NSERC Discovery Grant WorkshopCharity Parr-Vásquez, PhD | Sept 12, 2013

Eligibility

Faculty• hold, or have a firm offer of, an academic

appointment at a Canadian institution (minimum three-year term position) and take up the position no later than September 1 of the year of the award;

• be in a position that requires independent research and allows supervision of highly qualified personnel (HQP); and

• spend a minimum of six months per year at an eligible Canadian institution (if holding a position outside Canada).

http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/Eligibility-Admissibilite/faculty-corpsprof_eng.asp

Eligibility

Subject Matter• Discovery Grants support:– research programs in the natural sciences

and engineering (NSE); and– interdisciplinary research that is

predominantly in the NSE•Significance, impact, advancement of knowledge or practical applications in NSE

http://www.science.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=FEE7261A-1#SSHRC1

Eligibility of health-related research

Eligible for NSERC support:• animal health and veterinary medicine.• nutraceuticals or functional foods.• fundamental processes in humans.• development of monitoring and diagnosticNot eligible for NSERC support:• refinement of existing health technology• vaccines, active pharmaceutical ingredients (API)• investigation/treatment of injuries or performance.• animal models of human diseases

Psychology

• fundamental psychological processes (their underlying neural mechanisms, development within individuals, and evolutionary and ecological context)– Sensation and perception;– Sensorimotor integration;– Motivation, emotion and reward;– Learning and memory;– Cognition and language;– Sleep, arousal and the chronobiological modulation of

behaviour; and,– Statistical methods for analysis of psychological data.

Timeline

Aug 1

SubmitNOI

Sept 21

ORS editingrevision

assistance

ORS proofreadingand budget

Oct 14 Oct 21

ORSinternal deadline

Submissionto NSERC

Nov 1 Mar/Apr

Results announced

Review Process

Three-step process

1) External Peer review 2) Merit assessment 3) Funding recommendations.

The process has changed!

External Peer Review

• Applications are sent to 0-4 peer reviewers• Maybe from the list provided, but not always• Provide feedback based on review criteria• Used to inform NSERC review committee, and

provide feedback to applicant

• Currently 12 evaluation groups• Each application is reviewed and voted on by 5

Evaluation Group members – depending on the proposal focus it may be

reviewed by members from 1 or more Evaluation Group

• Generate the final report

1501 Genes, Cells and Molecules 1509 Civil, Industrial and1502 Biological Systems and Functions Systems Engineering1503 Evolution and Ecology 1510 Electrical and Computer1504 Chemistry Engineering1505 Physics 1511 Materials and Chemical1506 Geosciences Engineering1507 Computer Science 1512 Mechanical Engineering1508 Mathematics and Statistics

Merit Assessment: Evaluation Group

Merit Assessment: Evaluation Criteria

Excellence of

Researcher

HQP training

Merit of Proposal

Excellence of Researcher

Excellence of

Researcher

HQP training

Merit of Proposal

Knowledge, expertise and experienceQuality of past or potential contributions and impact on the proposed and other areas of researchImportance of contributions to- and use by- other researchers and end-usersComplementarity of expertise of the members of the team and synergy (where applicable)

HQP training

HQP training

Excellence of

Researcher

Merit of Proposal

Quality and extent of past and potential contributions to the training of HQP (e.g., post-doctoral fellows, graduate and undergraduate students, technicians)Appropriateness of the proposal for the training of HQPEnhancement of training arising from a collaborative or interdisciplinary environment (where applicable)

Merit of the Proposal

Merit of Proposal

HQP training

Excellence of

Researcher

Originality and innovationProposal suggests and explores novel or potentially transformative concepts and lines of inquirySignificance and expected contributions to research or potential for technological impactClarity and scope of objectivesClarity and appropriateness of methodologyFeasibilityExtent to which the scope of the proposal addresses all relevant issues, including the need for varied expertise within or across disciplinesAppropriateness and justification for the budgetExplanation of the relationship between other sources of funding and the current proposalExtent to which it is clear, comprehensive, and convincing

Merit AssessmentE

xcep

tiona

l

Out

stan

ding

Ver

y S

tron

g

Str

ong

Mod

erat

e

Insu

ffic

ient

Fund

ing

"Bin

s"

A (L, N, H) B (L, N, H)

C (L. N. H) D (L, N, H).

