NRF Evaluation & Rating Prof. Robert Morrell – OVC (previously Research Office) 28 September 2016 & 14 October 2016 Notes for Robert: The NRF has moved their closing date of 28 February forward to 15 February. You can emphasize that the UCT Internal closing date is not fixed, and there will be a chance to submit applications at a later stage. However, we recommend the Nov. date, as applications received by then will be reviewed by our full internal panel.

What is an NRF rating? Assessment of your recent research track record. Based on the quality of your research outputs. International peer-review system.

Why be rated? Access to NRF funding for 6 years. Benchmarking. Assist UCT to improve its research profile. Maintain publishing record.

NRF rating categories Y, P Researchers who show promise to become established. C, B, A Established researchers.

NRF rating categories: Definitions 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. B Researchers who enjoy considerable international recognition … for the high quality and impact of their recent research outputs.

NRF rating categories: Definitions Established researchers with a sustained recent record of productivity in the field.

NRF rating categories: Definitions P Young researchers (normally younger than 35 years of age; doctorate or equivalent less than five years) who…are considered likely to become future leaders in their field.

NRF rating categories: Definitions Y Young researchers (40 years or younger; doctorate or equivalent less than five years) who are recognised as having the potential to establish themselves as researchers within a five-year period after evaluation. L category is no longer an option

How is your application processed? Submission of scholarly achievements Specialist Committee Not accepted Selection of 6 peers/reviewers Reviewers’ reports Specialist Committee Assessor Joint meeting

How is your application processed? [2] Joint meeting Consensus No Consensus A, P recommendation B, C, Y Inform Applicant Executive Evaluation Committee Appeal Appeals Committee

Tasks of specialist committees Selecting reviewers. Rating the quality of reports by reviewers. Deciding the rating value of each reviewer report Recommending a rating for each applicant based solely on reports by reviewers. Identifying feedback. Advising NRF.

Peers/reviewers Applicants are given the opportunity to nominate their own reviewers. They are also given the opportunity to indicate who should not be approached. A mix of national and international reviewers is appropriate in most cases. Ideological differences within disciplines in the social sciences and humanities could confound the selection of suitable peers. However, reports by peers in such instances should be identifiable and treated appropriately by wise panel members.

What do reviewers comment on? Quality of research outputs over the last eight years (2009-2016). Impact of research outputs on the field. Standing as a researcher, nationally and internationally. Coherence of researcher’s work.

Information required by NRF Personal details Biographical sketch (1 page) Career profile Description of completed research (2 pages) Qualifications obtained Self-assessment (1 page) Research expertise Ongoing and planned future research (1 page) Research outputs of last eight years (2009-2016) Six nominated reviewers Five best recent research outputs (2009-2016) Assessment panel(s) Ten best research outputs before 2009

Emphasis on peer-review and accessibility of outputs to reviewers Research outputs of the last 8 years 1 Jan. 2009 to 31 Dec. 2016 Publications in peer-reviewed journals Technical reports Books/chapters in books Patents, artefacts and products Peer-reviewed published conference proceedings Keynote/Plenary addresses Other significant conference outputs Other recognised research outputs Best outputs from students supervised in last 8 years Emphasis on peer-review and accessibility of outputs to reviewers

Definition of research For purposes of the NRF, research is original investigation undertaken to gain knowledge and/or enhance understanding. Research specifically includes: the creation and development of the intellectual infrastructure of subjects and disciplines (e.g. through dictionaries, scholarly editions, catalogues and contributions to major research databases); the invention or generation of ideas, images, performances and artefacts where these manifestly embody new or substantially developed insights; building on existing knowledge to produce new or substantially improved materials, devices, products, policies or processes. It specifically excludes: routine testing and analysis of materials, components, instruments and processes, as distinct from the development of new analytical techniques. the development of teaching materials and teaching practices that do not embody substantial original enquiry.

Five best recent research outputs (2009-2016) Prepare e-copies of five best outputs Upload these to the online system Application system opened on 09 September 2013 and will close on 15 February 2014.

Applying online: https://nrfsubmission.nrf.ac.za/NrfMkII Online system is open Help documents available at http://www.researchsupport.uct.ac.za/nrf-ratings Paul Dantu (researchfunding@uct.ac.za; tel 650 1954/2689) Application system opened on 9 September 2013 and will close on 15 February 2014.

UCT Internal review Closing date: 15 November 2016. Applications reviewed by panel of specialists. Feedback provided during Dec/Jan, with option to meet with panel member. Final submission date: 15 February. All applications must be reviewed internally, prior to submission to the NRF. Research Office submits applications to the NRF.

Contacts Paul.Dantu@uct.ac.za or x1954/2689 Tamlyn.Mawa@uct.ac.za or x2432 Research Office: 2 Rhodes Ave, Mowbray 2017 Documents will be made available for download from http://www.researchsupport.uct.ac.za/nrf-ratings