Digitalia
Advanced Search
Major Award Decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation

Major Award Decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation

  • Publisher: National Academies Press
  • ISBN: 9780309050296
  • eISBN Pdf: 9780309586320
  • Place of publication:  United States
  • Year of digital publication: 1994
  • Month: January
  • Pages: 175
  • Language: English

As part of its mission to foster high-quality scientific and engineering research, the National Science Foundation (NSF) plans, grants, and administers major awards to universities and other research institutions for national research facilities, multidisciplinary research centers, and other large-scale research projects. Although few in number, less than 100, such projects account for about 30 percent of NSF's annual research budget.

This book provides a useful overview of how such projects are planned, reviews proposals for merit, and evaluates ongoing projects for renewal awards. The panel makes a series of recommendations for strengthening major award decisionmaking.

  • MAJOR AWARD DECISIONMAKING AT THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
  • Copyright
  • Preface
  • Contents
  • Executive Summary
    • BACKGROUND
    • FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
      • Clear Rules of the Game
      • Primacy of Technical Merit
      • Appropriate Roles of Peer Reviewers and Staff
      • Public Documentation of Decisionmaking
      • More Stringent Setting of Priorities
    • RECOMMENDATIONS
      • Recommendation 1: Justification for Major Project Awards
      • Recommendation 2: Involvement and Support of the Research Community in Planning
      • Recommendation 3: Primacy of Technical Merit Criteria
      • Recommendation 4: Human Resource Development and Equal Opportunity as a Criterion
      • Recommendation 5: Cost Sharing as a Criterion
      • Recommendation 6: A Two-Phase Merit Review Process
      • Recommendation 7: Reorienting the NSB Workload
      • Recommendation 8: Planning the Review Process and Criteria
      • Recommendation 9: More and Better Public Documentation of Award Decisions
      • Recommendation 10: More Recompetitions
  • 1 Major Awards at NSF
    • OVERVIEW OF MAJOR AWARDS
    • MAJOR AWARDS AND MERIT REVIEW
    • MAJOR AWARDS AND THE NSB
    • NSF ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING FOR MERIT REVIEW
    • OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
      • Clear Rules of the Game
      • Primacy of Technical Merit
      • Appropriate Roles of Peer Reviewers and Staff
      • Public Documentation of Decisionmaking
      • More Stringent Setting of Priorities
  • 2 Planning Major Projects
    • BACKGROUND: PROJECT PLANNING AND BUDGETING AT NSF
      • Long-Range Planning at NSF
      • Annual Budget Process
    • MAJOR PROJECT PLANNING AND BUDGETING
      • Capital Facilities Planning
      • FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON PLANNING AND BUDGETING
      • Findings
      • Recommendations
        • Recommendation 1: Justification for Major Project Awards
        • Recommendation 2: Involvement and Support of the Research Community in Planning
  • 3 Awarding Major Projects: Criteria and Review Procedures
    • BACKGROUND: THE MERIT REVIEW PROCESS AT NSF
      • Current Review Criteria
      • Review and Selection Criteria for Major Project Awards
      • Findings and Recommendations on Criteria
        • Recommendation 3: Primacy of Technical Merit Criteria
        • Recommendation 4: Human Resource Development and Equal Opportunity as a Criterion
        • Recommendation 5: Cost Sharing as a Criterion
    • NSF PROCEDURES FOR REVIEWING PROPOSALS
      • Proposal Review Process
        • Peer Review Modes
        • Selection of Reviewers
        • Policies and Procedures for Dealing with Bias and Conflict of Interest
      • Award Decisionmaking
      • Findings and Recommendations on Review Procedures
        • Recommendation 6: A Two-Phase Merit Review Process
  • 4 Awarding Major Projects: NSB Role, Review Process Design, and Decision Documentation
    • NSB ROLE AND PROCEDURES
      • Findings and Recommendations on the NSB Role
        • Recommendation 7: Reorienting the NSB Workload
    • DESIGNING THE REVIEW AND SOLICITATION PROCESS
      • Proposal Review Planning Requirements
      • NSB Approval of Solicitation Announcements
      • Findings and Recommendations on Proposal Review Planning
        • Recommendation 8: Planning the Review Process and Criteria
    • DOCUMENTING AWARD DECISIONS
      • Findings and Recommendations on Award Documentation
        • Recommendation 9: More and Better Public Documentation of Award Decisions
  • 5 Recompetition of Awards
    • PROJECT CONTINUATION AT NSF
      • Findings and Recommendations
        • Recommendation 10: More Recompetitions
  • 6 Looking to the Future
  • A Biographical Sketches of Panel Members
  • B Major Awards Supported by NSF
    • TYPOLOGY
      • Center Programs
      • National User Facilities Run by Consortia
      • Unique National Centers and Facilities Run by a University
      • International Projects
    • BUDGET BREAKDOWN
      • Centers
      • Facilities
      • Disciplinary Research
    • PROGRAM BALANCE
      • Astronomy
      • Materials Science
      • Geosciences
  • C Awards Approved by National Science Board, FY 1986–1992
  • D Major Award Criteria from Recent Solicitation Announcements
    • ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTERS (ERCS) (FY 1990)
    • NSF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CENTERS (STCS) (FY 1990)
    • EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER (FY 1986)
    • NATIONAL HIGH MAGNETIC FIELD LABORATORY (NHMFL) (FY 1990)
    • NATIONAL CENTER FOR GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS (FY 1988)
    • MATERIALS RESEARCH LABORATORIES (MRL) (FY 1992)
  • E The Ten Case Studies
  • References

Subjects

Back
Login to your account

Viewers online

  • Text
  • ReadSpeaker Audio

Download options

  • Adobe DRM Adobe DRM
  • Loan duration: 21 days
  • Format: PDF

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

By subscribing, you accept our Privacy Policy

©2021 - 2024 Digitalia - All rights reserved