Jump to content

NSF DDIG Anthropology 2015


ohmigod

Recommended Posts

On 11/16/2015, 5:48:47, farflung said:

I received a "your proposal was declined" e-mail from the NSF DDIG Program Director today, 11/16. My panel date was 10/19, for future reference. Reviews will be made available to the PI within the next few weeks.

I also got a rejection......expected but still feel sad...

Now I am thinking: Resubmit or not (sighs) 

Edited by meteor71131
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On November 19, 2015 at 12:29:02 AM, meteor71131 said:

I also got a rejection......expected but still feel sad...

Now I am thinking: Resubmit or not (sighs) 

Did you receive reviews yet? Often the panel statement will indicate how strong the panel thought the proposal was overall, and therefore what kind of chances you may have for future submissions. Sometimes the panel is quite conflicted about whether to award a grant yet or not -- some will clearly think it's ready, and others will not. If you're in that kind of situation, I would definitely try to respond to their comments and resubmit.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, farflung said:

Did you receive reviews yet? Often the panel statement will indicate how strong the panel thought the proposal was overall, and therefore what kind of chances you may have for future submissions. Sometimes the panel is quite conflicted about whether to award a grant yet or not -- some will clearly think it's ready, and others will not. If you're in that kind of situation, I would definitely try to respond to their comments and resubmit.  

No, not yet. Did you receive reviewers yet? It seems like that I will not be able to access the reviews. Only the PI can get access to the reviews.....

I read from NSF's website: The rating scale for written reviews will be: Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, and Poor   and the overall rating:  "High Priority", "Medium Priority", "Low Priority", and "Not Competitive" 

I was wondering if the proposals with "high priority" are the award proposal, do "medium priority" mean that "you should revise and resubmit" while "low priority" and "not competitive" means "forget it and move on?"  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, meteor71131 said:

No, not yet. Did you receive reviewers yet? It seems like that I will not be able to access the reviews. Only the PI can get access to the reviews.....

I read from NSF's website: The rating scale for written reviews will be: Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, and Poor   and the overall rating:  "High Priority", "Medium Priority", "Low Priority", and "Not Competitive" 

I was wondering if the proposals with "high priority" are the award proposal, do "medium priority" mean that "you should revise and resubmit" while "low priority" and "not competitive" means "forget it and move on?"  

No, I have not received reviews either. This is the first application cycle that the Program Director -- the person who e-mailed you about your proposal status -- cannot release reviews early (before the 'official' NSF letter comes to your institution). And now they ONLY let PIs access the reviews! So frustrating. For the Jan 2015 deadline, I was able to access my panel reviews only 2 weeks after the panel met, which was long before the official rejection letter came. 

The NSF review and ranking system is different than what you described. It goes in two phases.

PHASE I: First, your proposal is reviewed by 3 anonymous readers. They rank the proposal on the Excellent-Very Good- Good-Fair-Poor scale. You want to get mostly Goods/VeryGoods/Excellents, because your score during this round determines whether your proposal will be reviewed and discussed by the panel  (the panel consists of several scholars across anthropological subfields who meet in person at the NSF to read proposals). You want your proposal to be talked about, that means you got pretty far!

PHASE II: Second, your proposal is discussed at the NSF panel meeting. They discuss the merits of your proposal, and often debate about it. During the panel meeting, proposals are sorted into "competitive" and "not competitive" categories. Anyone who is in the "Competitive" category has been recommended for a grant. That is not us. "Competitive" proposals are sent up the chain to be funded in order of priority (high, medium, or low priority). They literally fund the #1 project first, #2 project second, etc down the list (so that's where the high/medium/low priority thing you mentioned comes in).

