Request for Information (RFI) on National Science Board-National Science Foundation Merit Review Commission Review of NSF's Merit Review Policy and Processes, 68473-68475 [2024-19041]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 165 / Monday, August 26, 2024 / Notices
information provided, will be made
available on https://
www.regulations.gov and https://
www.reginfo.gov.
The public may also examine publicly
available documents at DOL–MSHA,
Office of Standards, Regulations and
Variances, 201 12th Street South, 4th
Floor West, Arlington, VA 22202–5452.
Sign in at the receptionist’s desk on the
4th Floor via the West elevator. Before
visiting MSHA in person, call 202–693–
9455 to make an appointment, in
keeping with the Department of Labor’s
COVID–19 policy. Special health
precautions may be required.
Questions about the information
collection requirements may be directed
to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
notice.
III. Current Actions
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
This information collection request
concerns provisions for Diesel-Powered
Equipment in Underground Coal Mines.
MSHA has updated the data with
respect to the number of respondents,
responses, time burden, and burden
costs supporting this information
collection request from the previous
information collection request.
Type of Review: Extension, without
change, of a currently approved
collection.
Agency: Mine Safety and Health
Administration.
OMB Number: 1219–0119.
Affected Public: Business or other forprofit.
Number of Annual Respondents: 161.
Frequency: On occasion.
Number of Annual Responses:
218,811.
Annual Time Burden: 17,673 hours.
Annual Other Burden Costs:
$398,170.
Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized and
included in the request for Office of
Management and Budget approval of the
proposed information collection
request; they will become a matter of
public record and be available at https://
www.reginfo.gov.
Song-ae Aromie Noe,
Certifying Officer, Mine Safety and Health
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2024–19009 Filed 8–23–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–43–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Aug 23, 2024
Jkt 262001
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Request for Information (RFI) on
National Science Board-National
Science Foundation Merit Review
Commission Review of NSF’s Merit
Review Policy and Processes
National Science Foundation
Request for information.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The National Science Board–
National Science Foundation
Commission on Merit Review (MRX) is
issuing this Request for Information
(RFI) to seek input from interested
individuals and parties to inform the
MRX’s review of NSF’s Merit Review
criteria, policy and processes.
Information on the MRX is available
at https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/committees/
mrxcmte.jsp.
SUMMARY:
Interested individuals and
parties are invited to submit responses
to this Request for Information on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on
Wednesday, September 18, 2024.
ADDRESSES:
Online: Respond to this RFI at the
following url: https://
nsfevaluation.gov1.qualtrics.com/jfe/
form/SV_6xOeZ04jar2xmhU.
Following this link allows you to
access an online form where you can
provide input on up to six topics
described in more detail in the
Supplementary Information section
below. You are encouraged to respond
to only those that are of interest to you.
You may, but are not required to,
provide input on each topic to submit
your response.
Mail: Attn: Portia Flowers, 2415
Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA,
22314, USA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Portia Flowers (703/292–7000,
pflowers@nsf.gov).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Please
refer to definitions provided at the end
of this notice for terms used in these
Information Requests.
DATES:
Information Requests
1. MRX is interested in identifying
opportunities to improve NSF’s current
Merit Review criteria, policy, and
processes. Importantly, this includes
documenting and understanding any
areas of misunderstanding, gaps, or lack
of clarity regarding (a) the three Merit
Review Principles which are the
foundations of the Merit Review
Process, (b) the two statutory Merit
Review Criteria which are used to
evaluate all proposals to NSF, and (c)
the five Merit Review Elements NSF
uses to assess each criterion. Are the
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
68473
Principles, Criteria, and Elements clear?
Could they be improved upon? The
MRX welcomes feedback on any or all
of these, and particularly on the Broader
Impacts Criterion. Chapter 3 of NSF’s
Proposal & Award Policies and
Procedures Guide (PAPPG) defines
terms in this Information Request. See
https://new.nsf.gov/policies/pappg/241/ch-3-proposal-processing-review#amerit-review-principles-and-criteria-af2.
Individuals responding to this request
are encouraged to indicate whether their
perspectives are informed by
experience(s) preparing and/or
reviewing proposals to NSF.
