Rating in 2002 for funding from 2003 Evaluation and Rating Rating in 2002 for funding from 2003

Sources of information NRF Guide – section on evaluation and rating (www.nrf.ac.za/funding/guide/evalrating.stm) Brochure on the NRF’s evaluation and rating of the research performance of researchers in SA (www.nrf.ac.za/corporate/evaluation/evalbrochure.doc) Instructions for completing the application form (http://submissions.nrf.ac.za/help/RatingHelp.doc) Application form (http://submission.nrf.ac.za)

Eligibility For 2002 closing date: Only applicants in the social sciences and humanities at higher education institutions (HEIs) For 2003 closing date: All researchers at HEIs and NRF approved research instituions

Closing dates 2002 For applicants in SET: 30/9/01 (Results by Jun/Jul 2002) For applicants in SSH: 31/5/02 (Results by Nov/Dec 2002) Next closing date open to all disciplines still to be determined (early 2003)

Period of evaluation Seven years 1 January 1995 to 31 December 2001

Rating categories A B C P Y L Leading international scholar Researcher with considerable international recognition Established researcher Young high-flier with exceptional potential Promising young researcher Late entrant with potential

Rating sub-categories P Y L B1, B2 C1, C2, C3 Y1, Y2

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; the use of 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.

Application for evaluation and rating Electronic submission for the first time http://submissions.nrf.ac.za

Preparation and submission of the application for evaluation and rating: NB First read the instructions! Printed application should not exceed 25 pages (think of the peers!)

Information required from applicant General information Qualifications Career history Assessment panel(s) to consider application Nominated reviewers Application for L category? Research outputs of last seven years Four best recent research outputs All research outputs or those of the preceding eight years Accomplished research Self-assessment Postgraduate students Other contributions to research capacity development Collaborative research with industry/societal organisations Ongoing and planned research

Evaluation of research outputs of the last seven years Publications in peer-reviewed journals Books/chapters in books Peer-reviewed published conference proceedings Other conference proceedings Patents, artefacts and products Technical reports Postgraduate students trained Keynote/Plenary addresses Any other research outputs that can be assessed

Motto on the evaluation of research outputs in NRF process We weigh, we do not count

Constitution of Assessment Panels Chairperson Independent Assessor Members of Specialist Committees Secretariat in attendance

Tasks of Specialist Committees Selection of reviewers Assessment of reviewers’ reports Identification of feedback Rating reports by reviewers Advisory role to NRF

Assessment Panels Agricultural Sciences and Forestry Animal and Veterinary Sciences Biochemistry Chemistry Communication and Media Studies Earth Sciences Economics, Management, Administration and Accounting Education Engineering Health Sciences

Assessment Panels (continued) Historical Studies Law Literary and Hermeneutic Studies, Languages and Linguistics Mathematical Sciences Microbiology and Plant Pathology Performing and Creative Arts, and Design Physics Plant Sciences Policy Studies Social Sciences L Committee

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

Evaluation and Rating Process Submission of scholarly achievements Not accepted Specialist Committee Selection of 6 peers (reviewers) Reviewers’ Reports Specialist Committee Assessor Joint meeting Rating

Evaluation and Rating Process contd. Executive Evaluation Committee Joint meeting Rating Consensus No Consensus B, C, Y, L* A, P recommendation Inform Candidate Executive Evaluation Committee Appeal Appeals Committee

Feedback Comments identified by Assessment Panels Comments upon request of applicant or institution

Critical success factors for the evaluation and 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

Critically important for a good submission Quality of documents submitted by applicant Nomination/Choice of reviewers Choice of best recent outputs Include all recent research outputs Self-assessment Information on contributions to multi-authored outputs

Further clarification on Rating by institution requested on form Prospective applicants for the L category Timing of first submisssion Appeals process Alignment of rating and funding proposal processes Re-evaluation and special re-evaluations