short note on research center

October 29, 2019

Ciandra Jackson

Finding Success in Running a Research Center

Research Enterprise

Running a Research Center

It takes bravery, creativity and a plan. Long days and constant pressure. It takes a lot to launch a successful business. The same is true for starting and managing an effective research center .

A research center may not be about the bottom line, but it still has to stand out from its competitors. It still has to collaborate with colleagues in different fields and communicate with stakeholders.

Researchers from around the country offered a window into how they made the leap from running a lab to running a successful research center.

Here’s what makes them tick.

Get Creative With Your Research Center

As with any business, finding a small corner of the market can be profitable. Case in point: The Center for Research on Electronic Commerce (CREC) at The University of Texas at Austin.

“My colleagues and I always carved out a niche for ourselves and developed creative ways to answer questions and address problems,” said center director Andrew Whinston , an economist and computer scientist at UT-Austin.

Established in 1988, housed at UT’s McCombs School of Business, the center is recognized as a leader in communications infrastructure. It offers a unique blend of economics and computer science for uncovering new ideas. It aims to help improve electronic commerce processes, business productivity, customer satisfaction and market efficiency.

One of CREC’s notable endeavors is the Cybersecurity Rating Project. The project helps organizations combat the significant challenges associated with spam, phishing and malicious software. At first sight, it seems this work mainly falls into the realm of information systems research, but it’s broader than that.

“Whether it be cybersecurity or e-commerce, it is not just about computer science,” said Whinston. “Regarding improving e-commerce safety and processes, we study game theory, the science of strategy.”

Game Theory

Game theory is a branch of mathematics focused on strategies for dealing with competitive situations in which one participant’s decision-making depends on what other participants do.

You leave a data trail behind whenever you place something in an online shopping cart. In e-commerce, that means retailers can gather that data to develop ever-changing price structures to maximize profits. The growth of online shopping since CREC’s inception 30 years ago illustrates how society has changed. Whinston said CREC had to evolve along with changes in economics, technology and how people and companies conduct business online. That forward thinking has allowed CREC to secure consistent funding from the National Science Foundation to lay the foundation for the center’s innovation in online marketing, digital currency and the internet of things.

Collaborate. And Do it Well.

Finding a sweet spot in the research market is critical. Today’s research centers also require collaboration across disciplines, and often, across institutions.

The Texas Institute for Measurement, Evaluation and Statistics (TIMES) at the University of Houston has conducted substantial research focused on education, children and how they learn since 2001. Directed by David Francis , professor of psychology at UH, TIMES’ mission is to improve the behavioral, psychological, educational and developmental outcomes of children and adults through leading-edge quantitative and qualitative research methods. And it has done that, Francis said, by involving researchers with diverse skill sets, expertise and disciplines.

The center grew from a partnership between Francis and Jack Fletcher and Barbara Foreman. Both were at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston when they partnered. “The three of us had worked together on various education and reading problem prevention projects for over a decade, and we all had expertise in different areas,” Francis said. “Barbara was a content and literacy instructional expert, Jack was the disability expert, and I brought psychometrics and statistics to the table.”

How Collaboration Helped TIMES

Over the years, their partnership evolved into TIMES. This led to multi-million dollar grant awards and contributed to shifts in the way English language learners are taught to read. It also led to new interventions for children with reading difficulties and learning disabilities. One series of studies, funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, came about after then-Governor George W. Bush raised questions about how best to support English language learners in school.

“Back in the ’90s there was a movement in California and Arizona’s education systems to be English only. At the time, Gov. George Bush reached out to the science community to determine if Texas, being a bilingual state, should enact legislation to be English only as well,” said Francis. “(Former) Gov. Bush wanted to ensure English learners in Texas thrived in school, not just survived.”

Working with colleagues at UH, UT-Houston, UT-Austin and California State University at Long Beach, UH was awarded $17 million to conduct research for the Bilingual Program Project, with Francis as principal investigator. More projects dealing with English Language Learners followed, including collaborations with Harvard University and the Center for Applied Linguistics in Washington D.C.

Sharing is Caring

During a conversation with Francis, a common theme became apparent. TIMES’ success and sustainability is attributed to partnerships with researchers with a variety of skills and interests. “Don’t be afraid to go outside of your discipline or own institution,” he said. “Gather the greatest expertise you can for projects, because the best ideas win the largest grant awards and produce the most impactful research.”

Francis also believes sharing space and even equipment is critical for more meaningful collaboration, better projects and bigger grant funding.

Years of experience has allowed TIMES to make this interdisciplinary collaboration look easy. However, Francis acknowledges there are challenges and risks in working across disciplines. Each researcher has to connect to the greater good.

“Everyone must align, coordinate and visualize how individual projects integrate with a larger research program,” he said. “There’s only so much funding available in a program project or center grant, and each investigator has to compromise somewhat on their individual project for the program to succeed.”

The common thread in all this work is collaboration. “Cross-discipline research groups have to see the vision, understand it, have a sense of what’s needed in the field and distill it down into operational ideas that are executable,” Francis said. “We strive to make a great impact to mankind and intellectually contribute to society.”

Promote Your Work

Collaboration is key at the Institute for Society, Culture and Environment (ISCE) at Virginia Tech, too. But getting out the word about the findings from those collaborations matters, as well.

Institute scholars tackle a wide array of topics. From global extremism and hate speech to adolescent substance abuse. These topics are bound by ISCE’s focus on social science and the humanities. But institute director Karen Roberto said sharing the results of that work is important, too. It helps community leaders and decision-makers work toward ways to improve society.

“We encourage the faculty not only to publish their research but to tell their story through our communication channels such our website and the weekly ISCE news flash,” she said.

Get Engaged

Engaging in public forums seems like a natural move for researchers who deal with topics at the forefront of today’s world. Researchers in other fields are discovering the value of sharing their work with the public via online newsletters, Twitter, Facebook and other platforms, too. (Academics also have begun using social media to collect research data. A few have discovered the risks, as well as the rewards, of using social media. But that’s another story.)

ISCE brings together faculty from across Virginia Tech, incorporating social and behavioral sciences and the humanities. “Our goal is to support faculty members in establishing their research agendas and strong relationships that result in interdisciplinary teams of faculty working together long-term,” Roberto said. That ranges from helping younger faculty connect with more experienced researchers to help navigate the grant process.

Whether they pursue new types of collaborations or new ways of reporting scientific discoveries, academic researchers are drawing upon traditional business tools to ensure the success of these larger research enterprises. Running a center or institute, they have discovered, is different from managing your own work.

And that’s OK.

“We’re risk takers,” Whinston said of his colleagues. “We look toward the future. The world changes every day.”

Share this:

Latest articles, how to keep your orcid profile current .

Cory Thaxton

Toxic Labs and Research Misconduct

Digital persistent identifiers and you, featured articles.

August 15, 2024

November 21, 2023

November 16, 2023

• Subscribe to journal Subscribe
• Get new issue alerts Get alerts

Secondary Logo

Journal logo.

Colleague's E-mail is Invalid

Your message has been successfully sent to your colleague.

Save my selection

The Benefits and Challenges of Research Centers and Institutes in Academic Medicine: Findings from Six Universities and Their Medical Schools

Mallon, William T. EdD

Dr. Mallon is assistant vice president and director of organization and management studies, Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, DC.

Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Mallon, Association of American Medical Colleges, 2450 N St NW, Washington, DC 20037-1127; telephone: (202) 828-0424; e-mail: ( [email protected] ).

Purpose 

To understand the benefits and challenges of using centers and institutes in the academic research enterprise, and to explore institutional strategies that capitalize on the strengths and ameliorate the weaknesses of the center/institute structure.

Method 

Using a qualitative research design, the author and associates interviewed over 150 faculty members and administrators at six medical schools and their parent universities in 2004. Interview data were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. This methodology generated rich descriptions and explanations of the six institutions, which can produce extrapolations to, but not necessarily findings that are generalizable to, other institutions and settings.

Results 

Centers and institutes offer a number of benefits to academic institutions. Centers can aid in faculty recruitment and retention, facilitate collaboration in research, secure research resources, offer a sense of community and promote continued learning, afford organizational flexibility, and focus on societal problems and raise funds. Despite their many benefits, centers can also create tensions and present management challenges to institutional leaders. Centers can compete with departments over resources, complicate faculty recruitment, contribute to a fragmented mission, resist effective evaluation, pose governance problems, and impede junior faculty development.

Conclusions 

Institutional leaders might capitalize on the strengths of centers through three strategies: (1) reward leaders who embrace a collaborative point of view and develop a culture that frowns upon empire building; (2) distinguish among the many entities that share the “center” or “institute” labels; and (3) acknowledge that departments must maintain their place in the organizational milieu.

Full Text Access for Subscribers:

Individual subscribers.

Institutional Users

Not a subscriber.

You can read the full text of this article if you:

• + Favorites
• View in Gallery

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Active funding opportunity

Nsf 24-576: gen-4 engineering research centers, program solicitation, document information, document history.

• Posted: May 20, 2024
• Replaces: NSF 22-580

Program Solicitation NSF 24-576

Letter of Intent Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization’s local time):

     September 03, 2024

Preliminary Proposal Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization’s local time):

     September 30, 2024

Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization’s local time):

By Invitation Only

Important Information And Revision Notes

This solicitation encourages proposals addressing a broad spectrum of engineering topics, including but not limited to advanced manufacturing, advanced wireless, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, microelectronics and semiconductors, net-zero technologies, quantum engineering, and systems engineering for healthcare.

This solicitation is updated to clarify the definition of underrepresented students in STEM and to welcome proposal submissions that broaden geographic and demographic participation. More details are provided in Section IV. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION .

Cost Sharing: Cost sharing is required. The formula for required cost sharing is described in the full text of this solicitation.

Any proposal submitted in response to this solicitation should be submitted in accordance with the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) that is in effect for the relevant due date to which the proposal is being submitted. The NSF PAPPG is regularly revised and it is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that the proposal meets the requirements specified in this solicitation and the applicable version of the PAPPG. Submitting a proposal prior to a specified deadline does not negate this requirement.

Summary Of Program Requirements

General information.

Program Title:

Gen-4 Engineering Research Centers (ERC) Convergent Research and Innovation through Inclusive Partnerships and Workforce Development

Founded in 1984, the Engineering Research Centers (ERC) program brings technology-based industry and universities together in an effort to strengthen the competitive position of American industry in the global marketplace. These partnerships are expected to establish cross-disciplinary centers focused on advancing fundamental engineering knowledge and engineered systems technology while exposing students to the integrative aspects of engineered systems and industrial practice. The goal of the ERC program has traditionally been to integrate engineering research and education with technological innovation to transform and improve national prosperity, health, and security. Building upon this tradition, NSF is interested in supporting ERCs to develop and advance engineered systems, which if successful, will have a high Societal Impact. The ERC program supports convergent research (CR) that will lead to strong societal impact. Each ERC has interacting foundational components that go beyond the research project, including engineering workforce development (EWD) at all participant stages, where all participants gain mutual benefit, and value creation within an innovation ecosystem (IE) that will outlast the lifetime of the ERC. These foundational elements are integrated throughout ERC activities and in alignment with the Center's vision and targeted societal impact. The overall impact of the ERC program is expected within the Engineering Community, the Scientific Enterprise, and Society.

Cognizant Program Officer(s):

Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

Sandra Cruz-Pol, telephone: (703) 292-2928, email: [email protected]

Dana L. Denick, telephone: (703) 292-8866, email: [email protected]

Randy Duran, telephone: (703) 292-5326, email: [email protected]

Nadia A. El-Masry, telephone: (703) 292-4975, email: [email protected]

Paul Torrens, telephone: (703) 292-2473, email: [email protected]

Lan Wang, telephone: (703) 292-5098, email: [email protected]

• 47.041 --- Engineering

Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award: Cooperative Agreement

Up to 4 depending on the quality of the proposals and the availability of funds. ERCs are generally funded for ten years, with an initial award for the first five years and second award based on performance and review of a renewal proposal. This solicitation seeks to make awards for the first five years for new ERCs.

See Section III of this solicitation for additional information about the allowable maximum annual budget for years one through five.

NSF expects to make the ERC awards in the summer of 2026. The budget distribution among the lead and core partners should be appropriate for the scope of work and activities planned for each foundational component.

Note that ERCs will not be granted no-cost extensions (NCE).

Co-funding:

NSF is currently in negotiations with other government agencies to form partnerships in support of ERC awards. These partnerships have the potential to expand the total number of awards. This is contingent upon realization of these partnerships, and budgets provided to these organizations by Congress for FY 2026 and 2027.

Eligibility Information

Who May Submit Proposals:

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:

Only U.S. Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs), also referred to in this solicitation as universities and academic institutions, accredited in, and having a campus located in the US, that grant engineering degrees at the undergraduate, masters, and doctoral engineering level may submit proposals as the lead university. The Lead university submits the proposal, and the award is made to the lead university. Support is provided to core partner universities and any affiliated faculty from other partner institutions through subawards. NSF welcomes proposal submissions that broaden geographic and demographic participation. Proposals from STEM-minority-serving institutions (STEM-MSI*), non-R1 schools, emerging research institutions, and IHEs in EPSCoR-eligible jurisdictions, as lead or core partners, as well as IHEs that primarily serve populations of students with disabilities or women in engineering interested in STEM, are encouraged.

Invited full proposals must meet all the following organizational requirements or they will be returned without review:

• The Lead must be an Institution of Higher Education per the Carnegie Foundational Attribute: https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/
• A proposed ERC must be multi-institutional, with a lead university and additional domestic university core partners. There is no maximum number of partner institutions.
• To qualify as a core partner institution, there must be financial support for a minimum of three faculty participating in the ERC along with financial support for a minimum of three students (Postdoctoral scholars may not be included as students).
• The lead or at least one of the core partner universities must be a STEM-MSI* university.
• Commitments from lead and core partner universities for cost sharing must be in place.

*For this solicitation STEM-MSI is defined by the Department of Education as institutions of higher education enrolling populations with significant percentages of undergraduate minority students, or that serve certain populations of minority students under various programs created by Congress.

Eligibility may be determined by reference to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) of the US Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics ( https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/ ).

Who May Serve as PI:

The Lead PI must be a faculty member at the Lead university. Non-Lead PIs are the co-PIs listed on the Cover Sheet after the Lead PI and may be from institutions other than the lead university. In order to provide more flexibility for the Center's management, the Lead PI and the ERC Director are not required to be the same person, however, both must be affiliated with the lead institution.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

If an institution has two active ERC awards, it does not qualify to submit an ERC preliminary proposal as a lead institution. There are no other restrictions or limits on the number of preliminary proposals submitted by a Lead institution. Full Proposals may be submitted only by invitation and only by the lead institution designated in the preliminary proposal.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or co-PI:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. proposal preparation instructions.

Letters of Intent: Submission of Letters of Intent is required. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Preliminary Proposals: Submission of Preliminary Proposals is required. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Full Proposals:

• Full Proposals submitted via Research.gov: NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) guidelines apply. The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg .
• Full Proposals submitted via Grants.gov: NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov guidelines apply (Note: The NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide ).

B. Budgetary Information

Cost Sharing Requirements:

Cost Sharing is required. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations:

Not Applicable

Other Budgetary Limitations:

Other budgetary limitations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

C. Due Dates

Letter of Intent Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization's local time):

Preliminary Proposal Due Date(s) (required) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization's local time):

Proposal Review Information Criteria

Merit Review Criteria:

National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review criteria apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Award Administration Information

Award Conditions:

Additional award conditions apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Reporting Requirements:

Additional reporting requirements apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

I. Introduction

The National Science Foundation (NSF) created the Engineering Research Centers (ERC) program in 1984 to bring technology-based industry and universities together in an effort to strengthen the competitive position of American industry in the global marketplace. These partnerships established cross-disciplinary centers focused on advancing fundamental engineering knowledge and engineered systems technology while exposing students to the integrative aspects of engineered systems and industrial practice. As a result, ERCs have produced a wide range of new fundamental knowledge, engineered systems and other technologies aimed at spawning whole new fields or industries or radically transforming the product lines, processes, and practices of current industries. At the same time, they have produced a new generation of engineering graduates who are highly innovative, diverse, globally engaged, and effective as technology leaders in academia and industry.

NSF has continually refined the goals and purposes of the ERC program to meet shifting needs. The NSF-requested 2017 study from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) "A New Vision for Center-Based Engineering Research" ( https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24767/a-new-vision-for-center-based-engineering-research ) recommends that NSF places a greater emphasis on forming research centers focused on convergent research and education approaches that address challenges with significant societal impact. Complex societal problems require a convergent approach for the deep integration of knowledge, tools, and ways of thinking across disciplinary boundaries. A detailed explanation of the convergence concept can be found in a 2014 National Academies report, "Convergence: Facilitating Transdisciplinary Integration of Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, Engineering and Beyond" ( https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18722/convergence-facilitating-transdisciplinary-integration-of-life-sciences-physical-sciences-engineering ).

This current iteration of the ERC program reflects the recommendations from the NASEM study as well as other sources. The program continues to focus on advancing an engineered system through inclusive cross-disciplinary and cross-sector partnerships, while placing greater emphasis on research with high- risk/high-payoff ideas that lead to societal impact through convergent approaches, engaging broader stakeholder communities, and using team science concepts for their team formation.

II. Program Description

A. ERC Program Model

The ERC program is grounded by the four foundational components of the ERC: Convergent Research (CR), Engineering Workforce Development (EWD), Diversity and Culture of Inclusion (DCI), and the Innovation Ecosystem (IE) (Figure 1). These foundational components are connected by an integrated, holistic ERC vision and strategic plan. The whole of the ERC has added value and synergies that require a center or institute-like approach as opposed to individual projects.

Convergent Research (CR): High-risk/high-payoff research ideas and discoveries that push the frontiers of engineering knowledge; ERC convergent research is a highly collaborative and interdisciplinary approach that leads to positive impacts on society. Convergence involves the integration of various fields in engineering and science, including all branches of science, in a coordinated and interdependent manner. This approach fosters strong collaborations that are essential for successful inquiry.

Engineering Workforce Development (EWD): In addition to training opportunities for ERC participants, the Center engages in human resource capacity development aligned with the targeted engineered system. ERC EWD strengthens a robust spectrum of engineering education pathways and technical workforce opportunities. EWD occurs at all levels of the Center and provides opportunities for engagement by all ERC members including students, faculty, and external partners as appropriate. The ERC EWD program is driven by the future education, workforce development, and labor market needs relevant to the proposed Center.

Diversity and Culture of Inclusion (DCI): In addition to fomenting a diverse team, the culture of the ERC and teams within the ERC demonstrate an environment of inclusion in which all members feel valued and welcomed, creatively contribute, and gain mutual benefit from participating. Because of the ERC's attention to diversity and culture of inclusion, participation from members of groups traditionally underrepresented in engineering as well as diverse scientific and other perspectives is required. The ERC DCI program ensures diversity at all levels of the Center and employs an intentional and evidence-based approach to developing a culture of inclusion.

Innovation Ecosystem (IE): Trusted partners that work together to create and enhance the capacity for innovation and new ways for delivering value with positive societal impact. ERC innovation ecosystems (IE) include effective translational efforts from ideation to implementation, workforce development that creates the workforce needed for the enterprise, and deliberate efforts to attract funding and resources. ERCs articulate plans for strategic engagement of stakeholder communities while including the legal, ethical, civic, and societal acceptance frameworks needed to protect the participants.

The ERC foundational elements are carried out in concert through ERC activities and in alignment with the Center's vision and targeted societal impact. The overall impact of the ERC program is expected within the Engineering Community , the Scientific Enterprise , and Society , shown in Figure 1 (above). These may be thought of as nested regions of increasing influence, where the largest scale of impact is on society itself. Potential outcomes of ERCs are organized within each of the four ERC foundational components.

Engineering Community: ERCs not only create fundamental knowledge and technology, but also impact the engineering community, preparing students and researchers by highlighting new engineering approaches and best practices for engineering workforce development, diversity and inclusion, and academic-industrial partnerships.

Scientific Enterprise: ERCs should be exemplars of how cohesive, high-performing teams engage in convergent research and innovative approaches to create major impact that informs and inspires the scientific community, engineering and beyond.

Society: ERCs enable society to have a better quality of life, and be more resilient, productive, and safe. Each ERC is expected to have a transformational positive impact on significant societal challenges and opportunities. This is the level where the introduction of value creation and technology innovation requires an understanding of socio-technical interactions and how they might impact society at large. In response, new strategies, concepts, ideas and/or re- organizations may be needed to shore-up, extend, or strengthen society. The desired outcome is the ERC's ability to assist society in its drive to advance the national health, prosperity, welfare, and to secure the national defense.

The goal of the ERC program has traditionally been to integrate engineering research and education with technological innovation to transform and improve national prosperity, health, and security. Building upon this tradition, NSF is interested in supporting ERCs to develop and advance engineered systems, which if successful, will have a high Societal Impact .

ERCs create inclusive cultures not only to integrate scientific discovery with technological innovation through convergent engineered systems research and education, but also to include the participation of the full spectrum of diverse talent in engineering. ERCs build partnerships with industry, practitioners, and other key stakeholders to strengthen the innovative capacity of the United States in a global context. In addition to building capacity for research, innovation, and a diverse workforce, ERCs are expected to produce significant outcomes within the 10-year timeframe of NSF support and beyond.

ERCs should realize a vision of advancing an engineered system driven by clearly articulated societal impact and should have strong synergies or value-added rationale that justifies a center or institute-like approach. As part of creating sustainable positive impacts on society and communities, ERCs should focus on positive outcomes that can be seen within engineering communities and build and empower human resource capacity for their targeted engineering challenges. Beyond this, ERCs should contribute to the scientific enterprise by advancing research, science, engineering fundamentals, and research communities. This should be demonstrated with benchmarks against the state-of-the-art. ERCs should build knowledge, prepare students and researchers that respect and flourish in an environment with diverse perspectives, impact how engineering research is conducted and provide value for society. The ERC program encourages proposals addressing a broad spectrum of engineering topics, including but not limited to advanced manufacturing, advanced wireless, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, microelectronics and semiconductors, net zero technologies, quantum engineering, and systems engineering for healthcare.

C. Key Elements of an ERC

Vision: The ERC vision guides discovery and technology to uniquely transform US prosperity, health, and/or security in 10 years. The vision describes the compelling new idea, explains how it relates to national needs, and makes the connection to engineering.

Strategic Plan: The ERC strategic plan connects and leverages research, engineering workforce development, diversity and culture of inclusion, and innovation ecosystem to address the chosen societal challenge. The overall plan should employ three strategic approaches:

Convergence : "Convergence is an approach to problem solving that cuts across disciplinary boundaries. It integrates knowledge, tools, and ways of thinking across disciplinary boundaries in STEM fields to form a comprehensive synthetic framework for tackling scientific and societal challenges that exist at the interfaces of multiple fields." ( https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18722/convergence-facilitating-transdisciplinary-integration-of-life-sciences-physical-sciences-engineering ). This is also stated in another report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) from the Committee on a Vision for the Future of Center-based Multidisciplinary Engineering Research, which defined convergent engineering as a deeply collaborative, team-based engineering approach for defining and solving important and complex societal problems ( https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24767/a-new-vision-for-center-based-engineering-research ). Hence, convergent research blends scientific disciplines in a coordinated, reciprocal way and fosters the robust collaboration needed for successful inquiry and has the strong potential to lead to transformative solutions and new fields of study. The research thrusts, testbeds, team formation, and other major aspects of the research plan should support a convergent approach.

Stakeholder Engagement : The intentional and early-stage engagement of all parties who may contribute to the ERC or may be impacted by the ERC along its capacity-building and value creation responsibilities. Stakeholders can include, but are not limited to, relevant researchers across partner institutions with complementary research and education expertise; undergraduate and graduate students, postdoctoral researchers; industry leaders who can guide the innovation effort; partners for innovation, education, workforce development, and diversity and culture of inclusion of all participants; and beneficiaries of the ERC outcomes (e.g., community members, users, customers, patients, and watchdog organizations).

Team Formation : The process by which all necessary disciplines, skills, perspectives, and capabilities are brought together. Successful teams are interdependent, multidisciplinary, and diverse and can work and communicate effectively even when geographically dispersed. Team formation includes evidence-based strategies and team science training to overcome barriers to effective, collaborative teaming, including the integration of members with different areas of expertise, different vocabularies and core values and ways of approaching problems, different understanding of the problems to be addressed, different values, and different working styles. This is especially needed during the early stages of the Center.

Organization and Management Structure:

Effective Leadership: ERC leaders have intellectual vision, demonstrable leadership, successful entrepreneurial experience, a track record of delivering results, and the ability to communicate clearly and effectively with diverse audiences such as team members, sponsors, partners, host institutions, stakeholders, press and media, and the public. Below are some example practices desired for effective ERC leadership and management teams:

• Empowers all team members to contribute;
• Builds consensus around goals and problem definition;
• Facilitates communication to ensure a common understanding among all stakeholders; and resolves conflicts and builds trust.

It is rare that a single individual will have all of these attributes; thus, a strong leader will need to assemble an executive team that covers this broad spectrum of skills. The Center Director should understand their strengths and limitations, should be effective in assembling an executive leadership team that fills in the gaps of their limitations, and should be supported by an effective Council of Deans (See Section II.C. for details of the formation of the Council of Deans).The Director does not need to be a faculty member.

Organization and Management: An effective management structure begins with a clear understanding of the goals of the ERC and how the structure (including the ERC four foundational components) will support those goals. The structure should have the flexibility to adapt as the needs of the ERC change, as key people transition into or out of the ERC, or change roles, and to handle other changes as the ERC matures.

It is critical to have one person or team that has clear responsibility for each foundational component of the ERC. However, each ERC participant and each of the core participants should also understand the importance of each foundational component and be engaged in their role in carrying it out. Core partner institutions must meet the eligibility requirements of at least 3 faculty and 3 students participating in the ERC; postdoctoral scholars may not be included as students. Proposing teams will determine the funding source(s) of student support and nature of participation, whether graduate or undergraduate. Typically, ERC’s have many more fully/partly funded graduate and undergraduate students engaged in the ERC, in addition to faculty or postdocs.

ERC program experience has shown that an important role in the ERC structure is that of an administrative director, as described below. This remains a mandatory piece of the management structure.

Administrative Director: An experienced staff member at the lead university who is responsible for operational management, financial management, data collection, publicity, and reporting, etc. for the ERC. Post-award NSF training is available for this position given the ERC reporting complexities.

Lead Institution: The lead institution effectively guides the multiple elements of the ERC. The ERC headquarters are located at the lead institution, and the lead institution is the NSF recipient and is ultimately responsible for the financial and reporting obligations of the ERC award.

Core Partners: To qualify as a core partner university, there must be a minimum of three faculty participating in the ERC along with a minimum of three students; postdoctoral scholars may not be included as students. Core partners are included in the Cost Sharing requirements and in the Council of Deans (See Section II.C. for details of the formation of the Council of Deans.)

Other potential partners may include universities contributing affiliated faculty, federal laboratories, private-sector or non-profit organizations, educational partners, and/or foreign collaborators' universities or institutions. While not considered core partners, the involvement of such partners can be valuable.

Industrial/Practitioner Member: An organization that satisfies all requirements for membership according to the Center's membership agreement which may include financial support (cash or in-kind).

ERCs should engage industrial/practitioner members from sectors such as the Federal Government, State government, local government, quasi-government research, industry, industry association, policy organization, regulatory agency, medical facility, private foundation, nonprofit, venture capitalists, community organizations, professional/trade union, and other stakeholders as appropriate for the center's mission.

Affiliated Faculty Member: The ERC may include affiliated faculty members, which are faculty members who are contributing to the ERC from institutions other than the lead or core partner universities and are included in the budget.

Institutional Commitment: The lead and all core partner institutions must augment support for the ERC through cost-sharing and other allowed means and sustain the ERC once NSF's support ceases. Lead, core, and other partner academic institutions must commit to:

• Joining in partnership to support the ERC's vision, strategic plans, and activities in CR, EWD, DCI, IE and their integration across the institutions.
• Assuring cross-university industrial membership and intellectual property (IP) policies that recognize shared rights for joint work.
• Adopting institutional policies to reward faculty, particularly those in the promotion and tenure process, for participating in convergent research and innovation, technological advance, mentoring, university and pre-college education activity, and delivering on the ERC's plans for workforce development and creating an inclusive and diverse culture. NSF strongly encourages the full spectrum of diverse talent that society has to offer.
• Official recognition for university students engaged in mentoring of other university students and in pre-college outreach. This recognition is crucial to acknowledge their efforts and motivate them to continue their valuable work

Community Feedback: Broad-based stakeholder feedback to the ERCs is one of the important mechanisms used by the ERC to provide continual monitoring of the Center's health.

Advisory Boards: Advisory boards are formed to reinforce and support the proper functioning of the ERC's foundational components which are CR, EWD, DCI, and IE, as described above. Careful consideration must be given to defining each advisory board's functional role and selecting quality board members capable of overseeing that role. An example of a generic ERC feedback loop structure is illustrated in Figure 2. As part of the NSF Management/Oversight, the NSF Program Director and the NSF Site Visit Team (SVT) typically interact with the ERC and give feedback to the ERC once a year at a minimum. The advisory boards provide feedback at least twice a year; usually more often on an as needed basis. It may occasionally be necessary to form additional special committees to support special needs of the Center's vision. The staffing of these committees may be either internal or external. The Council of Deans and Student Leadership Council, as defined below, are mandatory advisory groups; however, the ERC is expected to propose appropriate advisory groups beyond these two.

Student Leadership Council (SLC): Undergraduate and graduate students from all partner universities responsible for coordinating their various activities in support of the ERC. A student president and a student co-president lead the SLC. The SLC will prepare a written Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis and present the SWOT findings during the annual visit of the NSF Site Visit Team (SVT).

Council of Deans: Led by the Dean of Engineering from the Lead university, this Council includes the Deans from the lead and each core partner institution. They meet collectively to provide administrative support of the ERC and to help facilitate multiple ERC elements across the lead and core partner universities. The Dean may not designate an alternate unless a PI, Co-PI, Director, or any senior personnel is also a Dean at the Institution. The two roles cannot be performed by the same person.

III. Award Information

Estimated program budget, number of awards, and average award size/duration are subject to the availability of funds. The maximum annual budget allowed is shown in the table below.

Year 1 budget will be committed upon award, and subsequent year budgets are subject to satisfactory annual review of accomplishments and availability of funds. After a gradual ramp up, years three through five are projected to level off at $6,000,000 in each of those years. Pending performance and outcome of a renewal review in the fourth year, support for years six to eight will continue at $6,000,000 per year until the eighth year. Support for years nine and ten will be phased down, with $4,000,000 in year 9 and $2,600,000 in year 10. No-cost extensions (NCEs) will not be granted.

IV. Eligibility Information

Proposals may only be submitted by the following: Only U.S. Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs), also referred to in this solicitation as universities and academic institutions, accredited in, and having a campus located in the US, that grant engineering degrees at the undergraduate, masters, and doctoral engineering level may submit proposals as the lead university. The Lead university submits the proposal, and the award is made to the lead university. Support is provided to core partner universities and any affiliated faculty from other partner institutions through subawards. NSF welcomes proposal submissions that broaden geographic and demographic participation. Proposals from STEM-minority-serving institutions (STEM-MSI*), non-R1 schools, emerging research institutions, and IHEs in EPSCoR-eligible jurisdictions, as lead or core partners, as well as IHEs that primarily serve populations of students with disabilities or women in engineering interested in STEM, are encouraged. Invited full proposals must meet all the following organizational requirements or they will be returned without review: The Lead must be an Institution of Higher Education per the Carnegie Foundational Attribute: https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/ A proposed ERC must be multi-institutional, with a lead university and additional domestic university core partners. There is no maximum number of partner institutions. To qualify as a core partner institution, there must be financial support for a minimum of three faculty participating in the ERC along with financial support for a minimum of three students (Postdoctoral scholars may not be included as students). The lead or at least one of the core partner universities must be a STEM-MSI* university. Commitments from lead and core partner universities for cost sharing must be in place. *For this solicitation STEM-MSI is defined by the Department of Education as institutions of higher education enrolling populations with significant percentages of undergraduate minority students, or that serve certain populations of minority students under various programs created by Congress. Eligibility may be determined by reference to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) of the US Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics (https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/).

