individual investigator programs mps/ast committee of visitors february 7, 2011 nigel sharp...
TRANSCRIPT
Individual Individual Investigator Investigator ProgramsPrograms
MPS/AST Committee of MPS/AST Committee of VisitorsVisitors
February 7, 2011February 7, 2011
Nigel SharpNigel Sharp
Erstwhile Coordinator of IIPErstwhile Coordinator of IIP
IIP
Astronomy & AstrophysicsResearch Grants (AAG)
Solar System (PLA)
Stellar (SAA)
Milky Way & Nearby Galaxies (GAL)
Education andSpecial Programs
Advanced Technologiesand Instrumentation
Extragalactic & Cosmology (EXC)
Major ResearchInstrumentation
Astronomy & Astrophysics Postdoctoral Fellowships
Special Projects
REU sites & supplements
Faculty Early Career awards (CAREER)
RUI (option)
programs are more thematic, not rigid e.g. star formation in GAL; computational fluids in EXC
every proposal has a home, and a PO with primary responsibility
unrestricted grants in astronomy & astrophysics no preset subject boundaries (first pass from past history) no preset budgets on AAG programs no predetermined preferences as to topic or technique number of panels and topics varies with incoming
proposals proposal pressure guides allocation of money to different
areas
flexibility quick response to emerging areas community ‘votes’ through proposal submission
Proposal handling
panels formed by science topic, sometimes by technique panels of 15-40 proposals and 4 to 10 panelists
changing so as not to use the larger end of this range - reduce panelist load, allow better discussion
at least two written reviews per proposal, usually by panelists
additional ad hoc review where warranted panel summary evaluation prepared at the meeting taking
into account all available written reviews panel choose category (HC, C, NC); ranking of all proposals,
changing to rank only HC and C co-review with other divisions and programs
reducing multiple-panel review to reduce workload both on panelists and on POs
written reviews and panel summaries made available to PI when decision is announced along with general context statement, individual PO comments
sometimes, and personal contact from PO to PI
Proposal review process
Receive via FastLane (or grants.gov)DEADLINE
1 month
2 months
3 months
4 months
5 months
6 months
Sort proposals into panelsCorrect errors and print problems
Obtain missing materialRecruit panelists
Hold panel meetings
Program Officer writes recommendationDivision/program review
Division Director concurs (check argument)Notify PI of decision
Major time sinks!
Proposal Processing Schedule
return without review compliance checks (no BI in summary; prior support; bios) effort to get proposals fixed where allowed – how much?
panel and ad hoc review (advisory to PO) merit review based on the two NSF evaluation criteria
i) Intellectual Merit, including potentially transformative ideas ii) Broader Impacts - very broad, not solely EPO
panel advice on priority order of proposals they saw review is advisory: PO has discretion
e.g. special case funding of a lower-ranked proposal; increased duration
demographic factors under-represented groups; new PIs; RUI PIs balance – programmatic, geographic, institutional
NSB policy is to fund the best adequately
Proposal decision making
budgets are dynamic initial allocation based on
covering commitments from prior year awards number of proposals
discretionary amounts held in reserve until after proposal reviews used for deserving but still unfunded proposals maintains flexibility for pressures and balances internal decision, made by Program Officers
goals – demographics, priority areas, initiatives, emphasis areas, roughly equal success rates across themes
priorities usually implemented by adjusting success rates
Theme budgets
Some (graphical) statisticsTotal budget/budget percentage
$140.0
$190.0
$240.0
$290.0
$340.0
$390.0
$440.0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
AST
AAG
IIP
Percentage of AAG budget
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
PLA
SAA
GAL
EXC
Some (graphical) statistics
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00%
AQAQHCFDCOS
COS3CSIMGCHZGEVOGEVTGSTR
ASISB
CDPFEDDIEAINBLSS
NSBHSNE
SSPASSPB
ISMMCSF
PAS
EXCGALPLASAA
ALL
Panel (prop.)
Panel (proj.)
Unique (prop.)
Unique (proj.)
Per panel success rates in AAG for 2010 – four ways to count (project or proposal, allowing for collaboratives; and unique or as seen by panel, allowing for multi-panel and co-review
Some (graphical) statistics
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Proposals Awards Success rate
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
$ (
thou
san
ds)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Funding Success rate
Some (graphical) statisticsPercentage funded
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
2010200920082007200620052004200320022001
AST
PLA
SAA
GAL
EXC
AAG
Number of Proposals
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
2010200920082007200620052004200320022001
AST
PLA
SAA
GAL
EXC
AAG
Why are these numbers subtly different?
NSF official statistics count proposals that are formally ‘DD-concurred’ within that FY.
In FY2009, in addition to the extra stimulus work, we were abnormally short-staffed (even for us) and almost 200 declined proposals were not processed until after Sept.30.
Some (graphical) statistics
In addition to this primary activity, there are many ‘small’ activities which together absorb a lot of PO time and effort Checking submitted reports on awards Handling extension and supplement requests Conference, workshop, special-case proposals Inter-division and cross-NSF programs and working groups
like the Academic Research Infrastructure stimulus program (Don) and the NSF Data Working Group which worked on the Data Management Plan (Nigel)
Inter-agency (NASA, DOE, Air Force, NSA, etc.)
Concerns
Questions?
Orientation to Orientation to eJacketeJacket
MPS/AST Committee of MPS/AST Committee of VisitorsVisitors
February 7, 2011February 7, 2011
Nigel SharpNigel Sharp
Overview
COV members enter eJacket through a different site from NSF staff, so what you and they see is not identical in its initial interface.
Proposal display and its content are identical. Quick reference guide and FAQ list –
handouts.
Play with it – you can’t break anything (but please tell us if you think you might have!).
Procedures You have (we hope) already logged in using the COV
ID C110853, your surname, and your password, which you changed.
The first thing you see is a list of proposals. This is your primary navigation page. Return to this page with the ‘MyCOV’ tab. Options: Sort by clicking on a column heading; click again to reverse
the direction of the sort. Customize the display (paged versus a complete list, which
columns are shown). Filter (top window) by various criteria; click ‘Show’ to apply.
Proposals with which you have a conflict of interest will appear in the list, but you will be blocked from seeing them.
You can add conflicts but not remove or edit them: ask us.
Conflicts are very important: please ask staff if you have any questions, doubts, worries or concerns about whether or not you have a conflict.
List
Proposals From the list, select the proposal ID to go to the
jacket for that proposal. Alternatively, you can type the ID in the ‘Jacket
ID’ box at the top right, or use the ‘Recent Jackets’ drop-down box next to it.
Hint: many boxes have down arrows in the lower right which will expand the box to include extra information.
Each jacket opens at the Documents Summary page.
This page shows every item a jacket can have: if this jacket actually contains that item, the name will be an active link. Thus, declined proposals have only an inactive item for ‘Award Information’, and very few AST jackets need Human Subject documentation so that link is almost always inactive.
Documents Summary
Questions?