2. NSF strives to conduct a fair,
competitive, transparent Merit Review
process for the selection of projects. To
accomplish this, NSF relies on a process
that considers both the technical aspects
of a proposed project and its potential
to contribute more broadly to advancing
NSF’s mission using the statutory
Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts
Merit Review criteria. MRX invites
suggestions on the implementation of
the Merit Review criteria. We especially
invite feedback that would (a) clarify
how they can be used in preparing and
reviewing proposals, (b) ensure
proposals, reviews, and funding
decisions demonstrate full
consideration of both criteria while
maintaining openness to the full
spectrum of potential activities under
each, and (c) better recognize and
support potentially transformative and
high-risk/high-reward activities.
Individuals responding to this request
are encouraged to indicate whether their
perspectives are informed by
experience(s) preparing and/or
reviewing proposals to NSF.
3. MRX is interested in the
experiences and perspectives of those
who have considered submitting and/or
submitted proposals in the past. We
invite you to share your insights and
describe any opportunities you believe
would improve implementation of the
Merit Review criteria, policy, and
processes based on your experience as
a proposer or investigator. This includes
any experiences that may have
encouraged or dissuaded you from
submitting proposals to NSF. We are
especially interested in learning (a) how
NSF guidance (e.g., as provided in the
NSF PAPPG, program solicitations, or
other funding opportunity
announcements), may have played a
part in your decision(s) whether to
submit proposals, and (b) how NSF
might best support investigators
interested in submitting a proposal to
NSF.
Individuals responding to this request
are encouraged to indicate whether they
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
68474
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 165 / Monday, August 26, 2024 / Notices
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
submitted or decided not to submit a
proposal, and whether these
experiences occurred within the past
five years.
4. MRX is interested in the
experiences and perspectives of those
who have reviewed proposals submitted
to NSF. We invite you to share your
insights and describe any opportunities
you believe would improve
implementation of the Merit Review
criteria, policy, and processes based on
your experience reviewing NSF
proposals.
Individuals responding to this request
are encouraged to indicate whether they
served on a panel and/or as ad hoc
reviewers, and whether these
experiences occurred within the past
five years.
5. MRX is interested in exploring how
NSF could better support awardees in
demonstrating and documenting
outcomes of their awards in advancing
knowledge (Intellectual Merit) and
benefiting society and contributing to
the achievement of specific broader or
societal outcomes (Broader Impacts). We
invite you to share your insights on how
NSF might better support awardees in
demonstrating and documenting
outcomes of their awards without
unnecessarily increasing awardees’
administrative burden of reporting.
Individuals responding to this request
are encouraged to indicate whether their
suggestions are based on experiences as
investigators, users of public outcomes
reports, or another perspective.
6. MRX welcomes any other
comments on or suggestions for
improving NSF’s current Merit Review
criteria, policy, and processes. It also
welcomes information about aspects of
Merit Review criteria, policy and
processes that are currently working
well.
What will NSF do with this information?
MRX will use the information
submitted in response to this RFI to
inform its assessment of the efficacy of
the current Merit Review criteria,
policy, and processes, and to draft
recommendations regarding them. The
information provided will be analyzed
and considered by MRX. Respondents
are advised that the government is
under no obligation to acknowledge
receipt of the information or provide
feedback to respondents with respect to
any information submitted. No
proprietary, classified, confidential, or
sensitive information should be
included in your response submission.
The government reserves the right to use
any non-proprietary technical
information in any resultant
solicitation(s), policies, or procedures.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Aug 23, 2024
Jkt 262001
All submitted information may be
subject to disclosure under the Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) or other
applicable law.
This Notice does not invite research
proposals nor is it a funding
opportunity.
Background
NSB and NSF, with the assistance of
expert third parties, have periodically
re-examined and revised the criteria,
policy, and processes of Merit Review at
NSF. The last time the Board
systematically examined the Merit
Review criteria was in 2010–2011 when
NSB established a Task Force on Merit
Review to examine the Intellectual
Merit and Broader Impacts merit review
criteria and their effectiveness in
achieving NSF’s goals in support of
science and engineering research and
education. At that time, Congress was
considering, and then passed, the
America COMPETES Reauthorization
Act directing NSF to apply the Broader
Impacts criterion to achieve a specific
array of societal goals and charging NSF
to develop policies addressing it. The
2011 Task Force report concluded that
the Merit Review criteria remained
appropriate for evaluating NSF
proposals; however, it provided certain
revisions and clarifications.
