Office of Integrative Activities 1 Report Overview NSB 77-150 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

National Science Board Meeting - 8/15/2017 Suzi Iacono & Steve Meacham, Office of Integrative Activities

1

Report Overview

• Executive Summary
• Introduction
• Proposal & Award Data
• Merit Review Process
• Appendices

NSB 77-150 & 84-114

2

Changes

• Shorter section on merit review pilots
• No merit review survey this year
• The pre-2009 definition of a “new PI” is not included
• Old Appendix 3 has been split into two (#3 & #4)

Highlights

3

Highlights

• NSF proposal and award rates stable for FY 2013 – FY 2016
• Success rate for competitive proposals = 24.1%
• With preliminary proposals, success rate = 22.6%
• Success rate for research proposals = 21%
• No-deadline pilot continues to lower submission rates
• Proportion of funds awarded to academic institutions = 76%
• 22% of research grants to PIs within 7 years of highest degree
• 7% of research grants went to HBCUs, HSIs or TCUs

4

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Success Rate 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Proposals Awards Success Rate

+ Preliminary Proposals: 4,520 ~ 10% of total

10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 Research Proposals and Awards

(Excludes: centers and facilities, equipment and instrumentation grants, conferences and symposia, Small Business Innovation Research grants, and education and training grants ) FY 2009 and FY 2010 include American Recovery and Reinvestment Act awards.

5

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Proportion of Proposals Women Under-represented Minorities Persons with Disabilities

6

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 Success Rate Distribution of Proposals by Year Years since Highest Degree Proposals from Women Proposals from Men Female S.R. Male S.R.

Proportion of full-time faculty positions occupied by women STEM PhDs in 2013: Junior: 44.9%; Senior: 29.5%. [Source: Science and Engineering Indicators 2016]

7

• $25B
• $15B
• $5B

$5B 5=Excellent 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 4=Very Good 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3=Good 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2=Fair 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 No Score Cumulative Requested $ (Positive = Awards, Negative = Declines) Average Review Rating Awarded Declined

 $3.92 B Declined  $22.8 B Awarded  $6.1 B

8

Merit Review Pilot:

Proposals to four EAR programs before and after transition to no deadlines

Program 2013 2014 2015-2016 2016-2017 01/01/2014 - 12/31/2014 01/01/2014 - 12/31/2014 04/09/2015 - 04/09/2016 04/10/2016 - 04/09/2017 Geobiology and Low- Temperature Geochemistry 203 214 83 83 Sedimentary Geology and Paleontology 214 217 119 125 Geomorphology and Land- Use Dynamics 157 137 68 62 Hydrologic Sciences 261 237 97 89

• Increases success rates
• Reduces burden on investigators and reviewers
• No reduction in proposal quality

9

Success rates of organizations submitting more than 10 research proposals 

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Success Rate Number of Research Proposals

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 200 400 600 800 Success Rate Number of Research Proposals 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 1 2 3 4 5 Organizational Success Rate Average Review Rating ( 1 = Poor, 5 = Excellent )

Variation in average review ratings of proposals from 8 arbitrary

• rganizations (red dots above)

10

0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% % of research proposals % of research awards % of non- research proposals % of non- research awards % of competitive proposals % of competitive awards FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016

11

Beth Ann Velo and Tahir Rana, BFA/BD Patrick Southern, OIA David Domanski, EAR

12