We are both in the "Not Competitive" category since we were not recommended for funding. There are two "Not Competitive" categories -- "Needs Moderate Revisions" and "Needs Substantial Revisions" (not sure if the wording is exactly right, but you get the idea). Most people end up in the "Needs Substantial Revisions" category, which means you'll have to change quite a bit in the protocol to have a chance next cycle. It's not impossible though! I know someone who got funded the second time around after completing those "substantial revisions" that the reviewers recommended. Some people also end up in the "Needs Moderate Revisions" category. Those proposals were on the cusp of being funded, and were almost always discussed in detail at the panel meetings. Usually it's just 2-3 sections that really need some re-tooling in the protocol to get funded. If your protocol only "needs moderate revisions," I would absolutely revise and resubmit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2015, 11:54:57, farflung said:

No, I have not received reviews either. This is the first application cycle that the Program Director -- the person who e-mailed you about your proposal status -- cannot release reviews early (before the 'official' NSF letter comes to your institution). And now they ONLY let PIs access the reviews! So frustrating. For the Jan 2015 deadline, I was able to access my panel reviews only 2 weeks after the panel met, which was long before the official rejection letter came. 

The NSF review and ranking system is different than what you described. It goes in two phases.

PHASE I: First, your proposal is reviewed by 3 anonymous readers. They rank the proposal on the Excellent-Very Good- Good-Fair-Poor scale. You want to get mostly Goods/VeryGoods/Excellents, because your score during this round determines whether your proposal will be reviewed and discussed by the panel  (the panel consists of several scholars across anthropological subfields who meet in person at the NSF to read proposals). You want your proposal to be talked about, that means you got pretty far!

PHASE II: Second, your proposal is discussed at the NSF panel meeting. They discuss the merits of your proposal, and often debate about it. During the panel meeting, proposals are sorted into "competitive" and "not competitive" categories. Anyone who is in the "Competitive" category has been recommended for a grant. That is not us. "Competitive" proposals are sent up the chain to be funded in order of priority (high, medium, or low priority). They literally fund the #1 project first, #2 project second, etc down the list (so that's where the high/medium/low priority thing you mentioned comes in).

We are both in the "Not Competitive" category since we were not recommended for funding. There are two "Not Competitive" categories -- "Needs Moderate Revisions" and "Needs Substantial Revisions" (not sure if the wording is exactly right, but you get the idea). Most people end up in the "Needs Substantial Revisions" category, which means you'll have to change quite a bit in the protocol to have a chance next cycle. It's not impossible though! I know someone who got funded the second time around after completing those "substantial revisions" that the reviewers recommended. Some people also end up in the "Needs Moderate Revisions" category. Those proposals were on the cusp of being funded, and were almost always discussed in detail at the panel meetings. Usually it's just 2-3 sections that really need some re-tooling in the protocol to get funded. If your protocol only "needs moderate revisions," I would absolutely revise and resubmit. 

Thank you so much for such detailed information,  farflung!! I really learn a lot from you!

I have been reading the NSF website, and it says, "an organization may submit only two proposals (an original submission and if necessary a resubmission) for a particular student over his or her career" Does that mean that each student only allow for one submission and one re-submission (total: twice for DDIG)? 

Is there any anecdotal information that discuss the successful rate for re-submission? Similar to the first submission? If I resubmit my proposal, will it encounter the same reviewers? Will it be possible that you change from A to B based on the reviewers' comments, but the new reviewers suggest B to A? I am sorry if this seems a stupid question...

I also found that many people/webpages/ discuss the importance of contacting with the program officers to get some advice (whether to resubmit or not), does this tip apply for DDIG? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
On November 24, 2015 at 0:53 AM, meteor71131 said:

Thank you so much for such detailed information,  farflung!! I really learn a lot from you!

I have been reading the NSF website, and it says, "an organization may submit only two proposals (an original submission and if necessary a resubmission) for a particular student over his or her career" Does that mean that each student only allow for one submission and one re-submission (total: twice for DDIG)? 

Is there any anecdotal information that discuss the successful rate for re-submission? Similar to the first submission? If I resubmit my proposal, will it encounter the same reviewers? Will it be possible that you change from A to B based on the reviewers' comments, but the new reviewers suggest B to A? I am sorry if this seems a stupid question...

I also found that many people/webpages/ discuss the importance of contacting with the program officers to get some advice (whether to resubmit or not), does this tip apply for DDIG? 

Hey Meteor! Did you reapply DDIG for the Jan 15 2016 deadline? Announcements should be coming out soon I think!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use