NSF CAREER Grant UPDATE Thread

[dionysus816]

Thanks much for the positive comment.
Yep, quit is not an option.

Congrats to all academics who were funded this cycle (results are still coming)! May your projects be fruitful and lead to success.

For many, a decline may put a sour taste in your mouth. You may be frustrated by the reviews, upset by the length of time, infuriated with the lack of updates, and disappointed with the process. Don't give up! All too often, I've seen researchers with good work be discouraged by the process and not resubmit. Please revise and resubmit.

The NSF is mostly a civilian driven organization. PDs turnover all the time. What one did not like is not a death sentence for your topic.

For those who are out of opportunities for the CAREER — so what! Too many departments have falsely placed an arbitrary barrier to tenure on the CAREER. Yes, it would've been nice but more people without the CAREER have gone on to have successful careers than those who received it. Do not let the CAREER be the barometer for your career's success. Take that proposal, revise it and submit it to another NSF program or another agency.

It's OK to be disappointed, but don't quit.

[happy123]

I am about to submit the tenure package this year. That's where the anxiety comes from.

I can feel your pain. I had similar experience during the last cycle. My case was more extreme: E, E/V, VG, P.
Still waiting for the decision of DMR. Literally, I refresh research.gov at least twice a day.

Those are rookie numbers, need to pump them up to like every 2 hours or so.

I was probably doing the same things until a new and recent experience with a particular PO. He actually emailed me in the Fall to let me know that my proposal was going to be rejected. The date in Fastlane did not change until early January, three months after the decision had already been made. So, in my opinion, refreshing research.gov every day or so is a waste of time.

You'll get tenure!

Hi Aspiring. Academic: After submitting the revised budget, my PO told me that the program had recommended my proposal for funding. I also submitted the public award abstract upon the request from PO. However, the status on FastLane is still showing "pending" from the date of submission. My question is: how much is the chance I will get the award, and how long will it take to get the final decision? Many thanks for always being very helpful to all of us.

Very good chance but nothing is official until you get the NOA. The process can take a little as a month to get all the approvals and go through the business review. The status will eventually update to Recommended. I'll just tell you to remain patient.

Many thanks. Someone told me the chances are 50:50. Is it right?

[research_prof]

I can feel your pain. I had similar experience during the last cycle. My case was more extreme: E, E/V, VG, P.
Still waiting for the decision of DMR. Literally, I refresh research.gov at least twice a day.

Those are rookie numbers, need to pump them up to like every 2 hours or so.

I was probably doing the same things until a new and recent experience with a particular PO. He actually emailed me in the Fall to let me know that my proposal was going to be rejected. The date in Fastlane did not change until early January, three months after the decision had already been made. So, in my opinion, refreshing research.gov every day or so is a waste of time.

I agree that refreshing research.gov is a waste of time. I wish NSF has a policy about how to handle the declined proposals. In 3 months you could have done many things with your proposal, including revising it for the next round.

This is slowing science and hurting productivity of a significant portion (>85%) of NSF's customers. I am assuming that roughly 15% of proposals get funded.   

Sorry to hear about your disappointment with Research.gov. Just imagine how terrible it was before that system with FastLane, which provided even less visibility, and senior academics seem to have gotten by. It's a sign of the information era. The NSF does have a policy for handling declined proposals. At the end of the day, it's a government agency.

The funding rates are greater than 15%. FY2019 - 2020, the success rates were BIO: 36%, CISE: 25%, EHR: 23%, ENG: 26%, GEO: 42%, MPS: 30%, O/D: 25%, and SBE: 25%.

In most cases, except for MPS, the success rates increased from the previous year, and MPS remained a steady 30%. If you'd like the breakdown by a particular division, I can give you that too.

On average, across all divisions and programs, the average decision time is 5.78 months. The NSF advises six months, and while we would all like to know as soon as a decision is made, on average, they are consistent.

where did you find these funding rates? I have attended several NSF webinars and NSF POs were continuously saying that NSF does not publish CAREER funding rates because that's the policy.

[notmyrea]

Does anyone know how the typical CAREER panel actually runs? I got only ~1 weakness in all my four reviews (G) which was explicitly addressed, and I am wondering if anyone even read the entire thing?