Recent events have underscored the
importance of demonstrating that
portfolios of funded projects enable NSF
to meet its statutory mission ‘‘to
promote the progress of science; to
advance the national health, prosperity
and welfare; to secure the national
defense; and for other purposes.’’ In
2022, Congress passed the CHIPS and
Science Act, which directed federal
research agencies to regularly assess,
and update as necessary, policies, and
practices to remove or reduce cultural
and institutional barriers limiting the
recruitment, retention, and success of
groups historically underrepresented in
STEM research careers, including
policies and practices relevant to the
unbiased review of Federal research
applications. Reexamining the Merit
Review policy and process will help
ensure that NSF is best placed to meet
the requirements set out by Congress.
Definitions for Terms Used in This RFI
Merit Review Policy
Principles
1. All NSF projects should be of the
highest quality and have the potential to
advance, if not transform, the frontiers
of knowledge.
2. NSF projects, in the aggregate,
should contribute more broadly to
achieving societal goals. These broader
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
impacts may be accomplished through
the research itself, through activities
that are directly related to specific
research projects, or through activities
that are supported by, but are
complementary to, the project. The
project activities may be based on
previously established and/or
innovative methods and approaches, but
in either case must be well justified.
3. Meaningful assessment and
evaluation of NSF funded projects
should be based on appropriate metrics,
keeping in mind the likely correlation
between the effect of broader impacts
and the resources provided to
implement projects. If the size of the
activity is limited, evaluation of that
activity in isolation is not likely to be
meaningful. Thus, assessing the
effectiveness of these activities may best
be done at a higher, more aggregated,
level than the individual project.
Criteria
Both criteria are to be given full
consideration during the review and
decision-making processes; each
criterion is necessary but neither, by
itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers
must fully address both criteria.
• Intellectual Merit (IM): the potential
for a proposed project to advance
knowledge.
• Broader Impacts (BI): the potential
for a proposed project to benefit society
and contribute to the achievement of
specific, desired societal outcomes.
Elements
1. What is the potential for the
proposed activity to:
a. Advance knowledge and
understanding within its own field or
across different fields (Intellectual
Merit); and
b. Benefit society or advance desired
societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?
2. To what extent do the proposed
activities suggest and explore creative,
original, or potentially transformative
concepts?
3. Is the plan for carrying out the
proposed activities well-reasoned, wellorganized, and based on a sound
rationale? Does the plan incorporate a
mechanism to assess success?
4. How well qualified is the
individual, team, or organization to
conduct the proposed activities?
5. Are there adequate resources
available to the PI (either at the home
organization or through collaborations)
to carry out the proposed activities?
This description of NSF’s merit
review policy is from NSF’s 2024
Proposal and Award Policies and
Procedures Guide (PAPPG), part I,
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 165 / Monday, August 26, 2024 / Notices
chapter 3. See https://new.nsf.gov/
policies/pappg/24-1.
Transformative Research
Transformative research is defined as
research driven by ideas that have the
potential to radically change our
understanding of an important existing
scientific or engineering concept or
leading to the creation of a new
paradigm or field of science or
engineering. Such research also is
characterized by its challenge to current
understanding or its pathway to new
frontiers. See NSB’s statement
Enhancing Support of Transformative
Research at NSF: https://www.nsf.gov/
pubs/2007/nsb0732/nsb0732.pdf.
Broadening Participation
‘‘Broadening participation in STEM’’
is the comprehensive phrase NSF uses
to refer to the Foundation’s goal of
increasing the representation and
diversity of individuals, organizations,
and geographic regions that contribute
to STEM education, research, and
innovation. To broaden participation in
STEM, it is necessary to address issues
of equity, inclusion, and access in
STEM education, training, and careers.
Whereas all NSF funding programs
might support broadening participation
components, some funding programs
primarily focus on supporting
broadening participation research and
projects. Examples can be found on the
NSF Broadening Participation in STEM
website. See https://new.nsf.gov/
funding/initiatives/broadeningparticipation, and the NSF PAPPG,
Introduction https://new.nsf.gov/
policies/pappg/24-1.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Interested Individuals and Parties
The phrase used in this Notice,
‘‘interested individuals and parties’’, is
intended to be interpreted broadly and
inclusively by potential respondents; we
anticipate interested individuals and
parties include, but are not limited to:
• current, past, and prospective NSF
proposers, reviewers, and staff
• sponsored research administrators
and support professionals
• representatives of organizations and
communities working in or supporting
the science and engineering research
and education enterprise
• members of other communities of
practice in the science and engineering
research and education fields and
• members of the general public
expressing an interest in these topics.
Ann E. Bushmiller,
Senior Counsel to the National Science Board.
