Neki od uzroka slabe zastupljenosti hrvatskih sveučilišta na svjetskim rang ljestvicama sveučilišta

Rangiranja sveučilišta, iako na razini pojedinih zemalja postoje već od prve polovice 20. stoljeća, svoju popularnost na međunarodnoj razini doživljavaju pojavom tzv. «šangajskog rangiranja», odnosno The Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), od 2003. godine. Od početka 21. stoljeća sveučilišta, istraživački centri te različite organizacije diljem svijeta provode međunarodna rangiranja najboljih sveučilišta koristeći različite metodološke pristupe: Ranking Web of Universities- Webometrics, QS (Quacquarelli Symonds) World University Ranking, THE (Times Higher Education) World University Rankings, SCImago Institutions Rankings (SIR), CWTS Leiden Ranking i U-Multirank. U ovome smo radu željeli istražiti razloge postojeće zastupljenosti hrvatskih sveučilišta na najpoznatijim svjetskim rang-ljestvicama sveučilišta. Preduvjet za razumijevanje stanja upoznavanje je s kriterijima i metodologijom koje koriste pojedine ljestvice za rangiranje te realnih mogućnosti hrvatskih sveučilišta u zadovoljavanju tih kriterija. Od osam hrvatskih sveučilišta, samo je Sveučilište u Zagrebu vidljivo na najčešće korištenim rang-ljestvicama svjetskih sveučilišta i to na njih četiri od šest analiziranih rang-ljestvica. Obrazloženje za status zagrebačkog sveučilišta i izostanak ostalih šest hrvatskih sveučilišta pokušali smo pronaći u (ne)mogućnostima zadovoljavanja metodoloških kriterija pojedinih sustava za rangiranje. Za usporedbu s hrvatskim sveučilištima, napravljena je analiza zastupljenosti sveučilišta i 10 postsocijalističkih europskih zemalja (Estonija, Latvija, Litva, Poljska, Češka, Slovačka, Mađarska, Slovenija, Rumunjska i Bugarska) te četiri zemlje bivše Jugoslavije (Bosna i Hercegovina, Crna Gora, Makedonija i Srbija). Zaključno, ova skupina zemalja na svih šest rang-ljestvica zastupljena je sa svojim sveučilištima u rasponu od 7 do 37, od ukupno 294 sveučilišta. Ovisno o broju sveučilišta koje rangiraju pojedine ljestvice, udio tih sveučilišta na rang-ljestvicama je od 2,4% na ARWU ljestvici, 3,1% na SIR, 5,1% na Webometrics, 6,8% na CWTS Leiden Ranking, 7,5% na QS, do 11,9% na THE ljestvici. Osim zahtjevnosti metodoloških uvjeta pojedinih rang ljestvica sveučilišta, razlozi navedenom statusu hrvatskih sveučilišta nalaze se i u postojećoj znanstvenoj politici, s naglaskom na kriterije za znanstvena napredovanja i politike poticanja kvalitete sveučilišta. (IN ENGLISH: Although the university rankings have existed since the fi rst half of the 20th century in several countries, they have gained their international popularity after the emergence of the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), also known as the Shanghai Ranking, in 2003. Since the beginning of the 21st century, universities, research centres and for/nonprofi t organizations throughout the world have established international rankings of the best universities applying different methodological approaches: Ranking Web of Universities - Webometrivs, QS (Quacquarelli Symonds) World University Ranking, THE (Times Higher Education) World University Rankings, SCImago Institutions Rankings (SIR), CWTS Leiden Ranking and U-Multirank. In this paper we would like to explore the reasons for the current representation of Croatian universities in the world’s most prestigious university rankings. The basic precondition for understanding the situation is to familiarize oneself with the criteria and methodology used in the rankings and the capabilities of Croatian universities to comply with those criteria. Among seven Croatian universities, only the University of Zagreb is represented in four out of the six world ranking systems. Our assumption was that the reason for the status of the University of Zagreb and for the absence of the other six Croatian universities lies in their (in) ability to meet the methodological criteria of respective ranking systems. For comparison purposes, we have made an analysis of the representation of universities in 10 post-socialist EU countries (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Romania and Bulgaria) as well as four former Yugoslav countries (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Macedonia and Serbia). In summary, these countries are represented by 7–37 out of 294 universities in all six world ranking systems. Depending on the number of universities in each ranking system, the share of these universities ranges from 2.4% at ARWU, 3.1% at SIR, 5.1% at Webometrics, 6.8 at CWTS Leiden Ranking, 7.5% at QS, to 11.9 at THE rankings. In addition to the above methodological requirements of each global ranking system, the fundamental reason for the status of Croatian universities may be found in the existing science policy, with emphasis on the criteria for academic promotion and promotion of the quality of universities.

Some of the Reasons of Poor Represenation of Croatian Universities in World University Rankings

Rangiranja sveučilišta, iako na razini pojedinih zemalja postoje već od prve polovice 20. stoljeća, svoju popularnost na međunarodnoj razini doživljavaju pojavom tzv. «šangajskog rangiranja», odnosno The Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), od 2003. godine. Od početka 21. stoljeća sveučilišta, istraživački centri te različite organizacije diljem svijeta provode međunarodna rangiranja najboljih sveučilišta koristeći različite metodološke pristupe: Ranking Web of Universities- Webometrics, QS (Quacquarelli Symonds) World University Ranking, THE (Times Higher Education) World University Rankings, SCImago Institutions Rankings (SIR), CWTS Leiden Ranking i U-Multirank. U ovome smo radu željeli istražiti razloge postojeće zastupljenosti hrvatskih sveučilišta na najpoznatijim svjetskim rang-ljestvicama sveučilišta. Preduvjet za razumijevanje stanja upoznavanje je s kriterijima i metodologijom koje koriste pojedine ljestvice za rangiranje te realnih mogućnosti hrvatskih sveučilišta u zadovoljavanju tih kriterija. Od osam hrvatskih sveučilišta, samo je Sveučilište u Zagrebu vidljivo na najčešće korištenim rang-ljestvicama svjetskih sveučilišta i to na njih četiri od šest analiziranih rang-ljestvica. Obrazloženje za status zagrebačkog sveučilišta i izostanak ostalih šest hrvatskih sveučilišta pokušali smo pronaći u (ne)mogućnostima zadovoljavanja metodoloških kriterija pojedinih sustava za rangiranje. Za usporedbu s hrvatskim sveučilištima, napravljena je analiza zastupljenosti sveučilišta i 10 postsocijalističkih europskih zemalja (Estonija, Latvija, Litva, Poljska, Češka, Slovačka, Mađarska, Slovenija, Rumunjska i Bugarska) te četiri zemlje bivše Jugoslavije (Bosna i Hercegovina, Crna Gora, Makedonija i Srbija). Zaključno, ova skupina zemalja na svih šest rang-ljestvica zastupljena je sa svojim sveučilištima u rasponu od 7 do 37, od ukupno 294 sveučilišta. Ovisno o broju sveučilišta koje rangiraju pojedine ljestvice, udio tih sveučilišta na rang-ljestvicama je od 2,4% na ARWU ljestvici, 3,1% na SIR, 5,1% na Webometrics, 6,8% na CWTS Leiden Ranking, 7,5% na QS, do 11,9% na THE ljestvici. Osim zahtjevnosti metodoloških uvjeta pojedinih rang ljestvica sveučilišta, razlozi navedenom statusu hrvatskih sveučilišta nalaze se i u postojećoj znanstvenoj politici, s naglaskom na kriterije za znanstvena napredovanja i politike poticanja kvalitete sveučilišta.Although the university rankings have existed since the fi rst half of the 20th century in several countries, they have gained their international popularity after the emergence of the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), also known as the Shanghai Ranking, in 2003. Since the beginning of the 21st century, universities, research centres and for/nonprofi t organizations throughout the world have established international rankings of the best universities applying different methodological approaches: Ranking Web of Universities - Webometrivs, QS (Quacquarelli Symonds) World University Ranking, THE (Times Higher Education) World University Rankings, SCImago Institutions Rankings (SIR), CWTS Leiden Ranking and U-Multirank. In this paper we would like to explore the reasons for the current representation of Croatian universities in the world’s most prestigious university rankings. The basic precondition for understanding the situation is to familiarize oneself with the criteria and methodology used in the rankings and the capabilities of Croatian universities to comply with those criteria. Among seven Croatian universities, only the University of Zagreb is represented in four out of the six world ranking systems. Our assumption was that the reason for the status of the University of Zagreb and for the absence of the other six Croatian universities lies in their (in) ability to meet the methodological criteria of respective ranking systems. For comparison purposes, we have made an analysis of the representation of universities in 10 post-socialist EU countries (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Romania and Bulgaria) as well as four former Yugoslav countries (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Macedonia and Serbia). In summary, these countries are represented by 7–37 out of 294 universities in all six world ranking systems. Depending on the number of universities in each ranking system, the share of these universities ranges from 2.4% at ARWU, 3.1% at SIR, 5.1% at Webometrics, 6.8 at CWTS Leiden Ranking, 7.5% at QS, to 11.9 at THE rankings. In addition to the above methodological requirements of each global ranking system, the fundamental reason for the status of Croatian universities may be found in the existing science policy, with emphasis on the criteria for academic promotion and promotion of the quality of universities

