1 / 27

Presentation Closing date 27 February 2004

EVALUATION. &. RATING. Presentation Closing date 27 February 2004. Purpose of rating. Access to NRF funding for five years Benchmarking. Entry points into NRF funding. Access Point I. Access Point II. Access Point III. PROPOSAL & Track Record. TRACK RECORD & Proposal. RCD.

ahmed-vang
Télécharger la présentation

Presentation Closing date 27 February 2004

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 & RATING Presentation Closing date 27 February 2004

  2. Purpose of rating • Access to NRF funding for five years • Benchmarking

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

  4. Evaluation and Rating (Assessment of track record) • Peer review • Quality of recent research outputs as the basis

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

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

  7. Definition of research • For purposes of the NRF, research is original investigation undertaken to gain knowledge and/or enhance understanding. • Research specifically includes: • the creation and development of the intellectual infrastructure of subjects and disciplines (e.g. through dictionaries, scholarly editions, catalogues and contributions to major research databases); • the invention or generation of ideas, images, performances and artefacts where these manifestly embody new or substantially developed insights; • the use of existing knowledge to produce new or substantially improved materials, devices, products, policies or processes. • It specifically excludes: • routine testing and analysis of materials, components, instruments and processes, as distinct from the development of new analytical techniques; • the development of teaching materials and teaching practices that do not embody substantial originalenquiry.

  8. Agricultural Sciences and Forestry Animal and Veterinary Sciences Anthropology, Geography, Sociology and Social Work Biochemistry Chemistry Communication, Media Studies & Library and Information Science Earth Sciences Economics, Management, Administration and Accounting Education Engineering Health Sciences Assessment Panels

  9. Historical Studies Law Languages and Linguistics Literary Studies Mathematical Sciences Microbiology and Plant Pathology Performing and Creative Arts, and Design Physics Plant Sciences Psychology Politics, Policy Studies and Philosophy Religious Studies and Theology L Committee Assessment Panels (continued)

  10. 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

  11. Period of evaluation 7 Seven years

  12. Electronic application • Must be signed off by applicant • Thereafter must be signed off by institution • Validation/Certification must reach NRF within prescribed period

  13. 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 Ten 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 Statement of future research Information required from applicant

  14. 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 seven years

  15. Research outputs Research outputs and their importance should be described and stipulated per discipline. They may differ considerably from discipline to discipline.

  16. 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 identifiableand treated appropriately by wise panel members.

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

  18. Late entrant with potential Rating categories Young high-flier with exceptional potential P Y Promising young researcher L A Leading international scholar Researcher with considerable international recognition B Established researcher C

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

  20. Some general points

  21. Critical success factors for the evaluation & 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

  22. Evaluation Centre website(http://www.nrf.ac.za/evaluation/) NRF Guide – section on evaluation and rating (www.nrf.ac.za/funding/guide/evalrating.stm) 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/EvalBrochureSep03.doc) Instructions for completing the application form (http://submissions.nrf.ac.za/help/RatingHelp.doc) Application form (http://submissions.nrf.ac.za) Sources of information

  23. 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

  24. 2003 2003 Growth in rated researchers from 1986 to 2003* 2003 *Snapshot of tentative figures as on 4 February 2004

  25. 2003 2003 2003 Growth in rated researchers from 1986 to 2003* *Snapshot of tentative figures as on 12 November 2003

  26. 2003 2003 Growth in rated researchers from 1986 to 2003* 2003 *Snapshot of tentative figures as on 14 November 2003

  27. 2003 2003 2003 Growth in rated researchers from 1986 to 2003* *Snapshot of tentative figures as on 1 December 2003

More Related