THIRD TIME'S A CHARM; NSF RESUBMISSION OF A DECLINED PROPOSAL

Transcription

1 THIRD TIME'S A CHARM; NSF RESUBMISSION OF A DECLINED PROPOSAL Michael Briley Department of Physics & Astronomy Appalachian State University (The opinions and views expressed here are solely my own...)

2 WHAT IS A ROTATOR? University Faculty (most often) Brought in to manage a program for a year or two or more Visiting Scientist, Engineer, and Educator Program Intergovernmental Personnel Act

3 MY ROTATION Division of Astronomical Sciences (MPS) Sept August 2005: VSEE Sept August 2008: IPA Sept December 2009: Expert

4 MY ROTATION DIVISION DIRECTOR G. Wayne Van Citters EXECUTIVE OFFICER Eileen Friel IT Specialist / FastLane Kim Elliott Associate Program Director Dana Lehr AAAS Fellow Tammy Bosler INDIVIDUAL INVESTIGATOR PROGRAMS Nigel Sharp, Lead MID-SCALE PROJS & INFRASTRUCTURE Vernon Pankonin, Lead FACILITIES & MREFC PROJ DEVELOPMT Craig Foltz, Lead ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT Elizabeth Pentecost, Project Administrator Planetary Astronomy - PLA Nigel Sharp, Program Director University Radio Observatories Rich Barvainis, Program Manager ALMA Project Philip Puxley, Program Manager Division Secretary Rochelle Spicer-Monroe (On Detail) Stellar Astronomy & Astrophysics - SAA Michael Briley, Program Director Cyberinfrastruct/Virtual Ast Obs - NVO/VAO Nigel Sharp, Program Director Eileen Friel, Program Director National Radio Astronomy Obs. - NRAO Vernon Pankonin, Program Manager Financial Operations Specialist Donna O'Malley Galactic Astronomy - GAL Brian Patten, Program Director Linda Sparke, Program Director Particle Astrophysics - PA Vernon Pankonin, Program Director National Optical Astronomy Obs. - NOAO/NSO Thomas Barnes, Program Manager Program Technology Specialist Anton Jiggetts (On Detail) Extragalactic Astronomy & Cosmology - EXC Nigel Sharp, Program Director Linda Sparke, Program Director Mid-Scale Projects/Instrumentation Vernon Pankonin, Program Director National Astronomy & Ionosphere Ctr - NAIC Rich Barvainis, Program Manager Program Assistant Ann Butler Education & Special Programs - ESP Brian Patten, Program Director Gemini Craig Foltz, Program Manager Student Assistant Azuredee Perkins Astronomy & Astrophysics Postdoc Fellows Dana Lehr, Associate Program Director Electromagnetic Spectrum Management - ESM Tomas Gergely, Program Manger Andrew Clegg, Program Manager Prog for Res & Educ w/small Telesc - PREST Julian Christou, Program Director Advanced Technologies & Instrumentation Andrew Clegg, Program Director - Radio Julian Christou, Program Director - Optical/IR

