Evaluation and RatingNatural Scientists and Engineers

Why rating?

Identify in whom to invest

Measure status of researcher to acknowledge

achievements Recognise

potential assess level of

investment

Participation in NRF programmes (2002)

Recognition Incentive to

concentrate on research outputs

Incentive to improve performance

Underlying philosophy

The most important element contributing to good research is the quality of the researcher

Quality research in the past is a good predictor of quality research in the future

Good research will be done by proven researchers whose creativity is given free reign within a specific support framework

Adequate funding should be provided

Rating categories (2001)

Category Description A I nternational leader B I ndependent, high quality,

considerable international recognition C Established. Outputs of international

quality P Exceptional potential. Young high-fl ier Y Promising, young L Late entrant with potential

Rating sub-categories

ABCPYL

A1, A2B1, B2, B3C1, C2, C3

Y1, Y2

Definition of research

Research is defined as experimental, theoretical or observational work undertaken to acquire new knowledge and understanding of phenomena or observable facts with or without any particular applications or use in view, as well as experimental or theoretical investigations which largely draw on existing knowledge gained from research that is directed to producing new materials, products, processes and systems, or improving those already produced or installed.

Submission documents NB

Form

First read the guidelines!

Annexure

Read the guidelines!

Not more than 20 Pages!

Submission documents Section 1 Form Bibliographic Qualifications Experience 4 best recent

research outputs Choice of

assessment panel

Checklist Nominated

reviewers Rating by

authority Appropriate

signatures

Submission documents Section 1 Annexure Relevant

biographical Research outputs

of last five years Research outputs

preceding 10 years Postgraduate

students

Accomplished research

Self-assessment Contributions to

corrective action Cooperation with

industry Ongoing and

future research

Research outputs (of the last five years)

Publications in peer-reviewed journals and peer-reviewed published conference proceedings

Books/chapters in books

Published conference proceedings

Patents Technical reports Postgraduate

students trained Artefacts Any other research

outputs that can be assessed

Motto on research outputs

We weigh, we do not count

Persons involved

Applicants Institutional

authorities Reviewers

Members of Specialist Committees

NRF Assessor Chairperson of

Assessment Panels

Staff of Evaluation Centre

Members of Executive Evaluation Committee

Members of Appeals Committee

Assessment Panels

Animal and Veterinary Sciences

Biochemistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences

Chemistry Earth Sciences Engineering Forestry and

Agricultural Sciences

Health Sciences Mathematical

Sciences Microbiology and

Plant Pathology Physics Plant Sciences SET Education

L Committee

Tasks of Specialist Committees

Selection of reviewers

Assessment of reviewers’ reports

Identification of feedback

Rating reports by reviewers

Advisory role to NRF

Form: Evaluation of ResearchersSection 1 and Section 2

Paper copy MS word file from

evalapp@nrf.ac.za www.nrf.ac.za/

corporate/evaluation/application1.doc

www.nrf.ac.za/corporate/evaluation/application2.doc

NRF Closing date

30 September 2001

NB Ascertain institutional closing date

Important changes

Submission of following documents: form plus annexure (original) eight hardcopies of above electronic copy comprising first three

pages of form plus full annexure saved as a MS Word file (smit.za.eng.doc)

NO APPENDICES

Feedback

Comments identified by Assessment Panels

Comments upon request of applicant or institution

Evaluation and Rating Process

Submission of scholarly achievements

Specialist Committee Not accepted

Reviewers’ Reports

Selection of 6 peers (reviewers)

Assessor

Joint meeting Rating

Specialist Committee

Consensus No Consensus

Inform Candidate

Appeal

Appeals Committee

Executive Evaluation Committee

Joint meeting Rating

Evaluation and Rating Process contd.

B, C, Y, LA, P

recommendation

Rated researchers per category 2000

134

48

107

12

552

254

47

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Other

L

Y

P

C

B

A

Growth in rated researchers from 1986 to 2000 University of Stellenbosch

48 51 4653

6680

98

121

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Growth in rated researchers from 1986 to 2000University of Cape Town

130 133 131141 144

168 171159

020406080100120140160180

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Growth in rated researchers from 1986 to 2000

4857

130

91

142

47

121 120

159

113124

59

020406080100120140160180

US UP UCT UN UW UFS

19862000

Critically important for a good submission Quality of documents submitted by

applicant Nomination of reviewers Choice of best recent outputs All recent research outputs Self-assessment Information on contributions to multi-

authored outputs

Critical success factors for the rating system Quality of documents submitted by

applicant Composition of specialist panels Selection of appropriate peers Quality of reports by peers Clear definition of categories Fair and equitable procedures Goodwill of academic community, locally

and abroad

Further clarification on

Rating by institution requested on form

Prospective applicants for the L category

Re-evaluation and special re-evaluations

Timing of first submisssion