Criterion 1: What is the intellectual merit of the proposed activity?
-
How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields?
-
How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project? (If appropriate, the reviewer will comment on the quality of prior work.)
-
To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative and original concepts?
-
How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity?
-
Is there sufficient access to resources?
Criterion 2: What are the broader impacts of the proposed activity?
-
How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning?
-
How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)?
-
To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships?
-
Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding?
-
What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?
|
For more information, read: |
|---|
|
Rita Colwell's 'Important Notice' |
|
Neal Lane's 1997 publication that introduced the new NSF criteria. |
|
The NSF report to the National Science Board detailing how their merit review system worked during FY 1998. |
