NSERC Workshop: Outline
Background Information
What Agency Should I Apply to: NSERC or CIHR?
Discovery Grants Program

Conference Mode

NSERC Common CV

Notice of Intent via Research Portal (i.e. old Form 180)

2013 Competition Results

Evaluation Principles

Review Process

Applying to the DG Program - TIPS
Research Tools and Instruments Program
2013 Results

Applying to the RTI Program - TIPS
Brian Keay: My Background
Current (since 2008)
Vice Dean
Assoc. Dean Research
Assoc. Dean Academic Affairs
•Professor, Department of Chemistry (organic synthetic chemist)
Past
Head of Chemistry, July 2002 – December 2008
NSERC GSC 024 member (2001-2003)
Chair of NSERC Chemistry RTI Committee (2003)
2010 NSERC DG Competition Result:
Merit of Researcher: VS
Proposal: S
HQP: VS
Binned at $50K
Please Sign the Signature Page Being Circulated
An electronic version of the following will be sent to you:
1. This PowerPoint Presentation
2. Tips from Recent Evaluation Group Members
3. Analysis of Form 101 from my 2010 DG application
(Chemistry Evaluation Group 1504)
4. RSO Checklist
Where is the Information within this Workshop
Coming From?
Used information from the following:
Talked with PIs who served on Evaluation Groups (EG) (2009-14)
NSERC “How to Apply for a DG” Presentation (2011)
Faculty of Science DG Results (2009 – 2014)
NSERC Website (2011 - 2014)
NSERC Presentation to Heads of all chemistry departments
across Canada (2011 - 2013)
EG Comments to PIs in FofS (2010 - 2014)
Past NSERC Workshop Attendee Statistics
Science Success Rates Applying for NSERC DG
Science
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Attended
75% (27 of 36)
60% (21 of 35)
79% (26 of 33)
88% (36 of 41)
84% (26 of 31)
Not Attended
56% (14 of 25)
44% (4 of 9)
56% (9 of 16)
60% (6 of 10)
57% (8 of 14)
Useful NSERC Documents:
2013 Competition Statistics-DG Program
http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/_doc/Professors-Professeurs/2013DGStats_e.pdf
Discovery Grant Information Centre
http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/Professors-Professeurs/DGIC-CISD_eng.asp
Peer Review Manual – 2013-14
http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/Reviewers-Examinateurs/IntroPRManualIntroManuelEP_eng.asp
List of Evaluation Groups and Research Topics
http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/Professors-Professeurs/Grants-Subs/DGPList-PSDListe_eng.asp
Merit Indicators
http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/_doc/Professors-Professeurs/DG_Merit_Indicators_eng.pdf
Which Agency Should I Apply To: NSERC or CIHR?
On Oct. 4, 2013, NSERC sent the following email to an applicant:
NSERC's mandate is to support research in the Natural Sciences and
Engineering (NSE), other than the Health Sciences.
Based on the preliminary information provided in your NOI, it is not
clear whether the subject matter of the proposed research is within
NSERC's mandate. We realize that the information in the NOI is limited,
hence our decisions on mandate eligibility will be based on the full DG
application.
We encourage you, in the preparation of your application, to consult the
Tri-Agency Guidelines in order to determine whether your work
contributes predominantly to the NSE or not. Also note that if your
application is deemed to be outside of NSERC's mandate, it will be
rejected and our decision may come as late as February 2014.
Which Agency Should I Apply To: NSERC or CIHR?
(taken from: http://www.science.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=FEE7261A-1#NSERC1)
General Guidelines for the Eligibility of Subject Matter at NSERC
Applications to NSERC as the primary source of research or research
training support must meet the following criteria:
The program of research must be primarily in the natural sciences
and engineering;
The intended objectives of the research must be, primarily, to
advance knowledge in one of the natural sciences or in engineering.
General Guidelines for Eligibility of Subject Matter at CIHR
Applications to CIHR as the primary source of research or research
training support must meet the following criterion:
The intended outcomes of the research must, as stated in CIHR’s
mandate, primarily improve or have an impact on health and/or
produce more effective health services and products and/or
strengthen the Canadian health care system.
Guidelines for the Eligibility of Applications Related to Health
(http://www.science.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=FEE7261A-1#NSERC1)
NSERC:
The primary objective of any research supported by NSERC must be to advance
knowledge and training in the natural sciences or engineering (NSE). The
question to be asked is: does the research challenge lie within the NSE?
Proposals that include the use of methodologies, tools, techniques and
knowledge from the NSE are not automatically considered eligible by NSERC.
The following are considerations when preparing or assessing the eligibility of
the subject matter of applications related to health:
Eligible for NSERC support:
•Research in animal health and veterinary medicine.
•Research in nutrition related to food components, nutraceuticals (as defined in
Health Canada’s Policy Paper – Nutraceuticals/Functional Foods and Health
Claims On Foods), or functional foods.
Guidelines for the Eligibility of Applications Related to Health
(http://www.science.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=FEE7261A-1#NSERC1)
Eligible for NSERC support (continued)
•Research seeking to further our understanding of fundamental processes in
humans.
•Research whose primary purpose is the development of monitoring and
diagnostic technologies (such as health IT, in-vitro diagnostics, diagnostic
imaging, patient monitoring, and endoscopic devices) unless it is at the clinical
trials stage (as defined by the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH)
Guidelines to Good Clinical Practice). The research challenge must lie within the
NSE.
•Research whose major challenges lie in the NSE (materials science,
engineering, computer science, chemistry, etc) which could eventually lead,
among other applications, to the treatment or prevention of human disease.
Guidelines for the Eligibility of Applications Related to Health
(http://www.science.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=FEE7261A-1#NSERC1)
Not eligible for NSERC support:
•Research involving the refinement of already existing technology for facilitating
clinical therapies or health delivery systems.
•Research whose primary purpose is the investigation or development of
vaccines, active pharmaceutical ingredients (API), or other therapeutic agents for
human applications.
•Research whose primary purpose is the investigation/treatment of injuries or
human performance.
•Research seeking to develop animal models of human diseases in order to
study primarily the disease state, or treatments for injuries or diseases
represented by the model.
•Applied research for disease treatment, diagnosis or prevention.
•Research involving clinical trials (as defined by the International Conference on
Harmonisation (ICH) Guidelines to Good Clinical Practice).
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/applic-demande/guideld/ich/efficac/e6-eng.php
CIHR (http://www.science.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=FEE7261A-1#NSERC1)
CIHR considers applications across the full spectrum of health research. CIHR
categorizes health research in four broad themes:
1.
bio-medical research;
2. clinical research;
3.
research respecting health systems and services; and
4.
research into the health of populations, societal and cultural dimensions of
health, and environmental influences on health.
Four broad definitions of the CIHR themes are included on the next slide for
reference purposes.
These areas of research are not mutually exclusive; therefore the definitions are
intended as guides and not as descriptions of eligible areas of research.
CIHR (http://www.science.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=FEE7261A-1#NSERC1)
Bio-medical Research
Research with the goal of understanding normal and abnormal human functioning, at the
molecular, cellular, organ system and whole body levels, including development of tools and
techniques to be applied for this purpose; developing new therapies or devices that improve
health or the quality of life of individuals, up to the point where they are tested on human
subjects; studies on human subjects that do not have a diagnostic or therapeutic orientation.
Clinical Research
Research with the goal of improving the diagnosis and treatment (including rehabilitation
and palliation) of disease and injury; improving the health and quality of life of individuals as
they pass through normal life stages; research on, or for the treatment of, patients.
Health Services Research
Research with the goal of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of health professionals
and the health care system, through changes to practice and policy. Health services research
is a multidisciplinary field of scientific investigation that studies how social factors, financing
systems, organizational structures and processes, health technologies, and personal
behaviours affect access to health care, the quality and cost of health care, and, ultimately,
Canadians' health and well-being.
Social, Cultural, Environmental and Population Health
Research with the goal of improving the health of the Canadian population, or of defined subpopulations, through a better understanding of the ways in which social, cultural,
environmental, occupational and economic factors determine health status.
Discovery Grants Information Centre
http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/Professors-Professeurs/DGIC-CISD_eng.asp
This web site is new and contains links to:
Basic information









