Are you curious about serving on a panel, but something has stopped you? Maybe you’re waiting for a program officer to track you down or are secretly relieved when prior commitments always seem to fall on panel dates. Or (worst of all!) you’ve allowed that dreaded imposter syndrome to outpace your enthusiasm.

Have no fear! Let’s take a moment to go over who (and how) we typically recruit panelists, what you can expect leading up to the panel, what happens on the actual meeting days, and why panel service could be beneficial to you.

Who serves on panels?

Panelists range in experience from post-doctoral scholars through the ranks to tenured faculty. They also include museum curators and researchers, and research-focused federal employees outside of NSF. This means you need a PhD and must be active in your field.

Recruitment

Program officers review the content of each proposal and recruit panelists who are qualified to review the slate of proposals in a given panel. This can explain why you may be recruited for some panels and not others. We try our best to build diverse panels, with broad representation of men and women, career stages, types of institution (Research-1, colleges, and minority-serving), states (especially EPSCoR jurisdictions), and membership in underrepresented groups. (With respect to the latter, we rely on you to self-identify when you register with Research.gov.)

To gear up for panel recruitment/service, it is good to serve initially as an ad hoc reviewer (i.e., reviewing a single proposal but not attending the panel meeting) and to have submitted a proposal (no matter its outcome) as PI or Co-PI so that you are familiar with the process.

You can also relay your interest in serving by visiting our website and signing up using our Reviewer Survey. We also collect suggestions for potential reviewers from other panelists and have sign-up sheets at Evolution and ESA meetings.

Before Panel Service

So, you’ve agreed to serve on a panel*. That’s great! You’ll receive an email (a “Charge Letter”), directing you how to register for the panel, make travel and lodging arrangements, and plan for any technological or special accommodations.

After lots of communication from the managing Program Officer, and each panelist identifying their conflicts of interests, you’ll be given your review assignments – usually 4-6 weeks prior to the panel dates.

Next, you’ll write your individual reviews for 8-10 proposals evaluating the intellectual merit and broader impacts. These individual reviews are completed before the panel starts. We recommend that reviews be submitted 3 to 5 days ahead of the panel so that everyone — program officers and other panelists — has the chance to ponder the complete set of opinions on each proposal.

*Please note that if you have a proposal currently under review in DEB, you cannot serve as a panelist during this funding cycle. This also means that if you agree to serve on a panel, please don’t then submit a proposal to DEB.

Day of Service

The panel is a multi-day discussion of the intellectual merits and broader impacts of a set of ~30-50 proposals. A panel may be in person at NSF, virtual, or hybrid. For each proposal in a DEB panel, at least two other panelists will provide reviews. You and your fellow panelists will discuss each proposal, come to a consensus, and then make a recommendation about its overall quality to NSF. It’s important to understand that the panel’s recommendations are just that — recommendations. NSF program officers always take them to heart but their ultimate decisions on which proposals to fund involve additional considerations, most notably what we call “portfolio balance”.

How does serving on a panel serve you?

1. You can ask about upcoming funding opportunities and recent (or future) programmatic changes at the Q&A session with DEB senior leadership and representatives from the BIO Directorate Office of the Assistant Director.  You can also suggest ways to improve the review processes to better serve our community of investigators.
2. You gain insight into new and emergent science in your field.
3. You learn about grantsmanship.
4. You learn about the merit review process.
5. You build networks of scientists working on similar projects with similar goals.
6. It’s intellectually stimulating. We guarantee you’ll be pushed in new directions.

Closing Note

Even though we build diverse panels, there are simply not enough panel service opportunities for everyone to get a chance serve on panel each year, To get this experience, we encourage you to look broadly for ad hoc review and panel service opportunities anywhere at the NSF (e.g., GRFP), and to look out for “mock panels run by NSF at Society Meetings (typically targeted towards early career folks like postdocs).  Thanks for reading this long post!

Learn more about new requirements in the PAPPG for how researchers interact with tribal nations

A change to the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG, NSF 24-1), which went into effect on May 20, 2024, alters the requirements for proposals and awards that impact the resources or interests of one or more of the 574 federally recognized American Indian or Alaska Native Tribal Nations (see Chapter II.E.10).

To help inform the community about these changes and their potential impacts on biological sciences research, the NSF Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO) will hold a Virtual Office Hour on July 23, 2024 from 2:00 to 3:00 pm ET. Register in advance for this VOH session.

