically: the equipment to be added is:

A 4Kx4K CCD camera for the Maksutov allowing to exploit the full size of view of the telescope

(8. 4°ninstead of 1. 4°)

A computer system for the instrument operation, on-site data reduction and processing, analysis

and archiving. This will be of key importance for handling the data flow from the new instruments

at the 1. 65 m and 0. 51 m telescopes

A crane elevator for the 1. 65 m telescope mirror allowing a simplified and secure procedure for

the regular moving of the mirror (recoating).

Financially: the budget for the upgrade is:

Salaries: 0. 39 M€

Equipment: 0. 95 M€

Consumables: 0. 018 M€

Maintenance: 0. 135 M€

Membership for ORM IAC: 1. 5 M€

Indirect costs: 0. 108 M€

Other: 0.018M€

The total is 3. 118 M€: this is quite reasonable, knowing the new possibilities offered

Organizationally: the research staff directly responsible for operating the RI will consist of 6 people

including an astronomer in charge, 2 astronomers-observers, 2 engineers and 1 technical assistant.

Additionally, 3-4 astronomers, doctoral students and students will be working in shifts at the observatory. This

should be sufficient


proposed RI?

According to the proposal, 11 people are directly involved in the RI. Additional data about the whole staff

of the observatory couldn’t be found either in the proposal or from the home page of the MAO. Logically,

human resources of the MAO shouldn’t be very large but without a doubt they are adequate to run the

seeked equipment efficiently and professionally.

This has been discussed in item 5.



Yes, it does that, first of all via inclusive and learning society aims. This has been described in chapter 3.

Astrophysics does not seem to be in the Smart Specialization.



Yes, it is. Much attention has been paid to the development of the OA activity. The governance, the

procedures how to select the open access partners and subjects, as well as pricing policy have been described

in necessary detail. See also comments in §5c.

The MAO RI Open Access Center (OAC) will be run as a joint research entity by the Physical Sciences

and Technologies Research Center of Vilnius University. It will be lead and run by a management group

(MG) consisting of researchers from national and foreign institutions. The MG will also organize the

evaluation of scientific applications for the telescope time (twice per year). 40% of telescope time will be

reserved for the scientific programs of internal users; 40% of time will be allocated on the basis of open

access policy, 20% of time will be reserved for technical services of RI.

It is foreseen that observations at MAO will be carried out both in the service and visitor (observer at the

telescope) modes. In addition, proposals for up to 4 hours of observing time will be accepted at any time.

Such observations, if approved by the time allocation committee, will be executed by the MAO staff

during servicing time. The planned costs of OAC will depend on the requested.

For example, spectroscopic observations and measurements of radial velocities of stars will cost 230

€/hour; multicolor photometry and time-resolved photometry 110 €/hour.


Yes, the socio-economic impact expected by the applicant is relevant and realistic. The educational-

cultural aspect has been widely opened and this is definitely the biggest component of the impact to the

nation. The role of a training center has been outlined and this is important as well.

MAO is located in a site with a relatively low sky background. Photometric observations of stars that were

accomplished during the last decades at MAO produced a wealth of valuable data on atmospheric

transparency and light pollution. The systematic research in this field at the renewed MAO would

naturally complement these important programs. This information is especially important in the context of

environment policy formation and study of the changing climate.

MAO is an important educational and training center today, the extended RI at MAO will make it even

more attractive to the inquiring young minds. At the international summer courses held at the MAO

(NordForsk research schools, European OPTICON network, EUROPLANET and COST projects) leading

researchers from all over the world give lectures and exercises for the Master and PhD students from EU

and other countries.

Such courses give Lithuanian students a great opportunity to meet distinguished scientists and to make

themselves familiar with the latest questions of science and modern methods of research. Education of the

new generation of scientists should start at secondary schools. In order to attract young people to pursue a

career in science, summer schools are organized at MAO annually by the Lithuanian Youth Information

and Technical Creativity Centre.

MAO also is a well-known cultural center in Lithuania. The main hall of the observatory often serves as a

place for exhibitions of Lithuanian artists. Every day groups of visitors come to MAO to see the telescopes

and research equipment, to listen lectures.

Large events for general public are organized several times a year, at which hundreds of people get

familiar with the work of professional astronomers and learn recent science news. MAO together with the

neighboring Lithuanian Museum of Ethnocosmology are very strong attractors for visitors from Lithuania

and other countries. Therefore, for general public it is also of utmost importance to keep and further

develop science and education activity at MAO.


Yes, they will. Computer system seeked upgrades data handling remarkably. Lithuania has long traditions

in photometry and the results of this field are known and valued far beyond its borders. Contemporary

multicolor photometer in complex with a powerful CCD camera definitely raises opportunities for

international cooperation and strengthens research performance.

As already pointed out the number of international users, between 2010 and 2015 was 45 (from the USA,

Germany, France, Belgium, Italy, Poland, Latvia, Hungary, Turkey, Taiwan, China and South Africa).

These international users have produced 45 papers in very good journals.

ESA: together with partners (Department of Physics and Astronomy of Aarhus University and

Institute of Astronomy at Catholic University Leuven), they are planning a photometric and

spectroscopic survey of the northern sky fields that potentially will be targeted by the PLATO

mission. The aim of this study is to contribute in developing the PLATO input catalogue by

delivering the long-duration stellar variability information of PLATO fields in the northern-sky and

a full spectroscopic characterization of brightest targets. There are plans to develop an additional

work package will allow to define the relation between their work and the work done by the rest of

the PLATO Team.

ESO (European Southern Observatory): since 2011, a group of 8 Lithuanian spectroscopists is part

of the Gaia-ESO Public Spectroscopic survey.

ENO (European Nothern Observatory (ENO): regular spectroscopic and asteroseismic observing

programmes were carried out on the Nordic Optical Telescope for several decades. Observing time

on the Nordic OpticalTelescope, Telescope Carlos Sanchez and Song (Teide Observatory) was

granted for the Nord Forsk and OPTICON Summer Training Courses organized at MAO. Two PHD

students had long term (3-12 months) visits at the NOT, and shorter ERASMUS exchange visits at

the Institute of Astrophysicas Canarias and the Telescope Nazionale Galileo.

Preliminary discussions and negotiations regarding possible membership have been carried out with

the following organizations/infrastructures consortia: ESA, ESO, E-ELT…Knowing the high fees

necessary, it will take sometime.

It is more realistic for the moment to obtain observing time on the 10 m Gran Telescopio Canarias

(ORM IAC). Preliminary negotiations are going on and the necessary budget is included in the RI

demand.




Researches of the MAO have taken part in research activities of both the ENO (European Northern

Observatory) and the ESO (European Southern Observatory) but Lithuania and the MAO are not in the

lists of their member states. The MAO is planning a photometric and spectroscopic survey of the northern

sky field in order to be included in the PLATO mission of the ESA (European Space Agency). Activities

mentioned are already by definition compatible with the EU infrastructure policy. The MAO and

Lithuania (several memberships should be realized on the state level) are initiating discussions about the

possibility to join several EU organizations (ESA; ESO; E-ELT and others) but no more details are

available at the moment.


The final score 4 is done taking into account the uniqueness (the only one of its kind of nation) and

educational-cultural importance of the field.

The RI proposal is written in a very logical and transparent style showing well-focused activities and

goals. Technically this is the best-written document among the ones I have the opportunity to evaluate.

The MAO RI’s quality and research potential enable good quality services to be provided in the

astronomy, astrophysics and educational training. They publish in top ranked journals of the field, but the

research performance indicators of scientists do not reach a very high international level. The MAO RI is

the only one of its kind in Lithuania. It does not show very significant usage possibilities but it is relevant

for the Lithuanian research environment. However, it is not crucial for the competitiveness of the

Lithuanian research.

The RI is producing very good science at the international level but due to the size of the MAO telescopes

it can continue to be competitive only if the upgrade is done, allowing a modernization of the equipment, a

focusing on long term projects and the possibility to obtain observation time at the 10m telescope.


1) If it is a very motivated wish to cooperate with the Center for Physical Sciences and

Technology within the OA activities, then it would be reasonable to rename the RI type from

single-sited into the shared one. The peculiarity of the “supporting partner” is not addressed .

2) To raise the level of internationalization both among the research staff and graduate students.

To hire highly ranked active researchers from abroad.

3) To increase the funding and especially the share of international funding.


Astrophysics is very important for popularization of science: if you go in a High School, the first interest of

students is astrophysics.

Center of Semiconductor Technology (PTC)


international area?

The RI type of the PTC is termed as single-sited. At the same time the very first sentence in the paragraph

called “Rationale of the proposal” states that “PTC is based on the efforts of several research teams at the

VU and FTMC” which are two different institutions. §7 (RI governance and open access policy) also

shows that “PTC joints the research activities in two institutions, VU and FTMC”. Both institutions have a

number of subunits and their combinations (indicated in §§5,7), several of them have also been included in

the other RI proposals (Laser RI, SPECTROVERSUM, at least). The administrative structure of this RI is

very complicated and remains confusing for the evaluator outside of Lithuania. On the basis of materials

supplied it is complicated to take a look at the real groups in the units and lists of researchers involved by

this RI project. This situation makes it improper to use the results of the assessment exercise of the

institutions, especially when only parts of structural units evaluated are involved in the RI proposal. As a

result, the evaluation of staff, equipment and possible thematic overlapping-related aspects, as well as

several other important issues (feasibility, financing, some quality aspects) can suffer. The somewhat

confusing style of descriptions in the proposal does not help to increase the transparency either. I would

recommend the research structure of the nation should be restructured into a simpler and transparent

system with sharper focuses.

This RI consists of several different units with quite mixed academic quality and ability parameters. In the

country as a whole, impressive resources have already been used for modernizing research infrastructure

and new structures have been called into life. Additional remarkable funding is being planned to spend

within the present RI program. In case the research structure reform in the country is still in the agenda,

the PTC proposal is a good example to ask (more general question) – may be wise to decide necessary

structural changes first and the RI measures will then help to achieve the modified goals and tasks.

There are no affiliation data available for the already existing and seeked equipment in the proposal. This

strongly complicates making comments about rationality of the highly mixed association of units

involved. The list of requested investments shows several expensive systems and uncommonly high

maintenance cost; a higher detailing of this would be welcomed. The operating budget for the next 5 years

(34,369 MEUR) includes two positions (equipment 3,066 MEUR and maintenance cost 3,74 MEUR,

totally 6,806 MEUR) expected to cover by the RI program and this amount of seems adequate and

reasonable. The list of already obtained equipment is impressive.

Talking about the human resources, there are many very good and some excellent researchers and their

groups working in the units involved in the RI. There is an uncertainty or lack of knowledge as no

information is given regarding which research group and who personally have been linked to the particular

RI proposal. It remained also unexplained why several brilliant scientists named in the paragraph “Human

resources” (A. Žukauskas, G.Valušis, G.Juška and J.Vaitkus) have not been listed among the “Lead

researchers”. , At the same time A.Žukauskas’ et.al.article is still presented in the list of TOP 10

publications (§10.1).

The RI equipped with facilities of good international quality, some equipment involved corresponds to the

highest contemporary needs. The PTC will move to the new contemporary lab building with impressive

1000 m2 of clean rooms this summer.

This RI proposes around 1.4 M€ for semiconductor device manufacturing (High Density plasma etching

system, Laser lithography system with high precision mode, Mask Aligner, Facilities for contact






and industry partners, as well as increasing quality and feasibility rankings, 3) using the apparatus park

and research competence more effectively and in an interdisciplinary fashion, 4) increasing motivation of



specialization of the country, 7) some of the equipment can be used for educational purposes of students.

With modern clean room facilities and related semiconductor manufacturing and characerization equipment,

the proposed RI is important to strengthen Lithuania competitiveness in the semiconductor field. However,

the narrow enough focus i.e. niche needs to be developed for the Lithuania semiconductor research, which

can lead to new products and new companies in this field.


Please explain.

The proposed RI is in good compliance with the strategic aims determined by “The Roadmap of Smart

Specialization”, the “Programme of the Integrated science, studies and business centre (valley)

“Sauletetekis”`, “The National Programme for the Development of Studies, Scientific Research and

Experimental (Social and Cultural) Development for 2013-2020”, the “Lithuanian Progress Strategy

Lithuania 2030” and “Lithuanian innovation strategy 2010-2020”.

The semiconductor devices, in combination with laser technologies, correspond to one of the most

competitive and promising research fields, i.e. the proposed RI can be defined as RI of broad national

interest.

evaporation, Device probe station) and about an additional 1.7 M€ for material and device characterisation

(Secondary Ion Mass Spectroscopy (SIMS) facility, Femtosecond laser and tunable wavelength OPO system

for microwave-probed pulsed photo-ionization spectroscopy, Cathodoluminescence spectrometer with

picosecond time and submicrometer spatial resolution). These equipment will be installed into the single

center at the NCPTS building of the Sauletekis Valley, upgrading the existing RI operating since 2012. This

center can provide resources for the internationally high level research.



There are many researchers (incl. all lead researchers) in the units involved whose research performances

are at the very high international level. At the same time some units involved received scores 2 or 3 for

their research quality at the international assessment exercise 2014. As it was pointed out in the very first

paragraph of this report, the uncertainty of persons and units linked to the RI, but also the complexity of

the structures involved complicate detailed analysis here.

The list of TOP publications shows articles in high and one article in top level journals. The RI proposal

shows very rich list of international cooperation but the share of (high quality) foreign researches at home

remains low. This is what would need improvement.

The research performed so far by the RI got good review in the 2015 RAE, accordingly the further

development is justified.


proposed RI?

Because of the uncertainty and mixed-staff-related reasons detailed above the answer to this question is

not univalent. There are definitely a large number of really high level research groups and scientists

working within the RI. Without a doubt this staff fulfills all quality requirements to ensure effective use of

proposed RI.

In case of the PTC, several partner institutions and their groups have been included in the other RI

projects. The institutions have been recently evaluated by quite different academic quality and ability

parameters and scores. Some of the partners (partially or fully) have also been (in a parallel way) included

in the other RI projects (at least in the Laser RI and SPECTROVERSUM) and we do not know who

personally and to a what degree is involved. Therefore, for some of the academic units the question of

their reorganization should be put on the table before starting answering this question. As no more detailed

data are presented and it remains unclear which groups have been included in the RI project, it is not

possible to be more precise here.

The current has large pool of users, i.e. there exists adequate number of high quality researchers.

However, it would be of large benefit to have more high level scientists joining, or at least visiting for longer

period, from the similar centers outside Lithuania.



Yes, it does that. This has been described in chapter 3.

The proposed RI will definitely contribute to the national goals, being the cornerstone of one of the major

valleys.



Much attention has been paid to the development of the OA service, its suitability and readiness are well

described in the proposal. However, very little information can be found about the price policy and real

operation of the OA centers (who are the operators, who covers the expenses etc.). The governance and

procedure how to select the open access partners have been described in necessary detail. The question

that I had related to the three-management-level, was raised in the § 5c already.

The existing RI has shown open access operation, and there is not need to questions that this would not

continue in the future. To attract international researchers would be of great importance and accordingly

require special efforts by the RI.


Because of its teaching, fundamental and applied research abilities and tasks the proposed RI definitely

has a visible and important social-economic impact on the nation. The methods used and the research

topics with which they work match the economic interests of the country well. Involvement in the Sunrise

Valley program and orientation to the Smart Specialization of the nation additionally confirm that the

socio-economic impact of the project is realistic. The PTC consists of several partners. Except the OA

activities, practically nothing has been said about the possible additional added value provided by forming

of the consortium of partners, the PTC.

The existing RI has contributed to the creation of many spin-off companies as well as collaborated with

the existing both national and international companies. This good trend needs to even further emphasized

the expansion of the RI. Expected socio-economic impacts are thus realistic.


Yes, in main picture they will. Because of the uncertainty and mixed staff related reasons treated above

this might not be so clear for all (possible) units involved. The existing international cooperation in total is

at a very good level with famous partners in highly-developed countries. What has been planned in the

proposal definitely helps in moving forward. They already had and have several capacious international

contracts (including FP7 projects) but its total share (averagely about 14,5%) in the budget should undergo

a remarkable increase. A higher internationalization rate of the staff and (graduate) students along with

higher per capita financing will definitely support this goal. In §18c applicants state that “currently, two

PTC features are mainly attractive for our foreign partners: highly-qualified human resources and unique

investigation techniques”, only, but practically nothing have been written about the research results

themselves. Research results are the main parameter (especially the internationally top quality results)

researches take into account when looking for partners.

Due to additional advanced semiconductor device manufacturing and characterization equipment in the

RI, opportunities for international collaboration will be made stronger.




