OSP AWARENESS SESSION DECEMBER 6, 2012 NSF Updates to the PAPPG 13-1.
<ul><li> Slide 1 </li> <li> OSP AWARENESS SESSION DECEMBER 6, 2012 NSF Updates to the PAPPG 13-1 </li> <li> Slide 2 </li> <li> Significant changes coming for NSF Proposals due on or after 1/14/2013 Implementation of revised Merit Review Criteria Project Summary changes Project Description Revised BioSketch requirements Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources Cost Sharing Update New Proposal Certifications required for AOR New Proposal status Proposals Not Accepted </li> <li> Slide 3 </li> <li> Revised Merit Review Criteria 3 Guiding Principles: All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the potential to advance, if not transform, the frontiers of knowledge. NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly to achieving societal goals. Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects should be based on appropriate metrics, keeping in mind the likely correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the resources provided to implement projects. </li> <li> Slide 4 </li> <li> Revised Merit Review Criteria, contd When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers should consider what proposers: want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits would accrue if the project is successful. </li> <li> Slide 5 </li> <li> Revised Merit Review Criteria, contd 2 Review Criteria These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers are asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria: 1. Intellectual Merit: The intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance knowledge; and 2. Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes. </li> <li> Slide 6 </li> <li> Revised Merit Review Criteria, contd 5 Review Elements: The following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria: 1. What is the potential for the proposed activity to: (1) advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and (2) benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)? 2. To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts? </li> <li> Slide 7 </li> <li> Revised Merit Review Criteria, contd 5 Review Elements, contd: 3. Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success? 4. How well qualified is the individual, team, or institution to conduct the proposed activities? 5. Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home institution or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities? </li> <li> Slide 8 </li> <li> Revised Merit Review Criteria, contd NSF Funding Opportunity Updates Boilerplate text has been developed and is currently being incorporated to Program Announcements and Solicitations. Program websites have been updated with important revision notes. </li> <li> Slide 9 </li> <li> Changes to the Proposal Sections Project Summary Project Summary will now require text boxes in Fastlane, not to exceed 4,600 characters and will include 3 distinct sections: 1. Overview - description of the activity & what are objectives and how what methods will be used. 2. Statement on Intellectual Merit how will the proposed activity advance knowledge. 3. Statement on Broader Impacts how will the proposed activity benefit society. </li> <li> Slide 10 </li> <li> What if my Project Summary requires Special Characters? Proposals with Special Characters may upload Project Summary as a PDF document, but must still represent the 3 sections and not exceed the character limit. Text boxes must be completed or a PDF must be uploaded or Fastlane will not accept the proposal. </li> <li> Slide 11 </li> <li> Effective Date Clarification Proposals submitted before January 14, 2013 (with a due date = or after 1/14/13), must include a one-page Project Summary in accordance with the revised guidance. On or after January 14, 2013, the Project Summary text must be included in the 3 text boxes: (1) overview; (2) statement on intellectual merit; (3) statement on broader impacts. On or after January 14, 2013, Fastlane will not accept proposals that do not complete all 3 sections. </li> <li> Slide 12 </li> <li> Other Changes being implemented Project Description Must contain a separate section with a discussion of broader impacts. Results from Prior NSF Support must separately address intellectual merit and broader impacts. Font for footnotes must comply with FASTLANE font requirements (NSF Font Requirements: Arial, Courier New, Palatino Linotype 10pt. or larger. Times New Roman 11pt. or larger.) </li> <li> Slide 13 </li> <li> Other Changes being implemented Biographical Sketch Publications are now referred to as Products Still limited to 5 products closely related to this proposal, and 5 other significant products whether related or not. Acceptable products must be citable and accessible e.g. publications, data sets, software, patents, and copyrights. Unacceptable products are unpublished documents not yet submitted for publication, invited lectures, and additional lists of products. </li> <li> Slide 14 </li> <li> Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources Provides overarching description of internal and external resources (physical and personnel) that organization and collaborators will provide to the project. Do not quantify cost or effort, but do speak to roles and responsibilities on the project. New Format will assist proposers in complying with NSF cost sharing policy. Costs should not be quantified but it should clear whether the resources are currently available or will need to be purchased. If no resources to describe, than it must be stated so and uploaded to this section. </li> <li> Slide 15 </li> <li> Cost Sharing Policy Review Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited in solicited and unsolicited proposals, unless approved by NSF for specific programs. Only 6 programs have been approved by NSF to require cost-sharing, as follows: MRI Major Research Instrumentation Robert Noyce Scholarship Program ERC Engineering Research Centers EPSCoR Experimental Programs to Stimulate Competitive Research I-Corps Innovation Corps I/UCRC Industry/University Coop. Research Centers </li> <li> Slide 16 </li> <li> Cost Sharing: Budget Page Update In the past, the PI would show up on the budget page, even with no effort. New FASTLANE update will allow removal of PI from the Budget Page when no effort to show. Role should be described in the Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources section (but not quantified). Their name will remain on Coversheet OSP notes that PIs should ordinarily