Scientific Funding at NSF: From Submission to Decision

Preparation and submission: the first filter

The overview of NSF’s proposal and award process organizes the procedure into stages ranging from preparation and submission to review and the processing of a possible award. To submit a proposal, an organization must be registered in SAM.gov and have a valid UEI. Submissions can be made through Research.gov or Grants.gov.

A proposal that is received first undergoes a check for completeness and compliance with NSF requirements. If it does not follow the applicable instructions, the agency may return it without review. Therefore, passing this administrative check allows the proposal to proceed, but does not mean that its content has received a favorable assessment.

What is evaluated and who participates

NSF uses two criteria approved by the National Science Board: intellectual merit and broader impacts. The first considers the proposal’s potential to advance knowledge and understanding within or across fields. The second addresses its potential to benefit society and contribute to specific societal outcomes. Solicitations may include additional criteria.

The NSF page on merit review also explains the elements considered when applying both criteria. These include the creativity or originality of the activities, the soundness and organization of the plan, whether mechanisms for evaluating success are included, the qualifications of those who will carry out the work, and the availability of appropriate resources. Thus, the evaluation is not limited to the importance of the research question: it also examines the approach and the capacity to carry it out.

In most cases, program officers identify external experts to review proposals that meet the requirements. The evaluation may be conducted by individual reviewers, a panel, or both. Some programs conduct site visits. There are exceptions: RAPID, EAGER, and RAISE proposals are reviewed internally only; in other categories, NSF may also choose to conduct an internal review.

From evaluations to the decision

External reviews provide information to program officers, but do not by themselves decide the outcome. When analyzing a proposal, NSF may also consider how it would contribute to a portfolio of projects that includes different approaches to important research and education questions, the potential for transformative advances, the development of promising areas, or specific program objectives. The agency also indicates that current proposals and previously funded projects are taken into account.

After considering the reviews and relevant factors, the program officer makes a recommendation for funding or decline. Final programmatic approval is usually completed at the division level. This explains why, according to NSF, receiving excellent ratings does not guarantee funding, and a proposal does not need to receive only excellent ratings to be funded.

If an award is recommended and the division director agrees, the proposal goes to the Division of Grants and Agreements for administrative review, processing, and issuance of a grant or other agreement to the organization. At this stage, business, financial, and institutional policy matters may be examined. Only a designated grants and agreements officer can commit funds or authorize their expenditure. A scientific or programmatic recommendation, therefore, does not itself constitute a formal award.

NSF seeks to notify applicants whether their proposals were declined or recommended for funding within six months. The agency states that it generally makes awards to academic institutions within 30 days of the recommendation by the division or program office, although some cases may require more time for review and processing. These are general descriptions of the process, not guarantees of a timeline for each application.

Three key points for interpreting the process

1. Eligibility and merit are distinct stages: meeting the requirements allows a proposal to be reviewed, but does not predict the assessment of its content.
2. The evaluation combines two criteria: intellectual merit and broader impacts; a solicitation may also establish additional criteria.
3. A recommendation is not an award: reviews inform the decision, NSF considers portfolio factors, and an award also requires the corresponding administrative processing.

The information on the NSF merit review page supplements the process description with evaluation criteria and principles. Both pages are resources from the same institution: the merit review page provides methodological context, but does not constitute independent corroboration of the institution’s explanation of the procedure. The CERN page on experiments and collaborations concerns particle physics research and does not describe NSF funding, so it cannot be used to verify that process.