preparation research proposals

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

6 Preparing Your Research Proposal

More often than not, there will be a few steps that you’ll have to take before you can start gathering and analyzing data in pursuit of an answer to your research question. Preparing a research proposal is a milestone in any research project and is often required by sponsoring institutions in order to transition from ‘the ‘planning’ phase to the ‘doing’ phase. So why, you might ask, are we talking about this step in phase III, ‘writing’? That’s a great question and it has to do, primarily, with the order of thought and the information that must be included in a research proposal. In this chapter, we’ll cover the basic requirements of most research proposals and address the requirements and responsibilities of a researcher.

Chapter 6: Learning Objectives

Before you prepare to implement your research methodology, it is likely that you’ll need to gain approval to continue. As we explore the development of the research proposal, you’ll be able to:

• Describe the individual elements of a research proposal
• Delineate between the rationale and implementation portions of a research proposal
• Discuss the ethical tenets which govern researchers
• Define the purpose of an institutional review board
• Compare categories of institutional review board applications

What is a research proposal?

A research proposal can be thought of as the general blueprint for a proposed research project. There are very few instances wherein research projects can be pursued without support of a sponsoring institution. That is, a healthcare system, hospital, or academic institution. To receive support from a sponsoring institution, a researcher must articulate a clear plan for their research process to include:

• An overview of the literature which supports the investigation
• A statement of the problem
• A statement of purpose
• A hypothesis or central question
• An overview of how participants will be identified, selected, contacted or data will be identified, analyzed, and protected
• An overview of the proposed methodology (i.e. approach to the study)
• An acknowledgment that participants, data, and results will be treated ethically throughout the study
• A timeline for the project

As Crawford, Burkholder, and Cox (2020) describe, these items can be split into separate portions of a research proposal, the rationale (i.e. Whye) and implementation (i.e. How).

As we discussed in previous chapters, developing a robust rationale for your research will help guide the entire research process. The introduction to your research proposal should include a general description of why the research should be conducted. Aside from your general interest, the introduction to the research should be firmly rooted in the available evidence which, first identifies a problem; second, identifies a purpose for the pursuit of inquiry into the problem; and finally, articulates a clear and focused research question which addresses the gap in current knowledge on the topic.

Implementation

Outlining your plan for implementation is essential to gain approval to conduct your research. Equally important to developing a well-articulated rationale, the identification of a clear methodology for how you will implement your approach is an important component of a research proposal.

A plan of implementation can be presented in several ways. However, an inclusive plan should include the following elements (Crawford, Burkholder, & Cox, 2020):

• How you will select participants or identify ‘what’ is included in your investigation
• How you will measure what you’re investigating
• What type of data you will collect and how
• How you will analyze the data
• Frame the terms that specify your investigation
• Qualities of the study that are inherent to the study, but may be overlooked as obvious unless addressed
• Delimitations narrow the scope of the study regarding what it does not include. Limitations are an acknowledgement of the weaknesses of the study design or methodology (Spoiler: there are limitations to EVERY study).
• Influence practice?
• Impact policy?
• Provide a foundation for future research?

We’ve spent a lot of time discussing how to identify a problem, a purpose, articulate a question, and identify a sample and the selection and implementation of an appropriate approach. Ethical considerations of the researcher is another essential topic for any researcher to cover. Here, we’ll provide a general overview of ethical considerations that are required of sponsoring institutions to ensure the ethical treatment of study participants and related data.

