The NSF recently finished a major study of its peer review and proposal management mechanisms.
The study found:
• NSF funding rates declined due to a surge in proposals, as NSF was making a concerted effort to increase the average award size (absorbing overall NSF budget growth). The annual number of awards stayed constant. Funding rates dropped between fiscal year (FY) 2000 and FY 2004, and leveled off in FY 2005 and FY 2006.
• Proposals have increased as the applicant pool has increased — due in part to growth in the research community’s capacity, decreases in funding from other sources and increases in targeted solicitations in new areas–and the number of proposals per applicant has increased.
• NSF’s peer review system is under stress with great demands on reviewers, posing challenges in order for NSF to maintain scientific integrity and stellar quality.
• The overall decrease in funding rate has affected the entire NSF proposer community proportionately–there has been no disparate effect on any particular group.
• Reduced funding rates and increased proposal submission rates have increased the work for all involved.
• The quality of proposals submitted and awarded has not declined due to increased competition or lowered funding rates.
The final IPAMM report can be found here.
What’s the scoop?
1. Awards are getting larger, which means fewer opportunities for new PIs.
2. People are sending in more proposals.
3. So there are more proposals to review.
Sounds Frankesque.