If an institution that is supposed to be the pinnacle of knowledge cannot explain its decisions, it ceases to be an academy and becomes an assembly of impressions. The Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts (CANU) is too important to be a closed circle, too expensive to be irresponsible, and too symbolic to be allowed to live off silence.
In the last election process, I was not elected again. In the Assembly of CANU, I received 18 votes “for”, but that was not enough. However, what the public needs to know is not just the number in the final, but the logic of the system that produces this outcome.
The profession says "yes", the Parliament says "no" - and no one explains why
The process begins in the department. In my case, I was the only candidate in the Department of Natural Sciences, in which I received 10 votes “for” out of a total of 16 members (out of 14 present), thus passing the departmental threshold. The department has 16 members, and the threshold is 9 votes (more than half). So, in the part of CANU that is authorized and competent to evaluate work in natural sciences, the candidate passed.
After the department elections, I was the only candidate from the Department of Natural Sciences in the CANU Assembly. So, there was no election between multiple candidates, nor ranking within the same field - but a vote on the only candidate who passed the professional threshold.
And yet, in the Assembly, a professional decision can in practice be neutralized by outvoting with votes from outside the profession. I do not dispute anyone's right to vote. I dispute the absence of an obligation to explain a negative position: which criteria are not met, which contribution is not strong enough, what exactly is the problem?
It is particularly important to emphasize another fact: the advertisement provided for the election of three new members in the Department of Natural Sciences. Thus, it was formally confirmed that there was a need and room for reinforcement. Despite this, 19 members of the Assembly - one more than the required majority - did not find it appropriate to vote "in favor". When such a decision is made without any explanation, the public only gets the result, and the system gets the luxury of deciding without responsibility.
The criteria exist - but are selectively forgotten
In the natural sciences, standards are not esoteric: publications in relevant journals, citations, projects, peer-reviewed work, international collaborations, awards. These are not “decorations”, but mechanisms for quality assurance. If CANU wants to be a modern institution, it must rely on measurable standards, not on tacit agreements.
Otherwise, an absurdity arises: work from disciplines where the assessment is clear and internationally standardized is judged by voices that do not follow those disciplines, nor have experience in their evaluation frameworks. This does not preserve “elitism,” but produces an anti-meritocracy.
In my case, these criteria are not abstract. I am the author of over 140 scientific papers, mostly in top international mathematics journals, with around 1,870 citations according to Google Scholar. In my research work, I have solved well-known hypotheses that are more than 70 years old, published in prestigious international publications and managed prestigious projects. I have received the most significant national awards: the Oktoih Awards, the Thirteenth of July Awards and awards for the most successful scientist. I have been an external evaluator (reviewer) of numerous doctoral dissertations abroad, a visiting professor at several universities and have been included on Stanford's list of the 2% most cited scientists several times. In addition to research work, my contribution is also in the construction of educational institutions: I was one of the founders of the study program for teacher education in the Albanian language, which has been implemented since 2004 and represents a kind of integration factor in multiethnic Montenegro.
I have dedicated my entire career to mathematics, both through teaching and through textbooks - as the author of several university textbooks, but also through a large number of translations and adaptations of textbooks for primary and secondary schools. As a mentor, I supervised the preparation of five doctoral dissertations, and three of these researchers today form the backbone of mathematical analysis in Montenegro. If even such a measurable and internationally verifiable effect does not receive a clear explanation when it is rejected, then the problem is not in the "criteria" - but in the way they are applied.
When an institution is silent, it opens the door to insinuations
The worst thing about this model is that it creates space for the story to slip into what CANU must avoid: identity interpretations, backroom constructions, and political labels. Instead of closing the door to such narratives with clear rules and explanations, the institution leaves them ajar.
In this space, public comments by my colleague Gojko Joksimović, published in "Vijesti" a few months ago, also appeared, which, in my opinion, pushed the discussion in the wrong direction - suggesting identity motives where there should only be facts and criteria. In these comments, I was linked to earlier processes and decisions at CANU, although I see no factual basis for such a connection.
I don't think identity was the deciding factor. I argue that an institution that doesn't explain its decisions creates an atmosphere in which such doubts become “possible.” And that is a direct damage to both CANU and society.
A striking contrast: how can I be selected by an international academy, but not "pass" the domestic system?
To be extremely specific: I am a foreign member of the Albanian Academy (Academy of Sciences of Albania), where I was elected with 42 out of 45 votes. I do not mention this fact as a trophy, but as a mirror: if the international environment recognizes a contribution, and the domestic institution rejects it without explanation, then the problem is in the procedure, not in the science.
In a normal system, this fact would be a reason to take a closer look: what the criteria are, how contribution is measured, and why there is such a discrepancy between external evaluation and internal blockages.
CANU and public money: the public's right to ask "what are we getting"
CANU is not a private club. CANU is a public institution in the broadest sense: financed by public money, with public authority. Therefore, a legitimate question is: what is the real impact of CANU on science policy, how much international visibility, projects, strategic programs, how many reforms, initiatives and standards that change society?
If CANU spends its energy on closing the system and preserving its status, rather than on the open selection of deserving and active researchers, then the state and the public have an obligation to demand change.
What needs to change: reforms, not ceremonies
I'm not asking for the choice to be "easier". I'm asking for the choice to be serious:
- Public criteria by field (especially natural sciences) - so that everyone knows what is being evaluated.
- External international reviews without conflicts of interest, as a rule.
- Greater weight of the profession: the department responsible for the area must have a more decisive influence.
- Conflict of interest policy and lobbying transparency.
- Public evaluation of CANU's performance in relation to budget and privileges - annual, measurable.
Conclusion: the academy must be a benchmark, not a mechanism
This is not a question of my name. This is a question of whether Montenegro wants CANU as an institution of standards or as an institution of over-voting. If decisions are made without explanation, the institution becomes vulnerable to everything from group disciplines to personal animosities and political interpretations.
That's why the only right way is: transparency, criteria, accountability. Everything else is silence that eats away at reputation.
The author is a full professor at the Faculty of Science and Mathematics, University of Montenegro.
Bonus video:
