Office for Sponsored Research Quarterly Network

1. Office for Sponsored Research Quarterly Network National Science Foundation Updates

2. National Science Foundation • NSF is the funding source for approximately 20 percent of all federally supported basic research conducted by America's colleges and universities. • The only federal agency whose mission includes support for all fields of fundamental science and engineering. • In 2010 Northwestern received over $35 million ingrant awards from NSF. • NSF budget is approximately 1/6 of the NIH budget. • Becoming increasingly administratively stringent .

3. Guidance from the NSF Regional ConferenceMarch 19 - 20 • Importance of Broader Impact • Feedback from NSF indicates the Broader Impact statement in the Project Summary tends to be less clear and only gives general statements • Strong proposals have strong, detailed Broader Impact statements • A strong Broader Impact statement can differentiate a proposal that is in other ways equal to other proposals

4. Guidance from the NSF Regional ConferenceMarch 19 - 20 • Consequences of Overdue Annual/Final/Project Outcome Reports • Requests that require agency approval (i.e. Change in PI, 2nd No Cost Extension, etc.) can be withheld if there are overdue reports to NSF • This is true for ALL current projects, not just projects with overdue reports • For example, if Dr. Smith has an overdue annual report Dr. Jones will not have a 2nd No Cost Extension approved

5. Guidance from the NSF Regional ConferenceMarch 19 - 20 • Data Management Plan • Proposals submitted or due on or after January 18, 2011, must include a supplementary document of no more than two pages labeled “Data Management Plan”. This supplementary document should describe how the proposal will conform to NSF policy on the dissemination and sharing of research results. See Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) Chapter II.C.2.j for full policy implementation.

6. Guidance from the NSF Regional ConferenceMarch 19 - 20 • Data Management Plan • Needs to be very specific for particular programs • Requirements can differ by Directorate, Office, Division, Program, or other NSF Unit. • http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/dmp.jsp • Frequently Asked Questions on this page addressing general Data Management Plan issues that can be very helpful.

7. Guidance from the NSF Regional ConferenceMarch 19 - 20 • Data Management Plan • If guidance specific to the program is not provided, then the requirements in the GPG apply. • Follow any guidance given in a specific program solicitation. • Northwestern University Library Resources: http://www.library.northwestern.edu/node/2824 • Using the DMPTool - helps researchers create data management plans for specific funding agencies

8. Guidance from the NSF Regional ConferenceMarch 19 - 20 • Beginning Investigator Box • Only used for Biological Sciences Directorate (BIO) • However, no negative impact if used for other areas

9. Guidance from the NSF Regional ConferenceMarch 19 - 20 • ARRA Extensions • (OMB) Memo M-11-34 directs NSF to take steps to ensure that awardees complete ARRA projects by September 30, 2013 • Request additional extensions sparingly • Additional extensions will go to OMB for approval

10. Guidance from the NSF Regional ConferenceMarch 19 - 20 • ARRA Extensions • Another great FAQ: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/arra/faqs_pi.pdf

11. Recent Areas of NSF Scrutiny in Proposal Review • “Each reference must include the names of all authors (in the same sequence in which they appear in the publication), the article and journal title, book title, volume number, page numbers, and year of publication.” • Section II, C, e of the Grant Proposal Guide

12. Recent Areas of NSF Scrutiny in Proposal Review • Et al is NOT ACCEPTABLE • In order for the NSF to identify any potential conflicts of interest during its review of proposals, it requires the names of all authors to be included in the references cited. NSF can reject a proposal if this information is not included appropriately.

13. Recent Areas of NSF Scrutiny in Proposal Review • “If any PI or co-PI identified on the project has received NSF funding in the past five years, information on the award(s) is required. Each PI and co-PI who has received more than one award (excluding amendments) must report on the award most closely related to the proposal.” • Section II, C, 2, d (iii) of the Grant Proposal Guide

14. Recent Areas of NSF Scrutiny in Proposal Review • The NSF requires all PIs and Co-PIs who have received at least one NSF-funded project in the past five years to include in the proposal the award most closely related to the current proposal. • The NSF does verify NSF funding for PIs and Co-PIs and can reject a proposal if this information is not included.

15. Trends in Proposal Updates • Non-compliant Biosketches • Non-compliant Current and Pending Support • Margins • “Letters of Support” included in Supplementary Documents • From a Program Solicitation: “General letters of support for the project will not be accepted.”

16. Future OSR Tools for NSF Guidance • Standardized comments included in all NSF proposals to capture succinctly and accurately problem areas

17. Future OSR Tools for NSF Guidance • “Please note that all authors must be included in the references cited section. See section II, C, e of the GPG for more details.” • “Please note that any PI or Co-PI who has received NSF funding in the past five years must report on the award most closely related to the proposal. See section II, C, 2, d (iii) of the GPG for more details.”

18. Future OSR Tools for NSF Guidance • Email to the listerv of considerations for NSF proposal development and review • Based upon recent OSR-Evanston experience • Includes links to relative GPG sections