NSF CAREER Grant UPDATE Thread

[soccer]

I served on a panel for the NSF CAREER award.  We roughly sorted the candidates into the mostly highly competitive, medium and non-competitive (with some near the lines).  There was 1 superb proposal that was ranked in the first place.  That proposal did come from a candidate who was submitting for the first time (although he was not a first-year faculty and did have an established group).  No one discussed his number of attempts as uniformly everyone thought his proposal was excellent.

When we got to ranking who was 3rd/4th was where it got more difficult.  The PO had the final say and the 4th place person did end up getting funded.  But ranking 3, 4 and 5 was going to be influential in who got funded and who didn't.  There there was an acknowledgement that someone was on the third try whereas someone else wasn't so we would give the person on their third try the "tiebreaker."  It didn't matter if people were on the 1st or 2nd try -- what was relevant was that it was someone's last attempt and if we didn't give them the award this year, they would never be able to win.

In short, from my 1 experience on the panel, being on the 3rd try did help as a tiebreaker if you were really, really close to being above the line.  But an exceptional proposal could also be easily funded in year 1 or 2.

Thanks very much for the comment. I have heard something similar about the DOE early career review process. My first year as an AP, I submitted a DOE early career but didn't do it for the CAREER, and this year I submitted a CAREER but didn't submit a DOE early career. I was worrying about wasting my 3 chances.

[Vid]

doc700: Thank you for your advice.

Would you think they will send my proposal to the same reviewers next year? I started working and revising my proposal and would like to get some insights about whether to incorporate reviewer's feedback or not (some of them are great but a few seem to be off and unclear feedback).

Thank you,
--Vi

[lightofhope]

Based on my communications with the PO, they will at least have one "same" reviewer but not all.

doc700: Thank you for your advice.

Would you think they will send my proposal to the same reviewers next year? I started working and revising my proposal and would like to get some insights about whether to incorporate reviewer's feedback or not (some of them are great but a few seem to be off and unclear feedback).

Thank you,
--Vi

[doc700]

I was on an in person panel (2 years ago, back when those were in person!).  Its possible that some people return year after year, but I only went once.  I submitted a CAREER proposal to that PO the following year.  As a result, I don't know if the same people normally are asked in subsequent years as I wouldn't have been eligible. Also, for the in person panel, the comments and assessment were made through discussion.  So even if a few people were on the panel the prior year, its likely the conversation and consensus would take a different turn. 

Other programs do mail in reviews so there there could be some duplicate reviewers?

I've reviewed both DOE Early Career (mail in) as well as the NSF CAREER panel.  Its not only a good way to know the PO and do service for him/her but also to get to know how the process works.  I have been rejected once now for both NSF CAREER and DOE so I can't claim it instantly got me a winning proposal, but it did help me understand the process.

doc700: Thank you for your advice.

Would you think they will send my proposal to the same reviewers next year? I started working and revising my proposal and would like to get some insights about whether to incorporate reviewer's feedback or not (some of them are great but a few seem to be off and unclear feedback).

Thank you,
--Vi

[aspiring.academic]

doc700: Thank you for your advice.

Would you think they will send my proposal to the same reviewers next year? I started working and revising my proposal and would like to get some insights about whether to incorporate reviewer's feedback or not (some of them are great but a few seem to be off and unclear feedback).

Thank you,
--Vi

No, no, double no!

You never incorporate specific reviewer feedback in an NSF proposal. Grantsmanship is not the same as manuscript preparation. You can rework your proposal, but don't reference any specific review from this cycle. Panels do not have the same people on them so don't write your proposal as though the same eyes will see it next year.

Typically, if you're on the cusp of being funded the PD may reach out with some additional questions from the panel and then you respond to those directly, similar to a journal submission.

[ocean2428]

Since last October, I haven't heard anything from my PM, where he called me to clarify a few things and asked me to submit half a page explanation. He was very positive. Since then, no communications. I am starting to worry now. Should I contact the PM? Or should I wait?

[lee2002hu]

Just be patient...
POs are human beings and they are super busy these days...

Since last October, I haven't heard anything from my PM, where he called me to clarify a few things and asked me to submit half a page explanation. He was very positive. Since then, no communications. I am starting to worry now. Should I contact the PM? Or should I wait?