This RI project is compatible with the EU research infrastructure policy. This statement is also supported

by the list of international research projects 2010-2015 where several EU FP7 and other programs have

been presented. No existing institutional level memberships of the PTC can be found in the proposal.

It was mentioned that “researchers of the PTC are members of the European Photovoltaic Industry

Association (EPIC) that establishes links between the member institutions (VMTI FTMC became a

member in 2011)”. And one more, that “PTC is one of seven Lithuanian RIs, which are listed in the

European database MERIL (Mapping of the European Research Infrastructure Landscape)”.

Lithuania is planning the state level membership in CERN and ESA in the coming years. Researchers of

the PTC already have taken part in several CERN activities by now. The PTC is also planning to join with

the AENAS association connecting participants in collaborative precompetitive Research, Development &

Innovation on micro and nanoelectronics enabled components and systems.


The final score is 4 because 1) several research groups (not defined in more detail in the proposal) of the

PTC definitely and institutions show good to high quality and research potential but does not reach the

very top standards of international excellence; 2) their RI is highly relevant for the Lithuanian research

environment.

At the same time the proposal is written in a very uninformative and sloppy style. PTC consists of several

research institutions (and even unspecified (!) parts of them) having very different academic quality and

ability scores (from 2 to 4) on research assessment exercise of 2014. On the basis of the proposal, it is not

possible to realize which research groups from such different institutions are actually linked to the PTC

(main data presented can be applied for the whole institution, not for the research groups). In addition,

several partners have already been involved in other RI as well. When not having information about their

staffs it is not possible to comment on rationality, feasibility or the possible overlapping aspects of the RI.

As a result, this makes the subject of evaluation itself quite uncertain.

This RI proposes to further strengthen the semiconductor device manufacturing and characterization tools

in one if the major valley in Lithuania. With finding the own research niches, the RI has potential to develop

an important international center for focused semiconductor device manufacturing and application research

and development.


The institutional staff of the present project is quite mixed. It should be reasonable to make necessary

structural reforms and/or changes first and then to write transparent RI proposal with well-defined focus,

with the participation of the best partners, showing its unique place among other RI on the Lithuanian

research landscape.

To find the own research niche suiting to the Lithuanian R&D structure and available infra.


The research structure of the nation should be restructured into a simpler and transparent system with sharper

focuses.

Center of Innovative Chemistry (INOCHEM)



Lithuania requires industrial investment and has a good base of local companies involved in the RI area.

Science in general is sustained by analytical instrumentation and the RI will provide a central basis for this

in the area of materials sciences. The RI targets materials, which promises high economic returns and in

the area of physics and chemistry is the one area with most socio-economic impact. Strategically this

makes sense.

The likelihood of practically relevant results, IP and SME generation is high.

The geographical concentration of most of the RIs in one geographical location is good. The current

fragmentation of Lithuanian science in too many institutes and units is the main impediment to increases

in impact and quality. The RIs approach here is practical, logical and feasible within the present structures.

The proposed RI is likely to strengthen international competitiveness in some areas (especially X-ray based

material characterization). However, due to very broadly defined focus areas of RI it is not clear what would

be the RI’s overall contributed to strengthen the chemistry research field.


international area?

Yes, absolutely. It combines most of the analytical chemistry instrumentation in Lithuania required for

materials science applications in one center. Most of this is new, state-of-the-art instrumentation, suitable

for high end research. The resource level (including expertise) is very high. If funded this will be a RI of

high international competitiveness in the form of an institutional center.

One consideration is whether this RI can be transformed into a unit that is not only able to compete at the

international level (which is will be able to) but become an international leader.

Then main large scale investment proposed with about 6M€ RI funding for advanced equipment is the

new XPS system. This is in line with earlier RI focus on X-ray equipment. The rest i.e. about 4 M€ is

planned for the acquisition of large number normal chemistry lab equipment. In terms of x-ray methods

the RI is likely to provide equipment for high level research comparable on international level. However,

the equipment proposed for the general chemistry is scattered, and accordingly it is not clear what is the

main purpose of just RI. In the 2015 RAE e.g. VU Chemistry Department equipment was considered to

be already at the competitive, similar to FMTC Chemical Technology equipment.


Please explain.

Yes, in all aspects.

The RI will provide services in an area which is essential for the nation (new materials and

characterization) and has an established track record in delivering returns on past investments. Potentially,

Lithuania might consider streamlining all applied chemistry activities in this center to reach a critical mass

that would clearly be internationally visible.

The analytical instrument base available and requested in the RI is absolutely essential for existing

industrial companies in Lithuania and to attract new ones. As shown by the list of international

corporations currently cooperating with the RI this has the potential to attract further national and foreign

investment.

Due to relatively broad scope of the RI research fields, it can be considered as “RI of broad national interest”.

However, narrower focus of RI would be preferred.



Yes, good return on prior investments made. Excellent track record in research projects and good track

record in scientific impact.

Quality of RIs as per 2015 RA:

FTMC: 3

VU, Fac. Chem: 3

Average quality based on RA

Top 10 publications:

Low to mid-level journals, one publication in top tier chemical (J. Am. Chem. Soc.) journals. Based on the

area of research and instrument base this should have been better.

Research projects:

Good level of international and superior level of national projects; very good evidence of business

contracts (more in terms of activity than funding), minor involvement in government contracts. RI clearly

established at the national and international level in terms of research cooperation.

Scientific impact is good but could be better. Investment justified.

The earlier RI funding as listed in the proposal is about 9.5 M€. The 10 refereed papers listed in the

proposal are published in good quality international journals, however not in top level journals. Based on

the authors names, there is not significant international collaboration involved in these papers.

Interestingly, in the 2015 RAE, VU Chemistry Department was given high rank based on their scientific

research level, with papers published in the top international journals. Now it seems that the authors of

those papers are not fully included with this RI proposal.


Yes, with some reservations.

a) Technically:

Yes, fully. Instrument base, skill level and technical expertise are fully on par with the requirements.

b) Financially:

No. No real details are given. The requested financial support is in line with the requirements for the RI.

All major requested instrumentation is justified; however, 2 Mio. for small equipment and consumables is

excessive (reads like an upgrade request for all participating research groups instead of a strategic

investment). This also indicates that the RI is structured more as an institutional center rather than a

national research center. No comments are made for anticipated income from the institute, indirect costs,

etc. Levels of requested support for staff is adequate, perhaps on the low end as no requests for admin

personnel are made.


Yes. Open access center structure, information given is a bit scarce but mentions three departments. No

information on personnel and HR management and lead institution.

a) Technically:

A lot of funding i.e. 4 M€ is proposed to be used on quite general chemistry laboratory equipment with

quite scattered research topics. It is not clear at the moment whether this is really needed taking into

account the earlier Lithuanian RI investments in the chemistry fields.

b) Financially:

See above – more clear aim when proposing of using 4 M€ for general chemistry equipment is

recommended.


Organization plan of seems fine, as it is planned to be governed by Council, composed of 6 persons,

appointed by FTMC and VU (3 persons form each INNOCHEM will include 3 departments:

Department of Material Synthesis,

Department of Surface Modification,

Department of Analysis/Investigation.

Each department will have several laboratories and heads of laboratories will be responsible for the

functioning and accessibility of the infrastructure. However, it is not clear who is responsible for the

daily operation of the RI. Organization plan needs further development, especially as this is a distributed

RI.


proposed RI?

Yes, the RI comprises ~180 researchers; breakdown of numbers not clear.

Many of the researchers are national leaders, several have international impact.

No clear information on the HR/personnel structure of the institute. How many admin people, central

office? Who will be the institute director?

Contact person for RI: R. Ramanauskas (72 publ., H-ind. 14), good track record but no indication for

increased output in past decade. R. Makuska (75 publ., H-ind. 16). Both highly qualified and national

leaders with international visibility.

Discussion indicated two leaders which will not work. The proposal is good but need ONE strategic leader

to take it to the next level.

The HR basis is very good and comprises the majority of the scientific personnel in this area in Lithuania.

As such it is integrative and can sustain a major center. However, a clear assessment is not possible as no

details on the organizational structure of the RI are given. The large number of personnel involved will

require a very clear and streamlined management structure.

Total of 14 person have been involved in the pre-RI operation during 2010-2015. However, it is not clear

how and by whom the proposed RI would be operated in the future. There are of course large number of

scientists and some number of PhD students involved to use the proposed RI, but it is not clear how the use

will be organized.



Yes, in an excellent manner. Well thought out plan, good ideas and mapping onto national strategy.

Fundamental areas covered by the RI are of strategic relevance to Lithuanian science. The RI will provide

both fundamental infrastructural support (primarily through instrumentation and expertise) but will also be

able to assist in a strategic manner in future developments.

Problem: overlapping areas with AChePha. The omission of small molecule (solution) chemistry is

artificial and detrimental to the national interest.

The goal of the proposed RI is very broad, as is the national Smart Specialization. Accordingly, RI fits to

the specialization.

Another question is how to define national focus in narrow enough manner to foster Lithuanian R&D to

develop towards high international level.



Maybe. The RI clearly has been successful in the past. However, while a governance structure has been

described no organizational information (except for participating units) or personnel assignment has been

given.

The main organizing principle is open-access of shared services. This will work well for instrument use

and analytical services. It is less clear how contract research is organized and how the materials

preparation laboratories will be accessed. Are there dedicated laboratories which are available for use? Or

does this simply rely on arrangements with the individual research groups? How will international

cooperation be organized? The governance policy outlines three sub-departments, good idea in

comparison to all other applications, but who will run those and where are they located?

The proposed RI is planned to operate as open access RI. But it is not clear how this would practically

organized, especially who would be responsible for the RI daily operation.


No, as no details are given. There is no doubt that the RI is of strategic importance for Lithuania and must

be sustained. However, in contrast to other sections of the proposal this one is rather general.

Nevertheless, the general statements made (infrastructure use, advanced teaching, industrial

collaborations) are all well put and the reviewers are confident that this RI will deliver significant socio-

economic impact.

Details should be provided on expected financial income, teaching and scholarly output impact and the

potential for new SMEs.

The laboratories behind the RI have connections to the companies and accordingly can contribute to the

economical development in Lithuania. Partner are also involved in rather large national projetcs and also

in H202 projects like e.g. Smart electrodeposited alloys for environmentally sustainable applications: from

advanced protective coating to micro/nano-robotic platforms (SELECTA) with total budget of 3.2 M€,

however it is not clear what is the share of Lithuanian partners.


International cooperation will be made easier, but only partially strengthened through newer

instrumentation. Most of the benefits of the RI (personnel and existing analytical infrastructure) are

already present.

No clear case has been made for the added benefit of this proposal vis a vis the past strategy.

The main new expensive state-of-the-art equipment proposed is the XPS. However, there are many labs in

e.g. Europe having such equipment. And the general chemistry lab equipment proposed, too, would be

available in every good level laboratory. Therefore, it is not clear whether the proposed RI would

significantly increase the international collaboration.




Yes, the program fits very well.

Existing international contacts are in a narrowly focused area (but economically relevant) and some

overlap with AChePha. Long term plans are good, Nordic Chem program and sustainable chemistry are

excellent prospects. Some areas, such as neutron-based research, are ambitious and should be

reconsidered. Overall strategy could have been formulated better.

Due to rather broad definition of RI aims, it would fit EU research infrastructure policy.


Good RI with high international potential, essential for Lithuania.

Main benefit of this RI is the large base of research personnel and that it integrates most of the materials

sciences instrumentation and expertise in Lithuania. This gives critical mass and will make the RI

internationally competitive. It offers the potential to become an internationally highly competitive unit and

with the appropriate personnel strategy an international leader.

The proposal suffers from an absence of HR organizational information; no detailed business plan was

provide and the added benefits are not clearly outlined. A bit more long term vision would have been

desirable. The proposal is primarily an institutional center type application.

Finances and requested funding are in line with requirements but 2 Mio € for small instrumentation and

consumables is excessive and indicated that part of the proposal is used to support standard research

projects. This should come from other funds.

Number of directly involved staff (14) is rather small for the range of activities provided. It appears as if

the center will provide most of the services via the associated research groups.

Final score mainly reflects the national importance of the underpinning science and the expertise and

instrumentation base.

This RI proposes to acquire one major surface instrument i.e. XPS needed in modern materials research

with 1/3 (about 2 M€) of the proposed funding used for this purpose. This is in line with earlier

specialization on X-ray based material characterization. The rest of proposed RI funding (about 4 M€) is

proposed for rather general chemistry laboratory equipment, which needs to be more clearly specified. In

general, the overall aim of the RI could be described in more detail


Fund at about 5. Mio. € level.

Develop a more cohesive strategic plan, finalize concentration of physical infrastructure in one (or fewer)

geographical location and concomitantly fuse the underlying academic units. This RI can deliver

substantially if concentrated and strategically led. Establish an international advisory board.

Integrate chemistry as opposed to materials better in the proposal, e.g., synthetic chemistry. Consider a

broader approach to become THE center in Lithuania for applied chemistry.

Engage in discussion with AChePha about shared instrumentation and alignment of research topics!

Participating units should target higher impact journals.

The focus for the research of RI is recommended to be narrower, as well as the management responsibilities

should be better defined.


Must be in one building and fuse the academic units. Require them to develop a cohesive teaching and

training plan, broaden their scientific interests, and develop a long term financial strategy. Then give them

5 Mio (primarily for post docs, admin and research project writing staff and 2-3 international faculty

members) and in 10 years’ time it will be self-supportive and an economic success. Assure that you get a

good leader for this project and it has to be ONE person.

Significant overlap/synergism with AChePha. Separation of chemistry into two units one for pharma and

one for materials is arbitrary as both claim track records in both areas. Artificial omission of the more

biological aspects of synthetic science which are covered in the AChePha proposal.

Instruments still in use after 2020, what about shelf life?

The new equipment requested is primarily in materials sciences, the RI can only deliver long term if it also

has access to the instrumentation of AchePha. Clarification on personnel numbers: researchers vs.

scientists vs. PhD vs. technical personnel.

Business and teaching plan?

Much better written proposal and plan than AChePha.

Overall: good proposal of national relevance, sometimes a bit too far reaching. 9.6 Mio € in prior

investments

Ultrasonic non-destructive testing, measurement and diagnostics

(ULTRATEST)


international area?

Yes, it does, as the potential is comparably high – the area is with long history in Lithuania, having

participated in FP5, FP6 and FP7 projects and Horizon 2020 projects. Also, participating in Long

Range Ultrasonics developments can open the collaboration possibilities. However, the carried out

project nature has been in transferring existing knowledge, instead of creating new knowledge in

international cooperation.

To mention, only one doctoral student is mentioned starting the partnership-based studies within

the period of existence – this is very weak indication of international mobility and mutual activities.

This RI ultraest is proposed by the Ultrasound Research Institute of KTU. The goal is to provide

the following services:

Applied research in detection of internal defects and determination of physical and mechanical

properties and their change in different materials, using non-destructive ultrasonic methods for

materials characterization, measurement, imaging and diagnostics.

Applied research in ultrasonic non-destructive testing to prevent accidents in oil and gas industries,

transport constructions (railways and bridges), energy (nuclear)and renewable energy Sources

(thermal, water and wind). Diagnostics and condition monitoring systems and technologies for

land, water, aviation and space transport vehicles and covering sector.

Applied research of ultrasonic diagnostic methods in medicine and development of innovative

technologies. Prototyping of ultrasonic quality and process control systems, for on-line monitoring

the technological operations during the manufacturing process.

Prototyping of systems for ultrasonic measurements, non-destructive testing and monitoring to

ensure the safety of industrial facilities, nuclear industry and bulk engineering structure. Prototypes

creation of special ultrasonic transducers for medical and technical diagnostics. Technical

feasibility studies for adopting new ultrasonic non-destructive testing and measurement methods

for controlling the quality of industrial products and monitoring of the manufacturing processes:

Technical feasibility studies for creating methods and systems for new non-destructive

testing certification and development of standards. Investigation of quantitative

characteristics of ultrasonic transducers

Technical feasibility studies of application of new ultrasonic diagnostic methods in

medicine seeking to improve the informative level of early stage quantitative diagnosis

and clinical decision support

Non-destructive testing and characterization of various materials using X-ray

Microtomography System. In 2014, the Ultrasound Institute and the ULTRATEST

infrastructure were transferred to the SANTAKA Valley. They already have good equipment

but they would like to invest 3. 15 M€ for new equipment between 2016 and 2020.

2. How the proposed RI strengthens international competiveness of Lithuania in a

relevant field(s) of research?

The research in the field of non-destructive testing (NDT) methods (particularly ultrasonic

characterization) of material properties is with long traditions in Lithuania. The high impact of

research in this field (e.g. in vessel welding, spacecraft inspection, medical implants…) can be

the driving force for high contribution from Lithuanian research directions to world-leading

technologies.

Again, the focus of the proposed RI is more in seeking different modestly sized projects instead

of keeping vision behind scientific processes behind development of particular measurement

technology.

The RI will strengthens the international competitiveness of Lithuania if it is able to increase quickly its

scientific production and to transfer to industry its knowledge.



The main national interest can be the continuous well-fare for the benefit of citizens and

community. Any increase of knowledge and its transfer is for this purpose.


However, advertised as nationally important infrastructure and having a number of industrial

contracts, the total value of the contracts within recent period reaches only 10% of total budget.

From the documents it is not so evident because a large fraction of the users come from KTU and the links

with the applications are missing.

Actually the research personnel of the RI includes:

3 Researchers5 Junior researchers (2 with a PHD)

2 Projects investigators

With the upgrade budget they would like to hire 17 scientists and engineers but it is not

clear how many will go the RI and how many to the Institute?

4. Does the research performance of the assessment unit presenting the proposal justify

further development of proposed RI? Please explain.

Yes, it does in specified field of ultrasonic measurements:

The proposed RI has developed unique know-how and experience in the field of

ultrasonic measurements, testing and imaging. This should be elaborated further for the

benefit on European scale, e.g. Long Range Ultrasonic measurement network.

On the other hand, the fraction of publications in international cooperation is 12% of total

publication number, increase of which is not foreseen.

The scientific production:

Publications: the 10 top publications between 2010 and 2015 have been published in

international journals but with rather low impact factor (1. 95 average)

During the period 2008/2016 they have obtained 16 FP7 contracts for a total of 3. 71 M€,

which is remarkable but again this has produced only 11 publications, most of them in

low profile journals, some in conference proceedings or no publications.

In basic science that will be difficult to understand. If it is mostly applied work then one has to use

different criteria: number of patents, spin-off companies created, and contracts with industry. We

have no information on the first 2 items but the number of contracts with companies and the amount

are very small: 59 K€ between 2009 and 2015.

Four prototypes have been developed:

Special high T (up to 450°C) ultrasonic transducers for operation inside liquid metal alloy

under high radiation and high hydrostatic pressure

Technology of manufacturing high T transducers for operation in nuclear reactors

Technology of manufacturing very efficient air-coupled ultrasonic transducers

Special transducers for measurement of density and viscosity of liquid plastic plastic flow

but we don’t know if this has been transferred to industry

In conclusion, the Unit has to make efforts to reach a good international level. The positive part is

the large number of the FP7 contracts obtained by the Institute. NDT is important in many fields

but before to create a RI they should increase the quality of the scientific production and the

transfer to the industry.


a) Technically:

Yes, it is. Although, the maintenance arrangement, especially calibration of the in-situ developed

measurement devices and systems, remains unclear – how to provide reliability of functioning.

On the other hand, this could be scientifically challenging, but such scientific aspect was not

described in the proposal neither during meeting session.

b) Financially:

Remains open, because no breakdown by equipment list is given and high indirect costs has been

indicated. This was not explained at meeting session.


Yes, it is.

a) Technically:

The RI has already good equipment and would like to add more (3. 15 M€)

b) Financially:

They are applying for 7 M€ (70% requested from EU SF and 30% from national funding,

business contracts, H2020, initiatives from smart specialization):

Salaries: 2.1M€

Consumables: 0.21 M€

Equipment: 3. 15 M€

Maintenance costs: 0. 42 M€

Membership fee: 0. 07 M€

Indirect costs: 1. 05 M€

It is a large budget for a community of users, which is not very large.


It should be fine, especially with the help of the Institute.


proposed RI?

Yes, it is, however clarification is needed for the distribution of work.

The confusion was and remained during meeting session about the small fractional participation of

employed staff in proposed RI (FTE 18,5%).

Actually the research personnel of the RI includes:

3 Researchers

5 Junior researchers (2 with a PHD)

2 Projects investigatorsAre

The Ultrasound Research Institute (part of the Kaunas University of Technology) has:

12 chief researchers, senior researchers and researchers

3 junior researchers

2 research workers

2 senior engineers

11 PHD students (5 are working as permanent staff!)

During the period 2016/2020 they expect to recruit 17 researchers and engineers as permanent staff+ PHD

students. How many will be included in the RI?

To know if this is sufficient it is necessary to have a good idea of the number of users and this is not very

simple because there are big discrepancies between the information given in the RI proposal and the web

site. On the web ULTRATEST site (on MERIL) the numbers are:

800 national users/year!

500 European users/year!

200 international users/year!

In the RI documents they are very different:

Internal users (researchers, scientists, post-docs and PHD students): 183

National users: 25, expected new users if upgrade: 47

International: 22, expected new users if upgrade: 50

If we believe the numbers of the RI proposal, the human resources are adequate.

7. Does the proposed RI contribute to achieving the Smart Specialization and other

national research and innovation goals?

Yes, it does, as those goals are such wide that anything can fit there.

Non destructive testing can cover various fields that are included in the “Smart specialization”:

Energy and sustainable environment

New production processes, materials and technologies


8. Is the proposed RI organized in the way to be able to provide open access and/or

services for scientific community of the country and international researchers?

Yes, it is as described in the proposal.

The RI ULTRATEST operates on open access basis following the rules established in 2015 by the

Kaunas University of Technology. Scientific tools and research services may be booked by

internal (KTU) and external (public and private sector) users through the OAC information

system APCIS. The cost of access is estimated on an individual basis depending on the selected

lease option. The cost of access is estimated on an individual basis depending on the selected

lease option.


Yes, it is.

However, focus on broader scope (for European scale) is desirable. Also, the proposal describes

mostly the activities done or to be carried out within RI as socio-economic impact, e.g.:

The RI “ULTRATEST” is already used and will be used for inter-disciplinary education

purposes, especially of Master and PhD students and for retraining of personal already

working in NDT sector.

In addition, the Lithuanian doctoral student Tomas Každailis was already started the

partnership-based studies in 2015.

It is clear that NDT has a possibility of socio-economic impact but for the moment there are

mostly expectations. We have no informations on the creation of spin-off companies or on patents

and the amount of contracts with companies, between 2009 and 2015 is very small: 59 k€. Four

prototypes have been developed but we have no informations on the transfer to industry. One

positive action is the partnership agreement signed in 2015 between KTU and the UK Welding

Institute (WI) for international doctoral studies.


This is doubtful – only one person active in this direction, see p1.

Yes but at a modest level: during the 6 years period the number of foreign users (mostly through

FP 7 projects) has been 22: with the upgrade they hope to add 50.

11. Is the RI project compatible with EU research infrastructure policy? Is the

existing/proposed involvement in European research infrastructure organizations

and networks realistic?

The proposed RI project is compatible with EU research infrastructure policy: the key points

have been addressed and dealt in the proposal.

The existing/proposed involvement in European research infrastructure is realistic, although

concentrated to one institution.

The RI project is compatible with the EU research policy. The Ultrasound Institute is a member of

NUGENIA (association of institutions working in the field of nuclear energy). With other European

partners they are planning to prepare joint project proposals for Horizon 2020 EURATOM calls

(NFRP2 and NFRP5). They are ready to participate to the European Research Infrastructures under

the thematic “Energy and Engineering networks”:

“Integrating European Research Infrastructures for Micro-Nano Fabrication of Functional

Structures and Devices out of a Knowledge-based Multimaterials Repertoire”

(EUMINAfab).

“Distributed Energy Resources Research Infrastructures” (DERri);

“Solar Photovoltaic European Research Infrastructure”(SPPHIA);

“Marine Renewables Infrastructures Network for Emerging Energy Technologies”

(MARINET).

12. Evaluation score - 3.

The initial score was ‘4’ based on the expectations given in the RI proposal. The meeting session

was my personal disappointment: the proposal presentation was built up focusing on description

of wide range of activities without scientific aims and no justifications were presented on the

equipment.

The RI proposal has been presented without clear distribution of equipment breakdown.

The commitment of working staff needs better explanation.

The R&D objectives not clearly described (e.g. how to achieve TWI acceptance)

The Unit has a good potential but has not reached until now a level of international excellence. It

is important for Lithuania to have this kind of RI but before that efforts have to be done:

to increase the quality of the scientific production;

to seriously improve the contacts with industry.


The field of ULTRATEST activities can be interesting for international standartization bodies. This

can be an opportunity for wider impact of the studies.

The complementary and competitive NDT techniques, e.g. eddy-current and optical long range

measurements can have a benefit for further R&D activities.

The implementation of impact can be better achieved in strengthen co-operation with enhanced

implementation and research, e.g. mechatronics.

Today we are not recommending the creation of the RI.


The proposal has 40 pages (twice more than the other) but a lot informations are missing.

Nuclear Research Centre (NRC)



A cyclotron facility with an excellent research community around it would be an important asset for

medical diagnosis, treatment and biomedical research.

Important disease entities are listed as targets for research, and benchmarking against leading other sites

would be helpful.

Identification of a scientific niche for the propose RI use would be a good idea.


Please explain.

This represents highly relevant technology for studying biological functions of organs and whole body and

it provide means for better insights on pathological processes. Also improvements in clinical work. The

range of applications is wide and hence there is a possibility for broad national interest.

The proposed RI would extend the usage possibilities of the current PET facility (first in country)

The number of internal RI users is indicated as 109. National users is 16 and predicted to grow to 36. There

are 3 international users, predicted to grow to 18. Thus the number of users appears high and high growth

is predicted. The research potential of the RI may be appreciable but it is doubtful that the human resources

available would be able to fully exploit the opportunities.

Also, the proposal is about Kaunas participants and no other Lithuanian researchers seem to be involved,

though they may have open access to the RI.

The proposal does not hint to any outside research need or expression of interest.

However, patients in need of treatment or diagnostic procedures may come from all over Lithuania and even

from abroad.


international area?

A new single-sited RI is proposed for nuclear medicine and biopharmacy-related research. The RI would

support needs for short half-life radionucleotides to be used in diagnostic measures.

Envisioned research areas are GI diseases, and CNS visualization in liver cirrhosis-induced encephalopathy,

Alzheimer’s and Parkinson´s diseases.



The top-10 list of publications presents specialized journal venues of low-to-medium impact. However,

the lead scientists have a respectable publication track record, including 3 scientists with h values between

21-29.

The research performance of the Lithuanian University of Health Sciences (LUHS) is very good. However,

the partner institution, Kaunas University of Technology received only a score of 2 in the LT RAE,

therefore the scientific justification for the RI rests with the local biomedical research. In this regard it is

important to note that none of the excellent clinical researchers of LUHS had before significant research

activity in nuclear medicine and no convincing research plans are presented for the use of the RI.

The international collaborative projects are several, but of the network-building type rather than robust

funding to research. The main nationally funded research projects involve research on the GI tract (most

of the projects), cardiac aspects and cranial ultrasound research – the list is not, however, very extensive.

The applicants present collaborations with national and international partners, but it is not clear to what

extent these projects directly relate to the cyclotron-PET setup. Nevertheless, the host institutions have

links to relevant international organisations.

It may also be important to note that although the proposal mentions the opportunity of developing novel

radiopharmaceuticals, no relevant prior research activity is mentioned in the research profile of the Faculty

of Pharmacy.

It appears to be a health policy question whether Lithuania needs the capability to manufacture short lived

radioisotopes for treatment and diagnostic uses or chooses to use international facilities in case patients

need this kind of brachytherapy or diagnostic approach. The health policy decision may have a secondary

effect on the research capabilities.


a) Technically:

The proposed site for this RI seems appropriate given the leading status of the host in medicine in Lithuania.

The new facility will be linked with existing PET and support both research and patient work.

LUHS, Kaunas University of Technology and Kauno klinikos will together build the RI. This appears as a

consortium with good added value in view of their specific expertises.

The hosts have received previously funding for basic laboratory equipment (LUHS), a PET setup, MRI and

CT at Kauno klinikos, and some equipments to the Technical partner.

However, the information provided on technical details is insufficient.

b) Financially:

This constitutes of a large investment (15 million € for cyclotron and building) and sizeable salary,

consumables and maintenance costs. Even after building the setup the running costs will remain high, and

this will require national/host funding on long-term bases.


Operation will be done according to a joint venture agreement between the 3 partner organizations.

The organization model is rather generic and same sentences can be found in another LUHS RI proposal. It

would have been helpful to have some ideas of user costs and not only principles outlined. As costs for

outside researchers and possible demand from outside Kaunas are not included in the proposal it is likely

that research use will be only from within the LUHS.


proposed RI?

85 research personnel are reported to be directly involved in the RI operation. This is a high number, and

some clarification as to what the involvements exactly mean would be needed.

Given that the hosts are already running major, related equipment setups requiring expert personnel, and

with help from the supplier, it would seem possible to set up and run the proposed RI.

The lead researchers named in the proposal are very good experts in their respective fields, however their

background does not support the notion that they may use the RI for significant research, except perhaps the

PET scanner which might be supplied with better radiopharmaceuticals from the new RI.

There is no mention of human resources for the development or production of radiopharmaceuticals.



The proposed RI would contribute to Smart specialization and specifically to health-related national

strategies. This type of medical research also carries potentials for innovation outcomes in diagnostics and

patient treatment. Establishing a novel nuclear medicine field may require several years.



There is a motivation for providing open access and services nationally and also for international

researchers. The descriptions are not very detailed. It is not clear from the proposal that beyond the clinical

use for patient coming outside Kaunas, how much research demand may be expected for the highly

specialized facility and services.


The proposed RI would boost the quality of medical services and this is likely to happen soon after operation

can start.

It is envisioned that liquid radiotherapy would allow for business-research cooperative developments. These

could include development of new drugs and PET markers. This is a more long-term prospect.

A long list of company contracts is presented, typically in the range of a few thousand €, or charged per

patient, but the end sum is not given.

Altogether, the proposal describes optimistic expectations. It is expected that only a small part of those

expectations will materialize within a few years.


Yes, if the RI will be surrounded by experts in manufacturing and using short-lived radiopharmaceuticals

and will offer the use with a low or acceptable cost. The availability of a RI is strengthening cooperation if

the local human potential in the field - in this case nuclear medicine - is appropriate.

It is indicated that the RI would comply with the European ESFRI concept. However, no details are given

with respect to what ESFRI infrastructures are in mind, suggesting that such concrete links have not yet

been formed.

KK has joint projects with IAEA. An important contact has been formed with CERN, including a recent co-

operation plan. Altogether, there is some real international links that could be further used to help in the

realization of the proposed RI.




ESFRI is pointed out in the proposal, but concrete links and plans appear to be lacking at this point.

IAEA, medical networks and CERN are all possibilities for strengthened involvement in European and

global networks, but their relevance with respect to this RI appears only slight.


This is an interesting proposal and it would strengthen the existing PET usability for research and clinical

purposes. More specifically,

- The RI will provide good services for health care, may improve the treatment of some form of

tumors and may improve the diagnostic use of the existing PET instrument.

- The research potential enable good quality services to a segment of clinical research, provided

development of the associated fields will be fast.

- The RI shows significant medical usage possibilities.

- It is not crucial for the competitiveness of Lithuanian research. There are several very good

medical universities and faculties in Europe without access to such facilities.

The investment and running costs are very high, and therefore careful consideration and strategic

prioritization is needed. This includes further consideration of using the closest-by facilities in an efficient

manner instead of setting up an own syclotron.

Long-term cost structure should be considered – who will pay and what after construction when the

facility is up and running.

The user base is potentially fairly sizable, but not as high as for some other bio-medical RIs.


Benchmarking with international similar efforts would help to position the proposal internationally.

In case funding is secured, immediately train experts for operating the cyclotron. Send selected people to

existing facilities in Europe.

Secure (train or hire) experts with experience in synthetizing relevant radiopharmaceuticals.

It is important to consider whether there are specific niches internationally where the proposed RI would

have a special role.


In applying for a large RI, it is important to show that

- important demand for the RI exits (preferably by researching the demand for the RI services or by

binding letters of intent from potential users),

- as a dual (medical treatment/diagnosis and clinical research) use facility, the services for the

Lithuanian health care system should be organized and financial conditions secured in advance so

that the non-research medical uses could go on smoothly,

- internal research projects potentially using the RI are good and fundable, so that the research

potential could be exploited,

- the cost and the demand are balanced in that potential users can bear the costs involved, and

- high level of expertise is already available or can be quickly acquired (by employing experts

trained elsewhere or pooling talent available).

Unfortunately, these aspects are not entirely convincing in the present proposal.

