Proposed NSF Merit Review Criteria
As reported in FYI #162, a National Science Board (NSB) Task Force has recommended the revision of NSF’s Merit Review Criteria. In the report text and a “Sample NSF Proposal Review Form” the following criteria are proposed. Included below, before #1, is an introductory paragraph from the report:
“The Task Force recommends the two generic criteria (below) to replace the current four NSB criteria. Within each criterion is a set of contextual elements, defined by questions to assist the reviewer in understanding their intent. These elements are non-inclusive; i.e. it is recognized that, for some programs, other considerations not identified below may be important for the evaluation of proposals. Further, reviewers are requested to address only those elements that they consider relevant to the proposal at hand and that they feel qualified to make judgments on.
"#1 What is the intellectual merit and quality of the proposed activity?
“The following are suggested questions to consider in assessing how well the proposal meets the criterion: What is the likelihood that the project will significantly advance the knowledge base within and/or across different fields? Does the proposed activity suggest and explore new lines of inquiry? To what degree does the proposer’s documented expertise and record of achievement increase the probability of success? Is the projected conceptually well designed? Is the plan for organizing and managing the project credible and well conceived? And, is there sufficient access to resources?
"#2 What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?
“The following are suggested questions to consider in assessing how well the proposal meets the criterion: How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while concurrently promoting teaching, training, and learning? Will it create/enhance facilities, instrumentation, information bases, networks, partnerships, and/or other infrastructure? How well does the activity broaden the diversity of participants? Does the activity enhance scientific and technological literacy? And, what is the potential impact on meeting societal needs?”
In his briefing this week on these draft criteria, NSF Director Neal Lane said that there would be no weighing of these criteria. In background material this point was amplified: “NSF does not pre-assign weights to the criteria; given the variation across NSF’s many different programs, any `one size fits all’ approach would be counterproductive. Overall, however, excellence will continue to be the hallmark of all NSF sponsored activities.” The sample review form for the new criteria does not include the language now found on the second page of the current proposal evaluation form regarding “relative weight” and “Summary Ratings,” although one of five ratings from “excellent” to “poor” is to be checked on the new form.
Further information on these proposed revisions can be found this NSF web site: http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/meritrev.htm A feedback form is provided.
