CALIFORNIA: GDP(2012) $44,980, POPULATION (POP) (2013) 38,332,

Rank during yrs. Organizations M$ R&D

Per year Publications (PBL) Citations (CT)

(All) 10 5 Sample size: 5,407 4,513 3,583 1 7 19 U.C. Berkeley 708 1151 10,010 4 5 51 Stanford University 908 764 5,947 11 25 113 U.C. Irvine 344 416 4,954 15 15 57 U.C. Davis 708 680 4,451

22 122 140 Univ. of Southern California 603 419 4,062

32 81 552 Calif. Inst. of Tech. 377 392 3,455

51 69 40 U.C. San Diego 1,010 445 2,787

53 37 133 U.C. Los Angeles 982 462 2,733

118 U.S.G.S. 180 1,517

181 138 Lawrence Berkeley Natl. Lab. 161 1,024

252 601 559 U.C. San Francisco 995 118 733

254 252 1704 Lawrence Livermore Natl. Lab. 108 731

268 1,414 1,202 Cal. State Long Beach 28 683

272 243 333 U.C. Santa Barbara 230 141 673

273 San Diego State University 106 81 672

288 350 854 U.C. Riverside 132 137 625

314 452 1270 Cal. Poly State University 66 579

666 1,100 1077 U.C. Santa Cruz 156 42 222

812 3,697 2,713 Cal. State Northridge 33 166

983 1,348 Cal. State Fullerton 32 126

1,584 1,535 Cal. State Fresno 7 51

1651 1,166 Cal. Baptist University 147 46

1758 2,342 1,981 Harvey Mudd College 19 40

20,61 2,298 South. Cal. Coastal Water Res. Project 3 28

2,516 Pomona College 1 16

2,617 2,318 U.C. Merced 3 14

2,642 1,874 998 San Francisco State University 10 13

2,649 2,137 1583 Cal. State University Sacramento 8 13

2,821 2,372 San Jose State University 14 10

3,171 2,296 San Francisco Estuary Institute 2 7

3,295 Cal. Academy of Sciences 1 6

3,335 4,280 3,318 University of San Diego 6 5

3,398 2,576 Azusa Pacific University 2 5

3,631 2,773 2,014 Cal. State University Chico 8 3

3,641 2,789 1,437 Cal State University Bakersfield 6 3

4,011 Cal State University San Bernardino 1 2

4,642 3,785 2,708 Cal State University Los Angeles 2 0

Totals: 6,096 47,412

CT/PBL = 7.77; CIT/POP = 12.4·10–4_{; CIT/POP/GDP = 0.28·10}–7

by rapid growth and the as- sociated increasing ranks of the universities in China and India. With the rapid growth of the population and of the economic power of China and India, the quantity and the quality of their educa- tional organizations are also increasing rapidly. The top ranks of Civil Engineer- ing schools in the United States (e.g., the University of Illinois at Urbana, U.C. Berkeley, the Universi- ty of Southern California, Stanford, etc.) are being overtaken by the schools in China (e.g., Hong Kong Polytechnic University, the Tsinghua, Chinese Acade- my of Sciences) and India (e.g., the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore, I.I.T. Kanpur, and I.I.T. Bombay). If this trend continues, those from China and India will replace the cohorts of lead- ing scientists and engineers who in the past graduated from European and North American universities. The Chinese and Indian compa- nies staffed by their capa- ble engineering graduates will then gradually execute an increasing percentage of large construction projects in the world.

Microsoft Academic Search allows the ranking to

In view of the above-noted trends, the administra- tors of the leading universities in the CMMSS countries would do well to examine what the universities in Slove- nia are doing to achieve their high ranks and even more importantly to continue increasing this rank with time (e.g., the University of Ljubljana), in spite of the increas- ing competition from the Far East.

According to MAS, California is the home of eight of the top 100 organizations in the world in Civil Engi- neering (Table 4). Most of the universities listed above have advanced and very active Earthquake Engineering programs, both educational and in research, and they have produced many engineers who are now active in the design of earthquake-resistant structures and design codes. Many of these earthquake engineers write publi- cations that bring high citation rates and that, in the long run, determine the future course of the profession.

It can be shown that the publication rates of the lead- ing researchers in Earthquake Engineering range from 1 to 10 publications per year. The average rates are 5.15 papers per year for full professors, 3.25 per year for as- sociate professors, and 2.82 papers per year for assistant professors (Trifunac 2005a). During their careers, these professors write at least several hundred journal papers and are cited at least several thousand times. The highest average citation rates they receive are above 20 citations per paper (Trifunac 2006a,b). Relative to these trends, it can be seen that the publication and citation rates of the faculty at the universities in the CMMSS countries are low.

