Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

National Science Foundation

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "National Science Foundation"— Presentation transcript:

1 National Science Foundation
Directorate for Computer & Information Science & Engineering (CISE) Panel Charge Mitra Basu CCF Division

2 Panelist and Staff Introductions
Panelists -- please tell us: who you are, where you are from, what programs you have reviewed for, about your particular areas of expertise, and anything else you want to share with the panel. Introduction of the NSFers involved with this panel. Return to Panel DASHBOARD Return

3 Solicitation Highlights
Budget Proposals submitted to this solicitation must be consistent with one of three project classes. Proposals will be considered for funding within their project classes. Small Projects: Total budgets up to $500,000 for durations of up to three years. Well suited to one or two investigators (PI and one co-PI or other Senior Personnel) and at least one student and/or post-doc. Medium Projects: Total budgets ranging from $500,001 to $1,200,000 for durations up to four years. Well suited to one or more investigators (PI, co-PI and/or other Senior Personnel) and several students and/or post-docs. Large Projects: Total budgets ranging from $1,200,001 to $3,000,000 for durations of up to five years. Well suited to two or more investigators (PI, co-PI(s), or other Senior Personnel), and a team of students and/or post-docs. The same for all CISE Core and Cross-cutting Programs Return to Panel DASHBOARD Return

4 Panelist “Housekeeping” Issues
Be sure your name is on the Sign-In-Sheet Sign-in ensures reimbursement. Sign-in corrects any mistakes in the spelling of your name or address in the NSF database (hopefully!) Please, when you leave, use recycle bins and garbage bins. In case of an emergency – evacuating the building or shelter in place. Return

5 Panelist “Housekeeping” Issues
Important: reimbursement through EFT only EFT Information Is entered into FastLane by US panelists. Is necessary for your reimbursement. Is not necessary for international panelists. Travel Details Air travel should be arranged through SATO Travel. Those who drive -- complete the auto travel form. Federal employees must save receipts. Return

6 Panelist “Housekeeping” Issues
Electronic Reimbursement & Taxes Reimbursement will appear w/o notice to your specified financial institution and account (“U.S. Treasury” doesn’t reference NSF). Reimbursement is considered taxable. NSF automatically sends a Form 1099 if $600 or greater is paid to a reviewer per calendar year. Return

7 Panelist “Housekeeping” Issues
Updating Your Demographic Information NSF strives to achieve balance in our reviewer pool -- across geographic regions, gender, race, ethnicity, persons with disabilities, and other under-represented cohorts in STEM. We rely on you to volunteer your demographic information through our Panelist System so we may achieve our goal of broadening participation. Return

8 Panelist “Housekeeping” Issues
Updating Your Demographic Information Why Does NSF Need Demographic Information? We use the demographic information to generate statistics that help us: Evaluate outputs and outcomes of the programs that taxpayers support through NSF Report to Congress as required on NSF programs and their results and outcomes Gauge whether our programs and other opportunities in science and technology are fairly reaching and benefiting everyone regardless of demographic category Ensure that those in under-represented groups have the same knowledge of and access to programs, meetings, vacancies, and other research and educational opportunities as everyone else Assess involvement of international investigators or students in work we support Plan for future program, process, workforce and other national STEM needs Your information helps assure the statistical validity of our data. Return to Panel DASHBOARD Return

9 Conflicts of Interest Primary purpose is to remove or limit the influence (or appearance of influence) of ties to an applicant institution or investigator that could affect reviewer advice. Second purpose is to preserve the trust of the scientific community, Congress, and the general public in the integrity, effectiveness, and evenhandedness of NSF’s peer review process. Return

10 Conflicts of Interest Sign and turn in Conflict-of-Interest (COI) form
Typical relationships that could lead to a conflict: INSTITUTIONAL current or previous employment (12 months) or seeking employment award, honorarium, or other payment (12 months) officer or governing board any financial interest PERSONAL co-author of paper or project collaborator (48 months) thesis advisor or student (life-long) family member or close friend You must not participate in the discussion of any proposal for which you have a conflict. Please discuss any actual or perceived conflicts with panel moderator.

