The Spring 2023 NSF Virtual Grants Conference was held June 5-8. The conference offers new faculty, researchers, and administrators key insights into a wide range of current issues at NSF.
Effective October 5, 2020, the National Science Foundation (NSF) will enhance the Project Reporting System in Research.gov to implement the revised Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR). The RPPR is a uniform format for reporting performance progress on Federally funded research projects and research related activities. NSF awardees use the RPPR to prepare and submit annual and final project reports to NSF. Further details about the RPPR can be found on the Research.gov About Project Reports website.
Beginning October 5, 2020, NSF will also add the following three questions to the “Impact” and “Changes/Problems” tabs:
To learn more about the NSF-approved formats for Current and Pending Support, please view the NSF PAPPG (NSF 20-1) webinar and NSF-Approved Formats for the Biographical Sketch & Current and Pending Support Sections of NSF Proposals webinar.
SciENcv has created the following materials to guide the community through the preparation of the NSF Current and Pending Support document in SciENcv:
Questions? Policy-related questions should be directed to [email protected]. If you have IT system-related or technical questions regarding the NSF-approved formats or the Research.gov Project Reporting System, please contact the NSF Help Desk at 1-800-381-1532 (7:00 AM – 9:00 PM ET; Monday – Friday except federal holidays) or via [email protected].
Effective October 5, 2020, the National Science Foundation (NSF) will begin enforcing the Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) (NSF 20-1) requirement to use NSF-approved formats for the preparation of the Biographical Sketch and Current and Pending Support proposal documents. The NSF-approved formats are SciENcv: Science Experts Network Curriculum Vitae and an NSF fillable PDF.
All other PAPPG (NSF 20-1) changes were effective on June 1, 2020. Please refer to the complete list of PAPPG (NSF 20-1) significant changes and clarifications which include the IT system changes and other policy-related changes. A set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on proposal preparation and award administration related to NSF PAPPG (NSF 20-1) is also available and includes Biographical Sketch and Current and Pending Support information.
Effective October 5, 2020, PIs and co-PIs must include an NSF-approved format for Current and Pending Support when notifying NSF that active other support has changed since the award was made, or since the most recent annual report.
This new requirement serves as NSF’s implementation of the revised RPPR, a uniform
format for reporting performance progress on Federally-funded research projects and research-related activities.
Further details about the RPPR can be found on the Research.gov About Project Reports website.
Based on feedback from the research community, NSF has enhanced both approved formats, and users are encouraged to use the latest versions. Please see the system-related FAQs on using SciENcv and the system-related FAQs on using the NSF fillable PDF for a list of the improvements to each format. In particular, note the permitted use of “et al.” for publication citations in the Biographical Sketch when listing multiple authors. Senior personnel who wish to include publications in the products section of the Biographical Sketch that include multiple authors may, at their discretion, choose to list one or more of the authors and then “et al.” in lieu of including the complete listing of authors’ names.
The SciENcv module for creating NSF Biographical Sketch and Current and Pending Support documents will be updated prior to October 5, 2020; however, all SciENcv-generated Biographical Sketch and Current and Pending Support PDF documents created on or after April 1, 2020 remain compliant in NSF systems.
Prior to the October 5th requirement to use the NSF-approved format, SciENcv will make a number of enhancements that include:
Please see the system-related FAQs on using SciENcv for details. As a reminder, the SciENcv tool integrates with ORCID, enabling users to populate the Biographical Sketch by importing data directly from ORCID records rather than having to manually enter all the required information. This helps reduce administrative burden associated with the Biographical Sketch preparation process. Additionally, SciENcv allows users to grant access to delegates to assist with maintaining and updating data. SciENcv also offers users a dynamic and more customized PDF. For example, users with fewer Current and Pending Support entries may elect to use SciENcv to generate their Current and Pending Support PDF document since SciENcv will produce a PDF without any blank pages. Conversely, the Current and Pending Support fillable PDF will always be 15 pages regardless of how much data is included.
To learn more about the NSF-approved formats for Biographical Sketch and Current and Pending Support, please view the NSF PAPPG (NSF 20-1) webinar and NSF-Approved Formats for the Biographical Sketch & Current and Pending Support Sections
of NSF Proposals webinar.