5 MY ROTATION DIVISION DIRECTOR G. Wayne Van Citters EXECUTIVE OFFICER Eileen Friel IT Specialist / FastLane Kim Elliott Associate Program Director Dana Lehr AAAS Fellow Tammy Bosler INDIVIDUAL INVESTIGATOR PROGRAMS Nigel Sharp, Lead MID-SCALE PROJS & INFRASTRUCTURE Vernon Pankonin, Lead FACILITIES & MREFC PROJ DEVELOPMT Craig Foltz, Lead ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT Elizabeth Pentecost, Project Administrator Planetary Astronomy - PLA Nigel Sharp, Program Director University Radio Observatories Rich Barvainis, Program Manager ALMA Project Philip Puxley, Program Manager Division Secretary Rochelle Spicer-Monroe (On Detail) Stellar Astronomy & Astrophysics - SAA Michael Briley, Program Director Cyberinfrastruct/Virtual Ast Obs - NVO/VAO Nigel Sharp, Program Director Eileen Friel, Program Director National Radio Astronomy Obs. - NRAO Vernon Pankonin, Program Manager Financial Operations Specialist Donna O'Malley Galactic Astronomy - GAL Brian Patten, Program Director Linda Sparke, Program Director Particle Astrophysics - PA Vernon Pankonin, Program Director National Optical Astronomy Obs. - NOAO/NSO Thomas Barnes, Program Manager Program Technology Specialist Anton Jiggetts (On Detail) Extragalactic Astronomy & Cosmology - EXC Nigel Sharp, Program Director Linda Sparke, Program Director Mid-Scale Projects/Instrumentation Vernon Pankonin, Program Director National Astronomy & Ionosphere Ctr - NAIC Rich Barvainis, Program Manager Program Assistant Ann Butler Education & Special Programs - ESP Brian Patten, Program Director Gemini Craig Foltz, Program Manager Student Assistant Azuredee Perkins Astronomy & Astrophysics Postdoc Fellows Dana Lehr, Associate Program Director Electromagnetic Spectrum Management - ESM Tomas Gergely, Program Manger Andrew Clegg, Program Manager Prog for Res & Educ w/small Telesc - PREST Julian Christou, Program Director Advanced Technologies & Instrumentation Andrew Clegg, Program Director - Radio Julian Christou, Program Director - Optical/IR

6 MY ROTATION Division of Astronomical Sciences (MPS) Sept August 2005: VSEE Sept August 2008: IPA Sept December 2009: Expert Ran 25+ panels, made recommendations for 600+ proposals

7 MY ROTATION Division of Astronomical Sciences (MPS) Sept August 2005: VSEE Sept August 2008: IPA Sept December 2009: Expert Ran 25+ panels, made recommendations for 600+ proposals I ve seen a lot of proposals not get funded

8 WHY NOT FUNDED? Returned Without Review

9 A proposal may not be accepted or may be returned without review by NSF for the following reasons. The proposal: is inappropriate for funding by the National Science Foundation; is submitted with insufficient lead-time before the activity is scheduled to begin; is a full proposal that was submitted by a proposer that has received a not invited response to the submission of a preliminary proposal; is a duplicate of, or substantially similar to, a proposal already under consideration by NSF from the same submitter; does not meet NSF proposal preparation requirements, such as page limitations, formatting instructions, and electronic submission, as specified in the Grant Proposal Guide or program solicitation; is not responsive to the GPG or program announcement/solicitation; does not meet an announced proposal deadline date; was previously reviewed and declined and has not been substantially revised; duplicates another proposal that was already awarded; and does not contain the Project Summary, including an overview and separate statements on intellectual merit and broader impacts.

10 A proposal may not be accepted or may be returned without review by NSF for the following reasons. The proposal: is inappropriate for funding by the National Science Foundation; is submitted with insufficient lead-time before the activity is scheduled to begin; is a full proposal that was submitted by a proposer that has received a not invited response to the submission of a preliminary proposal; is a duplicate of, or substantially similar to, a proposal already under consideration by NSF from the same submitter; does not meet NSF proposal preparation requirements, such as page limitations, formatting instructions, and electronic submission, as specified in the Grant Proposal Guide or program solicitation; is not responsive to the GPG or program announcement/solicitation; does not meet an announced proposal deadline date; was previously reviewed and declined and has not been substantially revised; duplicates another proposal that was already awarded; and does not contain the Project Summary, including an overview and separate statements on intellectual merit and broader impacts.

11 GPG Compliance

12 Fastlane Submission Compliance Print OK? Issues Have PI Fix & Resubmit PO Reccomend OK Return Without Review Major Issues Compliance Check Minor Issues DD Reccomend Decline OK tify PI "maybe" tify PI "" Fits Panel? Home Panel Conflict List Panelist Selection Grants & Agreements Decline Experts? tify PI "" Panel Meeting Panel Program Officer Merge

