1 / 27

Evaluation and Rating

Evaluation and Rating. Natural Scientists and Engineers. Identify in whom to invest Measure status of researcher to acknowledge achievements Recognise potential assess level of investment. Participation in NRF programmes (2002) Recognition Incentive to concentrate on research outputs

kasia
Download Presentation

Evaluation and Rating

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluation and Rating Natural Scientists and Engineers

  2. Identify in whom to invest Measure status of researcher to acknowledge achievements Recognise potential assess level of investment Participation in NRF programmes (2002) Recognition Incentive to concentrate on research outputs Incentive to improve performance Why rating?

  3. Underlying philosophy • The most important element contributing to good research is the quality of the researcher • Quality research in the past is a good predictor of quality research in the future • Good research will be done by proven researchers whose creativity is given free reign within a specific support framework • Adequate funding should be provided

  4. Rating categories (2001)

  5. A B C P Y L A1, A2 B1, B2, B3 C1, C2, C3 Y1, Y2 Rating sub-categories

  6. Definition of research Research is defined as experimental, theoretical or observational work undertaken to acquire new knowledge and understanding of phenomena or observable facts with or without any particular applications or use in view, as well as experimental or theoretical investigations which largely draw on existing knowledge gained from research that is directed to producing new materials, products, processes and systems, or improving those already produced or installed.

  7. Form First read the guidelines! Annexure Read the guidelines! Not more than 20 Pages! Submission documents NB

  8. Form Bibliographic Qualifications Experience 4 best recent research outputs Choice of assessment panel Checklist Nominated reviewers Rating by authority Appropriate signatures Submission documents Section 1

  9. Annexure Relevant biographical Research outputs of last five years Research outputs preceding 10 years Postgraduate students Accomplished research Self-assessment Contributions to corrective action Cooperation with industry Ongoing and future research Submission documents Section 1

  10. Publications in peer-reviewed journals and peer-reviewed published conference proceedings Books/chapters in books Published conference proceedings Patents Technical reports Postgraduate students trained Artefacts Any other research outputs that can be assessed Research outputs (of the last five years)

  11. Motto on research outputs We weigh, we do not count

  12. 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 Persons involved

  13. Animal and Veterinary Sciences Biochemistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences Chemistry Earth Sciences Engineering Forestry and Agricultural Sciences Health Sciences Mathematical Sciences Microbiology and Plant Pathology Physics Plant Sciences SET Education L Committee Assessment Panels

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

  15. Form: Evaluation of ResearchersSection 1 and Section 2 • Paper copy • MS word file from evalapp@nrf.ac.za • www.nrf.ac.za/corporate/evaluation/application1.doc • www.nrf.ac.za/corporate/evaluation/application2.doc

  16. NRF Closing date 30 September 2001 NB Ascertain institutional closing date

  17. Important changes Submission of following documents: • form plus annexure (original) • eight hardcopies of above • electronic copy comprising first three pages of form plus full annexure saved as a MS Word file (smit.za.eng.doc) • NO APPENDICES

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

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

  21. Rated researchers per category 2000

  22. Growth in rated researchers from 1986 to 2000 University of Stellenbosch

  23. Growth in rated researchers from 1986 to 2000University of Cape Town

  24. Growth in rated researchers from 1986 to 2000

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

  26. Critical success factors for the 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

  27. Further clarification on • Rating by institution requested on form • Prospective applicants for the L category • Re-evaluation and special re-evaluations • Timing of first submisssion

More Related