tools-only NSF (National Science Foundation) Grant Writing Guidelines
Agency Overview
Mission: To promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense
Annual Budget: ~$9-10 billion
Website: https://www.nsf.gov
Key Characteristics:
- Supports all fields of fundamental science and engineering (except medical sciences)
- Emphasis on education and workforce development
- Strong commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion
- Promotes open science and data sharing
- Collaborative research across institutions encouraged
NSF Directorates
- BIO - Biological Sciences
- CISE - Computer and Information Science and Engineering
- EHR - Education and Human Resources
- ENG - Engineering
- GEO - Geosciences
- MPS - Mathematical and Physical Sciences
- SBE - Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences
- TIP - Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (formerly EDA)
- OPP - Office of Polar Programs
- OISE - Office of International Science and Engineering
Core Review Criteria
NSF uses two equally weighted criteria for all proposals:
Intellectual Merit
Definition: The potential to advance knowledge
Evaluation Questions:
- How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields?
- How well-qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project?
- To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
- How well-conceived and organized is the proposed activity?
- Is there sufficient access to resources?
Writing Strategy:
- Lead with the research question and its importance
- Demonstrate deep knowledge of the field
- Articulate the knowledge gap clearly
- Present innovative approach to address the gap
- Show preliminary results or proof-of-concept
- Demonstrate team qualifications
- Present feasible, well-organized plan
Broader Impacts
Definition: The potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes
Evaluation Questions:
- What is the potential for the proposed activity to:
- Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes?
- Broaden participation of underrepresented groups?
- Enhance infrastructure for research and education?
- Enhance scientific and technological understanding?
- Foster partnerships between academia, industry, and others?
Critical Point: Broader Impacts are NOT an afterthought. They carry equal weight with Intellectual Merit and must be substantive, specific, and measurable.
Five Pillars of Broader Impacts (address at least one substantively):
Advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning
- Integrate research into courses
- Develop new curriculum materials
- Train undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral researchers
- Provide research experiences for students
- Create educational resources (videos, software, databases)
- Offer workshops or training programs
Example: "We will develop a 10-module online course on computational genomics, incorporating data from this project, to be offered to 500+ students annually across 15 partner institutions. Course materials will be open-access and include Jupyter notebooks for hands-on analysis."
Broaden participation of underrepresented groups (in STEM)
- Partner with minority-serving institutions (HBCUs, HSIs, TCUs)
- Recruit students from underrepresented groups
- Provide mentoring and support programs
- Address systemic barriers to participation
- Create inclusive research environments
- Engage underrepresented communities in research
Example: "We will establish a summer research program for 8 undergraduates annually from 4 partner HBCUs, providing stipends, housing, and year-round mentoring. Program will include professional development workshops and pathways to graduate school."
Enhance infrastructure for research and education
- Develop shared instrumentation or facilities
- Create cyberinfrastructure, software, or databases
- Build collaborative networks
- Establish living stock centers or repositories
- Develop standards or protocols
- Create open-source tools
Example: "We will develop and maintain an open-source software platform for analyzing spatial transcriptomics data, with comprehensive documentation, tutorials, and user support forum. Software will be deposited on GitHub and indexed in bio.tools."
Disseminate to enhance scientific and technological understanding
- Public outreach and science communication
- Engagement with K-12 students and teachers
- Museum exhibits or science festivals
- Media engagement (podcasts, videos, articles)
- Policy briefs for decision-makers
- Community science projects
Example: "We will partner with the City Science Museum to create a hands-on exhibit on AI and climate modeling, reaching 50,000+ annual visitors. Exhibit will include interactive simulations and bilingual materials. We will also host quarterly 'Science Saturdays' for local K-12 students."
Benefit society
- Economic development and competitiveness
- Health and quality of life improvements
- Environmental sustainability
- National security
- Societal well-being
- Workforce development
Example: "Our drought prediction models will be integrated into USDA's decision support system, benefiting 15,000+ farmers in the Southwest. We will work with extension agents to provide training and accessible interfaces for non-technical users."
