Alignment of the proposed CoE with the university research strategy and the identified research area; Research strengths, capabilities and competencies of the university in the area of a proposed CoE; Commitment of the institution to provide an enabling environment to ensure the success of the CoE; and scientific focus of the proposal. The scoring below will be used by reviewers to assess individual sections of the Phase 1 proposal submitted by universities. Table 1.Scorecard for evaluating CoE Phase 1 Proposals Numeric Score Meaning of Descriptor 5 Excellent The proposal is well thought through and motivated and, has fully addressed all the issues/requirements in this section. 4 Good The proposal has addressed all the issues/requirements in this section although there are some issues that the institution is advised to bear in mind. 3 Satisfactory The proposal has adequately addressed the key issues/requirements in this section. However, there is one or more minor issues that should be addressed before an award may be made. 2 Unsatisfactory The proposal partially addresses the issues/requirements in this section. However, some key issues/requirements have not been addressed. 1 Insufficient information The proposal has not provided sufficient information in this section to enable a fair evaluation.
The reviewers will evaluate and score the Phase 2 proposals using the criteria detailed in Table 2. The qualitative comments and scoring will guide and inform Phase 2 panel review members in making recommendations to the NRF for approval of the nominated candidate and proposed research programme: Table 2.Scorecard for postal peer review of CoE Phase 2 proposals 1 2 3 4 5 DESCRIPTOR Internationally leading Internationally competitive, and leading nationally Leading nationally, not yet internationally competitive Nationally competitive Uncompetitive REVIEW CATEGORY Track record of nominated candidate: Research outputs Impact of research National and international standing Masters and doctoral postgraduate training The candidate is outstanding and has a track record that is world leading in terms of the quality and impact of research outputs and, training and mentoring of The candidate is excellent and has a track record that is internationally competitive in terms of the quality and impact of research outputs and, training and The candidate has a record that is at the forefront nationally and is becoming internationally competitive in terms of the quality and impact of The candidate has a record that is satisfactory but is not at the leading edge in terms of the quality and impact of research outputs and, training and The candidate has a track record that is unsatisfactory in terms of the quality and impact of research outputs and, training and mentoring of postgraduate
Training of emerging researchers, e.g., postdoctoral fellows and academic staff postgraduate students and researchers. The candidate the requirements for appointment as a Centre Director. mentoring of postgraduate students and researchers. The candidate meets the requirements for appointment as a Centre Director. research outputs and, training and mentoring of postgraduate students and researchers. The candidate does not meet the requirements for appointment as a Centre Director. mentoring of postgraduate students and researchers. The candidate does not meet the requirements for appointment as a Centre Director students and researchers. The candidate does not meet the requirements for appointment as a Centre Director Scientific merit of proposed Centre programme The proposed research programme is highly innovative with design and methodologies. The proposed research programme is innovative with novel design and robust methodologies. The proposed research programme is original with robust design and methodologies. The proposed research programme is original with methodologies but has a limited number of flaws or omissions that require significant revision. The proposed research programme has major omissions or conceptual flaws and requires comprehensive revision.
