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?