Use of Discovery Grant Funds for Research Instruments and Equipment
Discovery Grants Program description
Discovery Accelerator Supplements Program description
Peer Review Manual: Section 6 for Discovery Grants, Section 7 for RTI
List of Evaluation Groups and Research Topics
Programs Selection Committees
Merit indicators
On-line Services (includes the on-line application system)
Appeal Process
Competition results and statistics (2013 DG Competition Stats are available)
Consultations and changes to review process
Questions and answers



FAQ: Discovery Grants Competition
Application information, intellectual property and funding decisions
Grant Selection Committee Structure Review
Eligibility
http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/Eligibility-Admissibilite/faculty-corpsprof_eng.asp
University faculty: To be eligible as an applicant or co-applicant, you
must hold or have a firm offer (1) of an academic appointment at an
eligible Canadian university at the time of application. (2) The
appointment can be:
a) a tenured, tenure-track or lifetime professor emeritus position; or
b) a term or contract position of no less than three years.3
1. Appointments that are conditional on obtaining NSERC grants or
other sources of support will be considered ineligible.
2. In exceptional circumstances, offers that are still pending approval
at the time of application can be finalized and confirmed in writing to
NSERC within six weeks following the application deadline.
3. Appointments for which the source of funding is not guaranteed for
at least three years (e.g., renewable yearly subject to the availability
of funds) will be considered ineligible.
Categories of Researchers
From Peer Review Manual 2013-14, Section 6.5
Early Career Researchers (ECR) are applicants who are within two years of
the start date of their first eligible position at the university (from July of the
year of the application deadline) and who have no prior academic or nonacademic independent research experience.
All other applicants are Established Researchers (ER)
Early Career Researchers

