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

• NSERC Discovery Grant Program web page
• UBC SPARC resources and templates web page
• NSERC DG Tips video tips video
• DG_Merit_Indicators_eng.pdf: Merit Indicators -- important!! These serve as guidelines for reviewers.
• 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.
• NSERC Discovery Peer Review Manual, Ch 6: more details in the peer review manual
• Assessment of Contributions to Research and Training: understanding what NSERC defines as "quality" and "impact"
• NSERC Discovery CS evaluation committee: NSERC DG committee composition
• Advice on NSERC Discovery, 2014, by Alla Sheffer DiscoveryAdvice2014
• nserc-discovery-and-rti.pdf: Advice on NSERC Discovery and RTI in CS, by Robert Bridson, 2010
• Discovery-2011-05-26.pdf: Slides from Michiel's short presentation to UBC CS on May 26, 2011
• DG-Competition-Model.pdf: How to succeed in the new competition model (2011)
• glasgow-grant.pdf: How to get (and keep) a research grant, by Witten & Glasgow (1990, 1996)
• DGStat-SDStat_eng.pdf: 2011 competition statistics
• DACRRI: Department direct costs of research charge This is important to include in your budget.
• Student stipend/support figures: Student stipend numbers for your budgeting pleasure.
• 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.
• Nassif's blog page with not just rants but crucial hints about how to deal with CCV ridiculousness: http://nghoussoub.com/2013/07/25/canadian-common-cv-nserc-vs-linkedin/#comments

Internal Grant Review timeline for 2013

• Jun: submit suggested names (2 close and 2 not-so-close potential reviewers) to Michiel (ah-fac@csDELETEthisTEXT.ubc.ca)
• Aug 1: Notification of Intent due (Form 180)
• Aug: selection of 2 internal grant reviewers
• Sept 30: submission of first draft to internal grant reviewers
• Oct 7: comments back on first draft
• Oct 14: submission of second draft to internal grant reviewers
• Oct 18: comments back on second draft
• Oct 24: application due in the morning, UBC CS (CS requires 2 business days). Your GA knows the process.
• Oct 28: application due, UBC ORS research services (ORS requires 3 business days)
• Nov 1: application due, NSERC final deadline

Examples: researcher-proposal-HQP

• Michiel van de Panne, Fall 2009: O-VS-VS F180 F100 F101 comments
• Wolfgang Heidrich, Fall 2009: F180 F100 F101
• Kellogg Booth, Fall 2009: O-M-O F180 F100 F101
• Kellogg Booth, Fall 2010: O-VS-O F180 F100 F101 comments
• Rachel Pottinger, Fall 2009: VS-M-S F100 F101
• Rachel Pottinger, Fall 2010: S-VS-VS F100 F101
• Nando de Freitas, Fall 2011: F180 F100 F101
• Joanna McGrenere, Fall 2011: F100 F101 reviews
• Robert Bridson, Fall 2012: F100 F101 F180

Discussion

Advice wanted by some faculty:
Q1: Is it best to describe all one's research activities, or focus in one area?
Q2: Does it matter if one changes the title and summary after having submitted the F180?
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?

-- 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.

-- 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...

-- 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.

-- 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 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?

-- TamaraMunzner - 18 July 2012

(Followup: they will claw back, and I did defer a year.)