BIO staff will be joined by staff from NSF’s Policy Office, Office of the Director, and Directorate for STEM Education to outline the new requirements.

All members of the biological sciences community should feel welcome to attend as the session will attempt to cover the impact on a variety of biological subdisciplines. Individuals from outside the biological sciences are also welcome.

The event will be recorded and a recording will be posted here shortly after the event.

What is research that impacts Tribal Nations?

Examples of such activities may include, but are not limited to, the following:

• research or projects that involve Tribal Nation members and would invoke the Tribal Nation in any way (including but not limited to referencing a Tribal Nation in materials, public forums, or publications);
• carrying out studies or research on Tribal Nation reservations, territories, and other locations where Tribal Nations have legally protected rights to resources or to engage in activities; and
• using Tribal Nation-controlled information or data in research

The BoCP program is a cross-directorate and international program led by NSF that invites submission of interdisciplinary proposals addressing grand challenges in biodiversity science within the context of unprecedented environmental change, including climate change.  

The program supports both US-only collaborative proposals and proposals with international partnerships with the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) of Brazil, and the National Research Foundation (NRF) of South Africa. 

Successful BoCP proposals will test novel hypotheses about functional biodiversity and its connections to shifting biodiversity on a changing planet, with respect to both how environmental change affects taxonomic and functional biodiversity, as well as how the resulting functional biodiversity across lineages feeds back on the environment. 

Join us Monday, July 8^th,  noon-1pm ET to learn about the BoCP program.  

Register in advance for this webinar: 

https://nsf.zoomgov.com/webinar/register/WN_Z9_68QaETNODaRieGYX7Wg

The Division of Environmental Biology (DEB) held its latest Virtual Office Hour on June 10, 2024. Program Officers discussed the Merit Review Process and how to get involved with NSF. We host these office hours 1-2pm EST on the 2nd Monday of every month. There is a designated theme each time, but attendees are welcome to ask about other NSF-related topics. Program Officers (POs) from different research areas are present at each Virtual Office Hour, so a wide range of scientific perspectives is represented.

The presentation and other documents are available here:

Slides (PDF)

PAPPG 24-1

Reviewer Sign Up Link

If you were unable to attend, here are some of the questions asked during the Q & A section:

How often do you hold panels? Given no deadlines for many programs, do panels still convene at regular intervals, or do they convene only when they receive a critical mass of reviews/proposals?

We hold frequent and smaller panels once there is a critical mass of proposals. Our goal is to get decisions on proposals out in a timely manner. Therefore, you could be called on to be a reviewer at any point during the year. If you find that you can’t be a reviewer at one time, you may have the opportunity to be a reviewer at a different time.

Is there any good or bad time to submit a proposal?

The best time to submit a proposal is when it is ready. We host 3-4 panels a year per cluster so that whenever you submit there will be an upcoming proposal.

How many people review each proposal?

Within DEB, we strive for 5-6 reviews as a mix of ad hoc and panelists. However, if a proposal is co-reviewed in an additional program there may be more.

For Broader Impacts, I heard there are some activities that are sort of (informally) expected, such as incorporate findings into graduate education. Is this true?

No. There are no expectations for any particular type of broader impact. However, the most frequent type we see is training of students but that’s not always the case. The most successful Broader Impacts are context dependent and what the PI is capable of based on their institutions, the research that they can naturally do, or communities that they are tapped into. You can check out a past Broader Impacts VOH here.

Are there any resources for what the community currently constitutes a good Data Management Plan, Post-doc mentoring plan, etc.?

Check out the Biological Sciences Data Management and Sharing Plan Guidance for Proposals and Awards webpage for information regarding those two documents. Additionally, universities sometimes post things online, and you can also speak with your colleagues. You can also check out this blog post for more information on Data Management Plan updates.

How long do panelists have to review a proposal?

It depends, but generally about a month.

How does one get selected for panel service? I’m an early-career researcher and I fill out each Survey Monkey for panel service but have not yet been selected despite having done ad hoc reviews several times. Any tips for making oneself more competitive for panel service?

