Fiscal year 2016 officially closed out on September 30. Now that we are past our panels in October and early November, we have a chance to look back and report on the DEB Core Program merit review and funding outcomes for FY 2016.
This post follows the format we’ve used in previous years. For a refresher, and lengthier discussions of the hows and whys of the metrics, you can visit the 2015, 2014, and 2013 numbers.
Read on to see how 2016 compares. Continue reading
Check your inbox.
Check your spam folder.
Complete the survey!
End the reminder messages.
Background (if the above doesn’t make sense to you).
This is about the Preliminary Proposal system in use in both NSF BIO’s Division of Environmental Biology and Division of Integrative Organismal Systems.
We are in the midst of an external evaluation of the effects of this system on the merit review process.
We posted an initial notification letter about stakeholder surveys. And, copies of this letter were sent out to everyone in the sample ahead of the formal invitations.
The formal survey invitations with the active survey links were sent out by mid-September from the evaluator, Abt Associates.
Reminder emails are also coming out and will continue to do so at regular interviews while the survey remains open and incomplete.
If you have been receiving these messages, please complete the survey. If your colleagues have been receiving these messages and have not completed the survey, encourage them to do so.
If you received an invitation to take the survey,
- Please take the 10 or so minutes to register your responses via the link in the email.
- Remember that these are single-use individualized links.
- Your response matters. This isn’t a census: your invitation is part of a stratified random sample selected for inference to the population.
Thank you for your participation!
Fiscal year 2015 has come to a close. With the dust settled, we can crunch the numbers on the DEB Core Program merit review and funding outcomes.
This post follows the format we’ve used in previous years. For a refresher, and lengthier discussions of the hows and whys of the metrics, you can visit the 2014 and 2013 numbers.
Read on to see how 2015 compares.
For any demographic analysis or comparison, NSF is reliant on the self-reported characteristics of participants in all phases of proposals and awards. Completion of the profiles is voluntary but critical for linking demographic data to proposal, funding, and review patterns. And, importantly, your profile provides the contact information that we use to reach out to you. So if your email address and institutional information are not up to date you may miss out on funding opportunities or critical notifications that affect your eligibility for funding.
So, is your FastLane PI profile complete, up to date, and error-free?
What about your OTHER FastLane profile? When was the last time you completed your Reviewer information? Continue reading
Our friends at Dynamic Ecology posted a little while back about the NSF-wide trends in per-person success rate based on this 2014 report to the National Science Board that provided merit review process statistics across the whole agency[i]. There were several questions in the comments to that post regarding the context for the numbers and how they would look for DEB or IOS, especially since preliminary proposals were explicitly excluded from the calculations in the report to the NSB[ii].
So, we’ve put something together with DEB data to follow-up on that discussion. Our analysis sticks to the general approach of the NSF-wide report with modifications to allow inclusion of preliminary proposal data. Continue reading
At the end of 2013, we presented DEB submission and award portfolio data examining the initial results of the preliminary proposal process, leading to DEB’s FY2013 awards. In this post, we provide a follow-up for the second round of awards funded under the preliminary proposal system in FY2014. Continue reading
You may recall that way back in the first half of 2013 we invited the community by email and also via this blog to participate in a survey to gauge satisfaction with the preliminary proposal process in DEB and IOS.
The full results of the survey have now been published in BioScience. Our thanks to you for responding to our call to participate in great numbers and to the various discussants, readers, and reviewers who helped throughout the process. Continue reading
This is a quick numbers post while we in DEB pivot from summer research and meeting outreach to fiscal closeout and autumn (full proposal) panel mode.
CAREER proposals in BIO were due on July 21, 2014. These proposals will be reviewed this fall and become part of the FY 2015 decision-making process. In this post, we take a look at the trends in submission of CAREER proposals through the current competition. We aren’t looking at funding rates or outcomes – those are beyond the scope of today’s post.
This post intends to start a conversation about a single aspect of the merit review practices in DEB (itself just a narrow slice of NSF), the due date. Why the due date? Well, for one, the implementation of a single deadline per year was one of the more prominent changes when DEB and IOS both released major revisions to their solicitations for FY 2012. Plus, while the due date change was a major concern in initial reactions to DEB and IOS, and is something we continue to hear about, other programs at NSF are facing similar issues and have also looked at changes to the submission schedule (in BIO, and beyond).
None of the discussions we have seen online actually look at due dates across NSF which is a little bit disappointing because the variety of practices successfully employed across the foundation is awesome. So, we took it on ourselves to remedy that. Continue reading
This installment of DEB Numbers looks at the DEB Core Programs’ regular research project portfolio through the lens of award size and duration.
This post was inspired by some of the reaction we heard to our earlier DEB Numbers posts on collaboration. (We also will take the serendipitous bounce off these recent findings about award size from north of the border and subsequent discussion here.) Continue reading