As a clinician, you’re likely familiar with the tenets of bedside bioethics that guide clinical practice:

• Autonomy : The right to self-direction and control
• Beneficence : The intention to do ‘good’, or what is in the best interest of the patient
• Non-Maleficence : The goal to ‘do no harm’ in practicing
• Justice : The pursuit of fairness and equity

These basic tenets of care do not change much when viewed through the lens of a researcher. However, it is important to note the foundation upon which research ethics were built. In 1974, the National Research Act was drafted in response to blatant abuse of research methods such as the Tuskegee study and resulted in the establishment of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research.The ethical principles which guide researchers are derived outlined by the Belmont Report (HHS.gov) and include:

• Autonomy : Respect for a person to make personal choices and provisions and protections to be provided for participants belonging to vulnerable populations
• Beneficence : The intention to do what is morally right; to minimize risk and maximize benefits
• Justice : To promote equity among the treatment of individuals and groups

Researchers must address the ways in which they intent to uphold these principles in their proposed research project. Methods by which they do this include:

• Voluntary Informed Consent : Informed consent is a process which ensures that a participant is educated in terms that they can understand about the risks inherent to their participation. This process underscores respect through the provision of consent for a voluntary act (HHS.gov, n.d.)
• Avoidance of Harm : Avoidance of harm is related to the ethical tenet of beneficence and is the primary responsibility of the researcher
• Assessment of Risk: The common rule mandates that researchers ensure that the risk to potential participants in a research study are minimized and that the research cannot impose risk that outweighs the potential benefit of the outcomes.
• Right to Withdrawal: Participants must be made aware of their rights to withdraw from the study at any time, for any reason, without consequences.
• Responsibility to Terminate: The principle investigator has the responsibility to terminate the research intervention should it be made clear that the intervention has either a detrimental effect on participants or an overwhelmingly positive effect such that it would be unethical to continue the study.

Universal research practices which promote these principles must be included in a research proposal in order to conduct research at most institutions and are outlined in the Common Rule which regulates the functions of institutional review boards (IRBs).

Institutional Review Board

An IRB is a formally designated group which has been established to protect the rights and welfare of human subjects recruited to participate in research; specifically research conducted at, or supported by, a specific institution. Here it is important to understand what is meant by the terms ‘research’ and ‘human subjects’. In regards to the requirement of IRB review, the term research means a systematic investigation, development, testing and evaluation designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge (University of Southern California, n.d.). Human subjects in relation to research refers to a living individual who’s information or biospecimens are used or analyzed to generate either identifiable private information or biospecimens for the purpose of generalizable information (University of Southern California, n.d.).

Although there are some details which will differ between organizations, there are general categories of human subject research which must be reviewed by an IRB. These classifications are designated by the degree of risk assumed by the participants and the ability of the researcher to mitigate those risks. Minimal risk is described by the federal regulations as the probability and magnitude of physical or psychological harm that is normally encountered in the daily lives, or in the routine medical, dental, or psychological examination of healthy persons (Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, n.d). Generally, research proposals will fall into one of the following categories:

• Exempt : Exempt research poses no more than minimal risk to adult, non-vulnerable populations.
• Expedited : Research that poses no more than minimal risk to participants and fits into one of the expedited categories described in federal regulations 45 CFR 46.110 (HHS.gov)
• Full Board : Research that does not qualify for either exempt or expedited review and poses more than minimal risk to participants. This type of review requires the approval from a full membership of an IRB.

Projects that don’t need IRB approval

Projects which are not considered human subjects research are not required to be reviewed by an IRB. Quality improvement projects do not typically require formal IRB review. However, individual institutional requirements should be reviewed and followed; preferably, in the planning phase of your research project to ensure that the requirements of your specific review align with both your approach and your timeline.

Key Takeaways

• Research proposals can be split into two primary components: The rational and the plan of implementation
• The introduction of your research proposal should encompass a description of your problem, purpose, and research question
• The identification of your research approach should be firmly guided by the ethical tenets of autonomy, beneficence, and  justice
• The researcher has an ethical responsibility to protect participants from risk
• An institutional review board is a formal board charged with reviewing risks associated with research projects
• There are differing levels of institutional review; assumption of risk is the primary factor in classifying level of IRB review

Crawford, L.M., Burkholder, G.J., Cox, K.A. (2020). Writing the Research Proposal. In G.J. Burkholder, K.A Cox, L.M. Crawford, and J.H. Hitchcock (Eds.), Research design and methods: An applied guide for the scholar-practitioner (pp. 309-334). Sage Publications

Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. (2020, August, 17). Protection of human subjects . Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=83cd09e1c0f5c6937cd9d7513160fc3f&pitd=20180719&n=pt45.1.46&r=PART&ty=HTML#se45.1.46_1104

Health and Human Services. (2020, August, 14). The Belmont report . Health and Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html

University of Southern California. (2020, August, 17). Office for the protection of research subjects . University of Southern California. https://oprs.usc.edu/irb-review/types-of-irb-review/

The right to self direction and control

The intention to do 'good'

The intention to do no harm

Pursuit of fairness and equity

A systematic investigation

Living persons participating in research

Probability of harm that does not exceed that encountered in every day life

IRB classification for research projects that do not pose more than minimal risk to adult, non-vulnerable populations

Classification of IRB approval for research that does not pose more than minimal risk, but fits into federally regulated categories.

IRB Classification for research that does pose more than minimal risk for participants

Practical Research: A Basic Guide to Planning, Doing, and Writing Copyright © by megankoster. All Rights Reserved.

Share This Book

• Privacy Policy

Home » How To Write A Research Proposal – Step-by-Step [Template]

How To Write A Research Proposal – Step-by-Step [Template]

Table of Contents

How To Write a Research Proposal

Writing a Research proposal involves several steps to ensure a well-structured and comprehensive document. Here is an explanation of each step:

1. Title and Abstract

• Choose a concise and descriptive title that reflects the essence of your research.
• Write an abstract summarizing your research question, objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes. It should provide a brief overview of your proposal.

2. Introduction:

• Provide an introduction to your research topic, highlighting its significance and relevance.
• Clearly state the research problem or question you aim to address.
• Discuss the background and context of the study, including previous research in the field.

3. Research Objectives

• Outline the specific objectives or aims of your research. These objectives should be clear, achievable, and aligned with the research problem.

4. Literature Review:

• Conduct a comprehensive review of relevant literature and studies related to your research topic.
• Summarize key findings, identify gaps, and highlight how your research will contribute to the existing knowledge.

5. Methodology:

• Describe the research design and methodology you plan to employ to address your research objectives.
• Explain the data collection methods, instruments, and analysis techniques you will use.
• Justify why the chosen methods are appropriate and suitable for your research.

6. Timeline:

• Create a timeline or schedule that outlines the major milestones and activities of your research project.
• Break down the research process into smaller tasks and estimate the time required for each task.

7. Resources:

• Identify the resources needed for your research, such as access to specific databases, equipment, or funding.
• Explain how you will acquire or utilize these resources to carry out your research effectively.

8. Ethical Considerations:

• Discuss any ethical issues that may arise during your research and explain how you plan to address them.
• If your research involves human subjects, explain how you will ensure their informed consent and privacy.

9. Expected Outcomes and Significance:

• Clearly state the expected outcomes or results of your research.
• Highlight the potential impact and significance of your research in advancing knowledge or addressing practical issues.

10. References:

• Provide a list of all the references cited in your proposal, following a consistent citation style (e.g., APA, MLA).

11. Appendices:

• Include any additional supporting materials, such as survey questionnaires, interview guides, or data analysis plans.

Research Proposal Format

The format of a research proposal may vary depending on the specific requirements of the institution or funding agency. However, the following is a commonly used format for a research proposal:

1. Title Page:

• Include the title of your research proposal, your name, your affiliation or institution, and the date.

2. Abstract:

• Provide a brief summary of your research proposal, highlighting the research problem, objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes.

3. Introduction:

• Introduce the research topic and provide background information.
• State the research problem or question you aim to address.
• Explain the significance and relevance of the research.
• Review relevant literature and studies related to your research topic.
• Summarize key findings and identify gaps in the existing knowledge.
• Explain how your research will contribute to filling those gaps.

5. Research Objectives:

• Clearly state the specific objectives or aims of your research.
• Ensure that the objectives are clear, focused, and aligned with the research problem.

6. Methodology:

• Describe the research design and methodology you plan to use.
• Explain the data collection methods, instruments, and analysis techniques.
• Justify why the chosen methods are appropriate for your research.