V. Proposal Preparation And Submission Instructions

Letters of Intent (required) :

1. LETTER OF INTENT

A Letter of Intent (LOI) is required to facilitate the NSF review process. The LOI must be submitted via Research.gov no later than the LOI deadline date. Please note the following conditions:

• LOIs must be submitted through Research.gov (not Grants.gov). A Minimum of one PI and up to four co-PIs are allowed.
• A list of all anticipated Core Partner Universities is required.
• The lead university cannot change after submission of the Letter of Intent.

Title: The title should begin with "NSF Engineering Research Center for ( insert the rest of the title and the Center's acronym )". The title should reflect the engineered system of the proposed ERC.

Lead PI and/or Center Director: The Lead PI's information is automatically included when the LOI is created. If the Lead PI and the Center Director are different individuals, please include the Center Director's name, university, department, phone number, and e-mail address at the beginning of the Synopsis section.

Anticipated ERC Non-Lead PIs (co-PIs): Identify up to four co-PIs. For the LOI, the participating team (Senior/Key Personnel) will be limited to the lead PI and up to four co-PIs who may come from any or all the domestic core partner universities.

Anticipated Core Partner Universities: The Lead university (not PI) is binding throughout the process. Other partners may change. The anticipated core partner universities should be included in the Manage Participating Organizations section of the LOI.

Synopsis (not to exceed one page): Upload brief statements of the vision and goals of the ERC, its potential for societal impact, and an integrated plan for the Center. Include an overview of the research program, such as research thrust titles, goals, and fundamental gaps or barriers in knowledge/technology that it meets. Although the EWD, DCI, and the IE are also critical foundational components of an ERC, they do not need to be described in detail in the LOI.

Other Comments (an additional max 2,500 characters including any blank spaces): Continue Synopsis as needed in this section.

Keywords: In order of decreasing emphasis, list up to ten keywords that represent the scientific interdisciplinary content in the proposal.

Letter of Intent Preparation Instructions :

When submitting a Letter of Intent through Research.gov in response to this Program Solicitation please note the conditions outlined below:

Submission by an Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) is not required when submitting Letters of Intent.

A Minimum of 0 and Maximum of 4 Other Senior Project Personnel are permitted

A Minimum of 0 and Maximum of 6 Other Participating Organizations are permitted

• Keywords is required when submitting Letters of Intent
• Submission of multiple Letters of Intent is permitted

Preliminary Proposals (required) : Preliminary proposals are required and must be submitted via Research.gov, even if full proposals will be submitted via Grants.gov.

2. PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL

Submission of a Preliminary Proposal is required to be eligible for an invitation to submit a Full Proposal.

Preliminary Proposal Preparation Instructions:

Preliminary proposals must explicitly address the following questions in the project description:

• What are the compelling new ideas and what is the potential for high societal impact?
• What is the ERC engineered system? Is it high-risk but high payoff? Is the 3-plane chart well-conceived and justified?
• Why is an ERC necessary to tackle the idea?
• What is the proposed management structure for the ERC? How will the ERC's organization and management structure integrate and implement the four foundational components (CR, EWD, DCI, and IE) and foster the desired team formation?
• What are the proposed strategies for engaging and developing the appropriate stakeholder community?
• Does the proposed ERC create an inclusive environment where all the ERC participants learn to work in a team towards a common goal?

Preliminary Proposal Set-Up: Select "Prepare New Preliminary Proposal" in Research.gov. Search for and select this solicitation title in Step One of the Preliminary Proposal wizard. The information in Step 2 is pre-populated by the system. In Step 3 select "Single proposal (with or without subawards). Separately submitted collaborative preliminary proposals will be returned without review.

Title: The title should begin with "NSF Engineering Research Center for ( insert the rest of the title and the Center's acronym )". The rest of the title and acronym can change from the LOI to the submitted preliminary proposal as long as it is in the same topic area. The title should reflect the system focus of the proposed ERC.

The required components of the preliminary proposal are given below. Page limitations given here will be strictly enforced. Proposers should review the most current PAPPG for specific information and format for the required sections. No other sections are required or may be included in the preliminary proposal.

Cover Sheet: Select the proposed start date and proposed duration.

Project Summary (1 page): The Project Summary must have three separate section headers entitled "Overview", "Intellectual Merit", and "Broader Impacts"; each heading must be on its own line with no other text on that line. Within the Overview section, include a separate sub-section entitled "Proposed Vision". The summary should be informative to those working in the same or related fields and understandable to a scientifically or technically literate reader.

Project Description: Maximum 10 pages, total, containing the following sections, not necessarily in this order. All figures and tables must be included within the 10-page limit.

The proposing team (Participant Table) should be submitted as a supplementary document.

The Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts of the ERC must be addressed and described throughout the narrative as an integral part of the Project Description. Between Sections IV and V, include a separate header for Broader Impacts, as specified below. In addition, Results from Prior Support is not a required section for the preliminary proposal.

Outline for the Preliminary Proposal Project Description (up to 10 pages)

II. Strategic Plan

III. Organization and Management Structure

IV. Convergent Research

BROADER IMPACTS ( Please note: The Project Description must include a separate section header labeled Broader Impacts and the heading must be on its own line with no other text on that line. )

V. Engineering Workforce Development

VI. Diversity and Culture of Inclusion

VII. Innovation Ecosystem

I. Vision: The proposed vision for the ERC must be explained, with a discussion of the convergent engineering research theme and the anticipated societal impact. Explain the proposed transformative engineered system and the potential for impact on society, the engineering community and the greater scientific community.

II. Strategic Plan: The plan must define the engineered system and describe how the features of the ERC will be integrated to achieve the vision, in particular the cohesive plan for involving participants at all levels in the four foundational components:

• Convergent Research (CR)
• Engineering Workforce Development (EWD)
• Diversity and Culture of Inclusion (DCI)
• Innovation Ecosystem (IE)

III. Organization and Management Structure: Describe the proposed management, including the functions of key personnel and the role of any advisory committee (including the required Student Leadership Council and the Council of Deans), executive committee, program committee, or their equivalent. Note that there is no recommendation for how ERCs should be managed. This solicitation provides for flexibility on organization structure and management and is part of the review criteria – as such the proposal should clearly justify the proposed structure.

IV. Convergent Research (CR): The role of convergence and team formation in the proposed research must be described. Research activities must address any gaps and barriers to achieve the proposed vision. Research must advance fundamental knowledge and support the development of technology that is proven through proof-of-concept testbeds as part of a well-defined engineered system. Integration of research activities must be graphically depicted on a clearly legible version of the ERC Program's 3-Plane Strategic Planning Chart ( http://erc-assoc.org/content/three-plane-diagram ) that is tailored to the proposed ERC. The chart should be at least half a page, but a full page is recommended for legibility, as this chart is used at several stages of the NSF review process. This section should clearly state what new knowledge is expected that would advance the state of the art in key research areas.

V. Engineering Workforce Development (EWD): A proposed evidence-based program for human capacity development for the future engineering and technical workforce must be described. The program goals and expected outcomes must be described. Proposed activities should logically lead to targeted outcomes and support diverse pathways and experiences for participants. Existing programs and partnerships may be leveraged to support the ERC EWD program and provide opportunities to engage with potential participants.

VI. Diversity and Culture of Inclusion (DCI): Preliminary ideas to create and nurture a culture of inclusion to foster the engagement of all ERC participants. This section should include evidence-based and intentional programming approach.

VII. Innovation Ecosystem (IE): An innovation ecosystem development effort must be proposed. However, DO NOT list potential or committed industrial or other supporters.

In addition, the preliminary proposal must also include these documents and information.

References Cited (required): See PAPPG for format guidelines.

Senior/Key Personnel Documents: The Lead PI, Center Director (if different from the Lead PI) and up to four co-PIs) must be designated as Senior/Key Personnel and must provide the following documents in accordance with the guidance contained in PAPPG Chapter II.D.2.h.

• Biographical Sketches
• Collaborators & Other Affiliations (COA)Information

Supplementary Documents:

A letter of commitment from the Dean of Engineering of the lead institution must be submitted which describes the support for and commitment to the ERC (including space for the ERC headquarters) should it be funded. While the Lead PI does not need to be from the School of Engineering, this letter must be from the Dean of Engineering to demonstrate the Engineering Dean's support for the proposed impact of the ERC on the engineering community.

The Dean should NOT include any financial commitments. Instead, the Dean should make a statement as to how the proposed ERC will align with the strategic directions of the college or the university. Proposals submitted without a letter of commitment from the Dean of Engineering will be returned without review. No letters of collaboration are allowed.

Participant Table (one page maximum): Provide a participant table that includes all committed ERC personnel: (1) Name of the Lead PI (and ERC Director, if different from the Lead PI) and Non-Lead PIs, (2) Institution(s), (3) Department(s), and (4) Most Relevant Field(s) of Expertise. In addition, please list all committed senior/key personnel. Do not identify members of advisory boards. The team table should include only those personnel who would receive NSF funds. This table is used by NSF in the merit review process to manage reviewer selection.

Single Copy Documents:

Collaborators & Other Affiliations Information: Information regarding collaborators and other affiliations (COA) must be separately provided for all members of the ERC Leadership Team and key faculty who are not designated as Senior/Key Personnel. Proposers must follow the guidance contained in PAPPG Chapter II.D.2.h. and include the COA information in the Additional Single Copy Documents section of the preliminary proposal. The accuracy of this section is very important to the integrity of the ERC review process. Please be accurate, up to date, and complete with the entries, including professional email addresses.

Institutional Affiliations: Beyond the affiliations captured on the COA form for individual ERC participants, the ERC Lead University must report any institutional affiliations arising from partnerships including any government agencies, international partners, industry partners or other non-academic institutional partners. The institutional affiliation information must be entered into the ERC Preliminary Proposal Institutional Conflict template (See bullet #2 on http://erc-assoc.org/content/templates-proposal-preparation-0 ) and uploaded into the Additional Single Copy Documents section.

DO NOT SUBMIT other documents, including letters of commitment or collaboration from the domestic partner universities, prospective industrial members, or other future partners. The only allowed item is the required letter of commitment from the Dean of Engineering at the Lead Institution.

RELIMINARY PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

(Note: This is NOT a total list of the ERC preliminary proposal requirements. Refer to the ERC Solicitation and the PAPPG for complete requirements).

Full Proposal Preparation Instructions : Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Research.gov or Grants.gov.

• Full Proposals submitted via Research.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG). The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg . Paper copies of the PAPPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from [email protected] . The Prepare New Proposal setup will prompt you for the program solicitation number.
• Full proposals submitted via Grants.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation via Grants.gov should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov . The complete text of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: ( https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide ). To obtain copies of the Application Guide and Application Forms Package, click on the Apply tab on the Grants.gov site, then click on the Apply Step 1: Download a Grant Application Package and Application Instructions link and enter the funding opportunity number, (the program solicitation number without the NSF prefix) and press the Download Package button. Paper copies of the Grants.gov Application Guide also may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from [email protected] .

See PAPPG Chapter II.D.2 for guidance on the required sections of a full research proposal submitted to NSF. Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the PAPPG instructions.

3. FULL PROPOSAL

Full Proposal Preparation Instructions :

As a multi-university ERC, the proposal must be submitted as a single integrated proposal by the Lead university, with proposed subawards to the other partner institutions. Separately submitted collaborative proposals from each partner will not be accepted.

Select "Prepare New Full Proposal" in Research.gov. Search for and select this solicitation title in Step One of the Full Proposal wizard. Select "Center" as the proposal type. In the proposal details section, select "Single proposal (with or without subawards)." Separately submitted collaborative proposals will be returned without review.

Title: Research.gov will pre-pend the title with "Center." The remainder of the title should begin with "NSF Engineering Research Center for ( insert the rest of the title and the Center's acronym )". The title should reflect the engineering system of the proposed ERC.

Cover Sheet: For planning purposes, September 1, 2026 should be shown as the requested start date. The award duration should be 60 months.

Project Summary (1 page): The Project Summary must have three separate section headers entitled "Overview", "Intellectual Merit", and "Broader Impacts"; each heading must be on its own line with no other text on that line. Within the Overview section, include a separate sub-section entitled "Proposed Vision".

The summary should be informative to those working in the same or related fields and understandable to a scientifically or technically literate reader. Full proposals that do not contain the Project Summary as described above will be returned without review.

Project Description: Maximum 26 pages, total, containing the following sections, not necessarily in this order. Figures and tables must be included within the 26-page limit.

Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts: The intellectual merit and broader impacts of the ERC must be addressed and described throughout the narrative as an integral part of the Project Description. Between Sections IV and V, include a separate header for Broader Impacts, as specified below.

Outline for the Full Proposal Project Description (up to 26 pages)

BROADER IMPACTS ( Please note: The Project Description must include a separate section header labeled Broader Impacts and the heading must be on its own line with no other text on that line .)

VIII. Evaluation Plan

IX. Financial Support and Functional Allocation of Resources

X. Results from Prior NSF Support

The proposed vision for the ERC must be explained, with a discussion of the convergent engineering research theme and the anticipated societal impact. Explain the proposed transformative engineered system and the potential for impact on society, the engineering community and the greater scientific community.

Rationale: Make the case for why the proposed ERC is appropriate and why a convergent approach is needed for the targeted societal impact. Articulate why this vision cannot be realized with a series of individual investigators awards, the additional value of the proposed ERC compared with the sum of its parts.

The plan must clearly define the engineered system and describe how the features of the ERC will be integrated to achieve the vision, in particular the cohesive plan for involving participants at all levels in the four foundational components:

The Strategic Plan should include the high-level goals within each of these foundational components that will be described in more detail in later sections and the interrelationships among those goals, as well as the strategic role of partner institutions in integrating the foundation components and achieving these goals. The plan should also include the high-level expected progress of the ERC efforts across the 10-years of support in these four fundamental components, including ERC growth. The plan should further include discussions on the overarching convergent approach, the engagement of the stakeholder community, and the plans for convergent team formation. The ERC Strategic Plan should provide a roadmap with major milestones and describe how the ERC will know when it has been successful in meeting its goals. Finally, the ERC Strategic Plan should also articulate the logical reasoning that connects the proposed activities to the identified goals as well as the connections between the goals and the desired impacts expressed in the ERC Vision. The overall strategy must have the flexibility and the agility to evolve over time. An ERC needs to continually refine its vision based on a reliable feedback mechanism to focus on core advances, prune less compelling ERC elements, and refine as necessary the level of detail of its strategic plan over time.

Leadership Team: To properly address the four foundational components of the ERC, among the ERC Leadership Team, there must be identified individuals with: (a) deep expertise in the fundamental science/engineering areas envisioned by the ERC; (b) strategic leadership in innovation including intellectual property; (c) expertise in engineering workforce development and (d) experience in diversity and inclusion. Provide a chart summarizing the composition and expertise of the leadership team. Justify how each of the disciplines in this spectrum is needed for the convergent approach.

Management Plan: Proposals must include a management plan that describes the administration of the Center, including the functions of the leadership team, key personnel, and the role of any advisory committees, including the required Student Leadership Council and the Council of Deans, executive committee(s), and/or program committees or their equivalent. While the details of the structure are left to the proposers, the management structure should be designed to facilitate and integrate the ERC's critical and foundational components (CR, EWD, DCI, and IE). In addition, the proposed management plan should address the roles, authorities, and accountability for the leadership team that will ensure no bottlenecks in decision making.

Specifically, the successful proposal will delineate:

• The overall management and reporting structure of the ERC.
• Which personnel or groups will be responsible for CR, EWD, DCI, and IE. Please explain the relevant experience and expertise of these individuals and how they fit their assigned roles.
• These individuals should be included in the leadership team.
• An organizational chart, including advisory boards and the reporting/feedback loops involved.

The accompanying narrative for the organization chart should define the functional roles and responsibilities of each leadership position, and how these positions support the integrated strategic plan described earlier. It should also define the functional purpose of any additional advisory bodies that are deemed necessary to support the four foundational components, accomplish the proposed ERC vision, and achieve the desired long-term societal impact. Note that the functional roles of the two mandated ERC Advisory Bodies, the Council of Deans and the Student Leadership Council, are defined earlier in the section on Community Feedback. Since the quality of team member interaction is critical to team effectiveness, describe the managerial processes overlaying the organization chart that will be used to integrate the team. Please provide sufficient detail to allow critical evaluation.

Institutional Configuration: Describe the institutional configuration given the proposed vision for the ERC. Discuss the value added by each core partner university in meeting the goals of the four foundational components. Discuss the value added by any partnerships as described in the Key Elements of an ERC – Partners section.

