Guidelines for Appeal: Emerging Researchers

Transcription

1 Guidelines for Appeal: Emerging Researchers This Guideline is applicable to the following Funding Instruments: - Thuthuka - Sabbatical Grants for Completion of Doctoral Degrees - Study Support for Completing PhD Studies Part-time - Freestanding, Innovation and Scarce Skills Post-doctoral Fellowships - DAAD-NRF Joint In-Country Masters and Doctoral Scholarships 1. Background and Purpose The NRF recognises the right of its stakeholders who have a vested interest in the manner in understanding which the NRF conducts its business, to appeal. These guidelines provide information around the policies and procedures for formally appealing against a funding decision of not awarding an applicant a grant under the scholarship and fellowship programmes. The purpose of the appeal process is to provide an opportunity for applicants to have funding decisions reassessed based on the standard inputs into the decision. The process will provide a platform to honestly and fairly check that all communicated decisions are indeed correct and in alignment with the rules of the NRF and the specific funding instrument under consideration (e.g. application input data, relevant selection criteria, peer review, budget, selection of reviewers, and funding decisions). Appeals must be based on compelling scientific evidence, strong suspicion of error, or apparent discrimination in the assessment process. The appeal process is designed to ensure that the applicant has been treated fairly during the review process. The NRF strives to provide equitable treatment of applications and fair assessment in accordance with the selection criteria through independent peer review. In many instances under the student funding programmes the demand for funding is greater than the supply. The limited funds available to the NRF for allocation, necessitates the non-approval of meritorious proposals based on strategic objectives of the respective programmes. The appeals process is not intended for such cases. Page 1 of 5

2 2. Scope The process is limited to appeals made against the NRF s official outcomes i.e. awards made in Appeals will not be considered if: Funds were awarded, in which case a request for an adjustment or renewal to the grant should be made; and An application for contract funding was rejected, as these grants are made from a capped budget. Applications recommended for funding by Panel, however, was not awarded due to budget constraints. 3. Eligibility to Appeal Appeals are only considered from applicants that have been unsuccessful in receiving funding under the funding programmes mentioned above. Applicants that require additional support or have been successful are not eligible to complete an appeal application. Appeals will be considered in the following cases: a) Scientific disagreement between the assessment panel and the applicant/grantholder. b) Misunderstanding of the content of the application by the assessment panel. c) Assessment panel members who wilfully failed to disclose their conflict of interest. d) Inappropriateness of the assessment panel. e) Review criteria other than those appearing in the Call funding guide being applied. f) Procedure for consideration of the application inconsistently applied. The following will not be considered as grounds for appeal: a) Changes in circumstances of the applicant since the date of the submission of the application, facts or circumstances subsequently arising. b) Non-compliance with eligibility criteria of the programme c) Incomplete applications. d) Submission to a wrong funding instrument Call. e) An inability to solicit external postal reviews. 4. Grounds for Appeal The NRF does not restrict the grounds for an appeal. However, appeals generally fall into one of the following two categories: 4.1 Procedural Grounds The following would constitute procedural grounds for appeal: a) Relevant information not provided to the assessment panel by the applicant. Page 2 of 5

3 b) Relevant information not considered by the assessment panel as per the initial application. c) Conflict of interest rules not followed. d) Application improperly rejected as not appropriate to the programme. e) Application reviewed by an inappropriate panel. f) Violation of the NRF funding policy. Since external referees provide reviews on a voluntary basis, there are occasions when the NRF will not be able to obtain external referee reports for an application. Therefore, this does not constitute a procedural ground for appeal. 4.2 Scientific Merit of Application Disputed merit of application could imply the following: a) Scientific disagreement between the assessment panel and the applicant. b) Evidence of bias against a school of thought or philosophy of approach. External referees review applications in isolation and not in context of competition for limited funds. It is important to note that the opinions expressed in review reports from external referees/postal reviewers are those of the authors, they do not necessarily reflect the views of the assessment panel and/or the NRF. 5. Appeal Process The appeal process is jointly managed by the Grant Management and Systems Administration and Reviews and Evaluation Directorate in consultation with the relevant funding programme domain. The following procedural points apply to all appeals: a) An applicant must have requested and received official Advisory Panel feedback on their application via their institutional office b) An Appeal form must be completed electronically on for reconsideration. c) An Appeal has to be submitted online to the NRF by the designated authority at the institutional office by 29 July Please take note of your institutional internal closing dates as these may be set before the NRF closing date. d) No late appeal submissions will be considered under any circumstance/s. e) The onus is on the applicant to submit a well demonstrated Appeal on the outcome. Page 3 of 5

4 f) The applicant s Appeal must be supported by the research management of the researcher s institution. g) New source material or information (e.g. papers published since the submission of the application/apr) cannot be taken into consideration if the applicant failed in the original application to mention that such papers were in press. h) Appeals will be submitted for reconsideration to a new review panel. i) Applicants appealing the funding decisions can expect outcomes of their application reconsideration by 30 September j) The decisions made on the appeal application will constitute the final outcome under the application. *Please note: Appeals that have been granted will thereafter be considered together with those applications initially recommended but not awarded due to budgetary constraints. A granted Appeal does not automatically constitute an award. 6. Submissions All appeals must be submitted via the institutional office for processing and submission to the NRF for consideration, electronically via the NRF online submission system Appeals submitted by will not be accepted. An Appeal Form has been created for all unsuccessful applicants only. Process: Step 1: Log in to NRF Online Submissions System Step 2: Select My Applications then List Applications: Page 4 of 5

5 Step 3: If your application has been linked to the Appeals Call, you will see the following icon next to the submitted application:. See example below. Step 4: Click on the icon in order to create an Appeals application. Step 5: Complete the application and invite your supervisor or referee to support your appeal application. *Please note that the section ( Support of Appeal ) will only mark as complete once your supervisor/referee has responded. Step 6: Once your application is complete, please click the final submit button. The application will be routed to the designated authority at your institution who will then screen and validate your application before submitting to NRF for review. 7. Contact Details For any queries, kindly contact your institutional research office for support. Page 5 of 5