It will be a bummer if a proposal that takes several months of effort is summarily dismissed by just reading the summary.

It's a lot of work to serve on a panel. Being tossed 20-30 proposals, being asked to rank them, summarize their strengths and weaknesses, and then advocate for those on the fringe is rough. The panelists wrote about a weakness collectively, which is indicative of it either dominating the panel or, in their opinion, the explanation being insufficient.



From the three CAREER workshops at the NSF that I attended, it was nearly universal advice that if you know something in the proposal may be perceived as a deficiency or oversight, address it upfront, early, and often. Sticking it on page 7 of a 15-page proposal doesn't help the case.

Also, get some additional feedback from the PD. Writing panel summaries is a painstaking task for them, and many agonize over every declination.

Thanks for the good advice and comments.

Perhaps writing good reviews is time consuming, but I dont see how skimming a proposal and writing 5 sentences about it can be perceived as such. I have observed that this "PI blaming" is universal and pervasive. I am assuming most CAREER applications are well thought out, carefully written, and describe something that the PIs have spent years studying. To see these efforts rejected because "reviewers are busy", cannot be good for science. Perhaps I am spoilt by the fact that even regular papers in my field get thousands of words of detailed and actionable peer-review.

If grants are a lottery because of the low funding rates, atleast make them an explicitly random  to avoid all this bureaucratic overwork and let everyone focus on the science?

[rusunyii]

If you have submitted the abstract and the PO has congratulated you on an unofficial recommendation, then your chance is at least 95%+. The waiting can be as short as 1 month and as long as 3-4 months. 

I am about to submit the tenure package this year. That's where the anxiety comes from.

I can feel your pain. I had similar experience during the last cycle. My case was more extreme: E, E/V, VG, P.
Still waiting for the decision of DMR. Literally, I refresh research.gov at least twice a day.

Those are rookie numbers, need to pump them up to like every 2 hours or so.

I was probably doing the same things until a new and recent experience with a particular PO. He actually emailed me in the Fall to let me know that my proposal was going to be rejected. The date in Fastlane did not change until early January, three months after the decision had already been made. So, in my opinion, refreshing research.gov every day or so is a waste of time.

You'll get tenure!

Hi Aspiring. Academic: After submitting the revised budget, my PO told me that the program had recommended my proposal for funding. I also submitted the public award abstract upon the request from PO. However, the status on FastLane is still showing "pending" from the date of submission. My question is: how much is the chance I will get the award, and how long will it take to get the final decision? Many thanks for always being very helpful to all of us.

Very good chance but nothing is official until you get the NOA. The process can take a little as a month to get all the approvals and go through the business review. The status will eventually update to Recommended. I'll just tell you to remain patient.

Many thanks. Someone told me the chances are 50:50. Is it right?

[deeply_uncertain]

I can feel your pain. I had similar experience during the last cycle. My case was more extreme: E, E/V, VG, P.
Still waiting for the decision of DMR. Literally, I refresh research.gov at least twice a day.

Those are rookie numbers, need to pump them up to like every 2 hours or so.

I was probably doing the same things until a new and recent experience with a particular PO. He actually emailed me in the Fall to let me know that my proposal was going to be rejected. The date in Fastlane did not change until early January, three months after the decision had already been made. So, in my opinion, refreshing research.gov every day or so is a waste of time.

I agree that refreshing research.gov is a waste of time. I wish NSF has a policy about how to handle the declined proposals. In 3 months you could have done many things with your proposal, including revising it for the next round.

This is slowing science and hurting productivity of a significant portion (>85%) of NSF's customers. I am assuming that roughly 15% of proposals get funded.   

Sorry to hear about your disappointment with Research.gov. Just imagine how terrible it was before that system with FastLane, which provided even less visibility, and senior academics seem to have gotten by. It's a sign of the information era. The NSF does have a policy for handling declined proposals. At the end of the day, it's a government agency.

The funding rates are greater than 15%. FY2019 - 2020, the success rates were BIO: 36%, CISE: 25%, EHR: 23%, ENG: 26%, GEO: 42%, MPS: 30%, O/D: 25%, and SBE: 25%.

