NRF

NRF Funding, Ratings, and Criteria


UFS strip research

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.
 

1. Definition of rating categories  


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).

 PYoung 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.
YYoung 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. 2026)
** 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: 2026

Explanatory note: For 2026 applications, the call will close March 2026 but will only take into account outputs published in the period 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2025 (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 2026 applications, it is calculated as follows:

Year 0: 2020 (any date between 1 Jan. and 31 Dec. 2020)
Year 1: 2021
Year 2: 2022
Year 3: 2023
Year 4: 2024
Year 5: 2025 (any date between 1 Jan. and 31 Dec. 2025 (end of the period under review)

If the applicant obtained his/her degree on 31 January 2020, he/she will enjoy the benefit of almost 11 months, but if he/she graduated in December 2020, they will literally have just more than five years.

 

2. Eligibility criteria for NRF rating application  


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.
 

4. UFS process for NRF rating  


The process below outlines the UFS internal processes for NRF rating:

NRF

This process may be updated pending the NRF’s official announcement of the Rating Call dates. Should any changes occur, updated communication will be shared with the UFS research community.

Process outline for this cycle:

Please note that the NRF-rating application is an extremely time-consuming process, so it is very important for you to plan your time accordingly in order to honour due dates (late submissions will not be accepted), especially with regard to the following internal dates:

Tuesday, 26 August 2025:
Submission of updated NRF Connect CV.

12/15 (TBC) September 2025:
Screening committee meets, chaired by DVC: Research, Innovation and Postgraduate Studies.

12/15 September 2025:
Screening committee decision following review of CVs.

6 October 2025:
Attendance of NRF Rating virtual workshop to be presented by external facilitator(s), chaired by DVC: Research, Innovation and Postgraduate. All, but especially new applicants, are expected to attend. 09:00 – 12:00 – invite to be shared.

September – October (towards a first draft):
In the interest of time, while awaiting NRF’s system opening call, start preparing your narratives, H index and impact factors offline, because there will only be ± one month to prepare your online application. Colleagues from the library will be able to assist you with your H-index and impact factors, should you need assistance in this regard.

7 October 2025:
Internal deadline: Submission of first draft of application (NRF online format) to designated authorities (Thabi and Nthabiseng).

21 October 2025:
DVC: Research, Innovation and Postgraduate Studies meets with reviewers of first draft: Social Sciences and The Humanities, EMS, Theology and Religion and Education (Session 1)

21 October 2025:
DVC: Research, Innovation and Postgraduate Studies meets with reviewers of first draft: Health Sciences, Natural and Agricultural Sciences (Session 2)

22 October 2025:
Feedback on first draft of application sent to applicants following review by the committee.

24 October 2025:
NRF call for rating applications open on the Connect system.

30 November 2025:
Submission of second draft of application.

22 January 2026:
Feedback from Social Science and The Humanities Committee to second draft presented by Vice-Dean: Research of relevant faculties.

23 January 2026:
Feedback from Health Science and Natural and Agricultural Sciences Committee to second draft presented by Vice-Dean: Research of relevant faculties.

7 February 2026:
Internal submission made by applicant.

14 February 2026:
NRF closing date.

28 February 2026:
DRD submits final applications.

5. National Research Foundation (NRF) Rating   

The NRF rating system is a key driver in the NRF’s aim to build a globally competitive science system in South Africa. It is a valuable tool for benchmarking the quality of our researchers against the best in the world. NRF ratings are allocated based on a researcher’s recent research outputs and impact as perceived by international peer reviewers.

The rating system encourages researchers to publish high-quality outputs in high-impact journals/outlets. Rated researchers as supervisors will impart cutting-edge skills to the next generation of researchers. The rating of individuals is based primarily on the quality and impact of their research outputs over the past eight years, taking into consideration the evaluation made by local and international peers. It identifies researchers who count among the leaders in their fields of expertise and gives recognition to those who constantly produce high-quality research outputs. Several South African universities use the outcomes of the NRF evaluation and rating process to position themselves as research-intensive institutions, while others provide incentives for their staff members to acquire and maintain a rating and give special recognition to top-rated researchers.

The ratings that are awarded fall within the following categories:

A – Leading international researchers

B – Internationally acclaimed researchers

C – Established researchers

P – Prestigious awards

Y – Promising young researchers

Following the successful NRF-rating application submitted to the NRF for rating or rerating for a period of six years, the UFS incentivise rated researchers annually. The following funding values are applicable:

Category

Incentive per year

All ‘P’-rated researchers

R100 000

A-rated researchers

R250 000 (Year 1)

R150 000 (Years 2-6)

B-rated researchers

R100 000

C-rated researchers

R50 000

Y1-rated researchers

R100 000

Y2-rated researchers

R50 000

 

The allocated research funds are to be used strictly for research-related activities and will fall under the UFS audit requirements of beneficiary institutions. The total amount will be awarded against ‘running expenses’ but can be used to cover costs related to the following items:

  • Materials and supplies - Including journal publication/subscription and purchase of book(s). Additionally, basic office stationery, photocopying and printing which are research related.
  • Travel and subsistence - International conference attendance, international visits, local conference attendance, local travel, research retreats and/or workshops towards the advancement of research. Expenses for visiting international collaborators (subsistence and travel).

Please note: Funding requests for students to attend international conferences will not be considered.

  • Research/Technical/Ad hoc Assistants - The NRF does not support any salaries or buy-out time for lecturing staff. Administrative assistance does not qualify as technical assistance.
  • Equipment - Researchers may use the funds for small equipment. This excludes basic office equipment such as computers, laptops, tablets, etc. All research equipment purchased through this grant shall be registered in the institution’s asset register according to the policies of the institution and remain the property of the institution.
  • Data management - Researchers may use part, or all, of the funds for data management and/or support towards technical expert assistance.
  • Sabbaticals – Sabbaticals to other research organisations and institutions of higher learning.
  • Supplementation for postgraduate scholarship – Part or all of the funds may be used to supplement NRF student bursaries.

Running funds for this grant in subsequent years, will be transferred to a D- entity allocated to the rated researcher.

It was decided that activities mentioned above and any deviation from these activities can be approved or rejected by the, Senior Director (DRD) and the DVC: Research, Innovation and Postgraduate Studies as a consequence of their discretion and any other anomalies or clarity required.

 

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

Thabi Mosoetsa
Officer: Research Grants Management
T: +27 51 401 7708
E: MosoetsaT@ufs.ac.za

Johannes Brill Building, First Floor, Bloemfontein Campus
 
 

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful, to better understand how they are used and to tailor advertising. You can read more and make your cookie choices here. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept