Nsf merit review criteria
Of budget, finance, & award on of acquisition and cooperative on of financial on of grants & on of institution & award facilities ss and operations advisory financial officer h its merit review process, the national science foundation (nsf) ensures that proposals submitted are reviewed in a fair, competitive, transparent, and in-depth manner. The merit review process is described in detail in part i of the nsf proposal & award policies & procedures guide (pappg) which provides guidance for the preparation and submission of proposals to goal of this merit review website is to help you better understand the nsf merit review process as well as identify resources for additional information (including applicable chapters in the pappg). Sections of this website include:Phase i: proposal preparation and ii: proposal review and iii: award -award decisions and you should volunteer to serve as an nsf overview of the nsf proposal and award process is presented in the diagram below. The text in the following sections correspond to the different areas on the ad a printable version of the merit review process illustration.
Proposal als are received by the nsf proposal processing unit and are assigned to the appropriate program for acknowledgement and, if they meet nsf requirements, for review. Proposal may be returned without review if it does not meet nsf proposal preparation requirements, such as page limitations, formatting instructions, and electronic submission, as specified in the pappg or program solicitation. The pappg identifies all of the reasons for which a proposal may be returned without al review and processing. Reviewers ers are selected based on their specific and/or broad knowledge of the science and engineering fields; their broad knowledge of the infrastructure of the science and engineering enterprise, and its educational activities; and to the extent possible, diverse representation within the review s of reviewers can come from the program officer's knowledge of the research area; references listed in the proposal; recent professional society programs; computer searches of s&e journal articles related to the proposal; reviewer recommendations included in proposal or sent by email.
Proposers are invited to suggest persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal, as well as identify persons they would prefer not review the nsf proposals are reviewed through use of the two nsb-approved merit review criteria: intellectual merit and broader impacts. Some solicitations may have additional review al reviewers' analyses and evaluation of the proposal provide information to the nsf program officer in making a recommendation regarding the proposal. Program officer scientific, technical and programmatic review, the nsf program officer recommends to the cognizant division director whether the proposal should be recommended for an award or declined for to the large number of proposals received, the review and consideration process can take up to six months. Division director the decision is made to decline the award, the organization is notified and review information is available in the fastlane the decision is to award, the recommendation is submitted to a grants & agreements officer in the division of grants and agreements(dga).
Division grants and agreements officer in the division of grants and agreements (dga) conducts a review of business, financial, and policy implications. The topics below provide additional information on the activities in this phase of the merit review process:Nsf announces funding zation prepares/submits receives the merit review process ii: proposal review and als received by nsf are assigned to the appropriate nsf program. Activities in this phase include:Cognizant program officer receives proposal and selects peer reviewers review m officer analyzes input and makes recommendation to division on director review of the merit review process iii: award the program officer recommends funding of the proposal, and final division or other programmatic approval is obtained, then the recommendation goes to a grants and agreements officer in the division of grants and agreements. The grants and agreements officer reviews the proposal for business, financial and policy implications, as well as the processing and issuance of a grant or cooperative and agreements officer conducts business and agreements officer notifies organization of award the merit review process -award decisions and section covers topics regarding non-award decisions and other transactions:Proposal not accepted or returned without section identifies important facts about the nsf merit review proposals submitted to nsf are reviewed according to the two merit review criteria: intellectual merit and broader implemented revised merit review criteria in january program officers make recommendations to fund or decline a proposals that are awarded do not receive all "excellents".
Funding on nsf's g of acronyms is found in the pappg introduction, section tions and nsf-grantee relationships are found in the pappg introduction, section ially disqualifying conflicts of budget internet information system (biis) is an information resource for award summaries and nsf funding nsf proposal and award process and timeline (pdf) is a flowchart that was used as the basis for the merit review website and the merit review process illustration in the website. The flowchart presents an alternative view of the merit review you have additional questions regarding the nsf merit review process or proposal submission and preparation, please contact us:By email: policy@ phone: (703) review grfp applications are evaluated using nsf’s two merit review criteria: intellectual merit and broader impacts. In order to present a competitive application, you must address both merit review criteria thoroughly. The personal, relevant background and future goals statement and the graduate research statement should both reflect these criteria.
Remember to ask your reference writers to discuss how you fulfill the merit review criteria as following information is from the 2018 nsf graduate research fellowship program solicitation, section vi:Applications will be reviewed online by virtual panels of disciplinary and interdisciplinary scientists and engineers and other professional graduate education experts. Applicants are reviewed in panels based on their selection of a primary field of study (see fields of study in appendix). Selection of a primary field of study determines the application deadline and the panel that will review the application. Applicants who select “other” must choose a primary field of study on the list for placement in a review application will be reviewed independently in accordance with the nsf merit review criteria using all available information in the completed application.
In considering applications, reviewers are instructed to address the two merit review criteria as approved by the national science board - intellectual merit and broader impacts (nsf proposal and award policies and procedures guide). Therefore, applicants must include separate statements on intellectual merit and broader impacts in their written statements in order to provide reviewers with the information necessary to evaluate the application with respect to both criteria as detailed intellectual merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance example, panelists evaluating applications submitted to the graduate research fellowship program may consider the following with respect to the intellectual merit criterion: the potential of the applicant to advance knowledge based on a holistic analysis of the complete application, including the personal, relevant background, and future goals statement, graduate research plan statement, strength of the academic record, description of previous research experience or publication/presentations, and broader impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal sts may consider the following with respect to the broader impacts criterion: the potential of the applicant for future broader impacts as indicated by personal experiences, professional experiences, educational experiences and future following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria:What is the potential for the proposed activity to:Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (intellectual merit); t society or advance desired societal outcomes (broader impacts)? Of budget, finance, & award on of acquisition and cooperative on of financial on of grants & on of institution & award facilities ss and operations advisory financial officer d merit review criteria resources for the external : effective january 14, 2013, the national science foundation will implement revised merit review criteria based on the national science board (nsb) report, national science foundations merit review criteria: review and revisions. While the two merit review criteria remain unchanged (intellectual merit and broader impacts), guidance has been provided to clarify and improve the function of the criteria.
Proposers should familiarize themselves with the merit review principles and criteria described in gpg chapter resources identified below are provided to allow the research and education communities to prepare proposals in accordance with the revised merit review ons to the merit review ne-related proposal & award policies & procedures guide (pappg) t: revisions to the nsf merit review criteria - october sheet what this means for sheet what this means for policy office in the division of institution & award support (dias) is currently developing a list of frequently asked questions (faqs). We would appreciate your assistance in compiling this resource by sending your questions to policy@ video is queuequeuewatch next video is 's merit review process determines which research has the greatest al science cribe from national science foundation? Youtube autoplay is enabled, a suggested video will automatically play criteria: intellectual merit and broader grant writing state university ecpe 's science and technology al science grfp video part 4: merit review criteria. 1 by university of peer review science of cup exoskeleton allows paraplegic to walk al science g more suggestions...
Try it video is queuequeuewatch next video is 's merit review process determines which research has the greatest al science cribe from national science foundation? Youtube autoplay is enabled, a suggested video will automatically play criteria: intellectual merit and broader grant writing state university ecpe 's science and technology al science foundation. Tips for writing a winning nsf grf grfp video part 4: merit review ng to the nsf graduate research fellowship program (august 2016). Grfp - advice for review in 3 e a winning nsf sbir/sttr proposal national science foundation: a foundation for al science foundation.
