2618 Nstc Guidelines 0e71e945

Taiwan NSTC (National Science and Technology Council) Proposal Guidelines

⚠️ IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: This guide is based on publicly available information and general academic writing principles. Always consult the official NSTC website and your specific program's solicitation for the most accurate and up-to-date requirements. Requirements may vary by field, program type, and year.

Overview

Official Name: 國家科學及技術委員會 (National Science and Technology Council, NSTC)
Former Name: 科技部 (Ministry of Science and Technology, MOST)
Official Website: https://www.nstc.gov.tw/

Mission: Advance Taiwan's scientific and technological development through research funding, with emphasis on scientific breakthrough, industrial application, and societal impact.

CM03: Research Proposal Content (研究計畫內容)

CM03 is the core technical document of your NSTC proposal. It is officially titled "Contents of Grant Proposal" (計畫書本文).

Official Format Requirements

Based on official NSTC documentation:

Paper Size: A4 (29.7 cm × 21 cm)

Font:

• Chinese: PMingLiU (新細明體) or BiauKai (標楷體)
• English: Times New Roman or Arial
• Size: 12-point minimum

Spacing: Single space for English; no extra spacing between lines for Chinese

Page Limits (varies by field and program type):

• Humanities: Individual 1-year: 30 pages; Multi-year: 45 pages
• Engineering: Individual 1-year: 20 pages; Multi-year: 25 pages
• Natural Sciences: Individual: 30 pages; Integrated: 45 pages
• Life Sciences: Individual: 25 pages
• ⚠️ CRITICAL: Page limits include references and figures. Exceeding limits may result in automatic rejection.

File Format: PDF recommended for submission

Required Content Sections

Based on official CM03 templates, the proposal must include:

1. Abstract (摘要)

Requirements:

• Chinese abstract: Maximum 500 characters
• English abstract: Maximum 500 words
• Keywords: 3-5 keywords in both languages

Content:

• Research background and problem statement
• Research objectives
• Key methods and approaches
• Expected outcomes and impact

2. Research Background and Objectives (研究計畫之背景及目的)

Required Elements:

• Problem statement and significance
• Research originality and innovation
• Expected impact
• Review of domestic and international related research
• Important references with critical evaluation
• For continuing projects: Progress from previous year

3. Research Methods, Steps, and Timeline (研究方法、進行步驟及執行進度)

Required Elements:

• Research principles and methodology
• Justification for chosen methods
• Innovative aspects of the approach
• Anticipated problems and solutions
• Equipment and instrumentation needs
• For international travel: Justification and expected benefits
• Timeline: Year-by-year breakdown of activities

4. Expected Outcomes (預期完成之工作項目及成果)

Required Elements:

• Expected research tasks (by year)
• Personnel training plans
• Expected outputs:
  • Journal articles (specify target journals)
  • Conference papers
  • Patents
  • Technology transfer
  • Other deliverables

114年度 (2025) Application Requirements

Based on official announcements:

Application Method: Fully online through NSTC Academic Research Service Network (學術研發服務網)

Project Start Date: Most projects begin August 1, 2025 (114年8月1日)

Academic Ethics Requirement:

• First-time applicants and first-time participants must complete at least 6 hours of academic ethics training within 3 years before submission
• Must provide certification

Thesis Disclosure:

• If proposal content involves student theses supervised by the PI, it must be clearly disclosed or cited
• Already published work (including student theses) should not be hidden as new research content

Budget Categories (經費編列)

Based on official guidelines:

Personnel (人事費):

• Postdoctoral researchers
• Research assistants
• Part-time staff
• Note: PI salary typically not allowed

Equipment (設備費):

• Items exceeding NT$10,000 with service life > 2 years
• Items exceeding NT$200,000 may require price appraisal

Consumables (耗材費):

• Lab supplies, reagents, software licenses

Travel (差旅費):

• Domestic and international conferences
• Research collaborations

Other (其他費用):

• Publication fees, data collection, outsourcing

Review Criteria

Note: Specific scoring weights are not publicly disclosed by NSTC. The following are general evaluation dimensions based on academic practice:

1. Innovation (創新性): Novelty of concept and approach
2. Feasibility (可行性): Methodology soundness and preliminary data
3. PI Capability (主持人研究能力): Track record and expertise
4. Value (價值): Academic contribution and societal/industrial impact

Official Resources

NSTC Website: https://www.nstc.gov.tw/

Application System: Access through "學術研發服務網" (Academic Research Service Network)

Help Desk:

• Computer/System Issues: 0800-212-058 or (02)2737-7592
• Regulation Questions: (02)2737-7440, 7568, 7847, 7980, 8010

Important: Always download the latest application forms and guidelines from the official NSTC website under "專題研究計畫專區" (Research Project Area).

