(r20) NsercDiscovery < Faculty

Tags: view all tags

---+ NSERC Discovery Grants

   * 2012 per-bin funding amounts for CS, in k$/year: 14 17 22 28 34 42 52 62 78 
   * 2011 per-bin funding amounts for CS, in k$/year: XX 14 20 24 29 33 42 49 60 
   * 2010 per-bin funding amounts for CS, in k$/year: 15 18 20 25 31 34 43 51 60

---++ Links and Documents
   * [[http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/professors-professeurs/grants-subs/dgigp-psigp_eng.asp][NSERC Discovery Grant Program]] web page
   * [[http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/Professors-Professeurs/Videos-Videos/DGTips_eng.asp][NSERC DG Tips video]] tips video
   * [[http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/_doc/Professors-Professeurs/DG_Merit_Indicators_eng.pdf][DG_Merit_Indicators_eng.pdf]]:
     Merit Indicators -- important!! These serve as guidelines for reviewers.
   * [[%ATTACHURL%/UBC-SPARC-info-session-June-29-1011.pdf][UBC SPARC info session slides]]
      * Slides 42-46 paraphrase the Peer Review Manual - Section 6.8.1 - Selection Criteria.  
        Use the statements and   questions on these slides to help guide your application towards 
        addressing the merit indicators.
   * [[%ATTACHURL%/NSERC-DG-ch6-Peer-Review-Manual.pdf][NSERC Discovery Peer Review Manual, Ch 6]]:
         more details in the peer review manual
   * [[http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/Policies-Politiques/assesscontrib-evalcontrib_eng.asp][Assessment of Contributions to Research and Training]]:
         understanding what NSERC defines as "quality" and "impact"
   * [[http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/committees-comites/ComputerScience-SciencesInformatiques_eng.asp][NSERC Discovery CS evaluation committee]]: NSERC DG committee composition
   * [[%ATTACHURL%/nserc-discovery-and-rti.pdf][nserc-discovery-and-rti.pdf]]: Advice on NSERC Discovery and RTI in CS, by Robert Bridson, 2010
   * [[%ATTACHURL%/Discovery-2011-05-26.pdf][Discovery-2011-05-26.pdf]]: Slides from Michiel's short presentation to UBC CS on May 26, 2011
   * [[%ATTACHURL%/DG-Competition-Model.pdf][DG-Competition-Model.pdf]]: How to succeed in the new competition model (2011)
   * [[%ATTACHURL%/glasgow-grant.pdf][glasgow-grant.pdf]]: How to get (and keep) a research grant, by Witten & Glasgow (1990, 1996)
   * [[http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/_doc/Funding-Financement/DGStat-SDStat_eng.pdf][DGStat-SDStat_eng.pdf]]: 2011 competition statistics
   * [[https://www.cs.ubc.ca/our-department/administration/financial/grants/dacrri][DACRRI: Department direct costs of research charge]]
      This is important to include in your budget.
   * new faculty should talk to Sandra Redekop when applying for their first grant.
   *  UBC Office of Research Services (ORS) signature procedures can be found at http://www.ors.ubc.ca/contents/ubc-signature.  Please note that the caveat, “The Dean’s signature is not required on proposals originating in the … Faculty of Science…” on that page applies to all departments and divisions within this Faculty.  
   * Specific NSERC e-submission policies are at http://www.ors.ubc.ca/contents/nserc-disc-grant-esubmission.
   * UBC ORS contact info, for questions arising, is at http://www.ors.ubc.ca/contents/signature-contacts.

---++ Internal Grant Review timeline for 2012
   * now:  submit suggested names (2 close and 2 not-so-close potential reviewers) to Michiel (ah-fac@cs.ubc.ca)
   * June 30: selection of 2 internal grant reviewers:   [[NsercReviewers2012][List of assigned reviewers]]
   * Aug 1: Notification of Intent due (Form 180)
   * Sept 28: submission of first draft to internal grant reviewers
   * Oct 5:  comments back on first draft
   * Oct 12: submission of second draft to internal grant reviewers
   * Oct 24: application due, UBC CS  (CS requires 2 business days). Your GA knows the process.
   * Oct 26: application due, UBC ORS research services (ORS requires 3 business days) (update: Oct 29 is ok for hitting submit)
   * Nov 1: application due, NSERC final deadline

