Nsf collaboration plan
This guide also serves as a means of highlighting the accountability requirements associated with federal facilitate proposal preparation, frequently asked questions (faqs) regarding proposal preparation and submission are available on the nsf ers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of nsfs mission, as articulated in investing in science, engineering, and education for the nations future: nsf strategic plan, 2014-2018. These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. 2) for other nsf grants when more than $25,000 has been budgeted in the proposal for repair, alteration or improvement (construction) of a building or ctive grantees should contact their local government or a federally-insured financial institution to determine what areas are identified as having special flood hazards and the availability of flood insurance in their ication regarding responsible conduct of research (rcr)13: the aor is required to complete a certification that the institution has a plan to provide appropriate training and oversight in the responsible and ethical conduct of research to undergraduates, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers who will be supported by nsf to conduct onal information on nsfs rcr policy is available in the aag chapter iv. While training plans are not required to be included in proposals submitted to nsf, institutions are advised that they are subject to review upon ication regarding organizational support: the aor is required to complete a certification that there is organizational support for the proposal as required by section 526 of the america competes reauthorization act of 2010. Project description should provide a clear statement of the work to be undertaken and must include the objectives for the period of the proposed work and expected significance; the relationship of this work to the present state of knowledge in the field, as well as to work in progress by the pi under other project description should outline the general plan of work, including the broad design of activities to be undertaken, and, where appropriate, provide a clear description of experimental methods and procedures. Proposers should address what they want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful. E) evidence of research products and their availability, including, but not limited to: data, publications, samples, physical collections, software, and models, as described in any data management plan; and.
Iv) unfunded substantial collaboration with individuals not included in the budget should be described in the facilities, equipment and other resources section of the proposal (see gpg chapter ii. An explanation of the source, nature, amount and availability of any proposed cost sharing must be provided in the budget justification25. Specific guidance on the need for additional documentation may be obtained from the organizations sponsored projects office or in the references cited ctoral researcher mentoring plan. In no more than one page, the mentoring plan must describe the mentoring that will be provided to all postdoctoral researchers supported by the project, regardless of whether they reside at the submitting organization, any subrecipient organization, or at any organization participating in a simultaneously submitted collaborative project. Proposers are advised that the mentoring plan must not be used to circumvent the 15-page project description limitation. Proposals must include a supplementary document of no more than two pages labeled "data management plan". And provisions for re-use, re-distribution, and the production of derivatives; for archiving data, samples, and other research products, and for preservation of access to aneously submitted collaborative proposals and proposals that include subawards are a single unified project and should include only one supplemental combined data management plan, regardless of the number of non-lead collaborative proposals or subawards included.
Valid data management plan may include only the statement that no detailed plan is needed, as long as the statement is accompanied by a clear justification. Proposers who feel that the plan cannot fit within the limit of two pages may use part of the 15-page project description for additional data management information. Proposers are advised that the data management plan must not be used to circumvent the 15-page project description limitation. The data management plan will be reviewed as an integral part of the proposal, considered under intellectual merit or broader impacts or both, as appropriate for the scientific community of ale for performance of all or part of the project off-campus or away from organizational ntation of collaborative arrangements of significance to the proposal through letters of collaboration. Letters of collaboration should be limited to stating the intent to collaborate and should not contain endorsements or evaluation of the proposed project. The recommended format for letters of collaboration is as follows:"if the proposal submitted by dr. Letters of collaboration are permitted, unless required by a specific program solicitation, letters of support should not be submitted as they are not a standard component of an nsf proposal.
That involve technology utilization/transfer activities, that require a management plan, or that involve special reports or final products. Please note that some program solicitations provide specific guidance on preparation and inclusion of management plans in proposals submitted to l components in new proposals or in requests for supplements, such as facilitation awards for scientists and engineers with disabilities (fased), research opportunity awards (roas), research experiences for undergraduates (reus), or facilitating research at primarily undergraduate institutions (ruis and roas). A proposed subaward includes funding to support postdoctoral researchers, the mentoring activities to be provided for such individuals must be incorporated in the supplemental mentoring plan outlined in gpg chapter ii. Equipment and other and budget t and pending ties, equipment and other ctoral mentoring plan (if applicable). A description of comparable equipment already at the proposing organization(s), if applicable, and an explanation of why it cannot be used. Should be consulted to prepare this portion of the ties, equipment and other resources that includes a description of the physical facility, including floor plans or other appropriate information, where the equipment will be located; a narrative description of the source of funds available for operation and maintenance of the proposed equipment; a brief description of other support services available, and a statement of why the equipment is severable or non-severable from the physical facility (gpg chapter ii. Should be consulted to prepare this portion of the ctoral mentoring plan (if applicable): gpg chapter ii.
