Mitra BasuCCF Division

National Science FoundationDirectorate for

Computer & Information Science & Engineering (CISE)

Panel Charge

1

Panelist and Staff Introductions

Return to Panel DASHBOARD

Panelists -- please tell us:

• who you are, • where you are from, • what programs you have reviewed for, • about your particular areas of expertise, and • anything else you want to share with the panel.

Introduction of the NSFers involved with this panel.

Return

Return

BudgetProposals submitted to this solicitation must be consistent with one of three project classes. Proposals will be considered for funding within their project classes.

Small Projects: Total budgets up to $500,000 for durations of up to three years.Well suited to one or two investigators (PI and one co-PI or other Senior Personnel) and at least one student and/or post-doc.

Medium Projects: Total budgets ranging from $500,001 to $1,200,000 for durations up to four years. Well suited to one or more investigators (PI, co-PI and/or other Senior Personnel) and several students and/or post-docs.

Large Projects:Total budgets ranging from $1,200,001 to $3,000,000 for durations of up to five years. Well suited to two or more investigators (PI, co-PI(s), or other Senior Personnel), and a team of students and/or post-docs.

Solicitation Highlights

The same for all CISE Core and Cross-cutting Programs

The same for all CISE Core and Cross-cutting Programs

Return to Panel DASHBOARD

Panelist “Housekeeping” Issues

Return

Be sure your name is on the Sign-In-Sheet

Sign-in ensures reimbursement.

Sign-in corrects any mistakes in the spelling of your name or address in the NSF database (hopefully!)

Please, when you leave, use recycle bins and garbage bins.

In case of an emergency – evacuating the building or shelter in place.

Panelist “Housekeeping” Issues

Return

Important: reimbursement through EFT only

EFT Information Is entered into FastLane by US panelists. Is necessary for your reimbursement. Is not necessary for international panelists.

Travel Details

Air travel should be arranged through SATO Travel. Those who drive -- complete the auto travel form. Federal employees must save receipts.

Panelist “Housekeeping” IssuesElectronic Reimbursement & Taxes

Reimbursement will appear w/o notice to your specified financial institution and account (“U.S. Treasury” doesn’t reference NSF).

Reimbursement is considered taxable.

NSF automatically sends a Form 1099 if $600 or greater is paid to a reviewer per calendar year.

Return

Updating Your Demographic Information

NSF strives to achieve balance in our reviewer pool -- across geographic regions, gender, race, ethnicity, persons with disabilities, and other under-represented cohorts in STEM.

We rely on you to volunteer your demographic information through our Panelist System so we may achieve our goal of broadening participation.

Panelist “Housekeeping” Issues

Return

Conflicts of InterestSign and turn in Conflict-of-Interest (COI) formTypical relationships that could lead to a conflict:

INSTITUTIONAL• current or previous employment (12 months) or seeking employment• award, honorarium, or other payment (12 months)• officer or governing board• any financial interestPERSONAL• co-author of paper or project collaborator (48 months)• thesis advisor or student (life-long)• family member or close friend

You must not participate in the discussion of any proposal for which you have a conflict. Please discuss any actual or perceived conflicts with panel moderator.

Confidentiality

Return

Return to Panel DASHBOARD

Process and results are confidential!

Do not disclose identities of your fellow reviewers.

Do not disclose identities of people associated with proposals (PI, Co-PIs, Consultants, etc.)

Do not discuss results or recommendations with other people.

Do not use names of other reviewers in your review or Panel Summary (if you are the Scribe).

Proposals contain sensitive information and are not in the public domain -- do not copy, distribute or quote from them.

You can indicate (e.g., on a resume) that you served NSF on a review panel – just don’t identify which panel(s).

[also, please be cautious in elevators and other places outside the panel room about discussing panel business.]

Proposal Review Criteria

Return

Criterion 1: What is the intellectual merit and quality of the proposed activity?

Criterion 2: What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?

Proposal Review Criteria

NSF’s Panelist System and your Reviews Intellectual Merit:

How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across fields?

To what extent does the proposal suggest and explore creative and original concepts?

What will be the significant contribution of the project to the research and knowledge base of the field?

How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity?

Is there sufficient access to resources (equipment, facilities, etc.)?

How well qualified is the team (the Principal Investigator, co-PIs, sub-contracts, etc.) to conduct the proposed activity?

Return

Broader Impacts: 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 and outreach to industry and K-12 (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, 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?

Proposal Review Criteria

Return

NSF staff will also give careful consideration to the following in recommending funding decisions:

Integration of Research and Education: level of engagement in joint efforts that infuse education with the excitement of discovery and enrich research through the diversity of learning perspectives.

Integrating Diversity into NSF Programs, Projects, and Activities: broadening opportunities and enabling the participation of all citizens -- women and men, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities -- is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering.

Proposal Review Criteria

Return

Return to Panel DASHBOARD

Panel Outputs Individual Reviews in FastLane for each proposal

• OK to modify reviews, including change of rating.• Ensure individual reviews for each proposal are on electronic panel

system and are “correct”.• Be sure any modifications to reviews are recorded in FastLane! These

MUST be made BEFORE leaving your panel.

Panel summary for each proposal

Initially framed by one reviewer who serves as scribe using the provided template.

Should reflect discussion (not just restate individual reviews). Includes short, clear comments to help unsuccessful PIs improve their

proposals in the next competition. Add “Justification for Recommendation" heading at the end of the

summary and write an informative, concise justification (1-2 sentences). Should be written in 3rd-person and proof-read by all assigned panelists.

Your Reviews

Return

Panel Outputs

Please place x % of the proposals in the “Highly Competitive” (HC) and “Competitive” (C) categories.

The rest should be placed in the “Low Competitive” (LC) or “Not Competitive” (NC) category

Your Reviews

Return

Panel Summary Outline

Description of project (brief): Intellectual Merit:

Strengths: Weaknesses:

Broader Impacts: Strengths: Weaknesses:

Constructive suggestions for improvement: Justification(s) for panel’s recommendation, including key strengths and

critical weaknesses : The panel placed this proposal in the following category: ____ Highly Competitive ____ Competitive ____ Low Competitive ____ Not Competitive The summary was read by the panel, and the panel concurred that the

summary accurately reflects the panel discussion.

Return

Please Remember!

Reviews and panel summaries are sent to Principal Investigators

feedback, laudatory or critical, is important comments should be constructive, informative, and

non-inflammatory

Results are advisory and confidential do not discuss proposals or results proposals may contain sensitive information and are

not in the public domain -- do not copy, distribute or quote from them

PLEASE LEAVE THEM IN THE ROOM!

Return

Return to Panel DASHBOARD

Checkout Procedures

• You should not leave until the NSF Panel Moderator dismisses the panel.

• Every Panel Summary should be approved by the NSF Panel Moderator

•All individual reviews should be “submitted” – if you change your rating, be sure to re-submit your review.

•If you need to change your flight, you can make the change either through the airline or SATO.

Return to Panel DASHBOARD

Return

NSF & CISE Thank You!

Return to Panel DASHBOARD