Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

The Objectivity of National Research Foundation Peer Review Based Ratings in South Africa

Contents:

Author Info

  • Johannes Fedderke

Abstract

This paper examines the strength of association between the outcomes of National Research Foundation (NRF) peer review based rating mechanisms, and a range of objective measures of performance of researchers. The analysis is conducted on 1932 scholars that have received an NRF rating or an NRF research chair. We find that scholars with higher NRF ratings record higher performance on average against the objective measures of absolute output and the impact of their research, than scholars at lower ratings. In addition, the higher the performance of scholars against all objective measures of absolute output and impact, increases the probability of higher rating. However, we also find that the probability of achieving a B-rating remains higher than that of acheiving an A-rating even at the very highest levels of recorded performance for South African scholars. In addition, scholars who have received the highest ratings record objective levels of research output and impact of their research that are no different from the minimum levels of objective performance at much lower NRF ratings. Moreover, we find strong cross-disciplinary differences in terms of the impact that objective levels of performance have on the probability of achieving different NRF ratings. Finally, we report evidence that NRF peer review is less likely to reward multiauthored research output than single-authored output.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://econrsa.org/home/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=444&Itemid=67
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Economic Research Southern Africa in its series Working Papers with number 300.

as in new window
Length: 41 pages
Date of creation: 2012
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:rza:wpaper:300

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Newlands on Main, F0301 3rd Floor Mariendahl House, cnr Campground and Main Rds, Claremont, 7700 Cape Town
Phone: 021 671-3980
Fax: +27 21 671 3912
Web page: http://www.econrsa.org/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: Subjective research ratings; objective research ratings; research funding;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Hare, Paul G & Wyatt, Geoffrey, 1992. "Economics of Academic Research and Its Implications for Higher Education," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 48-66, Summer.
  2. Benner, Mats & Sandstrom, Ulf, 2000. "Institutionalizing the triple helix: research funding and norms in the academic system," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 291-301, February.
  3. Adler, Niclas & Elmquist, Maria & Norrgren, Flemming, 2009. "The challenge of managing boundary-spanning research activities: Experiences from the Swedish context," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 1136-1149, September.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rza:wpaper:300. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Yoemna Mosaval).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.