data analysis

by

Preliminary Proposal Survey: Respond by May 1, 2013

Dear Readers,

As alluded to in previous posts, we are continuing to collect a variety of data and reactions to the preliminary proposal system. We have now received approval to directly solicit your views via a survey. Program Directors in the Division of Environmental Biology at the National Science Foundation (NSF) are asking Principal Investigators (PIs)  (current, past, or future) to take this survey (http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/DEB_IOS_program_feedback) to provide feedback on our new proposal review process.

Please spread the word about this survey.  We will be sending emails to PIs asking that they participate in the survey, but we need our readers to share this information as well. We need your help to reach those whose current email addresses may not be in our records and to encourage everyone who receives the invite to click the link and complete the survey.  We are requesting potential respondents to complete the survey by Wednesday, May 1, 2013.

This survey is an important mechanism that NSF is using to obtain quantitative feedback about the new review process. Our target audience is investigators who have had funding from DEB or IOS or who are likely to submit a proposal to DEB and/or IOS in the next 1-2 years. We will use the results of the survey, which is anonymous, to assess the level of satisfaction with various aspects of the new review process. All answers are confidential, and will have no bearing on your future interactions with the NSF. The survey should require 10-20 minutes to complete.

Thank you for taking the time to respond to the survey and encouraging your colleagues to do so too.

by

DEB Numbers: Preproposals and Collaboration, Part 2

This DEB Numbers post is a continuation of our previous post, here, where we laid out some of the measures of collaboration that are available to us in DEB. If you are new to DEB Numbers posts, we suggest you read our introductory message to familiarize yourself with some of the conventions we use here to describe what can be confusing information.

How many collaborators?

Beyond the presence/absence of PAPPG-defined collaborative proposals or presence/absence of Co-PIs on a project, we have some additional information that may shine a light on other facets of the collaboration question. Continue reading →

by

DEB Numbers: Preproposals and Collaboration, Part 1

A topic we have been interested in since long before the launch of the two-stage review process is how collaboration plays into the review process in DEB.  In this post, we explore the various definitions of collaborative proposals and look at measures of the extent of collaboration in DEB project submissions and awards.  If this is your first DEB Numbers post, we suggest you read our introductory message to familiarize yourself with some of the conventions we use here to describe what can be confusing information.

What does collaboration mean in DEB? Continue reading →

by

DEB Numbers: Revisiting performance of PI demographic groups, Part 2

This post is a continuation of a discussion of the early data on the performance of Beginning Investigators and Primarily Undergraduate Institutions.  Please read Part 1 before continuing for background and explanation of the terms used. If you are new to DEB Numbers posts, I suggest you read our introductory message to familiarize yourself with some of the conventions we use here to describe what can be confusing information.

Continue reading →

by

DEB Numbers: Revisiting performance of PI demographic groups, Part 1

Just before the end of December 2012, the Division of Environmental Biology sent out an email message to a list of all people listed as PIs and Co-PIs on DEB proposals since the start of fiscal year 2008. (Aside: if you did not get the email and think you should have, make sure your FastLane profile information is up to date.) This message included a notice of our plans to start blogging among other efforts to enhance interactions between DEB and the research communities.  About 1/3 of the message consisted of several snippets of Division-wide data from the two-stage proposal process with specific tables focused on two groups: Early Career Investigators and Primarily Undergraduate Institutions (PUIs).  We received helpful feedback from several readers of the original email pointing out ways in which the presentation could have been clearer. We thank you for that.  It is already helping to make this blog better.

Since many out there may not have seen the original message, and others may have been intrigued to learn more, this post re-visits and expands on those numbers.

The data snippets in the email were meant to begin a discussion, they were not intended to be comprehensive or the final word. There are other ways to look at the numbers and significant context and nuance simply could not be crammed in to a reasonable email.  Actual performance numbers from the two-stage review process are just starting to come in and even those will change somewhat as Program Officers pursue every opportunity to secure funding through the fiscal year’s end.

Continue reading →

by

DEB Numbers: An Introduction

This is the first of what will hopefully be somewhat regular posts on Division of Environmental Biology data.  Our goals for these posts include: stimulating discussions with our PI community, providing deeper context for understanding the grant review process, and sharing insights we gain through ongoing examination of our programs.

This introductory post outlines some of the things we hope to cover in future posts and provides an overview of the challenges that apply to reporting and interpreting DEB Numbers. Continue reading →