Academic Funding

NSF Clarifies Policy on Award Abstracts and Titles

June 5, 2014 2946

Abstract buttonOn May 29, the National Science Foundation issued an Important Notice to Presidents of Universities and Colleges and Heads of Other National Science Foundation Awardee Organizations. An NSF notice in December announced a focus on transparency and accountability, one piece of which is “improving public understanding of our funding decisions through our award Abstracts and Titles.” In this vein, the current announcement clarifies the NSF policy on award abstracts and titles.

“NSF abstracts are the public face of NSF investments and decision-making,” notes the foundation’s deputy director, Cora B. Marrett, “and they can be used to immediately address a specific area of interest from those outside of the NSF regarding what projects are supported and why.” By providing the public with a clear understanding of each project, scientists can best convey the value and excitement of their research.

From the announcement (the full notice is HERE):

“An NSF award abstract, with its title, is an NSF document that describes the project and justifies the expenditure of Federal funds.

There are two major components of the NSF Abstract:

  • A nontechnical description of the project that states the problem to be studied, and explains the project’s broader significance and importance, that serves as a public justification for NSF funding. This component should be understandable to an educated lay reader. It may include such information as the theoretical or analytical foundation of the proposed research, the fundamental issues that may be resolved by the research, the project’s relation to NSF’s mission, the project’s place in the context of ongoing research in the field, the project’s potential impact on other fields, and the prospect that it will lead to significant advances or the integration of related lines of inquiry.
  • A technical description of the project that states the goals and scope of the research, and the methods and approaches to be used. In many cases, the technical description may be a modified version of the project summary submitted with the proposal.”

The titles of NSF supported projects must describe the research purpose in “nontechnical terms to the fullest possible extent.” The NSF award Abstract for a broad audience is likely to differ from the Project Summary that is part of the technically reviewed proposal.


Christine Cameron is the executive director of the Federation of Associations in Behavioral & Brain Sciences.

View all posts by Christine Cameron

Related Articles

Julia Ebner on Violent Extremism
Insights
November 4, 2024

Julia Ebner on Violent Extremism

Read Now
Emerson College Pollsters Explain How Pollsters Do What They Do
Communication
October 23, 2024

Emerson College Pollsters Explain How Pollsters Do What They Do

Read Now
All Change! 2024 – A Year of Elections: Campaign for Social Science Annual Sage Lecture
Event
October 10, 2024

All Change! 2024 – A Year of Elections: Campaign for Social Science Annual Sage Lecture

Read Now
‘Settler Colonialism’ and the Promised Land
International Debate
September 27, 2024

‘Settler Colonialism’ and the Promised Land

Read Now
Webinar: Banned Books Week 2024

Webinar: Banned Books Week 2024

As book bans and academic censorship escalate across the United States, this free hour-long webinar gathers experts to discuss the impact these […]

Read Now
Research Assessment, Scientometrics, and Qualitative v. Quantitative Measures

Research Assessment, Scientometrics, and Qualitative v. Quantitative Measures

The creation of the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) has led to a heated debate on the balance between peer review and evaluative metrics in research assessment regimes. Luciana Balboa, Elizabeth Gadd, Eva Mendez, Janne Pölönen, Karen Stroobants, Erzsebet Toth Cithra and the CoARA Steering Board address these arguments and state CoARA’s commitment to finding ways in which peer review and bibliometrics can be used together responsibly.

Read Now
Revisiting the ‘Research Parasite’ Debate in the Age of AI

Revisiting the ‘Research Parasite’ Debate in the Age of AI

The large language models, or LLMs, that underlie generative AI tools such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, have an ethical challenge in how they parasitize freely available data.

Read Now
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments