ReseaRch Quality assuRance foR the futuRe a ... - Lund University

Panel 8 – medicine | clinical
Productivity: The productivity for 5–7 faculty in cardiology over
2003–2007 seemed modest; in the reported manuscripts there were three
from ATVB (Impact Factor (IF) = 6.9), one from Blood (10.4), two from
Circulation Research (9.9), one in the European Heart Journal (7.3), and
a moderate number in journals having to do with electrophysiology and
cardiac pacing. While some of these are excellent specialty journals, there
were no publications listed from top tier journals (Science, Nature, Cell,
NEJM, etc).
Relevance: The publications could be classified as “solid” in their fields,
with the possible exception of the electrophysiology and device implantation
work. Their Lancet paper from 2001 appears to be a “classic” in this
field (Amer-Wahlin et al). Extramural funding is modest at best: a total of
~ 2.2M SEK in 2007 (~$0.5M), with most of that from “Private” sources,
which we suspect, means non-competitive.
Vitality (flexibility, control, leadership): This may be hard to judge from
the information presented. It is reasonable to assume there is good leadership
in the strongest area of experimental and clinical electrophysiology;
little evidence for strong organization and leadership in the other areas.
Collaboration: No evidence of collaboration outside what is ordinarily
done with colleagues at one’s own institution was revealed. They mention
graduating 9 students over the last 3 years, which seems excellent for a
faculty of this size, but the topics are not presented.
Research activity and teaching: We have little information to judge;
there are 14 graduate students in the unit which seems laudable given the
total of 7 faculties.
Evaluation of future plans: They list three major initiatives: continue
development of a program in cardiac stem cells and become a Center
in the world for cellular therapeutics in CVD; continue to work on
hypothermia, cardio protection, and percutaneous devices; and, make
use of the LUNDHEARTGENE resource. It is difficult to judge whether
they are investing heavily enough in the first to successfully compete in
this active area; the impression is they are not, but that may be wrong.
The second seems a strength, and continued investment might indeed
be worthwhile. The third is achievable, but the complete lack of epidemiological,
genomic, or proteomic publications suggest a considerable
224