Grants Q&A with an NSF Program Director

John D. Glliaspy, Program Director for Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Experimental Physics at the National Science Foundation

The advice offered below is based on my experience as the Program Director for Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Experimental Physics at NSF, since 2014. I've tried to include some of the most common, but difficult to answer, questions that I've seen over this period. Other Program Directors might have a different perspective, so it is always best to consult the person who is running the Program to which you are considering applying. Definitive answers to most procedural questions can be found in the most recent version of the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG), which is published online annually.

Q1: How do I figure out which NSF Program will give me the best chance of getting a grant?

A1: Applying to the Program with the largest budget or the highest "success ratio" (fraction of applicants that are funded) is not the best strategy to get an NSF grant. A better strategy is to find the Program with the right "intellectual match" to your research topic and expertise. In fact, I would say that one of the first things you should do after getting your PhD (or even possibly before) is to send your CV to relevant Program Directors and offer to serve as a reviewer. Serving as a reviewer can give you a lot of insight into how to write a highly competitive NSF proposal. Another thing I often recommend is to download a spreadsheet of all of the awards that are currently active in a particular Program, and look over the PI names, proposal titles, and award abstracts to help you decide whether the community supported by that program is likely to embrace your research. The Program or Solicitation webpages may have a "What has been funded" link, or you can use the NSF Advanced Award Search page and search on your Program Director's name, keywords related to your research, and/or the Program Element Code (you can find this 4 digit code by using the NSF "Element Code Lookup" web page to search for words in the program title, such as "atomic"). You can always ask a Program Director for advice or help.

Q2: Someone told me that I should contact NSF and ask whether or not they are interested in funding the sort of research that I would like to do. Is that good advice?

A2: If you have questions about whether or not a particular NSF Program is the best fit to your research idea, then it is a good idea to consult the Program Director. Typically, however, that is not necessary - with very few exceptions, we don't "pre-screen" research ideas to make sure that they are "of interest" to NSF. The range of our interests is extremely wide. Our mission is to "Advance the Progress of Science", and we are interested in having you send us proposals that contain your best ideas to further that very broad mission. As discussed in the first Q&A above, however, it is very important to apply to the right Program within NSF. Every year, NSF evaluates approximately 50,000 proposals using an extensive merit review process that is considered by many to be the "gold standard" among funding agencies (for more information, see: https://www.nsf.gov/news/mmg/mmg_disp.jsp?med_id=76467). We have about 800 Program Directors managing programs in virtually every topical area of study, except medical research that is focused on specific diseases. There is likely a place for your idea somewhere at NSF, and Program Directors will generally not make a decision about what to fund until after they take into consideration advice from peer review.

Q3: How close to the deadline should I submit my proposal?

A3: Don't wait until the last minute. University Sponsored Research Offices are often flooded with last-minute submissions, and having yours be one of them can put you at a disadvantage. NSF is increasingly automating compliance checking, and proposals are being immediately returned without review because of compliance issues (not following the rules in the PAPPG such as page limits, a description of the "Broader Impacts", etc.). If a proposal is submitted 10 minutes before the deadline and is automatically returned because of a compliance issue, there may not be time to revise and resubmit by the deadline, in which case you may find yourself having to wait nearly a full year before you can submit again. Many people don't know that they can submit a proposal early and then continue to revise and resubmit it (without NSF permission), right up until the deadline. On the other end of the spectrum, don't succumb to pressure to submit a proposal before you are ready, just because there is a deadline looming. It is better to wait a full year than to submit a proposal that is not polished. Your first try may be your best chance to impress.

Q4: How can I best improve my declined proposal in order to get funded next year?

A4: Read the reviews very carefully and with an open mind, and then revise your proposal substantially to address every weakness stated in the reviews. Reach out to some leaders in the community and ask them for frank advice. Consider offering to give them a copy of your proposal to read. Better yet, if you have an entirely different idea that you are similarly passionate about, write an entirely new proposal on that idea instead. In my experience, tweaking up your proposal here or there and then resubmitting it next year usually doesn't change the outcome, and might even result in having your proposal returned without review (RWR) as not having been substantially altered from a proposal that had already been reviewed and declined. The fact that we have an acronym for that tells you that it is a real risk. Many people don't know that Program Directors have a button that they can click that will send the proposal back immediately, before even sending it out for review. You don't want that to happen to you.

Q5: The reviewers gave me really high letter grades, but I still didn't get funded. Why?

A5: Reviewers don't make funding decisions; Program Directors do. The advice of the reviewers is taken into consideration, but the Program Director has to look at this in light of all of the other proposals, the available Program budget, and other factors such as portfolio balance. Moreover, the letter grades are less important than the text that the reviewers write--this is something that I think is not widely appreciated and is good to keep in mind both when reading and writing reviews. If you really want to understand the answer to this question, come serve with us for a year as a "rotator"! Ask a current Program Director or see: https://beta.nsf.gov/careers/temporaryrotator-programs.