All applications are evaluated against the same expectations for the 3
selection criteria;
-after evaluation of all applications, the Executive Committees will aim to
support at least 50% of ECR applicants; subject to the assurance of high
quality;
-NSERC considers it important to allow ECRs to demonstrate their potential
for quality contributions to research and training;
-ECRs should not be rated as Insufficient due solely to the fact of not
having a training record; the review should focus on the plan for future
training;
-ECRs who continue to collaborate with previous supervisors, or who carry
out research as part of a group, should clearly define their contributions
to the collaborate work.
Adjunct and Emeritus Professors
-NSERC policy is to recognize and support the important role played by
adjunct and emeritus professors in university-based research;
-applications are evaluated using the same criteria, scale, indicators and
timeframe (past 6 years) as all other applicants;
-if appointment does not permit sole supervision of HQP, it is expected that
a satisfactory plan for co-supervision will be presented and clearly
described in the application. The onus is on the applicant to provide
sufficient information to enable EGs to assess this appropriately;
-adjunct professors in industry: NSERC will normally award funds only for
the direct support of students i.e. salaries or stipends and student travel
costs)
Overall National Comparative Statistics
Overall Comparative Statistics 2008-2012
No. of Applicants
(include 1st time)
Average grant
Average grant (includes subatomic physics)
Overall
Early Career Researchers (ECR)
Established Researchers (ER)
applicants who held a grant
applicants previously unsuccessful
$
$
2008
3405
721
29,818
31,142
71%
2010
3355
532
$
33,120
$
35,143
2011
3482
457
$32,186
n/a
Success Rates
64%
59%
58%
58%
57%
54%
62%
62%
63%
60%
n/a
66%
79%
33%
72%
29%
74%
33%
78%
36%
76%
30%
80%
37%
$
$
2009
3210
637
33,713
38,416
2012
2013
3420
3398
480
471
$
31,244 $ 33,472
n/a
n/a
2014
3190
n/a
n/a
n/a
NSERC continued to put a strong emphasis on giving early career researchers (ECR) a chance to
Demonstrate their potential and exceeded the minimum target success rate of 50%
NSERC is devoting funds to enhance the DGs of ECRs in the form of supplements to their grants:
$5000 per year.
UofC NSERC DG Results 11-14
University of Calgary NSERC DISCOVERY GRANT COMPETITION
2011
# of applications
# of awards
Success rate
Total awarded
119
60
~50%
$9,103,000.00
(5 year total)
2013
# of applications
# of awards
Success rate
Total awarded
2012
# of applications
117
# of awards
77
Success rate
66%
Total awarded $10,887,200.00
2014
145*
89
61%
$15,312,320
*Does not include one application that was withdrawn at applicant’s request
21
UofC NSERC DG Results 11-14
22
Science NSERC DG Results 2014
2014 Overall Science DG Results
2014 Overall Science DG Results by Department
23
2013 Statistics by Evaluation Group (EG)
Comparing 2009 and 2008 Competitions Change in Grant Amount
2 0 0 ,0 0 0
1 8 0 ,0 0 0
N ew A m ount (in $)
1 6 0 ,0 0 0
1 4 0 ,0 0 0
1 2 0 ,0 0 0
1 0 0 ,0 0 0
8 0 ,0 0 0
6 0 ,0 0 0
4 0 ,0 0 0
2 0 ,0 0 0
0
2008
0
2 0 ,0 0 0
4 0 ,0 0 0
6 0 ,0 0 0
8 0 ,0 0 0
1 0 0 ,0 0 0
1 2 0 ,0 0 0
1 4 0 ,0 0 0
1 6 0 ,0 0 0
1 8 0 ,0 0 0
2 0 0 ,0 0 0
1 4 0 ,0 0 0
1 6 0 ,0 0 0
1 8 0 ,0 0 0
2 0 0 ,0 0 0
P r e v io u s A m o u n t (in $ )
2 0 0 ,0 0 0
1 8 0 ,0 0 0
N ew A m ount (in $)
1 6 0 ,0 0 0
1 4 0 ,0 0 0
1 2 0 ,0 0 0
1 0 0 ,0 0 0
8 0 ,0 0 0
6 0 ,0 0 0
4 0 ,0 0 0
2 0 ,0 0 0
0
0
2009
2 0 ,0 0 0
4 0 ,0 0 0
6 0 ,0 0 0
8 0 ,0 0 0
1 0 0 ,0 0 0
1 2 0 ,0 0 0
P r e v io u s A m o u n t (in $ )
The Conference Model and Process for Binning Applications
General Statements from Peer Review Manual (2013-14)
The onus is on the applicant to submit a complete application and one
that conforms to the presentation standards and instructions
established by NSERC.
Incomplete applications that do not meet the requirements may be
rejected or pages may be removed by NSERC.
Pages in excess of the number permitted are removed.
DG applications are assessed on the basis of the following 3 selection
criteria:
1. Scientific or engineering excellence of the researcher;
2. Merit of the proposal; and
3. Contributions to the training of highly qualified personnel (HQP)
The Conference Model and Process for Binning Applications
General Statements from Peer Review Manual (2013-14)
The assessment of each criterion is based on the achievements
demonstrated over the past 6 years.
Each criterion is important and has equal weight when determining the
overall quality category (bin) for the application.
The process for determining funding recommendations is separate.
All applicants, ECR and ER, are evaluated using the same merit
indicators.
Evaluation Process Overview
 Two-step process separates merit assessment from
funding recommendations
1. a) Merit assessment uses six-point scale to evaluate:
– Excellence of the Researcher
– Merit of the Proposal
– Contributions to the Training of Highly Qualified Personnel
(HQP)
b) Applications grouped in “bins” of comparable merit
2. Funding recommendations done at the end of competition
week
─ similar overall ratings within an Evaluation Group receive
comparable funding, with possible modulation related to Cost
of Research
Relative Cost of Research
 Determined by the reviewers as Low, Normal or
High as compared to the norm for the research
areas represented in the applications considered by
the Evaluation Group(s).
 Factors considered include:
–
–
–
–
–
Salaries and benefits
Equipment and/or facilities
Materials and supplies
Travel
Dissemination
Discovery Grant Indicators
Section A1-1
Research Topic A1
Section C3-2
Research Topics C5 and A5
Section C3-1
Research Topic C4
Section C2
Research Topic C3
Section C1-1
Research Topics C1 and B5
Section B4-1
Research Topics B2 and B6
Section B4-2
Research Topics B7 and C6
EVALUATION GROUP B
Group Chair
~35 members
4 Section Chairs
Section C1-2
Research Topic C2
Section B3-1
Research Topic B4
Section B3-2
Research Topics B1 and B5
Section B2
Research Topic B3
Section B1-1
Research Topic B1
Section A4-1
Research Topics A7 and A8
Section A4-2
Research Topics A9 and B5
EVALUATION GROUP A
Group Chair
~ 40 members
4 Section Chairs
Section B1-2
Research Topics B2 and A10
Section A3-1
Research Topic A5
Section A3-2
Research Topic A6
Section A2