LaTeX Templates

For those who prefer LaTeX for proposal writing, there are excellent community-contributed templates available:

Official CTAN Package (Recommended)

nstc-proposal - Professional LaTeX classes for NSTC proposals:

• GitHub: https://github.com/L-TChen/nstc-proposal
• CTAN: Available via tlmgr install nstc-proposal
• Supports: Both CM03 and CM302 (bibliography format)
• Features:
  • Compatible with pdfLaTeX and XeTeX
  • Bilingual support (Chinese/English)
  • Pre-defined section commands (\ProposalBackground, \ProposalMethod, \ProposalPlan, \ProposalIntegration)
  • Multiple font options (standard, Libertine, KaiTi)
  • Proper formatting for NSTC requirements

Installation:

# Via TeX package manager (easiest)
tlmgr install nstc-proposal

# Or manual installation from GitHub
git clone https://github.com/L-TChen/nstc-proposal.git
cd nstc-proposal
latex nstc-proposal.ins

Basic Usage Example:

\documentclass{nstc-cm03}
\usepackage{microtype}

\begin{document}
\ProposalBackground
% Your content here

\ProposalMethod
% Your content here

\ProposalPlan
% Your content here

\nocite{*}
\bibliographystyle{plain}
\bibliography{references}
\end{document}

Alternative Templates

Engineering Division Template:

• GitHub: https://github.com/mcps5601/NSTC-proposal-LaTeX
• Provides CM03 format specifically for Engineering Division (工程司)
• Note: Format requirements may differ by division

Overleaf Templates:

1. audachang's CM03 Template (Recommended for Overleaf users):

   • GitHub: https://github.com/audachang/taiwan-nstc-cm03-template
   • Overleaf: Direct import from GitHub
   • Features:
     • Includes official CM03.doc file for reference
     • Uses XeCJK with BiauKai (標楷體) font for Traditional Chinese
     • Organized structure with separate section files (background.tex, methods.tex, expected_outcomes.tex)
     • Important: Must use XeLaTeX or LuaLaTeX compiler
   • Based on Chen Wen-sheng's template

2. Other Overleaf Templates:

   • Search for "國科會研究計畫內容: CM03" on Overleaf
   • Various community-contributed templates available

⚠️ Important: These are community-contributed templates. Always verify that the format complies with the latest official NSTC requirements for your specific field and program type. The nstc-proposal CTAN package is regularly maintained and is the most reliable option.

Practical Insights from Reviewers

📚 Source: This section is based on "國科會計畫撰寫經驗分享" by Prof. Huang You-Ping (黃有評), President of National Penghu University of Science and Technology. These insights reflect the reviewer's perspective and are particularly relevant for Engineering Division proposals.

⚠️ Important: Scoring thresholds and specific criteria may vary by division (Humanities, Engineering, Natural Sciences, Life Sciences, etc.). Always check with your specific field's requirements.

Understanding the Scoring System

Based on Engineering Division (工程司) - Automation/Control field experience:

Scoring Thresholds:

• 92+ points (Top 5%): Outstanding research level - eligible for Distinguished Research Award (傑出研究獎)
• 88+ points (Top 15%): Required threshold if applying for a second concurrent project
• 81+ points (Top 54-55%): Passing threshold - proposals scoring 81 or above are recommended for approval
• 80 points or below: Not recommended for approval

Key Insight: The difference between "passing" (81) and "excellent" (88+) often lies in the strength of preliminary data, clarity of innovation, and demonstrated feasibility.

Section-by-Section Writing Strategies

Abstract (摘要)

Reviewer Expectations:

• Must demonstrate innovation and problem-solving strategy immediately
• Should capture attention in the first reading
• Clearly state what makes this proposal different from existing work

Critical Question: Does the abstract make the reviewer want to read more?

Research Background and Motivation (研究背景及目的)

What Reviewers Look For:

• Clear problem definition: Is the core problem well-defined?
• Reasonable design and objectives: Are the goals achievable and well-justified?
• Logical flow: Does the background naturally lead to your research objectives?

