EUROPEAN RESEARCH AREA

Progress Report 2018

Country Profile CZECH REPUBLIC

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Directorate A — Policy Development and Coordination Unit A2 — Research and Innovation Strategy Contact: Arie Van Der Zwan E-mail: Arie.VAN-DER-ZWAN@ec.europa.eu RTD-PUBLICATIONS@ec.europa.eu European Commission B-1049 Brussels

LEGAL NOTICE

Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information.

The views expressed in this publication are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission.

More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019.

PDF ISBN 978-92-79-99848-5 doi:10.2777/718779 KI-04-19-102-EN-N © European Union, 2019. Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

EUROPE DIRECT is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union

Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you)

Country profile: Czech Republic

1

COUNTRY SNAPSHOT

Note: (:) = missing data, more notes and flags can be found in the “Annex: Methodological notes”. (R) = rolling averages (e.g. average scores across 2007–2010, 2008–2011… 2014–2017) have been used to measure performance and growth due to pronounced

short-term fluctuations. Refer to the “Annex: Guide to reading the quantitative results tables (country snapshots)” for guidance in interpreting the data presented above. Further information on the presented indicators is available in the 2018 ERA Monitoring Handbook.

Indicator

NameReference

year Score ClusterLead/Gap

(Δ %) EU-28Reference

Period CAGRLead/Gap(Δ % pt) EU-28

Trend(2007-18)

Adjusted Research Excellence Indicator (AREI) 2016 23.2 3 -49 45.0 2013-16 3.2% 0.0 3.2%

GBARD as share of GDP 2017 0.65% 2 3 0.63% 2014-17 0.8% 2.4 -1.7%

EIS Summary Innovation Index (SII) 2017 0.415 3 -18 0.504 2015-17 0.9% -1.0 1.9%

A - GBARD to transnatl coop (EUR/researcher) 2016 1,547 3 -59 3,739 2014-16 12.7% 8.8 3.9%

A - Collab papers w/ERA per 1 000 researchers 2016 76 3 7 71 2014-16 4.2% 0.9 3.3%

A - Public-to-public partnerships (EUR/researcher) 2016 124 4 -78 558 2014-16 10.6% 9.9 0.7%

B - Roadmap for ESFRI projects

B - Participation in ESFRI Projects and Landmarks (combined) 2018 53% 1 52 35% 2016-18 14.8% -0.2 15.0%

B - Participation in developing ESFRI Projects 2018 44% 1 52 29% 2016-18 24.7% 6.2 18.6%

B - Participation in operational ESFRI Landmarks 2018 57% 1 52 37% 2016-18 8.4% -2.8 11.3%

EURAXESS job ads per 1 000 researchers 2016 9.0 3 -79 42.1 2014-16 -10.2% -5.1 -5.0%

Open, transparent, merit-based hiring process 2016 74% 1 13 65% 2012-16 13.8% 6.3 7.5%

Share of doctoral students from EU countries 2016 9.6% 2 34 7.1% 2013-16 4.9% 1.1 3.9%

Share of women among Grade A in HES 2016 15% 4 -38 24% 2014-16 2.2% 1.2 1.0%

Gender dimension in research content 2014-17(R) 0.91 3 -13 1.05 2011-14 to 2014-17(R) 1.7% -0.8 2.5%

Share of female PhD graduates 2016 43% 4 -11 48% 2013-16 -0.1% -0.5 0.4%

A - Firms coop with univ, gov, res inst 2014 13.7% 3 -9 15.0%

A - Firms coop with univ 2014 2012-14 -8.4% -9.1 0.7%

A - Firms coop with gov, res inst 2014 2012-14 -0.5% -4.5 4.0%

A - Share of public R&D funded privately 2015 7.8% 2 13 7.0% 2013-15 8.1% 9.3 -1.2%

A - Public-private collab papers per capita 2017 21.0 3 -49 40.9 2014-17 0.2% -0.2 0.4%

B - Share of papers in Open Access (Total) 2016 40.5% 3 -18 49.3%

B - Share of papers in Open Access (Gold) 2016 25.7% 3 -15 30.2%

B - Share of papers in Open Access (Green) 2016 22.9% 3 -30 32.5%

B - Share life science papers with OA dataset(s) 2017 2.7% 2 5 2.6% 2013-17 7.6% 5.0 2.6%

Collab papers w/non-ERA per 1 000 researchers 2016 37 3 -31 54 2014-16 5.6% 1.2 4.4%

Share of doctoral students from outside EU 2016 6.3% 3 -54 13.9% 2013-16 11.6% 7.8 3.8%

Share med & high tech product export 2017 66% 1 16 57% 2015-17 1.3% 0.8 0.4%

Share Knowledge intensive service export 2016 44% 3 -37 69% 2014-16 1.3% 0.6 0.6%

Pri

ori

ty 6

Pri

ori

ty 3

Pri

ori

ty 4

Pri

ori

ty 5

Not computed

Not computed

Not computed

Not computed

Not computed

Not computed

Performance Progress since ERA monitoring 2016

Pri

ori

ty 1

Pri

ori

ty 2

National roadmap implemented in 2015, ESFRI projects identified

2

COUNTRY NARRATIVE

Summary

The Czech Republic achieved its best performances on Priority 2b (Make optimal use of public investments in research infrastructures). The country’s participation in ESFRI infrastructures was both well above the ERA average (Cluster 1) and the EU-28 scores.

On five Priorities, the Czech research system offered a mix of performances that combined scores positioning the country just below ERA average (Cluster 3) with scores placed above (Cluster 2) or well above (Cluster 1) the ERA average. Scores were more often below EU-28 benchmarks on these Priorities. This set of Priorities includes: Priority 1 (More effective national research systems), Priority 3 (An open labour market for researchers), Priority 5a (Knowledge transfer), Priority 5b (Open access), and Priority 6 (International collaboration). Short-term changes in scores varied quite a bit across such a broad set of priorities and indicators; both positive and negative trajectories were recorded, and they also included both leads and gaps to the EU-28 trend.

Priority 2a (Transnational cooperation) and Priority 4 (Gender equality and gender mainstreaming in research) were those where the Czech Republic had the least success. Scores placed the country in Clusters 3 or 4, and they were situated below the EU-28 benchmark.

If one pattern of evolution could be extracted, despite the various trends found for multiple indicators, it is that the Czech Republic’s trends are all relatively close to changes observed for the EU-28 overall; changes in scores for the Czech Republic since the last ERA monitoring exercise were never more than 10 percentage points above or below the EU-28 trajectory. This adherence to the broader pattern of the Member States is much stronger than for other countries, who often diverged from the EU-28 trajectory more substantially.

To the extent that data was available, below the country profile also analyses progress with the implementation of the ERA National Action Plan. Czech Republic accomplished some progress in the implementation of its NAP. Most of the actions and targets set in the NAP were specific and well-defined. Quite significant progress was achieved under Priority 3 and 4 with the development of the National Action Plan for Human Resources Development and Gender Equality in R&D, which addresses the most pressing issues related to researcher mobility, gender equality and researchers’ careers. The preparation, adoption and implementation of Inter-Excellence programme proved to be an important development under sub priority 2a and Priority 6, which is expected to further Czech Republic’s international cooperation efforts in R&D. The country has also achieved progress under sub priority 2b and sub priority 5b by conducting an interim evaluation of 58 large research infrastructures and adopting National Strategy of Open Access to Scientific Information for 2017-2020.

1. More effective national research systems

The Czech Republic’s score for GBARD as a share of GDP positioned the country at equal footing with the EU-28 benchmark, and above the ERA average (Cluster 2). For the Adjusted Research Excellence Indicator (AREI), which was the headline indicator, as well as for the EIS Summary Innovation Index (SII), the country’s scores fell in Cluster 3 and notably below EU-28 benchmarks. The Czech Republic’s gap to the EU-28 benchmark was particularly large for the AREI, with the country’s score being only half of the EU-28 figure.

Since the last ERA monitoring exercise, the Czech Republic has seen small yearly average increases on this set of indicators, with trends closely following their EU-28 counterparts for the AREI and SII. The small yearly average increase for GBARD as a share of GDP was opposite to the EU-28 trend which slightly decreased since the last ERA monitoring exercise.

