NSERC Discovery grant applications are judged according to four criteria: (1) Excellence of the researcher, (2) Merit of the proposal, (3) Contribution to the training of HQP, and (4) Cost of research. Each criterion has six possible merit indicators: Exceptional, Outstanding, Very strong, Strong, Moderate, and Insufficient. This presentation describes the process from a candidate's point of view and a reviewer's point of view. It discusses funding decisions, including bins and ER vs. ECR. It gives some advice, including graduating PhD students, having a story, and limiting the number of main objectives.
Advice for writing a NSERC Discovery grant application v0.5
1. Yann-Gaël Guéhéneuc
Département de génie informatique et de génie logiciel
This work is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-
ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License
NSERC
DG Advices
yann-gael.gueheneuc@polytmtl.ca
Version 0.5
2013/07/07
3. 3/89
Disclaimer: I cannot be held responsible for
the failure or success of your applications,
were you to follow or not these advices
4. 4/89
NSERC DG Advices
Each NSERC DG application is evaluated
according to 4 criteria and 6 merit indicators
– Excellence of the researcher
– Merit of the proposal
– Contribution to the training HQP
– Cost of research
5. 5/89
NSERC DG Advices
Each NSERC DG application is evaluated
according to 4 criteria and 6 merit indicators
– Exceptional
– Outstanding
– Very strong
– Strong
– Moderate
– Insufficient
6. 6/89
NSERC DG Advices
How are these criteria rated by the reviewers
using the indicators?
How to ease the reviewers’ jobs?
And, how to be possibly more successful?
7. 7/89
Outline
Process in a nutshell
– Candidate’s point of view
– Internal reviewer’s point of view
• Off-line work
• Competition week
Funding decisions
– In a nutshell
– Bins
– ER vs. ECR
Criteria and indicators
– “Values” of criteria
– “Meanings” of indicators
– NSERC rating form
– My own rating form
Advices
– Introduction
– Excellence of the researcher
– Merit of the proposal
– Contribution to the training HQP
– Form 100
– Form 101
Conclusion
Further readings
8. 8/89
Outline
Process in a nutshell
– Candidate’s point of view
– Internal reviewer’s point of view
• Off-line work
• Competition week
Funding decisions
– In a nutshell
– Bins
– ER vs. ECR
Criteria and indicators
– “Values” of criteria
– “Meanings” of indicators
– NSERC rating form
– My own rating form
Advices
– Introduction
– Excellence of the researcher
– Merit of the proposal
– Contribution to the training HQP
– Form 100
– Form 101
Conclusion
Further readings
9. 9/89
Process in a Nutshell
From the candidate’s point of view
– August 1st: submission of Form 180
– November 1st: final submission of Forms 100,
101, and publications
– March/April: announcement of the results
10. 10/89
Process in a Nutshell
From the internal reviewer’s point of view
– Two main parts
• Off-line work, e-mails/readings
• Competition week in Ottawa
11. 11/89
Process in a Nutshell
Off-line work
– August 27th: reception of all the submissions
• In 2012, 322 submissions
– September 7th: ratings (expertise levels and
conflicts) of all the submissions
• High, Medium, Low, Very Low, Conflict, X (language)
– September 24th: final choice of the 1st internal
reviewers for each applications
• In 2012, 14 applications as 1st internal reviewer, 15
as 2nd internal reviewer, 17 as reader = 46
12. 12/89
Process in a Nutshell
Off-line work
– October 5th: choice by the 1st internal reviewer of
5 external referees
• In 2012, 14 applications = 70
• May include referees suggested by the candidate but
may also replace all of them
– October 22nd: ratings of applications from other
evaluation groups
• In 2012, 1 application
13. 13/89
Process in a Nutshell
Off-line work
– Early December: final list of readings
• In 2012, 47 applications
– January/February: reception of tge reports from
the external referees
• In 2012, 123 reports
– February 18th to 22nd: competition week in
Ottawa during which each application is
discussed and rated
14. 14/89
Process in a Nutshell
Off-line work
– In 2012 (and I suspect every year), a lot of work!