.

.

N O P

Exc

eptio

nal

Out

stan

ding

Ver

y S

tron

g

Str

ong

Mod

erat

e

Insu

ffic

ient

Fund

ing

"Bin

s"

Excellence of researcher

Merit of proposal

Contribution to training of HQP

Cost of research High Normal Low

Exc

eptio

nal

Out

stan

ding

Ver

y S

tron

g

Str

ong

Mod

erat

e

Insu

ffic

ient

Fund

ing

"Bin

s"

A (L, N, H) B (L, N, H)

C (L. N. H) D (L, N, H).

.

.

N O P

Exc

eptio

nal

Out

stan

ding

Ver

y S

tron

g

Str

ong

Mod

erat

e

Insu

ffic

ient

Fund

ing

"Bin

s"

Excellence of researcher

Merit of proposal

Contribution to training of HQP

Cost of research High Normal Low

A=EEEB=EEOC=EOOD=EOOE=OOO• J=SSS

K=SSML=SMM

Established researcher

Early researcher

A rating in any of the three categories of ‘insufficient’ will result in an unsuccessful application

Funding Recommendations

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Quality bin determines the amount of funding an application will receive;Applications assigned to bin A receive the highest possible funding; Allotted funding is reduced for each successive bin;All applications in the same bin within an Evaluation Group receive a similar grant amount;Funding levels also vary across Evaluation Groups.

The Grant ApplicationA full Discovery Grant application includes:• an Application for a Grant (research portal),

with supporting documentation;• a CCV for the applicant and all co-applicants

CCV and Research portal

Changes from past years

• Eligibility profile- New section• HQP training plan- text box• Past contributions to the training of HQP –

text box (previously found in Form 100)• Most Significant Contributions – text box

(previously found in Form 100)

• Additional information on contributions – text box (previously found in Form 100)

• Research Team –text box• Activity details – new section• Proposal – Five pages for both individual or

team application

Changes from past years

CCV

CCV- Checklist

Personal information (person profile, current employment, address)

EducationRecognitions (awards, distinctions, honours)User profile(application/field key words)EmploymentResearch funding historySupervisory experienceContributions (publications, patents, etc)Other

CCV Tips

• Only go back 6 years with the exception of funding (4 years), recognitions, employment details, academic details (unlimited)

• All time bound entries must include month and year– Six year cut off is to the month– If you don’t remember the month, take you best

guess– If is ongoing, estimate a future end date

Where do I put…?

• Administrative positions (ie Chair, grad coordinator)- under “work experience”

• Book edited- under “editorial activities”• Leadership roles in professional societies-

under “other committees”• Grant review duties- under “other committee”• Journal refereeing- under “information on

other contributions” in application

HQP

• If trainee was an undergraduate at the time (summer student, volunteer, thesis student, research assistant)– Bachelors

• If trainee was a technician or employee-do not include in table but speak about in written content of the application

Oral presentations vs conference publications

• If you gave a talk at a conference only list that contribution in the “presentation” section only

• For all other conference contributions put in the “conference publications” section

• If your contribution was more than one type (paper, abstract, poster) pick one

The Proposal

Program vs. Project “The Discovery Grants Program supports

ongoing programs of research (with long-term goals) rather than a single short-term project or collection of projects.”

Application

Identification Summary of proposal (3800 characters)Proposed expendituresBudget Justification (2 page attachment)Relationship to other support (15200 characters)HQP training (7600 characters/researcher)Past contributions to HQP training (3800

characters/researcher, 6 years or 10 years if non-academic)

Most significant contributions (11400 characters, 6 years, or 10 years if non-academic)

Application

Additional information on Contributions (3800 characters/researcher)

Research team (3800 characters)Activity details (ethics, environmental impact)Proposal (5 page attachment)Other support sources (10mb, CIHR or SSHRC

summary and budget page)References (2 pages)Samples of Research Contributions (4 max)

Recent research progress related to the proposal (or attributable to your previous DG)Objectives–short-AND long-termPertinent literature–put your researchinto contextMethods and proposed approachAnticipated significance

The 5-Page Proposal

Original, innovative andfeasibleClear and conciseDo not underestimate presentation and style

Use headlines from the guidelinesProofread!Write for both experts and non-experts

Recent progress

• Highlight only research that relates to the proposal

• Highlight impact• Describe how it provides a foundation

Objectives

The objectives should flow naturally from the needs you will identify in your literature reviewLong-term objective describes the research thrust of your program Short term objectives are the essence of the proposal in terms of what will be accomplished in the term of the grant

Literature review

• Demonstrates your awareness of the environment you exist in

• Convince the reviewer that there is a need for your research and your project/program will address this need

• Prove the need-references, statistics, charts, etc.