Czech Republic updated its National Research and Innovation Strategy for Smart Specialisation, which identifies eight key enabling technologies and non-technological domains. Seven national innovation platforms were established. Additionally, RIS3 Smart Accelerator project was started with a goal to strengthen institutional capacities at regional levels. However, R&D strategies generally experiences poor coordination between national and regional levels. It is mainly an outcome of R&D policy being highly centralised. Having said that, the update of the smart specialisation strategy brought together different stakeholders from both national and regional

Country profile: Czech Republic

3

levels, academia and businesses. It opens up an opportunity to improve future coordination and dialogues among stakeholders.

Czech Republic has already implemented some of the actions planned in its NAP. First, Evaluation methodology of research organisations (Metodika 2017+) was prepared. It is expected to guide the evaluation system from 2017 onwards and to be fully implemented in 2020. Second, Report on the implementation of National Research and Innovation Strategy for Smart Specialisation of the Czech Republic over the period 2015-2016 was prepared. The report provides overview of the National RIS3 Strategy implementation in 2015 and 2016.

2. Optimal transnational co-operation and competition

a. Transnational cooperation

As already mentioned, transnational cooperation appeared to be one of the weak points of the Czech research system. Their score for the number of collaborative papers with other ERA researchers was slightly above EU-28 benchmark, but below ERA average (Cluster 3). Scores for the headline indicator and the second complementary indicator were well below EU-28 benchmark and positioned the country in Cluster 3 or 4, respectively; in both cases the Czech Republic’s score was less than half that of the Member States overall.

The Czech Republic recorded yearly increases on average for the three indicators. Growth was noteworthy and above EU-28 trend for the headline indicator at 12.7 % on average per year (compared to 3.9 % for the EU-28), and for funding dedicated to public-to-public research partnerships at an average of 10.6 % (compared to the EU-28 trend of 0.7 %).

Czech Republic’s performance under sub priority 2a is still relatively weak due to limited financial resources and insufficient sectorial coordination (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, 2016). The country has been facing challenges in the effort to improve transnational cooperation but is determined to at least maintain the current level of successful participation in some programmes such as COST, EUROSTARS, ECSEL, EMPIR and EUREKA.

The main achievement regarding Czech NAP on sub priority 2a is the preparation, adoption and implementation of ‘Inter-Excellence’ programme, which supports further development of international cooperation in R&I and integration of Czech Republic into the European and global research structures.

b. Make optimal use of public investments in research infrastructures

The Czech Republic’s best performances were found in this priority. Across all indicators, the country’s scores positioned it among the highest performing countries throughout the ERA (Cluster 1). These scores were also well above their respective EU-28 benchmarks.

In 2016, the country recorded a 29 % rate of participation in developing ESFRI Projects and a 48 % participation rate in Landmarks. With these figures recently updated to 44 % and 57 % respectively, the country has seen notable growth in participation, although the increase measured on the combined indicator is very much in line with the EU-28 trend.

Note that large countries are generally advantaged on this priority since the indicators are not normalised to account for differences in the size of countries.

As proposed in the NAP, International Evaluation Committee established by the Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports of the Czech Republic conducted a comprehensive interim evaluation of 58 large research infrastructures in 2017. The results were recognised by the government and are expected to feed into the forthcoming decision on funding research infrastructures over 2020-2022. This is a positive development because a well-designed strategy for the investments in research infrastructure was lacking (European Commission, 2016). The Czech Republic continues the efforts to synchronise its approach to research infrastructures with ESFRI updates.

Country profile: Czech Republic

4

3. An open labour market for researchers

Czech researchers’ level of satisfaction (74 %) that the academic hiring process is open, transparent and merit-based is moderately above the EU-28 benchmark of 65 %. This score was well above ERA average (Cluster 1). The country did not perform as well on the headline indicator: the number of EURAXESS academic job ads per 1 000 researchers. Here its score was just a fraction of the EU-28 benchmark, and it brought about a position among the countries in Cluster 3.