• 322 submissions
• 47 applications (including joint publications)
• 70 referees
• 123 referee reports
15. 15/89
Process in a Nutshell
Off-line work
– In 2012 (and I suspect every year), a lot of work!
• 322 submissions
• 47 applications (including joint publications)
• 70 referees
• 123 referee reports
Make it easier
for the reviewers
16. 16/89
Process in a Nutshell
Competition week
– February 18th to 22nd: competition week in
Ottawa during which each application is
discussed and rated
– 5 days
• In 2012 (and I suspect every year), very intense,
demanding, and tiring
17. 17/89
Process in a Nutshell
Competition day
– Starts at 8:30am
– Divides into
• 31 15-minute slots
• 2 15-minute breaks
• 1 45-minute lunch
– Ends at 5:15pm
• If no deferred applications to re-discuss
– In 2012, 1 application
18. 18/89
Process in a Nutshell
Competition slot
– In a 15-minute slot, the ratings of an application
are chosen by the reviewers
– Or the application is “deferred”, to be re-
discussed at the end of the day
19. 19/89
Process in a Nutshell
Competition slot
– 1st internal reviewer gives ratings with
justifications, which must be facts in the Forms
– 2nd internal reviewers contrasts, supports, adds
missing facts from the Forms
– The readers complement or challenge ratings
given by 1st and 2nd internal reviewers, must be
supported by facts from the Forms
20. 20/89
Process in a Nutshell
Competition slot
– 1st internal reviewer gives ratings with
justifications, which must be facts in the Forms
• In 2012, a typical presentation follow this pattern
– Candidate: career, funding, visibility, publications, HPQ
record, planned training
– Proposal: context, lacks, characteristics (Incremental?
Applicable? Feasible?)
– External: summary of the referees' reviews, summary of the
provided contributions
then, the reviewer would give his ratings
21. 21/89
Process in a Nutshell
Competition slot
– 1st internal reviewer gives ratings with
justifications, which must be facts in the Forms
• In 2012, a typical presentation follow this pattern
– Candidate: career, funding, visibility, publications, HPQ
record, planned training
– Proposal: context, lacks, characteristics (Incremental?
Applicable? Feasible?)
– External: summary of the referees' reviews, summary of the
provided contributions
then, the reviewer would give his ratings
Not exactly the
NSERC criteria
22. 22/89
Process in a Nutshell
Competition slot
– Session chair keeps the time strictly
– Session chairs makes sure that any
discussion sticks to the facts
23. 23/89
Process in a Nutshell
Competition slot
– Ratings are anonymous
• Secret electronic vote
• Session chair announce results
– Ratings are consensual
• If reviewers/readers strongly disagree, the application
will be re-discussed at the end of the day
– In 2012, I did not see any strong debates: mostly 1st and 2nd
internal reviewers agreed, backed-up by the readers
– In 2012, some facts were sometimes highlighted and ratings
were changed accordingly
24. 24/89
Process in a Nutshell
Competition slot
– Any criteria rated as moderate or insufficient
receive comments from the committee, reflecting
the consensus of the reviewers (highly focused)
• In 2012, NSERC provided typical comments, for
example: “The applicant did not take advantage of the
available space in Form 100 to make a compelling
case about his/her most significant research
contributions. Given the lack of information, the EG
was unable to carry out a thorough assessment and
potentially recommend a higher rating.”