Some of the Reasons of Poor Represenation of Croatian Universities in World University Rankings

Rangiranja sveučilišta, iako na razini pojedinih zemalja postoje već od prve polovice 20. stoljeća, svoju popularnost na međunarodnoj razini doživljavaju pojavom tzv. «šangajskog rangiranja», odnosno The Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), od 2003. godine. Od početka 21. stoljeća sveučilišta, istraživački centri te različite organizacije diljem svijeta provode međunarodna rangiranja najboljih sveučilišta koristeći različite metodološke pristupe: Ranking Web of Universities- Webometrics, QS (Quacquarelli Symonds) World University Ranking, THE (Times Higher Education) World University Rankings, SCImago Institutions Rankings (SIR), CWTS Leiden Ranking i U-Multirank. U ovome smo radu željeli istražiti razloge postojeće zastupljenosti hrvatskih sveučilišta na najpoznatijim svjetskim rang-ljestvicama sveučilišta. Preduvjet za razumijevanje stanja upoznavanje je s kriterijima i metodologijom koje koriste pojedine ljestvice za rangiranje te realnih mogućnosti hrvatskih sveučilišta u zadovoljavanju tih kriterija. Od osam hrvatskih sveučilišta, samo je Sveučilište u Zagrebu vidljivo na najčešće korištenim rang-ljestvicama svjetskih sveučilišta i to na njih četiri od šest analiziranih rang-ljestvica. Obrazloženje za status zagrebačkog sveučilišta i izostanak ostalih šest hrvatskih sveučilišta pokušali smo pronaći u (ne)mogućnostima zadovoljavanja metodoloških kriterija pojedinih sustava za rangiranje. Za usporedbu s hrvatskim sveučilištima, napravljena je analiza zastupljenosti sveučilišta i 10 postsocijalističkih europskih zemalja (Estonija, Latvija, Litva, Poljska, Češka, Slovačka, Mađarska, Slovenija, Rumunjska i Bugarska) te četiri zemlje bivše Jugoslavije (Bosna i Hercegovina, Crna Gora, Makedonija i Srbija). Zaključno, ova skupina zemalja na svih šest rang-ljestvica zastupljena je sa svojim sveučilištima u rasponu od 7 do 37, od ukupno 294 sveučilišta. Ovisno o broju sveučilišta koje rangiraju pojedine ljestvice, udio tih sveučilišta na rang-ljestvicama je od 2,4% na ARWU ljestvici, 3,1% na SIR, 5,1% na Webometrics, 6,8% na CWTS Leiden Ranking, 7,5% na QS, do 11,9% na THE ljestvici. Osim zahtjevnosti metodoloških uvjeta pojedinih rang ljestvica sveučilišta, razlozi navedenom statusu hrvatskih sveučilišta nalaze se i u postojećoj znanstvenoj politici, s naglaskom na kriterije za znanstvena napredovanja i politike poticanja kvalitete sveučilišta.Although the university rankings have existed since the fi rst half of the 20th century in several countries, they have gained their international popularity after the emergence of the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU), also known as the Shanghai Ranking, in 2003. Since the beginning of the 21st century, universities, research centres and for/nonprofi t organizations throughout the world have established international rankings of the best universities applying different methodological approaches: Ranking Web of Universities - Webometrivs, QS (Quacquarelli Symonds) World University Ranking, THE (Times Higher Education) World University Rankings, SCImago Institutions Rankings (SIR), CWTS Leiden Ranking and U-Multirank. In this paper we would like to explore the reasons for the current representation of Croatian universities in the world’s most prestigious university rankings. The basic precondition for understanding the situation is to familiarize oneself with the criteria and methodology used in the rankings and the capabilities of Croatian universities to comply with those criteria. Among seven Croatian universities, only the University of Zagreb is represented in four out of the six world ranking systems. Our assumption was that the reason for the status of the University of Zagreb and for the absence of the other six Croatian universities lies in their (in) ability to meet the methodological criteria of respective ranking systems. For comparison purposes, we have made an analysis of the representation of universities in 10 post-socialist EU countries (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Romania and Bulgaria) as well as four former Yugoslav countries (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Macedonia and Serbia). In summary, these countries are represented by 7–37 out of 294 universities in all six world ranking systems. Depending on the number of universities in each ranking system, the share of these universities ranges from 2.4% at ARWU, 3.1% at SIR, 5.1% at Webometrics, 6.8 at CWTS Leiden Ranking, 7.5% at QS, to 11.9 at THE rankings. In addition to the above methodological requirements of each global ranking system, the fundamental reason for the status of Croatian universities may be found in the existing science policy, with emphasis on the criteria for academic promotion and promotion of the quality of universities