It’s us not you. There are general and specific reasons for this. We strive to ensure that we have a diverse panel including geography, career stages, institution types, gender, race, etc. But also, there needs to be panelists who research areas align with the proposals that come in. The number of panelists is smaller than the number of ad hoc reviewers we use in a year. If you continue to experience this, please reach out to a Program Officer and we’ll try our best to see if we can include you.

How do you decide who will be the ad hoc reviewers for proposals that are resubmissions? Do the same reviewers typically get asked again?

It depends on the proposal and Program Officer. If a reviewer went in-depth or was really excited about the proposal, we may ask for them to review it again if they are available. We have to take into account bias, so it tends to be proposal and context specific.

Do clinicians with extensive clinical experience but without major research papers get to be part of a panel?

The only criterion to be a reviewer is to have a terminal degree in the field of interest. In DEB, this is a Ph.D. You just need to be a critical thinker and able to communicate these thoughts in a written format. Other programs may have specific requirements in terms of career stage, but DEB does not.

For technical merit, could you define the level of excellency?

If asked to be a reviewer, you will be provided with helpful documents and guides on how to write reviewers.  Additionally, the 19-minute video we mentioned in the slides is very helpful.

How are Dear Colleague Letters (DCL) weighed in the decision? Are reviewers asked to comment on this? Say a proposal is submitted to a cluster, and it addresses a DCL, how much weight does it get?

It really depends on what the Dear Colleague Letter is. Reviewers are not required to comment on DCLs as they generally do not have review criteria associated with them. Whether they weigh into the recommendation depends on the specifics either programmatically or what the agency-wide priorities are.

Please reach out to a PO if you have any questions about the proposal submission and review process in DEB programs. NSF has suggested 5 tips on working with Program Officers as part of the NSF 101 series on our Science Matters blog.

Check out the upcoming office hour topics below and be sure to check back here or on the NSF Events Page for information on how to register. We’re taking July off so our next Virtual Office Hour will be on August 12^th from 1pm-2pm Eastern Time. We will be joined by our colleagues in the Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP). This event is suitable for both students looking to apply as well as faculty interested in becoming a reviewer for the GRFP.

Upcoming Office Hours and Topics:    

August 12: Graduate Research Fellowship Program

October 21*: Dear Colleague Letters

December 9: TBD

*indicates change of date from regular schedule

Check this out over at the IOS blog here or in full, below:

The Data Management and Sharing Plan (DMSP) is a supplementary document required for all proposal submissions to NSF. The DMSP should describe how an award will follow NSF policy on managing, disseminating, and sharing research results and can be no longer than two pages. NSF provides general information on preparing your data management and sharing plan HERE.   

Importantly, PIs submitting proposals to the Directorate of Biological Sciences (BIO) should also consult the BIO-specific guidance on DMSPs for proposals and awards posted HERE that was recently updated in accordance with the newly released PAPPG (NSF 24-1). 

To summarize, the BIO DMSP guidance outlines the following: 

1. DMSPs should be consistent with the FAIR (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability) Guiding Principles. 
2. DMSPs should describe provisions taken to protect sensitive personal data, such as personal health data and human genomic data. 
3. PIs may consider developing best practices regarding the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance. 
4. DMSPs should outline roles and responsibilities for all key personnel managing data. 
5. DMSPs are expected to include the use of recognized, accessible, and community-accepted repositories (where they exist) for data storage. Personal storage and lab websites for data storage may be considered inadequate. 
6. DMSPs of projects that involve collection of specimens that require deposition or vouchering must include a description how specimens and the associated data will be permanently accessioned. 

Also, note that costs associated with data management and sharing can be included in a proposal’s budget and budget justification if applicable.  

The BIO DMSP guidance also includes: 

1. Information on post-award data management and sharing 
2. Information on future proposals, notably that DMSP implementation on prior awards will be considered during evaluation of subsequent NSF proposal submissions. 

NSF’s Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide, or PAPPG (NSF 24-1), is an essential resource for Principle Investigators (PIs) and Sponsored Projects Offices/Sponsored Research Offices (SPOs/SROs) for questions about award management and proposal submissions. The PAPPG is different from a solicitation, which is specific to programs (both core and special) and often has unique rules and requirements for your proposal. Think of the PAPPG as the foundational guidance with solicitations adding program-specific rules to follow when writing and submitting your proposal.

