The NSF Grant Review Process: Some Practical Tips

The NSF Grant Review Process: Some Practical Tips Ping Li Department of Psychology & Institute for CyberScience Pennsylvania State University Dec.14, 2017 SSRI Workshop on Understanding the Grant Review Process

Outline • NSF Grant Review and Research Support • Some Practical Considerations in Proposal Writing

National Science Foundation Credit: www.nsf.gov

Grant writing: Practical Issues

Major steps in grant writing Identifying sources of funding for your project: NSF, NIH Know the different types and opportunities of support Deciding on the scope (size of the grant, team, duration, etc.) Initial discussion with colleagues and asking for help The proposal narrative: how many studies, how much detail The supporting parts: budget, biosketches, facilities. Submit and do not expect to get funded the first time The review process (which can be long) Revision and resubmission (which is critical)

Determine where to submit Li & Marrongelli (2013)

Different types and opportunities Regular research grants Equipment grants Conference grants Postdoc fellowships Graduate student fellowships Other initiatives and one-time grants

Scope and size of grant It’s a good strategy to start small, especially if you don’t already have pilot studies that provide the foundation for your proposal. Collaborate or not: complementary and unique expertise of each investigator. If you are proposing to use new method/technology, be sure to have both pilot data & collaborators who are experienced with these methods. The scope of the project should reflect your stage of professional development, including your publication track record, whether you have an established laboratory and institutional resources and support, and whether you have access to the necessary resources (e.g., equipment, graduate and undergraduate research students, statistical consulting, the appropriate population of research participants if you plan to test human subjects.)

Proposal narrative/text You need to describe the general method in detail, but not all the specific details as in a research paper; this depends also on the agency to which you are applying For small scope project, it is best to have more details about one good study than to have many studies that the reviewers consider too ambitious It is critical to have a theoretical framework on the basis of which you can generate predictions and hypotheses. Reviewers often comment that a study lacks theoretical significance, just as in journal paper reviews. Give yourself enough time before the deadline so that others can read the narrative and give you feedback. Its most helpful to have at least one reader who is reasonably familiar with your area of research and one other who is not in your field

Budget considerations Ask what you need for the scope of the project, but give yourself some room for potential future development; this also depends on the grant agency Be realistic with your research goals and therefore your budget – starting small

While you are waiting Li & Marrongelli (2013)

While you are waiting Conduct additional studies that will result in publications (and pilot data for the next version of the proposal) Apply for internal funds from your institution. These are typically for smaller amounts but can provide useful seed funds to enhance the likelihood of having compelling pilot data for external proposals Network with colleagues in the field to pursue collaborations that may be mutually beneficial for your research and for organizing a research team for future grant submissions

Revision, revision, and revision Almost everyone has to revise. It is a highly competitive process, just as journal publications are

Like journal articles: Reject and Resubmit • Most articles are in this category • This is already good news! • Treat the reviewers’ comments seriously • Revise carefully (examples of revision and revision cover letter); if not revised properly, it may go to the Reject category next time (see example) • Submit timely (not too soon, not too late)

Revision, revision, and revision Almost everyone has to revise. It is a highly competitive process, just as journal publications are Revision makes a paper better, it also makes a grant proposal better Know what the major problems are based on reviewers’ comments and then focus on the major issues Know how to write for the non-specialists, and this is more important for proposals than for research papers

Common criticisms to NSF proposals • No compelling rationale (no theoretical framework) • No preliminary data (proof of concept) • Experiments don’t relate to the theory • Results could have alternative explanations • Overly ambitious • Insufficient detail • If the experiments “work,” what will we really have learned?

A picture is worth a thousand words Li & Marrongelli (2013)

Good structure, informative title • Have a good structure that is clear, and have a good title that is informative • Use headings and subheadings properly to streamline the discussion • Avoid convoluted sentences; use simple, plain, English -- the three C’s (consistent, coherent, and clear) • Remember that the reviewers are very busy individuals, so keep the perspective of the reviewer as well as the readers when writing

Getting Yourself Involved • Going to conferences/meetings and talk to program officers • Becoming a reviewer or panelist at funding agencies • Collaborating with other researchers • Know the right people at the right time

Start small, but aim high • “Rome was not built in a day” • Get a small grant first, and then think about other big ones • Think how you can leverage additional resources to support further lines of research that may be related to the current project • Interdisciplinary research and international collaboration are the keys in moving to big scope, large scale projects

Interdisciplinary collaboration is a necessity • Interdisciplinary collaboration becomes necessary for large-scale projects • High-impact and transformative research is increasingly the product of successful collaborative teamwork

Questions?

The NSF Grant Review Process: Some Practical Tips