SciENcv has created the following materials to guide NSF users through the preparation of the NSF documents available in SciENcv:
A revised NSF Grants.gov Application Guide will be published on September 16th and effective October 5, 2020. The Guide will be updated to remove references and instructions for the Research & Related Personal Data Form. NSF will no longer require this form, and this form will no longer be included in NSF’s packages effective October 5, 2020.
Questions? Policy-related questions should be directed to [email protected]. If you have IT system-related or technical questions regarding the SciENcv or NSF fillable PDF formats, please contact the NSF Help Desk at 1-800-673-6188 (7:00 AM – 9:00 PM ET; Monday – Friday except federal holidays) or via [email protected].
NIH All About Grants Podcast Series (https://grants.nih.gov/news/virtual-learning/podcasts.htm)
NIH has a number of podcasts related to topics such as Prepare a Successful Grant Application; Understand How Your Grant is Reviewed; and Keep Up With What’s Hot. To get new podcasts as they are released, subscribe by visiting NIH on iTunes or catch our podcast RSS using your favorite software.
Follow Sounds of eRA on Apple Podcasts (https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/sounds-of-era/id631289889) – podcasts for grant writers and administrators. Edward Johnson, Jr. (aka Eddie) discusses various topics such as tools and time-saving techniques for finding available funding, proposal preparation, and project management.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) currently has opportunities available for individuals interested in becoming reviewers. This is an excellent way for proposal writers and sponsored programs officers to see first-hand what makes a winning proposal and to learn the nuances of the NASA proposal review process. Visit the NSPIRES website and click on “Getting an Account” in the menu on the left to get started.
(thenonprofittimes.com (12/03/2012))
Given the stiff competition for grant funding and the amount of money at stake, the field of grant proposal writing is unfortunately fertile ground for fraud. When someone blows the whistle and the lawsuit flies, the person who wrote the grant proposal is in the line of fire. And, the organization that submitted the proposal – the applicant organization, is likewise in hot water.
The Office of Extramural Research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) conducts periodic podcasts on writing successful NIH grant applications. The latest installment, conducted by NIH director of policy and liaison activities Henry Khachaturian, provides strategies for writing the best possible pre-doctoral or postdoctoral fellowship application. NIH fellowship applications differ from research applications in substantive ways. Although they certainly require a solid research hypothesis, fellowship applications focus more on the applicant, his or her mentor, and the training plan. Trainee candidates need to write about themselves, their strengths, and their weaknesses. Khachaturian encourages candidates both to brag about themselves and to be realistic about their weaknesses. He also stresses that reviewers will be looking for an applicant’s passion for doing research, and the strength of the mentor, who must be well-respected and well-funded (a status that is not often reached by the assistant professor level, so choose your mentor wisely). Candidates from non-research intensive institutions may not have access to an appropriate mentor on campus. NIH Report can serve as an excellent tool for identifying experienced researchers at other institutions who have secured NIH support for research connected to the candidate’s own discipline and area of interest.
Khachaturian’s advice for fellowship applicants can be applied to most any type of federal grant application:
* Assess your career situation. Be explicit about what you want to do after the period of support ends.
* Contact program directors. These individuals are especially open to talking to new investigators. Identify the appropriate contact (at NIH, begin with the contact list for institutes and centers) and send him or her a one- or two-paragraph e-mail to open a dialogue.
* Start early, and give yourself at least three months to write the application.
* Don’t propose too much. New researchers can be tempted to over-promise, submitting far-reaching proposals that do not convince experienced reviewers that all the goals can be achieved.
* Use charts, graphs, headers, and bullets to communicate ideas and provide visual support for the narrative. Reviewers don’t want to read an application with no white space.
* Balance the technical and nontechnical writing, and make sure the abstract (which reviewers read first) contains mostly nontechnical writing. In the case of early-career fellowship applicants, all of these strategies should work toward helping reviewers understand that the fellowship will be an important step in launching the candidate’s career as an independent researcher.
The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Office of Research Integrity has posted an interactive movie and facilitator’s guide on research misconduct entitled “The Lab: Avoiding Research Misconduct.” To view this movie or download the guide go to http://ori.hhs.gov/TheLab.
