NSF Merit Review and

Proposal Preparation

Mark Courtney, Ph.DAdjunct, Department of BiologyNew Mexico State University

mark08@nmsu.edu

24 September 2008

The NSF Merit Review Process

Research & Education

Communities

Proposal Preparation Time

Org.submits

viaFastLane

N S FN S FNSF

Program.Office

NSFProgram.

Office

ProgramOffice

Analysis&

Recomm.

ProgramOffice

Analysis&

Recomm.

DDConcur

DDConcur

ViaDGA

ViaDGA

OrganizationOrganization

Min. 3

Revs.Req.

DGA Review & Processingof Award

Proposal Receipt to DivisionDirector Concurrence of Program

Officer Recommendation

GPGAnnouncement

Solicitation

GPGAnnouncement

Solicitation

NSF AnnouncesOpportunity

Returned Without Review/Withdrawn

MailMail

PanelPanel

BothBoth

Award

NSF Proposal & Award Process & Timeline

Decline

90 Days 6 Months 30 Days

Proposal Receiptat NSF DD Concur Award

NSF Merit Review Criteria

Intellectual Merit

Broader Impacts of the Proposed Effort

Proposal Review Criterion: Intellectual Merit

Potential to advance knowledge and understanding within and across fields

Qualifications of investigators

Creativity and originality

Conceptualization and organization

Access to resources

Proposal Review Criterion: Broader Impact

Advances discovery while promoting teaching, training and learning

Broadens the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)

Enhances the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks and partnerships

Results disseminated broadly

Potential benefits to society

NSF Merit Review Criteria

Any proposal that does NOT address both merit criteria in the Project Summary will be

RETURNED WITHOUT REVIEW.

Return Without Review

Does not meet NSF proposal preparation requirements, such as page limitations, formatting, etc.

Is inappropriate for funding by the NSFIs not responsive to the GPG or program announcement or solicitationDoes not meet an announced proposal deadline date

Is a duplicate of, or substantially similar to, a proposal already under considerationWas previously reviewed and declined and has not been substantially revised.

NSF Sources of Reviewers

Program Officer’s knowledge of what is being done and who’s doing what in the research areaReferences listed in proposalRecent technical programs from professional societiesRecent authors in Scientific and Engineering journalsReviewer recommendationsInvestigator’s suggestionsVolunteers to Program Officer

Reasons For Funding A Competitive Proposal

Likely high impact

Place in Program Portfolio

Other Support for PI

Impact on Institution/State

Diversity

Educational Impact

Summary

A good proposal is a good idea, well expressed, with a clear indication of

methods for pursuing the idea, evaluating the findings, making them known to all who need to know, and indicating the

broader impacts of the activity.

Summary

MAKE IT EXCITING !!!

Proposal Preparation

Call Your Program Director!

Grant Proposal Guide (GPG)

Provides guidance for preparation of proposals

Describes process -- and criteria --by which proposals will be reviewed

Describes process for withdrawals, returns and declinations

Describes the award process and procedures for requesting continued support

Identifies significant grant administrative highlights

What to Look for in a Program Announcement

goal of program

eligibility

special requirements

Types of Proposal Submission

No deadlines

Deadlines

Target dates

Submission Windows

Preliminary proposals

A Good Proposal

A good proposal is a good idea, well expressed, with a clear indication of methods for pursuing the idea, evaluating the findings, and making them known to all who need to

know.

A Competitive Proposal is…All of the above

Appropriate for the ProgramResponsive to the Program Announcement

AND EXCITING !!!

What Makes a Proposal Competitive?

Likely high impactNew and original ideasSuccinct, focused project planKnowledge of subject area or published,

relevant workExperience in essential methodologyClarity concerning future directionSound scientific rationaleRealistic amount of workSufficient detailCritical approach

AND EXCITING !!!

Budgetary GuidelinesAmounts Reasonable for work - Realistic Well justified - Needs established In-line with program guidelines

Eligible costs Personnel Equipment Travel Participant Support Other Direct Costs (including subawards,

consultant services, computer services, publication costs)

Talk to your Program Director!

Simple tips for a better proposal

Follow formatting requirements carefully

Compliance check before submitting

(FastLane won’t do it for you!) Be available by email to fix compliance problems

(proposals may be returned if NSF can’t contact you)

Suggest reviewers

Include all conflicts of interest in your CV

Respond explicitly to previous reviews

(Panels are asked to comment on this)

Emphasize readability; avoid verbiage

Simple tips for a better proposal

AND MAKE IT EXCITING !!!

Getting Support in Proposal Writing

NSF Publications Program Announcements/

Solicitations

Grant Proposal Guide

Web Pages

Funded Project Abstracts

Reports, Special Publications

Targeted Workshops

Program Officers Incumbent Former “Rotators”

Mentors on Campus

Previous Panelists

Serve As Reviewer

Sponsored Research Office

Successful Proposals

Advice

Learn to love rejection

Contact the program officer with specific questions

Revise and resubmit

Collaboration is good, if appropriate

Discover alternative funding sources

Myths about NSF

Only funds researchers from elite institutions

Once declined…always declined

Only funds “normal” science

Advisory committees make funding decisions

Do’s and Don’ts Talk to your Program Officer

Less verbiage, more readability

Anticipate objections or criticisms

Justify your budget

Don’t be greedy

Follow the rules

Give yourself plenty of time

Study reviews carefully

Do’s and Don’ts

DO MAKE IT EXCITING !!!

Ask Early, Ask Often!!

QUESTIONS?

NSF Merit Review and

Proposal Preparation

Mark Courtney, Ph.DAdjunct, Department of BiologyNew Mexico State University

mark08@nmsu.edu

24 September 2008