PresentationPresentationClosing date 28 February 2005Closing date 28 February 2005

This presentationThis presentation

Interactive sessionInteractive session

Some background information on the Some background information on the rating systemrating system

Demonstration of online application for Demonstration of online application for ratingrating

Purpose of ratingPurpose of rating

BenchmarkingBenchmarking

Access to NRF funding for five yearsAccess to NRF funding for five years NB – alignment of applications for NB – alignment of applications for funding and rating. funding and rating. (If you apply for rating by 28 Feb 2005, you should submit (If you apply for rating by 28 Feb 2005, you should submit your funding application to a focus area programme during your funding application to a focus area programme during 2005)2005)

RCD

Institutional and individual support up to

PhD-level

Access Point III

Long-term (up to 5 years) support for successful proposal

TRACK RECORD & Proposal

Access Point IIAccess Point I

Max 3 x 2-year cycles support for successful

proposal

PROPOSAL & Track Record

Entry points into NRF fundingEntry points into NRF funding

3 x 2-year cycles support

Peer review

R A T I N G

RatedNo rating

Peer review

Peer review

Demonstration of online applicationDemonstration of online application

Always first readAlways first readGuidelinesGuidelines

Instructions in the grey areas on each Instructions in the grey areas on each online screen e.g.online screen e.g.

Demonstration of online applicationDemonstration of online application

How to How to register onlineregister online and apply for evaluation and and apply for evaluation and ratingrating

Demonstration of some of the Demonstration of some of the functionalitiesfunctionalities e.g. e.g. application information screen (map), input screens, application information screen (map), input screens, narrative sections and selection screensnarrative sections and selection screens

How to How to printprint your application and do your application and do final sign offfinal sign off

Using the Using the MSWord applicationMSWord application template offline and how template offline and how to cut and paste information on the online system.to cut and paste information on the online system.

Some handy Some handy tipstips

Types of applicationsTypes of applications

NewNewRe-evaluation by invitationRe-evaluation by invitationRe-evaluationRe-evaluationSpecial re-evaluationSpecial re-evaluation

Information required from applicantInformation required from applicant

Personal detailsPersonal details

Career profileCareer profile

Qualifications obtainedQualifications obtained

Assessment panel(s) to Assessment panel(s) to consider applicationconsider application

Nominated reviewers*Nominated reviewers*

Application for L category?Application for L category?

Relevant biographical sketchRelevant biographical sketch

Research outputs of last Research outputs of last seven years*seven years*

Five best recent research Five best recent research outputs (last 7 years) outputs (last 7 years)

Ten best research outputs Ten best research outputs before thatbefore that

Description of completed Description of completed researchresearch

Self-assessmentSelf-assessment

Postgraduate studentsPostgraduate students

Other research-based Other research-based contributionscontributions

Ongoing and future researchOngoing and future research

Applicants are given the opportunity to nominate their own Applicants are given the opportunity to nominate their own peers.peers.

They are also given the opportunity to indicate who should They are also given the opportunity to indicate who should not be approached.not be approached.

   A mix of national and international peers is appropriate in A mix of national and international peers is appropriate in

most cases.most cases.

   Ideological differences within disciplines in the social Ideological differences within disciplines in the social

sciences and humanities could confound the selection of sciences and humanities could confound the selection of suitable peers, however, reports by peers in such suitable peers, however, reports by peers in such instances should be identifiable and treated appropriately instances should be identifiable and treated appropriately by wise panel members.by wise panel members.

Selection of peers/reviewersSelection of peers/reviewers

Research outputs of the last seven yearsResearch outputs of the last seven years

Publications in peer-Publications in peer-reviewed journalsreviewed journals

Books/chapters in books in books

Peer-reviewed published conference proceedings

Other Other significant conference outputsconference outputs

Patents, artefacts and Patents, artefacts and productsproducts

Technical reports Technical reports

Postgraduate students trained

Keynote/Plenary addresses

Other recognised Other recognised research outputsresearch outputs

Submission of scholarly achievements

Specialist CommitteeNot accepted

Reviewers’ Reports

Selection of 6 peers (reviewers)

Assessor

Joint meeting Rating

Specialist Committee

Evaluation & Rating ProcessEvaluation & Rating Process

Evaluation & Rating Process continuedEvaluation & Rating Process continued

Consensus No Consensus

Inform Candidate

Appeal

Appeals Committee

Executive Evaluation Committee

Joint meeting Rating

B, C, Y, L*A, P recommendation

Tasks of Specialist CommitteesTasks of Specialist Committees Selecting reviewersSelecting reviewers

Assessing reviewers’ reportsAssessing reviewers’ reports

Recommending a rating for each Recommending a rating for each applicant based on reports by reviewersapplicant based on reports by reviewers

Identifying feedbackIdentifying feedback

Rating reports by reviewers Rating reports by reviewers

Advising NRFAdvising NRF

Guidelines to reviewersGuidelines to reviewers

Comment on:Comment on:

• Quality of research outputs over the last 7 yearsQuality of research outputs over the last 7 years

• Standing as a researcher, nationally and Standing as a researcher, nationally and internationallyinternationally

Critical success factors for the Critical success factors for the evaluation & rating systemevaluation & rating system

Quality of documents submitted by applicantQuality of documents submitted by applicant

Selection of appropriate peers Selection of appropriate peers

Composition of specialist panelsComposition of specialist panels

Quality of reports by peersQuality of reports by peers

Clear definition of categoriesClear definition of categories

Fair and equitable proceduresFair and equitable procedures

Goodwill of research community, locally and Goodwill of research community, locally and abroadabroad

