1. Evaluation and Rating Natural Scientists and Engineers

2. 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

3. 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

4. Rating categories (2001)

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

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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. Form: Evaluation of Researchers Section 1 and Section 2 w Paper copy w MS word file from evalapp@nrf.ac.za w www.nrf.ac.za/corpora te/evaluation/applicati on1.doc w www.nrf.ac.za/corpora te/evaluation/applicati on2.doc

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

17. 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

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

19. 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

20. 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

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 2000 University of Cape Town

24. Growth in rated researchers from 1986 to 2000

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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