In most cases, except for MPS, the success rates increased from the previous year, and MPS remained a steady 30%. If you'd like the breakdown by a particular division, I can give you that too.

On average, across all divisions and programs, the average decision time is 5.78 months. The NSF advises six months, and while we would all like to know as soon as a decision is made, on average, they are consistent.

Thanks for the clarification.

[aspiring.academic]

I can feel your pain. I had similar experience during the last cycle. My case was more extreme: E, E/V, VG, P.
Still waiting for the decision of DMR. Literally, I refresh research.gov at least twice a day.

Those are rookie numbers, need to pump them up to like every 2 hours or so.

I was probably doing the same things until a new and recent experience with a particular PO. He actually emailed me in the Fall to let me know that my proposal was going to be rejected. The date in Fastlane did not change until early January, three months after the decision had already been made. So, in my opinion, refreshing research.gov every day or so is a waste of time.

I agree that refreshing research.gov is a waste of time. I wish NSF has a policy about how to handle the declined proposals. In 3 months you could have done many things with your proposal, including revising it for the next round.

This is slowing science and hurting productivity of a significant portion (>85%) of NSF's customers. I am assuming that roughly 15% of proposals get funded.   

Sorry to hear about your disappointment with Research.gov. Just imagine how terrible it was before that system with FastLane, which provided even less visibility, and senior academics seem to have gotten by. It's a sign of the information era. The NSF does have a policy for handling declined proposals. At the end of the day, it's a government agency.

The funding rates are greater than 15%. FY2019 - 2020, the success rates were BIO: 36%, CISE: 25%, EHR: 23%, ENG: 26%, GEO: 42%, MPS: 30%, O/D: 25%, and SBE: 25%.

In most cases, except for MPS, the success rates increased from the previous year, and MPS remained a steady 30%. If you'd like the breakdown by a particular division, I can give you that too.

On average, across all divisions and programs, the average decision time is 5.78 months. The NSF advises six months, and while we would all like to know as soon as a decision is made, on average, they are consistent.

where did you find these funding rates? I have attended several NSF webinars and NSF POs were continuously saying that NSF does not publish CAREER funding rates because that's the policy.

Those are not CAREER funding rates. The NSF does not provide program funding rates. The rates provided are by directorate across all programs. I can also provide division funding rates but those are a bit longer.

[aspiring.academic]

I am about to submit the tenure package this year. That's where the anxiety comes from.

I can feel your pain. I had similar experience during the last cycle. My case was more extreme: E, E/V, VG, P.
Still waiting for the decision of DMR. Literally, I refresh research.gov at least twice a day.

Those are rookie numbers, need to pump them up to like every 2 hours or so.

I was probably doing the same things until a new and recent experience with a particular PO. He actually emailed me in the Fall to let me know that my proposal was going to be rejected. The date in Fastlane did not change until early January, three months after the decision had already been made. So, in my opinion, refreshing research.gov every day or so is a waste of time.

You'll get tenure!

Hi Aspiring. Academic: After submitting the revised budget, my PO told me that the program had recommended my proposal for funding. I also submitted the public award abstract upon the request from PO. However, the status on FastLane is still showing "pending" from the date of submission. My question is: how much is the chance I will get the award, and how long will it take to get the final decision? Many thanks for always being very helpful to all of us.

Very good chance but nothing is official until you get the NOA. The process can take a little as a month to get all the approvals and go through the business review. The status will eventually update to Recommended. I'll just tell you to remain patient.

Many thanks. Someone told me the chances are 50:50. Is it right?

Whoever told you 50/50 is wrong.

See rusunyii's previous post which is correct.

[aspiring.academic]

Does anyone know how the typical CAREER panel actually runs? I got only ~1 weakness in all my four reviews (G) which was explicitly addressed, and I am wondering if anyone even read the entire thing?

It will be a bummer if a proposal that takes several months of effort is summarily dismissed by just reading the summary.

It's a lot of work to serve on a panel. Being tossed 20-30 proposals, being asked to rank them, summarize their strengths and weaknesses, and then advocate for those on the fringe is rough. The panelists wrote about a weakness collectively, which is indicative of it either dominating the panel or, in their opinion, the explanation being insufficient.