Infratructure of national aerobiological scientific research (AEROINFRA)



The RI makes a clear and focused case for a narrow area. The RI specifically targets aerobiology in the

context of allergy research and health impacts. It is questionable why not pollutants in general were

targeted here to gain more critical impact. However, this focus can serve as a model for expansion to other

countries in the Baltic and Europe in general. The health impact of the projects is significant and this can

serve as an example for investment in population health feeding back into the general research

infrastructure.

Overall the proposal is rather unique in its outline; it has very strong international links and relevance,

which is strongly supported by the letters of intent from various foreign institutions. It has very good

regional (Baltic) international relevance.


international area?

Yes, it combines most of the aerobiological research groups in Lithuania in one center. As aerobiological

work by necessity requires different locations the incorporation of varied centers is justified. Past

investment is this area has been very low, although the instrumentation requirements for many of the sub

projects are minimal. Quality of current infrastructure is difficult to assess, probably at low to mid-level.

Investment in this area would bring the RI up to the internationally required level.


Please explain.

No.

The RI will provide services in an area of national interest but it does not support a broader area. While

this assures high research impact in the chosen area it also requires a critical look at investments as the

relative return compared to other RI will be lower. Health benefits can still be significant, though! The

project will be highly integrative on the international level and in the long term additional impact through

collaborations in other areas of medicine, botany and population health can be expected.

Within the narrow focus of the proposal AEROINFRA has clear perspectives of European integration. The

creation of national infrastructure allows possibilities for membership in international RI organizations,

such as EATRIS, ERINHA, LIFEWATCH. For current period EATRIS is the most acceptable for

integration. AEROINFRA will provide state-of-the-art infrastructure, gathering the groups of scientists

that are spread across Europe. In Europe there is no such RI, aimed at science, and this would strengthen

the leadership of Lithuania in the global research environment. It will contribute to National Education

Strategy 2013-2022, Lithuanian Innovation Strategy for 2010-2020, Lithuanian National Public Health

Care Strategy, The Program of 2014-2020 National Advancement, National Strategy on Climate Change

Management Policy. Overall this proposal very well addresses numerous national research and

development priorities; however, it falls short of providing a broader vision.



No, but potential.


SU Biomed Agric: 2 (lead)

LRCAgricForstr.: 2

VU Fac Medicine: 4

VU Fac Nat. Sci Bio: 3

Mixed situation based on RA, lead unit is very small

Top 10 publications

Low to mid-level journals, no publications in top tier (or general) journals.

Research projects:

Low level of international and national projects. Minor evidence of business contracts and involvement in

government contracts. One government clearly related to topic of national relevance.

RI clearly established at the national level in terms of infrastructure use and good international

connectivity.

Moderate investment justified due to potential as research projects.


Overall: partially.

a) Technically:


b) Financially:

Maybe. The RI has prepared what amounts to an ambitious business plan and makes a good case for the

long term financial impact. The requested financial support for instrumentation and infrastructure is in line

with the requirements for the RI and the requested new instrumentation is justified. However, in relative

terms to other RI the proposal is too expensive. Too much money is earmarked for salaries and items such

as “organization of public purchase”, “literature”, etc. These are all items that should be provided by the

home institution and/or from the running costs.


Partly. Open access center structure, only information available is on access (web based). No information

on management structure, information only provided with regard to research sub themes.

One additional aspect highly relevant for this is the logistics and location of the various subunits.

Additional information on the location and tasks of the subunits are required.


proposed RI?

Yes, for the narrow focus of the RI; it comprises 16 researchers and 17 support staff. However, the relative

number of managers and admin is excessive. Such numbers are only justified when the RI would act as

coordinator for much larger activities.

Most of the PI are nationally recognized leaders, one is internationally recognized.

No clear information who exactly will be director.

Contact person for RI: Ingrida Sauliene (30 publ., H-ind. 7) clearly expert in area, but low impact.

[Laura Sukiene: 5,1; Z. Dabkevicius: 38,5; R. Semaskiene: 25,4; A Bukantis: 13,6: R. Dubakiene: 63,14 –

excellent impact curve]. Proposal lists 6 lead researchers for a relatively small RI.

The HR basis for the size of the unit is good and combines most of the relevant groups in Lithuania. The

structure is admin heavy and should be streamlined.



Yes, it touches on several areas which of the national plan. The proposed RI contributes to national

research and innovation goals, namely to in the area of advanced applied technologies for personal and

public health and it will contribute to National Education Strategy 2013-2022, Lithuanian Innovation

Strategy for 2010-2020, Lithuanian National Public Health Care Strategy, The Program of 2014-2020

National Advancement, National Strategy on Climate Change Management Policy. Overall, this proposal

addresses numerous national research and development priorities. Some of the claims are overstated, but

there is no doubt that the RI will provide relevant activities. However, the RI has the potential to impact

wider areas of the national plan provided a broader focus is given to the target projects.

Good aspect: integration of schools and outreach in RI, educational aspects.



Yes, it is. The main organizing principle is open-access of shared services. Details are sketchy and the

management structure needs to be clarified. A list of who will provide what services would be beneficial.

Need to clarify the strategy for international collaboration. In contrast to other RI this has been given a lot

of thought (see letters of support), with the right structure this could be a model case for other RI.


Details are given in an Annex and are very ambitious. The general statements made in the proposal are

justified, but lack specifics with the exception of the impact on GDP (through health benefits). No details

are given on education impacts, research income and SME’s, etc.

No information on expected income, additional scientific outputs, training numbers and potential number

of students.


Yes. The RI makes a compelling case for internationalization and is well prepared for further activities in

this area.

Development of AEROINFRA has a positive impact on new international contacts and consolidation of

existing cooperation. Plans to join European research infrastructures (EATRIS, ERINHA, LIFEWATCH)

are well developed. The researchers are active in international groups of scientists (for example, Climate

Broadcasters Network – Europe, European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, International

Aerobiology Association, International Society of Biometeorology etc.), implement and execute

international projects of high level (e.g., “Integrated approaches to food allergen and allergy management

(iFAAM). The project has high potential to increase the international cooperation, albeit in a narrow area.

This is also documented by the four letters of intent from international organizations/institutes.

11. Is the RI project compatible with EU research infrastructure policy? Does the existing/

proposed involvement in European research infrastructure organizations and networks is

realistic?


Existing and planned initiatives with regard to European research infrastructure are well thought out, fit

the available skill sets and are feasible. Suggestion for future: look further than the EU and also target Asia

and NIH. Significant long term potential.


Main benefit of this RI is the focused topic, international contacts and the model character this RI could

have on integrating population health, biology and research. The participating research institutes are

qualified and seem to interact well. While well prepared, the project lacks an overall strategic vision in

terms of reach. It is clearly written and structures as a research project.

Current organization is management heavy, future income generation remains unclear, and funds

requested are excessive. Doubts remain with regard to the quality of some of the underlying UoA.

At present the strategic impact is difficult to assess, relative to the requested investment it is low.

The most positive aspect of the RI is the long term potential.


Develop a strategic plan, clarify the physical infrastructure and management plan. Re-evaluate financial

plan. Excellent internationalization but go broader. Deliver arguments why the past track record of some

units has been so low.


Low track record of some units.

Doubts about requested funding.

The basic idea has excellent potential.

Clarification on personnel numbers: why so many admin?

Business plan?

Main problem here: Nice idea, very good contacts, but low track record and financial plan appears to be

based on spreading the money around.

Cluster of Applied Chemistry and Biopharmacy (AChePha)


international area?

Yes, it combines most of the analytical chemistry instrumentation in Lithuania in one center. Most of this

is new, state-of-the-art instrumentation, suitable for high end research. The resource level (including

expertise) is very high.

This is a new, distributed RI proposal in the field of applied chemistry and biopharmacy, to include approx.

150 scientists from 15 research groups and at 5 different organizations, including 53 at KTU, 38 at LUHS,

14 at VDU ATC, 10 at ASU, 10 at KU, 25 at LEI. The Faculty of Chemical Technology in Kaunas

University of Technology (KUT) has the leading role in this RI. The expansion of the infrastructure is

primarily associated with the increase in the capacities of chemical analytics associated with the

biopharmaceutical material production, including solid state biomaterial characterization by NMR, as well

as real-time characterization of bioprocesses by MS techniques. Earlier 26 M€ has already been invested to

acquire similar instruments as proposed in this RI. The main proposed equipment include solid state NMR,

MALDI-TOF/MS, electrochemical system with LC-MS and direct reading MS units for 2 M€ with addition

of 1.9 M€ asked for consumables, maintenance etc. operating costs.

The novelty and also the international competitiveness of the research planned to be carried out is not well

defined. The track record of the joining researchers is at the good national level, however not at the top

international level, based on the publications listed in the proposal.

Accordingly, it is not clear whether the proposed RI would provide resources for the internationally high

level research.



Lithuania requires industrial investment and has a good base of local small companies involved in the RI

area. Science in general is sustained by analytical instrumentation and the RI will provide a central basis

for this. While the RI does not focus on a single, strategic area it will underpin physical/chemical activities

in general.

The current fragmentation of Lithuanian science in too many institutes and units hinders further

developments in this area and thus the RI can function as a mid-term solution to overcome this until a full

reorganization of the Lithuanian chemical sciences structure has been achieved.

The proposed RI would improve the competitiveness in the field of several chemical analyses capabilities

like NMR, MS etc. However, it is not clear which would be narrow enough research topics requiring these

equipment, which selected narrow topics would then increase the level of research to the top international

level.


Please explain.

Yes and no.

The RI will provide services in an area which is necessary for the nation (i.e., custom materials and

synthesis) and which clearly has a track record in the national research landscape.

The analytical instrument base available in the RI is critical for existing industrial companies in Lithuania.

As shown by the list of international corporations currently cooperating with the RI this has the potential

to attract further foreign investment.

It is less clear whether this is a broad national topic which should be pursued. The RI is more supportive,

focusses on research projects and is not strategically leading. Might Lithuania be better served by focusing

on specific aspects in chemical analysis?

In general the proposed RI instrumentation is needed is needed in the broad field of chemistry research. But

what is the most important, better defined national interest is not so clear.



No, with regard to prior investments made. This RI had the second highest level (26 Mio. €) of prior

investments and has not delivered anything remotely justifying this investment.


KUT Chem Tech: 2 (lead)

KUT Food Sci: 3 (lead)

KUT Sust. Chem.: 3 (lead)

Biosystems Engineering, AS U: 3

KlU Marine Sci: 4

VMU Med Sci: 4

Mixed situation based on RA, critical mass is present but this, and the prior investments have not

translated into increased impact.

Top 10 publications

Low to mid-level journals, no publications in top tier chemical (or general) journals.

Research projects:

Good level of international and national projects, and evidence of business contracts and involvement in

government contracts. RI clearly established at the national and international level in terms of research

cooperation.

The RI proposal aims more at supporting current research projects than establishing a national center.

Scientific impact thus far at low end, main skill set is in establishing contract and cooperation work.

Moderate investment justified with regard to provision of analytical services.

The applicant research performance is moderate at the international competition level. In addition, it is not

clear what would be the main focus of the research to b e done with the proposed infra. In other words, it

is not clear what would be the breakthrough after the RI is fully running.

Accordingly, justification is questionable.


Overall: partly.

a) Technically:


b) Financially:

No. No real details are given. The requested financial support is in line with the requirements for the RI.

Requested new instrumentation is justified. However, why are no requests made for infrastructural

(building) upgrades? No comments are made for anticipated income from the institute. Levels of requested

support for staff and maintenance appear to support whole research groups instead of center activities.


Yes. Open access center structure; but only information available is on access (web based) and a

management center. No information on structure, personnel involved (e.g., number of available lab

technicians).

a) Technically:

The proposed instrumentation and supporting infra is described technically in reasonably accurate manner.

b) Financially:

The budget includes not only equipment but also supporting personnel and maintenance costs.


This is a distributed RI with 5 institutions joining. Accordingly, the management is very challenging. The

RI has one responsible PI i.e. the Vice Dean for Research at Faulty of Chemical Technology of Kaunas

University of Technology. The cluster is managed based on the Open Access Centre management principles.

The managing unit is National Innovation Management Centre established under KTU. The Centre

overlooks OAC management, resource arrangements and specifications, OAC timing of resources,

provisions for OAC service pricing and formation of funds derived from the OAC services, savings and

investment, provisions for OAC management and care, confidentiality obligations and litigation.

It is not clear what this is practice regarding who will operate and take care of the instruments.

In addition, it is not clear how the other RI participating institutions join the decision making.

Accordingly, the proposed managed decision making structure needs to be better defined.


proposed RI?

Yes, the RI comprises 288 researchers, 150 scientists, 142 PhD, albeit distributed over 5 units.

Some of the researchers are national leaders. Overall critical mass is present but the RI is at the large end

of what can be sustained. Such a large personnel base distributed over 5 units will not form a cohesive

basis.

No clear information on the HR/personnel structure of the new institute. How many admin people, central

office? Who will be the institute director?

Contact person for RI: Dainius Martuzevicius (36 publ., H-ind. 12) publishes mainly in atmospheric

sciences, appears to be better suited for AEROINFRA? Involvement in present center not clear.

The HR basis is probably very good and comprises the majority of the scientific personnel in this area in

Lithuania. As such it is integrative and can sustain a major center. However, a clear assessment is not

possible as no details on the organizational structure of the RI are given and the international track record

of the lead PIs needs improvement.

Total of about 150 scientists join the RI. However, it is not clear whether there are dedicated person capable

of keeping the instruments running and proving help for general users.



Yes, but primarily in a supporting role. As stated in the proposal the RI will map onto several areas of the

national strategic plan and those listed are fully supported by the proposal. It does not provide a clear

strategic vision for impact in specific areas of the national goals.

Problem: There is a significant overlap of areas with the INNOCHEM RI.

The goal of the proposed RI is very broad, as is the national Smart Specialization. Accordingly, RI fits to

such specialization.



Yes, it is. The main organizing principle is open-access of shared services. This will work well for

instrument use and analytical services. It is less clear how contract research is organized and how chemical

synthesis lab work will be performed. Are there dedicated laboratories which are available for use? Or

does this simply rely on arrangements with the individual research groups? How will international

cooperation be organized?

Yes. But how is this practically organized is not quite clear – see 5 c.


No, as no details are given. Nevertheless, the general statements made (infrastructure use, advanced

teaching, industrial collaborations) are all well put and the reviewer is confident that this RI can deliver

socio-economic impact.

However, what is the expected income? How many additional scientific outputs will be achieved? What is

the number of students which will be served by the new training centers? No case has been made for any

of this. Specific training plan is absent. Financial arrangements for recharge-based use of instrumentation

not clear.

The proposed socio-economic impact is described rather loosely, due to very broad and broadly defined

research topics around the RI. More concrete plans would be welcome here.


International cooperation will be made easier, but not really strengthened. Most of the benefits of the RI

(personnel and existing analytical infrastructure) are already present. No clear case has been made for the

added benefit of this proposal vis a vis a simple clustering of the participating units and researchers.

The proposal primarily serves existing research projects. Distribution over five units will make it difficult

to achieve international visibility.

The high level NMG equipment could be attractive to visitors from those countries not having such facilities.

However, based on the publications listed in the proposal, such international visits could be more frequent.



is realistic?


Existing and planned initiatives with regard to European research infrastructure are well thought out, fit

the available skill sets and are feasible. However, it is problematic to envision a strategically focused

impact as the HR and instrument base does not add anything that is not already present in other countries.

Yes.


Main benefit of this RI is the large base of research personnel and that it integrates most of the analytical

chemistry instrumentation in Lithuania. This gives critical mass and could potentially result in high

international visibility if structured correctly.

The RI can be very attractive for industrial contracts. In a sense the proposal would strengthen about half

of the ongoing chemical research in Lithuania up to international standards. But that begs the question

why the other half has not been integrated and why no significant impact has yet been realized from the

past significant investments.

The proposal suffers from an absence of HR organizational information; no detailed business plan was

provided and the added benefits are not clearly outlined. The proposal clearly aims to support ongoing

research projects and fails to make a case for a coherent national strategy. There is no originality in the

proposal.

The final score (at the higher end) is mainly based on the relevance of the proposal to many other users.

This RI proposals aims to form a cluster i.e. a distributed RI with 5 research units joining, around chemical

analyses methods, especially focusing on NMR. The scientific output of the proposers is at good national

level, but however at average international level. Further focus to find out narrower research topics and

accordingly being able to better define the equipment needed would be welcome.


Develop a strategic plan, attempt concentration of physical infrastructure in one (or fewer) geographical

locations. Re-evaluate financial plan. Make a strategic case!

Engage in discussion with INNOCHEM about one combined RI!


Significant overlap/synergism with INNOCHEM RI.

