Proposal Review Process, the NSF Merit Review Criteria and Proposal Preparation

1. Proposal Review Process, the NSF Merit Review Criteria and Proposal Preparation Parag R Chitnis Program Director Division of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences

2. Outline • Proposal review process • Process • Submission to decisions • Criteria • Intellectual merit • Broader impacts • Research proposal preparation

3. NSF Proposal & Award Process & Timeline Returned As Inappropriate/Withdrawn NSF Proposal Generating Document NSF Minimum of 3 Reviews Required Award Via DGA Organization submits via: FastLane Proposal Processing Unit Program Director Analysis & Recom. Mail Division Director Concur Panel NSF Program Director Both Organization Research & Education Communities Decline Proposal Receipt at NSF DD Concur Award 90 Days 6 Months 30Days DGA Review & Processing of Award Proposal Preparation and Submission Proposal Review and Decisions

4. Steps in Review Process • Receipt • Printed, checked for format, assigned a number, transferred to division • Assignment to a program (or cluster) • Administrative Review • Checked for compliance • Both criteria • Format • Appropriateness • Review • ad hoc reviews • Panel review • Decisions • Award or decline recommendation by Program Director • Concurrence by Division Director • Award notifications by Division of Grants and Agreements

5. Merit Review Criteria NSF invests in the best ideas from the most capable people, determined by competitive merit review. • The intellectual merit of the proposed activity • Creativity and originality • Potential to advancing knowledge and understanding within and across fields • Conceptualization and organization • Qualifications of investigators • Access to resources • The broader impacts of the proposed activity • Discovery while promoting teaching, training and learning • Participation of underrepresented groups • Enhancement of infrastructure for research and education • Dissemination of results to enhance scientific and technological understanding • Benefits to society

6. Ensuring a Balanced Portfolio • Innovation and Creativity • Breadth of research areas • Priority areas and systems • Demographics and Diversity • Broadening participation • Institutional impact- PUI, EPSCOR, etc. • Integration of research & education • International collaborations

7. Outline • Proposal review process • Research proposal preparation • Initiation • Writing • tips • Submission and afterwards

8. Step 1: Initiation • Idea: There is no substitute! • Have a cutting edge idea • Find the right program, solicitation or announcement

9. Develop your brilliant idea • Basic Questions • What do you intend to do? • Why is the work important? • What has already been done? • How are you going to do the work? • Make sure it is innovative and exciting • Survey the literature • Talk with others in the field • Can you convince people that you can do the project? • Obtain preliminary data • Develop arguments to support feasibility • Determine available facilities and resources • What you have • What collaborators can help with

10. Finding the right program • What to look for: • Goal of program or announcement • Eligibility • Special requirements • Deadlines or target dates • Where: • www.nsf.gov • Program Directors (phone, email)

11. Step 2: Proposal Writing • Where to find information? • Grant Proposal Guide • It is revised each October • Get it (www.nsf.gov) • Read it • Follow it • What is your aim? • Parts of a Proposal • Tips for writing an effective proposal

12. What is your aim? • Convince reviewers that your proposal is THE one to support. • Comments you want to hear…. • “I wish I could be as productive and as creative as this PI” • “If you can fund only one proposal in this area, this is it!”

13. What is your aim? Comments you do not want to see…. • “Reading this proposal was a sheer torture” • “This one put me to sleep every night!” • “My freshman students know better than this.” • “This PI wants to mow an old lawn, without a problem, originality, or track record of winning races.”

14. Grantsmanship makes a difference • Know your audience. • Think about the reviewers. Write accurately, concisely and clearly. • Make the reviewer’s job easy. • You never get a second chance to make a first impression. • First page tells it all. • Figures and tables get your point across clearly. • The reviewer may not be an expert in your specific field.

