The National Research Foundation (NRF) is reverting to its previous system of funding academics on the basis of the peer-review rating they hold. This means that rated academics will receive annual funding, based on the rating category they fall into, to boost their research productivity.
The current system of rated and non-rated academics applying for funding on a competitive basis and grants being allocated to the highest scoring peer-reviewed projects will run concurrently with the new system.
This move by the NRF is a response to a recommendation by a Higher Education South Africa-led review steering committee, which assessed reports on five studies commissioned into its rating system.
The NRF is government’s research funding agency and facilitates the rating of academics through a peer-review system. To apply for a rating academics must submit published papers and chapters from books for review by a panel of national and international experts.
The process could take a year. They could then be afforded an A rating (world leaders in their discipline); a B rating (considerable international recognition by their peers for the high quality and impact of their recent research) or a C rating (for a sustained recent record of productivity in the field). A rating of P or Y is awarded to those who show potential and an L rating targets those who entered academia late.
An NRF rating allows the academic to be benchmarked against the best in the world and paves the way for career advancement as a researcher and access to research funding.
According to the NRF’s vice-president, Dr Albert van Jaarsveld, the system of linking ratings with funding was gradually scaled back because of funding constraints and was finally abandoned about nine years ago when the funding systems for the natural and social sciences and humanities were merged.
The reintroduction of this system means that an A-rated scientist will automatically receive R100 000, a B-rated scientist R80 000 and a C-rated scientist R40 000.
“This could be used as a discretionary fund to carry them over to the next year and they may still apply for additional funding on a competitive basis,” said Van Jaarsveld.
This level of support to about 1 700 rated researchers is expected to cost the NRF more than R80-million a year. As it has about R35-million available for this year, this funding will be phased in over a number of years.
The review committee found that the delinking of funding and rating resulted in a decreasing incentive for researchers to become rated. It said universities are the most extensive users of the rating system “although the number of researchers that subject themselves to rating as a percentage of the total number of researchers is fairly small”.
The committee said: “The use of ratings by universities for management purposes is an area of contestation. Some staff members who are opposed to the rating system for their own reasons contend that staff members who do not have a rating are disadvantaged and that staff members with a rating are given preferential treatment by the university — The criteria used by universities for promoting their staff are similar to the criteria considered in the rating process.”
The review committee has recommended that the NRF develops new, appropriate tools to assess the rating of teams, innovation, multidisciplinary work and an individual’s ability to manage a team. It should also address criticisms around the rating system such as rating categories, simplification of processes, transparency and procedural aspects. It said care should be taken that possible efforts to shorten the turnaround time between the submission of the application for evaluation and rating and receipt of the outcome do not compromise the quality of the outcome.
Van Jaarsveld said the NRF would visit all universities from August for feedback on the recommendations and to encourage academics to apply for ratings.
“We need to get a message across that it is not the NRF that does the rating but that it is a peer review-driven system. There is a fundamental resistance to being measured. Some researchers fear being rejected and others don’t like the idea of benchmarks.”
P-rated scientist Dr Geoff Blundell, who heads the Origins Centre at Wits University, said the linking of rating with funding was “excellent as so much work goes into getting reviewed and rated researchers should be rewarded. Not everybody likes the system of being rated but it’s a competitive world and there should be measurable outputs.”