Merit Review and
Proposal Preparation
Mark Courtney
Division of Environmental Biology
mcourtne@nsf.gov
The NSF Merit Review Process
NSF Proposal & Award Process & Timeline
NSF Announces
Opportunity
Returned Without Review/Withdrawn
GPG
Announcement
Solicitation
Org.
submits
via
FastLane
Min.
3
Revs.
Req.
Mail
NSF
NSF
Program.
Office
Panel
Both
Award
Program
Office
Analysis
&
Recomm.
Research &
Education
Communities
90 Days
Via
DGA
DD
Concur
Organization
Decline
Proposal Receipt
at NSF
Proposal Preparation Time
Award
DD Concur
6 Months
Proposal Receipt to Division
Director Concurrence of Program
Officer Recommendation
30 Days
DGA Review & Processing
of Award
NSF Merit Review Criteria
NSB Approved Criteria include:
 Intellectual
 Broader
Merit
Impacts of the Proposed Effort
Proposal Review Criterion:
Intellectual Merit
Potential to advance knowledge and
understanding within and across
fields
Qualifications of investigators
Creativity and originality
Conceptualization and organization
Access to resources
Proposal Review Criterion:
Broader Impact
Advances discovery while promoting
teaching, training and learning
Broadens the participation of
underrepresented groups (e.g., gender,
ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)
Enhances the infrastructure for research and
education, such as facilities, instrumentation,
networks and partnerships
Results disseminated broadly
Potential benefits to society
NSF Merit Review Criteria
Any proposal that does NOT address both merit criteria
in the Project Summary will be
RETURNED WITHOUT REVIEW.
Return Without Review
Does not meet NSF proposal preparation
requirements, such as page limitations, formatting, etc.
Is inappropriate for funding by the NSF
Is not responsive to the GPG or program
announcement or solicitation
Does not meet an announced proposal deadline date
Is submitted with insufficient lead-time to a target date
Is a duplicate of, or substantially similar to, a proposal
already under consideration
Was previously reviewed and declined and has not
been substantially revised.
NSF Sources of Reviewers
Program Officer’s knowledge of what is being
done and who’s doing what in the research
area
References listed in proposal
Recent technical programs from professional
societies
Recent authors in Scientific and Engineering
journals
Reviewer recommendations
Investigator’s suggestions
Volunteers to Program Officer
Reasons For Funding A
Competitive Proposal
Likely high impact
PI Career Point
(tenured/“established”/
“beginning”)
Special Programmatic
Considerations
(CAREER/RUI/EPSCoR)
Diversity
Place in Program Portfolio
Educational Impact
Other Support for PI
“Launching” versus
“Maintaining”
Impact on Institution/State
The Proposal Cycle
Write & Revise
Funded!
Conceptualize
Summary
A good proposal is a good idea, well
expressed, with a clear indication of
methods for pursuing the idea, evaluating
the findings, making them known to all
who need to know, and indicating the
broader impacts of the activity.
Proposal Preparation
Call Your Program Director!
Grant Proposal Guide (GPG)
Provides guidance for preparation of proposals
Describes process -- and criteria --by which
proposals will be reviewed
Describes process for withdrawals, returns and
declinations
Describes the award process and procedures
for requesting continued support
Identifies significant grant administrative
highlights
What to Look for in a Program
Announcement
 goal of program
 eligibility
 special requirements
Types of Proposal Submission
No deadlines
Submission
Windows
Deadlines
Target dates
Preliminary
proposals
A Good Proposal
A good proposal is a good idea, well
expressed, with a clear indication of
methods for pursuing the idea, evaluating
the findings, and making them known to all
who need to know.
A Competitive Proposal is…
All of the above
Appropriate for the Program
Responsive to the Program Announcement
What Makes a Proposal Competitive?
Likely high impact
New and original ideas
Succinct, focused project plan
Knowledge of subject area or
published, relevant work
Experience in essential methodology
Clarity concerning future direction
Sound scientific rationale
Realistic amount of work
Sufficient detail
Critical approach
Budgetary Guidelines
Amounts



Reasonable for work - Realistic
Well justified - Needs established
In-line with program guidelines
Eligible costs





Personnel
Equipment
Travel
Participant Support
Other Direct Costs (including subawards,
consultant services, computer
services, publication costs)
Simple tips for a better proposal
 Follow formatting requirements carefully
(Use eligible fonts as in GPG)
 Compliance check before submitting
(FastLane won’t do it for you!)
 Be available by email to fix compliance problems
(proposals may be returned if NSF can’t contact you)
 Suggest reviewers
 Include all conflicts of interest in your CV
 Respond explicitly to previous reviews
(Panels are asked to comment on this)
 Emphasize readability; avoid verbiage
 Talk to your Program Director!
Advice
Learn to love rejection
Contact the program officer with
specific questions
Revise and resubmit
Collaboration is good, if appropriate
Discover alternative funding sources
Myths about NSF
Only funds researchers from elite
institutions
Once declined…always declined
Only funds “normal” science
Advisory committees make funding
decisions
Do’s and Don’ts
 Talk to your Program Officer
 Less verbiage, more readability
 Anticipate objections or criticisms
 Justify your budget
 Don’t be greedy
 Follow the rules
 Give yourself plenty of time
 Study reviews carefully
The Prime Directive
Ask Us Early,
Ask Us Often!!
Merit Review and
Proposal Preparation
QUESTIONS?
Mark Courtney
Division of Environmental Biology
mcourtne@nsf.gov