1. How to Submit a Proposal for a Working Group to the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR)

2. Outline Introduction Where to find information
Proposal Cycle and Deadlines
Important Advice
Parts of the Proposal
Informal Pre-Review
Formal Review Process
Common Mistakes
Funding from SCOR

3. Introduction - I
SCOR is an international non-governmental organization whose major focus is to advance fundamental knowledge & eliminate barriers to ocean science.
SCOR working groups (WGs) are a major approach for SCOR’s work (WGs were established at the very beginning of the organization in 1957 to enhance global ocean science by providing a mechanism for international cooperation).
WG topics should represent novel scientific activities that are unlikely to be supported through national sources.
WGs must have a focus in natural science, but can include social science aspects.

4. Introduction - II
WGs can have a variety of scientific purposes. They may stimulate emerging scientific research topics, compile and analyze databases, inter-calibrate existing methods, develop international standards, develop “best practice” manuals for experiments and observations, inter-compare models, make recommendations about ocean instrumentation, identify priorities for future research, etc.
SCOR usually approves two new WGs per year, if funding allows.
Anyone from any country can submit a WG proposal; proponents do not need to be from countries with national SCOR committees.

5. Where to Find Information
Information helpful for developing WG proposals can be found at
The site contains this presentation, a more detailed written version of the instructions, and sample proposals.
Click Here

6. Proposal Cycle and Deadlines (2017)
10 February: Call for WG Proposals
17 April: Deadline for WG Proposals
18 April: Proposals posted on SCOR meeting Web site and distributed to national SCOR committees and others on SCOR list
1 August: Deadline for comments on WG proposals
4-5 September: Discussion of WG proposals at annual SCOR meeting and decisions on funding

7. Important Advice – I
Matching funding and support from outside SCOR (e.g. hosting meeting costs) is a positive aspect of proposals (state this in the text, not in separate letters of support).
The topic should be global in scope. Some past working groups have focused on regional topics but, when they do, the regional topic has global consequences.
The proposed activity should be urgent as a hot topic or an enabling activity to remove barriers to research.
The proposal should not present activities that could just as easily be submitted as a research proposal to a research funding agency.
The proposal should be written with minimum jargon (the SCOR national committees that review the proposal are composed of a wide range of specialists).

8. Important Advice – II
It is recommended to write a WG proposal with the following review criteria in mind:
Is the proposal timely?
Is the topic a priority for ocean science and for SCOR?
Is a SCOR Working Group a good mechanism to advance this topic?
Are the terms of reference appropriate?
Are the membership suggestions appropriate?
Do you have any other comments to improve the proposal?
NOTE that the proposed topic may be interesting, but not a priority for SCOR;
or a SCOR working group may not be a good mechanism to address the topic.

9. Parts of the Proposal Title Acronym Summary/Abstract (max. 250 words)
Scientific Background and Rationale (max words)
Terms of Reference (max. 250 words)
Working plan (max words)
Deliverables (max. 250 words)
Capacity Building (max. 500 words)
Working Group Composition (max. 500 words)
Appendix

10. Title
The proposal title should briefly and clearly describe the focus of the group.

11. Title
The proposal title should briefly and clearly describe the focus of the group.
Acronym
The acronym will be used in the file name for the proposal on the meeting Web site and to help identify groups that are approved.

12. Title Acronym Summary/Abstract
The proposal title should briefly and clearly describe the focus of the group.
Acronym
The acronym will be used in the file name for the proposal on the meeting Web site and to help identify groups that are approved.
Summary/Abstract
The abstract should briefly summarize the justification of the WG, what the group aims to do, and what will be its products.

13. Scientific Background and Rationale
This section should explain in detail the background for the topic of the WG; why it is scientifically important, interesting, and relevant to SCOR; and why a SCOR WG is a good mechanism for the activities proposed.

14. Terms of Reference (ToRs)
Scientific Background and Rationale
This section should explain in detail the background for the topic of the WG; why it is scientifically important, interesting, and relevant to SCOR; and why a SCOR WG is a good mechanism for the activities proposed.
Terms of Reference (ToRs)
The typically 4-6 ToRs describe the group’s goals, which can be achieved by the group in a 3-4 year period.
Each ToR should be self-contained and describe in one sentence an action that will be taken by the group (start with a verb such as “develop”, “design”, “create”, “compile”, etc.). If necessary, the one sentence for the ToR can be followed by a more-detailed explanation.

