The Review Process

1
The Review Process

• What happens to your proposal
• Two Review Criteria

2
NSF Proposal Award Process Timeline
NSF Announces Opportunity
Award
Via DGA
N S F
MERIT REVIEW

• Institution
• submits via
• FastLane or
• Grants.gov

Prog. Off. Anal. Recom.
Mail
Div PO Staff
DD Concur
Panel
Both
Organization
Research Education Communities
Decline
Proposal Receipt at NSF
DD Concur
Award
90 Days
6 Months
30 Days
Proposal Receipt to Division Director Concurrence
of Program Officer Recommendation
Proposal Preparation Time
DGA Review Processing of Award
3
Merit Review Criteria

• Criterion 1 What is the intellectual merit of
  the proposed activity?
• Creativity and originality of ideas
• Qualifications of investigators
• Access to resources
• Established expertise or expert collaborations
• Criterion 2 What are the broader impacts of the
  proposed activity?
• Potential to advance field (transformative)
• Participation of underrepresented groups
• Benefits to society

4
NSF Panel Review(most research divisions)

• Advisory panel 6-20 people
• Proposals receive at least 3 reviews
• Each reviewer describes his/her views of
• the proposal to the rest of the panel
• The panel as a whole then discusses
• proposal
• The proposal is placed in funding recommendation
  category (e.g.
• Fund, Fund if Possible, Do not fund)

5
Preparing Competitive Proposal

• Helpful tips
• What to do if declined
• How funding decisions are made

6
Tip 1. Do your homework

• Read the Program announcement/solicitation
• Understand goals, eligibility, requirements
• Research or teaching?
• Become familiar with program
• Serve as a reviewer (ad hoc or on a panel)
• Examine prior NSF awards in similar areas
• Read successful proposals
• Talk with people
• Program Officers
• Current or former rotators

7
Tip 2. Write well

• Start early (write and rewrite)
• Get critiques from
• Mentors/colleagues
• Previous members of review panels
• 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

8
Tip 2. Write well . . .

• 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!
• Wow!

9
Tip 2. Write well . . . Comments you do not
want to see.

• Reading this proposal was a sheer torture.
• This one puts me to sleep every night!
• My freshman students know better.
• This PI wants to mow an old lawn, without a
  problem, originality, or track record of winning
  races.
• No way!

10
Tip 3. Anticipate reviewer comments

• Do not assume reviewer knows what you are
  thinking
• Simplify and streamline
• Make sure you get your overall idea across!
• Pay attention to details
• Run spell check and proof-read
• Prepare clear photos, graphs, etc.
• Use allowed font size
• Be aware of reviewer fatigue

11
If you have to resubmit. . .

• Stay calm!
• Take ten breaths, hours, days
• Examine the criticisms carefully
• Contact your program director
• Email, call, or visit
• Find out how to improve proposal
• Include a Response to Reviewer Comments section
  in the resubmission

12
How Funding Decisions are Made
Program Director makes recommendations to the
Division Director based on

• Advice of the panel
• Budgetary constraints
• Other programmatic considerations
• geographic distribution
• type of institution
• PI demographics
• potential high payoff

13
Some insights

• What determines funding chances?
• Reviews
• Panel discussion
• NSF and Program Priorities
• Contact your program director
• Cultures, practices, and funding priorities vary
  across NSF
• e-mail, call, or visit
• Volunteer to review proposals