Presentation Closing date 28 February 2005

1. Presentation Closing date 28 February 2005

2. This presentation • Interactive session • Some background information on the rating system • Demonstration of online application for rating

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

4. Entry points into NRF funding Access Point I Access Point III Access Point II PROPOSAL & Track Record TRACK RECORD & Proposal RCD Peer review Peer review Institutional and individual support up to PhD-level Max 3 x 2-year cycles support for successful proposal Long-term (up to 5 years) support for successful proposal Peer review 3 x 2-year cycles support R A T I N G No rating Rated

5. Demonstration of online application Always first read • Guidelines • Instructions in the grey areas on each online screen e.g.

6. Demonstration of online application • How to register online and apply for evaluation and rating • Demonstration of some of the functionalitiese.g. application information screen (map), input screens, narrative sections and selection screens • How to print your application and do final sign off • Using the MSWord application template offline and how to cut and paste information on the online system. • Some handy tips

8. Types of applications • New • Re-evaluation by invitation • Re-evaluation • Special re-evaluation

9. Personal details Career profile Qualifications obtained Assessment panel(s) to consider application Nominated reviewers* Application for L category? Relevant biographical sketch Research outputs of last seven years* Five best recent research outputs (last 7 years) Ten best research outputs before that Description of completed research Self-assessment Postgraduate students Other research-based contributions Ongoing and future research Information required from applicant

10. Selection of peers/reviewers • Applicants are given the opportunity to nominate their own peers. • They are also given the opportunity to indicate who should not be approached. • A mix of national and international peers 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.

11. Publications in peer-reviewed journals Books/chapters in books Peer-reviewed published conference proceedings Other significant conference outputs Patents, artefacts and products Technical reports Postgraduate students trained Keynote/Plenary addresses Other recognised research outputs Research outputs of the last seven years

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

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

15. Tasks of Specialist Committees • Selecting reviewers • Assessing reviewers’ reports • Recommending a rating for each applicant based on reports by reviewers • Identifying feedback • Rating reports by reviewers • Advising NRF

16. Guidelines to reviewers • Comment on: • Quality of research outputs over the last 7 years • Standing as a researcher, nationally and internationally

17. Critical success factors for the evaluation & rating system • Quality of documents submitted by applicant • Selection of appropriate peers • Composition of specialist panels • Quality of reports by peers • Clear definition of categories • Fair and equitable procedures • Goodwill of research community, locally and abroad

18. Further clarification on: • Rating by institution requested on form • Prospective applicants for the L category • Timing of first submission • Policy on feedback • Appeals process • Alignment of rating and funding proposal processes • Re-evaluation and special re-evaluations

19. Sources of information • Application 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)

20. Thank you for your 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

21. Definition 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 by their peers for the high quality and impact of their recent research outputs. C • Established researchers with a sustained recent record of productivity in the field who are recognised by their peers as having: • produced 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. P 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 published doctoral work and/or their research outputs in their early post-doctoral careers are considered likely to become future leaders in their field. Y 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 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. L • 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-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 unable for practical reasons to realise their potential as researchers. • Candidates who are eligible in this category include: • black researchers • female researchers • those employed in a higher education institution that lacked a research environment • those who were previously established as researchers and have returned to a research environment. NRF Rating Categories

22. Person Telephone Email Ms Gudrun Schirge 012 481 4106 gudrun@nrf.ac.za Ms Lee-Anne Seymour 012 481 4075 seymour@nrf.ac.za Ms Anita Basson 012 481 4274 anita@nrf.ac.za Mr Luvuyo Bekwa 012 481 4072 luvuyo@nrf.ac.za Ms Wieneke Huizinga 012 481 4052 wieneke@nrf.ac.za Ms Maria Matjeka 012 481 4161 mmatjeka@nrf.ac.za Mrs Diane Monteiro 012 481 4033 diane@nrf.ac.za Ms Ndileka Qamba 012 481 4098 ndileka@nrf.ac.za Ms Jana Warffemius 012 481 4244 jana@nrf.ac.za Mrs Maria Tshephe 012 481 4036 maria@nrf.ac.za Evaluation Centre Contact Details Fax no: 012-481-4010 Website: http://www.nrf.ac.za/evaluation/ Postal address Evaluation Centre, National Research Foundation, PO Box 2600, Pretoria, 0001