NSF CAREER Grant UPDATE Thread

[aspiring.academic]

The last cycle was an entire mess and a half. I submitted on 7/17/2019 and didn't get my reviews and decline until the end of June 2020. Due to the delay in getting a decision, I had less than two months to make revisions.

I've learned, especially for these annual competitions, not to wait for feedback or determination. You often know how the proposal could be improved and strengthened before receiving feedback from the panel. Additionally, the panel will change from year to year, so what's said in the feedback in 2019 may be different than in 2020.

I'm looking at a proposal I submitted back in November that doesn't have a decision. I'll be making edits and improvements in the upcoming weeks if it's not funded so I can quickly turn it around in November.

The PD doesn't owe an explanation, and they also won't confirm whether they were trying to find funds, at least not in writing. NSF also prides itself on the decisions not being late because the six-month timeframe is only an average, which is pretty frustrating with annual cycles. With the move to no deadlines for small projects, less than $500,000, the wait for a decision can be absurdly long.

Is the situation different for the programs without deadlines ?

How soon after panel has met can you expect to hear back ?

I've had it go both ways. Some came back very quickly and others were pending upwards of 9 months and either declined or funded at the end of the fiscal year.
I understand the logic of moving to no-deadline because sometimes there's money leftover at the end of the fiscal year, and as you know, that money doesn't rollover.
However, the downside can be a longer review process with your competitive proposal sitting around until near the end of the FY.
None of this applies to the CAREER though.

[born_a_prof]

The last cycle was an entire mess and a half. I submitted on 7/17/2019 and didn't get my reviews and decline until the end of June 2020. Due to the delay in getting a decision, I had less than two months to make revisions.

I've learned, especially for these annual competitions, not to wait for feedback or determination. You often know how the proposal could be improved and strengthened before receiving feedback from the panel. Additionally, the panel will change from year to year, so what's said in the feedback in 2019 may be different than in 2020.

I'm looking at a proposal I submitted back in November that doesn't have a decision. I'll be making edits and improvements in the upcoming weeks if it's not funded so I can quickly turn it around in November.

The PD doesn't owe an explanation, and they also won't confirm whether they were trying to find funds, at least not in writing. NSF also prides itself on the decisions not being late because the six-month timeframe is only an average, which is pretty frustrating with annual cycles. With the move to no deadlines for small projects, less than $500,000, the wait for a decision can be absurdly long.

Is the situation different for the programs without deadlines ?

How soon after panel has met can you expect to hear back ?

I've had it go both ways. Some came back very quickly and others were pending upwards of 9 months and either declined or funded at the end of the fiscal year.
I understand the logic of moving to no-deadline because sometimes there's money leftover at the end of the fiscal year, and as you know, that money doesn't rollover.
However, the downside can be a longer review process with your competitive proposal sitting around until near the end of the FY.
None of this applies to the CAREER though.

Does it mean that the proposals that "hang around" much longer after the panel meet are usually the competitive ones (on the edge ?)?

[aspiring.academic]

Not necessarily.
It depends on the program.
I'd like to reiterate — those situations do not apply to the CAREER program.

[J.dodo1988]

date changed today. no contact. expecting a rejection on the way. good luck to those still on the bubble.

[Vid]

Folks; does anyone know if NSF will be migrating completely to research.gov by July (CAREER submission time)? I read a news article that said NSF will soon migrate from Fastlane to Research.gov.

Thank you.

[lightofhope]

when you submit the proposal, the system will tell you whether this proposal can be submitted via fastlane or must be submitted via research.gov.

Folks; does anyone know if NSF will be migrating completely to research.gov by July (CAREER submission time)? I read a news article that said NSF will soon migrate from Fastlane to Research.gov.

Thank you.

[aspiring.academic]

Folks; does anyone know if NSF will be migrating completely to research.gov by July (CAREER submission time)? I read a news article that said NSF will soon migrate from Fastlane to Research.gov.

Thank you.

They've been "migrating" for four years. The transition was supposed to be completed before the end of 2020. To answer your question, NSF 20-525 (Faculty Early Career Development Program) can be submitted using either Fastlane, Research.gov, or Grants.gov this year.

Pro Tip: Use Research.gov because at some point it will be used exclusively. You might as well get acclimated to it.

[J.dodo1988]

Just saw my reviews, and totally discouraged. the program office invited the most negative and grumpy reviewer of the last round to review the proposal again (he gave good last round and fair this round), and the person's rating destroyed the whole thing. the person wrote an extremely long page of criticism that doesn't make any sense (already read it the third time) and these comments clearly indicate that the person did not bother reading the proposal, not even the most essential part. He said there was no proof of the concept, while evidence was listed in one major figure. The saddest thing is that this person is obviously very "powerful" in the field and you don't know who this person is and not having a chance to challenge his wrong accusations face to face. (Is inviting the most grumpy reviewer again a way the PO unfavors/destroys a proposal?) there are two other reviewers who gave excellent. All the rest gave useless generic comments and very good/good and good ratings. I have a feeling those generic comments come from viewing at my institution and my website instead of actually reading my proposal. They were just not impressed with "me". I admit I have my own prejudice here. This is heartbreaking how my Career application journey ended. I lost faith in NSF, not because I did not get the award, but because how my proposed work was treated in this round. I got no useful comments other than a stamp on me that I will not accept. From the last two rounds of reviews, it also seems NSF is not willing to fund innovative work with low-moderate risk. Rather they fund those who have done the same thing for years and years. Career is not meant to help one to establish a career in a new thing, but rather, is meant to award the past glories. I understood it wrong from the very beginning. 

