Closing date 28 February 2006

1. EVALUATION & RATING Closing date 28 February 2006 presentation

2. This presentation… • Interactive session • Background information on the rating system

3. Purpose of rating • Benchmarking • Access to NRF funding for 5 yearsNB – alignment of applications for funding and rating (If you apply for rating by 28 Feb 2006, you should submit your funding application to a focus area programme during 2006)

4. Entry points into NRF funding Access point 1 Access Point 2 Access Point 3 RCD TRACK RECORD & proposal PROPOSAL & track record Institutional and individual support up to PhD-level Peer review Peer review Peer review Max 3 x 2-year cycles support for successful proposal Long-term (up to 5 years) support for successful proposal 3 x 2-year cycles support R A T I N G No rating Rated

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

6. 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

7. 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.

8. 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 7 years1 January 1999 to 31 December 2005

9. Evaluation & rating process Submission of scholarly achievements Specialist Committee Not accepted Selection of 6 peers (reviewers) Reviewers’ reports Specialist Committee Assessor Joint meeting

10. Evaluation & rating process continued Joint meeting No Consensus Consensus B, C, Y, L* A, P recommendation Executive Evaluation Committee Inform Candidate Appeal Appeals Committee

11. Animal & Veterinary Sciences Anthropology, Development Studies, Geography, Sociology & Social Work Biochemistry Chemistry Communication, Media Studies & Library & Information Science Earth Sciences Economics, Management, Administration & Accounting Education Engineering Health Sciences Historical Studies Law Assessment panels

12. Languages & Linguistics Literary Studies Mathematical Sciences Microbiology & Plant Pathology Performing & Creative Arts, & Design Physics Plant Sciences Psychology Politics, Policy Studies & Philosophy Religious Studies & Theology L Committee Assessment panels (continued) Key research areas and types of research outputs http://www.nrf.ac.za/evaluation/Content/Documents/Rating/krab_2005_July.doc

13. 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

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

15. The online application form … …will be accessible from 15 September 2005… …and the call will close on 28 February 2006 Find out what your institution’s internal closing date is!

16. 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

17. 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

18. Application in MSWord format (not for submission) (http://www.nrf.ac.za/evaluation/Content/Documents/Rating/ratingform_2006.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/eval_brochure_2005_Jul.doc) Online application form (http://nrfonline.nrf.ac.za) Sources of information

19. 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

20. NRF Rating Categories

21. Evaluation Centre Contact Details fax no: 012-481-4010 and website: http://www.nrf.ac.za/evaluation/ Postal address Evaluation Centre, National Research Foundation, PO Box 2600, Pretoria, 0001

22. Funding opportunities contact details Online application form: http://nrfonline.nrf.ac.za