Considerations when reviewing project proposals
To university l proposal considerationsthe following are some general considerations to discuss office of sponsored projects (osp) team during the early stages al development. Tip: a meeting between the investigator(s), the project team, and osp can be very helpful during the early stages. For example, nau is not a minority- or hispanic- serving institution (note: nau-yuma is a hispanic-serving institution for proposals serving students attending that campus). For example, nau is not eligible to submit a proposal to the nsf research in undergraduate institutions rui program because it open to raduate ine principal investigator/project director eligibilityreview the sponsor's and nau's pi/pd eligibility policies and requirements to determine if the pi/pd is eligible to pursue funding opportunity. If still unsure, contact the office of sponsored of solicitationensure that the purpose or intent of the solicitation is consistent with the interests and expertise of the pi and a proposal will enhance the nau contact with program officer (po)osp staff can answer most questions about proposals, but for clarification of technical requirements, investigators should contact a po(s) who is responsible for the solicitation, if allowed. The sponsor may already have issued faqs addressing many questions; otherwise, the investigator should e-mail questions to the program officer, along with description of the proposed project. This is an important requirement to meet abor as well as federal regulatory requirements governing conflicts of interest in sponsored projects.
Check with osp to determine if subrecipients are required to ine if opportunity is a limited solicitationa limited solicitation is a funding opportunity that limits the number of proposals that may be submitted from one the opportunity is a limited solicitation, stop! Contact the office of sponsored projects and inform that you are interested in a limited 's standard procedure is to work with the office of the vice president for research to determine the level of interest in the opportunity and if necessary, form an internal review committee to select the proposal(s) which may go forward to be submitted to r. Depending on the level of interest, investigators may be approved to move forward to prepare a proposal or asked to submit a short summary of the proposed project, sources of support, and requirements for institutional support for consideration by a investigator(s) will be formally notified if they are approved to submit a ine deadlines/timelinesdiscuss with your osp team how you work and more importantly, your work schedule. Conversely, if the proposal includes subawards to other institutions, the collaborating institution will need to submit documentation of its commitment to the project. Usually, osp will contact its counterparts at the other institution(s), as the pi/co-pi, will need to provide some contact information for collaborating investigators, budgetary informationtypically, investigators are expected to be able to estimate the proposed project’s travel, materials and supplies, equipment, and operational costs with the help of data readily available from vendors. Here are some other important considerations:has the sponsor imposed a funding cap/maximum amount that may be requested? Here are two types of cases, but there may be other scenarios:if the sponsor indicates that the requested amount should be “not more than” a specific dollar amount, then the proposed budget should be at or just below the sponsors “not to exceed” budgets requesting (for example) “$1,000,000 or more” must have prior approval to submit, then either (1) the proposed budget must be $1 less than that amount, or (2) the investigator must receive prior approval to closely with osp when developing a proposed budget for more extensive guidance on budget considerations, requirements, review, ine if proposal includes institutional dataif the proposal includes institutional data, the data must be approved by the office of institutional research and analysis (ira) prior to proposal submission.
If you believe that your project might qualify to use the off-campus rate, with a budget showing which personnel costs will be incurred “on” and “off” campus. Use nau’s federally approved f&a rates for each project type unless the sponsor has stipulated a rate for the solicitation. If this is the case, the rate must be cited in official sponsor the budget to determine whether the project qualifies as an on- or off-campus ing off-campus rates requires approval by the ine activity typethis data is used for a variety of abor and federal most ty types include:basic research is undertaken primarily to acquire new knowledge without any particular application or use in mind. Financials are herehome » policy & compliance » definitions of criteria and considerations for research project grant (rpg/r01/r03/r15/r21/r34) tions of criteria and considerations for research project grant (rpg/r01/r03/r15/r21/r34) ed as of march 21, 2016. Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed). Reviewers will provide an overall impact/priority score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to make an important scientific contribution to the research field(s) involved, to provide research opportunities to students, and to strengthen the research environment of the institution, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed). The r03 small grant supports discrete, well-defined projects that realistically can be completed in two years and that require limited levels of funding.
Because the research project usually is limited, an r03 grant application may not contain extensive detail or discussion. Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? Does the project address an important problem or a barrier to progress in the field? If the project is collaborative or multi-pd/pi, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project? Are the pd(s)/pi(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If the project is collaborative or multi-pd(s)/pi(s), do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?
Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? The project involves human subjects and/or nih-defined clinical research, are the plans to address 1) the protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion (exclusion) of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed? Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? The project involves clinical research, are the plans for 1) protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed? The application provide sufficient evidence that the project can stimulate the interests of students so that they consider a career in the biomedical or behavioral sciences? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed?
Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Does the application demonstrate the likely availability of well-qualified students to participate in the research project? When the proposed project involves human subjects and/or nih-defined clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion (or exclusion) of children to determine if it is justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed. For revisions, the committee will consider the appropriateness of the proposed expansion of the scope of the project. Reviewers will assess whether the project presents special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions that exist in other countries and either are not readily available in the united states or augment existing u. A concept paper summarizes in two to three pages the entire project from beginning to end.
Project narrative that explains what the proposed activities are going to g it together: writing the ing is a suggested format for grant proposals. Hence, your statement of need will start with a discussion of the digital divide in the united states, then it will focus on the digital divide in rochester (in this case), then it will focus further on the digital divide in the specific community you are proposing to work with a discussion of what else is being done, and lead into the project narrative with a brief discussion of how your idea is better or different. To do this, you will need to cite that latest body of research and specific projects that are currently happening and how yours is different and better. Preparation is essential, and you are encouraged to pick up the phone and call people who are working on similar projects, call program officers at agencies, and gather as much information as possible. Project rationale incorporating literature successful grant application must incorporate a strong theoretical basis that is grounded with an extensive discussion of the literature. The rationale for the project comes from what the literature says works, does not work, is missing, needs to be looked at differently, or however you choose to broach this extensive discussion. Describe the expected outcomes of this project and how success will be measured in the project (and reference the evaluations section below).
Who will provide leadership and management for the project, and who are the people involved in implementing the project? To the potential funding source, the deliverables of your project are the justification for your funding, so it is imperative that you have in place a comprehensive and accepted method to evaluate your outcomes. Srs can refer you to persons on campus who are schooled and well respected in the field of evaluation; contact us for more tion plans should include both formative evaluation to inform development of the project and summative evaluation to assess the impact of the project on the target audience. A proposal should include a detailed description of activities that disseminate information on the success and content of the project to other scientists and educators. It is important for the potential sponsor to know that the project will not simply end once the grant funds are gone. The best way to do this is it ensure that this is a project that the institution is committed to as a part of the bigger picture and that it will be supported beyond the funding period. It is also important to build in and discuss a plan for growth of the project.
The proposed management plan can indicate to the sponsor that not only sustainability, but growth of the project is going to -year grants are usually awarded contingent upon the successful progress of the project. Others, such as the national institutes of health, require the submission of non-competing continuation proposals. As mentioned, this needs to be a well-researched project, and a bibliography is an essential component of good, scientific inquiry. If the proposed project is a partnership, letters of support from the listed partners are required. The funding announcement or guidelines will explain if you can attach relevant publications (such as a paper you wrote last year that further provides the rationale for your project). All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an nsf program officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside nsf who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. Program officers may obtain comments from assembled review panels or from site visits before recommending final action on proposals.
Senior nsf staff further review recommendations for nsf proposals are evaluated through use of two national science board approved merit review criteria. For example, proposals for large facility projects also might be subject to special review criteria outlined in the program two merit review criteria are listed below. While proposers must address both merit review criteria, reviewers will be asked to address only those considerations that are relevant to the proposal being considered and for which the reviewer is qualified to make is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? Staff will give careful consideration to the following in making funding decisions:Integration of research and of the principal strategies in support of nsf's goals is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions provide abundant opportunities where individuals may concurrently assume responsibilities as researchers, educators, and students, and where all can engage in joint efforts that infuse education with the excitement of discovery and enrich research through the diversity of learning ating diversity into nsf programs, projects, and ning opportunities and enabling the participation of all citizens, women and men, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities, are essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. Nsf is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports. A request for a proposal file update must be submitted by an individual who is authorized to submit proposals on behalf of the organization, and electronically signed by the authorized organizational representative (aor).
Authorized individuals in the organization's sponsored projects office (or equivalent) can initiate or review requests for proposal file updates using the "submit proposals/supplements/file updates/withdrawals" module via the fastlane "research administration functions. Submitting additional information must not be used as a means of circumventing page limitations or stated recommending whether or not nsf should support a particular project, the nsf program officer may, subject to certain constraints outlined below, engage in discussions with the proposing ating budgets generally involves discussing a lower or higher amount of total support for the proposed project. Nsf program officers may not renegotiate cost sharing or other organizational such discussions result in a budget reduction of 10% or more from the amount originally proposed, a corresponding reduction should be made in the scope of the project. Because of the large volume of proposals, this review and consideration process may take up to six months. For example, proposals for large facility projects also might require review in accordance with nsf's guidelines for planning and managing the major research equipment account. Everything in the file except information that identifies either reviewers or other pending or declined proposals is usually releasable to the es illustrating activities likely to demonstrate broader available electronically on the nsf website of a proposal may be found via the "proposal functions" fastlane.