Common Broader Impacts Mistakes:
- ❌ Vague statements: "We will train graduate students" (everyone does this)
- ❌ No plan: Aspirational goals without concrete activities
- ❌ No metrics: No way to assess success
- ❌ Tacked on: Not integrated with research plan
- ❌ Unrealistic: Grand claims without resources or expertise
- ✅ Specific and measurable: Clear activities, timelines, and assessment
Proposal Sections and Page Limits
Project Summary (1 page)
Required Structure (NSF mandates three labeled sections):
Overview (first paragraph):
- Research question and approach in accessible language
- Suitable for public dissemination
Intellectual Merit:
- Potential to advance knowledge
- Innovative aspects
- Qualifications of team
Broader Impacts:
- Societal benefits and specific activities
- How success will be measured
Formatting: Must use section headings exactly as shown above
Project Description (15 pages for most programs)
No required structure, but typical organization:
Introduction / Background (1-2 pages)
- Research question and significance
- Current state of knowledge
- Knowledge gaps
- Preliminary results (if applicable)
Research Objectives (0.5-1 page)
- Specific, measurable goals
- Hypotheses or research questions
Research Plan / Methodology (8-10 pages)
- Detailed approach for each objective
- Methods and techniques
- Timeline and milestones
- Expected outcomes
- Potential challenges and alternatives
Broader Impacts (1-2 pages)
- Can be integrated throughout OR separate section
- Specific activities and timelines
- Assessment and evaluation plan
Results from Prior NSF Support (if applicable, up to 5 pages)
- Required if PI or co-PI has had NSF award in past 5 years
- Intellectual merit of prior work
- Broader impacts of prior work
- Publications and products
Formatting Requirements:
- Font: 11-point or larger (Times Roman, Arial, Palatino, Computer Modern)
- Margins: 1 inch all sides
- Line spacing: No more than 6 lines per inch
- Page size: 8.5 x 11 inches
- No smaller fonts in figures (must be legible)
References Cited (no page limit)
- Each reference must include:
- Names of all authors
- Article and journal title
- Volume, page numbers, year
- DOI if available
- Use consistent format (doesn't have to match specific style)
- Sufficient information for reviewers to locate references
Biographical Sketch (3 pages max per person)
Required NSF Format (as of 2023 PAPPG):
Section A: Professional Preparation
- Undergraduate, graduate, postdoctoral institutions
- Majors and degrees with years
Section B: Appointments and Positions
- Last 5 positions, current first
Section C: Products (up to 5 most relevant to proposal)
- Publications, datasets, software, patents, etc.
- Can include products in preparation
Section D: Synergistic Activities (up to 5)
- Service, teaching, mentoring, outreach
- Demonstrates broader engagement beyond research
Current and Pending Support (no page limit)
- All current and pending support for PI and co-PIs
- Include project/proposal title, source, award amount, dates
- Describe overlap with proposed project (if any)
- Must be updated until award/decline
Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources (no page limit)
- Describe available facilities (labs, computational, libraries)
- Major equipment accessible to project
- Other resources (personnel, core facilities, partnerships)
- Demonstrate institutional commitment
Data Management and Sharing Plan (2 pages max)
Required for all proposals (as of 2023 PAPPG)
Must address:
- Types of data: What data will be generated?
- Standards: Formats, metadata, standards for data and metadata
- Access: How and when will data be shared?
- Reuse: Who can access and under what conditions?
- Repository: Where will data be archived long-term?
