Evaluation and Rating Natural Scientists and Engineers

Why rating? w Identify in whom to invest w Measure status of researcher to vacknowledge achievements vRecognise potential vassess level of investment w Participation in NRF programmes (2002) w Recognition w Incentive to concentrate on research outputs w Incentive to improve performance

Underlying philosophy w 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 w Good research will be done by proven researchers whose creativity is given free reign within a specific support framework w Adequate funding should be provided

Rating categories (2001)

Rating sub-categories ABCPYLABCPYL A1, A2 B1, B2, B3 C1, C2, C3 Y1, Y2

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.

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

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

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

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

Motto on research outputs We weigh, we do not count

Persons involved w Applicants w Institutional authorities w Reviewers w Members of Specialist Committees w NRF Assessor w Chairperson of Assessment Panels w Staff of Evaluation Centre w Members of Executive Evaluation Committee w Members of Appeals Committee

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

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

Form: Evaluation of Researchers Section 1 and Section 2 w Paper copy w MS word file from w te/evaluation/applicati on1.doc w te/evaluation/applicati on2.doc

NRF Closing date 30 September 2001 NB Ascertain institutional closing date

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

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

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

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

Rated researchers per category 2000

Growth in rated researchers from 1986 to 2000 University of Stellenbosch

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

Growth in rated researchers from 1986 to 2000

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

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

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