Artificial omission of the more physical aspects of materials science which are covered in the

INNOCHEM proposal.

Clarification on personnel numbers: researchers vs. scientists vs. PhD required.

Business and teaching plan?

Main problem here: RI is strategically important, but badly written plan, no strategic vision and not

backed by track record.

26 Mio € in prior investments, where is the impact and outcome???

Human well-being and development infrastructure (HUMRE)



It mainly contributes on the field of retirement studies.

If Lithuania joins the SHARE ERIC, the research conducted in the proposed RI would strengthen

Lithuania’s competitiveness in the study of health aging and retirement. The status of Lithuanian

membership in SHARE ERIC, however, is a little unclear to me on the basis of the information given in

this proposal.


Please explain.

Theoretically YES, but there is not information about the true numbers of (potential) users outside the

research teams in application.

Yes. Human well-being, health, development and aging are undoubtedly issues of broad national interest.



The application consists of work of two faculties and it is difficult to estimate the true added value of

concrete RI on scientific performance. Previous work of psychologists and biosciences is good.

Yes. The articles included in the TOP-10 list of publications are all published in recognized international

journals, though only a couple have appeared in the leading journals of their respective fields.


international area?

The project seems to unify SHARE team with facilities of scientific resources: access to social sciences and

biomedical research equipment and instruments for studies of human behavior, well-being and development.

SHARE is an international ERIC project with very strict and standardized rules of survey implementation

and limited freedom. Although this “broad umbrella” approach has its beauty, it lacks concrete link between

these two institutions in application.

Probably yes. The rationale behind the combination of two very different parts in one RI, as outlined in the

proposal, is not clear to me, however.


a) Technically:

Not sure. Is all the equipment promised in the application available? Is the service stuff prepared to use this

equipment? For example for high-throughput microarray-based genetic and epigenetic profiling (including

but not limited to gene expression, miRNA expression, DNA methylation profiling, ChIP-on-chip)

with/without data preprocessing and preliminary analysis for identification of genetic/epigenetic changes

impacting human health and wellbeing, Whole-genome or targeted next generation sequencing

The proposal includes detailed descriptions of research equipment for biomedical research, but the

relevance of these to the 1st part of the RI, a multidisciplinary health, aging and retirement research

organization, is not spelled out in sufficient detail.

b) Financially:

It is the most costly social science project. The cost/effectiveness might be a problem (there is 55 users

currently, the number of users is estimates to increase). The teams had got finances previously around 3

millions for equipment and 400 000 for SHARE. The current application is 2 247 722 euros (1 065 996

national and other local resources).

A significant part of the proposed budget of the RI is linked to SHARE-ERIC costs. The situation as

regards Lithuania’s membership in the Research Infrastructure, however, seems to be unclear at the

moment.


The link between SHARE and the rest in equipment remains vague, because the actions and process of

SHARE is internationally standardized.

No. The combination of two very different parts in one RI looks problematic. The rationale for combining

multidisciplinary health, aging and retirement research with providing facilities and resources (research

equipment and instruments) for mainly biomedical research is not justified sufficiently


proposed RI?

Yes.



The project can contribute on the area of health and well-being, especially in old age research.

Yes. The proposed RI would contribute to the ‘Health technologies and biotech’ and ‘Inclusive and

creative society’ areas of the Smart Specialization research goals. In addition, the proposed RI would

contribute to the national research programmes ‘Welfare Society’ and ‘Healthy aging.’



SHARE as part of a project must follow international rules and also data will be preserved internationally

(availability of data for scientific research in case of an application), however, the precise rules of

availability of the rest of equipment and services is not clear in the application. Some of the services seems

to be very expensive.

Yes. According to the RI proposal, the scientific materials, and services based on material facilities and

resources will be provided under the rules of Open Access Center. Lithuania’s membership in the SHARE

ERIC, co-ordinated by the HUMRE RI, would ensure that the services of the RI are available also for

international researchers (but what is the status of the membership in SHARE ERIC?)


It depends of rules of data usage (not clear yet). The number of active users outside the scientific teams is

not very high. However, the knowledge on these topics might be useful for broader society.

Yes. The proposed RI expects to tackle a central Lithuanian and European challenge, aging population and

the social and health questions linked to it.


Yes. However, the current lists of cooperation projects include also those, which have not relevance to

concrete RI.

If the proposed RI does consolidate Lithuania’s membership in the SHARE-ERIC research infrastructure,

this will no doubt strengthen the opportunities for international co-operation.




SHARE is part of EU ESFRI project, however, the joining with this longitudinal study (the other countries

started monitoring much earlier) in quite late stage might be questionable.

I’m slightly confused about Lithuania’s membership in SHARE ERIC. In several places in the document it

is suggested that HUMRE is in close cooperation with SHARE, and Lithuania’s membership in the

Research Infrastructure is at least implied. But then again, in section 18 of the proposal (International

Cooperation) it is stated that in August 2015 the process of Lithuania joining SHARE ERIC “was stopped,

because SHARE-ERIC was not included in the list of the Lithuanian priorities of participation in

International Research Infrastructures.” According to the SHARE webpages (http://www.share-

project.org) Lithuania is not a member of the infrastructure. I don’t quite know what to make of this…


The final evaluation score could be higher (4), but the confusion with the current application (two separate

sections) and too many unsolved themes (data availability), do not allow to give higher score than 3. The

second part of a project looks more like ordinary research team infrastructure. Number of current users is

not high. The link between SHARE and the rest in equipment remains vague, because the actions and

process of SHARE is internationally standardized.

The total project is also very costly and its cost/effectiveness is questionable.

Open data access is questionable. SHARE part of a project will follow international rules for open data

access, however, the precise rules of availability of the rest of equipment is not clear in the application. It

is also unclear if the stuff is prepared to use the equipment.

However, the knowledge on these topics might be generally useful for broader society and RI allows to

carry out high level of research comparable on international area in the discipline.

The proposed RI’s research in the areas of health, aging and retirement are relevant for Lithuania and

Lithuanian research environment

The rationale behind the combination of two rather different parts in one relative big RI can, however, be

questioned.


Splitting the application into two separate sections: SHARE and other equipment might provide clearer

and more convincing picture.

Lithuanian Data Archive for Social Sciences and Humanities (LiDA)



Easy information about surveys and availability of open access data ensures to researchers’

higher probability of success in project applications. It also encourages international cooperation.

Easy access to a comprehensive data bank of Lithuanian social science data is important for

economic, social and political sciences. Through providing this easy access the proposed RI

would strengthen also the international competitiveness of Lithuania in these fields of research.



YES – RI is especially important on national level. It ensures open and easy access and stimulates

increased scientific use of a wide range of high quality data in socio- economic and political areas and in a

way that contribute to the efficiency and quality in research.

A center for providing comprehensive access to Lithuanian social science data can be defined as

an “RI of broad national interest”.

It might encourage international research and mainly promotes the most effective use of

The mission of LiDA is to provide a sustainable research infrastructure that enables the researchers

to conduct high-quality research in the social sciences. LiDA is a social science data service

allowing to search, browse, analyse and download social science survey data.

At the beginning of 2016 LiDA had more than 500 survey, historical and other data collections.

Yes, in principle. Access to a comprehensive data bank of social science data is a prerequisite for

high level research in the field. The proposed RI would provide this resource and thus facilitate

internationally high level of research in the field of study.


international area?

4. Does the research performance of the applicants presenting the proposal justifies


It is justified to continue the project. However, despite of right idea, LiDa fails to demonstrate

good results in research. Research based on data of LiDa seems to be quite limited (according to

the application). Project should make efforts to make the data more research oriented and

effective for publishing. Also more attention on collection of local databases would be good.

Majority of intentional databases practice open access principles without LiDa as well.

Yes. The h-indices of the lead researchers of the proposed RI are relatively good, and their

publication record also shows evidence of output in good international journals. But see also my

comment to question 15 below.


a) Technically:

YES, the technical specifications of the proposal are carefully thought-out and feasible.

LIDA data archiving is based on the NESSTAR system and FEDORA repository.

Data sets in the catalogues of LiDA are documented according to DDI metadata standard. Study

description is documented bilingually, in English and Lithuanian. Basically, all the CESSDA

recommended fields of DDI are filled out. The whole IT infrastructure of LiDA was built with the

basic aim to be highly interoperable. Therefore, each data set has its unique PID which is

constructed to reflect the main attributes of the data set (see for example,

www.lidata.eu/data/quant/LIDA_ESS_0240). All the files of the data set can be accessed following

the standardized rules. For example, data in SPSS format can be accessed by adding 'SPSS.SAV'

to the PID and DDI file – by adding 'DDI'. So external users or other infrastructures can easily

access data and metadata stored in LiDA catalogues.

b) Financially:

YES, but the budget seems to be ower-estimated. Although a lack of permanent and sustainable

funding restricts heavily development of LiDA as major national and European research

infrastructure, 937 000 euros seems to be even overestimated cost, because the project does not

produce data themselves, but makes already conducted surveys available for public use.


Probably YES. There are planned changes in host institution responsible for services (related to

change of leading person Prof. Algis Krupavičius).

As Kaunas University of Technology no longer supports development and upgrade of the

Lithuanian Data Archive for Social Sciences and Humanities (LiDA), this data archive needs to be

transferred to the Vytautas Magnus University as far as the university has competences to run this

kind of research infrastructure.

6. Are the human resources adequate to ensure high quality research and efficient use

of proposed RI?

It is planned to employ 9 persons in the new host institutions. It is difficult to estimate their quality,

but there are no reasons to have doubts in their good quality.



LiDA is a digital research infrastructure with pan-European interface. LiDA is a significant

resource for evidence-based and data-driven public decision-making.

Yes, probably. The RI proposal remains on a relatively general level in this respect, though.



Yes the aim of the RI is to provide systematic data an open access. Because of different

authorship rights open access is acquired after contracts with data users.

The empirical research data stored in LiDA is available without restrictions for the registered

users for non-profit purposes (such as research, self-education and training). Individuals and

organizations willing to use the data for other purposes must make a written request to get the

access to specific data. Also, some data is of restricted usage due to confidentiality reasons.

Regardless of access restrictions to data files all the metadata are freely available without

restrictions. Users of LiDA data also have to sign confidentiality declaration.

In the declaration users are obliged to keep the confidentiality of any information they get access

to that can identify individuals. Moreover, LiDA is a member of CESSDA and belongs to

common infrastructure of European data archives. CESSDA has an integrated data catalogue

where all the metadata from its member institutions can be searched and retrieved.


The theoretical impact assessment provided by a project is correct (see text by a project below),

but there is little empirical evidences in application about it. Estimated number of data users is

150 according to a project application.


YES, LiDA is a member of CESSDA, which is transforming to the CESSDA ERIC. A future

management of LiDA will be adjusted to implement functions of the Service Provider to the

CESSDA ERIC. LiDa might open the opportunity also for other projects (those in the database)

to achieve international cooperation.



and networks is realistic?

YES, LiDA is associated with the Council of European Social Science Data Archives (CESSDA).

Given that since 2013, the existing RI has only been operating on a voluntary basis, without paid

staff or sufficient financial resources, its involvement in European research infrastructure

organizations and networks must have been limited. The proposed RI’s plans of international

cooperation look promising.


1. Project is important especially on national level. RI is of the national importance and

contributes to achieving the Smart Specialization and other national research and

innovation goals

2. Results achieved with previous investments from EU structural funds and national funds

are good. LiDA already is responsible for more than 500 surveys, historical and other data

collections and makes them available for broader use.

3. The added value (economic and social impact in Lithuania) of RI can be high, but it needs

additional work.

4. Institution ensures environment that is fully comparable to the international institutions in

the discipline, in terms of the organization, strategy and infrastructure of research.

5. RI has capability of attracting the PhD students and high competence researchers.

6. RI technical and financial feasibility (taking into account available financial resources in

Lithuania) is reasonable; It also decreases duplication of research energy

7. RI is developed and organized based on open access principle.

8. Level of current international cooperation and potential for future cooperation are good, it

is associated with an international network.

More conscious efforts to increase publishing in needed on national level.

The main attention must be on archiving of local data sources and intentional data, not available

elsewhere (ESS and other international database have their own open access archives already).

1. A center for providing comprehensive access to Lithuanian social science data is no doubt

very useful. Given the uncertainties surrounding the transfer of the existing LiDA RI to a

new environment in a different institution, this application may be a little premature.

2. The RI is relevant for the Lithuanian research environment; however, it lacks crucial

strategic importance.


LiDa fails to demonstrate good results in research. Research, based on data of LiDa seems to be

quite limited (according to an application). More conscious efforts to increase publishing is

needed in order to demonstrate the value of a database.

More attention on collection of local and international databases with limited access would be

good.

Research Infrastructure of Experimental Animals in Lithuania (RIEA)



It is expected to strengthen the applying institutions (LUHS and CIM) but seem to offer relatively little to

other institutions.


Please explain.

No.

In order to show broad national interest an investigation in the national research needs should have been

conducted together with presentation of possible solutions to fulfill those needs.

The capacity of the RI should be presented and analyzed how it will serve the demand.

None of these components is present in this proposal. It is not clear whether the planned capacity is

sufficient for the applying institutions needs and whether there will by capacity left for outside users.

The Vilnius University Faculty of Medicine is an important omission. Without their expressed agreement

a broad national interest cannot be ascertained.

Appropriateness for broad national interest cannot be evaluated based on the proposal.


international area?

Yes.

Good quality animal facilities are required for reproducible biomedical research. It is a necessary but not

sufficient condition for internationally competitive research.



Partial yes.

The biomedical research in the applicant institutes is performing well with some very good units and some

with average performance. However, the publication qualities of the leading persons in the proposal are

rather modest – seen from the H-factors and number of citations.

It is clear that good local animal facilities and procedures are needed for excellent biomedical research.

Institutional facilities need to be involved in institutional development plans which should not be replaced

by a national RI.

In addition, this proposal involves some units and researchers whose past performance is good at national

level only.


a) Technically:

Upgrading existing facilities and building new ones is feasible.

Without technical details the technical feasibility cannot be evaluated.

b) Financially:

Only the investment is described superficial way, the running costs and estimated open access fees are

missing. No “business plan” is available in the proposal. For this type of RI a business model and plan

would be essential.


Organization is feasible within the proposing institutions. The general open access regulations are

probably appropriate.

However, the workflow for outside institutions and researchers is not given and it is unlikely that such an

institution in the CIM could be popular for everyday use by others, e.g. from Vilnius University Medical

Faculty.


proposed RI?

Partly.

It is unlikely that all the services listed in section 8 of the proposal could be provided by the proposed

human resources. As the quantitative aspects of planned animal production is not specified in the proposal,

the adequacy of the human resources cannot be judged.



Contribution is indirect.

Any improvement in research conditions may contribute to achieve the health-related goals of the national

documents.



The willingness to provide open access and services is present and some of the opportunities not available

elsewhere, like large experimental animal facilities will be likely used by outside institutions and

researchers.

The organization and concrete plans for attracting outside users are not present in the proposal.


No.

The justification text consists of general statements. The proposal does not give any supporting evidence.

A particular sentence without appropriate evidence is: “Potential realization of at least one of these

technologies would increase the surplus value by up to 5 mln EUR per year”


Hypothetically yes.

Improving experimental animal facilities strengthens opportunities for excellent researchers.

However, the planned facilities themselves are unlikely to be involved in international cooperation. There

are a number of commercial suppliers of such services in Europe with good credentials. It is difficult to

accumulate credibility for such services and the pharmaceutical and medical technology industries require

of their suppliers both credibility and international accreditation, both of which depend on much more than

facilities.




Yes.

A new facility for research animals would facilitate the participation in the relevant international activity.

The main objectives of RIEA to become full members of European Advanced Translational Research

Infrastructure in Medicine (EATRIS) and the Federation of Laboratory Animal Science Associations

(FELASA) is realistic.

12. Final score – 2.

The RI’s quality and research potential enable it to contribute to the provision of good quality services in

biomedical research. The proposed RI is significant on the institutional level.

The RI is relevant for the Lithuanian research environment; however, it lacks true national coverage and

crucial strategic importance as well.


Improving experimental animal facilities is important. A nationwide collection of information on proposed

animal use and requirements should be performed before detailed planning can be started. The planning

should include the capacities of the planned building and renovations and the human resources needed to

run the installations.

Recommendation for policy makers:

It may be better to upgrade experimental animal resources at each institution locally and centralize only

those activities, for which local facilities cannot be economical. Probably the large experimental animal

breeding and facility should be centralized. General rodent production should not be planned in a national

RI as this is better performed by commercial suppliers. Where there is a real need for breeding custom-

made experimental animals, the local animal facility should include space and equipment for such

activities. The calculations of the costs should be integral part of any planning of animal breeding.