15. Scientific Background and Rationale
This section should explain in detail the background for the topic of the WG; why it is scientifically important, interesting, and relevant to SCOR; and why a SCOR WG is a good mechanism for the activities proposed.
Terms of Reference (ToRs)
The typically 4-6 ToRs describe the group’s goals, that can be executed by the group in a 3-4 year period. Each ToR should be self-contained and describes in one sentence an action that will be taken by the group.
Working Plan
The working plan should describe how the group will achieve its ToRs, such as the sequence and timing of activities, what will be the focus of each WG meeting, what will be accomplished between meetings, etc.

16. Deliverables
This section should describe the deliverables or products from the group that will result from achieving the ToRs. The deliverables should include at least one peer-reviewed paper (preferably Open Access), but may also include a special issue of a peer-reviewed journal, a dataset compiled by the group and made openly accessible, a conceptual model, a best-practices manual, etc.
Meetings, workshops, community building, and proposals for additional activities are not deliverables, although they may result from the WG and may be the means to achieve broader ToRs.

17. Capacity Building
The building of capacity for ocean science in developing countries is a major goal of SCOR. Each working group should consider how it can build capacity on its topic. Past WGs have used a variety of approaches, such as holding a training workshop in conjunction with a WG meeting, involving younger scientists in WG activities, and holding WG meetings in developing countries.
The SCOR Committee on Capacity Building will provide advice to all WGs that are approved on how they can improve their capacity-building activities.
SCOR can provide a modest amount of extra funding to WGs to enhance their capacity building, for example, to bring developing country scientists to training workshops and to bring Associate Members from developing countries to WG meetings.

18. Working Group Composition
SCOR WGs have up to 10 Full Members and 10 Associate Members. (Full Members have their expenses paid to attend WG meetings; Associate Members do not)
The composition of the proposed slate of Full Members should be adequate to achieve the ToRs, and should be balanced in terms of geography, gender, and career stage.
No more than two Full Members should be from any specific country. There is no “quota” for any specific category of member, but it is part of the review.
The WG may have a single chair or 1 to 3 co-chairs. If there are co-chairs, they should all be from separate countries. Chairs are ultimately responsible for fulfilling the terms of reference, so they should be able to devote adequate time to the work of the group. It is helpful if the chair or at least one of the co-chairs has previously been a member of a SCOR WG.

19. Appendix
For each Full Member, 5 key publications related to the proposal should be listed.

20. Informal Pre-Review
It is desirable to have WG proposals reviewed by colleagues and other proposed WG members before formal submission.
There is the opportunity to have the proposal checked by Ed Urban, SCOR Secretariat prior to submission for guidance on the terms of reference and membership. It is especially important to do this early in the proposal development process. The Secretariat can also provide background on whether similar groups have been funded in the past, and help with other advice if desired.

21. Formal Review Process
After the deadline for WG proposals, the proposals are posted on the SCOR Web site and everyone on the SCOR list is invited to submit comments.
National SCOR Committees are asked to rank the proposals as “must fund”, “may fund”, and “do not fund” (with a maximum of two proposals ranked as “must fund”). Besides, national committees are asked to comment on the specific review criteria listed in an earlier slide.
The rankings and reviews are presented at the annual SCOR meeting prior to WG proposal discussion, allowing national committees that are not represented at the meeting to have their input considered.
Participants at the annual SCOR meeting discuss each proposal, but focus their attention on proposals that have received the greatest number of “must fund” and “may fund” rankings. In the discussion of each proposal, advice is developed for feedback (SCOR does not encourage, but does allow, resubmission of proposals).

22. Some common mistakes
Submitting a proposal with poor spelling and formatting - SCOR takes the review process very seriously and we expect the same of the applicants.
Submitting without pre-review by the SCOR Secretariat (they can provide feedback on membership balance, ToR clarity etc.).
Proposing a topic that is already being handled by another organization.
Proposing ToRs that are vague, too ambitious or not ambitious enough.
Submitting a proposal whose focus looks like a research proposal (carrying out cruises, building instruments etc.).
Proposing ToRs that cannot be achieved without funds from outside SCOR.

23. Funding from SCOR
SCOR provides US$45,000 for each approved WG, primarily for support of Full Members to attend WG meetings. The funds are a combination of funds from national dues to SCOR and funds from the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF).
This funding is expected to be used for 3 meetings over the full period.
Extra support may be requested from SCOR to support capacity-building activities of the WG, as well as 1 Open Access publication.
Reimbursements are done from the SCOR Secretariat; the funds are not sent to WG chairs to disburse.