For example, EAGERs and RAPIDs must follow the rules outlined in the PAPPG. However, if you want to put in a proposal to DEB’s core programs, you must submit to the DEB Core Programs Solicitation and follow the guidelines written there.  

The newest version of the PAPPG is effective for proposals submitted or due on or after May 20, 2024, and the newest version of the Core Programs Solicitation is effective immediately.

Significant changes to the PAPPG are listed in their entirety here. If you’d like to view a webinar outlining the changes you can check out the recording here.

Below, we’ve highlighted some changes relevant to our community. This version has more changes than in recent years, and we highly encourage you to review all the updates.

 By-Chapter Changes

Chapter I: Pre-Submission Information

• Chapter I.D, Concept Outlines, has been updated to provide additional clarity on the use of concept outlines and the Program Suitability and Proposal Concept Tool (ProSPCT).
• Chapter I.F, When to Submit Proposals, has been modified to clarify that the 5 p.m. submitter’s local time is tied to the organization, and not the location of the PI.

Chapter II: Proposal Preparation Instructions

• Chapter II.C, Format of the Proposal, Research Opportunity Awards for Predominantly Undergraduate Institutions (ROA)(PUI) Supplemental Funding Requests has been added to the listing of types of proposals.
• Chapter II.D.1.e(ii), Malign Foreign Talent Recruitment Programs, is a new section that addresses Section 10632 of the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 (42 U.S.C. § 19232), requirements regarding malign foreign talent recruitment programs. This applies to individuals designated as senior/key persons on a proposal.
• Chapter II.D.2.h(i), Biographical Sketch(es), the updated guidance serves as NSF’s implementation of the biographical sketch common form developed by the National Science and Technology Council’s Research Security Subcommittee.

This section has been revised to remove the 3-page limitation for the biographical sketch. There is no page limitation for this section of the proposal.

The Synergistic Activities section has been removed from the biographical sketch. This information must now be submitted by individuals designated as senior/key persons as part of the senior/key personnel documents in Research.gov.

• Chapter II.D.2.h(ii), Current and Pending (Other) Support, the updated guidance serves as NSF’s implementation of the current and pending (other) support common form developed by the National Science and Technology Council’s Research Security Subcommittee.
• Chapter II.D.2.i(i), Mentoring Plan, has been expanded to address the revision to Section 7008(a) of the America COMPETES Act of 2022 (42 U.S.C. § 1862o(a)) requiring a mentoring plan for postdoctoral researchers or graduate students supported on the project. This page limitation for the Mentoring Plan remains one page.
• Chapter II.E.10, Seeking and Obtaining Tribal Nation Approval for Proposals that May Impact Tribal Resources or Interests, has been added as a new section for proposals that may impact the resources of a Tribal Nation. Projects that do not have prior written approval from the official(s) designated by the relevant Tribal Nation(s) will not be awarded by NSF.

Chapter VII: Award Administration

• Chapter VII.B.7, Individual Development Plans for Postdoctoral Scholars or Graduate Students, implements Section 10313 (42 U.S.C. § 18993) of the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 requirement for postdoctoral scholars or graduate students who receive substantial NSF support must have an Individual Development Plan which is required to be updated annually.

Join us Monday, June 10^th, 1 – 2pm ET for DEB’s next Virtual Office Hour: Merit Review and How to Get Involved with NSF. DEB Program Officers will be discussing what to expect when you are a panelist or reviewer and opportunities to get involved with NSF that don’t involve grant writing. Upcoming DEB Virtual Office Hours are announced ahead of time on DEBrief, so we suggest you also sign up for blog notifications.   

REGISTER HERE TO PARTICIPATE

If you can’t make it to this or any future office hours, don’t worry! Come back to the blog afterwards, as we post recaps and the presentation slides of all office hour sessions. Alternatively, visit our Office Hours homepage for slideshows and recaps of past topics.    

Virtual Office Hours are on the second Monday of every other month from 1 – 2pm ET. 

Upcoming Office Hours and Topics:                    

June 10: Merit Review and How to Get Involved with NSF 

August 12: Graduate Research Fellowship Program

October 21: Dear Colleague Letters

December 9: TBD

The Division of Environmental Biology (DEB) held its latest Virtual Office Hour on May 13, 2024. Program Officers discussed the CAREER Solicitation (NSF 22-586). We host these office hours 1-2pm EST on the 2nd Monday of every month. There is a designated theme each time, but attendees are welcome to ask about other NSF-related topics. Program Officers (POs) from different research areas are present at each Virtual Office Hour, so a wide range of scientific perspectives is represented.

