Prof. Robert Morrell, UCT Research Office Presentation to North West University 28 February 2014.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Overview of the Research Assessment Exercise Iain Richardson School of Engineering and the Built Environment
Advertisements

Building a research ethos Barbara Edwards 11 June 2010.
Promotion and Tenure Workshop for MUSM Faculty A Faculty Development Opportunity Mercer University School of Medicine 2012.
Responsible Conduct of Research Rod Kelln Dean, Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research University of Regina.
FP7 ERC 2010 Advanced Grant Call Description. ERC Advanced Grant Flexible grants for ground-breaking, high-risk/high- gain research that opens new opportunities.
RESEARCH PORTFOLIO sydney.edu.au/research_support How to Evaluate Research Performance PROFESSOR STEPHEN GARTON PROVOST & DEPUTY VICE-CHANCELLOR Briefing.
Professional practice and scholarly research Professor Judith Mottram, Nottingham Trent University.
SPC Faculty Publications Prepared by the SPC Office of Faculty Research and Sponsored Programs.
Evaluation and Rating Natural Scientists and Engineers.
MENTORSHIP, INTERNATIONALISING RESEARCH AND THE NRF RATING Jane Carruthers Professor Emeritus University of South Africa Research Associate: Centre For.
GETTING PUBLISHED Chapter 18.
Professor Ian Richards University of South Australia.
PROMOTION OF ACADEMIC STAFF Professor Merlin Crossley Acting Deputy-Vice-Chancellor (Research)
Building a Research CV Yeoh Khay Guan Deputy Chief Executive, NUHS Dean, NUS Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine 30 September 2014.
The NRF rating system and its appeals: some facts and some fallacies Duncan Mitchell.
The Seminar is being held 11am to 12.30pm in Room 104 upstairs.
How Your Application Is Reviewed Vonda Smith, Ph.D. Scientific Review Officer (SRO)
Faculty Mentor Workshop Session 2: Preparing SSHRC Applications June 29, 2009.
Sami Gülgöz Koç University EU 7th FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME ERC INFODAY 1 March 2010, Bogazici University, Istanbul.
Responsible Conduct of Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activities Peer Review Responsible Conduct of Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activities.
Implementing the new Workload Policy Heads of School Workshop April 2010.
introduction to MSc projects
Presented by: Eileen Harvey – Senior Human Resources Consultant June 2015 UCL Senior Promotions Academic, Research and Teaching Fellow Staff.
Senior Review Evaluations (1 of 5) Proposals due: 6 March 2015 Panel evaluations: Week of 22 April 2015 Performance factors to be evaluated will include.
University of Jyväskylä Research Evaluation 2000–2004 General Results – Recommendations Dr. Antoaneta Folea Research Evaluation Coordinator Research and.
Research Related Teaching
Feinberg School of Medicine Faculty Promotion and Tenure Program June 2015.
1 The FP7 Framework Programme “ERC (IDEAS)” Eva Rockman ISERD.
The Research Excellence Framework. Purpose of REF The REF replaces the RAE as the UK-wide framework for assessing research in all disciplines. Its purpose.
Defining and Measuring Impact Professor Andy Neely Deputy Director, AIM Research.
Region 1 Senior Member Elevation Program Concurrent with the Region 1 Board of Governor’s Meeting August 18, 2012 Harold Belson IEEE A & A Committee Member.
PLANNING YOUR RESEARCH CAREER CULTURAL RESEARCH NETWORK ECR WORKSHOP University of South Australia June 2006 Vera Mackie, University of Melbourne.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN WORKSHOP. What is the Professional Development Plan? The Professional Development Plan is a directed planning and evaluation.
Quality Management.  Quality management is becoming increasingly important to the leadership and management of all organisations. I  t is necessary.
HECSE Quality Indicators for Leadership Preparation.
Gaining and Maintaining Supported Researcher Status Knowing the Rules of the Game June 2007.
PROMOTION AND TENURE FOR CLINICAL SCIENTISTS – BOTH PATHWAYS Peter Emanuel, M.D. Laura Lamps, M.D.
START global change SysTem for Analysis, Research & Training UNFCCC Expert Workshop on Monitoring and Evaluating Capacity Building in Developing Countries.
Short introduction to IDEAS Programme Maria Koutrokoi Hellenic NCP of ICT, IDEAS and Research Infrastructures Programmes Department for Strategy, Planning.
Closing date 28 February  Assessment of your recent research track record  International peer review  Based on the quality of research outputs.
Fellowships Day at Imperial College Sarah Fox 3 rd July 2007.
Research Quality Framework Presentation to APSR - ARROW - Repository Market Day 4 May 2007 Sandra Fox Department of Education Science and Training.
Project Thesis 2006 Adapted from Flor Siperstein Lecture 2004 Class CLASS Project Thesis (Fundamental Research Tools)
THE IMPACT OF RAE ON SERIAL PUBLICATION Professor Judith Elkin UK Serials Group March 2004.
Directorate of Research, Enterprise & Innovation Services Developing your Research – The European Research Council (ERC) Frontier Research Grants.
PREPARING A FELLOWSHIP NOMINATION PROCESS & RESPONSIBILITIES The primary nominator is a CAHS Fellow. In addition to providing a letter of nomination that.
PROGRAMME FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REPORT ON “A STRATEGIC APPROACH TO RESEARCH PUBLISHING IN SOUTH AFRICA” ASSAf Committee.
ACADEMIC PROMOTIONS Promotions Criteria Please note, these slides only contain a summary of the promotions information – full details can be found.
Overview of the NRF CSUR Program Presentation of the Wits University Research Office 25 May 2009.
Course title: RESEARCH PLANNING AND REPORT WRITING Lecture 1 Introduction to postgraduate research.
2016 Academic Staff Promotion Round Briefing Session Professor Debra Henly Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic)
NRF Evaluation & Rating
Strategies to Address Research Opportunity and Performance Evidence (ROPE)/Track Record: ARC Discovery Projects Weighting of Selection Criteria to Obtain.
The NRF and Me.
Masters and Doctorate – what are these?
Preparing a fellowship Nomination
European Research Council (ERC)
Senior and Fellow Grade Elevation Procedures July 10, 2016 Beijing, China Mahta Moghaddam.
Feinberg School of Medicine Faculty Promotion and Tenure Program
ACADEMIC PROMOTIONS 2017/18 Claire Freeman Associate HR Director.
Future Fellowships: perspective from a SAC member
Turning Your Research Into Publications
Dr. Franceso Leri, Department of Psychology
Towards Excellence in Research: Achievements and Visions of
Promotion to Senior Lecturer
NRF Evaluation & Rating
INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANTS
Rating in 2002 for funding from 2003
ACADEMIC PROMOTIONS 2018/19 Full information on the HR website:
Tenure and CUNY Matt Brim and Shelly Eversley FFPP Academic Directors.
Presentation transcript:

Prof. Robert Morrell, UCT Research Office Presentation to North West University 28 February 2014

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 NWU to improve its research profile. Maintain publishing record.

NRF rating categories Y, PResearchers who show promise to become established. C, B, AEstablished researchers.

NRF rating categories: Definitions A 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 C 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.

RU Rating unsuccessful (a dreaded outcome!). If you are not successful with your rating application, you will receive this verdict and will have to wait for THREE years before you can apply again.

Timing your Rating application For a Y/P rating eligibility to apply is not altogether clear. Postdoctoral fellows were NOT eligible this year but might be in the next cycle. There is no absolute number of research outputs that will determine when you are ready to apply and you need to make a calculation of quality vs quantity in answering the Question: Does my research work indicate that I have the potential to be an established researcher?

Timing your rating application (2) To apply for a ‘senior’ NRF rating (C,B,A) you need to ask yourself whether you’re established or internationally recognised or an international leader. You can answer this by looking at your research outputs in the last 8 years. Have you published in high-impact, international journals? Have you led research projects and raised research funding as a PI? Have you been invited to international conferences, given plenary or keynote addresses? Has your research work had impact (what are your bibliometrics)?

Planning for Rating Do you have a research and publishing strategy? What and where are you publishing? Are you developing a coherent research niche? Do you have research partners and international collaborators? What are you doing to develop a research profile?

Research Strategy Balance between conference presentations, local journal articles, international journal articles, review articles, book chapters, edited books, monographs. Research output and the creative arts? Engineering? ICT? Policy research? Impact Factors and citations.

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

How is your application processed? [2] Appeal Joint meeting ConsensusNo Consensus Inform Applicant Appeals Committee E xecutive E valuation C ommittee B, C, Y A, P recommendation

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 review period (last eight years). 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 ( ) Six nominated reviewers Five best recent research outputs (in the review period) Assessment panel(s) Ten best research outputs prior to review period

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.