Sample NSF Proposal Review Form |
| Important! Please Read Before Beginning Your Review! |
In evaluating this proposal, you are requested to provide detailed comments for each of the two NSF Merit Review Criteria described below. Following each criterion is a set of suggested questions to consider in assessing how well the proposal meets the criterion. Please respond with substantive comments addressing the proposal's strengths and weaknesses. In addition to the suggested questions, you may consider other relevant questions that address the NSF criteria (but you should make this explicit in your review). Further, you are asked to address only those questions which you consider relevant to the proposal and that you feel qualified to make judgments on.
When assigning your summary rating, remember that the two criteria need not be weighted equally but should depend upon either (1) additional guidance you have received from NSF or (2) your own judgment of the relative importance of the criteria to the proposed work. Finally, you are requested to write a summary statement that explains the rating that you assigned to the proposal. This statement should address the relative importance of the criteria and the extent to which the proposal actually meets both criteria.
|
- What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?
How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field and across different fields? How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project? (If appropriate, please comment on the
quality of prior work.) To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative and original concepts? How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity? Is there sufficient access to resources?
- What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?
How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning? How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, geographic, etc.)? To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?
|
| NSF Form XXXX |
Sample NSF Proposal Review Form
|
| Proposal No. |
Institution |
Principal Investigator |
| Title |
| Please evaluate this proposal according to the two NSB criteria below. Your substantive written comments on the proposal's strengths and weaknesses are critical to the evaluation. (Continue on additional sheet(s) if necessary.) |
| Criterion 1. What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity? |
| Criterion 2. What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?
|
|
National Science Foundation
OMB No. XXXX-XXXX
NSF Form XXXX
|
| SUMMARY STATEMENT AND RATING |
| Please summarize your evaluation of this proposal, including the extent to which the proposal meets both criteria.
|
| Rating: |
[ ] Excellent |
[ ] Very Good |
[ ] Good |
[ ] Fair |
[ ] Poor |
| Reviewer's Name/Address/E-mail/Phone/Fax (Typed) |
Other Suggested Reviewers (Optional) |
| Reviewer's Signature and Date |
| Conflict of Interests |
| If you have an affiliation or financial connection with the institution or the person submitting this proposal that might be construed as creating a conflict of interest, please describe those affiliations or interests on a separate page and attach it to your review. Regardless of any such affiliations or interests, unless you believe you cannot be objective, we would like to have your review. If you do not attach a statement we shall assume that you have no conflicting affiliations or
interests. |
| Confidentiality of Proposals and Peer Reviews |
| The Foundation receives proposals in confidence and is responsible for protecting the confidentiality of their contents. In addition, the identity of reviewers will be kept confidential to the maximum extent possible. For this reason, please do not copy, quote, or otherwise use material from this proposal. If you believe that a colleague can make a substantial contribution to the review, please consult the NSF Program Officer before disclosing either the contents of the proposal or the applicant's name. When you have completed your review, please destroy the proposal. |
| Privacy Act and Public Burden Statements |
| The information requested on this reviewer form is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. It will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals and may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the review process and to other Government agencies needing names of potential reviewers. See Systems of Records, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposals File and Associated Records," 56 Federal Register 54907 (October 23, 1991). It is the policy of the Foundation that reviews, and reviewers' identities, will not be disclosed to persons outside the Government, except that verbatim
copies of reviews without the name and affiliation of the reviewer will be sent to the principal investigator. The Foundation considers review and reviewer identities to be exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 USC 552) but cannot guarantee that it will not be forced to release them under FOIA, Privacy Act, or other laws. Submission of the requested information is voluntary. |
| Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: |
Gail McHenry
Reports Clearance Officer
Division of Administrative Services
National Science Foundation
Arlington, VA 22230and to
Office of Management and Budget
Paperwork Reduction Project (3145-0058)
Washington, DC 20503>
|
|