[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 165 (Monday, August 26, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68473-68475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-19041]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Request for Information (RFI) on National Science Board-National
Science Foundation Merit Review Commission Review of NSF's Merit Review
Policy and Processes
AGENCY: National Science Foundation
ACTION: Request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Science Board-National Science Foundation
Commission on Merit Review (MRX) is issuing this Request for
Information (RFI) to seek input from interested individuals and parties
to inform the MRX's review of NSF's Merit Review criteria, policy and
processes.
Information on the MRX is available at https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/committees/mrxcmte.jsp.
DATES: Interested individuals and parties are invited to submit
responses to this Request for Information on or before 5:00 p.m.
Eastern time on Wednesday, September 18, 2024.
ADDRESSES:
Online: Respond to this RFI at the following url: https://nsfevaluation.gov1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6xOeZ04jar2xmhU.
Following this link allows you to access an online form where you
can provide input on up to six topics described in more detail in the
Supplementary Information section below. You are encouraged to respond
to only those that are of interest to you. You may, but are not
required to, provide input on each topic to submit your response.
Mail: Attn: Portia Flowers, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA,
22314, USA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Portia Flowers (703/292-7000,
[email protected]).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Please refer to definitions provided at the
end of this notice for terms used in these Information Requests.
Information Requests
1. MRX is interested in identifying opportunities to improve NSF's
current Merit Review criteria, policy, and processes. Importantly, this
includes documenting and understanding any areas of misunderstanding,
gaps, or lack of clarity regarding (a) the three Merit Review
Principles which are the foundations of the Merit Review Process, (b)
the two statutory Merit Review Criteria which are used to evaluate all
proposals to NSF, and (c) the five Merit Review Elements NSF uses to
assess each criterion. Are the Principles, Criteria, and Elements
clear? Could they be improved upon? The MRX welcomes feedback on any or
all of these, and particularly on the Broader Impacts Criterion.
Chapter 3 of NSF's Proposal & Award Policies and Procedures Guide
(PAPPG) defines terms in this Information Request. See https://new.nsf.gov/policies/pappg/24-1/ch-3-proposal-processing-review#a-merit-review-principles-and-criteria-af2.
Individuals responding to this request are encouraged to indicate
whether their perspectives are informed by experience(s) preparing and/
or reviewing proposals to NSF.
2. NSF strives to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent Merit
Review process for the selection of projects. To accomplish this, NSF
relies on a process that considers both the technical aspects of a
proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to
advancing NSF's mission using the statutory Intellectual Merit and
Broader Impacts Merit Review criteria. MRX invites suggestions on the
implementation of the Merit Review criteria. We especially invite
feedback that would (a) clarify how they can be used in preparing and
reviewing proposals, (b) ensure proposals, reviews, and funding
decisions demonstrate full consideration of both criteria while
maintaining openness to the full spectrum of potential activities under
each, and (c) better recognize and support potentially transformative
and high-risk/high-reward activities.
Individuals responding to this request are encouraged to indicate
whether their perspectives are informed by experience(s) preparing and/
or reviewing proposals to NSF.
3. MRX is interested in the experiences and perspectives of those
who have considered submitting and/or submitted proposals in the past.
We invite you to share your insights and describe any opportunities you
believe would improve implementation of the Merit Review criteria,
policy, and processes based on your experience as a proposer or
investigator. This includes any experiences that may have encouraged or
dissuaded you from submitting proposals to NSF. We are especially
interested in learning (a) how NSF guidance (e.g., as provided in the
NSF PAPPG, program solicitations, or other funding opportunity
announcements), may have played a part in your decision(s) whether to
submit proposals, and (b) how NSF might best support investigators
interested in submitting a proposal to NSF.
Individuals responding to this request are encouraged to indicate
whether they
[[Page 68474]]
submitted or decided not to submit a proposal, and whether these
experiences occurred within the past five years.
4. MRX is interested in the experiences and perspectives of those
who have reviewed proposals submitted to NSF. We invite you to share
your insights and describe any opportunities you believe would improve
implementation of the Merit Review criteria, policy, and processes
based on your experience reviewing NSF proposals.
Individuals responding to this request are encouraged to indicate
whether they served on a panel and/or as ad hoc reviewers, and whether
these experiences occurred within the past five years.
5. MRX is interested in exploring how NSF could better support
awardees in demonstrating and documenting outcomes of their awards in
advancing knowledge (Intellectual Merit) and benefiting society and
contributing to the achievement of specific broader or societal
outcomes (Broader Impacts). We invite you to share your insights on how
NSF might better support awardees in demonstrating and documenting
outcomes of their awards without unnecessarily increasing awardees'
administrative burden of reporting.
Individuals responding to this request are encouraged to indicate
whether their suggestions are based on experiences as investigators,
users of public outcomes reports, or another perspective.
6. MRX welcomes any other comments on or suggestions for improving
NSF's current Merit Review criteria, policy, and processes. It also
welcomes information about aspects of Merit Review criteria, policy and
processes that are currently working well.