---++ Examples:   researcher-proposal-HQP
   * Michiel van de Panne, Fall 2009:  O-VS-VS
       [[%ATTACHURL%/F180-vandepanne-2009.pdf][F180]] 
       [[%ATTACHURL%/F100-vandepanne-2009.pdf][F100]] 
       [[%ATTACHURL%/F101-vandepanne-2009.pdf][F101]] 
       [[%ATTACHURL%/comments.txt][comments]] 
   * Wolfgang Heidrich, Fall 2009: 
       [[%ATTACHURL%/F180-heidrich-2009.pdf][F180]] 
       [[%ATTACHURL%/F100-heidrich-2009.pdf][F100]] 
       [[%ATTACHURL%/F101-heidrich-2009.pdf][F101]] 
   * Kellogg Booth, Fall 2009:  O-M-O
       [[%ATTACHURL%/F180-booth-2009.pdf][F180]] 
       [[%ATTACHURL%/F100-booth-2009.pdf][F100]] 
       [[%ATTACHURL%/F101-booth-2009.pdf][F101]] 
   * Kellogg Booth, Fall 2010:  O-VS-O
       [[%ATTACHURL%/F180-booth-2010.pdf][F180]] 
       [[%ATTACHURL%/F100-booth-2010.pdf][F100]] 
       [[%ATTACHURL%/F101-booth-2010.pdf][F101]] 
       [[%ATTACHURL%/comments-Booth-2010.txt][comments]]
   * Rachel Pottinger, Fall 2009: VS-M-S
       [[%ATTACHURL%/F100-pottinger-2009.pdf][F100]] 
       [[%ATTACHURL%/F101-pottinger-2009.pdf][F101]] 
   * Rachel Pottinger, Fall 2010: S-VS-VS
       [[%ATTACHURL%/F100-pottinger-2010.pdf][F100]] 
       [[%ATTACHURL%/F101-pottinger-2010.pdf][F101]] 
   * Nando de Freitas, Fall 2012: 
       [[%ATTACHURL%/F180-defreitas-2011.pdf][F180]] 
       [[%ATTACHURL%/F100-defreitas-2011.pdf][F100]] 
       [[%ATTACHURL%/F101-defreitas-2011.pdf][F101]] 


---++ Discussion


Advice wanted by some faculty:<br>
Q1: Is it best to describe all one's research activities, or focus in one area?<br>
Q2: Does it matter if one changes the title and summary after having submitted the F180?<br> 
Q3: What is a best practice for listing reviewers? Should we select: (a) prominent people worldwide (b) prominent Canadians in our own fields (c) Canadians who know us well, regardless of prominence? (d) less-prominent Canadians from smaller institutions who might not know us well? 

-- Main.MichielVanDePanne - 24 Jun 2011


First, a meta-comment. There are no answers. The answer is almost always context-dependent. It is a major mistake to think that there is somewhere a secret manual that has been hidden from you that has a formula for success. Life is not like that, and grants are definitely not like that. Having said this, there are of course good ways to place your bets. But they are still bets.

Q1: You cannot explain all of your activities in enough depth to be persuasive, so you need to have enough focus to provide a balance between depth and breadth. You can certainly leave out entirely some threads of your research if they are not relevant to the main arguments you present. It is probably still a good idea to indicate (in either your F100 or the F101) all of the areas in which you have worked (as evidenced by publications, students supervised, or funds expended). Having a bunch of publications in an area you never mention would be weird, as would thesis titles or students known to be in areas not covered. But this can be just a few sentences. The degree to which you focus depends on your career trajectory (past and present). There is no perfect degree of focus.

Q2: Common sense suggests that you put the time in over the summer to figure out a title so the F180 and F101 have the same title. As far as I know, the external reviewers never seen the F180, and the committee members may not see it either, after the stage of assigning external reviewers. The title used on the F180 will influence who is asked to review your application, so it makes sense to have it match the final title.

A related issue: Should you change the title each time you apply? I have changed the title of my DG maybe three times over 30+ years. Other people I have asked change the title every time they apply. It is not clear to me the title matters at all, except for helping to assign reviewers. Certainly I would hope that this is the case.

Q3: Absolutely you need a mix of (a)-(c). I think (d) is subsumed by (c), although perhaps the small institution angle is something to consider (on the assumption these people might be more likely to accept a request to review). I have never even thought of (d) before, but I always look for a mix of (a)-(c). Specifically, you should have one from the U.S., one not from the U.S., and one from Canada who you think knows your work and is familiar with the NSERC system. (NOTE: Just being a long-time Canadian researcher with lots of NSERC funding does not mean one "knows" the system. Some "stars" are clueless about the politics of NSERC because they are above it by virtue of being a star.) The other two slots (assuming a total of five requests -- some grants allow seven or more) will probably depend on your circumstances. I tend to list at least two Canadians, both because they are more likely to understand the NSERC system, but also because they are more likely to accept a request to review.

-- Main.KelloggBooth - 24 Jun 2011


Request: For those who had applied in 2010 or 2011 - anyone minds posting not only the application but also the review/NSERC responses? This can perhpas give a sense of what NSERC looks for...

-- Main.AllaSheffer - 24 Jun 2011


I have cleaned up the organization of the "Examples" section. Kelly and myself have now commented on the ratings that came back from NSERC.

