Habilitation procedure at MU
The habilitation procedure at MU is implemented in accordance with sections 71 and 72 of Act No.111/1998 Coll., on Higher Education Institutions and on the Modification and Amendment of Other Acts (hereinafter referred to as "Higher Education Act”), in compliance with Masaryk University Habilitation Procedure and Professor Appointment Procedure Regulations and Directive No. 7/2017 on Habilitation Procedures and Professor Appointment Procedures (hereinafter referred to as "Directive").
Habilitation procedure initiation
The habilitation procedure begins with the submission of a proposal by the applicant to the dean of a faculty through a designated office tasked with the implementation of the habilitation procedure in a given field. Prior to the submission of a proposal for procedure initiation, the applicant should contact the designated faculty office to discuss faculty-specific aspects of the procedure in question.
Habilitation procedure initiation requirements
A written proposal for initiating a habilitation procedure submitted by the applicant must be structured according to the template included in Annex No. 1 of the Directive. The applicant submits a proposal for initiating a habilitation procedure, including all documentation, in accordance with section 3, subsection 2 of this Directive, in English.
The proposal for initiating a procedure must include the following materials documenting the applicant’s scholarly or artistic qualifications:
- Curriculum Vitae, structured in accordance with Annex No. 3 of the Directive (see section 4, subsection 2, letter a) of the Directive);
- certified copies of materials documenting the completion of higher education and academic degrees obtained and used by the applicant in the proposal for initiating a habilitation procedure (see section 4, subsection 2, letter b) of the Directive); a certified copy may constitute either a notarized copy or a copy certified by a registry office or a statement issued by an authorized employee of the relevant faculty office, attesting to the fact that the copy corresponds to the original document;
- documents certifying pedagogical experience in accordance with Annex No. 4 of the Directive (see section 4, subsection 2, letter c) of the Directive);
- list of published scholarly and artistic works structured in accordance with Annex No. 5 of the Directive (see section 4, subsection 2, letter d) of the Directive);
- list of citations and additional responses to published works in accordance with Annex No. 6 of the Directive (see section 4, subsection 2, letter e) of the Directive);
- comprehensive information on scholarly and pedagogical works and their citations and additional responses structured in accordance with Annex No. 7 of the Directive (see section 4, subsection 2, letter f) of the Directive);
- list of scholarly or artistic placements structured in accordance with Annex No. 8 of the Directive (see section 4, subsection 2, letter g) of the Directive);
- additional materials documenting scientific or artistic qualifications structured in accordance with Annex No. 9 of the Directive (see section 4, subsection 2, letter h) of the Directive);
- an outline describing the applicant’s concept of scholarly or artistic activity and his/her results and achievements (see section 4, subsection 2, letter j) of the Directive); the outline is only submitted if so requested by the faculty scientific board or of the applicant’s own free will;
- habilitation thesis submitted in accordance with section 5, subsection 1 of the Directive including an abstract or commentary (in quadruplicate as well as electronically). According to the interpretation of the Vice-Rector for personnel and academic affairs, the competence of individual faculties includes the determination of the required number of copies. If the faculty does not state a lower number of copies of the habilitation thesis in the habilitation procedure requirements, the provisions of the above directive apply.
- A type b) habilitation thesis is described in Directive No. 7/2017, Section 5 (1b) as a „collection of previously published scholarly or engineering works with commentary.“ According to the interpretation of the Vice-Rector for personnel and academic affairs (valid from 10 May 2022), the collection can include peer-reviewed scholarly articles, book chapters, and articles in conference proceedings (see Definition of Results – methodology M17+). These scholarly works must be published in accordance with the definition of the Copyright Act (Section 4 (1) of the Copyright Act). As a result, preprints, discussions, reviews, abstracts, and conference papers cannot be considered as published scholarly works.
- Unless the procedure is prematurely terminated due to formal deficiencies found in the submitted proposal, the dean presents the proposal for initiating the habilitation procedure to the faculty scientific board along with a request for the establishment of a habilitation board composed of five members (three of whom at least are experts associated with an institution other than MU and at least one board member must be a foreigner - with the exception of citizens of Slovakia)
- The habilitation board appoints at least three habilitation thesis reviewers (two of whom at least are associated with an institution other than MU) tasked with the preparation of written reportsassessing the scholarly qualities of the submitted habilitation thesis. The applicant is entitled to access the reports at least two weeks prior to a public session of the scientific board at which he/she is to defend the thesis.
- The habilitation procedure includes a public lecture given by the applicant. The lecture topic is selected by the habilitation board out of three options proposed by the applicant. Three or more designated habilitation board members must attend and assess the lecture, subsequently issuing a written evaluation.
- The habilitation board evaluates the scholarly or artistic qualifications of the applicant in the relevant field, his/her previous pedagogical experience and the quality of the habilitation thesis, referring to materials submitted by the applicant, reports supplied by the reviewers and evaluation reports of the applicant’s public lecture. The habilitation board subsequently votes by secret ballot on whether or not the applicant should be nominated for appointment to Associate Professor.
A nomination for appointment to Associate Professor is presented to the faculty scientific board by the habilitation board chairperson or board member authorized to do so by the chairperson. In case the nomination fails to receive a simple majority of the votes of all habilitation board members, the habilitation board chairperson or board member authorized by the chairperson presents the faculty scientific board with a proposal for the termination of the habilitation procedure.
- An applicant’s habilitation lecture and habilitation thesis defencetake place at a public session of the faculty scientific board. The applicant will be provided with an opportunity to defend his/her habilitation thesis, react to evaluation reports and comment on his/her previous scholarly or artistic and pedagogical achievements. The applicant shall select a habilitation lecture topic so as to ensure that it covers both the characteristics of the field in question and the applicant’s own results and achievements.
The actual course of the faculty scientific board's conduct regarding the proposal for appointment to associate professor adheres to its rules of procedure. The scientific board decides by a simple majority of the votes of all members on whether or not the applicant is to be appointed Associate Professor.
- In case the nomination for appointment to Associate Professor attracts the votes of a majority of the faculty scientific board, the dean – as the faculty scientific board chair – submits the nomination to the Rector through a designated Rector's Office unit. In case the nomination for appointment to associate professor fails to attract the votes of a majority of the faculty scientific board, the procedure is terminated.
- In case the Rector confirms the faculty scientific board’s nomination for appointment to associate professor, the procedure is concluded by the applicant being appointed associate professor.
- In case the Rector does not confirm the faculty scientific board’s nomination for appointment to associate professor, the nomination is submitted for consideration to the MU Scientific Board along with the Rector’s substantiation. The actual course of the MU Scientific Board’s conduct regarding the proposal for appointment to associate professor adheres to its rules of procedure. In case a nomination for the appointment to associate professor attracts the votes of a majority of all MU Scientific Board members, the procedure is concluded by the appointment of the applicant to associate professor. If not, the procedure is discontinued.
The applicant may update documents at any time during the procedure, but always in such a manner so that such documents are made available to all other parties participating in the procedure (i.e. habilitation board and scientific board members) no later than 5 workdays prior to their evaluation.
Habilitation procedure fees
No habilitation procedure fees are imposed by Masaryk University.