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

2. Sources of information
NRF Guide – section on evaluation and rating (
Brochure on the NRF’s evaluation and rating of the research performance of researchers in SA (
Instructions for completing the application form (
Application form (

3. 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

4. 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)

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

6. 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

7. Rating sub-categoriesP Y L
B1, B2
C1, C2, C3
Y1, Y2

8. 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.

9. Application for evaluation and rating
Electronic submission for the first time

10. 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!)

11. 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

12. 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

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

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

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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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