13 FY2008 AAG PROPOSAL COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST PI Proposal # Checklist (other GPG items at PO discretion) Action Newer Requirements: Technical errors:! printing or font problems due to PDF conversion (only FastLane errors can be corrected) Cover Page:! Received by deadline date?! Electronic Signature?! Special Proposal, i.e. SGER, etc?! Same proposal to another agency?! Color/high resolution graphics? Project Summary:! Both Merit Review criteria separately addressed! One page limit Project Description:! 15 page limit (unless deviation approved)! Results from Prior Support included (if applicable)! Formatting (character sizes, fonts, etc.)! Broader Impacts Budget:! Main proposal; each year and cumulative! Each subaward; each year and cumulative Biographical Sketch:! Contains lists of collaborators for all senior personnel! Two page limit per person Other Documentation:! Current & Pending Support statement! Letters of collaboration (letters of recommendation are not allowed)! Give PI seven calendar days to exchange the bad PDF file(s) with corrected files, using the Proposal File Update utility in FastLane.! Process as Return without review! Request AOR provide e-signature via FastLane! Process separately! Coordinate with other agency! Receive hard copies from PI, for assigned reviewers! Process as Return without review! Process as Return without review! Process as Return without review! Process as Return without review! Process as Return without review (discretion allowed)! Warn PI of policy and potential for return next year! Contact PI to submit via FastLane! Contact PI to submit via FastLane (can fix after review)! Get list by , and request FastLane Proposal File Update if possible within a few days! Proposal File Update within 5 business days or return! Proposal File Update within 5 business days! Warn PI of policy; Proposal File Update within 5 business days to replace inappropriate material Data Management Plan Postdoctoral Mentoring Plan Appendices:! ne (unless RUI or AD approved before submission) Assign to Program:! Warn PI of policy; Proposal File Update within 5 business days to remove inappropriate material. Key Words: Do t Use : Potential : Comments/Action:

14 PI Checklist (other GPG items at PO discretion) FY2008 AAG PROPOSAL COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST Technical errors:! printing or font problems due to PDF conversion (only FastLane errors can be corrected) Proposal # Action! Give PI seven calendar days to exchange the bad PDF file(s) with corrected files, using the Proposal File Update utility in FastLane. Before Submitting: Cover Page:! Received by deadline date?! Electronic Signature?! Special Proposal, i.e. SGER, etc?! Same proposal to another agency?! Color/high resolution graphics? Project Summary:! Both Merit Review criteria separately addressed! One page limit Project Description:! 15 page limit (unless deviation approved)! Results from Prior Support included (if applicable)! Formatting (character sizes, fonts, etc.)! Broader Impacts Budget:! Main proposal; each year and cumulative! Each subaward; each year and cumulative Biographical Sketch:! Contains lists of collaborators for all senior personnel! Two page limit per person Other Documentation:! Current & Pending Support statement! Letters of collaboration (letters of recommendation are not allowed)! Process as Return without review! Request AOR provide e-signature via FastLane! Process separately! Coordinate with other agency! Receive hard copies from PI, for assigned reviewers! Process as Return without review! Process as Return without review! Process as Return without review! Process as Return without review! Process as Return without review (discretion allowed)! Warn PI of policy and potential for return next year! Contact PI to submit via FastLane! Contact PI to submit via FastLane (can fix after review)! Get list by , and request FastLane Proposal File Update if possible within a few days! Proposal File Update within 5 business days or return! Proposal File Update within 5 business days! Warn PI of policy; Proposal File Update within 5 business days to replace inappropriate material Print out the full proposal Check that it s GPG compliant (Also check it s what you expected to upload) Appendices:! ne (unless RUI or AD approved before submission) Assign to Program:! Warn PI of policy; Proposal File Update within 5 business days to remove inappropriate material. Key Words: Do t Use : Potential : Comments/Action:

15 WHY NOT FUNDED? Returned Without Review Declined After Review

16 WHY NOT FUNDED? Returned Without Review Declined After Review The Program Officer Recommendation

17 Fastlane Submission The Recommendation Compliance Print OK? Issues Have PI Fix & Resubmit PO Reccomend OK Return Without Review Major Issues Compliance Check Minor Issues DD Reccomend Decline OK tify PI "maybe" tify PI "" Fits Panel? Home Panel Conflict List Panelist Selection Grants & Agreements Decline Experts? tify PI "" Panel Meeting Panel Program Officer Merge

