General-NSF - FAQs
for NSF 13-506: Integrative Organismal Systems Core Programs Solicitation;
December 21, 2012
Agency
Name
National
Science Foundation
Synopsis
Frequently Asked
Questions for NSF 13-506:
IOS Core Programs Solicitation
All proposals submitted to
IOS for the core programs (i.e., all regular research proposals previously
submitted through the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG), or through the
Research at Undergraduate Institutions (RUI) solicitations to any of the core
programs in IOS) now require a preliminary proposal.
This
preliminary proposal requirement does not include proposals to other
solicitations (e.g., Research Coordination Networks, Doctoral Dissertation
Improvement Grants, CAREER, Plant Genome Research Program, Basic Research to
Enable Agricultural Development), or special proposals described in the GPG
(i.e., Grants for Rapid Response Research (RAPID), EArly
Concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER), Facilitation Awards for
Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED), conference and workshop
proposals, and requests for supplemental funding).
One
of the primary reasons for this new solicitation is to reduce the tremendous reviewing
burden on the PI community and the tremendous investment of time and energy by
the PI community in developing full proposals, which previously had a low
success rate. From 2001 to 2010 full proposal success rates across IOS declined
from an average of 28% to 17%, with rates in some programs as low as 10%.
However, the overall amount of money available to fund IOS science has remained
essentially unchanged over that same period of time. The decreasing success
rate led to a burden on PIs to write more proposals which simultaneously
increased the reviewing burden on the community including those same PIs. This
led to a decrease in the efficiency and quality of the reviewing system.
In
2011, the last year of the twice yearly deadline, IOS received just over 1,900
full proposals and requested more than 14,000 ad hoc (external) reviews
in addition to panelists' reviews. Under the new preliminary proposal system,
in 2012 we anticipate requesting about 2,500 ad hoc (external) reviews for the
invited full proposals.
IOS
is collecting data about this change to the submission, review, and award
process and will make the analysis available at a later date.
No. Only DEB and IOS
programs have implemented the preliminary proposal solicitation format. Both
MCB and DBI have their own solicitations, which have some differences in
requirements. There are also separate solicitations or instructions for
Research Coordination Networks, Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grants,
CAREER awards, the Plant Genome Research Program, Basic Research to Enable
Agricultural Development and special types of proposals described in the GPG
such as Grants for Rapid Response Research (RAPID), EArly
Concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER), and Facilitation Awards for
Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED). Please review each
solicitation or set of instructions in the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG)
carefully for its specific requirements. If you have any questions, please ask
a Program Director. We're here to help!
Yes. All proposals to
IOS are treated as new proposals, including projects based on findings
resulting from previous NSF funding.
Yes. However, invited full
proposals cannot be duplicates of proposals to any other Federal agency for
simultaneous consideration, except for Beginning Investigators (see GPG Chapter
I.G.2 http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_1.jsp#IG2).
In
a given year, an individual may participate as a PI or co-PI on no
more than two preliminary proposals submitted to IOS core programs.
Preliminary proposals in excess of the limit for any PI or co-PI will be
returned without review in the reverse order received.
Participating
in a proposal in any role other than PI or co-PI, such as the lead on a
sub-award, any other senior personnel role or as a collaborator, does not
count towards this limit, including investigators who contribute services for a
fee (e.g., sequencing). Thus, the number of projects an investigator may
participate in is unlimited. Changes in the team
post-submission to meet the eligibility limits will not be allowed.
This
limit does not include proposals submitted to other program
solicitations or to core programs in other BIO Divisions. A PI may submit to as
many other solicitations as he/she wishes in a single application cycle.
However solicitations may have their own limit guidelines so be sure to review
each solicitation carefully for details.
Definitions
of all Personnel roles can be found in the GPG: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_2.jsp#IIex7.
From
the GPG:
A Principal Investigator (PI) or co-PI is defined as "the individual(s)
designated by the proposer, and approved by NSF, who will be responsible for
the scientific or technical direction of the project. NSF does not infer any
distinction in scientific stature among multiple PIs, whether referred to as PI
or co-PI. If more than one, the first one listed will serve as the contact PI,
with whom all communications between NSF program officials and the project
relating to the scientific, technical, and budgetary aspects of the project
should take place. The PI and any identified co-PIs, however, will be jointly
responsible for submission of the requisite project reports".
All
PIs and co-PIs are expected to have significant intellectual input to the
project. In the event a PI must leave a project it is expected that the
remaining co-PI(s) could continue to direct the project and submit the
requisite reports.
Definitions
of all Personnel roles can be found in the GPG: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_2.jsp#IIex7.
An
individual may only submit as many full proposals as he/she is invited to
submit. Uninvited full proposals will be returned without review.
Preliminary
proposals will be normally reviewed by a panel of scientists in the discipline,
and you will receive a summary of their discussion (the panel summary), as well
as individual reviews from three panelists. If you are invited to submit a full
proposal, you will have this feedback to help you in preparing the full
proposal. We strongly advise that you take this feedback into account, both in
full proposal preparation and in any resubmission of the preliminary proposal.
Each
preliminary proposal will be assigned to three panelists for written reviews.