The country’s performance on researcher satisfaction toward academic hiring processes has strengthened since the last ERA monitoring exercise; with annual increases of nearly 14 %, the Czech Republic has been widening its lead against the EU-28 score. In contrast, the country had lost further ground among the 28 Member States on EURAXESS use in the recent period.

The EURAXESS Czech Republic Network is operating since 2008. It does not only manage the EURAXESS job portal but also provides personalised assistance to researchers who are looking to relocate. Despite the existence of this dedicated EURAXESS network, the jobs portal is underused by research performing organisations. The government of the Czech Republic endorses the use of the Charter & Code.

Czech NAP aimed to develop comprehensive strategy for human resources development and gender equality in R&D. The Action Plan for Human Resources Development and Gender Equality in R&D was drafted by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports and approved by the Government in January 2018. This addresses a number of the most pressing topics in relation to the development of human resources in R&D, which include gender equality and mainstreaming as well as support and promotion to PhD students and early stage researchers, international mobility and the quality of institutional environment (Shrolec and Sanchez-Martinez, 2018).

4. Gender equality and gender mainstreaming in research

Czech researchers’ integration of a gender dimension in their research content was below the EU-28 benchmark and under ERA average (Cluster 3). The country’s scores for the headline and the remaining complementary indicator were both even further below the ERA averages (positions in Cluster 4). Nevertheless, it can be noted that that all ERA countries have achieved scores between 40 % and 60 % in shares of women PhD graduates, and have therefore almost realised, realised or gone beyond gender parity for this specific career stage.

The Czech Republic has not seen substantive changes in scores on this priority in recent years, in line with broader findings for the EU-28 overall.

In 2014, the proportion of females among researchers was lowest since 2001. This is a negative tendency considering that the proportion of females is growing at all levels of education, including PhD. The development of an Action Plan for Development of Human Resources for R&D and Gender Equality in R&D is expected to address main issues in this area.

Another important development under Priority 4 was the adoption of the first gender equality policy by the Technology Agency of the Czech Republic in 2015. This was the first gender equality policy ever adopted by a state institution in the country (EIGE, 2016). It is expected that this commitment towards integrating gender on behalf of the National Research Technical Agency will encourage research and higher education institutions to take necessary actions. One of the interviewees mentioned a positive institutional practice where a research performing organisation has dedicated funds for female researchers returning from maternity leave. It is particularly important as it was noted that career progression is challenge for female researchers, especially the ones returning from the maternity leave (Shrolec and Sanchez-Martinez, 2018).

The Czech NAP set out an objective to develop comprehensive strategy approach to human resources development and gender equality in R&D under Priority 4. The Action Plan for Human Resources Development and Gender Equality in R&D was approved by the government in January 2018. There are also incentives within the Operational Programme Research, Development and Education (OP RDE) expected to motivate research organisations to take a strategic approach to human resources. Another achievement is the preservation of Milada Paulová Award, which contributes to the objective of acknowledging women’s lifelong achievements in science and increasing the attractiveness of research career in the STEM fields among young women.

Country profile: Czech Republic

5

5. Optimal circulation, access to and transfer of scientific knowledge including via digital ERA

a. Knowledge transfer

The Czech Republic showed an appreciable share of public R&D funded privately, at 7.8 %, noticeably above the EU-28 figure of 7.0 %. This score positioned it above the ERA average as well (Cluster 2). By contrast, the country performed below the EU-28 level for its private-sector collaboration with universities, governments and research institutes, and notably below the EU-28 benchmark on the number of public-private collaboration papers per capita. In both cases, these scores led the Czech Republic to a position among the countries in Cluster 3.

Notable changes in scores over recent years were found for the share of public R&D funded privately and for Czech firms’ cooperation with universities and higher education institutions. For the first indicator, average annual growth of 8.1 % compared to a EU-28 downward trend of 1.2 %. Decline was found for the second indicator, at 8.4 % annual average decreases, compared to marginal growth at the EU-28 level, meaning the Czech Republic has lost ground compared to the other Member States.