25. 25/89
Outline
Process in a Nutshell
– Candidate’s point of view
– Internal reviewer’s point of view
• Off-line work
• Competition week
Funding decisions
– In a nutshell
– Bins
– ER vs. ECR
Criteria and indicators
– “Values” of criteria
– “Meanings” of indicators
– NSERC rating form
– My own rating form
Advices
– Introduction
– Excellence of the researcher
– Merit of the proposal
– Contribution to the training HQP
– Form 100
– Form 101
Conclusion
Further readings
26. 26/89
Funding Decisions
In a nutshell
– Each proposal is rated by the reviewers secretly
after the discussions
– The medians of the ratings are used for criteria
– For example
• Excellence of researcher: {S, S, M, M, M}, rating is M
• Merit of the proposal: {V, V, S, S, M}, rating is S
• Impact of HQP: {V, S, S, S, M}, rating is S
• The application rating is therefore {M, S, S}
27. 27/89
Funding Decisions
Bins
– The numeric “values” of the ratings are “added”
• For example, {M, S, S} 2+3+3 = 8
– The application is placed into one of 16 bins
– The bins are labelled A through to P and
correspond numerically to 18 down to 3
28. 28/89
Funding Decisions
Bins
– Bins A and P are uniquely mapped to {E, E, E}
and {I, I, I} while pther bins contain a mix of
numerically equivalent ratings, e.g., {V, S, M} is
in the same bin as {S, S, S} and {M, S, V}
• For example, the application rated {M, S, S} is in K
– Not all applications in a bin are funded: {S, S, S}
may be funded while {M, S, V} is not
• Because of the moderate indicator for the first criteria
– Cut-off point depends on year
29. 29/89
Funding Decisions
ER vs. ECR
– Candidates are divided into
• ER: established researchers, who already applied
(funded?) to NSERC DG
• ECR: early-career researchers, who apply to NSERC
DG for the first time
– ECR are funded one bin “lower” (better) than ER
30. 30/89
Outline
Process in a Nutshell
– Candidate’s point of view
– Internal reviewer’s point of view
• Off-line work
• Competition week
Funding decisions
– In a nutshell
– Bins
– ER vs. ECR
Criteria and indicators
– “Values” of criteria
– “Meanings” of indicators
– NSERC rating form
– My own rating form
Advices
– Introduction
– Excellence of the researcher
– Merit of the proposal
– Contribution to the training HQP
– Form 100
– Form 101
Conclusion
Further readings
31. 31/89
Criteria and Indicators
“Values” of criteria
– Excellence of the researcher
– Merit of the proposal
– Contribution to the training HQP
– Cost of research
32. 32/89
Criteria and Indicators
“Values” of criteria
– Excellence of the researcher
• Knowledge, expertise and experience
• Quality of contributions to, and impact on, research
areas in the NSE
• Importance of contributions
33. 33/89
Criteria and Indicators
“Values” of criteria
– Merit of the proposal
• Originality and innovation
• Significance and expected contributions to research;
potential for technological impact
• Clarity and scope of objectives
• Methodology and feasibility
• Extent to which the scope of the proposal addresses
all relevant issues
• Appropriateness of, and justification for, the budget
• Relationship to other sources of funds
34. 34/89
Criteria and Indicators
“Values” of criteria
– Merit of the proposal
• Originality and innovation
• Significance and expected contributions to research;
potential for technological impact
• Clarity and scope of objectives
• Methodology and feasibility
• Extent to which the scope of the proposal addresses
all relevant issues
• Appropriateness of, and justification for, the budget
• Relationship to other sources of funds
Not really important
35. 35/89
Criteria and Indicators
“Values” of criteria
– Merit of the proposal
• Originality and innovation
• Significance and expected contributions to research;
potential for technological impact
• Clarity and scope of objectives
• Methodology and feasibility
• Extent to which the scope of the proposal addresses
all relevant issues
• Appropriateness of, and justification for, the budget
• Relationship to other sources of funds
Not really important
Amounts of previous
grants (in particular
NSERC DG) should
be ignored
36. 36/89
Criteria and Indicators
“Values” of criteria
– Contribution to the training HQP
• Quality and impact of contributions
• Appropriateness of the proposal for the training of
