Mission: To promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense
Annual Budget: ~$9-10 billion
Website: https://www.nsf.gov
Key Characteristics: - Supports all fields of fundamental science and engineering (except medical sciences) - Emphasis on education and workforce development - Strong commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion - Promotes open science and data sharing - Collaborative research across institutions encouraged
NSF uses two equally weighted criteria for all proposals:
Definition: The potential to advance knowledge
Evaluation Questions: - 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? - To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts? - How well-conceived and organized is the proposed activity? - Is there sufficient access to resources?
Writing Strategy: - Lead with the research question and its importance - Demonstrate deep knowledge of the field - Articulate the knowledge gap clearly - Present innovative approach to address the gap - Show preliminary results or proof-of-concept - Demonstrate team qualifications - Present feasible, well-organized plan
Definition: The potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes
Evaluation Questions: - What is the potential for the proposed activity to: - Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes? - Broaden participation of underrepresented groups? - Enhance infrastructure for research and education? - Enhance scientific and technological understanding? - Foster partnerships between academia, industry, and others?
Critical Point: Broader Impacts are NOT an afterthought. They carry equal weight with Intellectual Merit and must be substantive, specific, and measurable.
Five Pillars of Broader Impacts (address at least one substantively):
Example: "We will develop a 10-module online course on computational genomics, incorporating data from this project, to be offered to 500+ students annually across 15 partner institutions. Course materials will be open-access and include Jupyter notebooks for hands-on analysis."
Example: "We will establish a summer research program for 8 undergraduates annually from 4 partner HBCUs, providing stipends, housing, and year-round mentoring. Program will include professional development workshops and pathways to graduate school."
Example: "We will develop and maintain an open-source software platform for analyzing spatial transcriptomics data, with comprehensive documentation, tutorials, and user support forum. Software will be deposited on GitHub and indexed in bio.tools."
Example: "We will partner with the City Science Museum to create a hands-on exhibit on AI and climate modeling, reaching 50,000+ annual visitors. Exhibit will include interactive simulations and bilingual materials. We will also host quarterly 'Science Saturdays' for local K-12 students."
Example: "Our drought prediction models will be integrated into USDA's decision support system, benefiting 15,000+ farmers in the Southwest. We will work with extension agents to provide training and accessible interfaces for non-technical users."
Common Broader Impacts Mistakes: - ❌ Vague statements: "We will train graduate students" (everyone does this) - ❌ No plan: Aspirational goals without concrete activities - ❌ No metrics: No way to assess success - ❌ Tacked on: Not integrated with research plan - ❌ Unrealistic: Grand claims without resources or expertise - ✅ Specific and measurable: Clear activities, timelines, and assessment
Required Structure (NSF mandates three labeled sections):
Overview (first paragraph): - Research question and approach in accessible language - Suitable for public dissemination
Intellectual Merit: - Potential to advance knowledge - Innovative aspects - Qualifications of team
Broader Impacts: - Societal benefits and specific activities - How success will be measured
Formatting: Must use section headings exactly as shown above
No required structure, but typical organization:
Preliminary results (if applicable)
Research Objectives (0.5-1 page)
Hypotheses or research questions
Research Plan / Methodology (8-10 pages)
Potential challenges and alternatives
Broader Impacts (1-2 pages)
Assessment and evaluation plan
Results from Prior NSF Support (if applicable, up to 5 pages)
Formatting Requirements: - Font: 11-point or larger (Times Roman, Arial, Palatino, Computer Modern) - Margins: 1 inch all sides - Line spacing: No more than 6 lines per inch - Page size: 8.5 x 11 inches - No smaller fonts in figures (must be legible)
Required NSF Format (as of PAPPG 24-1, effective May 20, 2024):
Section A: Professional Preparation - Undergraduate, graduate, postdoctoral institutions - Majors and degrees with years