Research Topic A3
Section A1-2
Research Topics A2 and A4
How Does the Conference Model Work?
EVALUATION GROUP C
Group Chair
~25 members
3 Section Chairs
NSERC Discovery Grants
Three systematic and transparent assessment criteria
1. Scientific excellence of the researcher
2. Merit of the proposal
3. Contribution to the training of HQP
Each criteria will be assessed on a scale of 6
(see NSERC website):
Exceptional
6
Outstanding
5
Very strong
4
Strong
3
Moderate
2
Insufficient
1
(all GSC’s use the same system)
NSERC Discovery Grants
In “Excellence of Researcher” at least a rating of strong
is required to receive funding: NSERC is committed to
“excellence” and does not want to fund “moderate”
researchers
NSERC Discovery Grants
Researcher Proposal
6 (E)
6
HQP
6
5 (O)
5
5
4 (VS)
4
4
3 (S)
3
3
2 (M)
2
2
1 (I)
1
1
Funding
BIN
18 A
17 B
16 C
15 D
14 E
13 F
12 G
11 H
10 I
9J
8K
7L
6M
5N
4O
3P
2013 NSERC Discovery Grants: Chemistry
Funding
BIN
18A
17B
16C
15D
14E
13F
12G
11H
10I (VS,S,S)
9J (S,S,S)
8K (S,S,M)
7L
6M
5N
4O
3P
Funding*
Level [$/year]
124,000-155,000
100,000
82,000
cutoff for
65,000
established
55,000
researchers
42,000
35,000
30,000 (ECR only)
28,000 (ECR only) cutoff for
0
early career
0
researchers
0
0
0
* Recommended by EG together with group chairs and NSERC staff
2013 NSERC Discovery Grants: Chemistry
August 1
Submit NOI and NSERC CCV via Research Portal
Notice of Intent to Apply for a Discovery Grant
http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/Professors-Professeurs/Grants-Subs/DGIGP180NoticePSIGP180Avis_eng.asp
** Change in Application Procedures – Notice of Intent mandatory **
The Notification of Intent to Apply for a Discovery Grant (old Form 180)
is now mandatory when applying for a Discovery Grant and must be
submitted by August 1 along with your NSERC CCV via the Research
Portal website (https://portal-portail.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/s/login.aspx).
Applicants who do not submit a Notice of Intent and CCV will not be
eligible to Submit an Application for a Grant (Form 101) in the fall.
In addition, NSERC is reinforcing its policy on deadlines. NOIs and
CCVs will not be accepted after their respective deadline dates.
NSERC NOI Instructions
http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/ResearchPortal-PortailDeRecherche/InstructionsInstructions/index_eng.asp
NOI and CCV are
At the Research Portal
1. Create an Account
2. Fill out your User Profile
3. Create an Application (i.e. NOI)
DG Individual
Application overview page (edit application and upload NSERC CCV here)
1. Identification (input main Evaluation Group)
2. Activity Details (input research topics and keywords)
3. Summary of Proposal (limited to 5000 characters)
4. External Reviewer Suggestions (up to 5)
5. Reviewer Exclusion
Once you have verified each page and uploaded your NSERC CCV, a
‘submit’ button will appear.
Key Words and Summary of Proposal
•Choose your key words carefully.
•Summary of Proposal
The summary of proposal must not exceed 5000 characters. It should:
1. state the objectives of the proposed research program;
2. summarize the scientific approach; and
3. highlight the novelty and expected significance of the work to a field(s) in
the natural sciences and engineering.
.
•Both will be used to assist NSERC in determining the type of
expertise that will be needed to evaluate your application (more later
on how the conference model works).
Notification of Intent
(http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/ResearchPortal-PortailDeRecherche/Instructions-Instructions/NOI-DG_NOI-DG_eng.asp)
•Choose your Evaluation Group and Sub-Research Topics carefully.
1501 Genes, Cells and Molecules
1502 Biological Systems and Functions
1503 Evolution and Ecology
1504 Chemistry
1505 Physics – includes Subatomic Physics Discovery
Individual and Group, but not Projects
1506 Geosciences
1507 Computer Science
1508 Mathematics and Statistics
1509 Civil, Industrial and Systems Engineering
1510 Electrical and Computer Engineering
1511 Material and Chemical Engineering
1512 Mechanical Engineering
http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/Professors-Professeurs/Grants-Subs/DGPList-PSDListe_eng.asp#1506
e.g. 1504 Chemistry - Sub-Research Topics
CH01 Inorganic Synthesis
CH02 Inorganic Catalysis
CH03 Physical Properties and
mechanisms of Inorganic
Compounds
CH04 Organic Synthesis
CH05 Organic Catalysis
CH06 Chemistry of biological
systems
CH07 Characterization of
biological systems
CH08 Physical Properties and
mechanisms of Organic
Compounds
CH09 Photochemical reactivity
and dynamics
CH10 Photonics
CH11 Theoretical physical chemistry
CH12 Nuclear chemistry
CH13 Development and applications
of spectroscopic and structural
techniques
CH14 Atmospheric and Environmental
Chemistry
CH15 Analytical chemistry
CH16 Combustion and Fuel Chemistry
CH17 Functional Materials
CH18 Polymer and Colloid chemistry
CH19 Surface and Interfacial
Chemistry
CH20 Electrochemistry
CH21 Nanomaterials
CH22Supramolecular chemistry
http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/Professors-Professeurs/Grants-Subs/DGPList-PSDListe_eng.asp#1506
Notice of Intent – choosing referees
http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/ResearchPortal-PortailDeRecherche/Instructions-Instructions/NOI-DG_NOI-DG_eng.asp
Choose your potential external referees carefully (according to
NSERC you are not suppose to contact them)
From Dr. Masad Damha (2008 Chair GSC 024)
“….write a winning proposal, and select your reviewers carefully. Most of
them will be selected, particularly if you do a good job identifying people
who can read them, and have a good stature. I find foreign reviewers do
a poor job; either they are too brief (superficial), or they over do it. “
•You can indicate who you do not want to review your DG!
You may request that some researchers not be involved in the review of
your application. This request should specify the above-mentioned
information for referees and should be submitted with your NOI
.
Canadian Common CV (CVV)
(http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/OnlineServices-ServicesEnLigne/instructions/180/e.asp)
•CCV – How to Complete NSERC’s Version
(http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/ResearchPortal-PortailDeRecherche/Instructions-Instructions/index_eng.asp)
•NSERC CCV FAQ
