NSF Logo UChicago Logo UIC Logo Purdue Logo

Participation Requirements for Aspiring PIs

The goal of this workshop is to provide guidance and feedback for aspiring PIs seeking NSF SaTC funding. To meet these goals, we ask that participants in the workshop engage in a proposal feedback activity that will include both (i) producing a short-form version of a proposal they hope to submit to SaTC and (ii) providing feedback to other aspiring PIs’ proposal summaries as part of a mock panel process.

Proposal Sketches

Participants who have been selected for the workshop must submit a Proposal Sketch (PS) of a project proposal by Tuesday, May 7th, 2024 (AoE). This is intended to be a shorter, more preliminary version of the idea for a future SaTC proposal. Instructions for uploading the PS to UChicago Box have been provided by email to accepted participants on April 26th, 2024.

The PS must contain the following information and must be 3-5 pages long (not including references). Please ensure your proposal meets the relevant parts of NSF 24-1 PAPPG, which are the standards outlined by NSF for proposal submissions.

Your PS must:

  1. Have a proposal title meeting the NSF 24-504 (SaTC) title requirements (e.g., “SaTC: CORE: Small:…” or “SaTC: EDU:…”).

  2. Start your PS with a one-page “project summary,” as described in Section 2b of NSF 24-1. List the title of your proposal as the first line of your proposal summary (which is not typical of NSF proposals, but will be useful for this workshop). As described in NSF 24-1, the rest of your project summary must contain three sections: “an overview, a statement on the intellectual merit of the proposed activity, and a statement on the broader impacts of the proposed activity.” In other words, have distinct sections labeled “Overview,” “Intellectual Merit,” and “Broader Impacts.” The last line of the Project Summary must consist of the word “Keywords” followed by a colon and between 1-3 keywords, separated by semi-colons, as instructed in NSF 24-504 (SaTC).

  3. The remaining 2-4 pages should be a very short version of a potential “project description,” as described in Section 2d of NSF 24-1. For the purposes of this workshop, we expect that most of these short project descriptions will provide some motivation and framing within prior work and start describing the specific activities and technical content of your proposed work, as well as its broader impact. Focus on communicating your key ideas, rather than filling in boilerplate text. You are welcome to include figures, citations, and other aspects of a typical proposal if needed.

  4. To emphasize, your project description must outline your proposed research and proposed activities. While our 2-4 page limit means that you will be far less detailed than normal, we want you to be specific in what you are proposing so that you can get feedback on the scope of your proposed project.

  5. In addition, your project description must include a section titled “Relevance to SaTC” describing how this project fits within the SaTC program, as instructed in NSF 24-504 (SaTC).

Finally, keep in mind that you should write for a somewhat general audience as your proposal will be read by other attendees and mentors at the event. The goal is to receive valuable feedback on framing and structuring a full proposal, and to do that, you should target a reader that has general knowledge in computer science and computer security/privacy, but may not be exactly an expert in your sub-field.

Confidentiality of Proposed Research

By participating in this workshop, we will hold all attendees to a moral code of confidentiality similar to what the NSF expects of panelists. That is, we ask that all attendees not share any project details with others. Specifically, you may not disclose to anyone else any non-public information you learn about other attendees’ research or proposal ideas. Similarly, you may not use what you learn about other attendees’ research for your personal gain, whereas we of course expect you to use what you learn at the workshop about strategies for writing competitive SaTC proposals. Furthermore, at the conclusion of the workshop, we ask that you delete all copies of other aspiring PIs’ proposals, though you are welcome to retain materials shared with you from experienced PIs (mentors) about their successfully funded proposals.

Reviewing Proposals

Just like an NSF panel, you will be asked to provide short reviews for other proposals during the workshop itself. Additional directions and assignmnents will be presented on the first day of the workshop. When you perform these reviews, each review should include:

  1. A summary of the project;

  2. A list of reasons to fund the project;

  3. A list of areas to improve;

  4. A summary judgement of the project (why it should or should not receive funding);

  5. A score of Poor, Fair, Good, Very Good, or Excellent.

Each review will be roughly one page and will be assigned on the first day of the workshop. Your reviews will be used during the mock panels.

What should you be looking for when reviewing? We will discuss this in more detail during the workshop, but slide 13 of this presentation nicely summarizes the key criteria:

  1. What is the potential for the proposed activity to: a. advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and b. benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?

  2. To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?

  3. Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, wellorganized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?

  4. How well qualified is the individual, team, or institution to conduct the proposed activities?

  5. Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home institution or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?

Panels

Finally, on the second day of the workshop (May 10th), we will conduct mock panels based on the reviews. The panel will discuss each executive summary and produce a panel summary. The panel summary should include:

  1. Summary of the proposal;

  2. Strengths and weaknesses of the intellectual merit;

  3. Strengths and weaknesses of the broader impact;

  4. Areas to improve the proposal;

  5. Summary judgement of the proposal;

  6. Ranking of Low Competitive, Competitive, or High Competitive (in comparison to the other proposals reviewed by that panel).

The mock panel will be led by an experienced mentor or NSF program officer. The goal is to both provide feedback to the aspiring PI but also expose aspiring PIs to the review process, a key part of understanding how to write stronger, more competitive proposals.