Proposal Writing and Reviewing
Phil Richards
Discipline Scientist for Geospace Science
NASA Headquarters
Proposal Writing Rules of Thumb
•
Truncate: Less is more: If the proposal is under the page limit, don’t worry,
be happy. Check every sentence for unnecessary words and every paragraph
for unnecessary sentences.
•
Titillate: Provide some preliminary results. This will engender interest and
show the reviewer that the work is doable.
•
Collate: Insert a good table of contents: This helps you organize the
proposal into appropriate bites. Well titled sections really help the reviewer.
•
Concentrate: Have a well focused science question, and not just a shopping
list. At least have a unifying theme.
•
Enunciate: Explain why the funding fathers and mothers should give a
damn.
2
Proposal Writing Rules of Thumb
•
Truncate: Less is more: If the proposal is under the page limit, don’t worry,
be happy. Check every sentence for unnecessary words and every paragraph
for unnecessary sentences.
•
Titillate: Provide some preliminary results. This will engender interest and
show the reviewer that the work is doable.
•
Concentrate: Have a well focused science question, and not just a shopping
list. At least have a unifying theme.
•
Enunciate: Explain why the funding fathers and mothers should give a
damn.
•
Collate: Insert a good table of contents: This helps you organize the
proposal into appropriate bites. Well titled sections really help the reviewer.
3
Sample TOC
II. SCIENTIFIC/TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT SECTION
INVESTIGATION OF THERMOSPHERIC AND IONOSPHERIC
CHANGES DURING IONOSPHERIC STORMS WITH SATELLITE AND
GROUND-BASED DATA AND MODELING
1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................. II-1
2.0 IONOSPHERIC MODEL...................................................................... II-2
2.1 Neutral winds in the thermosphere.............................…................ II-4
2.2 Convective electric fields ............................................................... II-4
2.3 Ionosphere Modeling With Modified Neutral Atmosphere............ II-5
3.0 DATA...................................................................................................... II-7
4.0 PROPOSED STUDIES............................................................................ II-9
5.0 CONCLUSION........................................................................................ II-14
6.0 PROGRAMMATICS .............................................................................. II-14
4
Proposal Writing Rules of Thumb (ctd)
•
Stipulate: In the abstract, clearly summarize the science question, why it is
important, and how you plan to solve it. Keep the abstract concise. Save the
gory details for the proposal body.
•
Re-stipulate: In the introduction, clearly state the science question, why,
how. (use bold letters)
•
Re-re-stipulate: In the proposal body section: What, why, how.
•
Re-evaluate: Beg or bribe your colleagues to review your proposal well
before submittal. Co-Is should give you feedback.
•
Reciprocate: Seize any opportunities to review papers and proposals
5
Proposal Writing Rules of Thumb (ctd)
•
Eradicate: No unnecessary Co-Investigators and Collaborators
•
Illustrate: Provide clear uncluttered figures with helpful captions. Embed
them in the proposal body; not tacked on.
•
Anticipate: Put yourself in the reviewer’s chair.
Reviewers may or may not be experts on your topic. Thus, avoid material
that the expert already knows and the non-expert cannot learn from a 15
page proposal.
Panelists may not be a PI or Co-I on a proposal in the competition.
External reviewers are likely to have a proposal in the competition. They are
used to provide technical expertise for the panel.
Each panelist has 3 or 4 proposals - time on your proposal is limited – make
their job easier
6
Sample Proposal WEAKNESSES
• No clear scientific question is stated.
• No case is made for the importance of resolving the controversy over the
observed cusp energetic particles.
• The methodology is poorly explained making it difficult to be confident that
useful results will arise from the proposed investigation.
• The proposed research is not put into context to prior work.
• It is not clear how the collected data base will be used in association with
the numerical simulations.
• The proposal does not provide enough details to describe a complete
investigation.
• The investigation is unfocused, containing 15 separate tasks. The requested
resources are insufficient to complete all of them and they are not
prioritized.
7
Sample Abstract
The objective of this proposed research is to improve our basic understanding of the causes
of ionospheric storm behavior in the mid latitude F region ionosphere. Ionospheric storms are
manifest as severe reductions (factors of 2-4)in the daytime ionospheric electron density above 200
km altitude compared to median values. It is known that changes in the thermospheric neutral
densities play a pivotal role during ionospheric storms, but it has not been shown that neutral density
changes are sufficient to produce the observed effects. It is also possible that enhanced chemical loss
rates play an important role in these depletions.
This study will assess the relative importance of chemical and neutral density changes by
detailed comparisons between ground-based measurements of the peak electron density, satellite
measurements of ion and neutral composition, and output from the Field Line Interhemispheric
Plasma (FLIP) model. The FLIP model will determine the neutral densities and temperatures needed
to reproduce the ground based ionosphere measurements and these neutral densities will be compared
to satellite neutral density measurements. Recent results from thermospheric general circulation
models suggest that the altitude profiles of individual neutral species may depart significantly from
hydrostatic equilibrium. We will compare the model and data for evidence of departure from
hydrostatic profiles. Furthermore, the model ion densities will be compared to the satellite
measurements in order to determine the role of chemistry during storms. If necessary, the satellite
measurements can be used to adjust the model neutral densities and temperature.
Understanding ionospheric storms is important because the electron density variations cause
severe problems for radio communications. The ionosphere and thermosphere also constitutes the
environment of many spacecraft which orbit at these altitudes. The primary result of this study will
be a better capability for modeling the weather of the ionosphere which will be needed as a basis for
ionospheric prediction.
This proposal responds to NASA strategic objective XXX.
8
NASA Review Philosophy
• It is the PI’s privilege to choose the question to address
• It is the PI’s obligation to explain the scientific impact of
the question along with sufficient details of an
appropriate methodology
• Evaluation is based on material in the proposal. The
reviewers are not obliged to read attachments, or do
additional research
9
NASA Selection Procedure
1. The panel assesses and documents the scientific and
technical merit of the proposals, taking into account
external reviews.
2. The Discipline Scientists recommend selections by
defining the competitive range based on the panel
review of scientific merit and taking into account
program balance, cost, program goals, and duplication
with other agencies.
3. The Division Director makes the selections taking into
account the recommendations of the Discipline
Scientists.
10
Competitive Range
Example Grade Distribution
8% Excellent
14% E/VG
37% VG
-----------------------------------------------40% VG/G
3% Good
• For ~30% selection, competitive range is VG, E/VG, E
• NASA scientists select from amongst the competitive
proposals
11
Panel Consensus Review Form
Proposal Summary
Give a concise statement of
1. Science question being addressed:
(Reviewer should be able to pluck this from your proposal)
2. Methodology used to answer science question:
(Ditto)
Proposal Evaluation
Give your evaluation of
1. Scientific impact: How important is the question?
2. Technical feasibility: Is the method clear and will it solve the
problem?
3. Closure: Will it make a substantial contribution toward the
resolution of the question?
12
Panel Consensus Review Form (continued)
SCIENTIFIC and TECHNICAL STRENGTHS
Bulletized encapsulations (1 or 2 sentences per bullet) of the main strengths
discussed in the Proposal Evaluation Section above
•
•
•
•
•
Importance of problem – Is it interesting (good), important (better),
compelling (best)?
Methodology
Data and model appropriateness
Closure
Other points
13
Panel Consensus Review Form (continued)
SCIENTIFIC and TECHNICAL WEAKNESSES
Bulletized encapsulations (1 or 2 sentences per bullet) of the main
weaknesses discussed in the Proposal Evaluation Section above
•
•
•
•
Lack of importance
Methodology defects
Lack of closure
Other points
14
Panel Consensus Review Form (continued)
Rational for rating
– A few sentences summarizing the importance of the question, the
feasibility of the method and the most important strengths or
weaknesses.
Example Rationale: This proposal addresses several compelling questions
about the downward auroral current region. The answer to any of these would
represent a major step towards a better understanding of magnetosphereionosphere interaction. The methodology is sound and robust, since it relies on
data of proven high quality and completeness. The proposal is rated
EXCELLENT
15
Panel Consensus Review Form (continued)
OVERALL GRADE
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Poor
X
Additional Comments
This section is for noting programmatic information which may be important to
NASA, but which is separate from the assessment of scientific merit.
•
•
•
•
•
The proposal seeks financial support for two collaborators who are not named on
the proposal cover sheet
The budget includes $14,000 per year for computer equipment and support that is
not well justified in the text
The PI's current and pending support didn't identify sources of the funding
The proposal was poorly organized and appeared to be thrown together at the last
moment
The proposal would be better suited to the LWS program
16
Rating Definitions
•
EXCELLENT
–
•
Addresses compelling or fundamental scientific questions that are consistent with
the goals and objectives of the Sun Earth Connection Division AND uses a well
defined, feasible, and appropriate methodology that is likely to produce substantial
progress towards the achievement of the goals
VERY GOOD
1. Addresses relevant and fundamental scientific questions, BUT there are important
questions about the methodology OR
2. Has appropriate and sound methodology and addresses important though not
compelling questions.
•
GOOD
–
•
Addresses unclear or peripheral scientific questions, OR does not have clear
methodologies, even though the results may be of some interest
POOR - Proposals that are seriously flawed
17
Other factors
• Are the costs reasonable for the quality and amount of
research?
• Are the resources adequate?
• Does the proposal demonstrate that the proposers have
the ability to carry out the research?
18