Potential Impact The research programme addresses a crucial knowledge gap and will be an internationally unique resource in the discipline. The research outputs have a high potential for scientific innovations or for social or economic benefits. The research programme addresses a crucial knowledge gap and will be a unique resource in South Africa. The research outputs have a high potential for scientific innovations or for social or economic benefits. The research programme addresses a knowledge gap in Africa and will be a useful resource. The research outputs have a reasonable potential for scientific innovations or for social or economic benefits. The research programme addresses worthwhile scientific questions. The research outputs have a moderate potential for scientific innovations or for social or economic benefits. The research programme addresses potentially worthwhile scientific questions but requires comprehensive revision. There is a low probability for producing scientific innovations or for social or economic benefits. Human resource development The proposed human resource development plan for training masters and doctoral students and The proposed human resource development plan for training masters and doctoral students and The proposed human resource development plan for training masters and doctoral students and The proposed human resource development plan for training masters and doctoral students and The proposed human resource development plan for training masters and doctoral students and
postdoctoral fellows is realistic and achievable within the timeframe. There are low probability risks that can be managed and that present negligible consequences for the CoE programme. postdoctoral fellows is realistic and achievable within the timeframe. There are low probability risks that can be managed and that present moderate consequences for the CoE programme. postdoctoral fellows is realistic although there are some potential risks that may present significant consequences for the CoE programme. postdoctoral fellows is satisfactory although there are some potential risks that may present high consequences, for the CoE programme. postdoctoral fellows is unsatisfactory and requires comprehensive revision. Collaboration The proposed national and/or international collaborations, partnerships and networks to be formed are outstanding and represent world The proposed national and international collaborations, partnerships and networks to be formed are comprehensive. Some collaborators The proposed national and international collaborations, partnerships and networks to be formed are good although there are some omissions The proposed collaborations, partnerships and networks to be formed are satisfactory although there are some omissions that may present The proposed collaborations, partnerships and networks to be formed are unsatisfactory and require major revision.
leading standards. Collaborators and partners have been identified to develop and maintain excellence in this research area. and partners have already been identified to develop and maintain excellence in this research area. that may present significant consequences for the programme, that the Director is advised to bear in mind. high consequences, for the programme, that the Director must address. Succession plan The proposed succession plan for developing and mentoring emerging researchers and new leadership is realistic and achievable within the timeframe. There are low probability risks that can be managed The proposed succession plan for developing and mentoring emerging researchers and new leadership is realistic and achievable within the timeframe. are low probability risks that can be managed and that The proposed succession plan for developing and mentoring emerging researchers and new leadership is realistic although there are some potential risks that may present significant consequences for The proposed succession plan for developing and mentoring emerging researchers and new leadership is satisfactory although there are some potential risks that may present high consequences, for The proposed succession plan for developing and mentoring emerging researchers and new leadership is unsatisfactory and requires comprehensive revision.
and that present negligible consequences for the continuity of the CoE programme. present moderate consequences for the continuity of the CoE programme. the continuity of the CoE that the Director is advised to bear in mind. the continuity of the CoE programme that the Director must address. Research activity plan The proposed activity plan is outstanding and represents world leading standards. It is realistic and achievable within the five-year timeframe. The proposed activity plan is comprehensive. It is realistic and achievable within the five-year timeframe. The proposed activity plan is good although are some potential risks, that may present significant consequences for the programme, that the Director is advised to bear in mind. The proposed activity plan is satisfactory although there are some potential risks that may present high consequences, for the programme, that the Director must address. The proposed activity plan is unsatisfactory and requires comprehensive revision.
Budget The resource allocation of the grant is reasonable. There are other sources of research funding available. Overall there is the potential for a high return on investment. The resource allocation of the grant is reasonable. There are other sources of research funding available. Overall there is the potential for significant return on investment. The resource allocation of the grant is reasonable. There are other potential sources of research funding. Overall there is the potential for return on investment. The budget section has a limited number of omissions or that require significant revision. The budget section has major omissions or flaws and requires comprehensive revision.
Figure 2: Flow Diagram presenting 2 Review Process NRF Contact Persons Dr Andrew Kaniki, Executive Director: Knowledge Fields Development and Acting Executive Director: Reviews and Evaluation (012 481 4260; email-andrew@nrf.ac.za Dr Ndanduleni B. Nthambeleni, Executive Director: Grants Management and Systems Administration (phone – 012-481 4182; email - ) Dr Romilla Maharaj, Acting Executive Director: Research Chairs and Centre of Excellence (phone – 012-481 4087; email - romilla@nrf.ac.za) Dr Nthabiseng Programme Director: Research Chairs and Centre of Excellence (phone – 012-481 4245; email – Nthabiseng.taole@nrf.ac.za) Mr Raven Jimmy, Grant Director: International Research Grants and Centre of Excellence (phone – 012-481 4069; email – raven@nrf.ac.za)