[bluefooted]

Got questions on a proposal in EHR-DRL last week, with an email about recommendation for funding.  I'm trying really hard to manage expectations right now, because I've had questions before and got declined at the highest level (not CAREER though).  Fingers, toes, and everything else crossed right now.

[ocean2428]

I had an experience with NSF DMR proposal (not CAREER) that was recommended for funding and asked for an updated C&P and Abstract (by email). After about a month I got the final NOA. I think you are in. It should be good news. I have not heard anyone deny finding after getting an email saying recommended for funding. So, Congrats!

[ocean2428]

Did they ask for Abstract?

Got questions on a proposal in EHR-DRL last week, with an email about recommendation for funding.  I'm trying really hard to manage expectations right now, because I've had questions before and got declined at the highest level (not CAREER though).  Fingers, toes, and everything else crossed right now.

[Electrochemist]

Still haven't chatted with the PO. She hasn't responded to my emails to coordinate a time. I will update with the result after the conversation

[aspiring.academic]

I had an experience with NSF DMR proposal (not CAREER) that was recommended for funding and asked for an updated C&P and Abstract (by email). After about a month I got the final NOA. I think you are in. It should be good news. I have not heard anyone deny finding after getting an email saying recommended for funding. So, Congrats!

Rare but not unheard of since the PD doesn't make the award.

[ocean2428]

Interesting! In your experience how long it took you to get the NOA after PD recommended for funding?

I had an experience with NSF DMR proposal (not CAREER) that was recommended for funding and asked for an updated C&P and Abstract (by email). After about a month I got the final NOA. I think you are in. It should be good news. I have not heard anyone deny finding after getting an email saying recommended for funding. So, Congrats!

Rare but not unheard of since the PD doesn't make the award.

[aspiring.academic]

Interesting! In your experience how long it took you to get the NOA after PD recommended for funding?

I had an experience with NSF DMR proposal (not CAREER) that was recommended for funding and asked for an updated C&P and Abstract (by email). After about a month I got the final NOA. I think you are in. It should be good news. I have not heard anyone deny finding after getting an email saying recommended for funding. So, Congrats!

Rare but not unheard of since the PD doesn't make the award.

PDs make the recommendation for funding, but it is considered pending until approved by NSF leadership and the Division of Grants and Agreements (DGA). It is the DGA that sends out the award letter, and at that time, it's considered final. There have been times where proposals that are recommended for funding aren't funded, mostly due to budgetary issues that weren't present at the time of the recommendation.

Anyway, to answer your question, it varies on several factors. If the PD asks for additional information and you take three weeks to get it to them, then that's going to cause a delay. Only once all materials have been provided (e.g., responding to questions, providing abstract, federally negotiated rates, IRB determination, budget negotiations, etc.) can the PD recommend funding to the Division Director. They work closely together so the division director is generally in the loop so there aren't any surprises.

Sometimes things can move quickly if the researcher has their ducks in a row, and sometimes it can take a while. I've had the NOA in as quick as a month, and other times it has been 2+ months.

[ocean2428]

Thank you for this information. Very helpful!

Interesting! In your experience how long it took you to get the NOA after PD recommended for funding?

I had an experience with NSF DMR proposal (not CAREER) that was recommended for funding and asked for an updated C&P and Abstract (by email). After about a month I got the final NOA. I think you are in. It should be good news. I have not heard anyone deny finding after getting an email saying recommended for funding. So, Congrats!

Rare but not unheard of since the PD doesn't make the award.

PDs make the recommendation for funding, but it is considered pending until approved by NSF leadership and the Division of Grants and Agreements (DGA). It is the DGA that sends out the award letter, and at that time, it's considered final. There have been times where proposals that are recommended for funding aren't funded, mostly due to budgetary issues that weren't present at the time of the recommendation.

Anyway, to answer your question, it varies on several factors. If the PD asks for additional information and you take three weeks to get it to them, then that's going to cause a delay. Only once all materials have been provided (e.g., responding to questions, providing abstract, federally negotiated rates, IRB determination, budget negotiations, etc.) can the PD recommend funding to the Division Director. They work closely together so the division director is generally in the loop so there aren't any surprises.

Sometimes things can move quickly if the researcher has their ducks in a row, and sometimes it can take a while. I've had the NOA in as quick as a month, and other times it has been 2+ months.