HQP in the NSE
• Enhancement of training arising from a collaborative
or interdisciplinary environment, where applicable
38. 38/89
Criteria and Indicators
“Values” of criteria
– Cost of research
• Rationale
Not really important
but you cannot have
more than what you
ask, no matter the merit
39. 39/89
Criteria and Indicators
“Meanings” of indicators
– Exceptional
– Outstanding
– Very strong
– Strong
– Moderate
– Insufficient
40. 40/89
Criteria and Indicators
“Meanings” of indicators
– Exceptional
• In 2012, I did not see any exceptional ratings
– Outstanding
– Very strong
– Strong
– Moderate
– Insufficient
42. 42/89
Criteria and Indicators
NSERC rating form
– NSERC provides a 2-page rating form
• In 2012, I found that this rating form does not follow
the presentation pattern during the competition slot
because it spreads information
• In 2012, however, each application was obviously
rated according to the 4 criteria and 6 indicators
43. 43/89
Criteria and Indicators
NSERC rating form (1/2)
Applicant: University: Application I.D.:
Applicant Status:
Title of Application:
Evaluation criteria (See Section 6 of Peer Review Manual for complete details)
Excellence of researcher(s)
Exceptional Outstanding Very Strong
Strong oderate Insufficient
Knowledge, expertise and experience
Quality of contributions to, and impact on, research areas in the NSE
Importance of contributions
For Team applications: complementarity of expertise between members and synergy
Rationale for rating:
Merit of the proposal
Exceptional Outstanding Very Strong
Strong Moderate Insufficient
Originality and innovation
Significance and expected contributions to research; potential for technological impact
Clarity and scope of objectives
Methodology and feasibility
Extent to which the scope of the proposal addresses all relevant issues
Appropriateness of, and justification for, the budget
Relationship to other sources of funds
Rationale for rating:
Contributions to training of highly qualified personnel
Exceptional Outstanding Very Strong
Strong Moderate Insufficient
Quality and impact of contributions during the last six years
Appropriateness of the proposal for the training of HQP in the NSE
Enhancement of training arising from a collaborative or interdisciplinary environment,
where applicable
Rationale for rating:
Cost of research (relative cost of the proposed research program as compared to the norms for the field) Low Normal High
Rationale for Cost of Research:
44. 44/89
Criteria and Indicators
NSERC rating form (2/2)
Other comments (e.g., duration should exceptionally be less than norm, special circumstances, quality of samples of
contributions provided, environmental impact, ethical concerns. Your Program Officer should be notified accordingly):
Summary of assessment by external referees (please highlight any comments that would be deemed inappropriate for the
Evaluation Group to consider in their discussions):
Points for message to applicant (if rating of “Moderate” or “Insufficient” on any criterion or duration shorter than norm):
Discovery Accelerator Supplement (DAS):
Regular DAS: Yes No
DAS in Targeted Areas : Yes No
Rationale for DAS Recommendation:
45. 45/89
Criteria and Indicators
My own rating form
Career 1: <Indicator>
Funding
Visibility
Publications
HPQ Record 3: <Indicator>
Planned training
Context 2: <Indicator>
Lacks
Incremental?
Applicable?
Feasible?
Summary of the
referees' reviews
Provided
contributions
46. 46/89
Criteria and Indicators
My own rating form
Career 1: <Indicator>
Funding
Visibility
Publications
HPQ Record 3: <Indicator>
Planned training
Context 2: <Indicator>
Lacks
Incremental?
Applicable?
Feasible?
Summary of the
referees' reviews
Provided
contributions
Researcher
47. 47/89
Criteria and Indicators
My own rating form
Career 1: <Indicator>
Funding
Visibility
Publications
HPQ Record 3: <Indicator>
Planned training
Context 2: <Indicator>
Lacks
Incremental?
Applicable?
Feasible?
Summary of the
referees' reviews
Provided
contributions
Researcher
Proposal
48. 48/89
Criteria and Indicators
My own rating form
Career 1: <Indicator>
Funding
Visibility
Publications
HPQ Record 3: <Indicator>
Planned training
Context 2: <Indicator>
Lacks
Incremental?
Applicable?
Feasible?