Common Weakness: Vague problem statements that don't clearly identify what gap you're filling.

Literature Review (文獻探討)

Quality Over Quantity:

• Select highly relevant literature, not just many papers
• Critical synthesis: Don't just list papers - analyze strengths, weaknesses, and gaps
• Recency matters: Include publications from the last 2-3 years to show awareness of current state-of-the-art
• Strategic positioning: Use literature review to guide readers toward your research objectives

Reviewer's Perspective: A well-curated 20-paper review with critical analysis is far superior to a 50-paper list without synthesis.

Research Methods and Implementation (研究方法、進行步驟及執行進度)

Feasibility is Critical:

• Avoid over-idealization: Proposals that are too ambitious without clear mitigation strategies often fail
• Logical progression: Each step should follow naturally from the previous one
• Comparison with existing methods: Clearly show how your approach differs and why it's better
• Contingency planning: Address potential problems and provide alternative approaches

Red Flags for Reviewers:

• Methods that are too difficult without demonstrated capability
• Lack of logical connection between steps
• No discussion of potential challenges
• Missing preliminary data for novel approaches

Expected Outcomes (預期完成之工作項目及成果)

Be Specific and Quantifiable:

• ✅ Good: "Improve system efficiency by 15% compared to baseline method X"
• ❌ Weak: "Improve system efficiency"

Include Multiple Dimensions:

• Academic value: Target journals and expected number of publications
• Economic benefits: Potential industrial applications
• Talent cultivation: Number and level of students to be trained

Budget Preparation Tips

Alignment with Research Plan:

• Every budget item should directly support a specific research activity
• Personnel costs should reflect actual time commitment
• Equipment justification should explain why existing facilities are insufficient

International Conference Travel:

• Typical budget: NT$70,000 - 100,000
• Must justify: Explain your track record of international conference participation and contributions
• Show how conference attendance benefits the research

Reviewer's Check: Does the budget match the proposed activities? Are there unexplained large expenses?

Strategic Career Advice

For New Faculty:

1. Always apply: New investigators have certain advantages - don't miss the opportunity
2. Build foundation: Use undergraduate research projects (大專學生研究計畫) to develop preliminary data
3. Self-assessment: Use the review criteria checklist to evaluate your proposal before submission

Building Academic Visibility:

• Join professional societies (e.g., IEEE, CAA)
• Serve as reviewer for journals and conferences
• Take on roles as Associate Editor (AE) or board member
• Why it matters: Reviewers are more likely to recognize and trust researchers who are active in the community

Preparation and Mindset

Timeline:

• Start early: Successful proposals require multiple revisions
• Iterate: Don't wait until the deadline to start writing
• Seek feedback: Have colleagues review your draft

Handling Rejection:

• Learn from feedback: Carefully review all reviewer comments
• Revise and resubmit: Address criticisms in next submission
• Consider alternatives: If fundamental issues exist, consider different program types or focus areas

Professional Presentation:

• Figures and tables: Must be clear, numbered, and properly labeled
• Formatting: Professional layout demonstrates attention to detail
• Proofreading: Typos and formatting errors suggest carelessness

Self-Assessment Checklist

Before submitting, ask yourself:

Innovation:

• Is my approach genuinely novel or just incremental?
• Have I clearly explained what's new compared to existing work?
• Do I have evidence (preliminary data) that my innovation is feasible?

Feasibility:

• Are my methods well-described and logical?
• Do I have the necessary expertise and resources?
• Have I addressed potential problems?
• Is my timeline realistic?

Impact:

• Are my expected outcomes specific and measurable?
• Have I explained both academic and practical value?
• Does my proposal align with national priorities or industrial needs?

Presentation:

• Are all figures clear and properly labeled?
• Is the writing clear and free of errors?
• Does the budget align with proposed activities?
• Have I included all required sections?

Advanced Writing Strategies from Government Reviewers

📚 Sources: This section integrates insights from two comprehensive guides:

1. "如何提升政府科技發展計畫書撰寫品質" by Prof. Guo Yao-Huang (郭耀煌教授)
2. "如何提升政府科技發展計畫書撰寫品質" by President Wei Yao-Hui (魏耀揮校長), Mackay Medical College

These guides are based on extensive experience reviewing government science and technology proposals (including NSTC and other ministry programs).