18 PROGRAM OFFICERS Program Directors Have a Lot of Power in Funding Decisions

19 PROGRAM OFFICERS Program Directors Have a Lot of Power in Funding Decisions It s worth getting to know them (or them getting to know you)

20 PROGRAM OFFICERS Program Directors Have a Lot of Power in Funding Decisions Program Directors Have to Say a Lot

21 STELLAR ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS 150 New Proposals/Year $10M Annual Budget (~35 New Projects)

22 STELLAR ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS 150 New Proposals/Year $10M Annual Budget (~35 New Projects) Most Proposals are Declined (2012 Mean NSF Funding rate: 24%)

23 PROGRAM OFFICERS Program Directors Have a Lot of Power in Funding Decisions Program Directors Have to Say a Lot Many times they do not want to decline a proposal and arguing with them about it is not going to help. If you are declined, you re not notified until after it has happened for this reason (mostly).

24 PROGRAM OFFICERS Program Directors Have a Lot of Power in Funding Decisions Program Directors Have to Say a Lot Program Directors do t Necessarily Have Research Experience in All Areas of their Program

25 STELLAR ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS Studies of the structure and activity of the Sun and other stars The physical properties and composition of all types of single and multiple stars Compact objects and their interactions Extra-solar system planet formation and detection Star formation and stellar evolution Stellar nucleosynthesis The properties of atoms and molecules of relevance to stellar astronomy

26 STELLAR ASTRONOMY & ASTROPHYSICS Studies of the structure and activity of the Sun and other stars The physical properties and composition of all types of single and multiple stars Compact objects and their interactions Extra-solar system planet formation and detection Star formation and stellar evolution Stellar nucleosynthesis The properties of atoms and molecules of relevance to stellar astronomy

27 PROGRAM OFFICERS Program Directors Have a Lot of Power in Funding Decisions Program Directors Have to Say a Lot Program Directors do t Necessarily Have Research Experience in All Areas of their Program When writing/talking about a project, start with a broader brush than you d expect and get to finer detail as necessary. But they will know the big issues in the field - connect your work with those issues.

28 PROGRAM OFFICERS Program Directors Have a Lot of Power in Funding Decisions Program Directors Have to Say a Lot Program Directors do t Necessarily Have Research Experience in All Areas of their Program Recommendations Based on Multiple Factors

29 PROGRAM OFFICERS Program Directors Have a Lot of Power in Funding Decisions Program Directors Have to Say a Lot Program Directors do t Necessarily Have Research Experience in All Areas of their Program Recommendations Based on Multiple Factors Programmatic Factors The Review (Panel/Reviewer Advice, PO Opinions)

30 PROGRAMMATIC FACTORS 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. (GPG III.E)

31 PROGRAMMATIC FACTORS Subfield/Topic/Technique Diversity PI Diversity Institutional Diversity Geographical Diversity [te: these considerations do not trump scientific merit, but they can be tie-breakers]

32 PROGRAM OFFICERS Program Directors Have a Lot of Power in Funding Decisions Program Directors Have to Say a Lot Program Directors do t Necessarily Have Research Experience in All Areas of their Program Recommendations Based on Multiple Factors Programmatic Factors The Review (Panel/Reviewer Advice)

33 Fastlane Submission The Recommendation Compliance Print OK? Issues Have PI Fix & Resubmit PO Reccomend OK Return Without Review Major Issues Compliance Check Minor Issues DD Reccomend Decline OK tify PI "maybe" tify PI "" Fits Panel? Home Panel Conflict List Panelist Selection Grants & Agreements Decline Experts? tify PI "" Panel Meeting Panel The Review Program Officer Merge

34 THE REVIEW THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND Panel? Panel Conflict List Panelist Selection All (panel or mail) write their reviews in a vacuum Experts? Panel Meeting Panel Program Officer Merge Program Officer Merge

35 THE REVIEW THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND Panel? Panel Conflict List Panelist Selection Experts? Panel Meeting Panel Program Officer Merge Program Officer Merge All (panel or mail) write their reviews in a vacuum A bad review is not the kiss of death - reviewers do make mistakes. The panel summary should explain the discussion of the reviews. The PO will also know how the review was weighted.

