Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation (2004) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix G: Executive Summary of COSEPUP Report Major Award Decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation
Appendix G: Executive Summary of COSEPUP Report Major Award Decisionmaking at the National Science Foundation
Pages 207-216
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 207... ...
Appendix G Executive Summary of COSEPUP Report 207
|
From page 208... ...
Decisions by the National Science Board (NSB) and the NSF to devote substantial resources to some new center programs and very expensive facilities have also raised questions about the adequacy of their planning procedures.
|
From page 209... ...
These included the processes leading to the initial decision to announce a major project; the planning and implementation of the merit review process; the decisionmaking leading to the award; and subsequent decisions to renew, recompete, or terminate a project at appropriate intervals. The panel focused on the roles of expert peer reviewers, staff, outside advisory groups, and NSB in the merit review process, and on the public explanation of the process, and its outcomes.
|
From page 210... ...
In particular, the primary technical criteria as distinct from other criteria to be considered in the merit review process should be identified in advance in each case. The panel recommends stronger planning efforts that would help contribute to clearer criteria (Recommendation 1)
|
From page 211... ...
Otherwise, the weightings of criteria are implicit and can shift continually at the discretion of individual reviewers and program staff. Appropriate Roles of Peer Reviewers and Staff The review process must be structured so that the roles of peer reviewers and staff in evaluating and recommending proposals are clearly understood, and trade-offs among technical and other criteria are clearly explained, at each subsequent level of decision making.
|
From page 212... ...
More Stringent Setting of Priorities Decisions to solicit proposals for very large major awards should take into account their impact on NSF's overall program as well as on the particular research field involved, and they should be contingent on the realization of expected funds and technological progress. Careful front-end planning, combined with broad consultation with affected research communities and constant evaluation of priorities at each decision point, must be a part of the process of soliciting and reviewing proposals for a very large major award.
|
From page 213... ...
The number of students to be involved -- and the inclusion of minorities and women at all levels, from students to senior investigators and project managers-are important components of human resource development and equal opportunity. They should receive more explicit attention in the review process.
|
From page 214... ...
Recommendation 6: A Two-Phase Merit Review Process For major awards, the peer review part of the merit review process should be conducted in two phases. The first phase would be a strictly technical review; to help assure the primacy of technical merit, only those proposals judged to be technically superior would be forwarded to the second phase for any further consideration.
|
From page 215... ...
or to recommend a proposal other than the one selected in Phase 2 of the merit review process must be fully explained, and relevant documents should be publicly available. Recommendation 10: More Recompetitions The initial planning of every major award should specify the conditions for renewing, recompeting, or terminating the project.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.