Section B: Appointments and Positions - Last 5 positions, current first
Section C: Products (up to 5 most relevant to proposal) - Publications, datasets, software, patents, etc. - Can include products in preparation
Section D: Synergistic Activities (up to 5) - Service, teaching, mentoring, outreach - Demonstrates broader engagement beyond research
Required for all proposals (as of PAPPG 24-1)
Must address: 1. Types of data: What data will be generated? 2. Standards: Formats, metadata, standards for data and metadata 3. Access: How and when will data be shared? 4. Reuse: Who can access and under what conditions? 5. Repository: Where will data be archived long-term? 6. Protection: Privacy, confidentiality, intellectual property considerations
NSF Expectations: - Data should be made publicly available in a timely manner - Use discipline-specific repositories when available - Justify any restrictions on data sharing - Plan for data preservation beyond project period
Required if funding postdocs
Must address: - Career development objectives - Mentoring activities (research, teaching, professional skills) - Metrics for success - Mentoring plan should be specific, not generic
Eligibility: Tenure-track (or equivalent) faculty who have not yet received tenure, within 6 years of PhD (or equivalent)
Requirements: - Integration of research and education - Demonstrate potential for leadership - Department chair letter required - 5-year project plan - Typical budget: $400,000-$500,000
Key Elements: - Ambitious research plan - Innovative educational component - Strong integration (not just parallel tracks) - Path to independence and leadership - Institutional commitment
Review Criteria: Same two criteria (Intellectual Merit, Broader Impacts) but with emphasis on: - Integration of research and education - Innovative educational component - Potential for leadership in field
Common CAREER Mistakes: - Education component feels tacked on - Overly ambitious research plan - Weak integration between research and education - Generic mentoring or teaching plans - Insufficient preliminary data
Structure: Multiple proposals submitted separately from different institutions, reviewed as a single project
Requirements: - Lead institution designated - All proposals must have identical titles (except institution name) - Project descriptions should be substantially similar - Clear division of labor - Coordination plan
Budget: Each institution submits own budget for their portion
Review: Reviewed together as single integrated project
Benefits: Brings together complementary expertise and resources
Purpose: Support time-sensitive research opportunities
Examples: - Natural disasters - Disease outbreaks - Unique astronomical events - Rare opportunities for data collection
Requirements: - Urgent need justification - Up to $200,000 - Up to 1 year duration - Simplified review process (program officer discretion) - No preliminary data required
Submission: Contact program officer first, then submit proposal
Purpose: Support exploratory work on untested, but potentially transformative, ideas
Requirements: - High-risk, high-reward research - Radically different approaches - Up to $300,000 - Up to 2 years - Program officer approval required before submission - No panel review (program officer decision)
Key: Must be truly exploratory and high-risk, not incremental
Personnel: - Senior personnel: Up to 2 months (summer salary) for 9-month faculty - Postdoctoral scholars: Full salary and benefits - Graduate students: Stipend (tuition typically covered under fringe/indirect) - Undergraduate students: Hourly or stipend - Technical and administrative staff
Fringe Benefits: Follow institutional rates
Equipment: Items ≥$5,000 per unit - Must be justified - Shared equipment requires letters from collaborators
Travel: - Domestic and international scientific meetings - Collaboration and fieldwork - Justification required
Participant Support Costs: For workshops, training, conferences - Stipends, travel, subsistence for participants - Not subject to indirect costs
Other Direct Costs: - Publication costs - Consulting services - Computer services - Materials and supplies - Subawards to collaborating institutions
Indirect Costs (F&A): Institutional negotiated rate applies to modified total direct costs (MTDC) - MTDC excludes: equipment, participant support, subawards >$25K
NSF Policy: Cost sharing is not required and should not be voluntary
Exceptions: Some programs require cost sharing (check program solicitation)
When Included: Must be documented, verifiable, auditable, and necessary for project