IV. Convergent Research (CR)

ERCs are expected to have center-scale convergent engineering research that will support the ERC's overall potential for societal impact. The research program is the core of the ERC from which all ERC activities evolve.

Research Strategy: Clearly describe the proposed engineered system (a combination of components and elements that work together to perform a useful function) for the ERC. This section must include detailed research strategies, such as the 3-plane diagram (described below), research thrusts, and testbeds. A 10-year roadmap must illustrate the critical path, milestones, contributions from research projects, interdependence of research activities, short- and long-term deliverables, and overarching objectives in knowledge, technology, and proof of principle testbeds included in the ERC's vision. Impacts of the proposed research and technology outcomes on society, stakeholders, and the scientific and engineering communities must be included. Discuss how the research strategy will support the proposed societal impact of the ERC, including any potential negative consequences that would arise from the development of new technologies. Include risk mitigation strategies if appropriate. This section should also include strategies for building and maintaining teams appropriate for the proposed convergent approach and the process for starting, managing, and potentially ending research projects throughout the lifetime of the ERC. This section should clearly state what fundamental knowledge is expected within each thrust to advance the state of the art, including engineering as a whole discipline.

ERC 3-Plane Strategic Planning Chart: Identify and characterize interdependent research thrusts and activities at fundamental knowledge, enabling technology, and systems-level testbed(s) scales. Integration of research activities must be graphically depicted on a clearly legible version of the ERC Program's 3-Plane Strategic Planning Chart ( https://erc-assoc.org/content/strategic-planning-research-3-plane-chart ) that is tailored to the proposed ERC. The chart should be at least half a page, but a full page is recommended for legibility, as this chart is used at several stages of the NSF review process.

Research Thrusts: Each thrust description should start with a table that lists the thrust leader and other faculty/research participants by name, department, and institution. International partners, if any, who may be involved in the early stages of the thrust efforts must also be listed. Discuss the goals and objectives of the thrust vis-à-vis the goals of the ERC and the convergent research strategic plan and how these thrusts will support each other. Provide information on fundamental knowledge and technology deliverables. Identify the gaps and barriers the thrust will address in the context of the ERC's strategic plan. Discuss the convergent cross-disciplinary mix of expertise needed to achieve the goals of the thrust, as well as how the proposed team fulfills that need. Describe how future team building will support the convergent approach. Benchmark the research proposed for the thrust with respect to the state-of-the-art. Discuss the role of the thrust's research relative to the ERC's 3- Plane Strategic Planning Chart.

Project-level descriptions of specific research activities for each thrust must describe the proposed research and link it to the thrust goals. Describe a few exemplar projects in depth to allow judgment of the quality of the effort proposed, rather than superficially describing all projects. For these projects, provide examples of fundamental barriers the research will address, the need for a convergent approach, and project-level methods to address the barriers.

Demonstrate that the desired results constitute breakthroughs and are attainable in ten years. Discuss how projects support and integrate with other thrusts, enabling technologies, and systems-level testbeds in an overall convergent research approach.

Testbeds: Enabling- and systems-level testbeds must include a description of proposed proof-of-concept demonstration(s) in each testbed and personnel needed to construct and implement each proposed testbed. The research program budget should support technical staff to work with students and faculty to build these testbeds.

Note: NSF funds may not be used to support clinical trials. If the research involves vertebrate animals or includes human subjects, PAPPG requirements must be followed for the full proposal.

V. Engineering Workforce Development (EWD)

The ERC EWD program is driven by the future education, workforce development, and labor market needs relevant to the proposed Center. A proposed evidence-based program for building human capacity for the future engineering and technical workforce must be described. The proposed program should provide strategic goals for the ERC as well as targeted and specific outcomes related to workforce development and education.

Workforce Development occurs at all levels of the Center and provides opportunities for all ERC members including students, faculty, and external partners as appropriate. Proposed activities should logically lead to targeted outcomes and support diverse pathways and experiences for participants. Engineering workforce activities should contribute to a diverse, globally competitive, and team-oriented engineering workforce that has experience in convergent research, technology advancement, industrial practice, and innovation. Rather than a comprehensive set of training opportunities (general public, faculty, professional, vocational, graduate students, undergraduate students, and K-12), EWD programs should include a strategic selection of targeted activities that logically connect to each other and that will enable the long-term vision of the Center ERCs should leverage team and institutional expertise and resources to maximize impact with targeted activities.

At least 6 non-ERC students must enroll in a Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) program budgeted at a minimum of $80K per year from the ERC base budget, as well as at least 6 participants must be engaged in a Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) program budgeted at a minimum of $60K per year from the ERC base budget. Awarded ERCs are encouraged to submit proposals to the annual Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Site and Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) Site competitions to expand the Center's workforce development impact. Partnerships with inner city, rural, or other high needs schools are especially encouraged, as is participation of the full spectrum of diverse talent in STEM. Suitable metrics to assess progress towards meeting the ERC's goals should be described, and feedback loops should be in place for continuous program improvement.

Describe how the leadership team will effectively support workforce development and educational programming and their growth. This section should also clearly describe how the proposed workforce development program will interact with existing educational or training systems at all partner institutions. Include a description of plans for engaging with partners, recruiting participants, and anticipated participant experiences. Educational partnerships may be leveraged to support the program and provide opportunities to engage with potential participants. All Engineering Workforce Development program participants, whether internal or external to the ERC, should have opportunities that are unique and would otherwise not be possible without the ERC.

VI. Diversity and Culture of Inclusion (DCI)

Describe the vision and plans for nurturing a culture that ensures participation of the full spectrum of diverse talent in STEM. A culture of inclusion has many important aspects that are essential for deep collaboration, including the participation of members from diverse scientific backgrounds and training which is necessary for true convergent research and innovation. A culture of inclusion must also foster participation of a diversity of partner institutions, including industry and practitioners, that will bring different perspectives to bear on the goals of the ERC. At least one core partner institution that enrolls and graduates a high percentage of underrepresented students in engineering and STEM fields must be included.

Describe preliminary ideas to create and nurture a culture that fosters the engagement of all ERC participants, including those from a diverse range of scientific backgrounds. This section should include evidence-based and intentional programming to support the inclusion of all talent that integrates and strengthen convergent research efforts across all institutions. Suitable metrics to assess the ERC's goals should be described, and feedback loops should be in place for independent assessment and continuous improvement in all dimensions of ERC operation.

In this section, describe how the leadership team will effectively create an inclusive culture for the ERC in which all members feel valued and welcomed, creatively contribute, and gain mutual benefit from participating. Include a description of plans for recruiting, mentoring, and retaining undergraduates, graduate students, and members of the research and leadership team from full spectrum of diverse talent in engineering. Describe the role of all partners, including plans to connect with ERC’s research and innovation goals in meaningful way, benefiting the students and faculty in the Center.

The ERC program is committed to including the participation of the full spectrum of diverse talent in STEM.

VII. Innovation Ecosystem (IE)

At its core, the innovation ecosystem is a network formed among trusted partners working together towards the common goal of creating and enhancing the capacity for innovation within the ecosystem.

In this section, discuss how the ERC will foster the creation of societal value from innovations (e.g., inventions, goods, services, businesses) that benefit society in a sustainable fashion (i.e., value creation). Identify the innovation ecosystem stakeholders relevant to realizing the proposed vision and societal impact.

Describe the strategy to form relationships with stakeholders to garner support for the Center's vision. Specifically, include the ERC's plans for developing and fostering industrial/practitioner memberships and involvement; technology transfer to member and non-member firms; if included, the role of university and state and local government as facilitators of entrepreneurship, civics, economic/workforce development and innovation; or regulatory agencies as influencers of the ERC innovation , end users or customers as beneficiaries of the ERC innovation, and plans for supporting translational research when appropriate.

To maximize positive social impact, any anticipated potential negative consequences caused by the introduction of the ERC technology should be addressed. In these cases, make sure to include stakeholder(s) that will work to mitigate the negative impacts, such as through consideration of regulation and ethics.

Provide a description of how the proposed member firms (e.g., innovation partners, facilitators, influencers, and beneficiaries) align to the proposed ERC's technology area. That is, as the ERC's research program evolves, note at which points in time in the ERC development over its 10-year lifespan different types of stakeholders engage with the ERC to enable success and create societal value. Some stakeholders may be engaged for the entire 10 years, and others may be involved with focused research activities at critical points in time (e.g., testbed development).

Discuss the integration of all stakeholders into the governance and operations of the ERC. Include a letter of collaboration ( please make sure to use the template provided in the PAPPG ) from each stakeholder that identifies their commitment to work with the ERC as described in the project description. The letters should be uploaded in the Supplementary Documents section.

Legal Frameworks: The different stakeholder groups/organizations/partners operate under very different legal frameworks that can make seamless collaboration difficult. Consequently, the ERC must work within the university structure to create an environment where the frameworks can be modified so that the different entities can come together for productive interaction. In advance of anyone joining the ERC, it is important to put in place legal agreements that protect the interests of the stakeholder entities and the university partners. Therefore, at a minimum, all ERCs require two legal frameworks to handle (1) intellectual property and (2) industry/practitioner membership agreements. The specifics of the ERC vision and the nature of the stakeholder community will determine whether additional legal frameworks are necessary.

• Intellectual Property: Describe the overall Intellectual Property (IP) strategy consistent with planned value creation in the ERC, and the corresponding management of the ERC IP across the lead and partner institutions and the approaches that will enable licensing of ERC's IP and/or adopting of other ERC outcomes. This plan must discuss management of possible conflicts-of-interest of any ERC researchers and the ERC's technology transfer endeavors. If an award is made, the IP policy must be prepared and submitted within 90 days of the award.
• Industry/Practitioner Membership Agreement: Discuss the terms of the draft membership agreement including the proposed fee structure and benefits. Describe the type(s) of support to be received. A letter of commitment (one page maximum for each) from each firm/practitioner organization committed to joining the ERC as a member and providing (cash and/or in-kind) support in the event that an award is made must be uploaded in Supplementary Documents.

Based on the goals and desired outcomes of the ERC strategic plan, a proposed evaluation plan is required that includes all four foundational components as well as a risk analysis . The purpose of ERC evaluation is to provide feedback on progress towards meeting Center goals. The evaluation plan should include formative aspects that allow the Center to make evidence-based decisions about changes in its activities and summative aspects to provide evidence of impact across all elements of the ERC. This section should include the evaluation questions, as well as, a description of the type of evaluation design and methods that will be used to address each question. This section should specify the mechanisms and timeline for how the results and recommendations from evaluation and assessment will be fed back into ERC goals, objectives, and milestones to ensure continual progress and attainment of goals, targets, and impacts during the project period. It should also identify the person(s) who will lead the ERC evaluation and briefly describe their academic training and professional experience that qualifies them to serve as an evaluator. Evaluator(s) may be internal or external to ERC institutions but should be positioned to carry out the evaluation plan as objectively as possible.

Awardees may be required to participate in program-level evaluation activities by which NSF can assess implementation processes and progress toward program level outcomes. NSF, an NSF contractor, or a grantee on behalf of NSF, may periodically conduct program evaluations or special projects that necessitate access to project level staff and data. This activity may occur at any time during the award period and could occur after NSF support has ended. ERC participation includes responding to inquiries, interview and other methods of common data collection and/or aggregation across ERCs. In addition, PIs and ERC evaluators may be asked to assist in developing program evaluation activities that will mutually benefit the agency and ERC participants.

Discuss the plans for financial and in-kind support from all sources, except cost sharing. Include plans for allocation of those resources to fulfill the goals of the ERC. Include a functional budget table, showing only the estimated proportional distribution of effort across the ERC in its first 5 years without showing the support levels from any sources. The table must not show the sources of support, since the reviewers cannot have access to the level of academic support. A template of the table can be found on bullet #3: http://erc-assoc.org/content/templates-proposal-preparation-0 .

This section of the proposal must also include a pie chart showing the allocation of resources and committed levels of support for the first five years from industrial or practitioner member firms and any additional non-member commitments from state and/or local governments for cash and/or in-kind support. A template of the table for Pie Chart Showing Allocation of Resources and Committed Levels of Support can be found on bullet #4: http://erc-assoc.org/content/templates-proposal-preparation-0 .

Provide a pie chart showing the planned distribution of the requested NSF funds for year one between the lead, each domestic partner university, and each university contributing affiliated faculty.

If the Director and Lead PI (if different) identified on the proposal have received prior NSF support, including any award with an end date in the past five years or current funding including any no-cost extensions, the intellectual merit and broader impacts accomplished under that award should be discussed. In cases where the Director and Lead PI have received more than one award (excluding amendments to existing awards), they should only report on the award that is most closely related to the proposal (for each, if the Director and Lead PI are different people) . See PAPPG II.D.2.iii for the required format of this section. Recommended length – no more than one page.

In addition, the proposal must also include these documents and information.

References Cited: See PAPPG for format guidelines.

Budgetary Information: Travel Funds for ERC Leadership Team's Participation in Biennial Meetings: Members of the ERC Leadership Team are required to participate in the ERC Biennial Meeting (typically held in odd years) and the cross- ERC Leadership Team retreats (which are typically held annually). The purpose of biennial meeting is to share successes and failures across the ERCs, receive updates on the ERC Program, and provide input for future ERC Program improvements. The purpose of the retreats is to focus on issues and best practices specific to the different leadership team groups. The biennial meetings are held in the Washington DC area for 2.5 days. Retreats are held in various locations for 1-2 days. Travel funds must be included in each annual budget to support participation in alternating biennial and leadership retreats for each person identified.

Note: The budget justification section should only identify items that are not cost shared. A justification and explanation of cost shared items needs to be appended to the cost sharing tables that are submitted in the single-copy documents section of the proposal.

Cost sharing is mandatory and is specific to the ERC solicitation . The percentage of cost share is determined using the Cost Sharing Formula in the Budgetary Information section of this solicitation. Lead and core partner institutions are responsible for cost share on their entire portion of NSF funds, including sub-awards from their institutions to affiliate partners or other payees. Please see the Budgetary Information section of this solicitation for additional information.

Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources . In this section, please include ONLY facilities, equipment, and personnel that are directly relevant and unique to the proposed ERC. Briefly discuss such laboratories, facilities, cyberinfrastructure, personnel, and equipment, particularly those shared by the ERC team members. Distinguish existing facilities and equipment from any that will be acquired by the ERC (see PAPPG Chapter II.C.2.i). Space must be identified on the campus of the lead academic institution for the ERC headquarters. Describe the headquarters, including the size, functionality, and features. Discuss how the cyberinfrastructure, facilities, and equipment of the ERC will be used to form and sustain a collaborative ERC team with shared resources and information.

Letters of commitment should be included in the supplementary documents for facilities, equipment, etc. that are being provided by institutions or collaborators which are not from the lead institution or the core partners.

Senior/Key Personnel Documents

In accordance with the guidance in the PAPPG, the following information must be provided for all individuals designated as Senior/Key Personnel. This includes the Lead PI, Center Director if different from the Lead PI, co-PIs, all members of the ERC Leadership Team and key faculty.

• Biographical Sketch
• Current and Pending (Other) Support
• Collaborators & Other Affiliations Information
• Synergistic Activities

Supplementary Documents . In addition to the requirements contained in the PAPPG, the following items must be provided as supplementary documents.

Table of Academic/Other Participants and Industrial/Practitioner Members: The table should be created using the table format available on the ERC Association website on bullet #5 at: http://erc-assoc.org/content/templates-proposal-preparation-0 . Download and use the Word file named " ERC Participants Table Template for Inclusion in Full Proposal. " Provide all the required information in each section of the table.

Letters of Commitment : These letters should express commitment, but should not praise or advocate for the project, and must follow the format for letters of collaboration given in the PAPPG. Submit the following required letters as indicated:

• Lead university: Senior university administrators (Dean of Engineering plus one other higher-level university official) for the lead university attesting to the institutional commitment to the goals of the ERC and a commitment to headquarters space in both letters. The letters should not mention cost sharing, as that information cannot be revealed to reviewers. The letters should indicate the institutional commitment to all major aspects of the ERC, including each of the four foundational components, and assure the development of a cross-ERC IP policy within 90 days, if an award is made.
• Each Core Partner University: A senior administrator (Dean or equivalent) attests to the partner's institutional commitment to the goals of the ERC.
• If applicable, officials from any participating federal laboratories indicating their involvement in the ERC and their commitment to provide support for their staff participating in the ERC.
• Member Organizations: A letter of commitment (one page maximum for each) from each firm/practitioner organization committed to joining the ERC as a member and providing (cash and/or in-kind) support.