The presentation and other documents are available here:

Slides (PDF)

PAPPG 24-1

Faculty Early Career Development Program (CAREER) Solicitation

If you were unable to attend, here are some of the questions asked during the Q & A section:

Can a CAREER proposal be submitted that aligns with a Dear Colleague Letter (DCL)? How should I highlight that in the proposal, and is there any distinction in how they are evaluated?

CAREER is a stand-alone solicitation so you cannot respond to a DCL or other special program. In your proposal, you can still highlight NSF priorities as part of your broader impacts.

Per the 22-586 solicitation it only says the proposers must be untenured at the annual deadline, there is no statement that the proposer must remain untenured through Oct. 1 following submission, as presented.  Please verify this eligibility criterion.

Our presentation included inaccurate information. Tenure status as of the proposal submission deadline (24 July 2024) is used to determine your eligibility.

For postdocs who have no or limited teaching/mentoring opportunities, are they encouraged to try CAREER now or wait until they are in a better position in terms of teaching/mentoring?

You must be in a tenure track position or equivalent, postdocs are not eligible. Though this varies by individual circumstances, it may be beneficial to not apply in your first year as a PI at your new institution. Taking some time to settle in at your new institution and to understand the resources and curriculum opportunities within your institution and your local community could help you identify where you could have the greatest impact when integrating your teaching and your research. Additionally, you only have three chances to apply for the CAREER and waiting to understand those opportunities lends itself to better submissions.

Should we talk to a program officer about our CAREER proposal before submitting?

You do not have to, but you can. We welcome you to email a PO and we can set up a time to chat.  In general, it is best to approach a PO with a one-page summary of your project objectives.

If a previous submission was not awarded, how should one approach a resubmission in terms of addressing panel reviews?

Reach out to the Program Officer who managed the proposal, and they can provide you with information if your panel summary or reviews are not clear. You should address comments/concerns that were weaknesses in the proposal with an emphasis on key issues raised in the panel summary. Whether or not you include a “Response to Previous Reviews” section is up to you, but if you do include such a section, we encourage you to keep in short and to the point.

Are there other smaller opportunities besides the BRC-BIO solicitation that would be helpful?

Within the DEB Core solicitation (NSF 24-543) , there is a new type of proposal called the STAR grant. There are projects with total budgets of $400,000 or less. STAR Grants may address any topic appropriate for DEB core programs and could include a variety of important research activities that entail a narrower scope and/or reduced costs (e.g., analysis of existing data (including NEON data), theoretical research, synthesis projects, fieldwork projects, etc.). The STAR track should not be used predominately for the collection of preliminary data. STAR Grants may be useful for targeted research projects, including ideas initiated by postdoctoral researchers. The project description for STAR Grants is limited to 10 pages. STAR Grant projects will be assessed based on the same merit review criteria as all other proposals.

Additional questions can be found here on our previous recap post.   

Please reach out to a PO if you have any questions about the proposal submission and review process in DEB programs. NSF has suggested 5 tips on working with Program Officers as part of the NSF 101 series on our Science Matters blog.

Check out the upcoming office hour topics below and be sure to check back here or on the NSF Events Page for information on how to register. Our next Virtual Office Hour, on June 10^th from 1pm-2pm Eastern Time, will focus on the merit review process and how to get involved with NSF.

Upcoming Office Hours and Topics:    

June 10: Merit Review and How to Get Involved with NSF

August 12: Graduate Research Fellowship Program

October 21*: Dear Colleague Letters

December 9: TBD

*indicates change of date from regular schedule

The Biodiversity on a Changing Plant (BoCP) program is a cross-directorate and international program led by NSF that invites submission of interdisciplinary proposals addressing grand challenges in biodiversity science within the context of unprecedented environmental change, including climate change. Successful BoCP proposals will test novel hypotheses about functional biodiversity and its connections to shifting biodiversity on a changing planet, with respect to both how environmental change affects taxonomic and functional biodiversity, as well as how the resulting functional biodiversity across lineages feeds back on the environment. 

Full proposals are due September 5, 2024.

You can check out the new solicitation here and view past awards and reach out to cognizant programs officers here.