NSF Research Proposal Review
Guidelines
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.)
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?
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?
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?
Note:

NSF gives careful consideration to:


Integration of Research and Education
Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs,
Projects, and Activities in NSF funding
decisions.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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)