[FR Doc. 2024–19041 Filed 8–23–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Aug 23, 2024
Jkt 262001
68475
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sunshine Act Meetings
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at
202–789–6820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The National Science Board hereby
gives notice of the scheduling of a
teleconference of the Committee on
Oversight (CO) for the transaction of
National Science Board business
pursuant to the NSF Act and the
Government in the Sunshine Act.
TIME AND DATE: The CO meeting is
scheduled for Tuesday, August 27,
2024, from 12:00 p.m.–1:00 p.m.
PLACE: This meeting will be via
videoconference through the National
Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower
Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314.
STATUS: Closed.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The agenda
for the CO meeting is: Commission
Chair’s opening remarks regarding the
agenda; presentation by the Office of the
Inspector General on its budget request
for FY2026; and discussion and vote on
sense of the committee.
CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Point of contact for this meeting is:
Chris Blair, cblair@nsf.gov, 703/292–
7000. Meeting information and updates
may be found at www.nsf.gov/nsb.
Ann E. Bushmiller,
Senior Counsel to the National Science Board
Office.
[FR Doc. 2024–19181 Filed 8–22–24; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. MC2024–518 and CP2024–526;
MC2024–519 and CP2024–527; MC2024–520
and CP2024–528]
New Postal Products
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Commission is noticing a
recent Postal Service filing for the
Commission’s consideration concerning
a negotiated service agreement. This
notice informs the public of the filing,
invites public comment, and takes other
administrative steps.
DATES: Comments are due: August 27,
2024.
SUMMARY:
Submit comments
electronically via the Commission’s
Filing Online system at https://
www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit
comments electronically should contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section by
telephone for advice on filing
alternatives.
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Docketed Proceeding(s)
I. Introduction
The Commission gives notice that the
Postal Service filed request(s) for the
Commission to consider matters related
to negotiated service agreement(s). The
request(s) may propose the addition or
removal of a negotiated service
agreement from the Market Dominant or
the Competitive product list, or the
modification of an existing product
currently appearing on the Market
Dominant or the Competitive product
list.
Section II identifies the docket
number(s) associated with each Postal
Service request, the title of each Postal
Service request, the request’s acceptance
date, and the authority cited by the
Postal Service for each request. For each
request, the Commission appoints an
officer of the Commission to represent
the interests of the general public in the
proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505
(Public Representative). Section II also
establishes comment deadline(s)
pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal
Service’s request(s) can be accessed via
the Commission’s website (https://
www.prc.gov). Non-public portions of
the Postal Service’s request(s), if any,
can be accessed through compliance
with the requirements of 39 CFR
3011.301.1
The Commission invites comments on
whether the Postal Service’s request(s)
in the captioned docket(s) are consistent
with the policies of title 39. For
request(s) that the Postal Service states
concern Market Dominant product(s),
applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39
U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3030, and 39
CFR part 3040, subpart B. For request(s)
that the Postal Service states concern
Competitive product(s), applicable
statutory and regulatory requirements
include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633,
39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and
39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. Comment
deadline(s) for each request appear in
section II.
II. Docketed Proceeding(s)
1. Docket No(s).: MC2024–518 and
CP2024–526; Filing Title: USPS Request
1 See Docket No. RM2018–3, Order Adopting
Final Rules Relating to Non-Public Information,
June 27, 2018, Attachment A at 19–22 (Order No.
4679).
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 165 (Monday, August 26, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68473-68475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-19041]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Request for Information (RFI) on National Science Board-National
Science Foundation Merit Review Commission Review of NSF's Merit Review
Policy and Processes
AGENCY: National Science Foundation
ACTION: Request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Science Board-National Science Foundation
Commission on Merit Review (MRX) is issuing this Request for
Information (RFI) to seek input from interested individuals and parties
to inform the MRX's review of NSF's Merit Review criteria, policy and
processes.
Information on the MRX is available at https://www.nsf.gov/nsb/committees/mrxcmte.jsp.
DATES: Interested individuals and parties are invited to submit
responses to this Request for Information on or before 5:00 p.m.
Eastern time on Wednesday, September 18, 2024.
ADDRESSES:
Online: Respond to this RFI at the following url: https://nsfevaluation.gov1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6xOeZ04jar2xmhU.
Following this link allows you to access an online form where you
can provide input on up to six topics described in more detail in the
Supplementary Information section below. You are encouraged to respond
to only those that are of interest to you. You may, but are not
required to, provide input on each topic to submit your response.