The lack of researching the demand for this infrastructure is particularly disturbing. How can a national

animal research infrastructure be planned without knowing how many animals are needed, what are the

needs of the researchers who are the potential clients.

The proposal should have stated the plans for the breeding numbers and the appropriate details in the

technical planning.

A peculiar aspect of this proposal is the apparent lack of care in its preparation. At least a spell check of

the language should have been performed before finalizing the document. It is unlikely that the excellent

researchers mentioned as key personnel have read the text and sanctioned the use of many misspelled

word.

The creation of GAMMA KNIFE infrastucture (Gama Knife)

1st reviewer



The Neuroscience Institute has 9 laboratories and 42 researchers, all indicated to be eager to work with

Gamma Knife. LSMUL KK Neurosurgery department would also be a user group with its 18

neurosurgeons.

The strategic importance of the proposed RI is not clear, either from the research point of view or

clinically.

The international standing of the researchers in the field of neurosurgery does not appear very strong and

their capabilities in developing the use of the new equipment for scientifically strong projects is not

entirely convincing.


Please explain.

This RI is quite narrowly targeted in terms of its use and user base, and therefore not of broad national

interest.

Nevertheless, 28 internal users are indicated. Existing national RI users is listed as 17, projected to grow to

34, and international users as 12, growing to 28. It is not clear what these numbers mean, as the proposed

RI is new and therefore can not have existing users. Presumably the current user number reflects more

broadly neurosurgery.

The proposal is difficult to read and the case for making this new RI is not convincingly argued.


international area?

A gamma knife setup is proposed to the LUHS Neuroscience Institute, to facilitate focus on neurosciences,

help start new multinational research projects and gain leadership in microneurosurgery in Eastern Europe.

This RI is seen as a possibility for research, and to be used for clinical purpose. It is not clear how much

research the RI would elicit and even the clinical applicability is difficult to evaluate. Strong existing

research that directly would rely on the proposed RI is not convincingly presented.



The five lead researchers have rather low amounts of publications and citations, and low h indexes. The

listed top 10 publications represent studies in specialized journals and part are in Turkish or Lithuanian

series.

The publication track record is not a strong justification for the development of the proposed RI.

Presentation of previous accomplishments include 2 international research projects; however, their topics

of food disintegration and an open access pilot project, do not seem to directly provide justification of the

proposed RI.


a) Technically:

The proposal is to acquire the “icon Gamma Knife”, which consists of a machine and a specialized

building – all of this is set up by the company selling the system. It is presumed that the setting up is

technically feasible, if the RI is funded.

However, it would have been important to more clearly indicate the status of use of the proposed

equipment in research and patient treatment in general.

The impression is that the approach with the new equipment is still at early stages, and thus unforeseen

technical issues may rise. The gamma knife is currently used only in a few countries in the world, as the

setup has only recently been marketed.

Previous investments at LUHS in the area include several small scale equipment (from 11 000 to 42 000

€). The Hospital has been set up with a surgical MRI system and various neurosurgery setups, amounting

to about 1.6 million €.

b) Financially:

The equipment costs are 7 million €. The maintenance and consumables costs are not specified, which

makes it difficult to evaluate their amount – the hosts budget these as needed. Salary needs are indicated,

but these will be taken care of by the hosts.


The governance model is only sketchily indicated. An open access policy will be used. Service rates are

based on personnel and maintenance costs, deprecation, consumables and other expenses, but what these

amount to is not given.


proposed RI?

The Gamma Knife center will require for running 3 neurosurgeons and 2 junior doctors, 2 specially trained

nurses and 1 physicist. 2-3 PhD students will be attracted as well. Special training will be required for the

personnel, but it is not clear how the training will be organized.

It is a bit vague as to how capable the persons responsible for the new RI are in getting the facility

running.

Altogether, 28 persons are listed as directly involved in the RI operation, mainly from neurosurgery.



The applicants list several strategic aims in the Smart specialization strategy and the Health 2020 program

as compatible with the RI. They are right, but the scope is rather narrow.

The track record in contacts with business is rather limited.



The aim is to run an open access facility. However, the organisatorial plan is rather immature at this point.

It is envisioned that with the proposed RI Lithuania could become a European reference center.

The applicants´ experience in running a national/international facility appears limited, which may prove an

obstacle for setting up a well-functioning open RI.


The technology appears to be at this point used only in 2 places in Europe, and at this point it is difficult to

predict if it will grow into important socio-economic impact. Naturally the idea of increasing radiosurgery

precision seems attractive. Impact could be developed scientifically (as pioneers in use of the new system),

in better treatment of a variety of diseases. Some concern is felt in how well the track record of the

scientists involved matches the required major investments.


The proposed RI would be fairly unique, making it possible to gain international roles and status. In

balance is the high expense of the proposed RI and the need to very strongly increase the international

visibility of the research involved.




There is a European reference network for Neurosurgery. The Clinic of Neurosurgery intends to

participate in this network. The current level of involvement in the European network appears modest.

The facility is not as such part of the European Research Infrastructure Roadmap.


The proposed RI is interesting but the plan is immature in terms of organization and competence of the

lead researchers in international level research.

The user base appears to be rather narrow, and the case for eliciting an international user base is not

altogether convincing.

It would be important to clarify how this major investment reflects the overall developmental strategic

goals of neuroscience.


This is a brave suggestion for a new RI. However, it would be advisable to describe the strategic

importance of this major new setup for Lithuania. The competence for setting up and running the system

could be described more thoroughly. International contacts would be important as otherwise there is a

danger of making a large investment which may not gain sufficient international links.


It would be important to consider neurosciences broadly and then place the role and prospects of the

proposed RI within the broader context. How realistic is the plan to be a European frontrunner in the

technology?

2nd reviewer


international area?

Yes.

The planned RI is the Gamma Knife Icon. It is a state of the art instrument for precision irradiation of the

human brain. The precision of the instrument is the best available on the market, may allow irradiation of

tiny lesions in the human brain. Based on the technical developments in building gamma knives, a new

research field is opened: microradiosurgery. Its parent field, radiosurgery is well established since about

50 years, the new developments may build on the established knowledge. There are only a few such

instruments in use in Europe and in North America, as this represents recent technical advance.



The proposers are internationally recognized institutions, one of them, the Neuroscience Institute was

amongst the best biomedical units of assessment in the recent RAE. A world class RI may strengthen their

position and may help further develop neurosurgery and neuroscience in Lithuania.

A similar instrument is not available in the region and a new Gamma Knife may serve all eligible

Lithuanian patients as well as some coming from abroad.

Such RI and the research organizations operating it may attract highly specialized researchers from

Lithuania and broad.


Please explain.

Yes.

Microradiosurgery, and radiosurgery in general is a cost-efficient, high tech clinical procedure and the

possibility of using it is in the nation’s interest. Microradiosurgery is a new field and there is an opening

for Lithuanian biomedical science in participating in its further development.

Excellence in neurosurgery and neuroscience is expected to be further strengthened and may improve the

international standing of Lithuanian biomedical science.



Both applicant institutions received very good marks (4 out of the maximum 5) in the Lithuanian RAE.

The Neuroscience Institute and Faculty of Medicine (Clinical medicine) of LUHS were the best among the

units. Their prior research performance is relevant to the proposed use of the Gamma Knife and the

proposed research topics with the new RI.


a) Technically:

The Icon Gamma Knife is a combo of the instrument and the building, both supplied as a unit.

The supplier is one of the best in the world.

b) Financially:

The price of the RI seem to be appropriate, the requirement of VAT has to be clarified.

As the predominant uses of a gamma knife is treating patients and clinical research on the treated patients

both the investment, the maintenance and the running costs should be negotiated with the policy makers of

the national health system.


The clinical use of the GAMMA knife requires only a fairly short stay of the patients who can come from

anywhere in Lithuania and the Baltic countries . The relationship of the RI to the insurance system should

be clarified in time.

The research use of the RI can be covered in the laboratories of the Neuroscience Institute, and the wards

of the Department of Neurosurgery, and other units of the Kaunas Clinics. Highly trained personnel is

available in both units.

The training of the personnel directly involved in operating the RI has to start fairly early after a positive

decision so that the RI should be in operation as soon as possible.


proposed RI?

Yes.

The RAE found good researchers as well as excellent management in the Neuroscience Institute. The

management’s role is very important in organizing the efficient use and the coordination of the clinical use

and the research projects.



Yes. The contribution is to:

Smart Specialization Strategy:

Health technologies and biotechnologies – molecular technologies for medicine and

biopharmaceutics.

advanced applied technologies for individual and public health.

advanced medical engineering for early diagnostics and treatment H2020

Tackle Europe’s major disease burdens of noncommunicable and communicable diseases

Lithuanian Health Programme 2014-2025

To ensure better quality and more efficient health care, focusing on the needs of the population

Developing health infrastructure and improve health care quality and access



Yes.

The proposal describes the open access methods and the services offered.

Internationally, such RI is usually shared by a number of researchers and neurosurgeons, and the model

proposed by the applicants is compatible with international best practice.


Yes.

The integrated research and clinical base and the proposed research topics provide the basis for possible

breakthrough developments. New experimental models, associated with various aspects of neuroscience

(brain tumors biology, neurogenesis, mental disorders, neuropathic pain, epilepsy, parkinsonism, etc.) are

expected to arise.

The presence and use of the Gamma Knife opens up a host of new opportunities with the ultimate goal of

improving the health of the population, providing cure or improvements for patients with brain tumor or

other focal brain lesions.


Yes.

The presence of a world class infrastructure, coupled with internationally very good local research base is

expected to attract researchers not only from the country but also from abroad.



is realistic?

The plans are realistic.

The new RI together with the existing neurosurgery base may allow to participate in the European

reference network for Neurosurgery. The Gamma Knife project would be a unique opportunity for

Lithuania to be a European reference center.

The presence of the Gamma Knife would also allow those University researchers who participate in

research using the RI to integrate into the international research consortia


The proposed Gamma Knife is of the highest quality available worldwide with improved precision leading

to extended usability.

The RI is relevant for the Lithuanian neurosurgical research environment and will be a big step for the

accomplishment of national research and innovation priorities. It will boost the competitiveness of

Lithuanian neuroscience.


In case a positive decision occurs, at least 3 neurosurgeons should start studies of the instrument and

radiosurgery in general. Staff trained in dosimetry and calculations of the dose distribution should also be

available when the instrument starts working.

Besides local preparations a general communications campaign should be organized across the potentially

interested medical centers who may refer patients or would be interested in experimental treatment

modalities.


The proposal is excellent also as a document, especially when compared to a number of other RI

proposals.

Plant Genetics and Biotechnology Centre (PlantGene)



The technical scientific case of the RI is sound. It targets a narrow and focused area (improve plant

breeding) but intends to support this by cutting edge phenotyping technologies. As such it will combine

local expertise with high end instrumentation that is not yet widely available. With additional personnel

this could make Lithuania at least a regional leader in the field. There is significant connection to

economic impact. Existing collaborations are good and form the basis for increased integration at the

international level.


Please explain.

No.

The project is clearly relevant to the national interest but its focus is narrow and thus lacks critical mass.

This is clearly a research project instead of an institutional or national center application.The RI is fully

functional to act as a subunit of a larger RI, e.g. as part of the nature center.



Partly. Research track record is very good but small size limits impact. The past funding track record is

very good in national comparison, but could be strengthened internationally.

Past track record in terms of publication output is superior for only 4 scientists involved in the RI!


Lithuanian Center for Agriculture and Forestry, Inst. Horticulture: 3

Lithuanian Center for Agriculture and Forestry, Inst. Agriculture: 3

Top 10 publications

Low to mid-level journals, no publications in top tier (or general) journals but some good mainstream

ones. Track record is good in national comparison taking the smaller size of the unit into account.

Research projects:

Low level of international projects, good level of national funding (for the minuscle size of RI). No

evidence of business contracts and minor government contracts. RI clearly established at the national level

in terms of expertise but lacks size and impact.


international area?

Yes. The proposal targets the combined use of geno- and phenotyping for improved plant breeding. The

HR is good, the available instrumentation in conjunction with requested funds is adequate. Expansion to

HTP facilities will give a unique perspective to the RI and this could serve well as an incubator model for

other RI. While small in size the impact is potentially larger, especially taking the local expertise into

account.


Yes.

a) Technically:

Yes, fully. Instrument base, skill level and technical expertise are fully on par with the requirements,

keeping in mind the small size. The proposal has long term prospects and is innovative.

b) Financially:

Partly. While aspects of financial planning are present no information of potential income streams and

long term developments were made. A clear business plan is missing. The requested financial support for

instrumentation and infrastructure is in line with the requirements for the RI and the requested new

instrumentation is fully justified. A good aspect is that “maintenance costs will be covered from “running

costs; clearly, the institution is willing to deliver its part and in terms of overall money requested this is a

prudent proposal. A different question is whether such a significant investment is warranted for a very

small RI and for one with very limited economic impact. The RI will be too small to be financially viable.


Yes, fully. Open access center structure is stated, organization plan is present and good strategies for

collaboration and internationalization have been made.


proposed RI?

Yes, but only for the narrow focus.

Current personnel base is 4. That is sufficient for the very narrow focus of the RI. However, it is not clear

what the future size (in terms of personnel will be).

To have a critical impact it must be larger and reach wider in terms of possible applications. No details on

admin and technical personnel.

PI are nationally recognized experts with very good international contacts and clearly demonstrated

commitment, expertise and excellence in the interview. However, they were unable to establish a broader

vision for the RI.

Contact person for RI: G. Brazauskas (25 publ., H-ind. 6) clearly expert in area, but low output with

increasing impact curve.

The HR basis for the size of the unit is good but amounts to one small-size research group. Compared to

this the requested funding is significant.



Yes, it targets farming and safer agricultural materials. Focus is perhaps a bit narrow but the alignment it

clear.

Long term the proposal lacks strategic vision and impact.



Yes, it is. Clear structure has been defined, good outline.


No, as no specifics are given. The case of lowering costs for phenotyping is well made and this will have

an economic impact but it will be low in comparison to other centers.

No financial analysis, no estimate of teaching and training impact.


Good contacts are already present. The new instrumentation will be of high visibility and thus attract

further collaborations. So, yes, but in a narrow area.




Yes, fully.

The RI makes a good case about specific programs it can join, there is evidence of past collaborations and

good potential for future progress. Good aspect of this proposal in comparison to others.

12. Final score – 2.

The main problem here is the small size and limited focus of the RI. The track record, impact, and

potential of the RI amounts to that of one small research group. It lacks critical mass and thus has no

potential to grow and to be financially sound.

The small number of researchers will be fully occupied with the basic activities of the RI and will not have

any time to develop new research projects nor to make full use of the high end instrumentation requested.

In relative terms the investment is too expensive for the small number of researchers.

Organizational structure and implementation is very good.

There is no vision for the socio-economic impact. The points made in the proposal are good, but do they

translate to national relevance? The RI would be an excellent subunit of a larger RI on applied biol. or

biotechnology. Good EU plans and potential for internationalization. Sustainable plan for collaborations.

Innovative and convincing technical proposal.

The unit size is very small and it is not clear whether additional personnel will be added. While the

requested instrumentation is required for the project it amounts to a significant investment for a small

group of researchers with – initially – very limited economic impact. There is no doubt that the RI is

scientifically sound and the PIs experts but consideration as a national center requires further discussion.

With the right strategy this RI could serve as a model for others.


No funding from infrastructure call but should be considered for other funding as a research project.

Consider a larger application together with other biology units, esp. those targeting economic impact and

applied sciences. Ultimately, plan for being in one physical location.

Evaluate whether an expansion of the remit is possible, for example, as a center for applied biology, then

resubmit as part of a larger RI application in a few years time.

Keep going with the basic approach and the idea to develop integrated economically relevant high end

biological research for Lithuania.


Consider making this a center in one physical location, perhaps together with INECOM or as a whole

Nature Research Center, with streamlined activities; more critical mass.

Economic impact: Good potential for the RI but a broader research base could be helpful.

Prior investments: RI has been relatively unsuccessful in translating this into grants.

Possibility for integration with “PlantGene”?

Main problem here: Superior idea, very good international contacts, but limited scope and economic

impact.

Open access centre at the Institute of Materials Science of Kaunas

University of Technology (Santaka Valley) ((APC KTUMMI)



See above- local TEM know how is needed, but where in Lithuania it should be located and how it should

be operated is another question. These issues are not considered in this proposal.

Research in material science is evolving in the world-wide scene. This includes strong research areas

developed in Lithuania, e.g. technologies for fuel cells, microfluids, photonics. The proposed RI would

allow enabling the use of set of equipment for the investigations in the field of technologies for enhanced

material research.


international area?

