Mitra Basu CCF Division

1. National Science Foundation Directorate for Computer & Information Science & Engineering (CISE) Panel Charge Mitra Basu CCF Division

2. Panelist and Staff Introductions • Panelists -- please tell us: • who you are, • where you are from, • what programs you have reviewed for, • about your particular areas of expertise, and • anything else you want to share with the panel. • Introduction of the NSFers involved with this panel. Return to Panel DASHBOARD Return

3. Solicitation Highlights • Budget Proposals submitted to this solicitation must be consistent with one of three project classes. Proposals will be considered for funding within their project classes. • Small Projects: Total budgets up to $500,000 for durations of up to three years. Well suited to one or two investigators (PI and one co-PI or other Senior Personnel) and at least one student and/or post-doc. • Medium Projects: Total budgets ranging from $500,001 to $1,200,000 for durations up to four years. Well suited to one or more investigators (PI, co-PI and/or other Senior Personnel) and several students and/or post-docs. • Large Projects: Total budgets ranging from $1,200,001 to $3,000,000 for durations of up to five years. Well suited to two or more investigators (PI, co-PI(s), or other Senior Personnel), and a team of students and/or post-docs. The same for all CISE Core and Cross-cutting Programs Return to Panel DASHBOARD Return

4. Panelist “Housekeeping” Issues • Be sure your name is on the Sign-In-Sheet • Sign-in ensures reimbursement. • Sign-in corrects any mistakes in the spelling of your name or address in the NSF database (hopefully!) • Please, when you leave, use recycle bins and garbage bins. • In case of an emergency – evacuating the building or shelter in place. Return

5. Panelist “Housekeeping” Issues Important: reimbursement through EFT only • EFT Information • Is entered into FastLane by US panelists. • Is necessary for your reimbursement. • Is not necessary for international panelists. • Travel Details • Air travel should be arranged through SATO Travel. • Those who drive -- complete the auto travel form. • Federal employees must save receipts. Return

6. Panelist “Housekeeping” Issues Electronic Reimbursement & Taxes • 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. Return

7. Panelist “Housekeeping” Issues Updating Your Demographic Information • NSF strives to achieve balance in our reviewer pool -- across geographic regions, gender, race, ethnicity, persons with disabilities, and other under-represented cohorts in STEM. • We rely on you to volunteer your demographic information through our Panelist System so we may achieve our goal of broadening participation. Return

8. Conflicts of Interest • Sign and turn in Conflict-of-Interest (COI) form • Typical relationships that could lead to a conflict: • INSTITUTIONAL • current or previous employment (12 months) or seeking employment • award, honorarium, or other payment (12 months) • officer or governing board • any financial interest • PERSONAL • co-author of paper or project collaborator (48 months) • thesis advisor or student (life-long) • family member or close friend • You must not participate in the discussion of any proposal for which you have a conflict. Please discuss any actual or perceived conflicts with panel moderator.

9. Confidentiality • Process and results are confidential! • Do not disclose identities of your fellow reviewers. • Do not disclose identities of people associated with proposals (PI, Co-PIs, Consultants, etc.) • Do not discuss results or recommendations with other people. • Do not use names of other reviewers in your review or Panel Summary (if you are the Scribe). • Proposals contain sensitive information and are not in the public domain -- do not copy, distribute or quote from them. • You can indicate (e.g., on a resume) that you served NSF on a review panel – just don’t identify which panel(s). [also, please be cautious in elevators and other places outside the panel room about discussing panel business.] Return to Panel DASHBOARD Return

10. Proposal Review Criteria • Criterion 1: • What is the intellectual merit and quality of the proposed activity? • Criterion 2: • What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity? Return

11. Proposal Review Criteria NSF’s Panelist System and your Reviews • Intellectual Merit: • How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across fields? • To what extent does the proposal suggest and explore creative and original concepts? • What will be the significant contribution of the project to the research and knowledge base of the field? • How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? • Is there sufficient access to resources (equipment, facilities, etc.)? • How well qualified is the team (the Principal Investigator, co-PIs, sub-contracts, etc.) to conduct the proposed activity? Return

12. Proposal Review Criteria • Broader Impacts: • 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 and outreach to industry and K-12 (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? Return

13. Proposal Review Criteria • NSF staff will also give careful consideration to the following in recommending funding decisions: • Integration of Research and Education:level of engagement in joint efforts that infuse education with the excitement of discovery and enrich research through the diversity of learning perspectives. • Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs, Projects, and Activities:broadening opportunities and enabling the participation of all citizens -- women and men, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities -- is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. Return to Panel DASHBOARD Return

14. Panel Outputs Your Reviews • Individual Reviews in FastLane for each proposal • OK to modify reviews, including change of rating. • Ensure individual reviews for each proposal are on electronic panel system and are “correct”. • Be sure any modifications to reviews are recorded in FastLane! These MUST be made BEFORE leaving your panel. • Panel summary for each proposal • Initially framed by one reviewer who serves as scribe using the provided template. • Should reflect discussion (not just restate individual reviews). • Includes short, clear comments to help unsuccessful PIs improve their proposals in the next competition. • Add “Justification for Recommendation" heading at the end of the summary and write an informative, concise justification (1-2 sentences). • Should be written in 3rd-person and proof-read by all assigned panelists. Return

15. Panel Outputs Your Reviews • Please place x %of the proposals in the “Highly Competitive” (HC) and “Competitive” (C) categories. • The rest should be placed in the “Low Competitive” (LC) or “Not Competitive” (NC) category Return

16. Panel Summary Outline • Description of project (brief): • Intellectual Merit: • Strengths: • Weaknesses: • Broader Impacts: • Strengths: • Weaknesses: • Constructive suggestions for improvement: • Justification(s) for panel’s recommendation, including key strengths and critical weaknesses : • The panel placed this proposal in the following category: • ____ Highly Competitive • ____ Competitive • ____ Low Competitive • ____ Not Competitive • The summary was read by the panel, and the panel concurred that the summary accurately reflects the panel discussion. Return

17. Please Remember! • Reviews and panel summaries are sent to Principal Investigators • feedback, laudatory or critical, is important • comments should be constructive, informative, and non-inflammatory • Results are advisory and confidential • do not discuss proposals or results • proposals may contain sensitive information and are not in the public domain -- do not copy, distribute or quote from them • PLEASE LEAVE THEM IN THE ROOM! Return to Panel DASHBOARD Return

18. Checkout Procedures • You should not leave until the NSF Panel Moderator dismisses the panel. • Every Panel Summary should be approved by the NSF Panel Moderator • All individual reviews should be “submitted” – if you change your rating, be sure to re-submit your review. • If you need to change your flight, you can make the change either through the airline or SATO. Return to Panel DASHBOARD Return

19. NSF & CISE Thank You! Return to Panel DASHBOARD