Merit Review Facts

This section contains some important to know facts about the merit review process.

1. FACT: NSF Program Officers make recommendations to fund or decline a proposal.

DISCUSSION: External review panels do not make funding decisions. The analysis and evaluation of proposals by external reviewers provide information to NSF Program Officers in making their recommendations to award or decline a proposal. See Phase II: Proposal Review and Processing.

2. FACT: Most proposals that are awarded do not receive all "Excellents."

DISCUSSION: It is not true that a proposal must receive all "Excellents" to be funded; in fact, most proposals that are awarded do not receive all "Excellents." Furthermore, even if you get all "Excellents," you may not be funded. See the annual Report to the National Science Board on the National Science Foundation's Merit Review Process (which may be found on the National Science Board publications site) for data about proposals and success rates, as well as further information and data concerning the merit review process.

3. FACT: NSF Program Officers are encouraged to recommend "risky" science and engineering for funding.

DISCUSSION: NSF Program Officers are encouraged to recommend for funding proposals that have high potential or payoff, even though they may be considered as being "risky" by external reviewers.

NSF also has several mechanisms in place to promote the funding of 'risky science'. For example, Small Grants for Exploratory Research (SGER) is an NSF-wide mechanism designed to promote and support proposals for "small-scale, exploratory, high-risk research in the fields of science, engineering and education normally supported by NSF."(For more information on SGER proposals, see GPG, Chapter II.D.1.)  NSF is also in the process of implementing a new emphasis on transformative research which includes a modification to the intellectual merit review criteria and the development of a new funding mechanism for "early-concept" research projects. (See Important Notice No. 130: Transformative Research).

4. FACT: Principal Investigators submit on average about 2.1 proposals for every award they receive.

DISCUSSION: A common misconception is that once declined, you will always be declined. However, NSF statistics show that on average, Principal Investigators submit about 2.1 proposals for every award they receive. That is, many Principal Investigators who receive awards also have been declined. See Resubmission process. Another common misconception is that one cannot get funded on a first submission.  However, NSF statistics show that, in 2006, 45% of new PIs received their first award on their first attempt.

5. FACT: NSF promotes broadening participation in science and engineering.

DISCUSSION: NSF promotes broadening participation in science and engineering fields. This includes increasing the participation of underrepresented minorities and women, and persons with disabilities. This also includes increasing diversity in the NSF portfolio with respect to types of institutions supported and the geographic regions represented. Broadening participation activities can be developed to address the NSF Broader Impact Merit Review Criterion; however, it is important to note that other activities are also appropriate to address the Broader Impact criterion (see Merit Review Broader Impacts Criterion: Representative Activities).

6. NSF annually has active awards at over 2000 awardee organizations.

DISCUSSION: NSF funds a large number of investigators at over 2000 awardee organizations. If you are most interested in which investigators and institutions receive the awards in your area of expertise, you can easily check using the NSF award database. Use key words to conduct a search of funded projects, or you can search by NSF program. Then check the investigators and institutions named on the award abstract. You can also search the award database by investigator or institution name.