See the source data for the most up-to-date information. A : Archived Publication. Publications Output: U. Academic Institution Profiles also includes rankings of institutions by four selected variables. Data cover the most recent 10 years and are available for download.
The Data-Management Plan to be submitted with a proposal must be no longer than two 2 pages in length and must be included as a Supplementary Document. Signed Statement from the Principal Investigator. The advisor or other faculty member serving as the principal investigator PI of the proposal is required to submit a signed statement affirming that the student will be able to undertake the proposed research soon after a DDRI award is made.
The following template must be used to prepare this statement, with changes permitted only to provide information where there are blank lines in the template. Additional text is not permitted.
The statement must display a real signature of the PI. Any alternatives, such as an electronic signature from the PI or a real signature from another faculty member, will be permitted only with prior written approval from a GSS program director.
I affirm that I have read this proposal, and I believe that this proposal makes a strong case for NSF support for this project. This letter must be included in the proposal as a supplementary document.
It should not be submitted as a single-copy document that accompanies the proposal but is not part of the proposal. Such letters are not needed from individuals included as senior personnel on a project.
Such additional text may be included in the eleven pages of the Project Description of the proposal but is not permitted in a Supplementary Document. GSS program directors strongly encourage the use of a template like the following for letters of collaboration. If this template or very similar text is not used, the text provided by the letter's author must be equally brief and to-the-point.
Inclusion of longer letters may result in the PIs being forced to remove such letters with no other changes to the proposal permitted , or NSF may return the proposal without review. If proposers want to ascertain whether alternate text will be acceptable, they should send a draft of any questionable letters to the GSS program directors for comment at least one week prior to the submission of the proposal.
Documentation of the certification may be included as a supplementary document, but that is not required if sufficient information is provided by the sponsored research office on the cover sheet of the proposal. If the IRB or IACUC asks that plans be forwarded to it only when the investigators have received word that their project may be supported, the investigators should have the application ready for prompt submission, because notification from the NSF program directors that they would like to recommend the proposal for an award may come with a very brief time period during which necessary materials including the IRB or IACUC certification must be obtained.
If the required certifications cannot be supplied quickly, GSS program directors may have to turn their attention to other meritorious projects that can be funded right away. If the expiration of the current approval will occur before or soon after the possible start date for an award, investigators should seek renewal of the approval so that they have an active certification if they are informed the proposal will be recommended for funding.
Once the investigators receive written certification that the renewal has been approved, it should be forwarded to the managing NSF program officer for the proposal.
Survey or interview protocols are not permitted in this section, nor are reprints of articles previously published by the investigators. Letters of recommendation, letters of support, transcripts, and other such materials should not be included as supplementary documents. Proposals that include materials in this section that belong in the project description may be returned without review. Investigators who have questions regarding the appropriateness of submitting specific items as supplementary documents should contact the GSS program officers well in advance of the time when they plan to submit the proposal to obtain guidance regarding how to proceed.
The direct costs requested in a DDRI proposal must be allowable costs that will improve the conduct of dissertation research. Student stipends, tuition expenses, assistantships, and the doctoral advisor's travel expenses are NOT eligible for support. GSS will not recommend funding of DDRI awards solely to support travel to conferences to disseminate research results.
Proposals Accepted Anytime Effective July 1, , there are no proposal-submission deadlines. Investigators should submit a proposal when they believe it is ready for submission.
To prepare and submit a proposal via Research. For FastLane or Research. The FastLane and Research. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact s listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity. Before using Grants. Once registered, the applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants. Comprehensive information about using Grants. In addition, the NSF Grants. A provides instructions regarding the technical preparation of proposals via Grants.
For Grants. The Grants. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact s listed in Section VIII of this solicitation.
The AOR must then sign and submit the application to Grants. Proposers that submitted via FastLane or Research. For proposers that submitted via Grants. After proposers have received an e-mail notification from NSF, Research. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal.
These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of the review process. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals.
Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities.
One of the strategic objectives in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions must recruit, train, and prepare a diverse STEM workforce to advance the frontiers of science and participate in the U.
NSF's contribution to the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research under the guidance of the Nation's most creative scientists and engineers.
NSF also supports development of a strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics STEM workforce by investing in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching and learning. NSF's mission calls for the broadening of opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.
The National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of science and engineering research and education.
To identify which projects to support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes.
These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations when preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards. Given that NSF is the primary federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and education, the following three principles apply:.
With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project.
Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of those activities. These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better understand their intent.
Proposers should note that the project description must contain a separate section within the narrative that discusses the broader impacts of the proposed activities. To be competitive for GSS funding, the project description should provide clear descriptions of relevant literature and theoretical frameworks within which the project is set, a complete description of the research methods that will be used, and discussion of the expected intellectual merit and broader impacts that may result from the project.
Proposers should note the special review criteria that are used to complement consideration of the standard NSF merit review criteria and to explicitly identify the expected larger-scale, longer-term significance of their project as well as its likelihood of success.
With the exception noted below, the project description may not be more than fifteen 15 pages in length. Those exceptions are as follows:.