-- Main.MichielVanDePanne - 29 Jun 2011

Has anybody ever done the one-year deferral/extension in order to
spend down their balance? I've got a big unspent hunk of money in my
DG account (77K unspent, with annual grant of 25K). It has accumulated
because I've needed to spend down other accounts, and I do indeed plan
to make a big dent in it over the next year. They say "postponing an
application does not adversely affect the review of your next
application, but rather demonstrates good fiscal management of the
funds". They also say they can impose a deferral (don't get next
installment until later) or even a holdback (don't get next
installment at all) upon you at their discretion. All this is
documented at in the
[[http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/Professors-Professeurs/FinancialAdminGuide-GuideAdminFinancier/AdminMa\
tters-QuestionAdmin_eng.asp#residual][Residual
Balances]] part of their admin guide, and this unspent balance issue
is specifically discussed in the 'How to succeed' document above.

Of course, the down side of deferring is in some sense I lose a year's
worth of money.

Scarily enough, I've heard informally that they could even do a
clawback (take money you already have in your account back), and the
rough number I heard was if you're over 2x the annual amount. I may
well still be over that mark by the time they deliberate in this
year's competition. And that would be a loss of two years of existing
money, so that's even worse. Plus, it might be hard to convince them
to give me lots of new money. So I'm leaning towards deferral. But my
big question is whether I'm being too paranoid or appropriately
prudent.

Questions: a) is clawback a real possibility? b) has anybody else
faced this problem before? if so what did you do?

-- Main.TamaraMunzner - 18 July 2012

%COMMENT{type="threadmode"}%

Attachments

Topic attachments
I	Attachment	History	Action	Size	Date	Who	Comment
pdf	DG-Competition-Model.pdf	r1	manage	85.0 K	2011-06-24 - 01:17	MichielVanDePanne	How to succeed in the new competition model
pdf	Discovery-2011-05-26.pdf	r1	manage	234.7 K	2011-06-24 - 01:07	MichielVanDePanne	Slides from Michiel's short presentation to UBC CS on May 26, 2011
pdf	F100-booth-2009.pdf	r1	manage	333.1 K	2011-06-24 - 22:21	KelloggBooth
pdf	F100-booth-2010.pdf	r1	manage	412.9 K	2011-06-24 - 22:21	KelloggBooth
pdf	F100-heidrich-2009.pdf	r1	manage	233.3 K	2011-06-24 - 03:56	MichielVanDePanne	Wolfgang Heidrich F100, Fall 2009
pdf	F100-pottinger-2009.pdf	r1	manage	328.3 K	2011-09-08 - 06:47	MichielVanDePanne
pdf	F100-pottinger-2010.pdf	r1	manage	558.5 K	2011-09-08 - 06:50	MichielVanDePanne
pdf	F100-vandepanne-2009.pdf	r1	manage	342.4 K	2011-06-24 - 04:05	MichielVanDePanne	Michiel van de Panne F100, Fall 2009
pdf	F101-booth-2009.pdf	r1	manage	655.2 K	2011-06-24 - 22:21	KelloggBooth
pdf	F101-booth-2010.pdf	r1	manage	672.0 K	2011-06-24 - 22:32	KelloggBooth
pdf	F101-heidrich-2009.pdf	r1	manage	357.8 K	2011-06-24 - 03:57	MichielVanDePanne	Wolfgang Heidrich F101, Fall 2009
pdf	F101-pottinger-2009.pdf	r1	manage	109.5 K	2011-09-08 - 06:49	MichielVanDePanne
pdf	F101-pottinger-2010.pdf	r1	manage	1246.2 K	2011-09-08 - 06:51	MichielVanDePanne
pdf	F101-vandepanne-2009.pdf	r1	manage	340.4 K	2011-06-24 - 04:06	MichielVanDePanne	Michiel van de Panne F101, Fall 2009
pdf	F180-booth-2009.pdf	r1	manage	284.2 K	2011-06-24 - 22:22	KelloggBooth
pdf	F180-booth-2010.pdf	r1	manage	236.3 K	2011-06-24 - 22:22	KelloggBooth
pdf	F180-heidrich-2009.pdf	r1	manage	141.6 K	2011-06-24 - 03:55	MichielVanDePanne	Wolfgang Heidrich F180, Fall 2009
pdf	F180-vandepanne-2009.pdf	r1	manage	178.7 K	2011-06-24 - 04:04	MichielVanDePanne	Michiel van de Panne F180, Fall 2009
pdf	NSERC-DG-ch6-Peer-Review-Manual.pdf	r1	manage	306.2 K	2011-07-01 - 18:18	MichielVanDePanne
pdf	UBC-SPARC-info-session-June-29-1011.pdf	r1	manage	763.4 K	2011-07-01 - 18:16	MichielVanDePanne
txt	comments.txt	r1	manage	1.0 K	2011-06-27 - 20:41	MichielVanDePanne
pdf	glasgow-grant.pdf	r1	manage	120.7 K	2011-06-24 - 03:47	MichielVanDePanne	How to get (and keep) a research grant, by Witten & Glasgow
pdf	nserc-discovery-and-rti.pdf	r1	manage	90.3 K	2011-06-24 - 03:50	MichielVanDePanne	Advice on NSERC Discovery and RTI in CS (Robert Bridson, 2010)

Topic revision: r20 - 2012-11-10 - MichielVanDePanne