36 THE REVIEW THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND Panel? Panel Conflict List Panelist Selection All (panel or mail) write their reviews in a vacuum Experts? Panel Meeting (mail) reviewers typically get a smaller set of proposals Panel Program Officer Merge Program Officer Merge

37 THE REVIEW THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND Panel? Panel Conflict List Panelist Selection All (panel or mail) write their reviews in a vacuum Experts? Panel Meeting Panel Program Officer Merge Program Officer Merge (mail) reviewers typically get a smaller set of proposals Usually not exposed to the full range in quality - Tend to grade higher Also tend to be experts

38 THE REVIEW THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND Panel? Panel Conflict List Panels tend to be Panelist Selection conservative Experts? Panel Meeting Panel Program Officer Merge Program Officer Merge

39 THE REVIEW THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND Panel? Panel Conflict List Panels tend to be Panelist Selection Experts? conservative Will tend towards the sure result and the biggest bang for the buck Panel Meeting Panel (Hence the high risk language in the review guidelines) Program Officer Merge Program Officer Merge

40 THE REVIEW THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND Panel? Panel Conflict List Panels tend to be Panelist Selection conservative Panels tend to have Experts? broader expertise Panel Meeting Panel Program Officer Merge Program Officer Merge

41 THE REVIEW THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND Panel? Panel Conflict List Panels tend to be Panelist Selection conservative Panels tend to have Experts? Panel Meeting broader expertise NSF s idea of an expert and yours are probably different Panel Program Officer Merge Program Officer Merge

42 SO YOU VE BEEN DECLINED (AGAIN) Questions for the PO (after you ve read the reviews):

43 SO YOU VE BEEN DECLINED (AGAIN) Questions for the PO (after you ve read the reviews): I d like to talk to you about the proposal. When might be a good time to call?

44 SO YOU VE BEEN DECLINED (AGAIN) Questions for the PO (after you ve read the reviews): I d like to talk to you about the proposal. When might be a good time to call? Program Officers are very busy and are working with many proposals. Making an appointment gives them a chance to review what happened before your conversation.

45 SO YOU VE BEEN DECLINED (AGAIN) Questions for the PO (after you ve read the reviews): I d like to talk to you about the proposal. When might be a good time to call? Should I consider a revision/resubmission?

46 SO YOU VE BEEN DECLINED (AGAIN) Questions for the PO (after you ve read the reviews): I d like to talk to you about the proposal. When might be a good time to call? Should I consider a revision/resubmission? They will be honest about this. Resubmission of a fundamentally flawed project is good for no one.

47 SO YOU VE BEEN DECLINED (AGAIN) Questions for the PO (after you ve read the reviews): I d like to talk to you about the proposal. When might be a good time to call? Should I consider a revision/resubmission? Is there anything you could add to the reviews/summary?

48 SO YOU VE BEEN DECLINED (AGAIN) Questions for the PO (after you ve read the reviews): I d like to talk to you about the proposal. When might be a good time to call? Should I consider a revision/resubmission? Is there anything you could add to the reviews/summary? Program Officers sit in on the panels and they pay close attention to the reviews and discussions. They can give additional insight into the discussions and what the issues were.

49 SO YOU VE BEEN DECLINED (AGAIN) Questions for the PO (after you ve read the reviews): I d like to talk to you about the proposal. When might be a good time to call? Should I consider a revision/resubmission? Is there anything you could add to the reviews/summary? What advice do you have for changes?

50 SO YOU VE BEEN DECLINED (AGAIN) Questions for the PO (after you ve read the reviews): I d like to talk to you about the proposal. When might be a good time to call? Should I consider a revision/resubmission? Is there anything you could add to the reviews/summary? What advice do you have for changes? Listen to what they say.

51 SO YOU VE BEEN DECLINED (AGAIN) Questions for the PO (after you ve read the reviews): I d like to talk to you about the proposal. When might be a good time to call? Should I consider a revision/resubmission? Is there anything you could add to the reviews/summary? What advice do you have for changes? Listen to what they say. This question can be tricky though because the PO will be worried about promising success if the changes are made.