Summary of the
referees' reviews
Provided
contributions
Researcher
Proposal
HPQ
49. 49/89
Outline
Process in a Nutshell
– Candidate’s point of view
– Internal reviewer’s point of view
• Off-line work
• Competition week
Funding decisions
– In a nutshell
– Bins
– ER vs. ECR
Criteria and indicators
– “Values” of criteria
– “Meanings” of indicators
– NSERC rating form
– My own rating form
Advices
– Introduction
– Excellence of the researcher
– Merit of the proposal
– Contribution to the training HQP
– Form 100
– Form 101
Conclusion
Further readings
50. 50/89
Advices
Introduction
– Reviewers receive 2-3 dozens of applications
– Overall, upon firs review, the quality is
impressive, thus generating a positive reaction
– The objective is to discriminate, however,
initiating a vigorous search for flaws
51. 51/89
Advices
Introduction
– Reviewers may perceive aspects of applications
as confusing, ambiguous, incomplete, or just not
compelling
– They will not give the benefits of the doubt
• In 2012, I witness some excellent researchers
receiving low ratings because of sloppiness in
their applications
52. 52/89
Advices
Introduction
– Reviewers will most likely “mine” the Forms 100,
101, and publications to make up their minds
regarding the 4 criteria
Make it easy for them to mine your applications!
53. 53/89
Advices
Introduction
Career 1: <Indicator>
Funding
Visibility
Publications
HPQ Record 3: <Indicator>
Planned training
Context 2: <Indicator>
Lacks
Incremental?
Applicable?
Feasible?
Summary of the
referees' reviews
Provided
contributions
54. 54/89
Advices
Introduction
Career 1: <Indicator>
Funding
Visibility
Publications
HPQ Record 3: <Indicator>
Planned training
Context 2: <Indicator>
Lacks
Incremental?
Applicable?
Feasible?
Summary of the
referees' reviews
Provided
contributions
Form 100
55. 55/89
Advices
Introduction
Career 1: <Indicator>
Funding
Visibility
Publications
HPQ Record 3: <Indicator>
Planned training
Context 2: <Indicator>
Lacks
Incremental?
Applicable?
Feasible?
Summary of the
referees' reviews
Provided
contributions
Form 100
Form 101
56. 56/89
Advices
Introduction
– Form 100
• Is used for two of the three important criteria
– Form 101
• Is used for the merit of the proposal mostly
57. 57/89
Excellence of the Researcher
Form 100
– Career: pages 1-2
– Funding: pages 3-…
– Visibility
• “Other Evidence of Impact and Contributions”
• Awards, chairing, editorship, organisation, seminars:
anything showing external acknowledgments
– Publications
• “Other Research Contributions”
• Quantity and quality
58. 58/89
Excellence of the Researcher
Form 101
– Essentially nothing
Contributions
– Important for the experts, should be explained
for the non-experts in Form 100, “Most
Significant Contributions to Research”
External reviewers
– Confirm/contrast findings in the Form 100, 101,
and the publications
59. 59/89
Merit of the Proposal
Form 101
– Context
• Is the application well positioned?
– Lacks
• Any problems not discussed?
– Incremental?
• How innovative?
– Applicable?
• Usefulness, even remote?
– Feasible?
• Methodology
60. 60/89
Merit of the Proposal
Form 101
– Reviewers may also look for
• Knowledge of the key issues (background)
• Originality and innovation (background limits)
• Clarity of scope and objectives
• Methodology
– Trust/confidence that you can do work
• Significance
61. 61/89
Merit of the Proposal
Form 100
– Essentially nothing
Contributions
– Essentially nothing
External reviewers
– Confirm/contrast findings in the Form 101
62. 62/89
Contribution to the Training of HQP
Form 100
– HPQ Record
• Pages 1, 5-…
• Make it consistent, report what the students do now
– Planned training
• “Contributions to the Training of Highly Qualified
Personnel”
63. 63/89
Contribution to the Training of HQP
Form 101
– Last part on “Contribution to the Training of
Highly Qualified Personnel (HQP)”
Contributions
– Essentially nothing
External reviewers
– Confirm/contrast findings in the Form 100, 101
64. 64/89
Forms 100 and 101
In 2012, in general, my reading/rating was
made easier when the application carefully
followed the NSERC suggested
guidelines/templates
– Any missing/misplace/different category was
disruptive and sent a bad signal: “I want to do
differently from others”
65. 65/89
Form 100
In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“TRAINING OF HIGHLY QUALIFIED PERSONNEL”
– Total numbers of students to know if the
candidate is actively supervising students
– Any increase/decrease
– Any inflation of the numbers just before the
submission, it sends a bad message
66. 66/89
Form 100
In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“ACADEMIC, RESEARCH AND INDUSTRIAL EXPERIENCE”
– Current and past positions
– Any industrial experience
– Experiences that could explain the absence of
publications, of HQP
67. 67/89
Form 100
In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“RESEARCH SUPPORT”
– The candidate, given experience, having
appropriate funds?