- Protection: Privacy, confidentiality, intellectual property considerations
NSF Expectations:
- Data should be made publicly available in a timely manner
- Use discipline-specific repositories when available
- Justify any restrictions on data sharing
- Plan for data preservation beyond project period
Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan (1 page max)
Required if funding postdocs
Must address:
- Career development objectives
- Mentoring activities (research, teaching, professional skills)
- Metrics for success
- Mentoring plan should be specific, not generic
Special NSF Proposal Types
CAREER (Faculty Early Career Development Program)
Eligibility: Tenure-track (or equivalent) faculty who have not yet received tenure, within 6 years of PhD (or equivalent)
Requirements:
- Integration of research and education
- Demonstrate potential for leadership
- Department chair letter required
- 5-year project plan
- Typical budget: $400,000-$500,000
Key Elements:
- Ambitious research plan
- Innovative educational component
- Strong integration (not just parallel tracks)
- Path to independence and leadership
- Institutional commitment
Review Criteria: Same two criteria (Intellectual Merit, Broader Impacts) but with emphasis on:
- Integration of research and education
- Innovative educational component
- Potential for leadership in field
Common CAREER Mistakes:
- Education component feels tacked on
- Overly ambitious research plan
- Weak integration between research and education
- Generic mentoring or teaching plans
- Insufficient preliminary data
Collaborative Research
Structure: Multiple proposals submitted separately from different institutions, reviewed as a single project
Requirements:
- Lead institution designated
- All proposals must have identical titles (except institution name)
- Project descriptions should be substantially similar
- Clear division of labor
- Coordination plan
Budget: Each institution submits own budget for their portion
Review: Reviewed together as single integrated project
Benefits: Brings together complementary expertise and resources
RAPID (Rapid Response Research)
Purpose: Support time-sensitive research opportunities
Examples:
- Natural disasters
- Disease outbreaks
- Unique astronomical events
- Rare opportunities for data collection
Requirements:
- Urgent need justification
- Up to $200,000
- Up to 1 year duration
- Simplified review process (program officer discretion)
- No preliminary data required
Submission: Contact program officer first, then submit proposal
EAGER (Early-concept Grants for Exploratory Research)
Purpose: Support exploratory work on untested, but potentially transformative, ideas
Requirements:
- High-risk, high-reward research
- Radically different approaches
- Up to $300,000
- Up to 2 years
- Program officer approval required before submission
- No panel review (program officer decision)
Key: Must be truly exploratory and high-risk, not incremental
Budget Considerations
Allowable Costs
Personnel:
- Senior personnel: Up to 2 months (summer salary) for 9-month faculty
- Postdoctoral scholars: Full salary and benefits
- Graduate students: Stipend (tuition typically covered under fringe/indirect)
- Undergraduate students: Hourly or stipend
- Technical and administrative staff
Fringe Benefits: Follow institutional rates
Equipment: Items ≥$5,000 per unit
- Must be justified
- Shared equipment requires letters from collaborators
Travel:
- Domestic and international scientific meetings
- Collaboration and fieldwork
- Justification required
Participant Support Costs: For workshops, training, conferences
- Stipends, travel, subsistence for participants
- Not subject to indirect costs
Other Direct Costs:
- Publication costs
- Consulting services
- Computer services
- Materials and supplies
- Subawards to collaborating institutions
Indirect Costs (F&A): Institutional negotiated rate applies to modified total direct costs (MTDC)
- MTDC excludes: equipment, participant support, subawards >$25K
Cost Sharing
NSF Policy: Cost sharing is not required and should not be voluntary
Exceptions: Some programs require cost sharing (check program solicitation)
When Included: Must be documented, verifiable, auditable, and necessary for project
Submission and Review Process
Submission Deadlines
Varies by program:
- Some programs have specific deadlines (e.g., twice per year)
- Some programs accept proposals anytime (check with program officer)
- CAREER: July deadline (directorate-specific)
Submission Windows: NSF deadlines are typically 5 PM submitter's local time
Submission Portal
Research.gov or Grants.gov: NSF accepts both
Process:
- Institutional authorization required
- Upload all required documents
- Verify PDF compilation
- Submit (aim for 48 hours early)
- Receive confirmation and proposal number
Review Process
Timeline: Typically 6 months from submission to decision
Steps:
- Administrative Review: NSF checks compliance (1-2 weeks)
- Program Officer Assignment: Assigned to appropriate program (1-2 weeks)
- Reviewer Selection: Panel and/or ad hoc reviewers identified (2-4 weeks)
- Review: Reviewers assess proposals (4-8 weeks)
- Panel Discussion: Panel meets (virtual or in-person) to discuss proposals (1 week)
- Program Officer Recommendation: Based on reviews and panel discussion (2-4 weeks)
- Division/Directorate Approval: Final decision (2-4 weeks)
Review Formats:
- Panel Review: 10-20 proposals discussed at panel meeting
- Ad hoc Review: External reviewers submit written reviews
- Hybrid: Combination of panel and ad hoc reviews
Number of Reviewers: Typically 3-5 reviewers per proposal
Review Outcomes
Possible Decisions:
- Funded: Congratulations! Award forthcoming
- Declined: Not recommended for funding
- Returned Without Review: Non-compliant with requirements
Feedback: Panel summary and individual reviews provided regardless of outcome
Success Rates: Vary by program, typically 15-30%
Communicating with Program Officers
When to Contact
Appropriate:
- Before submission: Discuss fit with program, feasibility of idea
- After reviews: Discuss feedback, resubmission strategy
- During project: Report significant changes, request no-cost extensions
How to Contact:
- Email program officer (contact info in program solicitation)
- Request 15-30 minute phone call
- Prepare concise summary of research idea (1 page)
What to Ask
Good Questions:
- Is my research appropriate for this program?