Medical Audit of Diabetes Mellitus in Primary Care Setting in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Aim To assess the quality of diabetes care provided by family medicine teams in primary health centers in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BH) through a medical audit, addressing the extent to which clinical practice complied with pre-determined explicit criteria of long-term management. Method Retrospective analysis included randomly selected medical records of patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus treated by 18 family medicine teams at 5 locations in BH, included in the Canadian International Development Agency/World Health Organization project “Strengthening health care system in BH with focus on primary health care/family medicine model.” Audit record form contained 24 questions on sex, age, diabetes type, body mass index (BMI), hypertension, family anamnesis, annual xaminations (HbA1C, BMI, lipid profile or total cholesterol, blood creatinin, neurological examination, urinanalysis for albuminuria, foot care, and examination of ocular fundus), smoking habits, alcohol consumption, patient education, prescribed insulin and other drugs, and patient’s health care-seeking behavior. Standardized and record forms were returned anonymously with 99.3% response rate. Results Records of 536 patients with diabetes were analyzed (64% women and 87% patients with diabetes mellitus type 2). Family medicine teams showed poor compliance with established criteria for diabetes control. Metabolic control (69.5%) was acceptable, but the level of monitoring complications of diabetes (foot and ocular fundus examined in 53.4% and 53% of patients, respectively) was low. There were also considerable variations in diabetes management between different centers as well as between the teams in the same center. Conclusion The audit revealed deficiencies in the quality of diabetes care and variations in care provision between primary care teams. Clinical guidelines and continuing education about acceptable diabetes care should be developed and implemented in BH

Probiotics in dental medicine

Probiotici su živi mikroorganizmi koji primijenjeni u adekvatnoj količini imaju povoljne učinke na zdravlje domaćina. Riječ probiotik znači „za život”. Probiotici pridonose mikrobnoj ravnoteži, štite organizam od štetnih mikroorganizama, pojačavaju imunološki sustav do- maćina te tako imaju važnu ulogu u održavanju oralnog zdravlja. Kao probiotici se najčešće koriste bakterije. U usnoj šupljini bolesti koje nastaju djelovanjem bakterija su dentalni karijes i parodontne bolesti. Probiotici koje se koriste u liječenju oralnih promjena su u obliku pastila, tableta, kapsula, tekućina za ispiranje, jogurta i sira.Probiotics are live microorganisms which administered in adequate quantities have beneficial effects on the health of the host. The word probiotic means “for life”. Probiotics contribute to the microbial balance, protect the body from harmful microorganisms, enhancing the immune system, and play an important role in maintaining oral health. Bacteria are commonly used as probiotics. Dental caries and periodontal disease the most common dis- eases in oral cavity caused by bacterial activities. Probiotics used in the treatment of oral changes are in the form of lozenges, tablets, capsules, liquids, yogurt and cheese

With food to health : proceedings of the 9th International scientific and professional conference

Proceedings contains 7 original scientific papers, 8 professional papers and 1 review paper which were presented at "9th International Scientific and Professional Conference WITH FOOD TO HEALTH", organised in following sections: Nutrition, Dietetics and diet therapy, Food safety, Food analysis, Production of safe food and food with added nutritional value

With food to health : proceedings of the 10th International scientific and professional conference

Proceedings contains 13 original scientific papers, 10 professional papers and 2 review papers which were presented at "10th International Scientific and Professional Conference WITH FOOD TO HEALTH", organised in following sections: Nutrition, Dietetics and diet therapy, Functional food and food supplemnents, Food safety, Food analysis, Production of safe food and food with added nutritional value