Merit Review Criteria

All GRFP applications are evaluated using NSF's 2 merit review criteria: Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts.In order to present a competitive application, you must accost both merit review criteria thoroughly. The Personal, Relevant Background and Future Goals Argument and the Graduate Research Argument should both reflect these criteria.  Remember to ask your reference writers to discuss how you fulfill the merit review criteria as well.

The post-obit information is from the GRF Programme Solicitation, Department Half-dozen.

Applications are reviewed past disciplinary and interdisciplinary scientists and engineers and other professional person graduate education experts. Reviewers are selected past Program Officers charged with oversight of the review process. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the applicants. Applications are reviewed inbroad areas of related disciplines based on the selection of a Major Field of Study (see Fields of Study in Appendix).Choice of a Major Subject determines the application deadline, the broad disciplinary expertise of the reviewers, and the discipline of the graduate degree program if awarded a Fellowship.Applicants are brash to select the Major Field of Written report in the GRFP Module (come across Fields of Study in Appendix) that is most closely aligned with the proposed graduate plan of written report and research plan. Applicants who select "Other" must provide additional information describing their studies.

Each application volition be reviewed independently in accord with the NSF Merit Review Criteria using all available data in the completed application. In considering applications, reviewers are instructed to accost the two Merit Review Criteria as approved by the National Science Lath – Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts (NSF Proposal and Honour Policies and Procedures Guide  (PAPPG)).Applicants must include separate sections on Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts in each of their written statements in social club to provide reviewers with the information necessary to evaluate the application with respect to both Criteria as detailed below. Split up sections under separate headings for Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts must be included in both Personal and Inquiry Plan statements.

The following description of the Merit Review Criteria is provided in Affiliate Iii of theNSF Proposal and Honor Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG):

All NSF proposals are evaluated through employ of the two National Science Board approved merit review criteria. In some instances, yet, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of sure programs and activities.

The two merit review criteria are listed below. Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully accost both criteria. (PAPPG Chapter II.C.2.d.i. contains additional information for use by proposers in development of the Project Description department of the proposal.) Reviewers are strongly encouraged to review the criteria, including PAPPG Chapter Two.C.2.d.i., prior to the review of a proposal.

When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what the proposers want to practise, why they want to do information technology, how they plan to practice it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the projection is successful. These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the style in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers will be asked to evaluate all proposals confronting two criteria:

  • Intellectual Merit: The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance knowledge; and
  • Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to do good society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.

The post-obit elements should be considered in the review for both criteria:

  1. What is the potential for the proposed activity to:
    1. Advance knowledge and agreement within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
    2. Benefit lodge or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?
  2. To what extent do the proposed activities advise and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
  3. Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a audio rationale? Does the program comprise a mechanism to assess success?
  4. How well qualified is the individual, squad, or arrangement to conduct the proposed activities?
  5. Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home arrangement or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?