52 SO YOU VE BEEN DECLINED (AGAIN) Things you may find in the reviews and should consider in your revision:

53 SO YOU VE BEEN DECLINED (AGAIN) Things you may find in the reviews and should consider in your revision: The were idiots

54 SO YOU VE BEEN DECLINED (AGAIN) Things you may find in the reviews and should consider in your revision: The were idiots I got this one a lot... But no, they weren t.

55 SO YOU VE BEEN DECLINED (AGAIN) Things you may find in the reviews and should consider in your revision: Read the reviews and panel summaries with the following in mind: Were they right in identifying a technical/ scientific problem? Be honest.

56 SO YOU VE BEEN DECLINED (AGAIN) Things you may find in the reviews and should consider in your revision: Read the reviews and panel summaries with the following in mind: Were they right in identifying a technical/ scientific problem? Be honest. If so, fix it. If not, ask yourself why they missed it. It s usually because something wasn t as clear as it could be.

57 SO YOU VE BEEN DECLINED (AGAIN) Things you may find in the reviews and should consider in your revision: Read the reviews and panel summaries with the following in mind: Were they right in identifying a technical/ scientific problem? Be honest. Under no circumstances, write something like, contrary to the misguided opinions of last year s panel... Seriously. Don t.

58 SO YOU VE BEEN DECLINED (AGAIN) Things you may find in the reviews and should consider in your revision: Read the reviews and panel summaries with the following in mind: Were they right in identifying a technical/ scientific problem? Be honest. Under no circumstances, write something like, contrary to the misguided opinions of last year s panel... Seriously. Don t. Consider not even acknowledging the previous submission. The reviewers are usually different each time and it s a headsup to them that someone else didn t like your proposal.

59 THE REVIEW FIVE OTHER COMMON PITFALLS t placing work in broader context (the big one)

60 THE REVIEW FIVE OTHER COMMON PITFALLS t placing work in broader context (the big one) Panels tend to focus on a field - not every panelist will be an expert in your specific area. Similarly for Program Officers. You must win them all over. Make sure from the beginning the project and its results are placed in the context of broader issues in the field.

61 THE REVIEW FIVE OTHER COMMON PITFALLS t placing work in broader context (the big one) Missed Broader Impacts

62 THE REVIEW FIVE OTHER COMMON PITFALLS t placing work in broader context (the big one) Missed Broader Impacts Broader impacts are broadly defined (even more so in 2013). They aren t just EPO. If you can do RUI - Do! There is an opportunity for creativity here. And they do matter (Programmatic Value).

63 THE REVIEW FIVE OTHER COMMON PITFALLS t placing work in broader context (the big one) Missed Broader Impacts t making use of Suggested list

64 THE REVIEW FIVE OTHER COMMON PITFALLS t placing work in broader context (the big one) Missed Broader Impacts t making use of Suggested list POs are always looking for reviewers and will often make an effort to include a suggested reviewer. Use this tool.

65 THE REVIEW FIVE OTHER COMMON PITFALLS t placing work in broader context (the big one) Missed Broader Impacts t making use of Suggested list POs are always looking for reviewers and will often make an effort to include a suggested reviewer. Use this tool. Don t: Tell them not to use reviewer #2 from last year. Suggest someone who is conflicted. Suggest someone working in the exact same area.

66 THE REVIEW FIVE OTHER COMMON PITFALLS t placing work in broader context (the big one) Missed Broader Impacts t making use of Suggested list POs are always looking for reviewers and will often make an effort to include a suggested reviewer. Use this tool. Do: Suggest more general experts familiar with the problem you re working on. Suggest people who will use the product.

67 THE REVIEW FIVE OTHER COMMON PITFALLS t placing work in broader context (the big one) Missed Broader Impacts t making use of Suggested list t asking for enough support

68 THE REVIEW FIVE OTHER COMMON PITFALLS t placing work in broader context (the big one) Missed Broader Impacts t making use of Suggested list t asking for enough support (It happens. Really.) Panels/reviewers are conservative. You need to convince them you can do the project. t including postdocs/students, travel, page charges, supplies, etc. will weaken your case. Ask for what you need.