Letters of Collaboration

The following Letters of Collaboration are required if applicable to the proposed ERC. These letters should state generic willingness to collaborate, but should not provide specific details on types or amounts of contributions and must follow the format for letters of collaboration given in the PAPPG:

• Officials of firms and agencies able to commit to membership.
• An administrator of each proposed pre-college or community college partners committing to their roles in the ERC as described in the Project Description.
• State or local government agencies and other organizations committed to partnership with the ERC.
• Domestic affiliated facult y if their projects are planned to be in place during years one through five. Note that no letters are required from the administrators of the universities providing affiliated faculty.
• Foreign collaborators , if any.

All letters should be addressed to:

ERC Program

Division of Engineering Education and Centers

U.S. National Science Foundation

All signed letters must be scanned and uploaded in the Other Supplementary Documents section of the proposal. Please instruct the letter writers not to mail, email, or fax copies to the NSF, as they will not be considered.

Draft Membership Agreement . Submit draft industry/practitioner membership agreement.

Data Management and Sharing Plan . Provide a Data Management and Sharing Plan according to guidance in the PAPPG. Go to ENG Data Management Plans | NSF - National Science Foundation ( https://www.nsf.gov/eng/general/dmp.jsp ) for Engineering-specific guidance.

Mentoring Plan . If applicable, provide a mentoring plan for postdoctoral scholars or graduate students who will be supported by ERC funds.

Single Copy Documents . Viewable only by NSF (also refer to the PAPPG Chapter II.C.1 on "Single-Copy Documents" for additional information):

Optional List of Suggested Reviewers or Reviewers Not to Include: Proposers may include in the single copy documents section a list of suggested reviewers who they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal. Proposers also may designate persons they would prefer not to review the ERC proposal, indicating why. These suggestions are optional. PAPPG Exhibit II-2 contains information on conflicts of interest that may be useful in the preparation of this list. The cognizant Program Officer handling the proposal considers the suggestions and may contact the proposer for further information. However, the decision whether to use the suggestions remains with the Program Officer.

Required Cost Sharing Tables and Justification: Complete and submit the following tables: " Committed Cash and In-Kind Academic Support, Years 1-5 " and, if applicable, a table showing the " Nature of In-Kind Support " identifying any in-kind commitments and the sources of the commitments. A template of those tables can be found at (bullet #6): http://erc-assoc.org/content/templates-proposal-preparation-0 . The tables should be uploaded into the single copy documents section of the full proposal. Appended to the cost sharing tables will be a justification/explanation of the source, nature, amount, and availability of any proposed cost sharing. The Proposers are directed not to include these tables and the cost sharing justification in any other part of the proposal, as cost sharing commitments are not provided to the reviewers. Refer to the section on Budgetary Information and Cost Sharing in this solicitation for information on cost sharing requirements and policies.

Proposal Update: If the proposed ERC is evaluated by a Site Visit Team (SVT), a 10-page reply that integrates changes in the proposed ERC based on comments from the SVT members and the Site Visit Report will be requested to facilitate the final stages of the review process.

INVITED FULL PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

(Note: This is NOT a total list of the ERC proposal requirements. Refer to the ERC Solicitation and the PAPPG for complete requirements).

Post Proposal Submission to NSF: Other Required Documents

Cost Sharing:

Cost Sharing is required.

Invited full proposals will include a budget for each of the five years. Research.gov or Grants.gov will automatically provide a cumulative budget. Provide separate budgets for subawards to the domestic core partner institutions and any affiliated institutions whose faculty and students would be supported by the ERC's budget. Allowable budgets for the first five years are as follows: The budget for year one may be no more than $3,500,000, no more than $4,500,000 for year two, no more than $6,000,000 for year three, no more than $6,000,000 for year four, and for year five.

Cost Sharing: Mandatory Cost Sharing is required but inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

Mandatory Cost Sharing Requirements and Policies: Cost sharing is required of the lead university and core partner university(ies) to support and sustain the ERC. Cost sharing is not a review criterion for the ERCs; it is an eligibility criterion. Because cost sharing is not a review criterion, details on cost sharing will not be shared with the reviewers.

Upon issuance of the award, the lead university is responsible to secure, retain, manage, and certify to NSF the ERC cost sharing (cash and in-kind), at the level stated in the cooperative agreement. The total level of cost sharing proposed must be calculated using the "Cost Sharing Formula" below.

Cost sharing must not exceed the mandatory level stated in the ERC cost sharing formula. This would be considered "voluntary committed cost sharing" which is specifically prohibited according to NSF's cost sharing policies. ERC proposals that include cost sharing amounts in excess of the specified formula will be returned without review or declined.

Instructions for Disclosure and Non-Disclosure of Cost Sharing within the Proposal:

Cost Sharing and Letters of Commitment: Since cost sharing is not to be seen or considered by reviewers, any letters of commitment should not mention any cost sharing (cash or in-kind), since the reviewers will see these letters. See Section V.A for details concerning the letters of commitment.

Cost Sharing in the Budget Submission: The proposed cost sharing (including the estimated value of any in-kind cost sharing), according to the formula below, must be shown on Line M of the NSF proposal budget form. (Line M is masked from reviewers.)

Cumulative cost sharing should be entered for all 5 years on Line M of the first-year budget. Do not include the cost sharing figures on Line M of the budget for years 2-5. Do not include the justification / explanation for any cost-shared items in the budget justification section of the proposal. Only the non-cost shared items should be explained in the budget justification section, identifying the source, nature, amount and availability of non-cost shared items.

Cost Sharing Tables and Justification: The cost sharing commitment of the ERC must be documented in the proposal and the details presented in the tables of committed support. The lead institution is instructed to provide a table of "Committed Cash and In-Kind Academic Support, Years 1-5" (including any partner university providing cash for years 1-5). Proposers must also complete the table "Nature of In-Kind Support" identifying in-kind commitments and the sources of the commitments. A template of those tables can be found at (bullet #6) http://erc-assoc.org/content/templates-proposal-preparation-0 . The tables should be uploaded into the "Single Copy Documents" section of the proposal. Append to the cost sharing tables a justification / explanation of the source, nature, amount and availability of any proposed cost sharing. Do not include these tables and the cost sharing justification in any other part of the proposal, as cost sharing commitments are not to be provided to reviewers.

Cost Sharing Formula:

ERC cost sharing requirements are determined based on classification at the time of the LOI submission deadline as defined in the "Carnegie Foundation's Classification of Institutions of Higher Education." Limited financial resources at smaller colleges and universities that lack high research activity may present significant challenges to cost sharing. Therefore:

• RU/VH: Research Universities - required cost sharing level is 20% of the allocation of the NSF budget to the lead or core partner university;
• RU/H: Research Universities - required cost sharing level is 15% of the allocation of the NSF budget to the lead or core partner university;
• DRU: Doctoral/Research Universities - cost sharing level is 10% of the allocation of the NSF budget to that core partner university.
• Master's L: Master's Colleges and Universities - cost sharing level is 10% of the allocation of the NSF budget to that core partner university/college;
• Bac/Diverse: Baccalaureate Colleges--Diverse Fields - cost sharing level is 5% of the allocation of the NSF budget to that core partner college.

If the university is classified in more than one Carnegie category, it must cost share at the highest cost sharing category as described above. The Carnegie classification shall remain throughout the duration of the competition and any subsequent award. The total ERC cost share shall be 20% or less, depending upon the Carnegie classifications for each of the partners.

ERC Support Cost-Sharing Sources:

The proposed cost sharing must be shown on Line M on the proposal budget. For purposes of budget preparation, the cumulative cost sharing amount must be entered on Line M of the first year’s budget. Should an award be made, the organization’s cost sharing commitment, as specified on the first year’s approved budget, must be met prior to award expiration.

Such cost sharing will be an eligibility, rather than a review criterion. Proposers are advised not to exceed the mandatory cost sharing level or amount specified in the solicitation.

When mandatory cost sharing is included on Line M, and accepted by the Foundation, the commitment of funds becomes legally binding and is subject to audit. When applicable, the estimated value of any in-kind contributions also should be included on Line M. An explanation of the source, nature, amount and availability of any proposed cost sharing must be provided in the budget justification. Contributions may be made from any non-Federal source, including non-Federal grants or contracts, and may be cash or in-kind. 2 CFR § 200.306 describes criteria and procedures for the allowability of cash and in-kind contributions in satisfying cost sharing and matching requirements. It should be noted that contributions derived from other Federal funds or counted as cost sharing toward projects of another Federal agency must not be counted towards meeting the specific cost sharing requirements of the NSF award.

Failure to provide the level of cost sharing required by the NSF solicitation and reflected in the NSF award budget may result in termination of the NSF award, disallowance of award costs and/or refund of award funds to NSF by the awardee.

The overall ERC-level budget should be prepared to assure sufficient funding from all sources to achieve the goals of the ERC. Hence, this budget would include faculty and staff to support the research, education, diversity and culture of inclusion, industrial collaboration/innovation, and management of the ERC. Budgets should include resources for reporting, site visit costs, and travel for cross-ERC collaboration and NSF meetings. The budget submitted to NSF will include an allocation plan for the NSF funding only.

     May 09, 2025

D. Research.gov/Grants.gov Requirements

For Proposals Submitted Via Research.gov:

To prepare and submit a proposal via Research.gov, see detailed technical instructions available at: https://www.research.gov/research-portal/appmanager/base/desktop?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=research_node_display&_nodePath=/researchGov/Service/Desktop/ProposalPreparationandSubmission.html . For Research.gov user support, call the Research.gov Help Desk at 1-800-381-1532 or e-mail [email protected] . The Research.gov Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the Research.gov system. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity.

For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:

Before using Grants.gov for the first time, each organization must register to create an institutional profile. Once registered, the applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants.gov website. Comprehensive information about using Grants.gov is available on the Grants.gov Applicant Resources webpage: https://www.grants.gov/applicants . In addition, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide (see link in Section V.A) provides instructions regarding the technical preparation of proposals via Grants.gov. For Grants.gov user support, contact the Grants.gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726 or by email: [email protected] . The Grants.gov Contact Center answers general technical questions related to the use of Grants.gov. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this solicitation.

Submitting the Proposal: Once all documents have been completed, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must submit the application to Grants.gov and verify the desired funding opportunity and agency to which the application is submitted. The AOR must then sign and submit the application to Grants.gov. The completed application will be transferred to Research.gov for further processing.

The NSF Grants.gov Proposal Processing in Research.gov informational page provides submission guidance to applicants and links to helpful resources including the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide , Grants.gov Proposal Processing in Research.gov how-to guide , and Grants.gov Submitted Proposals Frequently Asked Questions . Grants.gov proposals must pass all NSF pre-check and post-check validations in order to be accepted by Research.gov at NSF.

When submitting via Grants.gov, NSF strongly recommends applicants initiate proposal submission at least five business days in advance of a deadline to allow adequate time to address NSF compliance errors and resubmissions by 5:00 p.m. submitting organization's local time on the deadline. Please note that some errors cannot be corrected in Grants.gov. Once a proposal passes pre-checks but fails any post-check, an applicant can only correct and submit the in-progress proposal in Research.gov.

Proposers that submitted via Research.gov may use Research.gov to verify the status of their submission to NSF. For proposers that submitted via Grants.gov, until an application has been received and validated by NSF, the Authorized Organizational Representative may check the status of an application on Grants.gov. After proposers have received an e-mail notification from NSF, Research.gov should be used to check the status of an application.

VI. NSF Proposal Processing And Review Procedures

Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and award process (and associated timeline) is included in PAPPG Exhibit III-1.

A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is available on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/ .

Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in Leading the World in Discovery and Innovation, STEM Talent Development and the Delivery of Benefits from Research - NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2022 - 2026 . These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities.

One of the strategic objectives in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions must recruit, train, and prepare a diverse STEM workforce to advance the frontiers of science and participate in the U.S. technology-based economy. NSF's contribution to the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research under the guidance of the Nation's most creative scientists and engineers. NSF also supports development of a strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce by investing in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching and learning.

NSF's mission calls for the broadening of opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.

A. Merit Review Principles and Criteria

The National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of science and engineering research and education. To identify which projects to support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes." NSF makes every effort to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent merit review process for the selection of projects.

1. Merit Review Principles

These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations when preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards. Given that NSF is the primary federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and education, the following three principles apply:

• All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the potential to advance, if not transform, the frontiers of knowledge.
• 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.
• 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.

With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project. Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of those activities.

These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better understand their intent.

2. Merit Review Criteria

All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board approved merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.

The two merit review criteria are listed below. 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. (PAPPG Chapter II.C.2.d(i). contains additional information for use by proposers in development of the Project Description section of the proposal). Reviewers are strongly encouraged to review the criteria, including PAPPG Chapter II.C.2.d(i), prior to the review of a proposal.

When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful. These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers will be asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria:

• Intellectual Merit: The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance knowledge; and
• Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.

The following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria:

• Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
• Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?
• To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
• 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?
• How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities?
• Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?

Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and other underrepresented groups in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education.

Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the Data Management Plan and the Postdoctoral Researcher Mentoring Plan, as appropriate.

Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria

PRELIMINARY Proposal Additional Review Criteria:

Reviewers should consider these high-level questions:

How well does the preliminary proposal narrative address the following in the project description?

• What is the compelling new idea and what is the potential high societal impact?
• What is the engineered system? Is it high-risk but high payoff?
• Is the 3-plane chart well-conceived and justified?
• How does the proposed Center's research benchmark against the state-of-the-art?
• What is the proposed management structure for the ERC? How will the proposed organization and management structure integrate and implement the four foundational components (CR, EWD, DCI, and IE) and foster team-formation?
• Does the proposed ERC create an inclusive environment where all the ERC participants learn to work on a team towards a common goal?

FULL Proposal Additional Review Criteria:

• What is the engineered system?
• Why is the proposed vision compelling?
• Why is the proposed research competitive when benchmarked against the state-of-the-art?
• How well does the proposed ERC justify the need for a center or institute-like approach?

High Societal Impact

• What is the potential for high societal impact?
• How realistic is the proposed plan for high societal impact?
• If the proposed strategy is high-risk does the potential payoff from anticipated impacts justify the investment?

Convergence Research

• Does the proposed research require a convergent approach and is its implementation well documented?
• How well justified is the argument that convergence is necessary for the desired impact?
• How well has the convergent approach been fully integrated into the proposal?
• What is the likelihood the research will lead to significant fundamental advances, new discoveries, and technological developments?
• How well does the proposed research use the testbeds to integrate and to advance proofs-of-concept to achieve the proposed vision?
• Are there well-defined implementation milestones for convergence research?

Stakeholder Engagement

• Are effective mechanisms to gather, engage, and implement feedback from appropriate stakeholders in place (i.e., collaborators, supporters, advisory boards, external committees)?

Team Formation

• How does the team formation and the implementation of team science support the proposed convergent research?
• How well has the ERC demonstrated strategies to overcome barriers for effective, dynamic teaming?

Strategic Plan

• How well does the Center present an integrated strategic plan for the ERC to address the key elements of each foundational component and their integration?
• How well does the proposal present an appropriate and compelling management structure and plan to carry out Center activities?

Management and Organization

• How appropriate are the qualifications of proposed leadership and management team?
• How well does the proposal present appropriate and compelling management structure and plan to carry out Center activities?
• Are effective mechanisms to gather and implement feedback from appropriate stakeholders in place, including advisory boards and external committees?

Engineering Workforce Development

• To what extent is the proposed program coherent and aligned with the overall goals and vision of the ERC?
• Do the proposed Engineering Workforce Development plans include appropriate strategies for recruiting participants and engaging with partners?
• Are the proposed Engineering Workforce Development plans evidence-based and likely to achieve the desired experiences, outcomes, and impact described?

Diversity and Culture of Inclusion

• How well does the discussion include a clear strategy to support Diversity and Culture of Inclusion?
• To what extent does the program propose evidence-based approaches for Diversity and Culture of Inclusion that are integrated with all dimensions of ERC operation?
• How well does the management plan include clear accountability for Diversity and Culture of Inclusion aspects of the ERC across all partners?

