Difference between revisions of "Online Chemistry Nexus Proposal/Planning"
(Start page) |
m (fmt) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==NSF guidelines== | ==NSF guidelines== | ||
There is a [http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=500066&org=OCI&sel_org=OCI&from=fund program description] and a general [http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf09_29/gpg0929print.pdf proposals guide], plus feedback from the program officer. | There is a [http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=500066&org=OCI&sel_org=OCI&from=fund program description] and a general [http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf09_29/gpg0929print.pdf proposals guide], plus feedback from the program officer. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Summary of key points of the program description=== | ||
===Summary of key points of general proposals=== | ===Summary of key points of general proposals=== | ||
| Line 8: | Line 10: | ||
;Full proposals | ;Full proposals | ||
Read the following key points | Read the following key points | ||
| − | <blockquote> | + | <blockquote>"The full proposal should present the |
| − | proposed work; | + | # objectives and scientific, engineering, or educational significance of the proposed work; |
| − | grantee organization; | + | # suitability of the methods to be employed; |
| − | + | # qualifications of the investigator and the grantee organization; | |
| − | prepared with the care and thoroughness of a paper submitted for publication. The requisite proposal | + | # effect of the activity on the infrastructure of science, engineering and education; and |
| − | preparation instructions are contained in GPG Chapter II. Sufficient information should be provided to enable | + | # amount of funding required. |
| − | reviewers to evaluate the proposal in accordance with the two merit review criteria established by the National | + | |
| − | Science Board. (See GPG Chapter III for additional information on NSF processing and review of proposals.) | + | It should present the merits of the proposed project clearly and should be prepared with the care and thoroughness of a paper submitted for publication. The requisite proposal preparation instructions are contained in GPG Chapter II. Sufficient information should be provided to enable reviewers to evaluate the proposal in accordance with the two merit review criteria established by the National Science Board. (See GPG Chapter III for additional information on NSF processing and review of proposals.) |
| − | NSF expects strict adherence to the rules of proper scholarship and attribution. The responsibility for proper | + | |
| − | scholarship and attribution rests with the authors of a proposal; all parts of the proposal should be prepared with | + | NSF expects strict adherence to the rules of proper scholarship and attribution. The responsibility for proper scholarship and attribution rests with the authors of a proposal; all parts of the proposal should be prepared with equal care for this concern. Authors other than the PI (or any co-PI) should be named and acknowledged. Serious failure to adhere to such standards can result in findings of research misconduct."</blockquote> |
| − | equal care for this concern. Authors other than the PI (or any co-PI) should be named and acknowledged. | + | |
| − | Serious failure to adhere to such standards can result in findings of research misconduct." | + | ===Feedback from program officer=== |
[[Category:Wikichem organisation]] | [[Category:Wikichem organisation]] | ||
Revision as of 13:05, 3 August 2009
This page provides information on the grant application process and how we will approach it.
Contents
NSF guidelines
There is a program description and a general proposals guide, plus feedback from the program officer.
Summary of key points of the program description
Summary of key points of general proposals
- Full proposals
Read the following key points
"The full proposal should present the
- objectives and scientific, engineering, or educational significance of the proposed work;
- suitability of the methods to be employed;
- qualifications of the investigator and the grantee organization;
- effect of the activity on the infrastructure of science, engineering and education; and
- amount of funding required.
It should present the merits of the proposed project clearly and should be prepared with the care and thoroughness of a paper submitted for publication. The requisite proposal preparation instructions are contained in GPG Chapter II. Sufficient information should be provided to enable reviewers to evaluate the proposal in accordance with the two merit review criteria established by the National Science Board. (See GPG Chapter III for additional information on NSF processing and review of proposals.)
NSF expects strict adherence to the rules of proper scholarship and attribution. The responsibility for proper scholarship and attribution rests with the authors of a proposal; all parts of the proposal should be prepared with equal care for this concern. Authors other than the PI (or any co-PI) should be named and acknowledged. Serious failure to adhere to such standards can result in findings of research misconduct."