15. Parts of A Proposal • Cover sheet and certifications • Project summary • Both intellectual merit and broader impacts described • Table of contents • Project description • References cited • Biographical sketches • Budgets and justification • Current and pending support • Facilities, equipment and other resources • Special information/documentation • NO reprints or preprints • Single Copy Documents • Reviewer suggestions

16. Project Summary • Include both criteria • Intellectual Merit • Describe the scientific problem and why it is important • State the overall objective of the project • State the specific aims • Describe how the aims will be achieved • Broader Impacts • Educational activities • Outreach • Potential applications • Keep it focused

17. Project Description • The key to getting an award • Overall concept / rationale • Hypothesis-driven or Data-driven • Execution • Careful • Thorough • Appropriate

18. Project Description • Results from prior NSF support (required if applicable) • Objectives and expected significance • Relation to the PI’s longer term goals • Relation to present state of knowledge • Experimental methods and procedures • Sections optional: • preface, background, preliminary studies, specific objectives, significance, experimental plan

19. Biographical Sketch • Appointment and affiliation • Training • No more than ten references • Synergistic activities • Mentors • Collaborators • Students

20. Budget • What to ask for and What not to ask for • Be reasonable, but ask for what you need • Equipment, Travel and PI salary • Cost of educational activities associated with research • Cost-sharing • only if solicitation requires it. • Justification

21. Current and Pending Support • List everything • current, pending and anticipated • Be careful of overlap • Perception of overlap could be detrimental in the review. • Dual submissions • when they are allowed

22. Nota Bene • Both criteria addressed in project summary as well as in description • Project description: 15 pages with allowed type size and formatting • No appendices • Importance of project summary and budget justification • Fully describe current and pending support • Citations must be complete • Information about collaborators, etc. • For Biology Proposals • No duplicate submissions • No disease/health related proposals

23. Proposal Writing Tips

24. 1. Get help with proposal writing • Read: • NSF publications • Successful proposals • Look before you leap: • Serve as a reviewer (ad hoc or on a panel) • Read successful proposals • Talk with people: • Program officers • Current or former “rotators”

25. 2. Start early and don’t be shy • Write: • Rewrite and rewrite again • Get critiques from: • Mentors • Previous members of review panels

26. 3. Be reasonable • Be aware of the scope: • “Too ambitious” vs. “Too narrow” • Be honest and up-front: • Address issues instead of trying to hide them • Acknowledge possible experimental problems and have alternatives

27. 4. Make it easy for the reviewers • Simplify and streamline: • Make sure you get your overall idea across! • Pay attention to details: • Run the spell checker and proof-read • Prepare clear photos, graphs, etc. • Make the font size as big as you can

28. 5. If you have to resubmit • Stay calm! • Take ten… breaths, hours, days • Examine the criticisms carefully • Keep in touch: • Call, email or visit your program director • Rapid resubmission does not help! • Take time to self-evaluate the proposal and the project

29. Why do some proposals fail to get funding? • Absence of innovative ideas or hypothesis • Will provide only an incremental advance • Not exciting or cutting edge • Errors • Unclear or incomplete expression of aims • Faulty logic or experimental design • Less than rigorous presentation • Unrealistic, sloppy or incomplete • Resources and facilities not in place • PI qualifications/expertise not evident • Necessary collaborations not documented

30. Step 3: Submission and afterwards • Submission • Check before you submit • Print out from FastLane to ensure pdf conversion is correct. • File update module • After submission • You may be asked to address compliance issues • Acknowledgment and proposal status page • Update before panel meeting

31. Step 4: Grant Management • Do what you promised • Send annual reports • Supplement opportunities • REU- Research Experience for Undergraduates • ROA- Research Opportunity Awards • RET- Research experience for teachers • Minority students or post-doctoral fellows • Instruments • Plan for the renewal proposal

32. NSF Publications Program Solicitations Grant Proposal Guide Web Pages Funded Project Abstracts Reports, Special Publications Program Directors Incumbent Former “Rotators” Mentors on Campus Previous Panelists Serving As A Reviewer Sponsored Research Office Successful Proposals Getting Support in Proposal Writing

33. Commandments for Writing Competitive NSF Proposals • “Thou shalt propose a brilliant idea.” • “Thou shalt read Grant Proposal Guide and Program Solicitation.” • “Thou shalt get help with proposal writing. Thou shalt ask us early, ask us often!!” • “Thou shalt write for the right audience.” • “Thou shalt not irritate the reviewers.” • "Thou shalt not kill (with some exceptions).“ • "Thou shalt not steal."

34. NSF on the web- An indispensable resourcewww.nsf.gov