Further clarification on:Further clarification on:

Rating by institution requested on formRating by institution requested on form

Prospective applicants for the L categoryProspective applicants for the L category

Timing of first submissionTiming of first submission

Policy on feedbackPolicy on feedback

Appeals processAppeals process

Alignment of rating and funding proposal processesAlignment of rating and funding proposal processes

Re-evaluation and special re-evaluationsRe-evaluation and special re-evaluations

Sources of informationSources of informationApplication in MSWord format (not for submission)

(http://www.nrf.ac.za/evaluation/Content/Documents/Rating/ratingform_2005.doc)

NRF Guide – section on evaluation and rating (http://www.nrf.ac.za/evaluation/Content/Documents/Rating/ evalguide_2005.doc)

Brochure on the NRF’s evaluation and rating of the research performance of researchers in SA (http://www.nrf.ac.za/evaluation/Content/Documents/Rating/ Evaluation_Brochure_2004_July.doc)

Online application form (http://nrfonline.nrf.ac.za)

Thank you for your Thank you for your attention!attention!

You are invited to visit the Evaluation Centre website to have a look at the list of NRF rated

researchers.

This list can be searched according to names of rated researchers, research specialisations,

institutions and rating descriptors.

http://www.nrf.ac.za/evaluation/Content/Facts/ratings.aspx

NRF Rating CategoriesNRF Rating CategoriesNRF Rating CategoriesNRF Rating Categories

Persons (normally younger than 55 years) who were previously established as researchers or who previously Persons (normally younger than 55 years) who were previously established as researchers or who previously demonstrated potential through their own research products, and who are considered capable of fully establishing or re-demonstrated potential through their own research products, and who are considered capable of fully establishing or re-establishing themselves as researchers within a five-year period after evaluation. Candidates should be South African establishing themselves as researchers within a five-year period after evaluation. Candidates should be South African citizens or foreign nationals who have been resident in South Africa for five years during which time they have been citizens or foreign nationals who have been resident in South Africa for five years during which time they have been unable for practical reasons to realise their potential as researchers.unable for practical reasons to realise their potential as researchers.Candidates who are eligible in this category include:Candidates who are eligible in this category include:black researchersblack researchersfemale researchersfemale researchersthose employed in a higher education institution that lacked a research environmentthose employed in a higher education institution that lacked a research environmentthose who were previously established as researchers and have returned to a research environment. those who were previously established as researchers and have returned to a research environment.

LL

Young researchers (normally younger than 35 years of age), who have held the doctorate or equivalent qualification for Young researchers (normally younger than 35 years of age), who have held the doctorate or equivalent qualification for less than five years at the time of application, and who are recognised as having the potential to establish themselves as less than five years at the time of application, and who are recognised as having the potential to establish themselves as researchers within a five-year period after evaluation, based on their performance and productivity as researchers during researchers within a five-year period after evaluation, based on their performance and productivity as researchers during their doctoral studies and/or early post-doctoral careers. their doctoral studies and/or early post-doctoral careers.

YY

Young researchers (normally younger than 35 years of age), who have held the doctorate or equivalent qualification for Young researchers (normally younger than 35 years of age), who have held the doctorate or equivalent qualification for less than five years at the time of application and who, on the basis of exceptional potential demonstrated in their less than five years at the time of application and who, on the basis of exceptional potential demonstrated in their published doctoral work and/or their research outputs in their early post-doctoral careers are considered likely to become published doctoral work and/or their research outputs in their early post-doctoral careers are considered likely to become future leaders in their field.future leaders in their field.

PP

Established researchers with a sustained recent record of productivity in the field who are recognised by their peers as Established researchers with a sustained recent record of productivity in the field who are recognised by their peers as having:having:

produced a body of quality work, the core of which has coherence and attests to ongoing engagement with the fieldproduced a body of quality work, the core of which has coherence and attests to ongoing engagement with the field demonstrated the ability to conceptualise problems and apply research methods to investigating them. demonstrated the ability to conceptualise problems and apply research methods to investigating them.

CC

Researchers who enjoy considerable international recognition by their peers for the high quality and impact of their recent Researchers who enjoy considerable international recognition by their peers for the high quality and impact of their recent research outputs. research outputs.

BB

Researchers who are unequivocally recognised by their peers as leading international scholars in their field for the high Researchers who are unequivocally recognised by their peers as leading international scholars in their field for the high quality and impact of their recent research outputs. quality and impact of their recent research outputs.

AA

DefinitionDefinition

Evaluation Centre Contact DetailsEvaluation Centre Contact Details

mmatjeka@nrf.ac.za012 481 4161Ms Maria Matjeka

maria@nrf.ac.za012 481 4036Mrs Maria Tshephe

jana@nrf.ac.za012 481 4244Ms Jana Warffemius

ndileka@nrf.ac.za012 481 4098Ms Ndileka Qamba

diane@nrf.ac.za012 481 4033Mrs Diane Monteiro

wieneke@nrf.ac.za012 481 4052Ms Wieneke Huizinga

luvuyo@nrf.ac.za012 481 4072Mr Luvuyo Bekwa

anita@nrf.ac.za012 481 4274Ms Anita Basson

seymour@nrf.ac.za012 481 4075Ms Lee-Anne Seymour

gudrun@nrf.ac.za012 481 4106Ms Gudrun Schirge

EmailTelephonePerson

Fax no: 012-481-4010Website: http://www.nrf.ac.za/evaluation/

Postal addressEvaluation Centre, National Research Foundation, PO Box 2600, Pretoria, 0001