National Science Board Meeting - 8/15/2017 Suzi Iacono & Steve Meacham, Office of Integrative Activities 1
Report Overview NSB 77-150 & 84-114 • Executive Summary • Introduction • Proposal & Award Data • Merit Review Process • Appendices 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) 2
Highlights 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 3
60,000 30% Research Proposals and Awards 50,000 25% 40,000 20% Success Rate 30,000 15% 20,000 10% 10,000 5% 0 0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Proposals Awards Success Rate + Preliminary Proposals: 4,520 ~ 10% of total ( Excludes: centers and facilities, equipment and instrumentation grants, conferences and symposia, Small Business Innovation Research grants, and education and training grants ) 4 FY 2009 and FY 2010 include American Recovery and Reinvestment Act awards.
30% 25% Proportion of Proposals 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Women Under-represented Minorities Persons with Disabilities 5
8% 40% Distribution of Proposals by Year 7% 35% 6% 30% Success Rate 5% 25% 4% 20% 3% 15% 2% 10% 1% 5% 0% 0% 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 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] 6
Cumulative Requested $ (Positive = Awards, Negative = Declines) -$25B -$15B -$5B $5B 5=Excellent 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 $3.92 B 4=Very Good 3.8 3.6 Average Review Rating Awarded 3.4 3.2 3=Good Declined 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2=Fair 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 No Score $22.8 B $6.1 B Declined Awarded 7
Merit Review Pilot: Proposals to four EAR programs before and after transition to no deadlines 2013 2014 2015-2016 2016-2017 01/01/2014 - 01/01/2014 - 04/09/2015 - 04/10/2016 - Program 12/31/2014 12/31/2014 04/09/2016 04/09/2017 Geobiology and Low- 203 214 83 83 Temperature Geochemistry Sedimentary Geology and 214 217 119 125 Paleontology Geomorphology and Land- 157 137 68 62 Use Dynamics Hydrologic Sciences 261 237 97 89 • Increases success rates • Reduces burden on investigators and reviewers • No reduction in proposal quality 8
50% 50% 45% 45% Success rates of organizations 40% 40% 35% 35% submitting more than 10 Success Rate Success Rate 30% 30% research proposals 25% 25% 20% 20% 15% 15% 10% 10% 5% 5% 0% 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0% Number of Research Proposals 0 200 400 600 800 45% Organizational Success Rate Number of Research Proposals 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% Variation in average review 15% ratings of proposals from 8 arbitrary 10% 5% organizations (red dots above) 0% 1 2 3 4 5 Average Review Rating ( 1 = Poor, 5 = Excellent ) 9
9% 8% 7% 6% FY 2010 FY 2011 5% FY 2012 4% FY 2013 FY 2014 3% FY 2015 2% FY 2016 1% 0% % of research % of research % of non- % of non- % of competitive % of competitive proposals awards research research awards proposals awards proposals 10
11
Beth Ann Velo and Tahir Rana, BFA/BD Patrick Southern, OIA David Domanski, EAR 12
Recommend
More recommend
