1 / 18

Merit Review at the National Science Foundation

Merit Review at the National Science Foundation. EU/US Workshop on Peer Review Brussels, Belgium December 13, 2010. Joanne Tornow Executive Officer (Acting) Directorate for Biological Sciences. NSF Act of 1950 . Mission:

cyndi
Download Presentation

Merit Review at the National Science Foundation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Merit Review at the National Science Foundation EU/US Workshop on Peer Review Brussels, Belgium December 13, 2010 Joanne Tornow Executive Officer (Acting) Directorate for Biological Sciences

  2. NSF Act of 1950 Mission: To promote the progress of science; to advance the National health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the National defense, and for other purposes.

  3. What are NSF’s Responsibilities? NSF Act of 1950 NSF was charged to initiate and support: Basic scientific research and research fundamental to the engineering process Programs to strengthen S&E research potential S&E education programs at all levels and in all fields of S&E An information base on S&E appropriate for development of national and international policy

  4. Merit Review by the Numbers FY’10 55,560 proposals 13,015 awards ~45,000 volunteer reviewers ~300,000 reviews

  5. Reviewer Selection • Types of reviewers recruited: • Reviewers with specific content expertise • Reviewers with general science or education expertise • All proposals are reviewed by a minimum of three external reviewers

  6. Proposal Review Criteria • Throughout the review process, proposals are evaluated against: • National Science Board approved merit review criteria: • What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? • What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity? • Program specific criteria (stated in the program solicitation)

  7. What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields? How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project? To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original, and potentially transformative concepts? How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources?

  8. What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity? How well does the proposed activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training and learning? How well does the activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups? To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education? Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?

  9. Role of the Program Officer Analyzes the advice of the reviewers and review panel Makes funding recommendations guided by the merit review, program goals, and portfolio considerations All funding recommendations are reviewed by the Division Director, who either concurs with or rejects the recommendation.

  10. Building an Award Portfolio Project Considerations: Innovation, creativity Breadth vs. depth of research areas Priority areas and systems Potential broader impacts Diversity of Awardees: Underrepresented groups Institution types Geography Other Issues: Special programs Career point of PI New project vs. renewal Other funding International collaborations

  11. Assessment of Merit Review • Advisory Committees • Outside experts from industry, academy, other government agencies • Provide feedback on new directions, improvements to NSF programs • Evaluate NSF performance and achievement of goals • Committees of Visitors • The integrity and efficiency of the process • The nature of the award portfolio • Outcomes of the investments

  12. Merit Review in Context Aim for the highest standards of excellence, accountability, transparency and effectiveness Accommodate “thoughtful” risk-taking to advance potentially transformational research Encourage different approaches to significant research questions Maintain flexibility to respond to new opportunities

  13. NSB Task Force on Merit Review • Established in spring 2010 to review the two merit review criteria • How are the review criteria being interpreted? • How are the review criteria being used? • How can the review criteria be improved? • Have the review criteria had an impact on how researchers think about their work?

  14. NSB Task Force on Merit Review • Is currently seeking input from all stakeholder communities • Principal Investigators • Institutions • Reviewers • Program Directors • Advisory Committees • Task Force hopes to complete work and present recommendations by fall 2011

  15. Thank you! Questions?

More Related