From the three CAREER workshops at the NSF that I attended, it was nearly universal advice that if you know something in the proposal may be perceived as a deficiency or oversight, address it upfront, early, and often. Sticking it on page 7 of a 15-page proposal doesn't help the case.

Also, get some additional feedback from the PD. Writing panel summaries is a painstaking task for them, and many agonize over every declination.

Thanks for the good advice and comments.

Perhaps writing good reviews is time consuming, but I dont see how skimming a proposal and writing 5 sentences about it can be perceived as such. I have observed that this "PI blaming" is universal and pervasive. I am assuming most CAREER applications are well thought out, carefully written, and describe something that the PIs have spent years studying. To see these efforts rejected because "reviewers are busy", cannot be good for science. Perhaps I am spoilt by the fact that even regular papers in my field get thousands of words of detailed and actionable peer-review.

If grants are a lottery because of the low funding rates, atleast make them an explicitly random  to avoid all this bureaucratic overwork and let everyone focus on the science?

Without having ever sat on a panel, I can understand how someone may come away with that conclusion and assume that most CAREER proposals are well written, but that is shortsighted.

Spending years studying, planning, and even writing manuscripts isn't the same as spending years grant writing.

For many CAREER proposals, it's the researcher's first NSF proposal an introduction to the NSF and scientific grant writing — and being so, it is usually not their best work, even if they believe it to be their junior career summarized in 15 pages.

With the mid-summer deadline, many academics cannot fully invest in writing their best work because they're coming off the heels of a hectic end of the semester with less than 60 days to submit a well-integrated CAREER proposal. A cursory look through this thread will reveal how many people rush, and most don't land it the first time.

Reviewers of CAREER proposal are typically senior academics who have to be reminded that they're reviewing junior colleagues' work and to cut them some slack. Many CAREER proposals, unless thoroughly revised, wouldn't cut the mustard as a CORE project when competing against much more experienced and senior colleagues.

Panel reviewers aren't about to write an essay of work being fallible. That's not their job. Unlike a journal review where you may get an R&R, and the paper is sent back to the same reviewers, perhaps with a change document addressing the comments, but the panels don't operate in that fashion. If you made all the three panelists' changes, those same three wouldn't be in the next panel, and the next panel is bound to find some error or omission that the prior one did not.

In grantsmanship, there is a bit of luck, but it's certainly not a lottery. You're frustrated by the process and a lack of detail in your reviews. Once again, I'd suggest reaching out to the PD, scheduling a phone call, or preferably a Zoom call (virtual face to face), and spend 20-30 minutes discussing your project and asking for feedback. It'll be more beneficial to you than any of my remarks and may ease some of your frustrations.

[happy123]

I am about to submit the tenure package this year. That's where the anxiety comes from.

I can feel your pain. I had similar experience during the last cycle. My case was more extreme: E, E/V, VG, P.
Still waiting for the decision of DMR. Literally, I refresh research.gov at least twice a day.

Those are rookie numbers, need to pump them up to like every 2 hours or so.

I was probably doing the same things until a new and recent experience with a particular PO. He actually emailed me in the Fall to let me know that my proposal was going to be rejected. The date in Fastlane did not change until early January, three months after the decision had already been made. So, in my opinion, refreshing research.gov every day or so is a waste of time.

You'll get tenure!

Hi Aspiring. Academic: After submitting the revised budget, my PO told me that the program had recommended my proposal for funding. I also submitted the public award abstract upon the request from PO. However, the status on FastLane is still showing "pending" from the date of submission. My question is: how much is the chance I will get the award, and how long will it take to get the final decision? Many thanks for always being very helpful to all of us.

Very good chance but nothing is official until you get the NOA. The process can take a little as a month to get all the approvals and go through the business review. The status will eventually update to Recommended. I'll just tell you to remain patient.

Many thanks. Someone told me the chances are 50:50. Is it right?

Whoever told you 50/50 is wrong.

See rusunyii's previous post which is correct.

Thanks for the clarification. One of my friend in a different school told me about 50:50.

