NSF Proposal Review Process - Conflict of Interest and Reviewer Duties

1. Welcome and thanks for coming

2. Before we get started Please be sure to sign in, electronically!

3. About NSF • NSF is not a “mission agency” • Our goal is to promote and enable high quality in education, particularly in the higher education system, and particularly in the sciences and engineering • In the research divisions, our mechanism is the research grant

4. Proposal Review • NSF received 55,559 proposals in FY2010 (40,075 in ’03; 31,942 in ’01), 45,218 in 2009 with 14,642 awards • 96 percent of these proposals are subject to external merit review • Your assistance in this review process is crucial to the success of NSF, and we recognize that it is a lot of work

5. NSF is a Government Agency • NSF spends taxpayer’s money • We seek fair and unbiased reviews • We are required to avoid both actual conflicts of interest and the appearance of conflicts

6. Typical Conflicts • Close friend or relative • Same institution • Student/advisor relationship • Collaboration in the past 48 months (research, proposal, paper) • Co-edit book, journal in the past 24 months • Financial interest at stake • PI ran over spouse’s cat

7. Typical Conflicts • Close friend or relative • Same institution • Student/advisor relationship • Collaboration in the past 48 months (research, proposal, paper) • Co-edit book, journal in the past 24 months • Financial interest at stake • PI ran over spouse’s cat

8. Appearance of a Conflict • We must avoid even the appearance of a conflict • Persons with conflicts must recuse themselves from all discussions relating to proposals with which they have a conflict • It is necessary that you declare all conflicts at the beginning of each panel meeting

9. Before you begin your panel session, we must have a signed Conflict of interest form Please note what you are signing— You must be aware of conflicts You may not use “insider” information for personal gain You must maintain confidentiality of the panel and its recommendations

10. Reviewer Duties • By the end of the meeting, we must have for every proposal • At least three reviews entered into FastLane • A summary of the panel discussion for every proposal discussed by the panel • Proposals placed into one of three categories • Primary consideration (PC) • Secondary consideration (SC) • Do not consider (DNC) • All proposals in the PC and SC categories must be ranked

11. Written Reviews • Sent verbatim to PIs • Comprise the major form of feedback to PIs • Please make sure your comments are constructive, informative and non-inflammatory • Please be sure to substantively address both review criteria - Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact

12. Review Criteria • 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.) To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts? How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources? • 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 (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? 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?

13. Transformative Research • Transformative research is research that generates ideas, discoveries, or tools that radically change our understanding of an important exisiting scientific or engineering concept or lead to the creation of a new paradigm or field of science or engineering. Such research is characterized by its challenge to current understanding or its pathway to new frontiers.

14. Ethics • Remember your obligations to maintain the confidentiality of the proposals and the panel recommendations • Do not save the proposals • Do not plagiarize from proposals (or any other source) • Plagiarizing from a declined proposal constitutes breach of confidentiality

15. Anonymity and Propriety • Reviewers are anonymous; we won’t tell, you must not tell • Your recommendations are advisory and confidential; do not inform PIs of their status • Awarded proposals go into the public domain • Declined proposals are not in the public domain; don’t distribute, use or quote them

16. This is Your Meeting • We hope that you will feel free to express your opinions and make the best technical judgments that you can • You may wish to choose a chair for your panel to expedite the process—who has the earliest flight out?

17. Good News/Bad News • The good news—you will get reimbursed for your attendance and participation on the panel • The bad news—we can’t use money; Federal law requires the use of electronic funds transfer (we need your bank account number) • If you don’t see your reimbursement within four weeks, please let me know • H1B visa holders, be sure to declare your status

18. We’re from the government, and we’re here to help And thanks for coming!

19. We wish you a pleasant flight home!