The level of business-academia cooperation remains relatively low despite some efforts to increase the links between different R&I actors. Main initiatives to improve these links are supported from the ESIF funds and competence centres programme financed from national sources (European Commission, 2016). A positive development was the adoption of the Strategy for R&D Information Systems, which is expected to improve evaluation of and targeted funding for cooperation between industry and academia. Some research performing organisation have established knowledge transfer offices and participate in collaborative activities. However, the long-term and strategic partnerships between academia and business are lacking. This can be partially explained by the lack of dedicated funds for these activities. Furthermore, a national level strategy and a set of regulations are lacking.

b. Open access

Just over 40 % of papers published by Czech researchers were available in OA, a proportion that landed below the EU-28 benchmark and the ERA average (Cluster 3). The same pattern was also found for Gold OA and Green OA papers specifically, the components of the overall OA level. The country performed better in terms of OA availability of datasets associated with life science papers, with a score slightly above EU-28 benchmark that afforded a position in Cluster 2. Noteworthy growth could also be found on this last indicator, with average annual increases 5 percentage points above the EU-28 trend.

There are different initiatives in the Czech Republic to support open access at both institutional and national levels. At the institutional level for example, the Czech Academy of Sciences “Berlin Declaration on OA to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities” and confirmed their support for open access (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, 2016). Additionally, some other research performing organisations drafted internal open access policies or established internal funding mechanisms for open access. One of the shortcomings related to open access that was indicated during the interview programme is the lack of dedicated funding for publishing in open access.

The approval of The Czech Republic National Strategy of Open Access to Scientific Information for 2017-2020 was the main achievement in regards to the objectives set in the Czech NAP under Priority 5b. It covers both research publications and research data (SPARC Europe, 2017).

6. International cooperation

The Czech republic’s score of 66 % share of exports made up of medium and high technology products was above EU-28 benchmark (57 %) and placed in the country in Cluster 1. Performances for the remaining indicators in this Priority were weaker, with noteworthy gaps to EU-28 benchmarks leading to positions in Cluster 3. The gap between Czech Republic score and EU-28 benchmark was particularly large for the share of doctoral students from outside the EU (6.3 % compared to 13.9 %).

Patterns in annual changes in scores generally showed the Czech Republic making gradual progress on these indicators. The country was catching up to the EU-28 on its share of doctoral

Country profile: Czech Republic

6

students from outside the EU; the growth of 11.6 % CAGR recorded here was almost eight percentage points above the EU-28 trend. For the other indicators, the Czech growth rates were generally in line with trends across the Member States.

As was confirmed by the interview programme, the research system of Czech Republic is relatively closed. Most of the cooperation activities take place on the national level and increasingly on the European level. This was explained by the historical isolation of the Czech research system, which means that the ties with international community are limited. It is also suggested in the national R&I strategy that most organisations do not have a large community of international researchers, which limits their inclination to increase international cooperation activities (Section for Science, Research and Innovation of the Government of the Czech Republic, 2016). It was also noted during the interview programme that main internationalisation effort is dedicated to European cooperation.

Despite that, Czech Republic aims to become highly attractive country for top-level research and innovation. One of the actions proposed in Czech NAP under both Priority 2 and Priority 6 is the preparation, adoption and implementation of “Inter Excellence” programme with the goal to further develop international cooperation in R&D and support Czech research organisations and private enterprises that wish to cooperate with non-European partners. As already stated under Priority 2, Czech Republic prepared, adopted and implemented ‘Inter-Excellence’ programmes. There was no evidence that the other action proposed in the NAP was implemented.

References

EIGE (2016). Integrating gender equality into academia and research organisations: Analytical paper, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

European Commission (2016) Commission Staff Working Document. Country Report Czech Republic 2016. 2016 European Semester. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2016-european-semester-country-reports_en

European Commission (2017a) European Innovation Scoreboard and Country profiles, Czech Republic. Retrieved from: https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/30674

European Commission (2017b) Commission Staff Working Document. Country Report Czech Republic 2017. 2017 European Semester. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2017-european-semester-country-reports_en

European Commission (2018) MLE on national practices in widening participation and strengthening synergies. Topic report: Attracting qualified R&D staff in the public and private sectors prepared by Claire Nauwelaers.

Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (2017) Interim evaluation of large research infrastructures 2017. Retrieved from: https://rio.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en/library/interim-evaluation-large-research-infrastructures-2017

Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (2016) National ERA Roadmap of the Czech Republic for the years of 2016-2020. Retrieved from: http://www.msmt.cz/file/37450/

OECD (2016) “Czech Republic”, in OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2016. OECD Publishing, Paris. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/sti_in_outlook-2016-en

OECD (2017) OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2017 and Country Highlights. OECD Publishing, Paris. DOI: http://www.oecd.org/sti/scoreboard.htm

Section for Science, Research and Innovation of the Government of the Czech Republic (2016) National Research, Development and Innovation Policy of the Czech Republic 2016-2020 information provided by the Technology Centre CAS though public contract.

SPARC Europe (2017) An Analysis of Open Data and Open Science Policies in Europe Version 2. Retrieved from: https://sparceurope.org/what-we-do/sparc-europe-key-resources/sparc-europe-documents/

Country profile: Czech Republic

7

Srholec, M; Benedetti Fasil, C, RIO Country Report 2016 Czech Republic, EUR28499 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2017, ISBN 978-92-79-66216-4, doi:10.2760/159064, JRC105858.

Shrolec, M., and Sanchez-Martinez M., RIO Country Report 2017: Czech Republic, EUR 29164 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2018, ISBN 978-92-79-81235-4, doi:10.2760/073148, JRC111276.

Country profile: Czech Republic

8

ANNEX: METHODOLOGICAL NOTES

Indicator

NameException to

ref. yearException to ref. period

Break in time series

Definitiondiffers Estimated Provisional Potential

outlier Confidential

Adjusted Research Excellence Indicator (AREI) Available

GBARD as share of GDP Available 2017

EIS Summary Innovation Index (SII) Available

A - GBARD to transnatl coop (EUR/researcher) Available 2016

A - Collab papers w/ERA per 1 000 researchers Available 2016

A - Public-to-public partnerships (EUR/researcher) Available 2016

B - Roadmap for ESFRI projects

B - Participation in ESFRI projects and landmarks (combined) Available

B - Participation in developing ESFRI projects Available

B - Participation in operational ESFRI landmarks Available

EURAXESS job ads per 1 000 researchers Available 2016

Open, transparent, merit-based hiring process Available

Share of doctoral students from EU countries Available

Share of women among Grade A in HES Available 2015 2014-15

Gender dimension in research content Available

Share of female PhD graduates Available

A - Firms coop with univ, gov, res inst Available

A - Firms coop with univ Available

A - Firms coop with gov, res inst Available 2012

A - Share of public R&D funded privately Available

A - Public-private collab papers per capita Available

B - Share of papers in Open Access (Total) Available

B - Share of papers in Open Access (Gold) Available

B - Share of papers in Open Access (Green) Available

B - Share life science papers with OA dataset(s) Available

Collab papers w/non-ERA per 1 000 researchers Available 2016

Share of doctoral students from outside EU Available

Share med & high tech product export Available

Share Knowledge intensive service export Available

Pri

ori

ty 5

Pri

ori

ty 6

Data availability

FlagPri

ori

ty 1

Pri

ori

ty 2

Pri

ori

ty 3

Pri

ori

ty 4

Country profile: Czech Republic

9

ANNEX: GUIDE TO READING THE QUANTITATIVE RESULTS TABLES (COUNTRY SNAPSHOTS)

Each profile table shows the given country’s performance score and growth for all indicators used in this study. Given that specific targets were not established for each of the 24 ERA Monitoring Mechanism (EMM) indicators for each country, it is impossible to report on a country’s level of compliance in achieving the ERA priorities, or the ERA policies/actions, that each of these indicators intends to measure (1). Instead, the level of performance in the country snapshots is compared to the EU-28 (lead/gap analysis) and ERA averages (performance clusters). These references might represent unrealistic targets for some countries, especially the smaller ones. However, care was taken to use normalised indicators (except for Priority 2b), usually by incorporating the size of a country’s population or economy in the denominator of an indicator. Additionally, the EU-28 and ERA averages might in some cases be lower than the level of performance which would be optimal towards achieving the ERA; for instance, gender equality might not have been reached in all relevant aspects at the EU- and/or ERA-wide level. That said, the main goal of these comparative analyses is to help situate countries relative to the core of the EU and ERA, so as to inform decisions on the most appropriate targets and on how to achieve them.

