Research.gov compliance checks

[research_prof]

Folks,

right now I am going nuts about the compliance checks of research.gov. I have written a proposal in latex and my fonts are 10pt Helvetica which is allowed according to the latest PAPPG. However, latex is using an open source version of the Helvetica font called Nimbus San L. As a result, this triggers a warning about non-compliant fonts once I upload the proposal to research.gov. I have submitted probably 10 proposals already through fast lane with exactly the same latex template (and fonts!) and I have gotten all of them reviewed without a problem. Does anyone know if this warning will actually result in getting my proposal returned without review?

I bet this is not only my problem. Whoever is using latex and they are trying to use Helvetica should be submitting proposals with the same font. Do we know how strict NSF is about that? I am sure that my proposal complies with PAPPG overall.

[research_prof]

Tried even with Arial 10pt. Research.gov says it recognizes Arial 10pt... I am still getting a warning that this font type (i.e., arial) is not supported... any thoughts?

[lee2002hu]

Why not submit it through Fastlane again? It should be much more straight forward then.

[Liquidambar]

You are probably fine.  I received the following mass e-mail a couple weeks ago from one of the DMS program officers.  Obviously they're aware that there are issues with the compliance checker.

Dear Colleagues,

This message should be of interest to those who submit proposals prepared using TeX/LaTex to the NSF via Research.gov.

The National Science Foundation has implemented additional automated compliance checking in Research.gov for project descriptions as of 10/5/2020. One of the compliance checks is for font size. Currently, files prepared using TeX/LaTeX will generate warnings when submitted to Research.gov because of the way PDF files are processed.  We believe that these warnings will be gone next year.  For the time being, the warnings will not prevent proposal submission.

In case you're interested in the details, please read on. Roughly speaking, in word processing programs, when an 11 pt font size is used, a subscript is still in 11 pt type, just shrunk down a bit when it is printed to a screen or on a printer. In typesetting programs like TeX, when an 11 pt typeface is used, a subscript is set using 9 pt type. The smaller type size in a PDF file triggers the warning because the compliance-checking software can't tell what is a subscript and what isn't.

A similar issue can generate an error regarding the required Broader Impacts heading. Depending on the LaTeX input, the compliance checking software may not realize that "Broader Impacts" is indeed on a line by itself when the PDF file is printed. 

Again, for the time being, these warnings will not prevent proposal submission.

[aspiring.academic]

Compliance check warnings in Research.gov will not prevent submission.
As long as you are adhering to PAPPG, don't worry about the warnings. Warnings mean to check compliance manually.
If there's anything that will prevent you from submitting, you'd be alerted with a red error symbol.

[research_prof]

Why not submit it through Fastlane again? It should be much more straight forward then.

Fastlane has been broken since October 5 that NSF enforces the new templates for Biosketch and C&P. It might fail to print the final proposal and the support basically tells you to trust fast lane and simply submit the proposal if each individual document looks ok.

[research_prof]

Thank you very much, Liquidambar and aspiring.academic. I was able to play with latex a bit and make some of warnings go away. Still for the project description the figures have smaller fonts and I cannot get around the warning about having "incompatible" font sizes. I removed all figures and uploaded just the text. The text passes the check without warnings..

Funny thing: I submitted another proposal earlier this week and I had to transfer the entire proposal from fast lane to research.gov because I could not print it through fast lane. For that submission, I was getting the warnings, but I did not have time to play with latex so that they go away... I am sure the proposal complies with PAPPG, so I hope that it will be reviewed...

[lee2002hu]

I have used the new PDF templates for Biosketch and C&P in fastlane recently. They worked well for me.

Why not submit it through Fastlane again? It should be much more straight forward then.

Fastlane has been broken since October 5 that NSF enforces the new templates for Biosketch and C&P. It might fail to print the final proposal and the support basically tells you to trust fast lane and simply submit the proposal if each individual document looks ok.

[aspiring.academic]

FastLane is going the way of the dodo. Aside from security updates, it's not being maintained.
I fell into the same trap with C&P. When I tried to print the entire proposal, I kept getting that HTTP Status 500 error. I went as far as creating a whole new proposal entry thinking it was just something funky with the existing entry. I thought that fixed the problem, and then I saw the error again. I checked each document and realized it was C&P. Once removed, the entire thing -- minus C&P -- could be printed.
While I know people are creatures of habit and dread the new shiny Research.gov, I promise, after having submitted 3 proposals using that system, it's lightyears ahead of FastLane.

[research_prof]

FastLane is going the way of the dodo. Aside from security updates, it's not being maintained.
I fell into the same trap with C&P. When I tried to print the entire proposal, I kept getting that HTTP Status 500 error. I went as far as creating a whole new proposal entry thinking it was just something funky with the existing entry. I thought that fixed the problem, and then I saw the error again. I checked each document and realized it was C&P. Once removed, the entire thing -- minus C&P -- could be printed.
While I know people are creatures of habit and dread the new shiny Research.gov, I promise, after having submitted 3 proposals using that system, it's lightyears ahead of FastLane.

I even uploaded empty bio sketches and C&P forms on fast lane. Still, it did not work.

I am fine using research.gov. My only concern has to do with warnings. How am I supposed to interpret a warning when I know that I follow whatever PAPPG says?

I always do due diligence to follow the rules as much as I can, but sometimes latex does weird stuff and obviously I am not a latex guru. So if NSF could provide latex/word templates for grants, that would probably solve all the problems.

[polly_mer]

My only concern has to do with warnings. How am I supposed to interpret a warning when I know that I follow whatever PAPPG says?

I always do due diligence to follow the rules as much as I can, but sometimes latex does weird stuff and obviously I am not a latex guru. So if NSF could provide latex/word templates for grants, that would probably solve all the problems.

These warnings are like compiler warnings: the human should check the computer's work and go forward accordingly.

If these were errors and prevented submission, then you have a problem that must be corrected before going forward.

[research_prof]

My only concern has to do with warnings. How am I supposed to interpret a warning when I know that I follow whatever PAPPG says?

I always do due diligence to follow the rules as much as I can, but sometimes latex does weird stuff and obviously I am not a latex guru. So if NSF could provide latex/word templates for grants, that would probably solve all the problems.

These warnings are like compiler warnings: the human should check the computer's work and go forward accordingly.

If these were errors and prevented submission, then you have a problem that must be corrected before going forward.

Thanks, Polly. This language sounds familiar :-P

I talked with senior colleagues. Especially they ones submitting to the NIH said that they probably have not submitted a single proposal without getting warnings. They said as long as the format is reasonable, I should be ok.