• NSERC and industry are most important
• Others can help but should be explained, possibly in
the contributions (F100) or in the budget (F101)
• Amounts are not so important but give a signal
• They shows the candidate’s willingness, relevance
68. 68/89
Form 100
In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“HIGHLY QUALIFIED PERSONNEL (HQP)”
– The candidate’s contribution to the training of
past/current HQP
• Titles of the projects should be meaningful and
focused; unrelated titles send a bad signal
• “Present positions” are important and show that the
candidate follows his/her students
• The degree obtained/pursued by the HQP (Ph.D.?
M.Sc.? B.Sc.? Others?)
69. 69/89
Form 100
In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“MOST SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS TO RESEARCH”
– Evidence of scientific contributions
• I ask myself “do I know this candidate?” If unknown, I
searched the places of publications to assess the
quality of the contributions
• References must better include where the papers
were published to ease the reviewer’s task
• The contributions should be related to the topic of the
current NSERC DG to show continuation
70. 70/89
Form 100
In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“ARTICLES IN REFEREED PUBLICATIONS”
– Evidence of scientific contributions
• Quality was first and foremost: I looked at the venues
and assessed their quality
– Acronyms must be explained, publisher names, years…
must be given, systematically
– Bibliographic metric values may be given; Google Scholar
citation counts is accepted; others metrics are discounted
• Quantity was a plus but, without quality, it sent a bad
signal: “I publish without focus”
71. 71/89
Form 100
In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“OTHER EVIDENCE OF IMPACT AND CONTRIBUTIONS”
– Evidence of external acknowledgments
• Anything that could help me confirm my impression
on the merit of the candidate: awards, chairing,
editorship, organisation, seminars
– Unknown venues just to “fill in” that part must be avoided
• Lack thereof was sending a bad signal: “I am not
involved in the community” or “The community does
not want me”
72. 72/89
Form 101
In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“TITLE OF THE PROPOSAL”
– The title, which must be relevant and accurate,
for a quick understanding (or not!) of what the
proposal is all about
73. 73/89
Form 101
In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“PROVIDE A MAXIMUM OF 10 KEY WORDS…”
– The keywords, which must be relevant and
accurate, to get an deeper idea of what the
proposal is all about
74. 74/89
Form 101
In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“TOTAL AMOUNT REQUESTED FROM NSERC”
– The total amount requested, which could raise
my curiosity if “too” high (say, more than 70 K)
or “too” low (say, less than 30 K)
• I would then read the budget to understand the
detailed numbers
75. 75/89
Form 101
In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL FOR PUBLIC RELEASE”
– This very important part
• In my domain, would help me understand the
application and form an idea of what to expect
• Outside my domain, would help me understand the
application as a whole
• I would look for clear objectives, expected results and
their significance, and contributions to HQP
• Any typo or grammar error raised warning!
