NSF Research Proposal Review Guidelines

1
NSF Research Proposal Review Guidelines
2
Criterion 1 What is the intellectual merit of
the proposed activity?

• How important is the proposed activity to
  advancing knowledge and understanding within its
  own field or across different fields?
• How well qualified is the proposer (individual or
  team) to conduct the project? (If appropriate,
  the reviewer will comment on the quality of prior
  work.)

3
Criterion 1 What is the intellectual merit of
the proposed activity?

• To what extent does the proposed activity suggest
  and explore creative and original concepts?
• How well conceived and organized is the proposed
  activity?
• Is there sufficient access to resources?

4
Criterion 2 What are the broader impacts of the
proposed activity?

• How well does the activity advance discovery and
  understanding while promoting teaching, training,
  and learning?
• How well does the proposed activity broaden the
  participation of underrepresented groups?

5
Criterion 2 What are the broader impacts of the
proposed activity?

• To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure
  for research and education, such as facilities,
  instrumentation, networks, and partnerships?
• Will the results be disseminated broadly to
  enhance scientific and technological
  understanding?
• What may be the benefits of the proposed activity
  to society?

6
Note

• NSF gives careful consideration to
• Integration of Research and Education
• Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs,
  Projects, and Activities in NSF funding decisions.

7
What Makes for a Good Review?

• Write to both criteria Intellectual Merit and
  Broader Impact but note that they need not be
  weighted equally.
• Be as detailed as possible (within reason) and
  support your arguments.
• Give constructive feedback
• Make sure your written review is congruent with
  the summary rating you assign.

8
What makes for a good review?

• For proposals not in your exact area of
  expertise, not which areas that are the subject
  of your narrative review and summary rating.
• Consider the totality and balance of the
  criteria for example, an important research
  question or problem is not sufficient if the work
  contains methodological and design flaws a
  finely designed study is not sufficient if there
  will be little impact.

9
NSF Proposal Rating Scale

• Excellent Outstanding proposal in all respects
  deserves highest priority for support.
• Very good High quality proposal in nearly all
  respects should be supported if at all possible.
• Good A quality proposal, worthy of support.
• Fair Proposal lacking in one or more critical
  aspects key issues need to be addressed.
• Poor Proposal has serious deficiencies.

10
Writing a good panel summary

• Summarize the main points of the reviewers (not
  necessary to repeat individual reviews)
• Reflect the total discussion (especially points
  not covered in the written reviews)
• Explicitly address both review criteria
• Give constructive feedback and specific guidance
• Aim for about three to five paragraphs

11
Writing a good panel summary

• Stick to the main points, but discuss them in
  some detail
• Do not list names of panelists or other
  information that would reveal their identities
• Seek input and approval of draft summary from the
  other reviewers

12
Principles of Inquiry

• Pose significant questions that can be
  investigated
• Link research to relevant theory
• Use methods that permit study of the question
• Provide a coherent and explicity chain or
  reasoning
• Explain how data will be analyzed
• Discuss dissemination
• National Research Council (2001) Scientific
  Inquiry in Education.
• National Academy Press (www.nap.edu)