Following are supplementary documents for which special instructions are provided for proposals submitted in response to this solicitation that supplement guidance in the Grant Proposal Guide and the NSF Grants. This is required whether the funding for the post-doctoral researcher s is requested in the lead institution's budget or through a subaward.
The post-doc mentoring plan must be no longer than one 1 page in length for the project as a whole and must be included as a supplementary document. PIs who wish to include such plans as part of the project description for their proposal may do so. All proposals must include as a supplementary document a plan for data management and sharing the products of research. The data-management plan to be submitted with a proposal must be no longer than two 2 pages in length and must be included as a supplementary document.
In preparing their data-management plans, proposers should address all five of the points specified in Chapter II, Section C. Letters of collaboration or letters of commitment should focus solely on the willingness of the letter's author to collaborate or provide in-kind support for the project in ways that have been outlined in the project description. Such additional text may be included in the project description of the proposal but is not permitted in a supplementary document.
GSS program directors strongly recommend the use of a template like one of the following for letters of collaboration or letters of commitment. If one of these templates or very similar text is not used, the text provided by the letter's author must be equally brief and to-the-point. Inclusion of longer letters may result in the PIs being forced to remove such letters with no other changes to the proposal permitted , or NSF may return the proposal without review. I agree to undertake the tasks associated with me as described in the project description of this proposal.
I commit to provide or make available the resources designated in the project description of the proposal that seeks support for this project. Note: When special program solicitations, such as the Facilitating Research at Primarily Undergraduate Institutions RUI solicitation, permit special kinds of supplementary documents, they may be permitted in proposals submitted to GSS.
If you have questions regarding the appropriateness of certain kinds of submissions, contact the GSS program officers well in advance of the proposal-submission deadline for clarification. If the submitting organization's Institutional Review Board IRB has approved plans for research involving human subjects or the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee IACUC has approved research involving vertebrate animals, certification of that may be included on appropriate sections of the cover sheet.
Documentation of the certification may be included as a supplementary document, but that is not required if sufficient information is provided by the sponsored research office on the cover sheet of the proposal. If the required certifications cannot be supplied quickly, GSS program directors may have to turn their attention to other meritorious projects that can be funded right away. If the expiration of the current approval will occur before or soon after the possible start date for an award, be prepared to seek renewal of the approval so that you have active certification if you are informed the proposal will be recommended for funding.
Once you receive written certification that your renewal has been approved, forward it to the managing program officer of your proposal.
Survey or interview protocols are not permitted in this section, nor are reprints of articles previously published by the investigators. Proposals that include materials in this section that belong in the project description may be returned without review.
Note that funding for undergraduate students may be provided in new proposals using funding comparable to the support provided for Research Experiences for Undergraduates REU supplements. While preparation of budgets for such students should be prepared in accordance with guidelines in the REU solicitation accessible from the REU website , proposals submitted to GSS may not include additional text describing activities for the students in a supplementary document.
All descriptions of such activities must be contained in the project description of the proposal. In the case of proposals involving multiple organizations, a single organization must be identified as the lead, and a single proposal describing the entire project must be submitted by that organization.
Funds may be distributed among partner organizations via subawards from the lead organization. A budget on the standard NSF budget form should be submitted for each subawardee.
Of the two types of collaborative proposal formats described in the NSF Grant Proposal Guide, this solicitation allows only a single proposal submission with subawards administered by that lead organization. Proposers are reminded they must provide biographical sketches of all senior project personnel, including those associated with foreign organizations, and letters of collaboration prepared in accordance with the guidelines specified above should be provided as supplementary documents from organizations that will not be supported through subawards.
While non-U. As described in Chapter V, Section D. In accordance with the applicable award terms and conditions, proposers are reminded of their responsibilities with regard to subawardees.
Should an award be made, the prime awardee is responsible for flowing down the appropriate terms and conditions to, as well as management and oversight of, any subawardees on the project, including any foreign subawardees. Within that context, the following budgetary ranges and limitations should be considered. Note that all figures provided are total support including both direct and indirect costs for the entire duration of a project. Except when there are fixed upper limits for specific kinds of awards, somewhat larger funding amounts may be possible if other NSF programs participate in joint funding of a project with GSS.
The deadline for submission of full proposals for regular research project awards; for awards for conferences, workshops, group-travel support, and community-development or community-serving activities; and for research coordination network RCN awards is the first Thursday in September.
Note that the solicitation for submission of these proposals now is separate from the solicitation for DDRI proposals to be submitted to GSS. This deadline normally is in the latter half of July annually. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact s listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity.
Before using Grants. Once registered, the applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants. Comprehensive information about using Grants.
In addition, the NSF Grants. A provides instructions regarding the technical preparation of proposals via Grants. For Grants. The Grants. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact s listed in Section VIII of this solicitation.
The AOR must then sign and submit the application to Grants. For proposers that submitted via Grants. Search for Awards. Learn About Awards. Public Access Initiative. Biological Sciences. Computer and Information Science and Engineering. Education and Human Resources. Mathematical and Physical Sciences.
Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences. Integrative Activities. International Science and Engineering.
0コメント