Should I include the optional List of Suggested Reviewers or Reviewers Not to Include form in my application?
A list of suggested reviewers (along with their contact information) is optional but important and helpful, especially for multidisciplinary proposals. Consider including a list of eight or more eligible suggested reviewers. Be sure that none of them have conflicts of interest with your proposal (e.g., spouse or relative, collaborators and co-editors, thesis advisor, institutional conflicts). Think about including newer faculty members and experienced post-doctoral scholars who have a deep and current understanding of the topic; Program Directors probably know the “household names” in the field, but may not be aware of those individuals. And don’t put this task off to the end of proposal preparation when you may be pushing to meet the submission deadline. Think of suggesting reviewers as part of the process of preparing the best proposal you can. If you take advantage of this opportunity to help yourself you will also assist NSF Program Directors in their role of providing the highest quality merit review of your proposal.
Should my Broader Impacts sections in my Project Description match the Broader Impacts section in my one-page Project Summary?
The Broader Impacts section in your Project Description should thoroughly address the merit review criteria. It should not be a cut-and-paste from the Project Summary. Note that successful proposals often combine several different Broader Impacts approaches and target several different outcomes. For example, a researcher might describe the potential impact of the research itself on a particular industry but also involve undergraduates from underrepresented backgrounds in the research through a Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) program and run educational workshops on their research topic for high-school women. However, if in doubt, focus on one or two areas to do well rather than trying to touch on all or multiple areas.
Can I submit my proposal to multiple programs within NSF for simultaneous review?
Only one submission should be provided to NSF even if review by multiple programs is envisioned. Proposers may indicate on the Cover Sheet which NSF organizational unit(s) they believe would be most appropriate for proposal review. However, NSF will determine which program will evaluate each proposal. The submission of duplicate or substantially similar proposals concurrently for review by more than one program without prior NSF approval may result in the return of the redundant proposal(s). (Reference PAPPG
Can I submit my proposal to other potential funders while it is under review at NSF?
Generally, proposals may be submitted to other agencies for simultaneous review; however, there are exceptions (e.g., research proposals to the Biological Science Directorate).
Can I include Letters of Collaboration in my proposal? What about Letters of Support? What’s the difference?
Letters of Collaboration should use template language (see NSF Application Toolkit) and must not recommend or endorse the PI or project. All relevant collaborative activities should be described in the Project Description or in the Facilities statement (e.g., intellectual contributions to the project, permission to access a site or use an instrument, offer to furnish samples/materials for research, logistical support, mentoring U.S. students at a foreign site).
A Letter of Support is endorsement and is not allowed. Follow-up Q: Can you elaborate? A: In the letter, the spirit of the guidance is the one sentence only (though watch for "must" v "should" in solicitation and PAPPG). The level and nature of collaboration should be described in the Project Description, etc.
In the Budget Justification, how much detail for travel costs is required? NSF guidance says “itemized, specified, and justified.” Does this mean breakdowns including airfare, hotel, per diem, etc.?
Budget justification for travel: "Itemized, specified, and justified": Looking for airfare, hotel, per diem? A: Reviewers pay attention to the budget, so being specific is important; however, consider timing, i.e., reasonable to estimate next-year travel versus three years from now. Discipline-specific: If there is something that is unusual in a certain area (e.g., fieldwork in an Engineering proposal), be especially clear and specific.
Where should I describe release time?
- Describe release time in Facilities and Other Resources (versus in Other Support)
- Committed and other committed cost share and how that relates to the Facilities and Other Resources statement: Only 5 programs with mandatory committed cost share, mandated through legislation or approval of the National Science Board or Director. In Facilities statement, everything else you can tap into that you are not asking NSF for—should not be quantifiable.
References
NSF Grants Conference Fall 2019
NSF PAPPG 2020
- "International collaboration is alive and well at the NSF." Fundamental guideline: When you propose international activities, there needs to be a clear reason that you are doing the work where you are doing it.
- Postdoctoral Mentoring Plan: Including an assessment/evaluation plan is not required but definitely a good idea if you have those mechanism in place
NSF Program Directors go through titles and abstracts to make sure terminology is appropriate. Example given is that in Mathematics they don't talk about "billards" because that's a game and they do basic scientific research. From the Geo PD, you can talk about "climate change" research in your proposals, and they do fund "climate change" research. There is no "banned words" list. Though avoid punny titles. Q: When does this happen? A: After panel meets and decides to recommend for funding. While budget revisions, human subjects approvals, etc.