(http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/ResearchPortal-PortailDeRecherche/FAQ-FAQ/CCV-CVC_eng.asp)
START NOW!!
Research Services CCV Workshops
1) May 30, 2014, 1-4 pm, TFDL 440B (Learning Room)
2) July 10, 2014, 1- 4 pm, TFDL 440B (Learning Room)
Your CCV can be updated up to the submission date of October 31, 2014.
CCV: Tips
 List all sources of support
 List all other research contributions
 Explain your role in collaborative research
activities
 Describe contributions to HQP training
– Describe nature of HQP studies (esp. Master’s
and undergraduates)
CCV: Tips
 Include as much information as possible
 List your student’s names in bold font in the list
of contributions
 Explain your role in co-supervision activities
 Give other evidence of impact of work
 Explain any delays in research activity or
particular circumstances that might have
affected productivity or contributions to HQP
training
Evaluation Criteria, TIPS and Things to be
Aware of when preparing a DG.............
As can be seen by the NSERC data, there are more applications and
need for research funds than what NSERC can supply.
Thus in some cases (especially in categories J and K) Evaluation
Committee members could be looking for reasons not to fund a
particular proposal.
 Thus you need to pay attention to all the NSERC guidelines when filling
out an application.
Some of you are going to consider some of my suggestions petty,
tedious, and/or pedantic, but as you will see later, not paying attention to
all this detail could result in a negative result, i.e. binned at a low level or
no award.
1) Scientific or Engineering Excellence of the Researcher(s)
 Knowledge, expertise and experience;
-stature in field (awards and prizes received)
-invitations to lectures, write review articles and chair conference
sessions
-membership on committees, editorial/advisory boards
-involvement in public outreach activities
 Quality of contributions to, and impact on, the proposed and
other areas or research in the NSE;
-research accomplishments by quality of recent contributions and
overall level of contribution (impact) to research
-assessment based on quality and impact of all contributions, not
only on the number of publications or conference presentations
-impact does not refer to impact factors of journals or H-index, but
on influence that results have had on other researchers
-describe your intellectual contribution to collaborative work or
joint publications
1) Scientific or Engineering Excellence of the Researcher(s)
 Quality of contributions to, and impact on, the proposed and
other areas or research in the NSE (con’t)
-impact can be in advancing knowledge, developing technology, or
addressing socio-economic or environmental needs
-applicants can discuss contributions made more than 6 years
ago, but for which the impact is being felt now (in Most
Significant Contributions section)
 Importance of contributions to, and use by, other researchers
and end-users;
-extent to which applicant’s work has advanced the field; i.e.
created significant changes in thought within the research area
-patents, technical reports, development of standards or codes
must be considered
 Complementarity of expertise and synergy of the members of
the team (for team grants);
2) Merit of the Proposal
Program versus Project
The Discovery Grants Program supports ongoing
programs of research (with long-term goals) rather
than a single short-term project or collection of
projects. If projects are defined without being placed
in the broader context of a program, the indicators
show that a rating of Insufficient is warranted.
2) Merit of the Proposal
 Originality and innovation;
-to what extent does the proposal suggest and explore
novel or potentially transformative concepts and lines of
inquiry
 Significance and expected contributions
to research; potential for technological impact;
-what will be the likely impact of the research?
-will it advance knowledge in the field?
 Clarity and scope of objectives;
-are there long-term goals as well as short-term objectives?
-is relationship between STO and LTG clear?
-are objectives specific, well-focused and realistic?
2) Merit of the Proposal
 Clarity and appropriateness of methodology;
-does the proposal clearly outline the methodology to be
used?
-is the proposed methodology current and appropriate, i.e.
will it contribute to the stated research goals; has the
applicant justified the methodological approach?
 Feasibility;
-will applicant’s expertise and proposed methodology allow
the objectives to be researched within the proposed time
frame?
-does the applicant have access to the necessary
equipment and resources?
-has the applicant anticipated potential problems and
proposed mitigating measures?
2) Merit of the Proposal
 Extent to which the proposal addresses all relevant
issues;
-does application sufficiently outline recent progress
related to the proposal?
-has the applicant framed the research with appropriate
references?
 Appropriateness of and justification of the budget;
-does the budget request relate well to proposed
methodology and expected outcomes?
 Relationship to other sources of funding;
-is there a clear explanation of the conceptual and
budgetary relationship between the proposed work and
other funds held by the applicant?
-Is there any budgetary overlap?
Grant Proposal: Tips
 Write summary in plain language
(this could be more important that you might think!)
 Provide a progress report on related research
 Position the research within the field and
state-of-the-art
 Clearly articulate short- and long-term
objectives
 Provide a detailed methodology
Grant Proposal: Tips
 Clearly define your role in any collaborative
research and planned joint HQP training
 Describe plans for quality HQP training
(separate page in 2014)
 Present realistic budget
 Discuss relationships to other research support
IMPORTANT
 Consider comments/recommendations from the
EG that you received from your last
unsuccessful attempt.
3) Training of HQP
The training of HQP is an essential criterion for DG program.
It is not sufficient for an applicant to have a solid track record and propose
a worthy research program;
For a meritorious ranking, the application must convince reviewers of the
impact and quality of research training activities;
Includes both the record (past) and the plans for future training.