• Do not be afraid to cite your own work (within reason)

Methodology

• Usually longest and most detailed piece of application

• Explain how you will address the objectives• Demonstrating that you know what are the

appropriate steps to achieve your objectives• Specific tasks, and details (for example-

recruitment strategies, pool size, sample size, statistics, etc)

• Reviewer will not give you the benefit of the doubt

Feasibility

• Demonstrate your experience with the methodology by referencing publications

• If you do not have direct experience, highlight partnerships

• Indicate you have access to infrastructure• Do not describe methodology that depends

strictly on successive success• Outline mitigation strategies

Anticipated significance

• Expectations for impact• Who/what will benefit and how (industry,

health of Canadians, other researchers in your field, the environment)

• No ‘motherhood statements’

Team Grants• Same requirements as Individual, but

additional details required:– Description of expertise, expected roles &

contributions– Discussion of collaboration among members– Details of team management and structure

The 5-page proposalSuggested approximate page breakdown

progress report/lit. review

object-ives

methods & approachbenefit to field and Canada

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5

HQP training plan

• Be explicit- Who, why, what, how • Highlight unique aspects of your training program-

Collaborations, mentorship, interdisciplinary training, ‘soft skills training’• Highlight the successes of past students• Exposure to collaborations with end users• Highlight unique-to-WLU experiences• Describe nature of co-supervision

Budget/budget Justification

Include costs for: SalariesDisseminationTravelMaterials and SuppliesEquipment (not encouraged, but allowed)

Do not inflate your budgetBe specific and justify all requestsOnly request direct costs of research

Relationship to other research support

• Very important section that is often overlooked• Provide: Main objectives, methodology, budget

details, and HQP info of ALL GRANTS APPLIED FOR AND HELD

• Must provide details on conceptual and budgetary relationships

• “applicants who currently hold, or have applied for, research support from CIHR or SSHRC must provide the summary and budget page”

Past contributions to HQP

• Be specific– Number– Names– Type– Project– Current places of employment– Significant achievements

• Value-add– Publish– Conferences– Soft skills

Significant contributions

• Up to 5 significant contributions from the past 6 years (10 years if coming from outside academia)

• Not just a list of publications• Can be groups of publications, industry-partnerships,

outreach activities, etc.• Focus on impact, significance and novelty• If applicable highlight knowledge

mobilization/partnerships• DO NOT BE HUMBLE

Additional Information on Contributions

• nature of collaborations with other researchers;• order of authors in the publications listed, and• inclusion of students in the list of authors;• role in joint publications;• reason for selecting certain venues• impact or potential impact of patents/technology transfer;• nature of industrially relevant R&D activities;• the significance of confidential reports• other activities or information to help committees to evaluate

your contributions

Final Steps• All forms and attachments must be submitted to

NSERC electronically by Laurier internal deadline of Oct 21

• Once you have submitted the grant through the e-console, the Laurier ORS must authorize it and do the final submission – this is equal to the “institutional signature”

• In addition, submit to the Research Office:– the External Grant and Contract Cover Sheet, with

signatures by your department chair and dean.

Stats

2009 2010 2011 2012 201330

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

Success Rate Discovery Program

Laurier Linear (Laurier )All UniversitiesLinear (All Universities)

Year

succ

ess r

ate

(%)

Application Resources• “Discovery Grants Information Centre”• Peer Review Manual• Videos:– “Tips on applying for an NSERC Discovery Grant”– “Demystifying the review process for NSERC Discovery Gra

nts”• Use of Grant Funds• Discovery Grant Information Session• Research portal • CCV

Research Office Application Assistance

Proposal writing, editing, proofreading, budgets, technical assistance with forms and on-line system

Charity Parr-Vasquez, Research Facilitator for the Natural Sciences – cparrvasquez@wlu.ca, x4662