69 THE REVIEW FIVE OTHER COMMON PITFALLS t placing work in broader context (the big one) Missed Broader Impacts t making use of Suggested list t asking for enough support management plan/timeline

70 THE REVIEW FIVE OTHER COMMON PITFALLS t placing work in broader context (the big one) Missed Broader Impacts t making use of Suggested list t asking for enough support management plan/timeline Panels/reviewers are conservative. You need to convince them you can do the project! And be realistic.

71 FINAL ADVICE If the PO suggests resubmission with changes, do it. Consider the reviews/panel summary. If there is something they caught - fix it. If they got something wrong, you weren t clear - fix it. Remember the three things to show: 1) That the work will address a significant question. 2) That you can do the work. 3) That good things will result.

72 FINAL FINAL ADVICE TALK TO THE PROGRAM OFFICER

73 GPG Compliance

74 Fastlane Submission Compliance Print OK? Issues Have PI Fix & Resubmit PO Reccomend OK Return Without Review Major Issues Compliance Check Minor Issues DD Reccomend Decline OK tify PI "maybe" tify PI "" Fits Panel? Home Panel Conflict List Panelist Selection Grants & Agreements Decline Experts? tify PI "" Panel Meeting Panel Program Officer Merge

75 FY2008 AAG PROPOSAL COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST PI Proposal # Checklist (other GPG items at PO discretion) Action Newer Requirements: Technical errors:! printing or font problems due to PDF conversion (only FastLane errors can be corrected) Cover Page:! Received by deadline date?! Electronic Signature?! Special Proposal, i.e. SGER, etc?! Same proposal to another agency?! Color/high resolution graphics? Project Summary:! Both Merit Review criteria separately addressed! One page limit Project Description:! 15 page limit (unless deviation approved)! Results from Prior Support included (if applicable)! Formatting (character sizes, fonts, etc.)! Broader Impacts Budget:! Main proposal; each year and cumulative! Each subaward; each year and cumulative Biographical Sketch:! Contains lists of collaborators for all senior personnel! Two page limit per person Other Documentation:! Current & Pending Support statement! Letters of collaboration (letters of recommendation are not allowed)! Give PI seven calendar days to exchange the bad PDF file(s) with corrected files, using the Proposal File Update utility in FastLane.! Process as Return without review! Request AOR provide e-signature via FastLane! Process separately! Coordinate with other agency! Receive hard copies from PI, for assigned reviewers! Process as Return without review! Process as Return without review! Process as Return without review! Process as Return without review! Process as Return without review (discretion allowed)! Warn PI of policy and potential for return next year! Contact PI to submit via FastLane! Contact PI to submit via FastLane (can fix after review)! Get list by , and request FastLane Proposal File Update if possible within a few days! Proposal File Update within 5 business days or return! Proposal File Update within 5 business days! Warn PI of policy; Proposal File Update within 5 business days to replace inappropriate material Data Management Plan Postdoctoral Mentoring Plan Appendices:! ne (unless RUI or AD approved before submission) Assign to Program:! Warn PI of policy; Proposal File Update within 5 business days to remove inappropriate material. Key Words: Do t Use : Potential : Comments/Action:

76 PI Checklist (other GPG items at PO discretion) FY2008 AAG PROPOSAL COMPLIANCE CHECKLIST Technical errors:! printing or font problems due to PDF conversion (only FastLane errors can be corrected) Proposal # Action! Give PI seven calendar days to exchange the bad PDF file(s) with corrected files, using the Proposal File Update utility in FastLane. Before Submitting: Cover Page:! Received by deadline date?! Electronic Signature?! Special Proposal, i.e. SGER, etc?! Same proposal to another agency?! Color/high resolution graphics? Project Summary:! Both Merit Review criteria separately addressed! One page limit Project Description:! 15 page limit (unless deviation approved)! Results from Prior Support included (if applicable)! Formatting (character sizes, fonts, etc.)! Broader Impacts Budget:! Main proposal; each year and cumulative! Each subaward; each year and cumulative Biographical Sketch:! Contains lists of collaborators for all senior personnel! Two page limit per person Other Documentation:! Current & Pending Support statement! Letters of collaboration (letters of recommendation are not allowed)! Process as Return without review! Request AOR provide e-signature via FastLane! Process separately! Coordinate with other agency! Receive hard copies from PI, for assigned reviewers! Process as Return without review! Process as Return without review! Process as Return without review! Process as Return without review! Process as Return without review (discretion allowed)! Warn PI of policy and potential for return next year! Contact PI to submit via FastLane! Contact PI to submit via FastLane (can fix after review)! Get list by , and request FastLane Proposal File Update if possible within a few days! Proposal File Update within 5 business days or return! Proposal File Update within 5 business days! Warn PI of policy; Proposal File Update within 5 business days to replace inappropriate material Print out the full proposal Check that it s GPG compliant (Also check it s what you expected to upload) Appendices:! ne (unless RUI or AD approved before submission) Assign to Program:! Warn PI of policy; Proposal File Update within 5 business days to remove inappropriate material. Key Words: Do t Use : Potential : Comments/Action:

77 Fastlane Submission The Recommendation Compliance Print OK? Issues Have PI Fix & Resubmit PO Reccomend OK Return Without Review Major Issues Compliance Check Minor Issues DD Reccomend Decline OK tify PI "maybe" tify PI "" Fits Panel? Home Panel Conflict List Panelist Selection Grants & Agreements Decline Experts? tify PI "" Panel Meeting Panel Program Officer Merge

78 Fastlane Submission The Recommendation Compliance Print OK? Issues Have PI Fix & Resubmit PO Reccomend OK Return Without Review Major Issues Compliance Check Minor Issues DD Reccomend Decline OK tify PI "maybe" tify PI "" Fits Panel? Home Panel Conflict List Panelist Selection Grants & Agreements Decline Experts? tify PI "" Panel Meeting Panel The Review Program Officer Merge

79 THE REVIEW THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND Panel? Panel Conflict List Panelist Selection All (panel or mail) write their reviews in a vacuum Experts? Panel Meeting Panel Program Officer Merge Program Officer Merge

80 THE REVIEW THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND Panel? Panel Conflict List Panelist Selection Experts? Panel Meeting Panel Program Officer Merge Program Officer Merge All (panel or mail) write their reviews in a vacuum A bad review is not the kiss of death - reviewers do make mistakes. The panel summary should explain the discussion of the reviews. The PO will also know how the review was weighted.

81 THE REVIEW THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND Panel? Panel Conflict List Panelist Selection All (panel or mail) write their reviews in a vacuum Experts? Panel Meeting (mail) reviewers typically get a smaller set of proposals Panel Program Officer Merge Program Officer Merge

82 THE REVIEW THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND Panel? Panel Conflict List Panelist Selection All (panel or mail) write their reviews in a vacuum Experts? Panel Meeting Panel Program Officer Merge Program Officer Merge (mail) reviewers typically get a smaller set of proposals Usually not exposed to the full range in quality - Tend to grade higher Also tend to be experts

83 THE REVIEW THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND Panel? Panel Conflict List Panels tend to be Panelist Selection conservative Experts? Panel Meeting Panel Program Officer Merge Program Officer Merge

84 THE REVIEW THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND Panel? Panel Conflict List Panels tend to be Panelist Selection Experts? conservative Will tend towards the sure result and the biggest bang for the buck Panel Meeting Panel (Hence the high risk language in the review guidelines) Program Officer Merge Program Officer Merge

85 THE REVIEW THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND Panel? Panel Conflict List Panels tend to be Panelist Selection conservative Panels tend to have Experts? broader expertise Panel Meeting Panel Program Officer Merge Program Officer Merge

86 THE REVIEW THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND Panel? Panel Conflict List Panels tend to be Panelist Selection conservative Panels tend to have Experts? Panel Meeting broader expertise NSF s idea of an expert and yours are probably different Panel Program Officer Merge Program Officer Merge