Quality and impact of contributions to training during the last six years:
-not assessed solely in terms of the number and level supervised but
assessed in terms of its quality and impact;
-provide role as co-supervisors;
-assess the suitability of the research proposed and HQP plans
-it is usually unacceptable for an ER to have no training record
-it is expected that effective training of HQP results in completion of degree
requirements within a reasonable amount of time
3) Training of HQP

Training of HQP is expected to have led to high quality contributions to
knowledge
-evidence that past HQP have collaborated in research contributions
(including quality), usually as co-authors, is to be considered an
indicator of their intellectual involvement and success;
-the onus is on the applicant to explain the involvement of trainees in past
activities;
-HQP are expected to move on to careers related to NSE;
 Appropriateness of Proposal for the training of HQP in the NSE:
-describe how the training of HQP will fit into the proposed program of
research;
-the appropriateness of a proposed plan to train particular trainees should
be considered
-for technicians and others who are in long-term positions, the applicant
should explain how the work will contribute to the development of new
skills or knowledge;
-the capacity of the researcher to supervise the proposed number and type
of HQP should be considered
3) Training of HQP

Enhancement of training arising from a collaborative or interdisciplinary
environment (where applicable)
-the quality and extent of interactions and collaborations, wrt the resulting
effect on training of HQP, should be taken into consideration;

For more information, read the Policy and Guidelines on the Assessment
of Contributions to Research and Training:
http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/Policies-Politiques/assesscontribevalcontrib_eng.asp
HQP Tips – worth 1/3 of your evaluation!!
Pier Review Manual, Section 6.8.1.3
The fact that a researcher has trained, is training, or plans to train students,
technicians or PDFs is not, in itself, a sufficient rationale for a meritorious
rating. The application must convince reviewers of the quality of future
activities.
The DG program values contributions to training at all levels, including
–
–
–
–
–
–
High school students;
Undergraduate students;
Graduate students;
PDFs;
technicians; and
research associates.
You Need to address HQP in two places:
 CCV (quality and impact of past contributions to the training of
HQP), and
 Research Proposal (training plan)
HQP Tips – worth 1/3 of your evaluation!!
CCV
DATA ON HQP TRAINING
HQP Summary
In the appropriate sections, please indicate: 1) the number of highly
qualified personnel that you currently supervise or co-supervise, and 2)
the number of highly qualified personnel that you have supervised or cosupervised over the past six years (excluding students that you are
currently supervising or co-supervising).
HQP Personal Data
Provide personal data about the HQP that you currently, or over the past
six years, have supervised or co-supervised. Under “Type of HQP,”
indicate the program, e.g. M.Sc., P.Eng., or the title, e.g. Research
Assistant.
Read the instructions on Obtaining Consent from your HQP before
completing this section.
HQP Tips – worth 1/3 of your evaluation!!
Need a perfect correlation between CCV and Proposal
Be explicit with HQPs (UG, GS, PDF, Research Assistant or Associate)
List if your past and current HQP hold scholarships
Poster/presentation awards
Outline your training philosophy
For past trainees, you might mention how the training obtained in your
lab prepared them for the position they now hold)
List: fate of previous trainees, their inclusion on publications, awards
won and role of HQP in NSERC funded research
Proposed budget should mesh well with how you plan to grow/maintain
the size of your group (HQP) over the 5 years of the award
Rationalize the numbers and level of HQP
Delays in Research and Dissemination of Research Results
-explain and give dates for any significant delays in research activity or in
the dissemination of research results:
e.g. parental leave, bereavement, single parent situations, illness,
extraordinary administrative duties, etc.
Discovery Accelerator Supplements (DAS)
-DAS provides substantial and timely additional
resources to accelerate progress and maximize the
impact of superior research programs;
-two-step process:
1. EGs nominate applicants during competition week;
2. Executive Committee for each EG conducts a final
analysis of the DAS nominees to select those who
best meet the objectives of the DAS program,
within a quota of DAS awards allocated to the EG.
Application Requirements for Individual DG
Element
Attachment
(# of pages)
Summary of
Proposal
(in plain language)
Text Box
(characters)
Notes
½ page (3,800)
no change
Proposal
1 attachment (5 pages)
no change
Reference list
1 attachment
(2 pages)
no change
HQP training
Plan
Contributions to
Training of HQP
Additional info on
Research contributions
1 page (7,600)
no change
½ page (3,800)
to complement
data in CCV
½ page (3,800)
order of authors,
choice of journal,
complement data
in CCV
Application Requirements for Individual DG
Element
Attachment
(# of pages)
Budget justification
Relationship to 1 attachment
Other funding (no page limit)
Most significant
Contributions
Samples of
contributions
Text Box
(characters)
Notes
2 pages (15,200) no change
scanned/extracted
pages from other
applications
to complement
1.5 page (11,400) CCV
4 attachments
(no page limit)
Letters of support
no change
not accepted
NSERC Discovery Grants: Source of Info
CCV
Items mentioned in Form 101 must match those in CCV
Budget Justification Page(s) – only 2 pages in 2013 (except for Subatomic
Physics)!!
-current HQP
-future HQP
-be sure to indicate
in your proposal
the project(s) these
individuals will be
working on
-you can only pay a PDF for
two years on a DG
Publication Costs
NSERC draft of Open Access Policy
http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/policies-politiques/Tri-OA-Policy-Politique-LA-Trois_eng.asp
3. Policy Statement
3.1 Peer-reviewed Journal Publications
Grant recipients are required to ensure that any peer-reviewed journal publications
arising from Agency-supported research are freely accessible within 12 months of
publication, either through the publisher's website (Option #1) or an online
repository (Option #2).
Option #1: Grant recipients submit their manuscript to a journal that offers
immediate open access to published articles, or offers open access to published
articles within 12 months.
The Agencies consider the cost of publishing in open access journals to be an
eligible expense under the Use of Grant Funds.
Option #2: Grant recipients archive the final peer-reviewed full-text manuscript in a
digital archive where it will be freely accessible within 12 months (e.g., institutional
repository or discipline-based repository). It is the responsibility of the grant
recipient to determine which publishers allow authors to retain copyright and/or
allow authors to archive journal publications in accordance with funding agency
policies.
The implementation date of this policy is still to be confirmed, however, the
Agencies are proposing September 1, 2014, subject to the results of the
consultation.
Publication Costs – What should I indicate on my budget?
The implementation date of this policy is still to be confirmed, however, the
Agencies are proposing September 1, 2014, subject to the results of the
consultation.
a) Keep checking NSERC website for official implementation of this policy as
NSERC might provide some advice
b) My recommendation: request 5-10% of your total ask for funds
Uof C Library and Cultural Resources has an Open Access Author’s Fund
(http://library.ucalgary.ca/open-access-authors-fund)
-limited yearly budget
For questions or comments, contact:
Andrew Waller
Serials Librarian
Collections and Technical Services
Libraries and Cultural Resources
waller@ucalgary.ca
Overlap with Other Sources of Funding
(still unlimited pages)
See Peer Review Manual: 6.6.1.2.1. Relationship to research supported by other sources of funds
The onus is on the PI to provide information on the relationship (conceptual and
budgetary), between the proposed research and other research for which support
is held or sought. The applicant must also explain perceived duplication in
funding or, if applicable, indicate how the NSERC application complements
research funded by other sources. Just saying ‘there is no overlap’ in not
sufficient.
Conceptual Overlap:
-occurs when the ideas in the proposal are, or appear to be, the same ideas that
are funded by other sources;
-however, complementary parts of the same NSE research program can be
supported from different sources;
-applicants should make clear which aspects make up the DG of research and
what differentiates these aspects from activities supported via other grants;
•Budgetary Overlap:
-explain how funding received from various sources is being used;
-it is expected that other sources of funding will be required and the applicant
should make it clear how these funds are being used
Overlap with Other Sources of Funding
(still unlimited pages)
See Peer Review Manual: 6.6.1.2.1. Relationship to research supported by other sources of funds
There are no page restrictions to this section so consider the following:
1) include the project summary and budget pages of other
grants and contracts;
2) If there is some overlap, include a copy of the proposal with
the overlap highlighted;
3) give the selection committee as much information and detail
as you can;
If you recently were not renewed at CIHR or have a CIHR grant and are
applying for a DG, include a copy of the summary and budget (full
proposal?) and point out how different your DG is relative to your CIHR
grant(s).
DG Applications – Presentation Standards
 Consult the Peer Review Manual, Section 6
 Read all instructions carefully and follow
presentation standards
– Use all the space allotted to you, with clear
headings and good layout
– Respect guidelines for page size, font size,
margins and page limits:
-8.5” x 11”,
-Font 12, 6 lines per inch
-0.75” (1.9 cm) margins,
-5 pages maximum
(http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/OnlineServices-ServicesEnLigne/instructions/100/e.asp)
DG Proposal – I need more space!
I need more lines for my free form proposal!
Microsoft Word
1.highlight your entire proposal,
2.right click
3.paragraph
With 0.75” (1.9 cm) margins:
Single spaced = 5.5 lines per inch = 46 lines per page
Exactly, 12 pt = 6 lines per inch = 57 lines per page
So over 5 free form pages you can get an additional 55 lines (11
extra lines per page x 5 pages), which is almost one additional
page!
DG Applications - Reminders
 Ensure completeness of application
 Keep in mind that two audiences could read
your application – expert and non-expert
 Ask colleagues to read over your application
– they must be rigorous and critical
 Read other successful proposals
 Science PIs: contact your department
Heads for details on your departmental
NSERC review process for the 2014
competition.
Appeals
Appeals of Decision on NSERC Grant Applications
http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/Policies-Politiques/appeals-appel_eng.asp

