NSF Research Proposal Review Guidelines

1. NSF Research Proposal Review Guidelines

2. Criterion 1: 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.)

3. Criterion 1: What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? • To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative and original concepts? • How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? • Is there sufficient access to resources?

4. Criterion 2: 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?

5. Criterion 2: What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity? • 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?

6. Note: • NSF gives careful consideration to: • Integration of Research and Education • Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs, Projects, and Activities in NSF funding decisions.

7. What Makes for a Good Review? • Write to both criteria – Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact – but note that they need not be weighted equally. • Be as detailed as possible (within reason) and support your arguments. • Give constructive feedback • Make sure your written review is congruent with the summary rating you assign.

8. What makes for a good review? • For proposals not in your exact area of expertise, not which areas that are the subject of your narrative review and summary rating. • Consider the “totality” and “balance” of the criteria – for example, an important research question or problem is not sufficient if the work contains methodological and design flaws; a finely designed study is not sufficient if there will be little impact.

9. NSF Proposal Rating Scale • Excellent: Outstanding proposal in all respects; deserves highest priority for support. • Very good: High quality proposal in nearly all respects; should be supported if at all possible. • Good: A quality proposal, worthy of support. • Fair: Proposal lacking in one or more critical aspects; key issues need to be addressed. • Poor: Proposal has serious deficiencies.

10. Writing a good panel summary • Summarize the main points of the reviewers (not necessary to repeat individual reviews) • Reflect the total discussion (especially points not covered in the written reviews) • Explicitly address both review criteria • Give constructive feedback and specific guidance • Aim for about three to five paragraphs

11. Writing a good panel summary • Stick to the main points, but discuss them in some detail • Do not list names of panelists or other information that would reveal their identities • Seek input and approval of draft summary from the other reviewers

12. Principles of Inquiry • Pose significant questions that can be investigated • Link research to relevant theory • Use methods that permit study of the question • Provide a coherent and explicity chain or reasoning • Explain how data will be analyzed • Discuss dissemination National Research Council (2001) Scientific Inquiry in Education. National Academy Press (www.nap.edu)