4/16/2014, 11:26 AM
Dear Campus Colleagues:
We have experienced the “rejection without review” of several NSF proposals due to non-compliance issues. THESE ISSUES HAVE ALL BEEN IN FORMATTING --- things that we would have considered minor offenses in the past. Specific examples of how we have been cited for non-compliance include (by proposal section):
• Project Description: not noting the terms “broader impacts” and “intellectual merit” in the section on previous NSF support; • References Cited: Using the term “et al” instead of spelling out each author’s name; • Bioksetches: that do not follow the NSF format to the letter; • Supplemental Docs: Documentation not asked for in the NSF program solicitation included here has been seen as trying to circumvent the page limits.
We conferred with NSF as to why we were no longer given the opportunity to make these minor corrections and heard about the high volume of proposals received by these NSF programs. We’ve also heard this week that Duke is having similar experiences with NSF. They were told outright by one NSF Program Officer that the PO was “being pressured to ‘reduce the review burden’ due to a high volume of submissions, and non-compliant proposals were a good place to start.”
We value our excellent working relationship with NSF and were pretty shocked when it first happened. In response, we immediately tightened the reins on NSF formatting when we review your proposals for submission, and are very specific in our feedback to you. I want to thank you for being responsive in return, and for making the changes to your proposals when we’ve asked. But there is still more we can do.
For those of you who prepare NSF proposals, please take extra care in reviewing the documentation you receive from your PIs, subcontractors, and collaborators to check on formatting compliance. Don’t put off completing your proposal in Fastlane – we often receive the IPF in RAMSeS ahead of time and then are not granted access to the proposal in Fastlane until the due date. Please give OSR access to your NSF proposals in Fastlane with enough time before the agency’s deadline for us to review for compliance - keeping in mind the UNC internal deadline policy.
http://research.unc.edu/offices/sponsored-research/policies-procedures/section-300/policy-3/
Please feel free to share with your PIs that we have been rejected without review for non-scientific reasons and we should not deviate from the NSF format. They can do their part by ensuring the documents they prepare are in compliance. If they need more information on content formatting for NSF proposals, this is a good resource:
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf14001/gpg_2.jsp#IIC2di.
If you are not familiar with the NSF format, please see their latest publication on proposal preparation here:
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf14001/nsf14_1.pdf
Also, always refer to the program-specific guidelines for your submission. If there is any deviation from the general NSF formatting for your submission, it will be found on the NSF Program’s web site. And remember to confer with us in OSR. Your OSR Pre Award team has all the templates for NSF proposal sections and can offer guidance. Martha Martin is typically your point person for NSF submissions and you may still call her with your questions however we are currently cross training our proposal specialists so you can actually reach out to anyone on our Pre-Award team going forward.
As the competition for dwindling dollars continues to heat up, we don’t want to be rejected on a technicality before we’ve had a chance for a proper review of our work. Moving forward, we will continue to do our best to make sure your proposals are complete, correct, and compliant when submitted. Thank you for your partnership in this endeavor.
Robin
Robin L. Cyr
Associate Vice Chancellor for Research
Director, Office of Sponsored Research
This message is sponsored by: Office of Sponsored Research