NSF/NIH Review Processes University of Southern Mississippi Rich Dunfee Sandra George

Know Your Funder! All federal agencies and foundations have different grants management/review processes and “cultures”. Understand the Culture: A good proposal must “fit” the mission/goal of the agency or foundation. Ask For Help: Your Sponsored Programs Office and GRC can help. - Your project MUST fit the goals of the grant. - Don’t force the grant to fit the your project. Ask For Help: Your Sponsored Programs Office and GRC can help you understand the agency or foundation to which you want to apply, and its review process. © 2014 AASCU

Center for Scientific Review (CSR) http://public. csr. nih Peer review is the “essence” of NIH Process: Referral Officers examine the application and determine which Integrated Review Group (IRG) will assess scientific and technical merit. Application is assigned to IRG’s study section Application is assigned to one or more appropriate NIH Institute/s or Center/s (IC) REMEMBER: You can influence the assignment of your application by submitting a cover letter with your application!! © 2014 AASCU

NIH Peer Review—Two Step Process Step One: Peer review study sections Most important determinant of success is scientific merit as judged by peer reviewers at the initial study section meetings. Step Two: NIH Institute or Center review (National Advisory Councils) Final funding decisions depend on topic, Institute’s or Center’s total research portfolio, type of grant, grant size, and grantee (new investigator, minority, woman, etc.). Two step peer review process: http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/peer/peer.htm A list of 140 standing study sections appears at http://www.csr.nih.gov/committees/rosterindex.asp

STUDY SECTIONS JUDGE Remember: Scientific Merit and Technical Merit Institute staff use the evaluations as part of the process of considering the relevance of applications to the Institute’s mission, research priorities and portfolio of existing research Remember: Study sections DO NOT FUND Institutes DO FUND © 2014 AASCU

Peer Review: Individual Review and Criterion Scoring Reviewers give a preliminary impact score Impact scores reflect the reviewer’s evaluation of the overall impact that the project is likely to have on the research field(s) involved All applications receive a separate score for each of five core review criteria: Significance Investigator(s) Innovation Approach Environment 3. Scored on a 9-Point Rating Scale 1=Exceptional 9=Poor Before the review meeting, each reviewer and discussant assigned to an application will give a preliminary impact score for that application, which will be used to determine which applications will be discussed. Impact scores reflect the reviewer’s evaluation of the overall impact that the project is likely to have on the research field(s) involved, rather than a weighted average applied to the reviewer’s scores given to each criterion (see below). 2. All applications, even those not discussed by the full committee, receive a separate score for each of five core review criteria (Significance, Investigator(s), Innovation, Approach, and Environment), and will be reported individually on the summary statement. 9-Point Rating Scale – 1=Exceptional 9=Poor Whole numbers reported, no decimals. © 2014 AASCU

Inside the NIH Review Process Get an inside look at how NIH grant applications are reviewed for scientific and technical merit in this mock study section video: http://public.csr.nih.gov/Pages/default.aspx

Become an NIH Peer Reviewer One of the best ways to build insider knowledge about NIH is to serve on review panels. Most reviewers are chosen from the pool of NIH awardees The Early Career Reviewer (ECR) Program includes scientists from less research-intensive institutions. Requirements include: Active research program Track record publishing in high-impact journals Prior NIH funding not required Link to becoming a peer reviewer: http://public.csr.nih.gov/ReviewerResources/BecomeAReviewer/Pages/default.aspx Early Career Reviewer (ECR) Program - http://public.csr.nih.gov/ReviewerResources/BecomeAReviewer/Pages/Overview-of-ECR-program.aspx To be considered for ECR reviewer spot, forward a statement of interest, biosketch, and description of expertise to the Center for Scientific Review at: CSREarlyCareerReviewer@mail.nih.gov © 2014 AASCU

Helpful NIH Websites Grant Application Basics Writing Your Application http://grants.nih.gov/grants/grant_basics.htm Writing Your Application http://grants.nih.gov/grants/writing_application.htm All About Grants Tutorials http://www.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/pages/aag.aspx Sample Grant Application http://tinyurl.com/d8oujzw Guidelines for Reviewers http://public.csr.nih.gov/ReviewerResources/Pages/default.aspx © 2014 AASCU

NSF Grant Review Schedule Phase 1: Request for Proposals or Letters of Intent are made public 90 Days for the public to respond via Fastlane or Grants.gov NSF receives proposals Phase 2: Reviewers are selected Peer review process Program Directors’ Recommendations Division Directors’ Input/Decisions Phase 3: NSF makes budgetary decisions about awards Award notifications are sent to grantee institutions © 2014 AASCU

NSF Reviewers MUST . . . Be familiar with the current Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Be familiar with the program or initiatives under review Indicate conflicts of interest and recuse themselves if necessary Adhere to instructions and guidance from Program Directors © 2014 AASCU

NSF MANDATORY REVIEW CRITERIA Two factors that must always be explicitly included (or the proposal will be considered ineligible for funding): Intellectual Merit: Encompasses the potential to advance knowledge Broader Impacts: Encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes. Link to Review Criteria: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_3.jsp#IIIA2a © 2014 AASCU

5 Quick Tips to Understanding the NSF Review Process NSF Program Directors are subject matter experts who are often faculty rotators from universities and colleges NSF Reviewers are often faculty who are subject matter experts NSF Division Directors are subject matter experts who have often served as university faculty or administrators Reviewer and Program Director comments are helpful for revising unawarded proposals. Read those carefully! NSF Program Directors are HUMAN, so send them an email BEFORE you submit (to find out what to do right) and AFTER the award process is concluded (to ask where you went wrong).

Helpful NSF Links Grant Application Basics Writing Your Application All About Grants Tutorials Sample Grant Application Guidelines for Reviewers © 2014 AASCU

Helpful NSF Links Grants Policy Office Homepage: http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/ Search page for previously funded awards: http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/ Find Funding Opportunities: http://www.nsf.gov/funding/ How to Prepare Your Proposal: http://www.nsf.gov/funding/preparing/ Recent Opportunities: http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_list.jsp?org=NSF&ord=rcnt   © 2014 AASCU

? ? ? Questions ? ? ?