Decisions, decisions

Oct 11 2011 Published by under [Education&Careers]

I've been asked to do another NSF review panel this spring. Given that I did one in the fall of 2010, a second one pre-tenure might be a little excessive. However, with the new submission policies in BIO, I am tempted. I would be reviewing preproposals, which might provide some insight into the new process. Also, there is no commitment to reviewing the full proposals in the fall*, so it would only be a spring commitment.

Good idea or bad?

*BTW, I think this is a huge miss on NSF's part. Why change the reviewers between when the bar is set and when the money is decided? I can't understand the logic here.

9 responses so far

  • studyzone says:

    One of the co-PIs of my fellowship program jumped at the chance to serve on one of the first NIH study sections after the R01 changes were implemented, even though she was stretched to the limit time-wise. She said it was a valuable opportunity to see how the changes were implemented on both sides, especially in regards to the new scoring system. She submitted her own R01 6 months later, which was funded on the first submission.

  • odyssey says:

    I would do it. My understanding is the preproposals will be less work than the full deal, although the NSF may decide to load you up with a fuckton of them to make the load comparable. Gaining an understanding of how this is all going to work will be invaluable.

    I'm a little surprised they're putting together Spring panels already - just a couple of weeks ago I was invited to sit on one this Fall.

  • anonymous says:

    I think you should do it - if only that you can update folks here on the changes in the panel process, about how they handle essentially what is the triage. I'm not doing a panel this year, and I don't have any buddies who are, that I know of yet.

  • proflikesubstance says:

    Haha, while I can appreciate your point, the day I start making career decisions based on how much blog fodder they will provide is the day I need to re-evaluate what I am doing here. Having it be a benefit to my future applications would be the only reason I would consider it, because as Odyssey probably surmised correctly, I'm guessing we're going to get buried.

    Interestingly, they have set up a potential second panel for the two I have been invited to, in order to deal with overflow, should it be needed.

  • Gerty-z says:

    Can you be on the second, overflow panel? I agree with Od, though. Sounds like a good opportunity to see the inner workings of the new system.

  • anon says:

    Just curious, how do you get invited to be on a panel? Did you sign up at one point? I am an NSF-funded scientist, but have never been asked to serve on a panel.

  • anon says:

    PLS, thanks!!!!

  • physioprof says:

    Junior and senior investigators should serve as much as possible on peer review panels. The benefits to your own grantsmanship far outweigh the amount of time and effort it takes.

Leave a Reply