Tis RI is the continuation of the existing RI at KTU in the field of materials science and microtechnology

manufacturing. The investment up to now is more than 12 M€. The proposals is to upgrade the existing RI

(~0,6 M€) and to purchase some important equipment like transmission electron microscope (~1,2 M€).

Even though the earlier investment is relatively large, it is rather scattered in terms of the research focus and

it is not clear whether adding one TEM would make it comparable to top international level. There are

several dedicated TEM and nano microscopy centers in Nordic countries as well as in Germany and UK,

with the TEM centers alone having invested on TEMs alone more than the entire RI here to all of the

equipment. However, Lithuania needs to have – at least one laboratory – very good level TEM with the

supporting sample manufacturing equipment as needed in materials science – would be available. It is not

clear to me what is the status of TEM research in Lithuania now.

However, in this RI it is not given on detail what kind of TEM is planned to be acquired, and the necessary

infra (sample preparation, vibration and AC field free environment) needed is not described. Like any other

high instruments, tem needs dedicated, highly capable scientists i.e. the TEM alone is not enough to provide

atomic structure material characterization for materials research.

Yes, it does in some extent.

However, the list of international publications is only 19% of the total numbers of articles and the number

of international users is moderate. This reflects the background of proposed RI as not fully implemented in

its potential so far. Moreover, the international cooperation strategy relies on platforms and networking

within similar facilities lacking the clear vision of its own. Also, the large fraction of the proposed RI would

be spent on the maintenance of already obtained equipment and facilities.


Please explain.

Material atomic atom structure characterization is needed in Lithuania.


increase of knowledge and its transfer is for this purpose.




To be competitive, all the centers developing novel materials in Lithuania need reasonable level TEM.

Yes it does.

However, the explanation is given as wide as possible:

In order to maintain and improve the environment and infrastructure contributing to the developing of

human resources, innovation-driven scientific research, technology transfer and innovative business,

strengthening regional capacity, enhancing its international competitiveness.

The scientific focus of RI is needed.


a) Technically:

TEM instrument to be acquired is not described at all in detail enough.

b) It is not clear whether 1.2 M€ is enough for a good material science TEM, and the sample preparation

equipment is not discussed in the proposal.


TEM needs well trained dedicated personnel, and also personnel capable of teaching the method to

users. This is not discussed in the proposal.

a) Technically: No, the description of TEM to be obtained is not given and was not presented either.

This is major part of the investment and, yet, not described convincing enough: It is planned to

upgrade the existing RI (~0,6 million Eur) and to purchase some important equipment like

transmission electron microscope (~1,2 million Eur) till year 2020.

b) Financially: Yes it is, self-financing included.

c) Organizationally: Yes it is, when considering that Institute of Materials Science of KTU is in charge.


proposed RI?

Not given in detail enough for the efficient use of TEM, see 5 c.

Yes it is.

However, explanation is needed for what purposes it is planned till 2020 to increase the research staff by 4

part time researchers having PhD degree and part time engineering. As appeared in the plenary meetings,

most of the maintenance costs will be for PhD students employment, which would hamper sustainability of

the RI functioning.



Sure – both hard and soft material based research need TEM.

Yes, it does, as the Smart Specialization goals are very broadly described.



This is not discussed in detail enough, i.e. how the use and training of the TEM and related equipment is

planned to be realized.

Yes, it is as can be understood from the proposal.


This is not so important here, because TEM is basic materials science tool need is wide range of research.

Yes, it is.

However, the long-term impact and contribution to any pre-work for standardization could have been

considered. Also, although the industry contract list is extensive, the contract values are modest. This would

reflect the little interest of industry in the proposed RI.


1.2 M€ is not enough to build an internationally competitive TEM center, significantly more would be

needed.

This is doubtful, see p1 above.




In EU there are several dedicated TEM centers, so as a local one this would fit EU policy.



The existing/proposed involvement in European research infrastructure is realistic.

The main concern is in international cooperation and getting the proposed RI available for extensive use.


Lithuania needs to have some level of TEM available for the material research selected to be of local

importance. But this proposal does not describe the TEM – and overall EM – situation in Lithuania – and

therefore as the proposal to acquire a TEM this is not strong. It is not described at all what kind of TEM

would be acquired, neither the additional analytical and sample preparation equipment. Also, the plan to

hire/educate the dedicated personnel needed for good level TEM operation is missing.

In the proposal it is not clearly described what is the object of equipment investment. Although

given as TEM purchase, no clear indication of use is given. Also, the national cooperation and

even in Santaka Valley has not been dealt with.

The proposed RI has small annual R&D funding.

The topic of the proposed RI is very relevant for international visibility, however the fraction of

publications with international partners is below 20%

.

Maintenance of equipment obtained in previous projects acquires significant amount of indicated

investment budget.


Research in material science is evolving in the world-wide scene. The strengthened and/or integrated

conjunctions with strong scientific areas in Lithuania will be of advantage.


I recommend to review nationally the need for TEM, both for hard and soft materials, and then build a

national plan how to improve the situation, whether to include TEMs with the existing RIs or the have a

dedicated RI for advanced nanomicroscopy, including TEM, SEM, STM and AFM. It would e cheaper and

more efficient to concentrate the high end microscopy to one center than scatter around the existing centers.

Environmental Metabolomics Research Infrastructure (INECOM)



The technical scientific case of the RI is sound. It targets a narrow and focused area (identification of

small metabolites with ecological impact) and aims to apply this to ecosystems relevant to Lithuania and

the Baltics.

The RI will raise the competitiveness of Lithuania in this area and potentially allows a better integration of

related efforts in European or international efforts. Nevertheless, the small size of the RI will limit its

strategic impact.

The best outcome at present is the influence of the RI on training and teaching and thus a widening of the

interdisciplinary training base in the Lithuanian scientific community. The relative impact of any

investments in this area is smaller than that of other RI.


Please explain.

No.

The fundamental approach – a metabolomics based ecosystems analysis – is sound and could be of benefit

for Lithuania. From the scope of the services to be provided by the proposed RI it will be crucial both for

science and education but – thanks to the positioning of the research area – also for the agriculture (pest

monitoring and control), zootechnology, and food production. The question is, whether all these types of

services will really be provided to such broad spectrum of customers.

Mostly likely it will never amount to a broad national interest. With limited resources Lithuania has to

focus on broader areas with more socio-economic impact. The small size and limited scope of the proposal

negate this. The RI is fully functional to act as a subunit of a larger RI but not in itself.


international area?

Partially. The proposal targets metabolomics, i.e. the identification of natural products related to ecology.

This is a narrowly focused project, for which the resources are adequate. The infrastructure is necessary

even to attain a national level of impact. However, the focus limits the potential of the RI (e.g., expansion

to natural product characterization in general). The resource base does not allow an expansion of activities.

Many of the possible applications stated in the application require medical and chemical expertise which is

not included in the HR base. While the local expertise is good the RI will not necessarily provide

infrastructure that is not available elsewhere internationally. This is partly balanced by the high local

expertise and clear commitment of the lead PIs.



No, overall; only in the specific area. The past track record is very good in national comparison, but lacks

international impact.


Only quantitative data available, no detailed report.

Top 10 publications

Low to mid-level journals, no publications in top tier (or general) journals. Track record is very good in

national comparison taking the small size of the unit into account.

Research projects:

Very low level of international projects, good level of national funding (for the small size of RI). Only

minor evidence of business contracts and involvement in government contracts. RI clearly established at

the national level in terms of infrastructure use and good international connectivity. The RI should

definitely improve the quality of the output

Moderate investment justified due to potential but from other funds, not the RI program.


No.

a) Technically:

Yes, fully. Instrument base, skill level and technical expertise are fully on par with the requirements,

keeping in mind the small size.

b) Financially:

Impossible to say, as no business plan was provided. The requested financial support for instrumentation

and infrastructure is in line with the requirements for the RI and the requested new instrumentation is

justified. A good aspect is that “maintenance costs will be covered from “running costs; clearly, the

institution is willing to deliver its part and in terms of overall money requested this is a prudent proposal.

The price for the LC-MS, plus fluorescence detector plus preparatory HPLC and accessories is reasonable

but at the high end. The question is what type of MS detector should be used (this is not specified in the

proposal) – this factor should influence the price substantially.


Partly. Open access center structure is stated, but no specifics are given on organizational structure,

financial aspects, oversight, training and teaching plans. Outlined strategy is too general.


proposed RI?

No, strategically.

Current personnel base is 8. That is sufficient for the very narrow focus of the RI. However, to have a

critical impact it must be larger and reach wider in terms of possible applications. Most of the PI are

nationally recognized leaders, one is internationally recognized.

What is somehow missing is evidence of the people (to be) involved in the field of separation techniques

and mass spectrometry. Training is not clearly planned – this could be achieved by secondments, courses

etc. Contact person for RI: L. Blazyte-Cereskiene (10 publ., H-ind. 3) clearly expert in area, but low

impact; V. Buda (101 publ., H-ind. 11), established expert in area, but trailing citation impact.

Overspecialization? The HR basis for the size of the unit is good but amounts to one mid-size research

group.



No. It touches on one main area: Sustainable environment: agroinnovations. This limits the national

impact. More importantly, many of the integrative claims are too unspecific.

Good aspect: integration of schools and outreach in RI, educational aspects.



Yes, it is. The main organizing principle is open-access but no details are given.

The infrastructure will provide open access for all partner institutions, the allocation of time will be

managed by the Management Committee of the RI representing all participating institutions. Running

costs will be shared between the project and the users of the facilities. This is a standard modus operandi

for OA infrastructures. It should be noted that prices for the running costs should not be inhibitory for the

potential applicants. Also, together with the development of other infrastructures, it will be important to

remain competitive and in parallel really strive to provide service to most promising projects. Here, the

system of selecting of the “customers” is not quite clearly defined (governed by the quality or by financial

contribution??).


No, as no details are given. The proposal states general aspects which are all valid but provides no

specifics. It is written like the proposal of a small research group not a larger center. The one valid point is

the strengthening of teaching and training activities, which will be of benefit to the nation. No efforts are

made to include biopharma, agriculture, etc. in any financial planning. No business plan was provided.

Within the narrow area of the research projects the infrastructure will have a long term effect on the

nation’s innovativeness and development capacity in ecological applications. The development of new

methodologies and application of chemical ecology in aquatic science will bring new possibilities for

water quality management.


Marginally, as a local unit in much larger endeavors (sampling, expertise on local ecology and through

training at the local level).

It might be helpful to find out whether in these collaboration institutions something similar or analogous

exists so that practical secondments for staff to operate the instruments could be arranged.




Yes, the program fits very well. There is much potential collaboration and these were correctly identified.

However, no coherent plan for participation (except for simple statements) was made. It is surprising that

a proposal targeting ecosystems does not include any specific plans for the whole Baltic region; only

Sweden and Poland are mentioned.

Again, limited size is the problem and the RI will at best be able to act as a small supporting partner at the

International level but has no potential to become (at least) a regional leader.


The RI’s quality and research potential enable good quality services to be provided in the given research

discipline. The RI shows significant usage possibilities and is relevant for the Lithuanian research

environment; however, it is not crucial for the competitiveness of Lithuanian research. In general, it brings

the research in LT to standard level in EU.

The main problem here is the small size and limited focus of the RI. The track record, impact, and

potential of the RI amounts to that of one very good mid-size research group. It lacks critical mass and

thus has no potential to grow and to be financially sound.

The small number of researchers will be fully occupied with the basic activities of the RI and will not have

any time to develop new research projects or to bring the ongoing ones up to the necessary international

impact standards.

Organizational structure and implementation are not given. There is no vision for the socio-economic

impact. This could be larger, when the units which were listed as “internal RI users” would have been

integrated in the proposal.

It might have been better to structure the RI as a coordination and training unit rather than an integrated

research center.

There is no doubt about the quality of the research provided and the approach outlined here could be very

useful to Lithuania.


No funding at present time.

Evaluate whether an expansion of the remit is possible, for example, inclusion of secondary metabolites

and natural product identification in general. Identify possible synergism with the other chemistry RI to

gain access to a larger instrument base.

Keep going with the basic approach and the idea to develop integrated ecobiological sciences for

Lithuania.

For efficient metabolomics and structure analysis other complementary types of instruments are essential;

NMR spectroscopy is absolutely inevitable. This is a major gap in the proposal: when you plan

preparatory HPLC, which means that you will obtain compounds to be identified – but how? MS is not

sufficient nowadays. Also chiroptic methods or X-ray diffraction must be considered. At the very least

there should be a strong collaboration with an analytical chemistry center.

Resubmit application at later time.


Possibility to align several centers for a more strategic approach?

There should have been one application from the whole Nature Center, which streamlined current

activities and could have guaranteed critical mass.

Teaching impact: Good potential for the RI but no specifics were mentioned.

Prior investments: Not clear how RI fared in the RUA and how much prior investments were made. This

limits the evaluation of past track record in using infrastructure funds.

Possibility for integration with “PlantGene”?

Many potential national users are mentioned, but none are formally incorporated in the proposal. Unit is

politically isolated or lacks connectivity.

Main problem here: Nice idea, very good local contacts, but limited scope and connectivity.

Heritage and History Research Infrastructure (ARUODAI)


international area?

The aim of ARUODAI is to preserve and provide accessibility of the Lithuanian digital cultural and

scholarly resources. The goal of the RI is to ensure an open access, advanced programming solutions and

innovative user interface of the information system. From 2010 ARUODAI and its digital content was

offered to the digital library Europeana, becoming an important access point for digital archaeological,

historical and ethnological cultural heritage. ARUODAI is being constantly enlarged with new digital

content (scanned images, photographs, video and audio material, texts, etc.). During the various stages of

RI development and content delivery projects relevant issues regarding creation, preservation and

accessibility of digital sources on Lithuanian culture are explored and adequate solutions implemented. All

ARUODAI data is available online <www.aruodai.lt> and currently covers fields of archaeology,

ethnology, folkloristics, history, and linguistics. The main repository contains more than 100357 full text

items, 24000 visual and audio records, 5225 thesauri terms, 18000 entries of persons, 29000 geographic

entries, and 3000 bibliographic entries.

The proposed RI could provide resources and data that are very useful for Lithuanian research.

However, the scientific value of this infrastructure remains a bit unclear. Empirical investigation

demonstrated that despite of existence since 2006, the web- portal does not provide too much scientific

information about Lithuanian culture in English. Also the current methods of providing access to items are

questionable. ARUODAI functions more like a web-portal for different collections than a scientifically

organized database.



Projects writes: Network links to international archaeological research data and heritage systems would

allow users to easily find contextual information, while links to information systems in other fields of

science would facilitate an effective use of additional research data important to archaeology

(paleozoology, paleobotany, anthropology, chemistry, physics, etc.). Development and maintenance of

ARUODAI is of significant importance when solving such problems of Lithuanian social sciences and

humanities as cross-sectoral isolation, small field of interdisciplinary research, low utilization of digital

technologies, institutional isolation of science and research, limited collaboration between research and

business organizations, poor applicability and exploitation of research results, low engagement of research

sector in creation of communication products for general public.1 Current problems can be illustrated by

an example of archaeological scientific data.

Should the plans about joining the DARIAH ERIC referred to in the proposal be realized, this would

strengthen the international visibility and competitiveness of Lithuania in social sciences and the

humanities.

Also users outside the team seem to be missing (according to an application). However, these remarks do

not diminish the value of digitalizing approach.


Please explain.

The creation, preservation and accessibility of digital sources on Lithuanian culture, which is the stated

aim of the proposed RI, is a laudable aim and can certainly be defined as “of broad national interest.”

Whether these aims can be achieved by the proposed RI project is doubtful, cf. below.

The project reports, that they have 65 users + 31 persons from a Cloud project. However, the

cost/effectiveness (71 persons provide data) is not very high.

It is also reported in the application that the main repository contains more than 100357 full text items,

24000 visual and audio records, 5225 thesauri terms, 18000 entries of persons, 29000 geographic

entries, and 3000 bibliographic entries.

It remains unclear what distinguishes this portal from being just a great historical digital museum, why

should it be scientific database? Here is no clear information about the concrete aims of the project.

Much of the work has dome already (since), the realistic and concrete estimation about the future aims

and results must be provided.



No.

The list of TOP 10 publications of the RI contains only one article published outside Lithuania. Of the 5

lead researchers listed in the RI proposal, the leader of the project has listed 5 publications, another lead

researcher is listed as a co-author in one of the lead researcher’s publications; the other three lead

researchers are not included in the list of TOP 10 publications.

Furthermore, the TOP 10 list includes one unpublished PhD thesis from the Institute of Lithuanian

Literature and Folklore and one unpublished MA thesis from Kaunas University.

