Reviewers

Review Process

Below is an overview of the review process.

  • Review Process and Overview
    Application evaluation involves reviewing, rating, and ranking applications by disciplinary and interdisciplinary scientists, engineers, and other professional graduate education experts.

    The primary responsibility of each reviewer is to evaluate each application in accordance with the NSF Merit Review Criteria using all available information in the completed application. In considering applications, reviewers are instructed to address the two Merit Review Criteria as approved by the National Science Board – Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts. The aim is to recruit and retain a diverse cohort of early-career individuals with high potential for future achievements, contributions, and broader impacts in STEM and STEM education.

    NSF selects applicants for Fellowships or Honorable Mentions, which aligns with NSF’s mission and the goals of GRFP. After Fellowship offers are made, applicants can view verbatim reviewer comments, excluding the names of the reviewers, for a limited time through the NSF GRFP website.

    The review process and panels are conducted online, with no travel requirements. Selected reviewers are granted access to an assigned pool of applications to read and review online over several weeks, starting in December. In January, panels convene via Zoom on a designated date, according to field of study, to discuss applications and finalize reviews.

  • Training and Service Requirements
    Reviewers must watch the Reviewer Training video and attend a training webinar in November and December, selecting one from several available sessions. Training is required for both new and returning reviewers to ensure all reviewers are familiar with the systems and review requirements for each given year.

    The GRFP program provides reviewers with multiple support documents to aid them in the review process, including a comprehensive Reviewer Guide and Technical Reviewer Guide. Reviewers should be familiar with the current GRF Program Solicitation prior to beginning their reviews.

  • Conflicts-of-Interest and Confidentiality
    The NSF review process is confidential. Reviewers must not share any aspects, including applications and panel discussions, with anyone or on social media. Additionally, all reviewers must report all institutional and individual conflicts-of-interest to NSF and must complete and submit a Conflict of Interest form via the NSF GRFP Review Site before they may access applications.

    Please note: Reviewers may serve on the same panel as an application for which they have a conflict of interest (e.g., they are an applicant’s advisor, wrote a letter of reference for the applicant, etc.) However, they cannot participate in the evaluation or panel discussion of applications that pose a potential conflict of interest or the perception thereof.

  • Application Assignments
    Each reviewer is initially assigned an average of 20 applications and asked to evaluate these applications using the National Science Board-approved Merit Review Criteria of Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts.

    Reviewers receive most application assignments in early December when the Review Site opens, allowing several weeks to submit reviews. To ensure a fair review process for all applicants, the GRFP program requires that reviewers strictly adhere to the review deadlines specified in the formal invitation.

    Due to reviewer conflicts-of-interest and illness, some applications must be reassigned during December and into January; all reviewers should expect to receive an additional 3-5 applications, with a shorter review window during the review period. As a GRFP Reviewer, you review applications, not proposals. Reviewers should evaluate applications for their demonstrated potential for significant research achievements in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) or in STEM education.

Holistic Review
Reviewers evaluate applications against the NSF Merit Review 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 outcome

    Reviewers are asked to assess applications using a holistic, comprehensive approach, giving balanced consideration to all components of the application, including the educational and research record, leadership, outreach, service activities, and future plans, as well as individual competencies, experiences, and other attributes.

    Reviewers provide qualitative ratings for Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts and provide written, evaluative comments addressing the demonstrated potential to advance knowledge and make significant research achievements and contributions to their fields throughout their careers. GRFP aims to recruit and retain a diverse cohort of early-career individuals with high potential for future achievements, contributions, and broader impacts in STEM and STEM education.

  • Application Components
    1. Personal Information, Education, Work/Research Experience, Proposed Field of Study, Academic honors, Publications
    2. Personal, Relevant Background, and Future Goals Statement (3 pages)
    3. Graduate Research Statement (2 pages)
    4. Transcripts
    5. Two to three letters of reference
  • Virtual Panels
    In January, reviewers must participate in a one-day panel via Zoom to discuss applications and finalize their reviews. Panel dates differ by field of study, and the exact date of a given reviewer’s panel will be specified in their formal reviewer invitation.

    Reviewers must be present for the entire virtual panel session to participate in application discussions. To participate in the virtual panel, reviewers must have a computer connected to the internet, and a webcam and headset microphone are recommended.

  • Flat Rate Fee
    NSF provides a flat rate payment of $200 for participation in the virtual panel and the completion of application reviews to all reviewers eligible for payment. Reviewers who are Federal employees, citizens of foreign countries who are not permanent residents, and special visa holders are not eligible for the flat rate payment.