What will NSF do with this information?
MRX will use the information submitted in response to this RFI to
inform its assessment of the efficacy of the current Merit Review
criteria, policy, and processes, and to draft recommendations regarding
them. The information provided will be analyzed and considered by MRX.
Respondents are advised that the government is under no obligation to
acknowledge receipt of the information or provide feedback to
respondents with respect to any information submitted. No proprietary,
classified, confidential, or sensitive information should be included
in your response submission. The government reserves the right to use
any non-proprietary technical information in any resultant
solicitation(s), policies, or procedures. All submitted information may
be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or
other applicable law.
This Notice does not invite research proposals nor is it a funding
opportunity.
Background
NSB and NSF, with the assistance of expert third parties, have
periodically re-examined and revised the criteria, policy, and
processes of Merit Review at NSF. The last time the Board
systematically examined the Merit Review criteria was in 2010-2011 when
NSB established a Task Force on Merit Review to examine the
Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts merit review criteria and their
effectiveness in achieving NSF's goals in support of science and
engineering research and education. At that time, Congress was
considering, and then passed, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act
directing NSF to apply the Broader Impacts criterion to achieve a
specific array of societal goals and charging NSF to develop policies
addressing it. The 2011 Task Force report concluded that the Merit
Review criteria remained appropriate for evaluating NSF proposals;
however, it provided certain revisions and clarifications.
Recent events have underscored the importance of demonstrating that
portfolios of funded projects enable NSF to meet its statutory mission
``to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health,
prosperity and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other
purposes.'' In 2022, Congress passed the CHIPS and Science Act, which
directed federal research agencies to regularly assess, and update as
necessary, policies, and practices to remove or reduce cultural and
institutional barriers limiting the recruitment, retention, and success
of groups historically underrepresented in STEM research careers,
including policies and practices relevant to the unbiased review of
Federal research applications. Reexamining the Merit Review policy and
process will help ensure that NSF is best placed to meet the
requirements set out by Congress.
Definitions for Terms Used in This RFI
Merit Review Policy
Principles
1. All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the
potential to advance, if not transform, the frontiers of knowledge.
2. NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly
to achieving societal goals. These broader impacts may be accomplished
through the research itself, through activities that are directly
related to specific research projects, or through activities that are
supported by, but are complementary to, the project. The project
activities may be based on previously established and/or innovative
methods and approaches, but in either case must be well justified.
3. Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects
should be based on appropriate metrics, keeping in mind the likely
correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the resources
provided to implement projects. If the size of the activity is limited,
evaluation of that activity in isolation is not likely to be
meaningful. Thus, assessing the effectiveness of these activities may
best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level than the individual
project.
Criteria
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 address both
criteria.
Intellectual Merit (IM): the potential for a proposed
project to advance knowledge.
Broader Impacts (BI): the potential for a proposed project
to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific,
desired societal outcomes.
Elements
1. What is the potential for the proposed activity to:
a. Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or
across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
b. Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader
Impacts)?
2. To what extent do the proposed activities suggest 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 sound rationale? Does the plan
incorporate a mechanism to assess success?
4. How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to
conduct the proposed activities?
5. Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the
home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed
activities?
This description of NSF's merit review policy is from NSF's 2024
Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG), part I,
[[Page 68475]]
chapter 3. See https://new.nsf.gov/policies/pappg/24-1.
Transformative Research
Transformative research is defined as research driven by ideas that
have the potential to radically change our understanding of an
important existing scientific or engineering concept or leading to the
creation of a new paradigm or field of science or engineering. Such
research also is characterized by its challenge to current
understanding or its pathway to new frontiers. See NSB's statement
Enhancing Support of Transformative Research at NSF: https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsb0732/nsb0732.pdf.
Broadening Participation
``Broadening participation in STEM'' is the comprehensive phrase
NSF uses to refer to the Foundation's goal of increasing the
representation and diversity of individuals, organizations, and
geographic regions that contribute to STEM education, research, and
innovation. To broaden participation in STEM, it is necessary to
address issues of equity, inclusion, and access in STEM education,
training, and careers. Whereas all NSF funding programs might support
broadening participation components, some funding programs primarily
focus on supporting broadening participation research and projects.
Examples can be found on the NSF Broadening Participation in STEM
website. See https://new.nsf.gov/funding/initiatives/broadening-participation, and the NSF PAPPG, Introduction https://new.nsf.gov/policies/pappg/24-1.
Interested Individuals and Parties
The phrase used in this Notice, ``interested individuals and
parties'', is intended to be interpreted broadly and inclusively by
potential respondents; we anticipate interested individuals and parties
include, but are not limited to:
current, past, and prospective NSF proposers, reviewers,
and staff
sponsored research administrators and support
professionals
representatives of organizations and communities working
in or supporting the science and engineering research and education
enterprise
members of other communities of practice in the science
and engineering research and education fields and
members of the general public expressing an interest in
these topics.
Ann E. Bushmiller,
Senior Counsel to the National Science Board.
[FR Doc. 2024-19041 Filed 8-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P