An appeal of an NSERC funding decision must be based on a compelling demonstration of a
procedural or administrative error in the review process. An appeal process does not entail a reassessment of an application.
The following principles apply to appeals:

Appeals must be submitted in writing within two months of receipt of the decision letter or by May
31 for Discovery Grants, whichever is earlier. There is no specific format for appeals, but the letter
must not exceed two pages.

The onus is on the applicant to demonstrate that a procedural or administrative error in the review
process has occurred.

NSERC will not accept appeals based on:
– NSERC decisions on the eligibility of an applicant or of subject matter;
– differences of opinion between external reviewers and members of an NSERC evaluation
committee;
– disagreement over the interpretation or analysis of information contained in the application by
external reviewers or members of an NSERC evaluation committee;
– failure of the applicant to follow program instructions (for example, when this results in the
removal of excess pages);
– a lack of external reviewer reports;
– composition of evaluation committees; or
– the duration and level of award.

Supporting material or information not presented in the original application (for example, papers
published since the deadline date, or illness or other extenuating circumstances) will not be taken
into consideration.
Research Tools & Instruments (RTI) Program
2013
2014
Budget # Appl
$25M
1262
$18M
468
# Funded
295
157
Funding Rate
23.9%
34.2$
Range: $7,000-$150,000 (up to $250,000 with additional
support)
Very Important message from NSERC:
The $7,000 limit is the minimum amount to apply to the RTI
program rather than a ceiling on the amount that can be
requested for tools and instruments through Discovery Grants.
We note that requests over $7,000 should be requested via RTI
as a way to indicate to researchers that there is a separate
program in support of tools and equipment and that they don't
necessarily have to use their Discovery Grant to pay for such
items.
PIs can indeed request equipment costing more than $7000 in
their DG applications.
UofC NSERC RTI Results 2011-14
2011
# of applications
# of awards
Success rate
Total awarded
2012
32
6
19%
$483,298.00
# of applications
# of awards
Success rate
Total awarded
36
10
28%
$1,051,308
2014 (Quota = 18)
2013
# of applications
28
# of awards
6
Success rate
21.4%
Total awarded
$304,981
81
RTI Program - Category 1
 RTI grants foster and enhance the discovery, innovation and
training capability of university researchers in the NSE by
supporting the purchase of research equipment and
installations
Category 1 = $7K - $150K
Category 2 = $150K - $325K (Subatomic physics only)
Category 3 = >$325K (Subatomic physics only)
 NSERC will accept applications for equipment whose total net
cost is up to $250,000, provided that funding from other
sources is secured by applicant to bring the amount requested
from NSERC to $150,000 or less
 Consult program description and eligibility on NSERC’s Web
site; Section 7 of the Peer Review Manual
82
RTI Program – Eligibility and Requirements
 Only applications from applicants and co-applicants
who currently hold or are applying for an NSERC
research grant at the time of application are
accepted
 If a cash contribution towards the purchase of the
equipment is provided by an organization other than
the applicant's institution, a letter is required from
the organization confirming this commitment
83
Research Tools & Instruments (RTI) Program
Range: $7,000-$150,000 (up to $250,000 with additional
support)
UofC has a quota of 18 applications for 14-15 and these are
allotted to Faculties as follows:
Science
SSE
Arts
Education
EVDS
Kinesiology
Medicine
Vet Medicine