Varies by program: - Some programs have specific deadlines (e.g., twice per year) - Some programs accept proposals anytime (check with program officer) - CAREER: July deadline (directorate-specific)
Submission Windows: NSF deadlines are typically 5 PM submitter's local time
Research.gov or Grants.gov: NSF accepts both
Process: 1. Institutional authorization required 2. Upload all required documents 3. Verify PDF compilation 4. Submit (aim for 48 hours early) 5. Receive confirmation and proposal number
Timeline: Typically 6 months from submission to decision
Steps: 1. Administrative Review: NSF checks compliance (1-2 weeks) 2. Program Officer Assignment: Assigned to appropriate program (1-2 weeks) 3. Reviewer Selection: Panel and/or ad hoc reviewers identified (2-4 weeks) 4. Review: Reviewers assess proposals (4-8 weeks) 5. Panel Discussion: Panel meets (virtual or in-person) to discuss proposals (1 week) 6. Program Officer Recommendation: Based on reviews and panel discussion (2-4 weeks) 7. Division/Directorate Approval: Final decision (2-4 weeks)
Review Formats: - Panel Review: 10-20 proposals discussed at panel meeting - Ad hoc Review: External reviewers submit written reviews - Hybrid: Combination of panel and ad hoc reviews
Number of Reviewers: Typically 3-5 reviewers per proposal
Possible Decisions: - Funded: Congratulations! Award forthcoming - Declined: Not recommended for funding - Returned Without Review: Non-compliant with requirements
Feedback: Panel summary and individual reviews provided regardless of outcome
Success Rates: Vary by program, typically 15-30%
Appropriate: - Before submission: Discuss fit with program, feasibility of idea - After reviews: Discuss feedback, resubmission strategy - During project: Report significant changes, request no-cost extensions
How to Contact: - Email program officer (contact info in program solicitation) - Request 15-30 minute phone call - Prepare concise summary of research idea (1 page)
Good Questions: - Is my research appropriate for this program? - Are there upcoming solicitations or special initiatives? - What are key areas of emphasis for the program? - Is the scope and budget appropriate? - After reviews: What are key issues to address in resubmission?
Avoid: - Asking for guarantee of funding - Arguing with review outcome - Inappropriate requests for information about reviewers
No Formal Resubmission Category: NSF treats resubmissions as new proposals
Can Resubmit: - To same program (after addressing reviews) - To different program (if better fit) - After substantial revision
No Introduction Section: Unlike NIH, NSF doesn't have formal resubmission response
Strategy: - Carefully review panel summary and individual reviews - Address all major criticisms - Strengthen weak areas (prelim data, broader impacts, methods) - Consider discussing with program officer - May want to wait for next funding cycle to gather more data
Tracking: Proposals reviewed previously may be assigned same reviewers (sometimes)
✅ Start with specific aims/objectives - Crystal clear research goals ✅ Make broader impacts substantive - Specific activities, not platitudes ✅ Use figures effectively - Conceptual diagrams, preliminary data, timelines ✅ Be realistic about scope - Achievable within 3-5 years ✅ Address both review criteria explicitly - Don't make reviewers search ✅ Get external feedback - Mock review before submission ✅ Follow formatting requirements exactly - Auto-rejection for non-compliance ✅ Explain jargon and acronyms - Panel members may not be in your subfield ✅ Integrate research and education - Show natural connections ✅ Demonstrate team qualifications - Track record in proposed area
❌ Don't exceed page limits - Automatic return without review ❌ Don't use smaller fonts in figures - Must be legible ❌ Don't make broader impacts generic - "Train students" is not enough ❌ Don't ignore prior NSF support - Must report if you've had NSF funding ❌ Don't be overly ambitious - Reviewers will see through unrealistic plans ❌ Don't skip data management plan - Required for all proposals ❌ Don't forget biosketches for all personnel - Common mistake ❌ Don't submit at deadline - Technical issues happen ❌ Don't ignore program solicitation - Requirements vary by program ❌ Don't assume reviewers know your work - Provide context
Key Takeaway: NSF values both scientific excellence (Intellectual Merit) and societal benefit (Broader Impacts) equally. Successful proposals demonstrate innovative, feasible research that advances knowledge while contributing to education, diversity, infrastructure, or societal well-being in specific, measurable ways.