NRF Funding, Ratings, and Criteria
The NRF-rating system is a key driver in its aim to build a globally competitive science system in the country. The NRF ratings, which are allocated based on a researcher’s recent research output and impact as perceived by international peer reviewers, are a valuable tool for benchmarking the quality of researchers against the best in the world. The rating system also encourages researchers to publish high-quality outputs in high-impact journals.
Among others, the National Research Foundation (NRF) seeks to inspire and nurture a representative and globally competitive research community.
Moreover, it promotes knowledge production across specific disciplinary fields;
- supports the development and implementation of national strategies and policies;
- funds research support and the development of high-end human capacity; and
- provides access to critical research infrastructure.
The definitions of the rating categories are given below. Descriptions of subcategories in the A, B, C, and Y categories have also been indicated.
Cat | Definition | Sub-category | Description |
A | Researchers who are unequivocally recognised by their peers as leading international scholars in their field for the high quality and impact of their recent research outputs. | A1 A2 | A researcher in this group is recognised by all reviewers as a leading scholar in his/her field internationally for the high quality and wide impact (i.e. beyond a narrow field of specialisation) of his/her recent research outputs. A researcher in this group is recognised by the overriding majority of reviewers as a leading scholar in his/her field internationally for the high quality and impact (either wide or confined) of his/her recent research outputs. |
B | Researchers who enjoy considerable international recognition by their peers for the high quality and impact of their recent research outputs. | B1 B2 B3 | All reviewers are firmly convinced that the applicant enjoys considerable international recognition for the high quality and impact of his/her recent research outputs, with some of them indicating that he/she is a leading international scholar in the field. All or the overriding majority of reviewers are firmly convinced that the applicant enjoys considerable international recognition for the high quality and impact of his/her recent research outputs. Most of the reviewers are convinced that the applicant enjoys considerable international recognition for the high quality and impact of his/her recent research outputs. |
C | Established researchers with a sustained recent record of productivity in the field, who are recognised by their peers as having · produced a body of quality work, the core of which has coherence and attests to continuing engagement with the field; and · demonstrated the ability to conceptualise problems and apply research methods to investigating them. | C1 | All of the reviewers are firmly convinced that the applicant is an established researcher as described, and who – on the basis of the high quality and impact of his/her recent research – is regarded by some reviewers as already enjoying considerable international recognition; OR the overriding majority of reviewers as being a scholar who has attained a sound/solid international standing in their field, but not yet considerable international recognition; OR the overriding majority of reviewers as being a scholar whose work focuses mainly on local and/or regional issues and who – as a scholar at a nationally leading level – has substantially advanced knowledge and understanding in the field by contributing to new thinking, a new direction, and/or a new paradigm. * |
| | C2 | With the exception of no more than a single reviewer raising some minor concerns, all other reviewers are firmly convinced that the applicant is an established researcher as described. The applicant may, but need not, enjoy some international recognition for the quality and impact of his/her recent research outputs. |
| | C3 | Most of the reviewers concur that the applicant is an established researcher (as described). |
| P | Young researchers (normally younger than 35 years of age**) who have held the doctorate or equivalent qualification for less than five years# at the time of application, and who – on the basis of exceptional potential demonstrated in their published doctoral work and/or their research outputs in their early post-doctoral careers – are considered likely to become future international leaders in their field.
| | Researchers in this group are recognised by all or the overriding majority of reviewers as having demonstrated the potential of becoming future international leaders in their field on the basis of exceptional research performance and output from their doctoral and/or early post-doctoral research careers. |
| Y | Young researchers (40 years** or younger) who have held the doctorate or equivalent qualification for less than five years# at the time of application, and who are recognised as having the potential to establish themselves as researchers within a five-year period after evaluation, based on their performance and productivity of quality research outputs during their doctoral studies and/or early post-doctoral careers.
| Y1
Y2 | A young researcher (within five years of PhD) who is recognised by all reviewers as having the potential (demonstrated by research products) to establish him/herself as a researcher, with some of them indicating that he/she has the potential to become a future leader in his/her field. OR A young researcher (within five years of PhD) who is recognised by all or the overriding majority of reviewers as having the potential to establish him/herself as a researcher of considerable international standing, on the basis of the quality and impact of his/her recent research outputs. A researcher in this group is recognised by all or the overriding majority of reviewers as having the potential to establish him/herself as a researcher (demonstrated by recent research products). |
*This definition is restricted to those researchers whose area of research prevents (or precludes) them from meeting the requirements of either definition 1 or definition 2.
Important things to note:
For applications submitted in a particular year (i.e. 2023)
** Up to 36 years of age is the norm
***40 years (or younger) as at (closing date)
#Year in which PhD was obtained, according to which applicants can apply for a Y/P rating: 2018
Explanatory note: For 2023 applications, the call will close February 2024, but will only take into account outputs published in the period 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2023 (eight full years). The date a researcher ‘obtains’ (in the broadest sense – anything from notification that it will be awarded to walking across the stage) his/her degree could be any time of the year (i.e. 1 January-31 December).
For 2023 applications, it is calculated as follows:
Year 0: 2018 (any date between 1 Jan. and 31 Dec. 2018)
Year 1: 2019
Year 2: 2020
Year 3: 2021
Year 4: 2022
Year 5: 2023 (any date between 1 Jan. and 31 Dec. 2023 (end of the period under review)
If the applicant obtained his/her degree on 31 January 2015, he/she will enjoy the benefit of almost 11 months, but if he/she graduated in December 2015, they will literally have just more than five years.
There are four types of applications:
New
Researchers who have never applied for rating in the past or researchers who previously applied for rating, but the application was withdrawn before it was processed.
Re-evaluation by invitation
Researchers who are currently rated A, B, C, P or Y will be invited by the NRF to submit documents for re-evaluation in the fifth year of their cycle. Their applications will be evaluated in the sixth (and final) year of this cycle while their current rating remains valid. If successful, their new rating will become valid on 1 January of the next year.
Re-evaluation – Researchers who have chosen not to respond to the above invitation and whose ratings have therefore lapsed (no longer valid), or researchers whose application for rating was unsuccessful three or more years ago. Applicants whose rating application was unsuccessful must wait three years before applying for re-evaluation. In these cases, the onus to apply for re-evaluation rests with the applicant.
Special re-evaluation
An applicant who is currently rated may apply for a special re-evaluation earlier than the five-year cycle (i.e. the year when he/she will be invited) if, since a previous evaluation, an applicant has shown such progress that, in the opinion of the relevant authority at the employing institution, the existing rating is quite inconsistent with the applicant’s current standing. A newly prepared application must be submitted to the NRF, together with a motivation from the appropriate authority stating the reasons why a special re-evaluation is requested. Applications in this category will be screened for validity of the claims before being processed.
The process below outlines the UFS internal processes for NRF rating:
Outcomes are then announced JANUARY of the subsequent year.
Once the call for evaluation and rating is open, it is important to contact the UFS Directorate Research Development in order for applications to be screened and validated.
More information will be published on this page and communicated on other official UFS communication platforms when the call for evaluation and rating is open.
Contact us
Eleanor van der Westhuizen
Assistant Director: Grants Management
T: +27 51 401 7077
E: VdwestHD@ufs.ac.za
Thabi Mosoetsa
Officer: Grants Management
T: +27 51 401 7708
E: MosoetsaT@ufs.ac.za
Johannes Brill Building, First Floor, Bloemfontein Campus