- literature review of inventory management project
- how to do your homework fast
- analysis in research paper
Research facilities subject to the animal welfare act using or intending to use live animals in research and who receive federal funding are required to register the facility with the animal and plant health inspection service (aphis), us department of agriculture. Should be consulted to prepare this portion of the management plan: plans for management and sharing of any data products resulting from the activity. Proposals submitted for this purpose should address the same items as those indicated for conferences (see section 9 above), with particular attention to plans for composition and recruitment of the travel group. Information on planned speakers should be provided where available from the conference r to proposals for conferences, symposia, or workshops, if any section is not required, insert text or upload a document in that section of the proposal that states, "not applicable. Support for development of nsf provides support for a variety of individual centers and centers programs that contribute to the foundation's vision as outlined in the nsf strategic plan. Nsf depends on the research communities to provide the justification, planning, development, and implementation of facility projects. The prospective participant shall submit an explanation of why it cannot provide the certification set out below.
The certification or explanation will be considered in connection with the department or agency's determination whether to enter into this transaction. However, failure of the prospective primary participant to furnish a certification or an explanation shall disqualify such person from participation in this certification in this clause is any material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when the department or agency determined to enter into this transaction. 2) where the prospective primary participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall include an explanation with this t ii-5: lobbying ctions on certification regarding certification is required for an award of a federal contract, grant or cooperative agreement exceeding $100,000 and for an award of a federal loan or a commitment providing for the united states to insure or guarantee a loan exceeding $150,000. A wide array of information exists to help inform development of an institutions rcr training plan. Responsible for the scientific or technical direction of the project), a mentoring plan is not required. Back to the national institutes of to write a collaboration 's pick for: kara l. 2014 nov oration plans are written documents that investigators may use as a “roadmap” for future collaborations.
Funding agencies may ask investigators to submit collaboration plans as part of their funding applications, analogous to submitting research plans. Submitted collaboration plans can then be used by reviewers to help assess the capacity of a proposed team to collaboratively execute its scientific oration plans address a range of issues relevant to laying the foundation for the collaboration, implementing and managing the collaboration, and engaging in quality improvement activities specific to collaborative interactions. These plans identify existing supports and challenges relevant to the collaboration, and describe a program of action that will be implemented to help support smooth working document, called “how to write a collaboration plan” is a product of a federal subcommittee on collaboration and team science. It identifies ten key aspects of collaboration planning, and highlights specific issues for investigators to consider related to each of the ten aspects of planning. Collaboration planning may benefit any scientific endeavor that includes two or more investigators working together. Though as a proposed scientific collaboration grows in scope and size, such plans become increasingly information on the origins of this document: the white house office of national science and technology policy’s (ostp) nitrd program (networking and information technology research and development program) provides a forum where many federal agencies come together to coordinate their networking and information technology (it) research and development (r&d) efforts. Team science is of particular interest, given the prevalence of virtual collaboration in it r& response, the nitrd coordination group on social, economic, and workforce implications of it and it workforce development (nitrd-sew), developed a subcommittee on collaboration and team science.
The subcommittee includes members from the national institutes of health (nih), national science foundation (nsf), department of justice (doj), nasa, and other federal 2014, the subcommittee hosted a series of topical meetings on enhancing support for collaboration in science, which resulted in this document, “how to write a collaboration plan”, authored by subcommittee co-chairs dr. Collaboration plans, science teams, managing teams, leading teams, team management ses these goal(s):Establish or maintain effective team science e team performance, interactions, and ts (0 comments). Large and relevant medium proposals, reviewers will be asked to: comment on the extent to which the project scope justifies the level of investment requested, and the degree to which the collaboration plan (if required) adequately demonstrates that the participating investigators will work synergistically to accomplish the project staff also will give careful consideration to the following in making funding decisions:integration of research and educationone 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. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline all cases, after programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the division of grants and agreements for review of business, financial, and policy implications and the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. Equipment and other resources – addresses infrastructure; your department administrator or chair can help completion of this category, if management plan – nsf now requires that all proposals include a data management plan (maximum of ). The plan should describe generated by the research, and your plan for managing that data, including storage,Human subjects protection, data dissemination and level of aggregation. For help developing your data management plan, see the data management plan -doctoral scholars mentoring plan – if your proposal requests funding to support postdoctoral researchers, provide.
No more than one page, the mentoring plan must describe the mentoring that provided to all postdoctoral researchers supported by the project, whether they reside at the submitting organization, any subawardee organization,Or at any organization participating in a simultaneously submitted collaborative guidelines include specifics and examples of mentoring plan the proposal is collaborative and includes support of a post-doc researcher of the collaborating institutions, nsf procedures dictate that the lead organization's submission must include a supplemental not to exceed one page, addressing the mentoring activities to be provided postdoctoral researchers supported under the entire collaborative help developing your mentoring plan, see our templates and the post-doc faculty mentary – not considered an appendix; provide supplementary docs only as specified in cement.