charge effort to the project (exceptions would be REU Site, MRI, etc) </li> <li> Slide 17 </li> <li> Additional AOR Certifications Proposal Certifications have been updated to include: a new Organizational Support Certification to address Section 526 of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act (ACRA) of 2010. additional certifications on tax obligations/liability and felony conviction. These certifications were added to implement provisions included in the Commerce, Justice, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2012. Parallel language also will be added to the award terms and conditions on tax obligations/liability and felony conviction. </li> <li> Slide 18 </li> <li> What does the new Organizational Support Certification mean? The New AOR Certification regarding Organizational Support creates a binding offer. Commitments of institutional support made available as described in the proposal to address the broader impacts and intellectual merit activities to be undertaken. OSP has updated the Internal Routing and Review form to assure that institutional commitments are agreed to by Investigators, Dept. Chairs, and Deans prior to AOR signature. </li> <li> Slide 19 </li> <li> Proposals Not Accepted New category of non-award decisions and transaction: Proposal Not Accepted Defined as Fastlane will not permit submission of the proposal This category requires that proposals contain compliant: Data Management Plans Postdoctoral Mentoring Plans (if applicable) Project Summaries. </li> <li> Slide 20 </li> <li> High-Resolution Graphics NSF will no longer support high resolution graphics due to small usage by the research community The check box on the Cover Sheet will be removed accordingly. </li> <li> Slide 21 </li> <li> Conferences, Symposia & Workshops Information regarding proposals for Conferences, Symposia, and Workshops was updated to include: Improved clarification of what information should be included in different sections of the proposal; and Greater consistency regarding conference proposal instructions for better alignment with research proposal guidance. </li> <li> Slide 22 </li> <li> Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) Government-wide effort to create consistency in the administration of federal research awards by streamlining and standardizing reporting formats. RPPR is intended to replace performance reporting formats currently in use by federal agencies NSF led research agencies in developing the draft data dictionary for RPPR Data dictionary is available here: www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/rppr/ </li> <li> Slide 23 </li> <li> NSF Implementation of RPPR NSF will implement RPPR components in Research.gov, with the following standard formats: Mandatory Category Accomplishments: What was done? What was learned? Optional Categories Products: what has the project produced? Participants & Collaborators: Who was involved? Impact: Impact of the project? How has it contributed? Changes/Problems Special Reporting Requirements (if applicable) Budgetary Requirements Appendix 1: Demographics for Significant Contributors </li> <li> Slide 24 </li> <li> Anticipated Benefits of New Project Report Format Consolidated dashboard that includes all available reports (Annual, Final, Interim, and Project Outcomes) Reduction of PI and C0-PI burden through more pre-population of fields where possible by NSF More structured approach to data collection for NSF use; better consistency. Adoption of federal-wide data dictionary for increased consistency of multi-agency implementation </li> <li> Slide 25 </li> <li> Additional Benefits of New Project Report Format Rich Text editor that supports common scientific characters Ability to upload PDFs for complex graphics/images Provides access to Thomson Web of Science for improved citation searching Special reporting requirements are controlled by the proposal solicitation PI no longer needs to provide demographic info on significant participants </li> <li> Slide 26 </li> <li> Implementation Dates for Research.Gov Project Reporting Phase I Pilot Began October 22 Six institutions in Phase I Fastlane freeze 10/1 10/21 Phase II Pilot Began December 3 (SU is in Phase II) Additional 25 institutions join for Phase II Preceded by FASTLANE freeze for Project Reporting (11/13 12/2) Due dates for Annual and Final reports extended in Research.gov. Projected Target for Full Implementation: March 2013 All NSF Awards and Institutions NSF-wide Fastlane Freeze for Project Reporting </li> <li> Slide 27 </li> <li> Tools Available on OSP Website Updated NSF Proposal Checklist, which has been updated for PAPPG 13-1. Updated BioSketch format template which now reflects Product terminology Data Management Tool on OSP website, or you can work with Library Services, Yuan Li or Paul Bern. NSF Format sample budget Justification Post-doc Mentoring Plan template All above forms located here: http://www.osp.syr.edu/forms%20and%20pages/forms. html http://www.osp.syr.edu/forms%20and%20pages/forms. html </li> <li> Slide 28 </li> <li> Closing Thoughts The more things change, the more they stay the same NSF, as always, is extremely format sensitive. They are receiving record numbers of proposals; and not following NSFs well established guidelines for formatting could mean return without review. References cited must contain all authors, no et al references and must provide full journal titles. Biosketch formats must be GPG compliant, not only for SU, but for outside collaborators as well. No headers or footers (other than pagination) </li> <li> Slide 29 </li> <li> Closing Thoughts, contd Before you submit, we suggest that you: Contact your Program Manager EARLY Pitch your idea and see if they might be interested, or perhaps if there may be other programs interested. Be sure to cite others work, plagiarism findings appear to be on the rise (NSF OIG Report to Congress, Sept. 2012) Remember that individual Program Announcements trump GPG language, so read carefully. Reach out to OSP early and often. How can we help? </li> <li> Slide 30 </li> <li> OSP Resources Amy Deppa (e - applications) firstname.lastname@example.org@syr.edu Amy Graves (CAS) email@example.com@syr.edu Meghan MacBlane (iSchool, BBI, IVMF) firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com Caroline McMullin (Maxwell, SoE) firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com Mary Ellen Gilbert (LCSmith) Stuart Taub (general questions & Research.gov help) firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com </li> </ul>