Innovation Ecosystem

• How well does the proposal describe a plan to build a network of trusted partners for innovation capacity?
• How appropriate is the proposed structure and processes for value creation to move from ideation to implementation?

Evaluation Plan

• How well has the Center developed a logic evaluation framework to guide the implementation of the strategic plan and evaluate Center performance?
• How well does the evaluation plan include formative aspects that allow the Center to make evidence-based decisions about changes in its activities and summative aspects to provide evidence of impact across all elements of the Center?

Financial Support and Resources

• Are the estimated budget allocations reasonable to achieve the proposed ERC vision?
• Does the Center have adequate capital (i.e., facilities, equipment, cyberinfrastructure) and procedural (i.e., safety, environmental) resources?
• Does the Center have a convincing plan for data sharing and management?

B. Review and Selection Process

Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by

Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review, Site Visit Review, or Reverse Site Review.

For Additional Review Criteria (see above listing)

Reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals using two National Science Board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable, additional program specific criteria. A summary rating and accompanying narrative will generally be completed and submitted by each reviewer and/or panel. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation.

After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. NSF strives to be able to tell proposers whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. Large or particularly complex proposals or proposals from new recipients may require additional review and processing time. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director acts upon the Program Officer's recommendation.

After programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements or the Division of Acquisition and Cooperative Support for review of business, financial, and policy implications. After an administrative review has occurred, Grants and Agreements Officers perform the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk.

Once an award or declination decision has been made, Principal Investigators are provided feedback about their proposals. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers or any reviewer-identifying information, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Officer. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding.

VII. Award Administration Information

A. notification of the award.

Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program administering the program. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See Section VI.B. for additional information on the review process.)

B. Award Conditions

An NSF award consists of: (1) the award notice, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award notice; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1)*; or Research Terms and Conditions* and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award notice. Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC) and the applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are electronically signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail.

*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at https://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF . Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from [email protected] .

More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg .

Administrative and National Policy Requirements

Build America, Buy America

As expressed in Executive Order 14005, Ensuring the Future is Made in All of America by All of America’s Workers (86 FR 7475), it is the policy of the executive branch to use terms and conditions of Federal financial assistance awards to maximize, consistent with law, the use of goods, products, and materials produced in, and services offered in, the United States.

Consistent with the requirements of the Build America, Buy America Act (Pub. L. 117-58, Division G, Title IX, Subtitle A, November 15, 2021), no funding made available through this funding opportunity may be obligated for an award unless all iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials used in the project are produced in the United States. For additional information, visit NSF’s Build America, Buy America webpage.

Special Award Conditions:

TBD - Programmatic Terms and Conditions: TBD - Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions:

C. Reporting Requirements

For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer no later than 90 days prior to the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require submission of more frequent project reports). No later than 120 days following expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final annual project report, and a project outcomes report for the general public.

Failure to provide the required annual or final annual project reports, or the project outcomes report, will delay NSF review and processing of any future funding increments as well as any pending proposals for all identified PIs and co-PIs on a given award. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data.

PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system, available through Research.gov, for preparation and submission of annual and final annual project reports. Such reports provide information on accomplishments, project participants (individual and organizational), publications, and other specific products and impacts of the project. Submission of the report via Research.gov constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete. The project outcomes report also must be prepared and submitted using Research.gov. This report serves as a brief summary, prepared specifically for the public, of the nature and outcomes of the project. This report will be posted on the NSF website exactly as it is submitted by the PI.

More comprehensive information on NSF Reporting Requirements and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg .

NSF requires ERCs to submit annual reports that are more extensive in scope than those required of single investigator awards. NSF provides guidelines for these reports. NSF also requires ERCs to collect and submit to NSF data on indicators of progress, outcome, impact, and financial management. NSF provides data definition guidelines and templates for the recording and submission of these data through a secure web site.

VIII. Agency Contacts

Please note that the program contact information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:

For questions related to the use of NSF systems contact:

• NSF Help Desk: 1-800-381-1532
• Research.gov Help Desk e-mail: [email protected]

For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:

Grants.gov Contact Center: If the Authorized Organizational Representatives (AOR) has not received a confirmation message from Grants.gov within 48 hours of submission of application, please contact via telephone: 1-800-518-4726; e-mail: [email protected] .

IX. Other Information

The NSF website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding opportunities. Use of this website by potential proposers is strongly encouraged. In addition, "NSF Update" is an information-delivery system designed to keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications, important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming NSF Grants Conferences . Subscribers are informed through e-mail or the user's Web browser each time new publications are issued that match their identified interests. "NSF Update" also is available on NSF's website .

Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at https://www.grants.gov .

About The National Science Foundation

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 USC 1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the progress of science; [and] to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields of science and engineering."

NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science organizations and other research organizations throughout the US. The Foundation accounts for about one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic research.

NSF receives approximately 55,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. The agency operates no laboratories itself but does support National Research Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic vessels and Arctic and Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports cooperative research between universities and industry, US participation in international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational activities at every academic level.

Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide Chapter II.F.7 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals.

The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD) and Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that enable individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment or general information. TDD may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and (800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800) 877-8339.

The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at (703) 292-5111.

