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 the program description

"Projects appropriate for this program should:

• Be activities that include a demonstration of the potential impact on science or engineering research or education;
• Generate outcomes not currently under development elsewhere;
• Meet a clearly described cyberinfrastructure need not met elsewhere;
• Generate outcomes that will be of interest to a range of science and engineering communities."

Summary of key points of general proposals

Issues to be addressed

Read the following key points

"The proposal must contain a summary of the proposed activity suitable for publication, not more than one page in length. It should not be an abstract of the proposal, but rather a self-contained description of the activity that would result if the proposal were funded. The summary should be written in the third person and include a statement of objectives and methods to be employed. It must clearly address in separate statements (within the one-page summary):

• the intellectual merit of the proposed activity; and
• the broader impacts resulting from the proposed activity."

"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).
2. Sections of the Proposal (these do go to reviewers)
   1. Cover Sheet - includes the awardee organisation and the one performing the work, the NSF program announcement & program/office. It should also include the title, budget, duration, PI & coPIs, any prior NSF awards (<=5 years) or current federal grant submissions, and information on the awardee and performing institution.
   2. Project Summary (<= 1 page) - includes description, statement of objectives and methods, and SEPARATE statements indicating the intellectual merit and the broader impact of the proposal.
   3. Table of Contents (generated automatically within Fastlane)
   4. Project Description (includes any prior NSF support)
   5. (a)Content: Must include more detailed statements on the intellectual merit and the broader impact of the proposal. Limited to 15 pages including pictures. Content can't be listed as URLs - must be standalone, but traditional references are required. Also:

      "The Project Description should provide a clear statement of the work to be undertaken and must include: objectives for the period of the proposed work and expected significance; relation to longer-term goals of the PI's project; and relation to the present state of knowledge in the field, to work in progress by the PI under other support and to work in progress elsewhere."
      "The Project Description should outline the general plan of work, including the broad design of activities to be undertaken, and, where appropriate, provide a clear description of experimental methods and procedures and plans for preservation, documentation, and sharing of data, samples, physical collections, curriculum materials and other related research and education products. It must describe as an integral part of the narrative, the broader impacts resulting from the proposed activities, addressing one or more of the following as appropriate for the project: how the project will integrate research and education by advancing discovery and understanding while at the same time promoting teaching, training, and learning; ways in which the proposed activity will broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.); how the project will enhance the infrastructure for research and/or education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships; how the results of the project will be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding; and potential benefits of the proposed activity to society at large. Examples illustrating activities likely to demonstrate broader impacts are available electronically on the NSF website."

   6. References cited (bibliographical information + URL/DOI only)
   7. Biographical Sketch - see this page for details on what is needed.
   8. Budget
   9. Current and pending support
   10. Facilities, equipment and other resources - are there enough organizational resources available to perform the effort?
   11. Special/Supplementary Information (falls outside the 15 page limit). The only relevant section would appear to be the following:

       "Projects that involve technology utilization/transfer activities, that require a management plan, or that involve special reports or final products. Please note that some program solicitations provide specific guidance on preparation and inclusion of management plans in proposals submitted to NSF."

---

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."

Followup

On Tuesday, August 11, I asked the program officer about (a) citing web sources (supposedly disallowed in the GPG) and (b) how to handle the short "testimonials" I've requested. Her response is below:

"People cite web pages all the time, it's best if they're relatively stable but if it's simple a citation that's fairly common now. Please do not include web pages as PDF documents. In terms of testimonials, other proposals have included short statements as part of the 15 page narrative. You can include letters of support as supplemental documents, but as you'll note in the GPG, reviewers are under no requirement to examine them. Other supplemental documents are not allowed."

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).