76. 76/89
Form 101
In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“TOTAL PROPOSED EXPENDITURES”
– The use of the money towards HQP
• “Most” of the money should go to fund HQP; I mean
at least 80%-90%
• But some money should be used for students’ travels
(not only for the candidate’s)
• I would also look for any “surprising” amounts in any
“surprising” category
77. 77/89
Form 101
In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“BUDGET JUSTIFICATION”
– The use of the money towards HQP
• It should include a table showing, per year, the use of the money
on students and possibly pictures of uncommon equipment
• Budget is not so important but errors or lack of justification sent
a bad signal
• Also, it is important to be consistent: 5 K are not enough to
equipped a whole lab. with computers…
• It should also explain any specific institutional rules or
complementary source of funds
• When naming conferences for travel, only name conferences
relevant to the proposal and possibly justify the choice
78. 78/89
Form 101
In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER RESEARCH SUPPORT”
– Possible duplication of funds
• If there is a clear relation between two or more funds,
in that case, it should be clear how the money of the
NSERC DG will be used, e.g., students
79. 79/89
Form 101
In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“PROPOSAL”
– The context, objectives, expected results in the
first few lines or maybe an example to help me
understand what the proposal is all about
– A story
– Any missing/misplace/different category, which
was disruptive and sent a bad signal: “I want to
do differently from others”
80. 80/89
Form 101
In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“PROPOSAL”
– An up-to-date background
• Few recent references are interesting
• Some discussions of the references and of their
contributions and limitations is definitely needed
• If possible some clear, simple, and convincing
running examples illustrating the references limits
81. 81/89
Form 101
In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“PROPOSAL”
– The contrast with the background
• Then, the proposal should explain how it will improve
on the limits of the state-of-the-art or state-of-the-
practice and demonstrate its feasibility
• Then, it should also explain how it will go beyond
clear feasibility to show innovation
• It must be limited to 3 main objectives, with
milestones and students
82. 82/89
Form 101
In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“PROPOSAL”
– Clearly stated goal(s), challenge(s), expected
results and their significance, for each objective
• The proposal should not hide weaknesses and
challenges but explain them and the methodology to
lessen their impacts
• It should also explain how to evaluate the success/
failure of a goal and what happens “if…”
83. 83/89
Form 101
In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“PROPOSAL”
– The association of students with the objectives
• Possibly, the proposal should explain the recruiting of
students in the next section, “Contribution to HQP”
– Its possible significance
• On society, not on yourself or your small community
• Use of other, existing funds is “proof” of interest from
external, broader society
84. 84/89
Form 101
In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“CONTRIBUTION TO HQP”
– The context of training and its methodology
• It is a chance to explain how this application will
concretely be used to train students
• It is better if there are already some student names
• If the merit of the candidate is low and the candidate
boast too many students, it can be negative
85. 85/89
Form 101
In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“REFERENCES”
– Consistency
• References should be consistent and well-written,
again, any typo or grammar errors raised a warning!
86. 86/89
Outline
Process in a Nutshell
– Candidate’s point of view
– Internal reviewer’s point of view
• Off-line work
• Competition week
Funding decisions
– In a nutshell
– Bins
– ER vs. ECR
Criteria and indicators
– “Values” of criteria
– “Meanings” of indicators
– NSERC rating form
– My own rating form
Advices
– Introduction
– Excellence of the researcher
– Merit of the proposal
– Contribution to the training HQP
– Form 100
– Form 101
Conclusion
Further readings
87. 87/89
Conclusion
Follow the guidelines / templates carefully
Be simple, clear, straightforward
– Even with the weaknesses
Do not forget anything but do not show off
either, explain, explain, explain
Avoid at all costs typo / grammar errors
88. 88/89
Outline
Process in a Nutshell
– Candidate’s point of view
– Internal reviewer’s point of view
• Off-line work
• Competition week
Funding decisions
– In a nutshell
– Bins
– ER vs. ECR
Criteria and indicators
– “Values” of criteria
– “Meanings” of indicators
– NSERC rating form
– My own rating form
Advices
– Introduction
– Excellence of the researcher
– Merit of the proposal
– Contribution to the training HQP
– Form 100
– Form 101
Conclusion
Further readings
89. 89/89
Further Readings
NSERC Discovery Grants – An Insiders View by
Larry W. Kostiuk (Co-Chair, Fluids GSC 1512)
How to Succeed in the New NSERC Discovery
Grant Competition Model by Evangelos Milios, Nur
Zincir-Heywood, and Stavros Konstantinidis
NSERC Discovery Grant Applications: Hints and
Insights by Jason P. Leboe-McGowan
Advice on NSERC Discovery and RTI Applications
by Robert Bridson