Aug 26 -- The National Science Board-National Science Foundation Commission on Merit Review (MRX) is issuing this Request for Information (RFI) to seek input from interested individuals and parties to inform the MRX's review of NSF's Merit Review criteria, policy and processes. Interested individuals and parties are invited to submit responses to this Request for Information on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesday, September 18, 2024.
1. MRX is interested in identifying opportunities to improve NSF's current Merit Review criteria, policy, and processes. Importantly, this includes documenting and understanding any areas of misunderstanding, gaps, or lack of clarity regarding (a) the three Merit Review Principles which are the foundations of the Merit Review Process, (b) the two statutory Merit Review Criteria which are used to evaluate all proposals to NSF, and (c) the five Merit Review Elements NSF uses to assess each criterion. Are the Principles, Criteria, and Elements clear? Could they be improved upon? The MRX welcomes feedback on any or all of these, and particularly on the Broader Impacts Criterion. Chapter 3 of NSF's Proposal & Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) defines terms in this Information Request. See
https://new.nsf.gov/policies/pappg/24-1/ch-3-proposal-processing-review#a-merit-review-principles-and-criteria-af2.
Individuals responding to this request are encouraged to indicate whether their perspectives are informed by experience(s) preparing and/or reviewing proposals to NSF.
2. NSF strives to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent Merit Review process for the selection of projects. To accomplish this, NSF relies on a process that considers both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission using the statutory Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts Merit Review criteria. MRX invites suggestions on the implementation of the Merit Review criteria. We especially invite feedback that would (a) clarify how they can be used in preparing and reviewing proposals, (b) ensure proposals, reviews, and funding decisions demonstrate full consideration of both criteria while maintaining openness to the full spectrum of potential activities under each, and (c) better recognize and support potentially transformative and high-risk/high-reward activities.
Individuals responding to this request are encouraged to indicate whether their perspectives are informed by experience(s) preparing and/or reviewing proposals to NSF.
3. MRX is interested in the experiences and perspectives of those who have considered submitting and/or submitted proposals in the past. We invite you to share your insights and describe any opportunities you believe would improve implementation of the Merit Review criteria, policy, and processes based on your experience as a proposer or investigator. This includes any experiences that may have encouraged or dissuaded you from submitting proposals to NSF. We are especially interested in learning (a) how NSF guidance (e.g., as provided in the NSF PAPPG, program solicitations, or other funding opportunity announcements), may have played a part in your decision(s) whether to submit proposals, and (b) how NSF might best support investigators interested in submitting a proposal to NSF.
Individuals responding to this request are encouraged to indicate whether they submitted or decided not to submit a proposal, and whether these experiences occurred within the past five years.
4. MRX is interested in the experiences and perspectives of those who have reviewed proposals submitted to NSF. We invite you to share your insights and describe any opportunities you believe would improve implementation of the Merit Review criteria, policy, and processes based on your experience reviewing NSF proposals.
Individuals responding to this request are encouraged to indicate whether they served on a panel and/or as ad hoc reviewers, and whether these experiences occurred within the past five years.
5. MRX is interested in exploring how NSF could better support awardees in demonstrating and documenting outcomes of their awards in advancing knowledge (Intellectual Merit) and benefiting society and contributing to the achievement of specific broader or societal outcomes (Broader Impacts). We invite you to share your insights on how NSF might better support awardees in demonstrating and documenting outcomes of their awards without unnecessarily increasing awardees' administrative burden of reporting.
Individuals responding to this request are encouraged to indicate whether their suggestions are based on experiences as investigators, users of public outcomes reports, or another perspective.
6. MRX welcomes any other comments on or suggestions for improving NSF's current Merit Review criteria, policy, and processes. It also welcomes information about aspects of Merit Review criteria, policy and processes that are currently working well.
MRX will use the information submitted in response to this RFI to inform its assessment of the efficacy of the current Merit Review criteria, policy, and processes, and to draft recommendations regarding them. The information provided will be analyzed and considered by MRX. Respondents are advised that the government is under no obligation to acknowledge receipt of the information or provide feedback to respondents with respect to any information submitted. No proprietary, classified, confidential, or sensitive information should be included in your response submission. The government reserves the right to use any non-proprietary technical information in any resultant solicitation(s), policies, or procedures. All submitted information may be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or other applicable law.
This Notice does not invite research proposals nor is it a funding opportunity.
Background: NSB and NSF, with the assistance of expert third parties, have periodically re-examined and revised the criteria, policy, and processes of Merit Review at NSF. The last time the Board systematically examined the Merit Review criteria was in 2010-2011 when NSB established a Task Force on Merit Review to examine the Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts merit review criteria and their effectiveness in achieving NSF's goals in support of science and engineering research and education. At that time, Congress was considering, and then passed, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act directing NSF to apply the Broader Impacts criterion to achieve a specific array of societal goals and charging NSF to develop policies addressing it. The 2011 Task Force report concluded that the Merit Review criteria remained appropriate for evaluating NSF proposals; however, it provided certain revisions and clarifications.
Recent events have underscored the importance of demonstrating that portfolios of funded projects enable NSF to meet its statutory mission “to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes.” In 2022, Congress passed the CHIPS and Science Act, which directed federal research agencies to regularly assess, and update as necessary, policies, and practices to remove or reduce cultural and institutional barriers limiting the recruitment, retention, and success of groups historically underrepresented in STEM research careers, including policies and practices relevant to the unbiased review of Federal research applications. Reexamining the Merit Review policy and process will help ensure that NSF is best placed to meet the requirements set out by Congress.
MRX:
https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/committees/mrxcmte.jsp
FRN:
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-19041