11 Return to Panel DASHBOARD
Confidentiality Process and results are confidential! Do not disclose identities of your fellow reviewers. Do not disclose identities of people associated with proposals (PI, Co-PIs, Consultants, etc.) Do not discuss results or recommendations with other people. Do not use names of other reviewers in your review or Panel Summary (if you are the Scribe). Proposals contain sensitive information and are not in the public domain -- do not copy, distribute or quote from them. You can indicate (e.g., on a resume) that you served NSF on a review panel – just don’t identify which panel(s). [also, please be cautious in elevators and other places outside the panel room about discussing panel business.] Return to Panel DASHBOARD Return

12 Proposal Review Criteria
Criterion 1: What is the intellectual merit and quality of the proposed activity? Criterion 2: What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity? Return

13 Proposal Review Criteria
NSF’s Panelist System and your Reviews Intellectual Merit: How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across fields? To what extent does the proposal suggest and explore creative and original concepts? What will be the significant contribution of the project to the research and knowledge base of the field? How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources (equipment, facilities, etc.)? How well qualified is the team (the Principal Investigator, co-PIs, sub-contracts, etc.) to conduct the proposed activity? Return

14 Proposal Review Criteria
Broader Impacts: How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning? How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups and outreach to industry and K-12 (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society? Return

15 Proposal Review Criteria
NSF staff will also give careful consideration to the following in recommending funding decisions: Integration of Research and Education: level of engagement in joint efforts that infuse education with the excitement of discovery and enrich research through the diversity of learning perspectives. Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs, Projects, and Activities: broadening opportunities and enabling the participation of all citizens -- women and men, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities -- is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. Return to Panel DASHBOARD Return

16 Your Reviews Panel Outputs
Individual Reviews in FastLane for each proposal OK to modify reviews, including change of rating. Ensure individual reviews for each proposal are on electronic panel system and are “correct”. Be sure any modifications to reviews are recorded in FastLane! These MUST be made BEFORE leaving your panel. Panel summary for each proposal Initially framed by one reviewer who serves as scribe using the provided template. Should reflect discussion (not just restate individual reviews). Includes short, clear comments to help unsuccessful PIs improve their proposals in the next competition. Add “Justification for Recommendation" heading at the end of the summary and write an informative, concise justification (1-2 sentences). Should be written in 3rd-person and proof-read by all assigned panelists. Return

17 Panel Outputs Your Reviews
Please place x % of the proposals in the “Highly Competitive” (HC) and “Competitive” (C) categories. The rest should be placed in the “Low Competitive” (LC) or “Not Competitive” (NC) category Return

18 Panel Summary Outline Description of project (brief):
Intellectual Merit: Strengths: Weaknesses: Broader Impacts: Constructive suggestions for improvement: Justification(s) for panel’s recommendation, including key strengths and critical weaknesses : The panel placed this proposal in the following category: ____ Highly Competitive ____ Competitive ____ Low Competitive ____ Not Competitive The summary was read by the panel, and the panel concurred that the summary accurately reflects the panel discussion. Return

19 Return to Panel DASHBOARD
Please Remember! Reviews and panel summaries are sent to Principal Investigators feedback, laudatory or critical, is important comments should be constructive, informative, and non-inflammatory Results are advisory and confidential do not discuss proposals or results proposals may contain sensitive information and are not in the public domain -- do not copy, distribute or quote from them PLEASE LEAVE THEM IN THE ROOM! Return to Panel DASHBOARD Return

20 Proposal Discussion Order
Proposals will be discussed according to the following scheme: Return to Panel DASHBOARD Return

21 Return to Panel DASHBOARD
Checkout Procedures You should not leave until the NSF Panel Moderator dismisses the panel. Every Panel Summary should be approved by the NSF Panel Moderator All individual reviews should be “submitted” – if you change your rating, be sure to re-submit your review. If you need to change your flight, you can make the change either through the airline or SATO. Return to Panel DASHBOARD Return

22 Return to Panel DASHBOARD
NSF & CISE Thank You! Return to Panel DASHBOARD

Download ppt "National Science Foundation"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google