The Closed-Loop Logic Framework

Core Principle: A high-quality proposal must demonstrate complete logical coherence from problem to performance.

The Loop:

Problem Discovery → Goal Definition → Strategy Formulation →
Concrete Measures → Execution Plan → Performance Indicators (KPI)

Critical Requirement: Every element must connect logically.

Example of Broken Logic:

• ❌ Goal: Improve industrial technology
• ❌ Strategy: Provide student scholarships
• Problem: The strategy doesn't directly support the goal

Example of Closed Logic:

• ✅ Goal: Improve industrial technology
• ✅ Strategy: Develop advanced manufacturing process
• ✅ Measures: Establish testing facility, train engineers
• ✅ KPI: Achieve 15% efficiency improvement, train 20 engineers

SMART Principle for Proposal Planning

Before writing, ensure your proposal meets SMART criteria:

Four Dimensions of Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate proposals across four key dimensions:

1. Necessity (需求性)

• Does it align with national science and technology policies?
• Is there urgent need for this research?
• Why must this problem be solved now?
• Why is your institution the right one to do this?

Weak Proposal: Generic problem statement without urgency
Strong Proposal: Cites specific policy documents, demonstrates time-sensitive need

2. Feasibility (可行性)

• Are the goals achievable within the proposed timeline?
• Is the team qualified (track record, expertise)?
• Are the methods sound and well-justified?
• Is the management plan realistic?

Red Flag: Overly ambitious goals without preliminary data or risk mitigation

3. Appropriateness (適當性)

• Does the budget match the work scope?
• Are personnel allocations reasonable?
• Is existing equipment utilized effectively?
• Are expensive items properly justified?

Reviewer's Question: Why do you need this expensive equipment when similar facilities exist?

4. Impact and Benefits (效益與影響)

• Beyond academic output, what are the societal effects?
• Economic benefits or industrial applications?
• Environmental, health, or national security impacts?
• Long-term sustainability?

Key Insight: Reviewers increasingly value societal impact over pure academic metrics.

Performance Indicators (KPI): The Three Levels

Understanding the difference between input, output, and outcome is critical:

Example Comparison:

• ❌ Weak KPI: "Publish 3 papers" (output only)
• ✅ Strong KPI: "Publish 3 papers in Q1 journals AND transfer technology to 2 companies, generating NT$5M in licensing revenue" (output + outcome)

KPI Best Practices:

• Relevance: Directly tied to project goals
• Ease: Simple to measure and verify
• Credibility: Based on realistic projections
• Cost-efficiency: Achievable within budget

Progressive Targets: Show year-by-year progress, not just final goals

• Year 1: 30% completion
• Year 2: 70% completion
• Year 3: 100% completion + sustainability plan

Practical Analysis Tools

SWOT Analysis

Use SWOT to position your proposal strategically:

Critical: Don't just list SWOT - provide response strategies for Weaknesses and Threats.

Example:

• Weakness: Lack of high-performance computing cluster
• Response: Partner with National Center for High-performance Computing (國網中心)

Fishbone Diagram (魚骨圖)

Use fishbone diagrams to demonstrate deep problem understanding:

                    Main Problem
                         ↑
        ┌───────┬────────┼────────┬───────┐
    Factor 1  Factor 2  Factor 3  Factor 4
        │         │         │         │
    Sub-causes Sub-causes Sub-causes Sub-causes

Purpose: Show reviewers you've thoroughly analyzed root causes, not just symptoms.

Gantt Chart

For complex multi-year projects, include Gantt charts to show:

• Task dependencies
• Resource allocation over time
• Milestones and deliverables
• Risk management checkpoints

Professional Presentation: Use visual tools to demonstrate project management capability.

Budget Preparation: Critical Details

Necessity and Reasonableness

The Two Questions Every Budget Item Must Answer:

1. Why is this necessary? (Link to specific research activity)
2. How was this calculated? (Show detailed breakdown)

Example - Equipment Justification:

• ❌ Weak: "High-performance workstation: NT$150,000"
• ✅ Strong: "High-performance workstation (Intel Xeon 32-core, 128GB RAM, RTX 4090 GPU) for deep learning model training: NT$150,000. Current lab computers (8GB RAM) cannot handle the 50GB dataset required for Aim 2. Estimated training time reduction from 2 weeks to 2 days."