In addition to a measurement of performance in 2017 (or the most recent reference year for which sufficient data were available at the time of producing this report (2)), the profile table also reports on recent changes in national performance, computed as a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR). The CAGR aims to assess progress made since the ERA Progress Report 2016. Accordingly, it compares the latest available year in the 2016 report to the latest available year in this report. Growth since the last monitoring exercise is also compared to the EU-28 (lead/gap analysis) to inform individual countries on the extent to which their gap with the EU-28 level of performance is closing or widening. This information is intended to help individual countries better assess the extent to which new actions are required to achieve their respective targets.

The profile table is divided in two parts: performance and growth. For performance, the reference year for each indicator is noted. If the reported year for a given country and indicator is different from the reference year, the performance score in the snapshot is highlighted using a grey font in italics. The specific year which is reported appears in the column “exception to ref. year” of the appendix table at the end of the country profile. The appendix table also lists the years for which a flag is applied to the data. The performance section of the snapshot table also provides the EU-28 scores across indicators upon which the country lead/gap, in percent difference to the EU-28 score, is computed. Furthermore, the performance clusters from the main report have also been presented here; recall that countries more than one standard deviation above the unweighted ERA average (i.e. average across member states and associated countries for which data is available for each indicator) are in Cluster 1, the strongest cluster; those at or above the unweighted ERA average but within one standard deviation are in Cluster 2; those below the unweighted average but within one standard deviation are in Cluster 3; those more than one standard deviation below the ERA unweighted average are in Cluster 4, the weakest cluster.

For growth, the reference period used in computing the Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) is also presented, alongside the actual CAGR. Again, exceptions to the reference period are highlighted by using a grey font in italics to display the actual CAGRs of the corresponding country and EU-28. Information on the specific years used in these cases are again available in the appendix tables. The lead/gap analysis for growth shows the percentage point difference between the country’s CAGR and the CAGR of the EU–28 average. The CAGR measures growth relative to the latest available year in the 2016 ERA Progress Report. Since there were retrospective corrections to the scores of countries on some indicators, growth was computed based on the updated time series. Trend lines over the longest available period for a given indicator are provided to inform on longer-term patterns of progress towards realising the ERA. Empty lines in the trend indicate either that data was missing for that year, or that the country’s score was zero. For one indicator where short-term fluctuations were particularly pronounced (gender dimension in research content in priority 4), rolling averages (e.g. average scores across 2007–2010, 2008–2011… 2014–2017) have been used to measure performance and growth. In such cases, the CAGR measures the year-by-year percent change in the rolling average of an indicator between the starting and ending periods (e.g. between 2011–2014 and 2014–2017). These cases are

1 A more in-depth assessment of progress of implementation of ERA policies was rather achieved in the text of country profiles (not the snapshot tables) accounting for quantitative (where available) and qualitative (especially) elements in relation to the objectives, baselines, targets, timelines and milestones established by individual countries in their National Action Plans (NAP).

2 Refer to the 2018 ERA Monitoring Handbook for the extraction dates of the presented data.

Country profile: Czech Republic

10

highlighted by the addition of the superscript (R) to the reference year (performance) and period (growth) of the concerned indicators.

The lead/gap analyses, both for performance and for growth, have been colour-coded to help visually elucidate patterns in the findings. The colour scheme for the country profiles ranges from dark blue (weakest scores) to dark orange (strongest scores), as was applied in the main report. There is, however, a key difference to note. In the main report, the colouring compared the results of different countries along a single indicator, in these country profile tables the colouring compares the results of one country along several indicators, to highlight its relative strengths and weaknesses across indicators. More specifically, in each profile, blue always indicates that a country is below the EU–28 average, and orange always indicates that it is above, but the shade of blue and orange (dark or light) is relative to the country’s own performance across indicators, rather than relative to the performance of other countries.

