A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program Division administering the program. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator or Fellow.
See section VI. Electronic mail notification is the preferred way to transmit NSF awards to organizations that have electronic mail capabilities and have requested such notification from the Division of Grants and Agreements. Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone or by e-mail from pubs nsf.
The telephone number at GPO for subscription information is Upon conclusion of the review process, meritorious proposals may be recommended for funding by either NSF or NEH at the option of the agencies, not the proposer. Subsequent grant administration procedures will be in accordance with the individual policies of the awarding agency. For all multi-year grants including both standard and continuing grants , the PI must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer at least 90 days before the end of the current budget period.
Within 90 days after the expiration of an award, the PI also is required to submit a final project report. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data. PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project reporting system, available through FastLane, for preparation and submission of annual and final project reports.
This system permits electronic submission and updating of project reports, including information on project participants individual and organizational , activities and findings, publications, and other specific products and contributions. PIs will not be required to re-enter information previously provided, either with a proposal or in earlier updates using the electronic system.
FastLane Help Desk telephone: , email: fastlane nsf. The NSF Guide to Programs is a compilation of funding for research and education in science, mathematics, and engineering.
General descriptions of NSF programs, research areas, and eligibility information for proposal submission are provided in each chapter.
Many NSF programs offer announcements or solicitations concerning specific proposal requirements. To obtain additional information about these requirements, contact the appropriate NSF program offices. Awardees are wholly responsible for conducting their project activities and preparing the results for publication. Thus, the Foundation does not assume responsibility for such findings or their interpretation. NSF welcomes proposals from all qualified scientists, engineers and educators.
The Foundation strongly encourages women, minorities and persons with disabilities to compete fully in its programs. In accordance with Federal statutes, regulations and NSF policies, no person on grounds of race, color, age, sex, national origin or disability shall be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving financial assistance from NSF, although some programs may have special requirements that limit eligibility.
Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities FASED provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities investigators and other staff, including student research assistants to work on NSF-supported projects.
The National Science Foundation promotes and advances scientific progress in the United States by competitively awarding grants and cooperative agreements for research and education in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering. The National Endowment for the Humanities NEH is an independent grant-making agency of the United States government dedicated to supporting research, education, preservation, and public programs in the humanities. The Smithsonian Institution operates with a mix of public and private funds; nevertheless, the institution receives most of its support from federal appropriations with the balance of funding from grants, contracts, endowment income, and business activities.
The Smithsonian was established in as a unique trust instrumentality established for the benefit of the public and created by an act of Congress for the "increase and diffusion of knowledge.
The institution is governed by a Board of Regents, which appoints the Secretary of the Institution who, in turn, appoints the Director of the National Museum of Natural History. The National Museum of Natural History's Board provides valuable assistance and advice on resource development, strategic planning, external advocacy, and networking.
The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of , as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; project reports submitted by awardees will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress.
Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award. In the Elders Language Advisory Committee identified thirty speakers that are considered fluent by the elders of the Omaha Tribe.
A creative and original concept explored by this activity is the true collaboration of the researcher, a fluent Omaha elder, and community, with importance given to Omaha Nation community needs rather than just researcher interest. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal.
These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of the review process. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal.
In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities.
One of the strategic objectives in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions must recruit, train, and prepare a diverse STEM workforce to advance the frontiers of science and participate in the U. NSF's contribution to the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research under the guidance of the Nation's most creative scientists and engineers.
NSF also supports development of a strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics STEM workforce by investing in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching and learning. NSF's mission calls for the broadening of opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering.
NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports. The National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of science and engineering research and education.
To identify which projects to support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes.
These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations when preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards. Given that NSF is the primary federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and education, the following three principles apply:.
With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project.
Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of those activities. These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better understand their intent. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.
The two merit review criteria are listed below. Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria. When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful.
These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions.
To that end, reviewers will be asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria:. Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project.
NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics STEM ; improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education.
Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the Data Management Plan and the Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan, as appropriate. Reviewers will take into account how well the additional DEL specifics listed below were addressed in the proposal. NSF shall manage and conduct the review process of all proposals submitted. The process may include ad hoc mail reviewers as needed in combination with panelist reviewers who meet, discuss the proposals, and make recommendations to the NSF.
The NEH personnel will only receive unattributed copies of the reviews and panel summaries. Reviewers will be informed that their unattributed reviews may be shared with other government agencies as specified in the solicitation.
Copies of proposals and unattributed reviews will be shared with NEH, as appropriate. Reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals using two National Science Board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable, additional program specific criteria. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation. After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award.
NSF strives to be able to tell applicants whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. Large or particularly complex proposals or proposals from new awardees may require additional review and processing time. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director acts upon the Program Officer's recommendation. After programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements for review of business, financial, and policy implications.
After an administrative review has occurred, Grants and Agreements Officers perform the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds.
A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk. Once an award or declination decision has been made, Principal Investigators are provided feedback about their proposals.
We will also consider proposals for conferences. Funding requests for conference support should be submitted in accordance with Chapter II. The Linguistics Program, in partnership with the National Endowment for the Humanities and in collaboration with programs in other NSF Directorates, supports efforts to develop and advance knowledge and infrastructure that will enable the analysis of languages that are both understudied and at risk of falling out of use.
In the News. What's Happening. For the press. Working with NSF. NSF Organization. For Congress.
0コメント