- Are there upcoming solicitations or special initiatives?
- What are key areas of emphasis for the program?
- Is the scope and budget appropriate?
- After reviews: What are key issues to address in resubmission?
Avoid:
- Asking for guarantee of funding
- Arguing with review outcome
- Inappropriate requests for information about reviewers
Resubmission Strategy
NSF Resubmission Policies
No Formal Resubmission Category: NSF treats resubmissions as new proposals
Can Resubmit:
- To same program (after addressing reviews)
- To different program (if better fit)
- After substantial revision
No Introduction Section: Unlike NIH, NSF doesn't have formal resubmission response
Strategy:
- Carefully review panel summary and individual reviews
- Address all major criticisms
- Strengthen weak areas (prelim data, broader impacts, methods)
- Consider discussing with program officer
- May want to wait for next funding cycle to gather more data
Tracking: Proposals reviewed previously may be assigned same reviewers (sometimes)
Recent NSF Policy Updates
2023-2024 Changes
- Data Management and Sharing Plan: Now required for all proposals (2 pages max)
- Biographical Sketch Format: Updated to include "Products" instead of "Publications"
- Open Science: Increased emphasis on open-access publications and data
- Plan for Dissemination: Some programs require explicit dissemination plans
- Mentoring Plans: Enhanced requirements for postdoc mentoring plans
NSF Priorities (2024-2025)
- Climate and Clean Energy: Climate change mitigation and adaptation
- Quantum Information Science: Quantum computing, sensing, networking
- AI and Machine Learning: Trustworthy AI, AI for science
- Biotechnology: Synthetic biology, bioengineering
- Microelectronics: Semiconductor research and workforce
- STEM Education: Broadening participation, innovative pedagogy
- Convergence Accelerators: Use-inspired research with pathway to impact
NSF Big Ideas and Special Initiatives
NSF "Big Ideas"
- Harnessing the Data Revolution (HDR)
- The Future of Work at the Human-Technology Frontier
- Navigating the New Arctic
- Windows on the Universe
- The Quantum Leap
- Understanding the Rules of Life
- Mid-scale Research Infrastructure
Major NSF Initiatives
- National AI Research Institutes: $20M over 5 years per institute
- Science and Technology Centers (STCs): Large-scale collaborative centers
- Engineering Research Centers (ERCs): Engineering innovation ecosystems
- Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers (MRSECs): Materials research
- NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP): Student fellowships
Tips for Competitive NSF Proposals
Do's
✅ Start with specific aims/objectives - Crystal clear research goals ✅ Make broader impacts substantive - Specific activities, not platitudes ✅ Use figures effectively - Conceptual diagrams, preliminary data, timelines ✅ Be realistic about scope - Achievable within 3-5 years ✅ Address both review criteria explicitly - Don't make reviewers search ✅ Get external feedback - Mock review before submission ✅ Follow formatting requirements exactly - Auto-rejection for non-compliance ✅ Explain jargon and acronyms - Panel members may not be in your subfield ✅ Integrate research and education - Show natural connections ✅ Demonstrate team qualifications - Track record in proposed area
Don'ts
❌ Don't exceed page limits - Automatic return without review ❌ Don't use smaller fonts in figures - Must be legible ❌ Don't make broader impacts generic - "Train students" is not enough ❌ Don't ignore prior NSF support - Must report if you've had NSF funding ❌ Don't be overly ambitious - Reviewers will see through unrealistic plans ❌ Don't skip data management plan - Required for all proposals ❌ Don't forget biosketches for all personnel - Common mistake ❌ Don't submit at deadline - Technical issues happen ❌ Don't ignore program solicitation - Requirements vary by program ❌ Don't assume reviewers know your work - Provide context
Resources and Links
- NSF Homepage: https://www.nsf.gov
- Award Search: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/
- Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG): https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg
- FastLane: https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/
- Research.gov: https://www.research.gov/
- Broader Impacts Resources: https://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/special/broaderimpacts/
- NSF Funding Statistics: https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/
Key Takeaway: NSF values both scientific excellence (Intellectual Merit) and societal benefit (Broader Impacts) equally. Successful proposals demonstrate innovative, feasible research that advances knowledge while contributing to education, diversity, infrastructure, or societal well-being in specific, measurable ways.