[happy123]

If you have submitted the abstract and the PO has congratulated you on an unofficial recommendation, then your chance is at least 95%+. The waiting can be as short as 1 month and as long as 3-4 months. 

I am about to submit the tenure package this year. That's where the anxiety comes from.

I can feel your pain. I had similar experience during the last cycle. My case was more extreme: E, E/V, VG, P.
Still waiting for the decision of DMR. Literally, I refresh research.gov at least twice a day.

Those are rookie numbers, need to pump them up to like every 2 hours or so.

I was probably doing the same things until a new and recent experience with a particular PO. He actually emailed me in the Fall to let me know that my proposal was going to be rejected. The date in Fastlane did not change until early January, three months after the decision had already been made. So, in my opinion, refreshing research.gov every day or so is a waste of time.

You'll get tenure!

Hi Aspiring. Academic: After submitting the revised budget, my PO told me that the program had recommended my proposal for funding. I also submitted the public award abstract upon the request from PO. However, the status on FastLane is still showing "pending" from the date of submission. My question is: how much is the chance I will get the award, and how long will it take to get the final decision? Many thanks for always being very helpful to all of us.

Very good chance but nothing is official until you get the NOA. The process can take a little as a month to get all the approvals and go through the business review. The status will eventually update to Recommended. I'll just tell you to remain patient.

Many thanks. Someone told me the chances are 50:50. Is it right?

Thanks for clarification

[soccer]

Many program officers encourage reviewers to provide useful feedback, particularly on the CAREER proposals. However, the reviewers are not obliged to follow. Some programs have a hard time securing enough reviewers. Unless there's some gross ethical violation, reviewers are largely not accountable. PO may decide to not invite the reviewer for future reviews.

As a general comment, a terse review might be an indicator that the reviewer has too many issues with the proposals and deems it well below the threshold. Again, this is a general comment, not on any particular case.

The PO is the only person who has some responsibility to help you understand why your proposal was declined. Even though, this is not explicit in their job description. But they are required to communicate with the researchers in the field. The community as a whole can, to some extent, hold the PO accountable, through committees of visitors and advisory panels that regularly evaluate the work of federal agencies. 

Also recall a grant is a form of financial assistance. the federal government has no obligation to support any particular project. So, yes, the blame always goes to the PI.

Does anyone know how the typical CAREER panel actually runs? I got only ~1 weakness in all my four reviews (G) which was explicitly addressed, and I am wondering if anyone even read the entire thing?

It will be a bummer if a proposal that takes several months of effort is summarily dismissed by just reading the summary.

It's a lot of work to serve on a panel. Being tossed 20-30 proposals, being asked to rank them, summarize their strengths and weaknesses, and then advocate for those on the fringe is rough. The panelists wrote about a weakness collectively, which is indicative of it either dominating the panel or, in their opinion, the explanation being insufficient.



From the three CAREER workshops at the NSF that I attended, it was nearly universal advice that if you know something in the proposal may be perceived as a deficiency or oversight, address it upfront, early, and often. Sticking it on page 7 of a 15-page proposal doesn't help the case.

Also, get some additional feedback from the PD. Writing panel summaries is a painstaking task for them, and many agonize over every declination.

Thanks for the good advice and comments.

Perhaps writing good reviews is time consuming, but I dont see how skimming a proposal and writing 5 sentences about it can be perceived as such. I have observed that this "PI blaming" is universal and pervasive. I am assuming most CAREER applications are well thought out, carefully written, and describe something that the PIs have spent years studying. To see these efforts rejected because "reviewers are busy", cannot be good for science. Perhaps I am spoilt by the fact that even regular papers in my field get thousands of words of detailed and actionable peer-review.

If grants are a lottery because of the low funding rates, atleast make them an explicitly random  to avoid all this bureaucratic overwork and let everyone focus on the science?

[angelama]

Is anyone still waiting for CAREER?

[HunterNC]

I'm in CMMI, and no updates since submission on 08/2020. \

Is anyone still waiting for CAREER?

[lightofhope]

I'm still waiting.
My is in IIS CISE

Is anyone still waiting for CAREER?