The National Science Foundation promotes and advances scientific progress in the United States by competitively awarding grants and cooperative agreements for research and education in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering. To get the latest information about program deadlines, to download copies of NSF publications, and to access abstracts of awards, visit the NSF Website at 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314 (NSF Information Center) (703) 292-5111 (703) 292-5090 Send an e-mail to: or telephone: (703) 292-8134 (703) 292-5111 Privacy Act And Public Burden Statements The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; and project reports submitted by proposers will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to proposer institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies or other entities needing information regarding proposers or nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy; and to another Federal agency, court, or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See System of Record Notices , NSF-50 , "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," and NSF-51 , "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records.” Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding the burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Suzanne H. Plimpton Reports Clearance Officer Policy Office, Division of Institution and Award Support Office of Budget, Finance, and Award Management National Science Foundation Alexandria, VA 22314 Search NYU Steinhardt What is a Steinhardt Research Center? Centers 1  are intended to create opportunities for interdisciplinary, externally-funded scholarship among a large group of faculty across academic units. At NYU Steinhardt, we create opportunities for interdisciplinary scholarship through a limited number of cross-faculty, research-active centers. Each center creates a collaborative intellectual community with unique and complementary foci that transcend programmatic, departmental, and even school boundaries. In developing research centers, we aim to build intellectually vibrant communities of scholars who are well-positioned to solve some of society’s most pressing social problems. Our establishment of centers stems from the premise that interdisciplinary scholarship requires a formal structure to support cross-departmental interconnections. Centers intentionally are designed as orthogonal to departments; centers should be created only when there is a strong case to be made for why the mission of the center cannot be achieved within academic departments. Centers allow for faculty across diverse areas of scholarship to share ideas, methods, best practices, and findings; collectively learn about new ideas for the field; and conduct research collaboratively. In short, they create a shared intellectual space for faculty who are conducting convergent areas of work to support one another. Our goal is to establish centers to support the full breadth of interdisciplinary scholarship being conducted across Steinhardt faculty. Note that in some cases, faculty within programs or departments may wish to create intellectual communities  within  (rather than across) their respective units. Our office strongly supports such initiatives in enriching the intellectual life of academic departments and increasing collaboration among faculty within such units. In these instances, however, we firmly believe that the department is a sufficiently robust administrative home to serve the needs of such intellectual communities. As such, a “center” is not needed; instead, faculty may seek to create a “consortium”, research lab, or other collaborative entity to support their work, within the program or department, or within an existing center or institute. Principles of the Center Structure/Center Criteria A center must meet the following criteria in being named as such and having access to the institutional support of a center as detailed below. provides an opportunity for collaboration across departments within Steinhardt, and/or across schools within NYU . Given the stated objective of a center—to create opportunities for interdisciplinary scholarship across faculty in different units—it is imperative that a research center includes faculty scholarship from more than one unit and disciplinary perspective. Centers whose faculty members and research projects are housed only within a single unit will not fulfill the primary goals of the center structure. does not duplicate the work of another existing center at the School . To avoid the competition among centers, new centers must largely complement, rather than duplicate, the conceptual space of another center at Steinhardt. While there may be some minimal conceptual overlap in research areas between centers, the “center of gravity” of each center must be different from one another and Center Directors commit to differentiating the core focus of their center’s work to maintain a well-defined mission. Center Directors must solicit feedback from the Vice Dean for Research and Faculty Affairs and the Center Working Group for changes in mission and scope to ensure that centers remain, as much as possible, distinct from one another. Centers whose missions become increasingly aligned may be merged into larger center units. involves a critical mass of faculty . Centers are intended to involve the work of a large number of faculty members. The richness of interdisciplinarity cannot be fully leveraged without a large group of faculty, a minimum core of five+ faculty and a larger group of ten+. Smaller groups of two or three faculty who wish to collaborate regularly may want to create a “consortium” or other collaborative entity to support their work. While the early stage of a center may involve a somewhat smaller group of faculty, a center must demonstrate the potential to involve a larger group of faculty across units over time. involves substantial external grant-fundraising . Because centers are both administrative as well as intellectual units, external grant funding of sufficient magnitude must be part of the center to warrant the administrative burden of a center structure. Typically, this means 5-10 externally-funded grants totaling well over $1-2 million in total awards. Note that involvement in a research center by a faculty member is  completely voluntary . Faculty members should select, for each of their research projects, the center that will best support that area of scholarship. This also implies that faculty members  may become members of multiple centers , as it is the work or project (i.e. area of scholarship), not the faculty member, that should be aligned with each center’s mission. Faculty members can also choose to administer grants directly through departments, as well. Steinhardt’s revised indirect cost return policy makes it such that departments see no financial impact whatsoever when faculty select to run their research through a center. Center Activities At the core of a center’s activities are the conduct of a coherent body of research. Activities conducted by centers are intended to: support the shared intellectual interests of the faculty who are central to the center’s mission; increase the quality of faculty research by sharing best practices, methods, and innovations; increase the visibility of faculty research by placing it within a larger body of research and providing opportunities for external visibility; increase the impact of the scholarship of the center by ensuring that the work informs practice and policy. As such, in addition to the groundbreaking research that faculty in centers conduct, centers often: host colloquia on shared research interests conduct training workshops on common topics of interest distribute findings across projects via social media, web- or print-based dissemination strategies. Some centers also provide administrative support that augments what is offered by Steinhardt’s Office of Research to provide more individualized P.I. support, space for research teams, seed funds for projects to incentivize research in certain areas and provide support in the grant- writing or completion stage of a project, and training opportunities for students. Proposing a New Center The Office of the Dean at Steinhardt will consider all proposals for the development of a research center. Please reach out to Pamela Morris-Perez, the Vice Dean for Research and Faculty Affairs at  [email protected]. Proposal elements must include: Mission and Goals of the Center . State the overarching mission of the center and its goals. In doing so, please comment as well on a) the relevance to Steinhardt’s (and NYU’s) mission and focus; and b) the complementarity and conceptual distinctness with existing centers already at Steinhardt. The historical context for the center can also be included here. Faculty and Projects of the Center . Please list Steinhardt and NYU faculty whose work is well aligned with the center (current and proposed). Please note those whose interests and research would make them most likely to form the “core” of the center. Also include current and proposed center projects by name, funding source, award amount, and funding date. Please note those projects that “fit” most squarely in the center’s mission and thus should be considered “exemplar” projects for the center. Core Center Activities . Please list the primary activities of the center. These should be designed to meet the center’s goals, above. Governance Structure . What is the proposed governance structure? Benchmarks . Please list planned benchmarks for success in short-term (one-two years) and long-term (five+ years). Describe any threats to meeting these benchmarks and planned opportunities. Please indicate ways in which the Office of Research can support the center’s efforts in meeting these benchmarks. Please note that it is our belief that Steinhardt cannot meet its mission of rich interdisciplinary scholarship, while maintaining administrative efficiency, through the establishment of a very large number of research centers. As such, proposals for new centers must make a compelling case for an area of scholarship that represents the work of a large number of faculty that is not currently addressed within the existing group of cross-faculty research-active research centers already in existence in Steinhardt. Proposals will be reviewed by the Dean and the Vice Dean for Research and Faculty Affairs. All newly proposed centers will present their mission and goals to the Steinhardt Center Working Group for feedback during this review process. The Trajectory of a Research Center – Centers Under Development Not all centers will be launched meeting key thresholds for all of the criteria set forth for the establishment of a research center at their inception. We fully understand that some centers need some time “under development” as they hone their research focus, attract interested faculty across the school and university, and raise external resources to support faculty research. In some (albeit relatively rare) cases, a center may be established in advance of the key defined benchmarks noted above. However, all centers, but especially those in the early phases of development, must meet a set of pre-identified benchmarks agreed upon between the lead faculty involved and the Vice Dean for Research. Until key benchmarks are reached, the center may be considered in a “pre-center” stage. Evidence of strong progress toward those goals makes a center eligible for support and Center Working Group involvement, as detailed below. Likewise, centers who no longer serve to meet the criteria for a center as detailed above (e.g., do not involve a critical mass of faculty or research and/or provide the opportunity for cross-unit collaboration) might be sunsetted. In raising this option, we recognize that short periods of lower-than-expected grant funding are to be expected in the life of a center and, as such typically such short-term dips would not be sufficient, in and of themselves, to warrant the closing of a center. When a center closes, faculty will have the option of transferring their grants to another center or to a department, as they choose. Steinhardt Support As discussed in the memo on ICR policy (dated September, 2016), centers core funding comes from indirect cost recovery (ICR) return. Twenty-five percent of the indirect cost expended on grants housed in that unit will be returned to centers. All indirect cost recovery accounts must have an annual budget submitted to the Office of Research with a proposed spending plan. Centers are expected to support center activities as described above from these resources, all of which are intended to enhance the grant-making and intellectual enterprise of the center. Center Working Group and Ongoing Strategic Review Center Directors meet once each month throughout the year as a group with the Vice Dean for Research and Faculty Affairs to discuss the specific needs of the school’s research community and to determine ways in which practices and policies in the centers can be aligned to meet those needs. The meeting also provides a forum for coordination and communication between Steinhardt centers and between centers and Steinhardt’s Office of Research. Centers will be annually evaluated by completing a financial report and strategic plan. The Office of Research will pull data on research funding for each center from the University Data Warehouse. The annual strategic plan, that includes a SWOT analysis, is intended to inform center and school-wide planning respect to short- and long-term goals for each center. 1  At Steinhardt, historical precedent requires us to use the terms “center” and “institute” interchangeably. For ease, we use the term “center” in this document. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Biostatistics Environmental Health and Engineering Epidemiology Health Policy and Management Health, Behavior and Society International Health Mental Health Molecular Microbiology and Immunology Population, Family and Reproductive Health Program Finder Admissions Services Course Directory Academic Calendar Hybrid Campus Lecture Series Convocation Strategy and Development Implementation and Impact Integrity and Oversight In the School In the Field In Baltimore Resources for Practitioners Articles & News Releases In The News Statements & Announcements At a Glance Student Life Strategic Priorities Inclusion, Diversity, Anti-Racism, and Equity (IDARE) What is Public Health? What is Public Mental Health? PMH aims to identify and address the psychological, biological, and sociological factors that influence mental health. Morgan Coulson Treating an individual with a mental health disorder typically requires some combination of medication, psychotherapy, and social supports. But how do you address the societal factors that may have contributed to the disorder? Or prevent mental disorders within a population in the first place? Public mental health (PMH) seeks to answer questions like these by taking  a broad, holistic approach to understanding, treating, and preventing mental and behavioral health in populations, says  Lindsey Webb , PhD ’20, MHS ’16, assistant research professor in  Mental Health .  Public mental health (PMH) encompasses more than diagnosed mental health disorders. PMH researchers and professionals look at more than mental health disorders like anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and depression, Webb says. “We study so many different areas of mental health and well-being”—including  workplace mental health ,  global mental health ,  violence ,  substance use ,  aging ,  school-based mental health interventions ,  autism , and more.  Topics in public mental health also span the life course, from prenatal development through later life. “Being able to meet people where they are, and to address their needs at the different levels of prevention is really key in public mental health,” Webb says. It’s not the same as clinical care. While some PMH professionals have clinical backgrounds and training, “we don't necessarily do treatments ourselves,” says Webb. “But we do partner with clinicians to address public health issues.”  In a clinical setting, “you might be looking at the effectiveness of an individualized treatment or medication and handling an existing mental health disorder, like depression or anxiety,” she says. PMH, on the other hand, examines factors that might be playing into the development of the disorder, such as “family and neighborhood and schools  …  as well as policies or access to services or resources.” PMH researchers then develop interventions to address those factors to be able to prevent the development of those disorders, while other PMH may work with policymakers to ensure that these interventions, in the form of mental health programs and services, are funded and accessible.  Webb and her colleagues work on a lot of school-based interventions, for example. “We might implement a school-based program that's given to all students, regardless of whether or not they have symptoms, to be able to provide extra resources,” she says, so students can avoid mental health issues later in life. Everything from identifying the problems to developing and delivering the programming is an aspect of public mental health. PMH interventions can have lasting—and even generational—effects.  Webb cites as an example the  Good Behavior Game (GBG)—a school-based intervention first implemented with first graders in the 1980s. The GBG is a behavior management approach for classrooms that rewards children for appropriate on-task behaviors during instructional times.  Researchers found it not only to be  highly effective at reducing aggression in the short term, but also to have much longer-term impacts as the children moved into adulthood.  "When they were in their 20s,  [researchers] saw positive effects on violent behavior, substance use, and a host of other mental and behavioral health outcomes,” Webb says. Today, studies are being conducted on the original participants’ children, to see if the GBG’s impacts have been passed on. PMH is a constant, ongoing effort. PMH researchers and practitioners  conduct surveys and monitor population trends in mental and behavioral health—such as increases in certain diagnoses or upticks in violence—and pinpoint where issues are arising, what populations they are affecting, and how they need to be addressed. “With COVID, for example, we saw a lot of worsening mental health among everyone, but particularly among young people— suicide rates increased ,” Webb says, “And there was also a shift in substance use over that time.”  Public mental health professionals are everywhere. Many mental health professionals work in academic settings, but can also be found in research institutions like  RTI International and  ChildTrends , or government institutions like NIH and SAMHSA. They also work with policymakers, or at the community level in local health departments and nonprofits. “They work everywhere, because public mental health is part of public health,” says Webb. “Anywhere that public health professionals are working, public mental health professionals are.” PMH emphasizes equity. Mental health is still stigmatized in many different populations and can prevent people from accessing preventive or intervention or service, says Webb. Another barrier is costs—of health insurance coverage or of implementing prevention programming. Transportation can  also be an obstacle, if people live in more rural areas.  PMH works to dismantle these barriers by developing interventions that can reach vulnerable populations. For example, a PMH approach called  CETA trains people without specialized mental health training to provide counseling to people in crisis. And PMH professionals advocate for policies at all levels of government to make prevention and intervention accessible. What does public mental health look like in the field? Webb is currently involved in several research endeavors, including Resilience in a Stressful Era (RISE) Baltimore. The project is following a cohort of young people who live in Baltimore City over the course of four years using surveys and interviews with them and their parents to understand how different race-related stressors and traumas impact their mental health and well-being over time. Webb has also been studying how police violence and interactions impact the mental health and well-being of young people, both in Baltimore and in rural West Virginia. “A lot of this type of work has been done in urban settings, so we have a really good understanding of what's going on there,” Webb says. “But not so much about what policing of young people looks like in more rural settings, and how that might have different impacts.” Morgan Coulson is an editorial associate in the  Office of External Affairs at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. RELATED:   Just Before It Happened: Using Psychological Autopsies to Prevent Suicide How to Make Cities More Mental Health Friendly for Adolescents and Young Adults  (Podcast) The Physical and Mental Impact of Contact With Police The Good Behavior Game: The Game that Keeps on Giving Related Content New Center Provides Resources for HIV-Related Stigma Research Xylazine: The Emerging Threat in the U.S. Drug Supply and Policy Responses Understanding the Impact of Economic and Social Conditions on Health U.S. Global Mental Health Alliance Hosts Congressional Briefing Coca-Cola’s Ongoing Olympic Sponsorship Is Bad for Everyone’s Health An official website of the United States government The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site. The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely. Publications Account settings Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now . Advanced Search Journal List Yale J Biol Med v.84(3); 2011 Sep Focus: Education — Career Advice How to write your first research paper. Writing a research manuscript is an intimidating process for many novice writers in the sciences. One of the stumbling blocks is the beginning of the process and creating the first draft. This paper presents guidelines on how to initiate the writing process and draft each section of a research manuscript. The paper discusses seven rules that allow the writer to prepare a well-structured and comprehensive manuscript for a publication submission. In addition, the author lists different strategies for successful revision. Each of those strategies represents a step in the revision process and should help the writer improve the quality of the manuscript. The paper could be considered a brief manual for publication. It is late at night. You have been struggling with your project for a year. You generated an enormous amount of interesting data. Your pipette feels like an extension of your hand, and running western blots has become part of your daily routine, similar to brushing your teeth. Your colleagues think you are ready to write a paper, and your lab mates tease you about your “slow” writing progress. Yet days pass, and you cannot force yourself to sit down to write. You have not written anything for a while (lab reports do not count), and you feel you have lost your stamina. How does the writing process work? How can you fit your writing into a daily schedule packed with experiments? What section should you start with? What distinguishes a good research paper from a bad one? How should you revise your paper? These and many other questions buzz in your head and keep you stressed. As a result, you procrastinate. In this paper, I will discuss the issues related to the writing process of a scientific paper. Specifically, I will focus on the best approaches to start a scientific paper, tips for writing each section, and the best revision strategies. 1. Schedule your writing time in Outlook Whether you have written 100 papers or you are struggling with your first, starting the process is the most difficult part unless you have a rigid writing schedule. Writing is hard. It is a very difficult process of intense concentration and brain work. As stated in Hayes’ framework for the study of writing: “It is a generative activity requiring motivation, and it is an intellectual activity requiring cognitive processes and memory” [ 1 ]. In his book How to Write a Lot: A Practical Guide to Productive Academic Writing , Paul Silvia says that for some, “it’s easier to embalm the dead than to write an article about it” [ 2 ]. Just as with any type of hard work, you will not succeed unless you practice regularly. If you have not done physical exercises for a year, only regular workouts can get you into good shape again. The same kind of regular exercises, or I call them “writing sessions,” are required to be a productive author. Choose from 1- to 2-hour blocks in your daily work schedule and consider them as non-cancellable appointments. When figuring out which blocks of time will be set for writing, you should select the time that works best for this type of work. For many people, mornings are more productive. One Yale University graduate student spent a semester writing from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. when her lab was empty. At the end of the semester, she was amazed at how much she accomplished without even interrupting her regular lab hours. In addition, doing the hardest task first thing in the morning contributes to the sense of accomplishment during the rest of the day. This positive feeling spills over into our work and life and has a very positive effect on our overall attitude. Rule 1: Create regular time blocks for writing as appointments in your calendar and keep these appointments. 2. start with an outline. Now that you have scheduled time, you need to decide how to start writing. The best strategy is to start with an outline. This will not be an outline that you are used to, with Roman numerals for each section and neat parallel listing of topic sentences and supporting points. This outline will be similar to a template for your paper. Initially, the outline will form a structure for your paper; it will help generate ideas and formulate hypotheses. Following the advice of George M. Whitesides, “. . . start with a blank piece of paper, and write down, in any order, all important ideas that occur to you concerning the paper” [ 3 ]. Use Table 1 as a starting point for your outline. Include your visuals (figures, tables, formulas, equations, and algorithms), and list your findings. These will constitute the first level of your outline, which will eventually expand as you elaborate. 1. What is the topic of my paper? 2. Why is this topic important? 3. How could I formulate my hypothesis? 4. What are my results (include visuals)? 5. What is my major finding? The next stage is to add context and structure. Here you will group all your ideas into sections: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion/Conclusion ( Table 2 ). This step will help add coherence to your work and sift your ideas. 1. Why is your research important? 2. What is known about the topic? 3. What are your hypotheses? 4. What are your objectives? 1. What materials did you use? 2. Who were the subjects of your study? 3. What was the design of your research? 4. What procedure did you follow? 1. What are your most significant results? 2. What are your supporting results? 1. What are the studies major findings? 2. What is the significance/implication of the results? Now that you have expanded your outline, you are ready for the next step: discussing the ideas for your paper with your colleagues and mentor. Many universities have a writing center where graduate students can schedule individual consultations and receive assistance with their paper drafts. Getting feedback during early stages of your draft can save a lot of time. Talking through ideas allows people to conceptualize and organize thoughts to find their direction without wasting time on unnecessary writing. Outlining is the most effective way of communicating your ideas and exchanging thoughts. Moreover, it is also the best stage to decide to which publication you will submit the paper. Many people come up with three choices and discuss them with their mentors and colleagues. Having a list of journal priorities can help you quickly resubmit your paper if your paper is rejected. Rule 2: Create a detailed outline and discuss it with your mentor and peers. 3. continue with drafts. After you get enough feedback and decide on the journal you will submit to, the process of real writing begins. Copy your outline into a separate file and expand on each of the points, adding data and elaborating on the details. When you create the first draft, do not succumb to the temptation of editing. Do not slow down to choose a better word or better phrase; do not halt to improve your sentence structure. Pour your ideas into the paper and leave revision and editing for later. As Paul Silvia explains, “Revising while you generate text is like drinking decaffeinated coffee in the early morning: noble idea, wrong time” [ 2 ]. Many students complain that they are not productive writers because they experience writer’s block. Staring at an empty screen is frustrating, but your screen is not really empty: You have a template of your article, and all you need to do is fill in the blanks. Indeed, writer’s block is a logical fallacy for a scientist ― it is just an excuse to procrastinate. When scientists start writing a research paper, they already have their files with data, lab notes with materials and experimental designs, some visuals, and tables with results. All they need to do is scrutinize these pieces and put them together into a comprehensive paper. 3.1. Starting with Materials and Methods If you still struggle with starting a paper, then write the Materials and Methods section first. Since you have all your notes, it should not be problematic for you to describe the experimental design and procedures. Your most important goal in this section is to be as explicit as possible by providing enough detail and references. In the end, the purpose of this section is to allow other researchers to evaluate and repeat your work. So do not run into the same problems as the writers of the sentences in (1): 1a. Bacteria were pelleted by centrifugation. 