NSERC Discovery Grant Workshop Charity Parr- Vásquez , PhD | Sept 12, 2013

1. NSERC Discovery Grant Workshop Charity Parr-Vásquez, PhD | Sept 12, 2013

2. Eligibility Faculty • hold, or have a firm offer of, an academic appointment at a Canadian institution (minimum three-year term position) and take up the position no later than September 1 of the year of the award; • be in a position that requires independent research and allows supervision of highly qualified personnel (HQP); and • spend a minimum of six months per year at an eligible Canadian institution (if holding a position outside Canada). http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/Eligibility-Admissibilite/faculty-corpsprof_eng.asp

3. Eligibility Subject Matter • Discovery Grants support: • research programs in the natural sciences and engineering (NSE); and • interdisciplinary research that is predominantly in the NSE • Significance, impact, advancement of knowledge or practical applications in NSE http://www.science.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=FEE7261A-1#SSHRC1

4. Eligibility of health-related research Eligible for NSERC support: • animal health and veterinary medicine. • nutraceuticals or functional foods. • fundamental processes in humans. • development of monitoring and diagnostic Not eligible for NSERC support: • refinement of existing health technology • vaccines, active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) • investigation/treatment of injuries or performance. • animal models of human diseases

5. Psychology • fundamental psychological processes (their underlying neural mechanisms, development within individuals, and evolutionary and ecological context) • Sensation and perception; • Sensorimotor integration; • Motivation, emotion and reward; • Learning and memory; • Cognition and language; • Sleep, arousal and the chronobiological modulation of behaviour; and, • Statistical methods for analysis of psychological data.

6. Timeline Submit NOI ORS proofreadingand budget ORS editing revisionassistance ORS internal deadline Results announced Submission to NSERC Mar/Apr Aug 1 Oct 21 Nov 1 Oct 14 Sept 21

7. Review Process Three-step process 1) External Peer review 2) Merit assessment 3) Funding recommendations. The process has changed!

8. External Peer Review • Applications are sent to 0-4 peer reviewers • Maybe from the list provided, but not always • Provide feedback based on review criteria • Used to inform NSERC review committee, and provide feedback to applicant

9. Merit Assessment: Evaluation Group • Currently 12 evaluation groups • Each application is reviewed and voted on by 5 Evaluation Group members • depending on the proposal focus it may be reviewed by members from 1 or more Evaluation Group • Generate the final report 1501 Genes, Cells and Molecules 1509 Civil, Industrial and 1502 Biological Systems and Functions Systems Engineering 1503 Evolution and Ecology 1510 Electrical and Computer 1504 Chemistry Engineering 1505 Physics 1511 Materials and Chemical 1506 Geosciences Engineering 1507 Computer Science 1512 Mechanical Engineering 1508 Mathematics and Statistics

10. Merit Assessment: Evaluation Criteria

11. Excellence of Researcher Knowledge, expertise and experience Qualityof past or potential contributions and impact on the proposed and other areas of research Importance of contributions to- and use by- other researchers and end-users Complementarity of expertise of the members of the team and synergy (where applicable)

12. HQP training Quality and extent of past and potential contributions to the training of HQP (e.g., post-doctoral fellows, graduate and undergraduate students, technicians) Appropriateness of the proposal for the training of HQP Enhancement of training arising from a collaborative or interdisciplinary environment (where applicable)

13. Merit of the Proposal Originality and innovation Proposal suggests and explores novel or potentially transformative concepts and lines of inquiry Significance and expected contributions to research or potential for technological impact Clarity and scope of objectives Clarity and appropriateness of methodology Feasibility Extent to which the scope of the proposal addresses all relevant issues, including the need for varied expertise within or across disciplines Appropriateness and justification for the budget Explanation of the relationship between other sources of funding and the current proposal Extent to which it is clear, comprehensive, and convincing

14. Merit Assessment • A=EEE • B=EEO • C=EOO • D=EOO • E=OOO • J=SSS • K=SSM • L=SMM Established researcher Early researcher

15. A rating in any of the three categories of ‘insufficient’ will result in an unsuccessful application

16. Funding Recommendations Quality bin determines the amount of funding an application will receive; Applications assigned to bin A receive the highest possible funding; Allotted funding is reduced for each successive bin; All applications in the same bin within an Evaluation Group receive a similar grant amount; Funding levels also vary across Evaluation Groups. $$$$$$ $$$$$ $$$$ $$$

17. The Grant Application A full Discovery Grant application includes: • an Application for a Grant (research portal), with supporting documentation; • a CCV for the applicant and all co-applicants

18. CCV and Research portal

19. Changes from past years • Eligibility profile- New section • HQP training plan- text box • Past contributions to the training of HQP – text box (previously found in Form 100) • Most Significant Contributions – text box (previously found in Form 100)

20. Changes from past years • Additional information on contributions – text box (previously found in Form 100) • Research Team –text box • Activity details – new section • Proposal –  Five pages for both individual or team application

21. CCV

22. CCV- Checklist • Personal information (person profile, current employment, address) • Education • Recognitions (awards, distinctions, honours) • User profile(application/field key words) • Employment • Research funding history • Supervisory experience • Contributions (publications, patents, etc) • Other

23. CCV Tips • Only go back 6 years with the exception of funding (4 years), recognitions, employment details, academic details (unlimited) • All time bound entries must include month and year • Six year cut off is to the month • If you don’t remember the month, take you best guess • If is ongoing, estimate a future end date

24. Where do I put…? • Administrative positions (ie Chair, grad coordinator)- under “work experience” • Book edited- under “editorial activities” • Leadership roles in professional societies-under “other committees” • Grant review duties- under “other committee” • Journal refereeing- under “information on other contributions” in application