Mail: Attn: Portia Flowers, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA,
22314, USA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Portia Flowers (703/292-7000,
[email protected]).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Please refer to definitions provided at the
end of this notice for terms used in these Information Requests.
Information Requests
1. MRX is interested in identifying opportunities to improve NSF's
current Merit Review criteria, policy, and processes. Importantly, this
includes documenting and understanding any areas of misunderstanding,
gaps, or lack of clarity regarding (a) the three Merit Review
Principles which are the foundations of the Merit Review Process, (b)
the two statutory Merit Review Criteria which are used to evaluate all
proposals to NSF, and (c) the five Merit Review Elements NSF uses to
assess each criterion. Are the Principles, Criteria, and Elements
clear? Could they be improved upon? The MRX welcomes feedback on any or
all of these, and particularly on the Broader Impacts Criterion.
Chapter 3 of NSF's Proposal & Award Policies and Procedures Guide
(PAPPG) defines terms in this Information Request. See https://new.nsf.gov/policies/pappg/24-1/ch-3-proposal-processing-review#a-merit-review-principles-and-criteria-af2.
Individuals responding to this request are encouraged to indicate
whether their perspectives are informed by experience(s) preparing and/
or reviewing proposals to NSF.
2. NSF strives to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent Merit
Review process for the selection of projects. To accomplish this, NSF
relies on a process that considers both the technical aspects of a
proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to
advancing NSF's mission using the statutory Intellectual Merit and
Broader Impacts Merit Review criteria. MRX invites suggestions on the
implementation of the Merit Review criteria. We especially invite
feedback that would (a) clarify how they can be used in preparing and
reviewing proposals, (b) ensure proposals, reviews, and funding
decisions demonstrate full consideration of both criteria while
maintaining openness to the full spectrum of potential activities under
each, and (c) better recognize and support potentially transformative
and high-risk/high-reward activities.
Individuals responding to this request are encouraged to indicate
whether their perspectives are informed by experience(s) preparing and/
or reviewing proposals to NSF.
3. MRX is interested in the experiences and perspectives of those
who have considered submitting and/or submitted proposals in the past.
We invite you to share your insights and describe any opportunities you
believe would improve implementation of the Merit Review criteria,
policy, and processes based on your experience as a proposer or
investigator. This includes any experiences that may have encouraged or
dissuaded you from submitting proposals to NSF. We are especially
interested in learning (a) how NSF guidance (e.g., as provided in the
NSF PAPPG, program solicitations, or other funding opportunity
announcements), may have played a part in your decision(s) whether to
submit proposals, and (b) how NSF might best support investigators
interested in submitting a proposal to NSF.
Individuals responding to this request are encouraged to indicate
whether they
[[Page 68474]]
submitted or decided not to submit a proposal, and whether these
experiences occurred within the past five years.
4. MRX is interested in the experiences and perspectives of those
who have reviewed proposals submitted to NSF. We invite you to share
your insights and describe any opportunities you believe would improve
implementation of the Merit Review criteria, policy, and processes
based on your experience reviewing NSF proposals.
Individuals responding to this request are encouraged to indicate
whether they served on a panel and/or as ad hoc reviewers, and whether
these experiences occurred within the past five years.
5. MRX is interested in exploring how NSF could better support
awardees in demonstrating and documenting outcomes of their awards in
advancing knowledge (Intellectual Merit) and benefiting society and
contributing to the achievement of specific broader or societal
outcomes (Broader Impacts). We invite you to share your insights on how
NSF might better support awardees in demonstrating and documenting
outcomes of their awards without unnecessarily increasing awardees'
administrative burden of reporting.
Individuals responding to this request are encouraged to indicate
whether their suggestions are based on experiences as investigators,
users of public outcomes reports, or another perspective.
6. MRX welcomes any other comments on or suggestions for improving
NSF's current Merit Review criteria, policy, and processes. It also
welcomes information about aspects of Merit Review criteria, policy and
processes that are currently working well.
What will NSF do with this information?
MRX will use the information submitted in response to this RFI to
inform its assessment of the efficacy of the current Merit Review
criteria, policy, and processes, and to draft recommendations regarding
them. The information provided will be analyzed and considered by MRX.
Respondents are advised that the government is under no obligation to
acknowledge receipt of the information or provide feedback to
respondents with respect to any information submitted. No proprietary,
classified, confidential, or sensitive information should be included
in your response submission. The government reserves the right to use
any non-proprietary technical information in any resultant
solicitation(s), policies, or procedures. All submitted information may
be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or
other applicable law.