Comparison with California

The ratios CIT/POP/GDP, which are fairly compa- rable (except for Croatia and Macedonia; see Table 5), suggest that the scholarly output of professionals per capita in a country is proportional to the GDP. The good news is that this suggests that the potential of the popu- lation in the CMMSS countries to produce advanced sci- entific and engineering results is similar to the potential of the engineers who live and work in the rich countries. The bad news is that the present differences in GDP, in Serbia ($6,267 income per capita) or in Montenegro ($6,668 per capita), for example, cannot easily or soon enough increase many-fold to reach that of California ($44,980 per capita). This implies that while the universi- ties do educate young engineers well and probably in suf- ficient numbers, the CMMSS countries must find ways to attract them and to give them opportunities to work in the centers and institutes that specialize in all aspects of Earthquake Engineering and in hazard reduction as- sociated with earthquakes. Given that all of the CMMSS countries have small populations (0.6 to 7.2 million), perhaps attaching a small staff specializing in Earthquake Engineering to the existing institutes engaged in related work could be a strategy that would work.

The CT/PBL ratios in the CMMSS countries at the leading universities are between 1.4 (the University of Belgrade) and 4.6 (the University of Ljubljana). In Cali- fornia, these ratios for the top six universities range from

6.5 (U.C. Davis) to 11.9 (U.C. Irvine), which are 3 to 5 times higher. The cost associated with publication in some leading international journals, and the typical re- quirement to publish in the English language, may be contributing factors to the smaller rates in the CMMSS countries. However, these differences are not great and can be reduced or eliminated by adopting more stringent promotion requirements and performance merit evalua- tion policies in the CMMSS countries.

Some universities in the CMMSS countries require professors to write a textbook before they can be con- sidered for promotion. The data presented in this paper also show that many professors have been promoted to the highest levels without writing a single paper in the high-impact ISI journals. These trends can be corrected by changing the rules for the faculty merit evaluations and by placing more emphasis on original research rath- er than on summaries and reviews of the work that has been accomplished already. It is well known that writing a good and comprehensive textbook is a very time-con- suming process. The modern view is that the teaching faculty should know all of the classical accomplishments in the subject area of their lectures and that their teaching will be better and their students will learn more if the professors have experience in original and innovative re- search. It is generally agreed that the production of new science and of significant improvements in the state of the art of existing knowledge are driven by high-impact and highly cited papers, not by books.

However, to educate competent Earthquake Engi- neers, a university has to offer good courses, and this requires careful selection of good books and of other supporting literature. In the courses, the basic knowledge should be presented in the systematic and clear way, and this can be done efficiently by textbooks. When the task of the universities is also to nurish the local language, the main textbook in the CMMSS countries should be in the local language (Isaković 2014). The literature available in different languages and also in the form of different journal papers can be used as the additional literature.

The data show that the position of science in Cali- fornia and in the CMMSS countries is still significantly different. For instance, total spending for research and development (R&D) in Croatia is 0.7 % of GDP, which amounts to about 455 million USD/year. On the other hand, the University of Southern California alone spends

Table 5. Comparison with California

Country CT/PBL CIT/POP (10–4) CIT/POP/GDP (10–7) California 7.77 12.40 0.28 Slovenia 4.17 5.43 0.21 Serbia 2.23 0.683 0.11 Croatia 2.51 0.547 0.038 Montenegro 4.88 1.35 0.20 Macedonia (1.00)* (0.00958)* (0.0019)*

* Too small a sample for a meaningful interpretation, and hence the values are placed in brackets.

603 million USD/year for R&D, U.C. Berkeley spends 708 million USD, U. C. San Diego about 1 billion USD, and so on (see selected entries in the fifth column in Ta- ble 4). So, many large California universities spend more on R&D than all Croatian universities, institutes, and industry put together. Total spending for R&D only for Californian universities in Table 4 is close to 8 billion USD/year, which is the amount that all Croatian science might receive in about 18 years. If we compare the pro- ductivity of the University of Southern California and Croatia in the four categories above, we get: University of Southern California—693 papers (Table 3b), and Cro- atia—470 papers (Table 3c), which is about 1 paper per 1 M$) invested both for the University of Southern Califor- nia and Croatia. Clearly, in addition to the reorganization of the system, significant increases in expenditures for R&D will be necessary to improve the international im- pact of universities and of research organizations in the CMMSS countries.

Earthquake Engineering in Macedonia

Following the devastating earthquake in 1963, the Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology (IZIIS) was established in Skopje in 1965. Generously supported by UNESCO and by the local and federal governments of Yugoslavia, the institute was envisioned to serve as the regional center for research, education, and earthquake-resistant design in southeast- ern Europe. During the first decades of its operation, many prominent Earthquake Engineering experts came to IZIIS to teach and to advise the young staff on many different aspects of earthquake hazard reduction. Many research projects were also initiated and supported by various international groups, and many Earthquake En- gineering professors contributed their time by spending their sabbaticals in Skopje, teaching, helping launch pro- jects, and setting up local laboratories. Many members of the institute also visited the leading Earthquake Engi- neering centers in the world to become acquainted with their research methods and earthquake-resistant design philosophies. The present staff of the institute is relative- ly young and is a mix of the second and third generations of researchers and professors who started there beginning in 1965. Considering its many past accomplishments and the fact that IZIIS has been active for almost 50 years, the authors were surprised to find that the MAS search did not return any ranks for this organization. To search for the reasons, further analysis was undertaken using the ISI Thomson database (WoS). Because the MAS returns for the Civil Engineering Department at St. Kiril and Meto- dij University (UKIM) were also low, the WoS database was used in this case as well. Tables 6 and 7 summarize our findings.