The present working group did not manage to demonstrate high level scientific results in application based

on ARUODAI data.


a) Technically:

No.

The description of the Technical case for ARUODAI is very vague, and it is not possible to assess the

proposal on the basis of the information given in the proposal.

------------------

YES, the main ARUODAI services are virtual. The first group of virtual services is oriented towards creators

of scholarly content who need a full cloud computing infrastructure for hosting of online content and partial

infrastructure of controlled vocabularies (thesauri, assisting databases) which can be used for content

management in other information systems linked to ARUODAI; and tools to ensure semantic

interoperability of specific content parts (e.g. Historical Place Names (HPN) microservice which is

integrated with Europeana’s MOnument REpository.

a) Financially:

No.

The detailed operational budget of the proposed RI looks excessive. For example, it includes a total of

840.000 EUR for the funding period 2017-2020 under the heading of ‘Other’, which is not explained

anywhere in the proposal. This forms 53,8% of the total funding for the period in question.

The costs seem to be owes-estimated. It seems to be quite costly project (1 163 600 for 2017-2020).

The use of resources (digitalization) must be carefully estimated. The costs seem to be owes-estimated, but

it depends on concrete workload which is not presented in the application. Their previous investments

since 2003 are about 1 260 000 euros.

b) Organizationally:

No.

The details of the organizational structure of the proposed RI are not clear. Section 7 of the proposal states

that “The governance of ARUODAI is to be formalized in an agreement between Vilnius University and

other partners of the consortium.” However, who the other partners of the consortium are is not explained

anywhere in the document.


proposed RI?

No.

On the basis of the RI’s proposal, the human resources would not seem to be adequate. Under ‘Human

resources’ in section 4 of the proposal only a list of the potential users of ARUODAI is given, and the

human resources of the proposed RI are not described at all.

The aim of the infrastructure is to make data available in digitalized mode. The present use of databased

demonstrates, that the use of IR can be more intensive for scientific purposes.



Not substantially.

The proposal does identify the priority areas of ‘Inclusive and creative society’, ‘New production

processes, materials and technologies’ and ‘Transport, logistic and information and communication

technologies’, but how the proposed RI would implement these remains very vague in the proposal.



Yes.

The existing ARUODAI maintains an open access portal, which presumably would continue in use in the

proposed RI.

It is planned to provide OPEN ACCESS on national level and there are plans to work in cooperation with

several international platforms.

From 2010 ARUODAI digital content was offered to the digital library Europeana. There is a possibility

to make ARUODAI a part of the Digital Research Infrastructure for the Arts and Humanities (DARIAH,

Vilnius University is the institutional member of DARIAH).

The present data are very dependent of their source (reasons for creation) and have little common features

in ARUODAI what leads to the question what is the added value of data in ARUODAI beside

digitalization?


No.

The list of the expected RI socio-economic impact in Lithuania is vague, and it is not possible to assess the

expected socio-economic impact on the grounds of the proposal.

Socio-economic impact in mainly limited with research areas: archaeology, ethnology, folkloristics,

history, and linguistics. The broader impact is not visible.


If the plans to join the DARIAH ERIC mentioned under section 18 of the proposal are realized, this will

strengthen the RI’s opportunities for international co-operation. But cf. my answer to question no. 12

below.

Probably yes, but the current value of information in the portal is not very convincing.




Yes/No.

ARUODAI has been a content provider for the European digital library Europaena and a member of the

Europeana Network since 2010.

However, the RI’s plans to join the DARIAH ERIC (Digital Research Infrastructure for the Arts and

Humanities) are only very vaguely outlined in the proposal.

It is not part of ESFRI projects.


In principle, the use of the RI would be significant on the national level, hence the score 2. However, in

my opinion the quality of the proposal only warrants the score of 1.

The project has been developed since 2006 (10 years) and as a result considerable number of items is

added to the main repository (100357 full text items, 24000 visual and audio records, 5225 thesauri terms,

18000 entries of persons, 29000 geographic entries, and 3000 bibliographic entries).

However the comparison of number of people working with data (65 + 31 persons from a Cloud project)

and those who provide data (71) is not very efficient. The number of users can be low because of objective

reasons, however, the limited online data accessibility seems to be a bigger question.

Experiment with scientists from the field demonstrated the limited value of this portal for scientific

research (limited high level scientific information). The aim of the infrastructure is to make the data

available in digitalized mode.

The present use of databased demonstrates, that the use of IR can be more intensive for scientific

purposes. Socio-economic impact is mainly limited with research areas: archaeology, ethnology,

folkloristics, history, and linguistics. The broader impact is not visible. The current international value is

limited, although it can be developed in future.

There is no clear information what the concrete aims of the project are. As much work has done already,

the realistic and concrete estimation about the future results must be provided.

Shortcomings:

1. Despite of existence since 2006 it is not still operational on high scientific level.

2. Is not part of any European search data ESFRI projects (it tell that although, the projects is movement

into right direction, it might have also additional data resources from non- scientific sources)

3. The digital approach is very valuable; however, it is sometimes unclear to what extent they want to

digitalize the data.

4. Also the presentation of data in systematic way is questionable. Perhaps there might be different

shortcoming in the process of making data available, but these shortcomings must be addressed.

5. Here is no clear information about the concrete aims of the project. As many work has dome already,

the realistic and concrete estimation about the future results must be provided.

6. The project seems to make the very first steps to create one portal which presents the link to different

data sources, but the added value of it is not convincing.


Idea itself is good, but it needs more active scientific implementation. Currently the project serves

the interest of Lithuanian research community, but the true value might rise from an international

cooperation, if the database becomes internationally functional.

Can museums finance partially this work?


NB. Re question no. 8:

When I tried to visit the ARUODAI portal (at www. aruodai.lt) on March 18, I received the following

message from my F-Secure virus protection programme:

Harmful web site blocked

http://www.aruodai.lt/

This web site has been reported as harmful.

We recommend that you do not visit this web site.

Institute of Mechatronics (MECHATRONIKA)


international area?

Yes, it does, if the full potential can be achieved.

However, there are concerns about the providing resources needed for international comparability.

The RI proposal deals mostly with CAD and multiphysics simulation software and machining and

rapid prototyping tools. For that reason, large part of required investments are related to upgrade

of previously purchased measurement and processing tools in order to make them more universal

by significantly extending their functionality to novel applications and/or materials.

Also, internationalization is envisaged to be without direct focus:

RI MECHATRONIKA identified no directly suitable international infrastructure consortia.

Given a broad scope of scientific equipment that MECHATRONIKA offers, there is no

single specifically suitable RI consortium.

This is a single site RI which started to operate 2004 and has invested more than 4 M€ up to now,

focusing to provide facilities for design, prototyping and characterization of macro/micro/bio

mechatronic systems ranging from high-precision devices, modern sports and medical equipment

to advanced processing tools. The current proposal aims to upgrade existing equipment with 1.6

M€.

The largest investment proposed is the acquisition of 3D printer for additive manufacturing of

biocompatible metal prototypes with up to 17 different items to be acquired, including both

hardware and software.

As the main focus of using such equipment is not clear and well defined in the proposal, it is

questionable whether RI could provide resources for high level international research. The

scientists at the RI have shown good level national publications, which however are not at the good

to high international level.



Mechatronics is emerging area, which is capable of increasing understanding, e.g. in manufacturing

and development of intelligent behavior systems. The Lithuanian economy is known for suppling

machined high-end products and providing services in the field of engineering.

The competitiveness of Lithuanian industry needs knowledge and techniques in mechatronics in

future.

On the other hand, the RI proposal does not promise enhanced relationship with local demands and

other academic institutions, which is relevant to function as real research infrastructure:

The users increase is foreseen to 10 national from Lithuanian University of Medical

Sciences and to 10 international from Fraunhofer IPT.

The RI works the field of mechatronics and additive manufacturing. It is not clear at which level

the RI is internationally. However, the group of scientists working in the RI is rather limited,

including just 1 professor and less than 10 senior scientists, and only a few outside collaborating

groups.



The main national interest can be the continuous well-fare for the benefit of citizens and

community. Any increase of knowledge and its transfer is for this purpose.


The weak point in this respect lies in modest relations of potential RI with national users both in

economical and in academic areas:

No startups and/or spinoffs have been emerged related to mechatronics so far and,

moreover, only 5 contracts with businesses with very modest contract value are given as

examples. Although, one of the most potential activities of mechatronic research area is in

providing competence and knowledge transfer to industry. Also, it was not clear from the

proposal text whether the figures presented in contract are in Euros or in Lithuanian litas.

For academic interest of RI proposal see p2 above.

Due to broad definitions of both national and RI interests, the proposed RI can be considered to

correspond to national broad interest.

4. Does the research performance of the applicants presenting the proposal justifies


Yes, it does.

The modelling and prototyping capabilities in terms of material compatibility and processing

methods of specialized high-performance instruments for characterization of devices based on

smart materials are foreseen to improved. This is planned by investment in commercial licenses for

software and particular equipment.

However, the scientific importance and contribution of the proposed RI seems to be modest

concerning the range of published novelties and international impact:

From the published scientific articles not cited is 42%, self-cited 39% and with

international co-operation 14%. The planned investments do not foresee to measures to

improve this situation in the future.

Academic performance is at the medium to modest international level.


a) Technically: Yes, it is, but with wide scope and weak focus.

The technical development is foreseen by acquiring more tool-like investments, rather than

scientific quality increase in the research field, see p1 above.

b) Financially: Yes it is.

c) Organizationally: Yes, it is.

Although, it was unclear and still remained, how the RI proposal will be contributed by

Biomechatronics Lab.

a) Technically:

Here the use of proposed RI funding is given in detail. However, most of the proposed acquisitions

are rather minor in terms of cost, so the question here is whether the RI funding should be used to

acquire major instruments.

b) Financially:

See above.


It is not clear how the use of the diverse equipment is planned to be organized, i.e. are there

dedicated operators and who would train the outside user.

6. Are the human resources adequate to ensure high quality research and efficient use

of proposed RI?

Yes it is, but the number of employees involved for RI implementation seems to be very limited.

This is one of the most serious concerns with the present RI proposal: Currently there is one

professor, 5 chief researchers, 4 senior researchers, 6 researchers, 4 junior researchers, 9 PhD

students, 3 engineers and 2 technicians. Such a composition is not clearly enough for sustainable

functioning and development of RI, which should be locally at high importance level and

internationally competitive and visible. The plan of increase human resource by 3 FTE positions

does not support ambitions of the RI.

See above c).



Yes, it does.

Certainly, the description given in the RI proposal, the goals can be achieved, keeping in mind

smart specialization aspect that there are no other institutions in Lithuania developing

mechatronics.

RI contributes to Kaunas Santaka Valley activities.



Yes it is.

On the other hand, regarding the users so far and estimated increase (see p2 above), this is not

sufficient.

It is not clear how the level of the RI compares to that of the global state-of-the-art. Based on

publication activity, it is much below the global top level. RI has had only 3 internationally

funded project 2010-2015.

Accordingly, the capability to provide services for local and international community is rather

modest.


Yes, it is.

Socio-economic impact in the RI proposal includes estimate of industrial sectors that are directly

linked to mechatronics and is expressed in terms of currency, which is outstanding and appreciated.

On the other hand, the basis for this is described as increased capabilities of state-of-the-art

CAD/FEA software with commercial licenses and availability of versatile high-precision scientific

instruments, latter not included in the RI proposal.

RI has shown rather limited activities (5 research agreements) with local national companies and

none with foreign ones. No start-up companies originating from the RI has been reported.


The ambition is to be the best in the region.

The basis for such ambition is not well described and the list of RI investments does not imply to

the highest level of instrumentation. The ways to strengthen international cooperation have not

been described (see p2 and p4 above).

This seems not very likely based on the RI track record 2010-2015, see 8 and 9 above.



and networks is realistic?

The proposed RI project is compatible with EU research infrastructure policy: the key points have

been addressed and dealt in the proposal.

The existing/proposed involvement in European research infrastructure is realistic, although rather

modest description is given in description.

Yes.


The main concerns have been remained as:

The focus of the proposed RI is unclear, it was presented as widely usable area, but examples

were not given.

Number of research personnel directly involved in RI operations is small and seriously can

hamper the functioning.

Operation of laboratories is not clear (e.g. Biomechatronics Lab).

The number of existing national users is very limited so far and seems not to be increasing.

No provisions are given how to increase quality of publications and number of international

publications.

This proposal is asking funding to upgrade the equipment of the existing single site RI with rather

modest performance in terms of academic output, number of outside users (both national and

international) and national industry as well international funding.


The achievement of impact of proposed RI can be better achieved in combining with other RI, e.g.

ULTRATEST and/or APC KTUMM

It is recommended to increase the number of higher impact factor, international publications as

well as the amount of funding from private companies.

Annex 1: Evaluation process of Lithuania research infrastructure

projects

The aim of the RI proposals assessment (the scope of evaluation) was identify the strategic research

infrastructures that support Lithuania’s efforts to develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient

infrastructure; to support economic development and human well-being, with a focus on affordable

and equitable access to it; to avoid duplication of efforts and to coordinate and rationalize the use of

the facilities, to pool resources.

Lithuanian research infrastructure roadmap includes 22 RI proposals - 5 Social sciences and

humanities RI; 6 biomedicine RI; 10 physical sciences and technologies RI; 1 – agriculture RI. In

addition, Ministry of Education and Sciences asked to evaluate 2 RI projects that were proposed by

the Government Office (Nuclear Research Center and Gamma Knife). Biomedicine Data

Warehousing, Standardization and Analysis RI (MEDWAN) has not submitted the proposal.

The expert panel of 10 international peers were asked to:

- Evaluate RI proposals;

- Discuss preliminary evaluations during the Panel meeting in Vilnius;

- Rank the RI proposals;

- Prepare the final report with the final RI project ranking and key principles for the RI policy.

Each project was evaluated by 2 peers. Each peer had to fill-in the questioner based on the material

provided by applicants and MOSTA:

- RI project proposal;

- Background information about Lithuania research system (national priorities (Smart

Specialization and other national strategies), universities and research institutes network,

infrastructure policy, etc.).

- Information about Units of Assessment (Lithuania Research Assessment Exercise).

The Panel were asked to take into account these aspects:

RI allows to carry out high level of research comparable on international area in the discipline;

RI is of the national importance and contributes to achieving the Smart Specialization and other

national research and innovation goals;

Results achieved with previous investments from EU structural funds and national funds.

The added value (economic and social impact in Lithuania) of RI.

The critical mass of experienced researchers working on international arena in the discipline.

RI managers (institution, division or particular group) carries out high-level research comparable

with the best work internationally in the discipline and have experience;

Institution or division ensures environment that is fully comparable to the international

institutions in the discipline, in terms of the organization, strategy and infrastructure of research (LT

RAE results).

Capability of attracting the PhD students and high competences researchers.

RI technical and financial feasibility (taking into account available financial resources in

Lithuania). RI project costs are feasible, funding sources are diversified and the plan for the future

maintenance of RI is realistic;

RI is developed and organized based on open access principle for the public and private sector

researchers on national and international level.

Level of current international cooperation and potential for future cooperation;

RI compliance with EU research infrastructure policy.

Evaluation scale

5 The RI is of excellent quality compared to leading actors worldwide with respect to

originality, importance, quality and impact on the user community. The RI is highly

relevant for the Lithuanian research environment and inevitable for the

accomplishment of national research and innovation priorities and for the

competitiveness of Lithuanian research.

4 The RI shows high quality and research potential but does not reach the top standards

of international excellence. The RI is highly relevant for the Lithuanian research

environment, substantially contributing to the competitiveness of Lithuanian research.

It is crucial for accomplishment of national research and innovation priorities.

3 The RI’s quality and research potential enable good quality services to be provided in

the given research discipline. The RI shows significant usage possibilities and is

relevant for the Lithuanian research environment, however, it is not crucial for the

competitiveness of Lithuanian research.

2 The RI’s quality and research potential enable it to contribute to the provision of

sufficient quality services in the given sphere. The use of the RI is significant,

particularly on the national level. The RI is relevant for the Lithuanian research

environment; however, it lacks crucial strategic importance.

1 The RI’s quality and research potential enables it to contribute to the provision of

services in the given sphere. The RI is of minor use or has only a limited relevance for

the Lithuanian research environment and it lacks any strategic importance.

The preliminary assessments of each RI were discussed at the panel meeting to make the assessment

of different RI as consistent as possible. The panel interviewed managers of the RI projects and then

ranked RI projects.

Date post:	31-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Lithuania: Research Assessment Exercise Panel T2 ... grupes...Annex 1: Evaluation process of...

Documents