This Notice does not invite research proposals nor is it a funding
opportunity.
Background
NSB and NSF, with the assistance of expert third parties, have
periodically re-examined and revised the criteria, policy, and
processes of Merit Review at NSF. The last time the Board
systematically examined the Merit Review criteria was in 2010-2011 when
NSB established a Task Force on Merit Review to examine the
Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts merit review criteria and their
effectiveness in achieving NSF's goals in support of science and
engineering research and education. At that time, Congress was
considering, and then passed, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act
directing NSF to apply the Broader Impacts criterion to achieve a
specific array of societal goals and charging NSF to develop policies
addressing it. The 2011 Task Force report concluded that the Merit
Review criteria remained appropriate for evaluating NSF proposals;
however, it provided certain revisions and clarifications.
Recent events have underscored the importance of demonstrating that
portfolios of funded projects enable NSF to meet its statutory mission
``to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health,
prosperity and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other
purposes.'' In 2022, Congress passed the CHIPS and Science Act, which
directed federal research agencies to regularly assess, and update as
necessary, policies, and practices to remove or reduce cultural and
institutional barriers limiting the recruitment, retention, and success
of groups historically underrepresented in STEM research careers,
including policies and practices relevant to the unbiased review of
Federal research applications. Reexamining the Merit Review policy and
process will help ensure that NSF is best placed to meet the
requirements set out by Congress.
Definitions for Terms Used in This RFI
Merit Review Policy
Principles
1. All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the
potential to advance, if not transform, the frontiers of knowledge.
2. NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly
to achieving societal goals. These broader impacts may be accomplished
through the research itself, through activities that are directly
related to specific research projects, or through activities that are
supported by, but are complementary to, the project. The project
activities may be based on previously established and/or innovative
methods and approaches, but in either case must be well justified.
3. Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects
should be based on appropriate metrics, keeping in mind the likely
correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the resources
provided to implement projects. If the size of the activity is limited,
evaluation of that activity in isolation is not likely to be
meaningful. Thus, assessing the effectiveness of these activities may
best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level than the individual
project.
Criteria
Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review
and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither,
by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both
criteria.
Intellectual Merit (IM): the potential for a proposed
project to advance knowledge.
Broader Impacts (BI): the potential for a proposed project
to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific,
desired societal outcomes.
Elements
1. What is the potential for the proposed activity to:
a. Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or
across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
b. Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader
Impacts)?
2. To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore
creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
3. Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-
reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan
incorporate a mechanism to assess success?
4. How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to
conduct the proposed activities?
5. Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the
home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed
activities?
This description of NSF's merit review policy is from NSF's 2024
Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG), part I,
[[Page 68475]]
chapter 3. See https://new.nsf.gov/policies/pappg/24-1.
Transformative Research
Transformative research is defined as research driven by ideas that
have the potential to radically change our understanding of an
important existing scientific or engineering concept or leading to the
creation of a new paradigm or field of science or engineering. Such
research also is characterized by its challenge to current
understanding or its pathway to new frontiers. See NSB's statement
Enhancing Support of Transformative Research at NSF: https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsb0732/nsb0732.pdf.
Broadening Participation
``Broadening participation in STEM'' is the comprehensive phrase
NSF uses to refer to the Foundation's goal of increasing the
representation and diversity of individuals, organizations, and
geographic regions that contribute to STEM education, research, and
innovation. To broaden participation in STEM, it is necessary to
address issues of equity, inclusion, and access in STEM education,
training, and careers. Whereas all NSF funding programs might support
broadening participation components, some funding programs primarily
focus on supporting broadening participation research and projects.
Examples can be found on the NSF Broadening Participation in STEM
website. See https://new.nsf.gov/funding/initiatives/broadening-participation, and the NSF PAPPG, Introduction https://new.nsf.gov/policies/pappg/24-1.
Interested Individuals and Parties
The phrase used in this Notice, ``interested individuals and
parties'', is intended to be interpreted broadly and inclusively by
potential respondents; we anticipate interested individuals and parties
include, but are not limited to:
current, past, and prospective NSF proposers, reviewers,
and staff
sponsored research administrators and support
professionals
representatives of organizations and communities working
in or supporting the science and engineering research and education
enterprise
members of other communities of practice in the science
and engineering research and education fields and
members of the general public expressing an interest in
these topics.
Ann E. Bushmiller,
Senior Counsel to the National Science Board.
[FR Doc. 2024-19041 Filed 8-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
