100 likes | 258 Views
The NRF rating system and its appeals: some facts and some fallacies. Duncan Mitchell. ● I am a theoretical physicist and the panel consists only of experimental physicists, so they can’t assess me. ● My h index is better that that of five B-rated
E N D
The NRF rating system and its appeals: some facts and some fallacies Duncan Mitchell
● I am a theoretical physicist and the panel consists only of experimental physicists, so they can’t assess me ● My h index is better that that of five B-rated researchers I know, but the committee gave me a C ● I was elected Vice-Chairman of the International Society of Orchid Botanists so I must have an international reputation ●My research has improved but my rating has gone down
Reviewers ● The only assessors of research output ● Your choices and the specialist committee’s choices ● Excluding potential reviewers Pick a likely reviewer and write your application for her/him
The reviewers’ focus ● Your best outputs of the review period ● Peer-reviewed journal articles ● Other legitimate research outputs ● Postgraduate students Be careful out about conference proceedings Teaching textbooks are not research outputs
Scoring the reviewers’ reports ● Familiarity with the research field ● Evidence-based assessment of the applicant’s research in the review period ● Bias and hostility ● Halo effect ● Congruence with data in the application Good reports count more
Arriving at the rating ● Enough usable reports? ● Search for the language: …… coherent body of work? …… promise, leadership? …… significant international impact? ● Agreement between committee, assessor and chair Count up the A, B, C, P, Y, RU reports (weighting the good reports)
The Appeals Committee ● Mandate ● Membership ● Evidence: ……. appeal letter ..…... RRAP sheets ……. documents that served before the specialist committee/ Executive Evaluation Committee ……. and it has the right to call for more reports
The Appeals Committee’s deliberations ● Is the appeal legitimate? ● What issues in the letter need a response? ● Did the rating process follow the rules? ● Were there enough usable reviewers’ reports? ● Was the set of reviewers (with usable reports) balanced? Does the Appeals Committee agree with the rating decision?
The difficult issues ● Applicants on a cusp ● Established early-career researchers ● Members of large research teams ● Researchers competent in more than one field of research ● Researchers still active but past their peaks
● I am a theoretical physicist and the panel consists only of experimental physicists, so they can’t assess me ● My h index is better that that of five B-rated researchers I know, but the committee gave me a C ● I was elected Vice-Chairman of the International Society of Orchid Botanists so I must have an international reputation ●My research has improved but my rating has gone down