1 / 7

Transformational Research (high risk/high reward)

Transformational Research (high risk/high reward). Regular proposals Ad hoc review Panel discussion Program director Division director Division level $2M set aside Separate coding. Transformational Research (high risk/high reward). EaGER Accepted at any time

hetal
Download Presentation

Transformational Research (high risk/high reward)

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. Transformational Research(high risk/high reward) • Regular proposals • Ad hoc review • Panel discussion • Program director • Division director • Division level • $2M set aside • Separate coding

  2. Transformational Research(high risk/high reward) • EaGER • Accepted at any time • Option for ad hoc or panel review • Option to decline if assessment of “risk” is not consistent with EaGER intent • RAPID • Event-driven (transformational element not required)

  3. NSF Concerns • How can success/funding rate be increased? • Churn – multiple resubmissions of fundable proposals • Size of awards • Challenges for interdisciplinary, risky, and transformative proposals

  4. The Review Process • Sustainability of the process with increasing proposal numbers • Many programs are going to panel-only review – this is a challenge for an interdisciplinary program • Programs use other ways to limit submission • Limit number of proposals from individuals or institutions • Pre-proposals followed by invitation-only proposals • Prohibit resubmission for a finite period of time

  5. Number of Competitions • Tensions • Budget • Community • Review quality • Funding rate • Timeliness • Logistics • Turnaround

  6. Questions • Are current opportunities appropriate and adequate? • Are PIs sufficiently aware of these opportunities? If not, what can we do to help?

  7. Timelines Budget Spendout Fiscal Year 30 Sept. 1 Oct. Panel Named Fed. Reg. Letter Received 6 Mos. Proposal Processing Review Requests Reviews Received Panel

More Related