1. The NSF Grant Review Process: Some Practical Tips
Ping Li
Department of Psychology &
Institute for CyberScience
Pennsylvania State University
Dec.14, 2017
SSRI Workshop on Understanding the Grant Review Process

2. Outline NSF Grant Review and Research Support
Some Practical Considerations in Proposal Writing

3. National Science Foundation
Credit:

4. Grant writing: Practical Issues

6. Major steps in grant writing
Identifying sources of funding for your project: NSF, NIH
Know the different types and opportunities of support
Deciding on the scope (size of the grant, team, duration, etc.)
Initial discussion with colleagues and asking for help
The proposal narrative: how many studies, how much detail
The supporting parts: budget, biosketches, facilities.
Submit and do not expect to get funded the first time
The review process (which can be long)
Revision and resubmission (which is critical)

7. Determine where to submit
Li & Marrongelli (2013)

8. Different types and opportunities
Regular research grants
Equipment grants
Conference grants
Postdoc fellowships
Graduate student fellowships
Other initiatives and one-time grants

9. Scope and size of grant
It’s a good strategy to start small, especially if you don’t already have
pilot studies that provide the foundation for your proposal.
Collaborate or not: complementary and unique expertise of each investigator.
If you are proposing to use new method/technology, be sure to have
both pilot data & collaborators who are experienced with these methods.
The scope of the project should reflect your stage of professional
development, including your publication track record, whether you
have an established laboratory and institutional resources and support,
and whether you have access to the necessary resources (e.g., equipment,
graduate and undergraduate research students, statistical consulting, the
appropriate population of research participants if you plan to test human
subjects.)

10. Proposal narrative/text
You need to describe the general method in detail, but not all the specific details as in a research paper; this depends also on the agency to which you are applying
For small scope project, it is best to have more details about one good study than to have many studies that the reviewers consider too ambitious
It is critical to have a theoretical framework on the basis of which you can generate predictions and hypotheses. Reviewers often comment that a study lacks theoretical significance, just as in journal paper reviews.
Give yourself enough time before the deadline so that others can read the
narrative and give you feedback. Its most helpful to have at least one reader who is
reasonably familiar with your area of research and one other who is not in your field

11. Budget considerations
Ask what you need for the scope of the project, but give yourself some room for potential future development; this also depends on the grant agency
Be realistic with your research goals and therefore your budget – starting small

12. While you are waiting
Li & Marrongelli (2013)

13. While you are waiting
Li & Marrongelli (2013)

14. While you are waiting
Conduct additional studies that will result in publications (and pilot data for the next version of the proposal)
Apply for internal funds from your institution. These are
typically for smaller amounts but can provide useful seed
funds to enhance the likelihood of having compelling
pilot data for external proposals
Network with colleagues in the field to pursue collaborations
that may be mutually beneficial for your research and for
organizing a research team for future grant submissions

15. Revision, revision, and revision
Almost everyone has to revise. It is a highly competitive process, just as journal publications are

16. Like journal articles: Reject and Resubmit
Most articles are in this category
This is already good news!
Treat the reviewers’ comments seriously
Revise carefully (examples of revision and revision cover letter); if not revised properly, it may go to the Reject category next time (see example)
Submit timely (not too soon, not too late)

17. Revision, revision, and revision
Almost everyone has to revise. It is a highly competitive process, just as journal publications are
Revision makes a paper better, it also makes a grant proposal better
Know what the major problems are based on reviewers’ comments and then focus on the major issues
Know how to write for the non-specialists, and this is more important for proposals than for research papers

18. Common criticisms to NSF proposals
No compelling rationale (no theoretical framework)
No preliminary data (proof of concept)
Experiments don’t relate to the theory
Results could have alternative explanations
Overly ambitious
Insufficient detail
If the experiments “work,” what will we really have learned?

19. A picture is worth a thousand words
Li & Marrongelli (2013)

20. A picture is worth a thousand words
Li & Marrongelli (2013)

21. Good structure, informative title
Have a good structure that is clear, and have a good title that is informative
Use headings and subheadings properly to streamline the discussion
Avoid convoluted sentences; use simple, plain, English - - the three C’s (consistent, coherent, and clear)
Remember that the reviewers are very busy individuals, so keep the perspective of the reviewer as well as the readers when writing

22. Getting Yourself Involved
Going to conferences/meetings and talk to program officers
Becoming a reviewer or panelist at funding agencies
Collaborating with other researchers
Know the right people at the right time

23. Start small, but aim high
“Rome was not built in a day”
Get a small grant first, and then think about other big ones
Think how you can leverage additional resources to support further lines of research that may be related to the current project
Interdisciplinary research and international collaboration are the keys in moving to big scope, large scale projects

24. Interdisciplinary collaboration is a necessity
Interdisciplinary collaboration becomes necessary for large-scale projects
High-impact and transformative research is increasingly the product of successful collaborative teamwork

25. Questions?