All NSF rules for Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest will be followed. The
rating scale for written reviews will be: Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, and
Poor. A panel summary describing the key points of the panel discussion and the
rationale for the proposal's placement in one of the four panel ranking
categories ("High Priority", "Medium Priority", "Low
Priority", and "Not Competitive") will be provided for each
proposal.
As
with all NSF proposals, panelists/reviewers will be instructed to evaluate the intellectual
merit and broader impacts of the proposed project. Preliminary
proposals contain a shorter project description (1 personnel page plus 4 pages
of text) and lack much of the documentation associated with a full proposal,
including budget, budget justification, equipment and other resources, and
current and pending support. Consequently, we expect the reviews of preliminary
proposals to focus on the following critical aspects of the work: the
questions driving the research, the goals expected to be
accomplished, and the approaches employed in the experimental design.
While
reviewing, panelists are asked to consider:
A strong preliminary
proposal is one in which the logical flow and significance of the proposed line
of investigation are articulated clearly and the broader impacts of the work
are apparent. In other words,
panelists are asked to identify preliminary proposals that address questions
and/or ideas that are most likely to lead to large advances in the field.
Panelists do NOT make
specific Invite/Not Invite recommendations. These recommendations are made by
the Program Directors after the conclusion of the panels.
Program Directors
will make Invite/Not Invite decisions based on the scientific merit and broader
impacts as well as the balance of awards among sub-disciplines, geographic
distribution, types of institutions, and the potential contribution of each
award to broadening the participation of individuals from groups traditionally
underrepresented in science. These latter considerations comprise the program's
"portfolio balance".
Invitations to submit
full proposals will be issued in May each year.
Approximately 30% of
preliminary proposals were invited for full proposals in 2012. We expect the
invitation rate in 2013 to be similar, depending on the number of preliminary
proposals submitted in January.
The success rate for
invited full proposals is anticipated be in the range of 25%-35% depending on
the availability of funds.
The preliminary
proposal deadline is in January of each year, and there is no limit on the
number of times you may resubmit a preliminary proposal. However, you are
strongly advised to take comments from the reviews and panel summary into
account when re-submitting, and you are encouraged to talk to your Program
Director.
The first page of the
preliminary proposal project description must list the PI, co-PI(s),
collaborators (including leads for sub-awards), and other senior personnel (as
defined in the GPG: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_2.jsp#IIex7).
Each name should be followed by a sentence describing that individual's role in
the project. No other text should appear on this page.
The following 4 pages
(pages 2-5) comprise the preliminary proposal narrative termed the Project
Description. The general significance of the work, efficacy of the experimental
plan, feasibility of technical approaches, and broader impacts plan should be
clearly and concisely presented. The available space should be used wisely, with
figures limited to essential data or diagrams. Duplication of text between the
project summary and project description should be avoided.
For a preliminary
proposal the references are limited to 3 pages. The reference section does not
count towards the Project Description page limits.
No, preliminary data
are not required. However, a PI may include preliminary data in support of the
feasibility of the research approach at his/her discretion.
Although not
required, results from previous support may be included in the preliminary
proposal at the discretion of the PI.
No, a Data Management
Plan is not required for preliminary proposals.
No, a Post-Doctoral
Mentoring Plan is not required for preliminary proposals.
No, preliminary
proposals should not include a detailed budget or budget justification; a value
of $2 should be entered to allow FastLane submission.
The words "Not Applicable" should be entered in the Budget Justification.
Institutional
approvals are not required for preliminary proposals.
However, institutional
approvals are required for full proposals, as specified in the Grant
Proposal Guide (http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_index.jsp).
No supplementary
documents are allowed.
Program Directors are
required to select reviewers who do not have any potentially biasing
relationships (personal, professional, intellectual or financial) with either
the PI/co-PI(s) or the submitting institution(s). Hence, PIs are required to
submit an Excel Workbook that lists all Conflicts of Interest (COIs). The COI
Workbook template and email address for its submission can be found in the
solicitation. The Workbook will also allow you to indicate suggested and
non-preferred reviewers. Please contact a Program Director if you have questions.
Both of these have deadlines.
Preliminary proposals or invited full proposals received after the deadline or
that are otherwise not compliant with the solicitation and the relevant
guidelines in the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) will be returned without
review.
In IOS, preliminary
proposals will not be co-reviewed with other programs. Thus, you will need to
choose a single IOS program for your preliminary proposal submission. If you
have any questions regarding which IOS program would be best for your
submission, please contact a Program Director.
You may alert the IOS
Program Director(s) to other programs that might be relevant to your proposal.
However, he/she cannot guarantee co-review will occur.
No. All proposals to
IOS are treated as new proposals.
Yes. If your full
proposal is declined, you must begin again with a preliminary proposal to one
of the IOS core programs. It is strongly advised that you consider the comments
from both preliminary and full proposal reviews and panel summaries when
re-submitting and contact your Program Director if you have any questions or
concerns.
Yes, you would have to
submit a preliminary proposal at the next January deadline. You may only submit
a full proposal for the August full proposal deadline for which you were
invited.
Please ask us!
Contact information for Program Directors and management in IOS can be found in
the solicitation and at the Division website (http://www.nsf.gov/ios).
Announcement
Number:
NSF 13-009
Link
to Full Announcement
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2013/nsf13009/nsf13009.jsp?WT.mc_id=USNSF_25&WT.mc_ev=click