Merit Review and Proposal Preparation JUAN CARLOS MORALES Division of Environmental Biology

Please get to know your friendly NSF home page Scroll down to see “My NSF”

Biological Sciences Home Page

Fastlane – NSF E-Business Supplementary requests, and most other requests, now done through Fastlane Access information about pending proposals through the “Proposals, Awards & Status” hyperlink

Types of Proposal Submission  Target dates  No deadlines (e.g. workshops, SGERs)  Deadlines  Submission Windows  Letters of Intent  Preliminary proposals Solicited vs. Unsolicited Solicited proposals have a published Program Solicitation (Program Announcement) Unsolicited proposals are associated with regular research programs (check websites and GTP)

Research & Education Communities Proposal Preparation Time Org. submits via FastLane N S F Program. Office NSF Program. Office Program Office Analysis & Recomm. Program Office Analysis & Recomm. DD Concur DD Concur Via DGA Via DGA Organization Min. 3 Revs. Req. DGA Review & Processing of Award Proposal Receipt to Division Director Concurrence of Program Officer Recommendation GPG Announcement Solicitation GPG Announcement Solicitation NSF Announces Opportunity Returned Without Review/Withdrawn Mail Panel Both Award NSF Proposal & Award Process & Timeline Decline 90 Days6 Months 30 Days Proposal Receipt at NSF DD Concur Award

The NSF Merit Review Process (not quite…)

NSF Merit Review Criteria  NSF Approved Criteria include:  Intellectual Merit  Broader Impacts of the Proposed Effort AND

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 an announced proposal deadline date  Is submitted with insufficient lead-time to a target date  Does not meet NSF proposal preparation requirements, such as page limitations, formatting, etc.  Is not responsive to the GPG or program announcement or solicitation  Is a duplicate of, or substantially similar to, a proposal already under consideration  Is inappropriate for funding by the NSF  Was previously reviewed and declined and has not been substantially revised.

Proposal Review and Decision Process  Proposal Processing Unit generates proposal number and a physical “jacket” (a file); forwarded to the appropriate directorate/division  Based on division/cluster selected by PI, the proposal is available electronically to cognizant Program Officer  Program Officer examines long-range goals, specific aims, general approaches  Assignment to panel(s)  Ad hoc ( ) review (typically 6 requests)  Advisory Panel review (2-3 panelists)  Program Officer develops a recommendation  Division Director concurrence  DGA processing/institutional notification of decision

NSF Sources of Reviewers  Program Officer’s knowledge of what is being done and who’s doing what in the research area  References listed in proposal  Recent technical programs from professional societies  Recent authors in scientific and engineering journals  Reviewer recommendations  Investigator’s suggestions  Volunteers to Program Officer

Panel Review Process  Panelists selected for breadth and expertise  Panelists take a broad comparative view of proposals, and have access to reviews from expert ad hoc reviewers  PIs would be well-advised to write for two audiences, the broadly-based generalist, and the expert in their field  Panelists recommend a panel rating that’s synthetic, not a simple averaging of reviewers’ scores  Panelists rate highly those proposals that will move a field forward in significant ways  Panel advice is important, but NSF does not fund proposals based on rank order of panel rating

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

Reasons For Funding A Competitive Proposal  Likely high impact  PI Career Point (tenured/“established”/ “beginning”)  Place in Program Portfolio  Other Support for PI  Impact on Institution/State  Special Programmatic Considerations (CAREER/RUI/EPSCoR)  Diversity  Educational Impact

Proposal Preparation

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

Call Your Program Director!

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. The Good Proposal…

Declined Try again The Proposal Cycle Write & Revise Conceptualize

If you are declined  Learn to love rejection  You are in good company - Approximately 15% success rate  You will receive verbatim all reviewer and panel comments  Contact the Program Officer with specific questions  Revise and resubmit

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, and indicating the broader impacts of the activity. A Competitive Proposal is… All of the above Appropriate for the Program Responsive to the Program Announcement

What Makes a Proposal Competitive?  Likely high impact  New and original ideas  Succinct, focused project plan  Knowledge of subject area or published, relevant work  Experience in essential methodology  Clarity concerning future direction  Sound scientific rationale  Realistic amount of work  Sufficient detail

Budgetary Guidelines  Amounts  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)

Simple tips for a better proposal  Follow formatting requirements carefully (1 inch margins, <15 characters per inch)  Compliance check before submitting (FastLane won’t do it for you!)  Be available by 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  Collaboration is good, if appropriate

Conceptualize Write The Proposal Cycle & Revise Funded!

Myths about NSF  Only funds researchers from elite institutions  Once declined…always declined  Only funds “normal” science  Advisory committees make funding decisions

Funded! Conceptualize What next? Write The Proposal Cycle & Revise

Ask Us Early, Ask Us Often!! The Prime Directive

We need:  Reviewers  Panelists  Program Officers  Division Directors

Working Together:  We  Can  Do  It!

Merit Review and Proposal Preparation JUAN CARLOS MORALES Division of Environmental Biology