Budget Category Separation

Critical Rule: Strictly separate "recurrent" (經常門) and "capital" (資本門) expenses.

Recurrent (經常門):

• Personnel salaries
• Travel expenses
• Consumables
• Publication fees

Capital (資本門):

• Equipment ≥ NT$10,000 with lifespan ≥ 2 years
• Items ≥ NT$200,000 may require price comparison

Forbidden: Using science and technology funds for general administrative work

Outsourcing (委辦費用)

If including outsourcing costs:

• Specify exact scope of work
• Explain why in-house execution is not feasible
• Describe selection and oversight procedures
• Provide cost breakdown

International Conference Travel

Typical Range: NT$70,000 - 100,000

Required Justification:

• Your track record of international presentations
• Specific conference name and dates (if known)
• How attendance benefits the research (networking, collaboration, dissemination)
• Why this conference is important for your field

Common Review Comments to Avoid

Based on actual reviewer feedback from government proposals:

1. Vague Objectives

• ❌ "Promote development of..."
• ❌ "Research on..."
• ✅ "Develop algorithm achieving 95% accuracy on benchmark X"

2. Redundancy and Overlap

• Problem: Multiple agencies funding similar work
• Solution: Clearly differentiate from existing programs; coordinate with other ministries before submission

3. Lack of Continuity Explanation

• For continuing projects: Must explain relationship between previous results and new proposal
• Show how you're building on (not repeating) past work

4. Technology Push Without Market Pull

• Problem: Developing technology without considering industry needs or market readiness
• Solution: Include industry partner letters, market analysis, or user needs assessment

5. Ignoring Negative Impacts

• Common oversight: Privacy concerns, environmental impact, ethical issues
• Solution: Include risk assessment and mitigation strategies

6. Excessive Administrative Overhead

• Problem: Too many project management offices (PMO) or coordinators
• Solution: Justify administrative structure based on project complexity

7. Missing Customer Definition

• Question: Who will use your research results?
• Answer: Clearly define your target users/beneficiaries

Writing for the Reviewer

Remember: You're writing for busy reviewers, not for yourself.

Best Practices:

1. Use visual aids: Replace dense text with figures, tables, flowcharts
2. Data-driven: Support claims with specific numbers and citations
3. Objective correctness: Verify all data and calculations
4. Logical flow: Each section should naturally lead to the next
5. Professional polish: Clean formatting, no typos, consistent terminology

Critical Question: After reading your abstract, does the reviewer want to read more?

Policy Alignment

Essential: Connect your research to national priorities.

How to Demonstrate Alignment:

• Cite specific government policy documents (e.g., "六大核心戰略產業")
• Reference national development plans
• Show how your research addresses societal needs
• Link to ministry-specific priorities

Example: "This research directly supports Taiwan's '5+2 Innovative Industries' initiative, specifically the biomedical sector, by developing..."

Exit Strategy (For Multi-Year Projects)

Requirement: Long-term projects must include sustainability plans.

Key Questions:

• What happens when funding ends?
• How will results be maintained or transferred?
• What are the success/failure criteria for early termination?

Components:

• Technology transfer plan
• Industry partnership agreements
• Follow-on funding strategy
• Publication and dissemination plan

Evaluation Mechanisms

For public service projects: Include feedback and assessment systems.

Components:

• User satisfaction surveys
• Performance metrics tracking
• Regular review milestones
• Adjustment mechanisms based on feedback

Common Mistakes to Avoid

1. Exceeding page limits → Automatic rejection
2. Missing required sections → Incomplete application
3. Incorrect font or formatting → Non-compliance
4. Lack of preliminary data (for applicable programs) → Reduced competitiveness
5. Vague methodology → Feasibility concerns
6. No connection to Taiwan context → Lower impact score

Final Checklist

Before submission:

• Check specific program solicitation for field-specific requirements
• Verify page limit for your field and program type
• Complete academic ethics training (if required)
• Prepare both Chinese and English abstracts
• Include all required forms (CM01, CM02, CM03, etc.)
• Verify all formatting requirements
• Proofread for errors
• Submit through official online system before deadline

Disclaimer

This guide is for reference only. Official requirements may change annually and vary by program. Always consult:

1. The latest official NSTC announcements (徵求公告)
2. Your specific program's application guidelines
3. Your institution's research office
4. Senior colleagues in your field

For the most authoritative information, visit: https://www.nstc.gov.tw/