25. HQP • If trainee was an undergraduate at the time (summer student, volunteer, thesis student, research assistant)– Bachelors • If trainee was a technician or employee-do not include in table but speak about in written content of the application

26. Oral presentations vs conference publications • If you gave a talk at a conference only list that contribution in the “presentation” section only • For all other conference contributions put in the “conference publications” section • If your contribution was more than one type (paper, abstract, poster) pick one

27. The Proposal Program vs. 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.”

28. Application • Identification • Summary of proposal (3800 characters) • Proposed expenditures • Budget Justification (2 page attachment) • Relationship to other support (15200 characters) • HQP training (7600 characters/researcher) • Past contributions to HQP training (3800 characters/researcher, 6 years or 10 years if non-academic) • Most significant contributions (11400 characters, 6 years, or 10 years if non-academic)

29. Application • Additional information on Contributions (3800 characters/researcher) • Research team (3800 characters) • Activity details (ethics, environmental impact) • Proposal (5 page attachment) • Other support sources (10mb, CIHR or SSHRC summary and budget page) • References (2 pages) • Samples of Research Contributions (4 max)

30. The 5-Page Proposal Recent research progress related to the proposal (or attributable to your previous DG) Objectives–short-AND long-term Pertinent literature–put your research into context Methods and proposed approach Anticipated significance • Original, innovative and • feasible • Clear and concise • Do not underestimate • presentation and style • Use headlines from • the guidelines • Proofread! • Write for both experts and non-experts

31. Recent progress • Highlight only research that relates to the proposal • Highlight impact • Describe how it provides a foundation

32. Objectives The objectives should flow naturally from the needs you will identify in your literature review Long-term objective describes the research thrust of your program Short term objectives are the essence of the proposal in terms of what will be accomplished in the term of the grant

33. Literature review • Demonstrates your awareness of the environment you exist in • Convince the reviewer that there is a need for your research and your project/program will address this need • Prove the need-references, statistics, charts, etc. • Do not be afraid to cite your own work (within reason)

34. Methodology • Usually longest and most detailed piece of application • Explain how you will address the objectives • Demonstrating that you know what are the appropriate steps to achieve your objectives • Specific tasks, and details (for example-recruitment strategies, pool size, sample size, statistics, etc) • Reviewer will not give you the benefit of the doubt

35. Feasibility • Demonstrate your experience with the methodology by referencing publications • If you do not have direct experience, highlight partnerships • Indicate you have access to infrastructure • Do not describe methodology that depends strictly on successive success • Outline mitigation strategies

36. Anticipated significance • Expectations for impact • Who/what will benefit and how (industry, health of Canadians, other researchers in your field, the environment) • No ‘motherhood statements’

37. Team Grants • Same requirements as Individual, but additional details required: • Description of expertise, expected roles & contributions • Discussion of collaboration among members • Details of team management and structure

38. Suggested approximate page breakdown The 5-page proposal progress report/ lit. review object- ives methods & approach benefit to field and Canada

39. HQP training plan • Be explicit- Who, why, what, how • Highlight unique aspects of your training program- Collaborations, mentorship, interdisciplinary training, ‘soft skills training’ • Highlight the successes of past students • Exposure to collaborations with end users • Highlight unique-to-WLU experiences • Describe nature of co-supervision

40. Budget/budget Justification Include costs for: Salaries Dissemination Travel Materials and Supplies Equipment (not encouraged, but allowed) Do not inflate your budget Be specific and justify all requests Only request direct costs of research

41. Relationship to other research support • Very important section that is often overlooked • Provide: Main objectives, methodology, budget details, and HQP info of ALL GRANTS APPLIED FOR AND HELD • Must provide details on conceptual and budgetary relationships • “applicants who currently hold, or have applied for, research support from CIHR or SSHRC must provide the summary and budget page”

42. Past contributions to HQP • Be specific • Number • Names • Type • Project • Current places of employment • Significant achievements • Value-add • Publish • Conferences • Soft skills

43. Significant contributions • Up to 5 significant contributions from the past 6 years (10 years if coming from outside academia) • Not just a list of publications • Can be groups of publications, industry-partnerships, outreach activities, etc. • Focus on impact, significance and novelty • If applicable highlight knowledge mobilization/partnerships • DO NOT BE HUMBLE

44. Additional Information on Contributions • nature of collaborations with other researchers; • order of authors in the publications listed, and • inclusion of students in the list of authors; • role in joint publications; • reason for selecting certain venues • impact or potential impact of patents/technology transfer; • nature of industrially relevant R&D activities; • the significance of confidential reports • other activities or information to help committees to evaluate your contributions

45. All forms and attachments must be submitted to NSERC electronically by Laurier internal deadline of Oct 21 Once you have submitted the grant through the e-console, the Laurier ORS must authorize it and do the final submission this is equal to the “institutional signature” In addition, submit to the Research Office: the External Grant and Contract Cover Sheet, with signatures by your department chair and dean. Final Steps

46. Stats

47. “Discovery Grants Information Centre” Peer Review Manual Videos: “Tips on applying for an NSERC Discovery Grant” “Demystifying the review process for NSERC Discovery Grants” Use of Grant Funds Discovery Grant Information Session Research portal CCV Application Resources

48. Proposal writing, editing, proofreading, budgets, technical assistance with forms and on-line system Charity Parr-Vasquez, Research Facilitator for the Natural Sciences – cparrvasquez@wlu.ca, x4662 Research Office Application Assistance