EAPSI 2014

[guttata]

http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5284

 

Thread for anyone applying to this program this year. I've made contact with a PI and received a tentative agreement for hosting, but I'm happy to see a later deadline this year (Nov. 25) as I'm prepping a DDIG and GRF proposal prior to said deadline. 

 

I'd welcome any tips/tricks/hints/stories from previous EAPSI applicants/fellows as well!

[Pauli]

Ah yes, it's that time of year again....

[guttata]

There was a request in another thread for documentation that is no longer available while NSF websites are disabled. Here is what I've got available:

 

Solicitation: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/101723524/nsf13593.pdf

Application Guide: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/101723524/Apply_Guide_2014.pdf

Australia Handbook: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/101723524/Australia_Handbook.pdf

[nhyn]

I finally was able to find a few things through google cache as well, but was not able to find the application guide, so this is very helpful. Thanks!

[eliz_3]

Thanks for posting, guttata! That's really helpful. Also, has anyone here applied before, and does anyone have the list of participating institutions that's normally supposed to be on the NFS site?

[Pauli]

Yeah, I was in the program in 2012 and 2013. The list of participating institutions can be found in the country program handbooks, but I think those docs are inaccessible until the sites are back online. But almost all major research institutions for that country will definitely be participating. In the mean time, your best bet would be to contact the potential host's department to inquire. If they've previously hosted EAPSI fellows, then they should still be a participating institution. You could also contact the potential host country's NSF-equivalent to inquire, since the EAPSI program is a collaboration between NSF for us and the corresponding research science division for the host country (e.g., NRF for Singapore, NSC for Taiwan).

[eliz_3]

Thanks, Pauli. Where did you go in 2012 and 13? Also, I think I saw in last year's thread that you offered to share your old app materials. Does that offer still stand? No problem, if not!

[catface]

I can upload the NZ handbook if anyone is interested.

 

I have a question for anyone who's won before: how country-specific was your project?

 

I'm going to put two alternative locations down because it's a number games, but even if I am in Aus my project will entirely be about NZ. I hope the reviewers see that as a reason to only send me to NZ (assuming the work has merit and whatnot).

[guttata]

I'm going to put two alternative locations down because it's a number games, 

 

This seems a little odd to me as so much of the application is built around communication with your prospective host - Summary of discussions, letter that they will host you, IACUC/IRB approval from your institution and the equivalent from the host school... How does that work?

[Pauli]

eliz_3:

• 2012 was Taiwan, 2013 was Singapore.
• I messaged you the contents as well a couple days ago.

catface:

• I was not country-specific for Taiwan, since less people applied to that host country and I believe the committee focused more on the strength of the research proposal. For Singapore, I was very country-specific since Singapore is one of the more competitive host countries due to its attractiveness as a country with native English fluency (the other being Australia and New Zealand).
• According to previous EAPSI fellows, if you write a research proposal for those competitive countries that could possibly be done in the other host countries, you will almost be guaranteed to be rejected, especially for Australia and New Zealand, since that's just how competitive those host countries in particular are.
• For NSF EAPSI, it's totally not a numbers game, but on how strong the potential collaboration is. I think your application looks much stronger if you only list 1 country, since the committee will think you're more serious about the first-choice than another applicant who lists three. That is, listing only one country makes it look like you're much more invested in research abroad in that country and not going there simply because you just wanted to go to Asia/Pacific. From speaking with the other fellows, I didn't really know anyone accepted who listed more than 1.  I think listing more than one applies to people who have strong collaborators in multiple countries and may have encountered issues with securing hosting with the top-choice after acceptance.
• But if you do decide to list more than one potential host country, then I think communications with the alternative choices have to be just as strong as the first-choice.

Edited October 13, 2013 by Pauli

[catface]

Guttata:

I don't have to worry about IRB given my sort of research. I've got the letter and whatnot as well.

Pauli:

Thanks for the perspective. I was of the same mind regarding more than one host location as well, but my advisor thinks differently. Plus, I know a guy in Aus almost as well as my potential host in NZ.

I'd love to read through your successful applications as well if you are still willing to share.

[nhyn]

Hi all - I couldn't make it to the webminar, was there anything important that I should take note of?

Thanks!

Edited October 30, 2013 by nhyn

[liltove]

In case you didn't see it, they've posted the webinar slides on the main EAPSI website now.

[samtheman]

Does anyone know how competitive the Japan program is? I guess there are a lot of slots, but it seems like a lot of people would want to go to japan.

[guttata]

In discussions from previous years threads, the most popular seem to be Australia and NZ - which as English-speaking countries, comes as no surprise to me. Funding rates for those countries were reported to be ~25% or less. In other, non English-speaking countries, funding rates may exceed 50%. When the funding rate for most NSF awards is 10% or less (even the GRF is only ~16%) even a funding rate of 25% is pretty great, and approaching 50% is borderline absurd. When I was first told of the program, the overall funding rate (regardless of country breakdown) was nearly 60%.

 

Oops, found the old comment I was thinking of: 

[catface]

Woo, just submitted. Now, the waiting game.