1b. To isolate T cells, lymph nodes were collected. As you can see, crucial pieces of information are missing: the speed of centrifuging your bacteria, the time, and the temperature in (1a); the source of lymph nodes for collection in (b). The sentences can be improved when information is added, as in (2a) and (2b), respectfully: 2a. Bacteria were pelleted by centrifugation at 3000g for 15 min at 25°C. 2b. To isolate T cells, mediastinal and mesenteric lymph nodes from Balb/c mice were collected at day 7 after immunization with ovabumin. If your method has previously been published and is well-known, then you should provide only the literature reference, as in (3a). If your method is unpublished, then you need to make sure you provide all essential details, as in (3b). 3a. Stem cells were isolated, according to Johnson [23]. 3b. Stem cells were isolated using biotinylated carbon nanotubes coated with anti-CD34 antibodies. Furthermore, cohesion and fluency are crucial in this section. One of the malpractices resulting in disrupted fluency is switching from passive voice to active and vice versa within the same paragraph, as shown in (4). This switching misleads and distracts the reader. 4. Behavioral computer-based experiments of Study 1 were programmed by using E-Prime. We took ratings of enjoyment, mood, and arousal as the patients listened to preferred pleasant music and unpreferred music by using Visual Analogue Scales (SI Methods). The preferred and unpreferred status of the music was operationalized along a continuum of pleasantness [ 4 ]. The problem with (4) is that the reader has to switch from the point of view of the experiment (passive voice) to the point of view of the experimenter (active voice). This switch causes confusion about the performer of the actions in the first and the third sentences. To improve the coherence and fluency of the paragraph above, you should be consistent in choosing the point of view: first person “we” or passive voice [ 5 ]. Let’s consider two revised examples in (5). 5a. We programmed behavioral computer-based experiments of Study 1 by using E-Prime. We took ratings of enjoyment, mood, and arousal by using Visual Analogue Scales (SI Methods) as the patients listened to preferred pleasant music and unpreferred music. We operationalized the preferred and unpreferred status of the music along a continuum of pleasantness. 5b. Behavioral computer-based experiments of Study 1 were programmed by using E-Prime. Ratings of enjoyment, mood, and arousal were taken as the patients listened to preferred pleasant music and unpreferred music by using Visual Analogue Scales (SI Methods). The preferred and unpreferred status of the music was operationalized along a continuum of pleasantness. If you choose the point of view of the experimenter, then you may end up with repetitive “we did this” sentences. For many readers, paragraphs with sentences all beginning with “we” may also sound disruptive. So if you choose active sentences, you need to keep the number of “we” subjects to a minimum and vary the beginnings of the sentences [ 6 ]. Interestingly, recent studies have reported that the Materials and Methods section is the only section in research papers in which passive voice predominantly overrides the use of the active voice [ 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 ]. For example, Martínez shows a significant drop in active voice use in the Methods sections based on the corpus of 1 million words of experimental full text research articles in the biological sciences [ 7 ]. According to the author, the active voice patterned with “we” is used only as a tool to reveal personal responsibility for the procedural decisions in designing and performing experimental work. This means that while all other sections of the research paper use active voice, passive voice is still the most predominant in Materials and Methods sections. Writing Materials and Methods sections is a meticulous and time consuming task requiring extreme accuracy and clarity. This is why when you complete your draft, you should ask for as much feedback from your colleagues as possible. Numerous readers of this section will help you identify the missing links and improve the technical style of this section. Rule 3: Be meticulous and accurate in describing the Materials and Methods. Do not change the point of view within one paragraph. 3.2. writing results section. For many authors, writing the Results section is more intimidating than writing the Materials and Methods section . If people are interested in your paper, they are interested in your results. That is why it is vital to use all your writing skills to objectively present your key findings in an orderly and logical sequence using illustrative materials and text. Your Results should be organized into different segments or subsections where each one presents the purpose of the experiment, your experimental approach, data including text and visuals (tables, figures, schematics, algorithms, and formulas), and data commentary. For most journals, your data commentary will include a meaningful summary of the data presented in the visuals and an explanation of the most significant findings. This data presentation should not repeat the data in the visuals, but rather highlight the most important points. In the “standard” research paper approach, your Results section should exclude data interpretation, leaving it for the Discussion section. However, interpretations gradually and secretly creep into research papers: “Reducing the data, generalizing from the data, and highlighting scientific cases are all highly interpretive processes. It should be clear by now that we do not let the data speak for themselves in research reports; in summarizing our results, we interpret them for the reader” [ 10 ]. As a result, many journals including the Journal of Experimental Medicine and the Journal of Clinical Investigation use joint Results/Discussion sections, where results are immediately followed by interpretations. Another important aspect of this section is to create a comprehensive and supported argument or a well-researched case. This means that you should be selective in presenting data and choose only those experimental details that are essential for your reader to understand your findings. You might have conducted an experiment 20 times and collected numerous records, but this does not mean that you should present all those records in your paper. You need to distinguish your results from your data and be able to discard excessive experimental details that could distract and confuse the reader. However, creating a picture or an argument should not be confused with data manipulation or falsification, which is a willful distortion of data and results. If some of your findings contradict your ideas, you have to mention this and find a plausible explanation for the contradiction. In addition, your text should not include irrelevant and peripheral information, including overview sentences, as in (6). 6. To show our results, we first introduce all components of experimental system and then describe the outcome of infections. Indeed, wordiness convolutes your sentences and conceals your ideas from readers. One common source of wordiness is unnecessary intensifiers. Adverbial intensifiers such as “clearly,” “essential,” “quite,” “basically,” “rather,” “fairly,” “really,” and “virtually” not only add verbosity to your sentences, but also lower your results’ credibility. They appeal to the reader’s emotions but lower objectivity, as in the common examples in (7): 7a. Table 3 clearly shows that … 7b. It is obvious from figure 4 that … Another source of wordiness is nominalizations, i.e., nouns derived from verbs and adjectives paired with weak verbs including “be,” “have,” “do,” “make,” “cause,” “provide,” and “get” and constructions such as “there is/are.” 8a. We tested the hypothesis that there is a disruption of membrane asymmetry. 8b. In this paper we provide an argument that stem cells repopulate injured organs. In the sentences above, the abstract nominalizations “disruption” and “argument” do not contribute to the clarity of the sentences, but rather clutter them with useless vocabulary that distracts from the meaning. To improve your sentences, avoid unnecessary nominalizations and change passive verbs and constructions into active and direct sentences. 9a. We tested the hypothesis that the membrane asymmetry is disrupted. 9b. In this paper we argue that stem cells repopulate injured organs. Your Results section is the heart of your paper, representing a year or more of your daily research. So lead your reader through your story by writing direct, concise, and clear sentences. Rule 4: Be clear, concise, and objective in describing your Results. 3.3. now it is time for your introduction. Now that you are almost half through drafting your research paper, it is time to update your outline. While describing your Methods and Results, many of you diverged from the original outline and re-focused your ideas. So before you move on to create your Introduction, re-read your Methods and Results sections and change your outline to match your research focus. The updated outline will help you review the general picture of your paper, the topic, the main idea, and the purpose, which are all important for writing your introduction. The best way to structure your introduction is to follow the three-move approach shown in Table 3 . a. Show that the general research area is important, central, interesting, and problematic in some way; a. Indicate a gap in the previous research, or extend previous knowledge in some way. a. Outline purposes or state the nature of the present research; b. List research questions or hypotheses; c. Announce principle findings; d. State the value of the present research; e. Indicate the structure of the research paper. Adapted from Swales and Feak [ 11 ]. The moves and information from your outline can help to create your Introduction efficiently and without missing steps. These moves are traffic signs that lead the reader through the road of your ideas. Each move plays an important role in your paper and should be presented with deep thought and care. When you establish the territory, you place your research in context and highlight the importance of your research topic. By finding the niche, you outline the scope of your research problem and enter the scientific dialogue. The final move, “occupying the niche,” is where you explain your research in a nutshell and highlight your paper’s significance. The three moves allow your readers to evaluate their interest in your paper and play a significant role in the paper review process, determining your paper reviewers. Some academic writers assume that the reader “should follow the paper” to find the answers about your methodology and your findings. As a result, many novice writers do not present their experimental approach and the major findings, wrongly believing that the reader will locate the necessary information later while reading the subsequent sections [ 5 ]. However, this “suspense” approach is not appropriate for scientific writing. To interest the reader, scientific authors should be direct and straightforward and present informative one-sentence summaries of the results and the approach. Another problem is that writers understate the significance of the Introduction. Many new researchers mistakenly think that all their readers understand the importance of the research question and omit this part. However, this assumption is faulty because the purpose of the section is not to evaluate the importance of the research question in general. The goal is to present the importance of your research contribution and your findings. Therefore, you should be explicit and clear in describing the benefit of the paper. The Introduction should not be long. Indeed, for most journals, this is a very brief section of about 250 to 600 words, but it might be the most difficult section due to its importance. Rule 5: Interest your reader in the Introduction section by signalling all its elements and stating the novelty of the work. 3.4. discussion of the results. For many scientists, writing a Discussion section is as scary as starting a paper. Most of the fear comes from the variation in the section. Since every paper has its unique results and findings, the Discussion section differs in its length, shape, and structure. However, some general principles of writing this section still exist. Knowing these rules, or “moves,” can change your attitude about this section and help you create a comprehensive interpretation of your results. The purpose of the Discussion section is to place your findings in the research context and “to explain the meaning of the findings and why they are important, without appearing arrogant, condescending, or patronizing” [ 11 ]. The structure of the first two moves is almost a mirror reflection of the one in the Introduction. In the Introduction, you zoom in from general to specific and from the background to your research question; in the Discussion section, you zoom out from the summary of your findings to the research context, as shown in Table 4 . a. State the study’s major findings. b. Explain the meaning and importance of your finding. c. Consider alternative explanations of the findings. a. Compare and contrast your findings with those of other published results. b. Explain any discrepancies and unexpected findings. c. State the limitations, weaknesses, and assumptions of your study. a. Summarize the answers to the research questions. b. Indicate the importance of the work by stating applications, recommendations, and implications. Adapted from Swales and Feak and Hess [ 11 , 12 ]. The biggest challenge for many writers is the opening paragraph of the Discussion section. Following the moves in Table 1 , the best choice is to start with the study’s major findings that provide the answer to the research question in your Introduction. The most common starting phrases are “Our findings demonstrate . . .,” or “In this study, we have shown that . . .,” or “Our results suggest . . .” In some cases, however, reminding the reader about the research question or even providing a brief context and then stating the answer would make more sense. This is important in those cases where the researcher presents a number of findings or where more than one research question was presented. Your summary of the study’s major findings should be followed by your presentation of the importance of these findings. One of the most frequent mistakes of the novice writer is to assume the importance of his findings. Even if the importance is clear to you, it may not be obvious to your reader. Digesting the findings and their importance to your reader is as crucial as stating your research question. Another useful strategy is to be proactive in the first move by predicting and commenting on the alternative explanations of the results. Addressing potential doubts will save you from painful comments about the wrong interpretation of your results and will present you as a thoughtful and considerate researcher. Moreover, the evaluation of the alternative explanations might help you create a logical step to the next move of the discussion section: the research context. The goal of the research context move is to show how your findings fit into the general picture of the current research and how you contribute to the existing knowledge on the topic. This is also the place to discuss any discrepancies and unexpected findings that may otherwise distort the general picture of your paper. Moreover, outlining the scope of your research by showing the limitations, weaknesses, and assumptions is essential and adds modesty to your image as a scientist. However, make sure that you do not end your paper with the problems that override your findings. Try to suggest feasible explanations and solutions. If your submission does not require a separate Conclusion section, then adding another paragraph about the “take-home message” is a must. This should be a general statement reiterating your answer to the research question and adding its scientific implications, practical application, or advice. Just as in all other sections of your paper, the clear and precise language and concise comprehensive sentences are vital. However, in addition to that, your writing should convey confidence and authority. The easiest way to illustrate your tone is to use the active voice and the first person pronouns. Accompanied by clarity and succinctness, these tools are the best to convince your readers of your point and your ideas. Rule 6: Present the principles, relationships, and generalizations in a concise and convincing tone. 4. choosing the best working revision strategies. Now that you have created the first draft, your attitude toward your writing should have improved. Moreover, you should feel more confident that you are able to accomplish your project and submit your paper within a reasonable timeframe. You also have worked out your writing schedule and followed it precisely. Do not stop ― you are only at the midpoint from your destination. Just as the best and most precious diamond is no more than an unattractive stone recognized only by trained professionals, your ideas and your results may go unnoticed if they are not polished and brushed. Despite your attempts to present your ideas in a logical and comprehensive way, first drafts are frequently a mess. Use the advice of Paul Silvia: “Your first drafts should sound like they were hastily translated from Icelandic by a non-native speaker” [ 2 ]. The degree of your success will depend on how you are able to revise and edit your paper. The revision can be done at the macrostructure and the microstructure levels [ 13 ]. The macrostructure revision includes the revision of the organization, content, and flow. The microstructure level includes individual words, sentence structure, grammar, punctuation, and spelling. The best way to approach the macrostructure revision is through the outline of the ideas in your paper. The last time you updated your outline was before writing the Introduction and the Discussion. Now that you have the beginning and the conclusion, you can take a bird’s-eye view of the whole paper. The outline will allow you to see if the ideas of your paper are coherently structured, if your results are logically built, and if the discussion is linked to the research question in the Introduction. You will be able to see if something is missing in any of the sections or if you need to rearrange your information to make your point. The next step is to revise each of the sections starting from the beginning. Ideally, you should limit yourself to working on small sections of about five pages at a time [ 14 ]. After these short sections, your eyes get used to your writing and your efficiency in spotting problems decreases. When reading for content and organization, you should control your urge to edit your paper for sentence structure and grammar and focus only on the flow of your ideas and logic of your presentation. Experienced researchers tend to make almost three times the number of changes to meaning than novice writers [ 15 , 16 ]. Revising is a difficult but useful skill, which academic writers obtain with years of practice. In contrast to the macrostructure revision, which is a linear process and is done usually through a detailed outline and by sections, microstructure revision is a non-linear process. While the goal of the macrostructure revision is to analyze your ideas and their logic, the goal of the microstructure editing is to scrutinize the form of your ideas: your paragraphs, sentences, and words. You do not need and are not recommended to follow the order of the paper to perform this type of revision. You can start from the end or from different sections. You can even revise by reading sentences backward, sentence by sentence and word by word. One of the microstructure revision strategies frequently used during writing center consultations is to read the paper aloud [ 17 ]. You may read aloud to yourself, to a tape recorder, or to a colleague or friend. When reading and listening to your paper, you are more likely to notice the places where the fluency is disrupted and where you stumble because of a very long and unclear sentence or a wrong connector. Another revision strategy is to learn your common errors and to do a targeted search for them [ 13 ]. All writers have a set of problems that are specific to them, i.e., their writing idiosyncrasies. Remembering these problems is as important for an academic writer as remembering your friends’ birthdays. Create a list of these idiosyncrasies and run a search for these problems using your word processor. If your problem is demonstrative pronouns without summary words, then search for “this/these/those” in your text and check if you used the word appropriately. If you have a problem with intensifiers, then search for “really” or “very” and delete them from the text. The same targeted search can be done to eliminate wordiness. Searching for “there is/are” or “and” can help you avoid the bulky sentences. The final strategy is working with a hard copy and a pencil. Print a double space copy with font size 14 and re-read your paper in several steps. Try reading your paper line by line with the rest of the text covered with a piece of paper. When you are forced to see only a small portion of your writing, you are less likely to get distracted and are more likely to notice problems. You will end up spotting more unnecessary words, wrongly worded phrases, or unparallel constructions. After you apply all these strategies, you are ready to share your writing with your friends, colleagues, and a writing advisor in the writing center. Get as much feedback as you can, especially from non-specialists in your field. Patiently listen to what others say to you ― you are not expected to defend your writing or explain what you wanted to say. You may decide what you want to change and how after you receive the feedback and sort it in your head. Even though some researchers make the revision an endless process and can hardly stop after a 14th draft; having from five to seven drafts of your paper is a norm in the sciences. If you can’t stop revising, then set a deadline for yourself and stick to it. Deadlines always help. Rule 7: Revise your paper at the macrostructure and the microstructure level using different strategies and techniques. Receive feedback and revise again. 5. it is time to submit. It is late at night again. You are still in your lab finishing revisions and getting ready to submit your paper. You feel happy ― you have finally finished a year’s worth of work. You will submit your paper tomorrow, and regardless of the outcome, you know that you can do it. If one journal does not take your paper, you will take advantage of the feedback and resubmit again. You will have a publication, and this is the most important achievement. What is even more important is that you have your scheduled writing time that you are going to keep for your future publications, for reading and taking notes, for writing grants, and for reviewing papers. You are not going to lose stamina this time, and you will become a productive scientist. But for now, let’s celebrate the end of the paper. Hayes JR. In: The Science of Writing: Theories, Methods, Individual Differences, and Applications. Levy CM, Ransdell SE, editors. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1996. A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing; pp. 1–28. [ Google Scholar ] Silvia PJ. How to Write a Lot. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2007. [ Google Scholar ] Whitesides GM. Whitesides’ Group: Writing a Paper. Adv Mater. 2004; 16 (15):1375–1377. [ Google Scholar ] Soto D, Funes MJ, Guzmán-García A, Warbrick T, Rotshtein T, Humphreys GW. Pleasant music overcomes the loss of awareness in patients with visual neglect. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009; 106 (14):6011–6016. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Hofmann AH. Scientific Writing and Communication. Papers, Proposals, and Presentations. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010. [ Google Scholar ] Zeiger M. Essentials of Writing Biomedical Research Papers. 2nd edition. San Francisco, CA: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.; 2000. [ Google Scholar ] Martínez I. Native and non-native writers’ use of first person pronouns in the different sections of biology research articles in English. Journal of Second Language Writing. 2005; 14 (3):174–190. [ Google Scholar ] Rodman L. The Active Voice In Scientific Articles: Frequency And Discourse Functions. Journal Of Technical Writing And Communication. 1994; 24 (3):309–331. [ Google Scholar ] Tarone LE, Dwyer S, Gillette S, Icke V. On the use of the passive in two astrophysics journal papers with extensions to other languages and other fields. English for Specific Purposes. 1998; 17 :113–132. [ Google Scholar ] Penrose AM, Katz SB. Writing in the sciences: Exploring conventions of scientific discourse. New York: St. Martin’s Press; 1998. [ Google Scholar ] Swales JM, Feak CB. Academic Writing for Graduate Students. 2nd edition. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press; 2004. [ Google Scholar ] Hess DR. How to Write an Effective Discussion. Respiratory Care. 2004; 29 (10):1238–1241. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Belcher WL. Writing Your Journal Article in 12 Weeks: a guide to academic publishing success. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2009. [ Google Scholar ] Single PB. Demystifying Dissertation Writing: A Streamlined Process of Choice of Topic to Final Text. Virginia: Stylus Publishing LLC; 2010. [ Google Scholar ] Faigley L, Witte SP. Analyzing revision. Composition and Communication. 1981; 32 :400–414. [ Google Scholar ] Flower LS, Hayes JR, Carey L, Schriver KS, Stratman J. Detection, diagnosis, and the strategies of revision. College Composition and Communication. 1986; 37 (1):16–55. [ Google Scholar ] Young BR. In: A Tutor’s Guide: Helping Writers One to One. Rafoth B, editor. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers; 2005. Can You Proofread This? pp. 140–158. [ Google Scholar ] Write a short note on The Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) The Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) is India’s premier nuclear research facility, headquartered in Trombay, Mumbai, Maharashtra. Established in 1954 by the legendary physicist Homi J. Bhabha, it has played a pivotal role in India’s nuclear energy program and scientific advancements. The Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) It is a multi-disciplinary research centre with extensive infrastructure for advanced research and development covering the entire spectrum of nuclear science, engineering and related areas. BARC has designed and built India’s first Pressurised water reactor at Kalpakkam, a 80MW land based prototype of INS Arihant’s nuclear power unit, as well as the Arihant’s propulsion reactor. Dr. Homi Jehangir Bhabha conceived the Nuclear Program in India. Dr Bhabha established the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR) for carrying out nuclear science research in 1945. To intensify the effort to exploit nuclear energy for the benefit of the nation, Dr Bhabha established the Atomic Energy Establishment, Trombay (AEET) in January 1954 for multidisciplinary research program essential for the ambitious nuclear program of India. AEET was later renamed Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC). BARC’s core mandate is to sustain peaceful applications of nuclear energy, primarily for power generation. It manages all facts of nuclear power generation, from theoretical design of reactors to, computerized modelling and simulation, risk analysis, development and testing of new reactor fuel materials, etc. Also conducts research in spent fuel processing, and safe disposal of nuclear waste. Its other research focus areas are applications for isotopes in industries, medicine, agriculture, etc. BARC operates a number of research reactors across the country. Key Activities of BARC: Nuclear Power Research and Development:  BARC actively researches, designs, and develops nuclear reactors, fuel cycles, and reprocessing technologies. Isotope Applications:  BARC produces and utilizes radioisotopes for medical, agricultural, and industrial applications, contributing significantly to healthcare, diagnostics, and research. Radiation Technologies:  BARC develops and applies radiation technologies for food preservation, sterilization, material processing, and non-destructive testing. Accelerator and Laser Technology:  BARC pioneers advanced accelerator and laser technology for various scientific and technological applications. Electronics and Instrumentation:  BARC develops sophisticated electronics and instrumentation systems for nuclear research and other scientific fields. Material Science:  BARC conducts extensive research on materials for nuclear applications, contributing to the development of advanced materials for various sectors. Contributions of BARC: Nuclear Power Program:  BARC has been instrumental in India’s nuclear power program, developing indigenous technologies for reactor design, fuel fabrication, and waste management. Thorium Fuel Cycle:  BARC spearheaded the development of the thorium fuel cycle, a sustainable alternative to uranium-based nuclear fuel. Medical Applications:  BARC’s radioisotope production and research have significantly impacted medical diagnostics, treatment, and research in India. Agriculture and Food Preservation:  BARC’s radiation technologies have improved crop yields, reduced post-harvest losses, and ensured food safety. Industrial Applications:  BARC’s technologies have found applications in various industries, including non-destructive testing, material processing, and sterilization. Scientific Research:  BARC’s contributions to basic and applied research have advanced various scientific disciplines and fostered scientific collaborations. Share this: Leave a comment cancel reply. Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. --> AGU