PNW_

I sent an email to NSERC asking this question and instead of giving me a date, they just gave me my ranking in the email text (no formal document). I guess instead of waiting for a document upload, you may as well send an email as well.

I feel for you. Last year I looked up several award winners in my committee and a few of them had one 1st author and maybe a co-authorship or two and a couple individuals even had no 1st authorships. My 'stats' are similar to yours but with additional co-authorships and longer work experience. My impression (though this is pure speculation) is that the reviewers often have a specific type of applicant in mind and when you deviate from the formula, you need to work pretty hard at emphasizing why you're still deserving. I know a lot of applicants talk #pubs, previous big scholarships etc. but based on my experience and sleuthing, it seems something else is also at play (e.g. luck, wording or writing style). Speaking of having a sexy research subject, in my proposal I made minor changes to further emphasize the project's appeal and dropped a couple of the more technical sentences. One theme I noticed in previous award winner's applications, was that there was a lot more talk of relevance than detailed methods (as opposed to what you might have written for you department's candidacy/project proposal). Not sure if this change helped but after my first rejection, I decided to give it a shot. Good luck on your application next year!

I was rejected last year and awarded this year in a very competitive committee. Like a few of you, I struggled to understand why I didn't score higher last year (e.g. ranked bottom 1/4 for experience even though I had professional experience which produced multiple pubs). My supervisor and friends who have NSERCs thought I had a good chance of getting an award because of how I looked on paper vs some other previous winners. Not sure how much luck vs strategy played a role but here is as summary of changes I made between my first and second application: -Wording. I mimicked their own language as well as writing style from previous award winners. I used their keywords throughout my personal statement. I did some digging and found this repository which I used for writing style: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1EszlHbIctBJZ0HbnNwP5b75YwIhPLGdpgl6KrhZkmBQ/htmlview# Reviewed Appendix A of the Selection committee guide: https://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/_doc/Students-Etudiants/SelectionCommitteeGuide_e.pdf I used this appendix to identify 'key words'. -References. I suggested/provided my references specific examples (academic and experience) and key words to use. In an NSERC Q&A session I came across, someone mentioned that if you aren't able to fit all your examples relevant to selection criteria, give the extras to your references so they can state them for you. -Delays/gaps. I specifically stated why I took longer than expected to graduate. For example, my undergrad was longer than 4 years because I did co-op. One piece of advice I got was that this kind of delay needs to be spelled out (even though the experience section would reflect the same info). For those of you facing disappointment, I'm sorry you're going through this. This is not a reflection of your ability.