To maintain confidentiality, the names of all facul- ty were replaced by numerals and arranged in a random sequence. The data in Table 6 suggest why MAS did not return any ranks for IZIIS. Of the 19 active staff mem- bers included in this analysis, only 13 have published one or more ISI journal papers and 32% have never published

a single paper that would qualify for inclusion in the ISI database. Collectively, 75 citations were received by 11 authors, but almost one half of the 19 staff members in- cluded in this analysis (42%) never received a single ISI citation. Relative to the production rates and the associat- ed citation rates of the leading earthquake engineers (Tri- funac 2005a), the ISI data explain, at least qualitatively, why IZIIS was below the threshold and not ranked by MAS.

Table 6. ISI Thomson Reuters (WoS) Data for the 19 Currently Active Members of IZIIS Staff (17 Professors and 2 Geophysi- cists) (Data Collected On May 3, 2014)

Faculty Papers

(in journals) Times Cited Cites/Paper h¹

1 12(6) 14 1.17 2 2 5(0) 0 0 0 3 6(2) 20 3.33 1 4 2(1) 0 0 0 5 1(0) 0 0 0 6 1(0) 0 0 0 7 3(0) 0 0 0 8 6(0) 0 0 0 9 3(1) 1 0.33 0 10 4(1) 0 0 0 11 - - - - 12 10(6) 10 0.5 2 13 3(1) 1 0.33 1 14 2(0) 0 0 0 19 6(2) 1 0.17 1 20 5(3) 0 0 0 21 5(4) 9 1.80 2 22 2(1) 1 0.50 1 23 7(2) 4 0.57 1

“-“ means that this name does not seem to exist in the WoS database. ¹ h is Hirsch index. It shows the number of papers that have received equal or more than h citations (Hirsch 2005).

Table 7 shows the corresponding analysis for the faculty in civil engineering at UKIM in Skopje. Here again, to maintain confidentiality the full professors are arranged randomly in a sequence from 1 to 24, associate professors from a to d, and assistant professors from A to H.

It can be seen from Table 7 why MAS returned such low ranks for the UKIM Civil Engineering faculty. Of 24 full professors 7 (29%) had no ISI publications and only 8 (30%) had one or more ISI journal papers. Three of 4 associate professors, and 5 of 8 assistant professors also had no ISI journal publications. Collectively, full pro- fessors received 112 citations, while no associate and no assistant professors received a single ISI citation. These publication rates are low, and remembering that MAS search and ranking in Civil Engineering publications and citing do not include Geotechnical Engineering, Geolo- gy, or Environmental Engineering, the results for UKIM in Table 3a become plausible.

Tables 6 and 7 show that large percentages of all reported ISI items were conference papers (the number of conference papers is the number of items found, less journal papers, which are shown in brackets)—64% for IZIIS and 67% for UKIM—and therefore only about one third of all items are journal papers (those are shown inside brackets in the second columns of Tables 6 and 7). This trend is very different from the trend in Cali- fornia, for example, where conference papers constitute

Table 7. Publications and Citations of Teaching Faculty in the Department of Civil Engineering at the University St. Kiril and Metodij (UKIM), in Skopje, Macedonia (Extracted from WoS Database on May 2, 2014)

Full

Professors (Journal Papers)Items found CitationsTotal Cit./item indexh¹

1 1(0) 0 0 0 2 10(2) 5 0.62 1 3 1(0) 2 2.0 1 4 1(0) 0 0 0 5 3(0) 0 0 0 6 0(0) 0 0 0 7 2(2) 25 12.5 2 8 - - - - 9 3(2) 7 2.33 1 10 - - - - 11 6(4) 10 1.67 2 12 1(0) 0 0 0 13 - - - - 14 4(3) 3 0.75 1 15 5(0) 0 0 0 16 2(1) 0 0 0 17 1(0) 0 0 0 18 - - - - 19 - - - - 20 1(0) 0 0 0 21 6(1) 23 3.83 2 22 - - - - 23 - - - - 24 5(2) 37 7.40 1

Associate Professors (Vanredni Profesori)

a - - - -

b 1(1) 0 0 0

c - - - -

d - - - -

Assistant Professors (Docenti)

A 2(0) 0 0 0 B - - - - C - - - - D 2(0) 0 0 0 E - - - - F - - - - G - - - - H 3(0) 0 0 0

“-“ means that the name is not present in the WoS database.

¹ h is Hirsch index. It shows the number of papers that have received equal or more than h citations (Hirsch 2005).

only a negligible fraction of all items included in ISI tab- ulations. It can be shown that conference papers attract a very small number of ISI citations (Trifunac and Lee 2004b), and for that reason they are usually not counted in the faculty merit-evaluation process in California.