Indicators in bold are the Headline indicators that were selected as being the most relevant in monitoring progress in achieving the ERA by the European Research Area and Innovation Committee (ERAC). Within each priority, the Headline is followed by the two complementary EMM indicators identified by ERAC. Lack of data is identified by using a symbol (:) within the table cells.

Due to changes and discontinuities in data collection, some indicators have been updated, modified or replaced. A first modification was introduced for the complementary EMM indicators of Priority 2b (Make optimal use of public investments in research infrastructures). Here, findings are now provided on a combined indicator that better illustrates how level of engagement in ESFRI developing Projects and Landmarks are connected rather than independent.

For the headline indicator of Priority 5a, the underlying data coming from Eurostat was for the first time aggregated in a manner that made it possible to present a single metric (in terms of performance) merging both of its underlying dimensions (3); that is the share of product and/or process innovative firms cooperating with 1) universities or higher education institutions, or 2) with government, public or private research institutes. For growth, these two dimensions still had to be kept separated in this edition.

The indicators on the share of a country’s peer-reviewed scientific papers that are available in Open Access (i.e. Total, Gold and Green OA) in Priority 5b have all been impacted by a revised definition of what constitute Green Open Access papers (see Section 3.5.5 of the Main Report for a description of this change). The indicator on the inclusion of OA policies in RIO policy repositories was discontinued since the new reporting guidelines for RIO policy reports no longer ask the experts to report on OA specifically. It has been replaced by a qualitative assessment of the NAPs and other information sources. A new indicator was also added to Priority 5b to fill a data gap in the 2016 ERA Progress Report; no data was available in 2016 for the share of research performing organisations (RPOs) making their research data available in OA. The share of research performing organisations (RPOs) making their research data available in OA has been replaced by the share of life sciences papers to which a country contributed and that have at least one open dataset in Figshare.

Due to discontinued data, the indicator on “Licence and patent revenues from abroad as a share of GDP” in Priority 6 has been replaced by two new indicators: knowledge intensive services exports as percentage of total services exports and exports of medium and high technology products as a share of total product exports; this modification coincides with a similar replacement in the 2018 European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS). Changes in the data for some countries also led to changes in EU28 aggregate scores the following two indicators: the share of doctoral candidates with a citizenship of another EU Member State (Priority 3) and non-EU doctorate students as a share of all doctorate students (Priority 6). Additional modifications in the approach used in computing EU-28 aggregate scores (e.g. imputation of missing data) led to some changes in the GBARD (EUR) allocated to Europe-wide transnational, as well as bilateral or multilateral, public R&D programmes per FTE researcher in the public sector (Priority 2a).

Finally, the composite indicators combining findings from headline and complementary indicators within and across ERA priorities have not be computed in the 2018 ERA monitoring exercise. The rationale for these changes is detailed in the 2018 ERA Monitoring Handbook.

3 The new aggregation provided by Eurostat enabled this change by removing duplicated count of firms falling in both types of partnerships.

How to obtain EU publications

Free publications:

• one copy: via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

• more than one copy or posters/maps: from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm); from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm); by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

Priced publications:

• via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).

The 2018 ERA Progress Report assesses the current state of the European Research Area (ERA) and the progress made on ERA implementation in 2016-2018. It is the second time in a row that progress has been measured at country level using the ERA monitoring mechanism.

Based on the overall evolution of the headline indicators, progress on ERA implementation continues, albeit at a slower pace than before. This trend calls for a renewed commitment to (i) further strengthening shared efforts at all levels; (ii) reforming national research and innovation systems; and (iii) realising a well-functioning ERA. The Commission has anticipated this need by proposing a number of programmes for the next financing period 2021-2027: these include regional funds, a European reform delivery tool, and the EU’s next research and innovation framework programme — Horizon Europe, which includes a dedicated pillar to help strengthen the ERA.

Research & Innovation policy

ISBN 978-92-79-99848-5 doi:10.2777/718779

KI-0

4-1

9-1

02

-EN

-N