Thanks for all the useful comments here. Good luck to all in the community. 

[deeply_uncertain]

Just saw my reviews, and totally discouraged. the program office invited the most negative and grumpy reviewer of the last round to review the proposal again (he gave good last round and fair this round), and the person's rating destroyed the whole thing. the person wrote an extremely long page of criticism that doesn't make any sense (already read it the third time) and these comments clearly indicate that the person did not bother reading the proposal, not even the most essential part. He said there was no proof of the concept, while evidence was listed in one major figure. The saddest thing is that this person is obviously very "powerful" in the field and you don't know who this person is and not having a chance to challenge his wrong accusations face to face. (Is inviting the most grumpy reviewer again a way the PO unfavors/destroys a proposal?) there are two other reviewers who gave excellent. All the rest gave useless generic comments and very good/good and good ratings. I have a feeling those generic comments come from viewing at my institution and my website instead of actually reading my proposal. They were just not impressed with "me". I admit I have my own prejudice here. This is heartbreaking how my Career application journey ended. I lost faith in NSF, not because I did not get the award, but because how my proposed work was treated in this round. I got no useful comments other than a stamp on me that I will not accept. From the last two rounds of reviews, it also seems NSF is not willing to fund innovative work with low-moderate risk. Rather they fund those who have done the same thing for years and years. Career is not meant to help one to establish a career in a new thing, but rather, is meant to award the past glories. I understood it wrong from the very beginning. 

Thanks for all the useful comments here. Good luck to all in the community.

Very sorry to hear that. Clearly one reviewer killed your proposal. Hard to take it. Don't let this define your career. 

[doc700]

This is a huge bummer.  I have had this experience with 1 person sinking it.  The only positive is that if its 1 person really against it, that 1 person wont be your reviewer at all times in the future.  I just got a proposal accepted on the 5th try -- 4th time I had 3 extremely positive reviewers and 1 extremely negative person whose comments didn't make sense at all (while I didn't address their concerns directly, I had preliminary data that had clearly showed I overcame those challenges).  The PO "went with the average" so while I had 3 top scores and 1 super negative one, I lost out.  Anyways that proposal was just funded (for more money!!).  The only good thing about having a singular person against you is statistically you will not come up against that singular person in subsequent grant applications or paper reviews that often? 

But just wanted to say I'm really sorry.  This is a huge bummer.

Just saw my reviews, and totally discouraged. the program office invited the most negative and grumpy reviewer of the last round to review the proposal again (he gave good last round and fair this round), and the person's rating destroyed the whole thing. the person wrote an extremely long page of criticism that doesn't make any sense (already read it the third time) and these comments clearly indicate that the person did not bother reading the proposal, not even the most essential part. He said there was no proof of the concept, while evidence was listed in one major figure. The saddest thing is that this person is obviously very "powerful" in the field and you don't know who this person is and not having a chance to challenge his wrong accusations face to face. (Is inviting the most grumpy reviewer again a way the PO unfavors/destroys a proposal?) there are two other reviewers who gave excellent. All the rest gave useless generic comments and very good/good and good ratings. I have a feeling those generic comments come from viewing at my institution and my website instead of actually reading my proposal. They were just not impressed with "me". I admit I have my own prejudice here. This is heartbreaking how my Career application journey ended. I lost faith in NSF, not because I did not get the award, but because how my proposed work was treated in this round. I got no useful comments other than a stamp on me that I will not accept. From the last two rounds of reviews, it also seems NSF is not willing to fund innovative work with low-moderate risk. Rather they fund those who have done the same thing for years and years. Career is not meant to help one to establish a career in a new thing, but rather, is meant to award the past glories. I understood it wrong from the very beginning. 

Thanks for all the useful comments here. Good luck to all in the community.