Initial Final (2013)
7
5
5
9
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
1
****Important****
Consult your Associate Dean Research for the selection procedure
within your Faculty
RTI Program – Submitting an Application
 RSO deadline: TBD
 RTI Grant application includes:
- Application for a Grant (Form 101) with
supporting documentation (quotes)
- Still using old Personal Data Form (Form 100)
- All required Appendices
85
RTI Program – Selection Criteria
 Excellence of the applicant(s)
 Merit of the proposed research program(s)
 Need and urgency for the equipment, including availability of, and
access to, similar equipment
 Suitability of the proposed equipment for the proposed research
program(s)
 Importance of the equipment for the training of HQP
86
RTI Program – Evaluation Process
 Applications are rated and ranked
 Based on the available funds, the most meritorious applications are
supported down to a cutoff line
 RTI grants are usually awarded for the full cost of the requested items
(including tax, transportation and eligible installation costs)
 Selection committee may recommend partial funding, but the amount
recommended must be sufficient to allow for the purchase of a
functional unit
87
RTI Program – Eligible Costs
RTI – Category 1
Type of Expenditure
Salaries and Benefits
Not eligible
Equipment or Facility
Purchase or rental
Travel
Not eligible
Others
(transportation costs for purchased
equipment, extended warranty, brokerage
and customs charges for the importation of
equipment and supplies)
Eligible
88
RTI Applications – Tips
 Describe the research program(s) that will be carried out using the
equipment
 Explain and justify the need and urgency of the equipment
 Illustrate the suitability of the proposed equipment for the research
program(s)
 Discuss the importance of the equipment for the training of HQP:
quality and opportunities for hands-on training
89
More RTI Tips
The more individuals listed who truly will use the instrument, the better.
Remember to include the training of UG, GS, RA and PDFs as users. Two years
ago a PI in science received a RTI but did not get a DG. The RTI was awarded
because they felt the co-applicants truly needed the instrument and thus awarded
the RTI.
Send samples or visit an institution that has the same instrument and then
explain how the data received from the instrument is/was beneficial to your
research program. This really shows a need for the instrument as you spent the
time and funds to travel to prove ‘need’.
If you are applying for both RTI and DG, make sure you mention the need of the
instrument in your DG proposal. This is extremely important if you are a ‘new’
applicant. The RTI and DG Evaluation Committees are going to interact more this
year. E.g. the RTI committees have asked that they have access to DG proposals
when evaluating RTI apps.
You need to explain if similar instruments exist at the UofC or in the surrounding
area. If they do exist, state why you do not have access to it.
No shopping lists………..one instrument per application unless you plan to build
your own instrument. Then you can ask for funds to purchase the various parts
that you need.
Explain any overlap with other grants............especially with CFI LOF.
Department and RSO Reviews
In Science, all departments have a peer review process for the
fall competition.
Contact your Head for more details regarding who to contact,
dates, etc.
Other Faculties:
Check with your Associate Dean Research
Highly Recommended:
Research Services Office Deadline and Review
October 18, 2013 deadline for their full DG review.
Bridge Funding in Science
To be eligible to be considered for bridge funding in
case you are binned at zero, you must:
Have an NSERC DG going into the competition
Attend one of the NSERC workshops
Have your department review your DG and meet their
deadlines
•Meet the RSO Deadline (Oct. 18, 2013) for their full DG
review
•Make changes recommended by dept and RSO or
explain in writing why the changes will not be made.
Future NSERC Workshops
a) Special DG Workshop
-for those binned a zero in previous competitions
Tues. June 17th, 1-3 pm in BI 211
Previously zeroed faculty members who were successful with
their DG applications in 2011-14 will provide advice on what they
did different that allowed them to be funded.
b) Repeat of this NSERC Workshop
Wed, May 28th, 1-3 pm, BI 211
Wed, July 9th, 1-3 pm, BI 211
c) CCV Workshops
Friday, May 30, 2014, 1-4 pm, TFDL 440B
Thurs. July 10, 2014, 1- 4 pm, TFDL 440B
Please Sign the Signature Page Being Circulated
An electronic version of the following will be sent to you:
1. This PowerPoint Presentation, which has been updated.
2. Tips from Recent Evaluation Group Members
3. Analysis of Forms 100 and 101 from my 2010 DG
application (Chemistry Evaluation Group 1504)
4. RSO DG Checklist
Other Useful NSERC Documents:
2013 Competition Statistics-DG Program
http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/_doc/Professors-Professeurs/2013DGStats_e.pdf
Discovery Grant Information Centre
http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/Professors-Professeurs/DGIC-CISD_eng.asp
Peer Review Manual – 2013-14
http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/Reviewers-Examinateurs/IntroPRManualIntroManuelEP_eng.asp
List of Evaluation Groups and Research Topics
http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/Professors-Professeurs/Grants-Subs/DGPList-PSDListe_eng.asp
Merit Indicators
http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/_doc/Professors-Professeurs/DG_Merit_Indicators_eng.pdf
Questions?