NSF Merit Review and Proposal Preparation

1. NSF Merit Review andProposal Preparation Mark Courtney, Ph.D Adjunct, Department of Biology New Mexico State University mark08@nmsu.edu 24 September 2008

2. The NSF Merit Review Process

3. NSF Proposal & Award Process & Timeline NSF Announces Opportunity Returned Without Review/Withdrawn GPG Announcement Solicitation Min. 3 Revs. Req. Award Via DGA N S F NSF Program. Office Program Office Analysis & Recomm. Org. submits via FastLane Mail DD Concur Panel Both Organization Research & Education Communities Decline Proposal Receipt at NSF Award DD Concur 90 Days 6 Months 30 Days Proposal Receipt to Division Director Concurrence of Program Officer Recommendation DGA Review & Processing of Award Proposal Preparation Time

4. NSF Merit Review Criteria • Intellectual Merit • Broader Impacts of the Proposed Effort

5. Proposal Review Criterion:Intellectual Merit • Potential to advance knowledge and understanding within and across fields • Qualifications of investigators • Creativity and originality • Conceptualization and organization • Access to resources

6. Proposal Review Criterion:Broader Impact • Advances discovery while promoting teaching, training and learning • Broadens the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.) • Enhances the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks and partnerships • Results disseminated broadly • Potential benefits to society

7. NSF Merit Review Criteria Any proposal that does NOT address both merit criteria in the Project Summary will be RETURNED WITHOUT REVIEW.

8. Return Without Review • Does not meet NSF proposal preparation requirements, such as page limitations, formatting, etc. • Is inappropriate for funding by the NSF • Is not responsive to the GPG or program announcement or solicitation • Does not meet an announced proposal deadline date • Is a duplicate of, or substantially similar to, a proposal already under consideration • Was previously reviewed and declined and has not been substantially revised.

9. NSF Sources of Reviewers • Program Officer’s knowledge of what is being done and who’s doing what in the research area • References listed in proposal • Recent technical programs from professional societies • Recent authors in Scientific and Engineering journals • Reviewer recommendations • Investigator’s suggestions • Volunteers to Program Officer

10. Likely high impact Place in Program Portfolio Other Support for PI Impact on Institution/State Diversity Educational Impact Reasons For Funding A Competitive Proposal

11. A good proposal is a good idea, well expressed, with a clear indication of methods for pursuing the idea, evaluating the findings, making them known to all who need to know, and indicating the broader impacts of the activity. Summary

12. MAKE IT EXCITING !!! Summary

15. Proposal Preparation

16. Call Your Program Director!

17. Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) • Provides guidance for preparation of proposals • Describes process -- and criteria --by which proposals will be reviewed • Describes process for withdrawals, returns and declinations • Describes the award process and procedures for requesting continued support • Identifies significant grant administrative highlights

18. What to Look for in a Program Announcement • goal of program • eligibility • special requirements

19. No deadlines Deadlines Target dates Submission Windows Preliminary proposals Types of Proposal Submission

20. A good proposal is a good idea, well expressed, with a clear indication of methods for pursuing the idea, evaluating the findings, and making them known to all who need to know. A Good Proposal A Competitive Proposal is… All of the above Appropriate for the Program Responsive to the Program Announcement

21. AND EXCITING !!!

22. What Makes a Proposal Competitive? Likely high impact New and original ideas Succinct, focused project plan Knowledge of subject area or published, relevant work Experience in essential methodology Clarity concerning future direction Sound scientific rationale Realistic amount of work Sufficient detail Critical approach

23. AND EXCITING !!!

24. Budgetary Guidelines • Amounts • Reasonable for work - Realistic • Well justified - Needs established • In-line with program guidelines • Eligible costs • Personnel • Equipment • Travel • Participant Support • Other Direct Costs (including subawards, consultant services, computer services, publication costs)

25. Simple tips for a better proposal • Follow formatting requirements carefully • Compliance check before submitting (FastLane won’t do it for you!) • Be available by email to fix compliance problems (proposals may be returned if NSF can’t contact you) • Suggest reviewers • Include all conflicts of interest in your CV • Respond explicitly to previous reviews (Panels are asked to comment on this) • Emphasize readability; avoid verbiage • Talk to your Program Director!

26. Simple tips for a better proposal AND MAKE IT EXCITING !!!

27. NSF Publications Program Announcements/ Solicitations Grant Proposal Guide Web Pages Funded Project Abstracts Reports, Special Publications Targeted Workshops Program Officers Incumbent Former “Rotators” Mentors on Campus Previous Panelists Serve As Reviewer Sponsored Research Office Successful Proposals Getting Support in Proposal Writing

28. Advice • Learn to love rejection • Contact the program officer with specific questions • Revise and resubmit • Collaboration is good, if appropriate • Discover alternative funding sources

29. Myths about NSF • Only funds researchers from elite institutions • Once declined…always declined • Only funds “normal” science • Advisory committees make funding decisions

30. Do’s and Don’ts • Talk to your Program Officer • Less verbiage, more readability • Anticipate objections or criticisms • Justify your budget • Don’t be greedy • Follow the rules • Give yourself plenty of time • Study reviews carefully

31. Do’s and Don’ts • DO MAKE IT EXCITING !!!

32. Ask Early, Ask Often!! QUESTIONS?

33. NSF Merit Review andProposal Preparation Mark Courtney, Ph.D Adjunct, Department of Biology New Mexico State University mark08@nmsu.edu 24 September 2008