Online Chemistry Nexus Proposal/Planning

This page relates to the Online_Chemistry_Nexus_Proposal, August 2009. It provides information on the grant application process and how we will approach it. Our deadline is 5pm EDT (2100h UTC) on Thursday, August 13, 2009.

NSF guidelines

There is a program description and a general proposals guide (also see PDF version), plus feedback from the program officer.

Summary of key points of general proposals

Issues to be addressed

Read the following key points

"The full proposal should present the

1. objectives and scientific, engineering, or educational significance of the proposed work;
2. suitability of the methods to be employed;
3. qualifications of the investigator and the grantee organization;
4. effect of the activity on the infrastructure of science, engineering and education; and
5. 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."

The format of the proposal must meet requirements given in the GPG; see Online Chemistry Nexus Proposal/Formatting for details.

Items to be submitted

See p16-18 of GPG.

1. Single-Copy Documents (these don't go to reviewers)
   1. Information About Principal Investigators/Project Directors and co-Principal Investigators/co-Project Directors (ethnicity etc, this section is voluntary)
   2. Authorization to Deviate from NSF Proposal Preparation Requirements (if applicable)
   3. List of Suggested Reviewers or Reviewers Not to Include (optional)
   4. Proprietary or Privileged Information (if applicable)
   5. Proposal Certifications (about the institution, to be submitted by the AOR).

1. Sections of the Proposal (these do go to reviewers)

Feedback from program officer

I have broken down the points into a numbered list. We can put <s></s> around each point as we deal with it.

"Based on the limited information below, it appears that this project is within the scope of STCI if you can explain how it supports multiple science domains (perhaps within chemistry or perhaps how it can be expanded more broadly as part of the project. STCI is meant to be a very broad-reaching program, and should support a broad user base. I’d recommend

1. being sure to emphasize the wide-ranging applicability of the work and to identify current and prospective end users as these are some of the additional criteria STCI proposals are evaluated on.
2. If you can find supporting material (workshop reports, NSB recommendations, etc) for the work that's also helpful.
3. You will also need to explain why your proposed work cannot be funded under other current NSF programs, and how the work you’re proposing relates to any currently funded work for the project.
4. The project you describe is also developing software, so I would also recommend (although it is not a requirement for STCI) considering the guidelines of the former SDCI program which included open source licensing and showing production-quality development.
5. In your case, since you're offering a service you might consider offering some information about service uptimes and expected reliabilty and backup plans."

List of acronyms

• AOR = Authorized Organizational Representative. I think this means our grants officer, Kathy Chapman.
• GPG = Grant Proposal Guide or similar - see the GPG we are following.
• NSF = United States National Science Foundation, also see nsf.gov.
• PI = Principle Investigator, the lead person on the grant (in this case, Martin Walker).