[Vid]

Just saw my reviews, and totally discouraged. the program office invited the most negative and grumpy reviewer of the last round to review the proposal again (he gave good last round and fair this round), and the person's rating destroyed the whole thing. the person wrote an extremely long page of criticism that doesn't make any sense (already read it the third time) and these comments clearly indicate that the person did not bother reading the proposal, not even the most essential part. He said there was no proof of the concept, while evidence was listed in one major figure. The saddest thing is that this person is obviously very "powerful" in the field and you don't know who this person is and not having a chance to challenge his wrong accusations face to face. (Is inviting the most grumpy reviewer again a way the PO unfavors/destroys a proposal?) there are two other reviewers who gave excellent. All the rest gave useless generic comments and very good/good and good ratings. I have a feeling those generic comments come from viewing at my institution and my website instead of actually reading my proposal. They were just not impressed with "me". I admit I have my own prejudice here. This is heartbreaking how my Career application journey ended. I lost faith in NSF, not because I did not get the award, but because how my proposed work was treated in this round. I got no useful comments other than a stamp on me that I will not accept. From the last two rounds of reviews, it also seems NSF is not willing to fund innovative work with low-moderate risk. Rather they fund those who have done the same thing for years and years. Career is not meant to help one to establish a career in a new thing, but rather, is meant to award the past glories. I understood it wrong from the very beginning. 

Thanks for all the useful comments here. Good luck to all in the community.

J.dodo1988: So sorry to hear this. it's unfortunate, but you did your best! If you are in Engineering fields there is another program called ERI (you might hear about it before), see here https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=505888&org=NSF

maybe worth to try if you meet the eligibility.

Best wishes to you.

[fizzycist]

Just saw my reviews, and totally discouraged. the program office invited the most negative and grumpy reviewer of the last round to review the proposal again (he gave good last round and fair this round), and the person's rating destroyed the whole thing. the person wrote an extremely long page of criticism that doesn't make any sense (already read it the third time) and these comments clearly indicate that the person did not bother reading the proposal, not even the most essential part. He said there was no proof of the concept, while evidence was listed in one major figure. The saddest thing is that this person is obviously very "powerful" in the field and you don't know who this person is and not having a chance to challenge his wrong accusations face to face. (Is inviting the most grumpy reviewer again a way the PO unfavors/destroys a proposal?) there are two other reviewers who gave excellent. All the rest gave useless generic comments and very good/good and good ratings. I have a feeling those generic comments come from viewing at my institution and my website instead of actually reading my proposal. They were just not impressed with "me". I admit I have my own prejudice here. This is heartbreaking how my Career application journey ended. I lost faith in NSF, not because I did not get the award, but because how my proposed work was treated in this round. I got no useful comments other than a stamp on me that I will not accept. From the last two rounds of reviews, it also seems NSF is not willing to fund innovative work with low-moderate risk. Rather they fund those who have done the same thing for years and years. Career is not meant to help one to establish a career in a new thing, but rather, is meant to award the past glories. I understood it wrong from the very beginning. 

Thanks for all the useful comments here. Good luck to all in the community.

I know this feeling well, especially the part about wondering if ppl are superficially judging you based on your institution.

Not sure you are yet to the point of wanting advice (IMO it's ok to stew a little in your anger if it helps you feel better), but my suggestion is always: apply for >10 proposals per year, vary widely across funding agencies and mechanisms, don't take reviews too seriously beyond what is needed to get the funding, accept the absurd randomness of it all. All paths of proposal grief lead to "revise and resubmit".

[J.dodo1988]

Thank you all so much, for the kind response and advice! Will pick up myself and think of ways to have this work funded. That is most important.

[lightofhope]

just realized my status got changed on Apr 27 and now is pending

[soccer]

Just saw my reviews, and totally discouraged. the program office invited the most negative and grumpy reviewer of the last round to review the proposal again (he gave good last round and fair this round), and the person's rating destroyed the whole thing. the person wrote an extremely long page of criticism that doesn't make any sense (already read it the third time) and these comments clearly indicate that the person did not bother reading the proposal, not even the most essential part. He said there was no proof of the concept, while evidence was listed in one major figure. The saddest thing is that this person is obviously very "powerful" in the field and you don't know who this person is and not having a chance to challenge his wrong accusations face to face. (Is inviting the most grumpy reviewer again a way the PO unfavors/destroys a proposal?) there are two other reviewers who gave excellent. All the rest gave useless generic comments and very good/good and good ratings. I have a feeling those generic comments come from viewing at my institution and my website instead of actually reading my proposal. They were just not impressed with "me". I admit I have my own prejudice here. This is heartbreaking how my Career application journey ended. I lost faith in NSF, not because I did not get the award, but because how my proposed work was treated in this round. I got no useful comments other than a stamp on me that I will not accept. From the last two rounds of reviews, it also seems NSF is not willing to fund innovative work with low-moderate risk. Rather they fund those who have done the same thing for years and years. Career is not meant to help one to establish a career in a new thing, but rather, is meant to award the past glories. I understood it wrong from the very beginning. 

Thanks for all the useful comments here. Good luck to all in the community.

My first and only DOE early career proposal was declined. One of the reviewers said that this guy did A, B, and C ... I have never worked on A, B, and C, and these things are totally not related to my research and certainly were not mentioned in my proposal at all. I talked to the DOE PM about it. The PM gave me a standard response that next time you should make it very clear what you did in the past in the proposal so that you would not be mistaken as another guy. PM thought maybe the reviewer confused my name with another guy. But that's it. The PM couldn't do anything.