1 / 18

Welcome to an NSF Unsolicited Panel

Welcome to an NSF Unsolicited Panel. Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport (CBET) Division. Outline. Introductions Bill Schultz Toni Baker Panelists Other NSF Program Officers Administrative Points COI Confidentiality NSF Evaluation Criteria Panelist Responsibilities

gloria-barron
Download Presentation

Welcome to an NSF Unsolicited Panel

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Welcome to an NSF Unsolicited Panel Chemical, Bioengineering,Environmental, and Transport (CBET) Division

  2. Outline • Introductions • Bill Schultz • Toni Baker • Panelists • Other NSF Program Officers • Administrative Points • COI • Confidentiality • NSF Evaluation Criteria • Panelist Responsibilities • IGERT Specifics • Thanks!

  3. Administrative Points • Sign-In • Ensures reimbursement for each day served • Check name and address for accuracy • Please update contact info in FastLane

  4. Travel Questions • Travel • Travel should be arranged through the FedTravel Center (SATO) (1-800-741-9943 or 1-866-876-8020) • Have you registered for this panel through FastLane? (Even if you have participated in previous NSF panels, you still have to register for this panel) • EFT (electronic funds transfer) information must be provided • Reimbursement will appear w/o notice to your specified financial institution and account ( “U.S. Treasury” - doesn’t reference NSF) • Reimbursement is considered taxable; NSF automatically sends a Form 1099 if $600 or greater is paid to a reviewer per calendar year • Any problems to solve or to tell us?

  5. Reimbursement • $480 for each meeting day and • $280 for each travel day • Local Participants • $280 for each meeting day • Did You Drive? Please complete the auto travel form.

  6. Conflicts of Interest • Sign and turn in Conflict-of-Interest form • Typical relationships that could lead to a conflict: • Don’t participate in discussion of any proposal for which you have a COI. Discuss any actual or perceived conflicts with your panel moderator. INSTITUTIONAL • current or previous employment (12 months) or seeking employment • award, honorarium, or travel payment (12 months) • officer or governing board • any financial interest PERSONAL • co-author of paper or project collaborator (48 months) • co-edited journal or proceedings (24 months) • thesis advisor or student (life-long) • family member or close friend

  7. Confidentiality • NSF receives proposals in confidence and is responsible for protecting confidentiality of their contents and their review. • Do not copy, quote, or otherwise use material from the proposals. • Proposals contain sensitive information not in the public domain. • Destroy all copies, including computer records, after completing your reviews. (You may leave your paper copies here.) • Do not discuss proposal content, results, recommendations, or membership of this panel outside the meeting room, even at NSF. • Except for copies to the Principal Investigator (excluding identifying information), reviews will not be disclosed to non-Governmental personnel. • NSF considers reviews are exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, but cannot guarantee that it will not be forced to release reviews under FOIA or other laws.

  8. NSF Evaluation Criteria • Intellectual Merit • Advancement and contribution of knowledge in its own field or across different disciplines? • Creative and original concepts? • Well-conceived and organized proposal? • Qualification of the PIs? • Sufficient access to resources? • New: To what extent is the proposal potentially transformative?

  9. NSF Evaluation Criteria • Broader Impacts • Advancement of discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning? • Benefits, as applicable, to society and industry? • Educational Impact? • Participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? • Enhancement of the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? • Dissemination of results?

  10. Mitigate Evaluation Bias • Increase awareness of how implicit bias might affect evaluation • Decrease time pressure and distractions in evaluation process • Rate on explicit criteria rather than global judgments • Point to specific evidence supporting judgments Bauer & Baltes, 2002, Sex Roles, 47 (9/10), 465-476 Please incorporate (3) & (4) in your discussions.

  11. Panelist Responsibilities • Ensure your reviews are entered in the Panel System correctly and are entered prior to the panel meeting • Minimum of 3 reviews via FastLane for each proposal (OK to modify reviews, including change of overall rating) • You may change your reviews during the meeting: • However, modifications MUST be done BEFORE leaving the panel

  12. Panelist Responsibilities • For each proposal: • Primary reviewer (lead) summarizes and then initiates comments on the proposal. PLEASE START OUT WITH A ONE PARAGRAPH SUMMARY. LESS IMPORTANTTO READ YOUR REVIEW. • The panel summary generally reflects the panel’s discussion and (less so) the individual reviews and basis for recommendation. • The summary should be written in 3rd-person. • Other reviewers concur and/or add their comments. • The floor is open to all for panel discussion.

  13. Panelist Responsibilities • Final Recommendation to the Program Director • Place each proposal into rating categories outlined by the Program Officer, normally: • For example, • HR - Highly Recommend for funding (optional) • R - Recommend, if funds are available • DNR - Do Not Recommend for funding • Rank the proposals within the categories as outlined by the Program Officer, if applicable • Once the final overall panel rating is formalized, please sign the ranking sheet.

  14. Panel Summary Template (3 or 4 paragraphs) • Objectives of the proposal (1 or 2 sentences) • Intellectual merit (2nd par, not bullets or phrases) • Strengths • Weaknesses (have at least one for those unlikely funded) • Potentially Transformative? • Broader impact (3rd par) • Strengths • Weaknesses • Panel Summary Statement(optional)(no need to state ranking) (use your spelling checker!)

  15. A Good Panel SummaryLeads to Better Research! • The scribe should follow the Panel Summary Template while writing the panel summary. • Primary and secondary reviewers edit for substance and tone to develop a summary reflecting the consensus of the panel. • Comments should be constructive, informative, non-inflammatory, and non-discriminatory. • Finalize reviews and panel summaries before you leave.

  16. Post-Panel Actions • Please fill out Panel survey • PI will receive: • All reviews • Panel summaries • Program Director’s analysis and recommendation (award/decline)

  17. Our work is cut out for us! • 31 proposals in 1 day! • We hope to discuss all before lunch ~10 mins per proposal! No problem if half are done in 1st hour. Even NC proposals need some TLC. • We will start with lowest ranked proposals. • Final discussions right after lunch • Panel summaries follow • Panel summaries will be approved by me

  18. Thanks! • Thanks • Thanks • And more Thanks!

More Related