 

BTW, check out this report for info on acceptance rates (and other interesting bits of info):

http://www.nsftokyo.org/EAPSI-Report-Final-Full-4-23-12.pdf

[guttata]

Has anyone else had difficulties creating a proposal in FastLane? Any time I attempted to create a cover sheet or fill out an application form it would give my some error line about "You must be registered as an individual..." Seems a bit odd, as I was logged into my account and used this account to submit a DDIG not 2 weeks ago. Advisor, NSF coordinator, and I were all out of ideas, so I created a new account and everything filled out like a charm. Seems exceedingly annoying to have 2 active FastLane accounts, however...

[Hanmyo]

Guttata - I had the same problem at one point, but I called in and they clarified where in the application I had made my mistake. I think it was one of the early sections where I had typed in my university for my research location or something, whereas it was supposed to just list my name. I'm sure if you called in they could help you. =)

[Hanmyo]

I'm personally having a hard time deciding how the Research Plan (part of the Project Description) is different than the Project Summary. I feel like my Project Summary covers all of those aspects. \= Any ideas? Also, are you guys making a separate section for each of the bullet points for the Project Description? I feel like it's a bit repetitive...

[guttata]

I'm personally having a hard time deciding how the Research Plan (part of the Project Description) is different than the Project Summary. I feel like my Project Summary covers all of those aspects. \= Any ideas? Also, are you guys making a separate section for each of the bullet points for the Project Description? I feel like it's a bit repetitive...

 

Look at the application guide i have linked up above. It makes it pretty clear. The typical format for one of these (at least, as dictated for the DDIG) is an Overview paragraph, an Intellectual Merit paragraph, and a Broader Impacts paragraph, labeled as such. It's basically a 1 page summary, so it should be much less in-depth than your Project description (which should be the totality of your research plan).

[Hanmyo]

Thanks for the reply, Guattata. Ya, I have three separate sections for the Project Summary as you mentioned. But then there's the Project Description and it has things like Project Synopsis, Timeline, Research Plan, Future Collaboration, Biography, and whatnot. I think I'll be separating these sections (maybe that's what you're supposed to do, but I'm not sure). How long do you think a good Research Plan should be? I feel like maybe around a page would be good...

[frogism]

for the "responsible conduct of research" training part, the citiprogram website offers 5 flavors of these courses: biomedical, social/behavioral, physical, humanities, and engineering. anyone know what ecological and evolutionary studies of non-model organisms fall under?

 

[hokievt2010]

Thanks for the reply, Guattata. Ya, I have three separate sections for the Project Summary as you mentioned. But then there's the Project Description and it has things like Project Synopsis, Timeline, Research Plan, Future Collaboration, Biography, and whatnot. I think I'll be separating these sections (maybe that's what you're supposed to do, but I'm not sure). How long do you think a good Research Plan should be? I feel like maybe around a page would be good...

 

I was an EAPSI fellow in Japan this past summer and here's how I organized those sections in my application (not sure if they've changed the requirements).  My Project Summary was a little less than a page long and split into two paragraphs, one for Intellectual Merit and the other for Broader Impacts.  For the Project Description I put each section under its own bold header and allotted 1 paragraph for the synopsis, the rest of that first page for the timeline (1 short statement per week), about 1 page for background, 1 page for the research plan, 1 page for proposed host and justification (in addition to my primary host I visited 2 other labs and gave overviews of the main scientists there too), about half a page for the cultural and scientific value, and a 2-sentence paragraph about my advisor in the US.  With 3 moderate sized figures that easily filled up 5 pages.  Hopefully that's helpful for you.

[guttata]

for the "responsible conduct of research" training part, the citiprogram website offers 5 flavors of these courses: biomedical, social/behavioral, physical, humanities, and engineering. anyone know what ecological and evolutionary studies of non-model organisms fall under?

 

I'm curious about the RCR requirements. So far as I know, I've never received any and certainly don't have any certificates. What information I can find about it says that it's required for students and researchers paid off of NSF grants awarded in 2010 or later. Besides the fact that I'm not paid off an NSF grant, our last grant  was awarded in 2009, and I found a statement that essentially said I was grandfathered in and not required; thus, I've got nothing to report. Anyone got any insight?

 

Frogism, you might check with your institution. The citiprogram site is just one option, you can also receive training through your institution. They might have something more specific/appropriate available.

[Hanmyo]

I was an EAPSI fellow in Japan this past summer and here's how I organized those sections in my application (not sure if they've changed the requirements).  My Project Summary was a little less than a page long and split into two paragraphs, one for Intellectual Merit and the other for Broader Impacts.  For the Project Description I put each section under its own bold header and allotted 1 paragraph for the synopsis, the rest of that first page for the timeline (1 short statement per week), about 1 page for background, 1 page for the research plan, 1 page for proposed host and justification (in addition to my primary host I visited 2 other labs and gave overviews of the main scientists there too), about half a page for the cultural and scientific value, and a 2-sentence paragraph about my advisor in the US.  With 3 moderate sized figures that easily filled up 5 pages.  Hopefully that's helpful for you.

 

Thanks, hokievt2010, that's definitely helpful and sounds similar to what I was thinking. I managed to find a copy of last year's application guide. It looks the only two differences between our years are: 1.) our project summary has 3 parts (yours + overview), and 2.) yours doesn't ask if you have any Responsible Conduct of Research training. Anyway, definitely very helpful information! Thanks!