7. Timeline:

8. Resources:

• Explain how you will acquire or utilize these resources effectively.

9. Ethical Considerations:

• If applicable, explain how you will ensure informed consent and protect the privacy of research participants.

10. Expected Outcomes and Significance:

11. References:

12. Appendices:

Research Proposal Template

Here’s a template for a research proposal:

1. Introduction:

2. Literature Review:

3. Research Objectives:

4. Methodology:

5. Timeline:

6. Resources:

7. Ethical Considerations:

8. Expected Outcomes and Significance:

9. References:

10. Appendices:

Research Proposal Sample

Title: The Impact of Online Education on Student Learning Outcomes: A Comparative Study

1. Introduction

Online education has gained significant prominence in recent years, especially due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This research proposal aims to investigate the impact of online education on student learning outcomes by comparing them with traditional face-to-face instruction. The study will explore various aspects of online education, such as instructional methods, student engagement, and academic performance, to provide insights into the effectiveness of online learning.

2. Objectives

The main objectives of this research are as follows:

• To compare student learning outcomes between online and traditional face-to-face education.
• To examine the factors influencing student engagement in online learning environments.
• To assess the effectiveness of different instructional methods employed in online education.
• To identify challenges and opportunities associated with online education and suggest recommendations for improvement.

3. Methodology

3.1 Study Design

This research will utilize a mixed-methods approach to gather both quantitative and qualitative data. The study will include the following components:

3.2 Participants

The research will involve undergraduate students from two universities, one offering online education and the other providing face-to-face instruction. A total of 500 students (250 from each university) will be selected randomly to participate in the study.

3.3 Data Collection

The research will employ the following data collection methods:

• Quantitative: Pre- and post-assessments will be conducted to measure students’ learning outcomes. Data on student demographics and academic performance will also be collected from university records.
• Qualitative: Focus group discussions and individual interviews will be conducted with students to gather their perceptions and experiences regarding online education.

3.4 Data Analysis

Quantitative data will be analyzed using statistical software, employing descriptive statistics, t-tests, and regression analysis. Qualitative data will be transcribed, coded, and analyzed thematically to identify recurring patterns and themes.

4. Ethical Considerations

The study will adhere to ethical guidelines, ensuring the privacy and confidentiality of participants. Informed consent will be obtained, and participants will have the right to withdraw from the study at any time.

5. Significance and Expected Outcomes

This research will contribute to the existing literature by providing empirical evidence on the impact of online education on student learning outcomes. The findings will help educational institutions and policymakers make informed decisions about incorporating online learning methods and improving the quality of online education. Moreover, the study will identify potential challenges and opportunities related to online education and offer recommendations for enhancing student engagement and overall learning outcomes.

6. Timeline

The proposed research will be conducted over a period of 12 months, including data collection, analysis, and report writing.

The estimated budget for this research includes expenses related to data collection, software licenses, participant compensation, and research assistance. A detailed budget breakdown will be provided in the final research plan.

8. Conclusion

This research proposal aims to investigate the impact of online education on student learning outcomes through a comparative study with traditional face-to-face instruction. By exploring various dimensions of online education, this research will provide valuable insights into the effectiveness and challenges associated with online learning. The findings will contribute to the ongoing discourse on educational practices and help shape future strategies for maximizing student learning outcomes in online education settings.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

How To Write A Proposal – Step By Step Guide...

Grant Proposal – Example, Template and Guide

How To Write A Business Proposal – Step-by-Step...

Business Proposal – Templates, Examples and Guide

Proposal – Types, Examples, and Writing Guide

How to choose an Appropriate Method for Research?

How To Write A Research Proposal

A Straightforward How-To Guide (With Examples)

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | August 2019 (Updated April 2023)

Writing up a strong research proposal for a dissertation or thesis is much like a marriage proposal. It’s a task that calls on you to win somebody over and persuade them that what you’re planning is a great idea. An idea they’re happy to say ‘yes’ to. This means that your dissertation proposal needs to be   persuasive ,   attractive   and well-planned. In this post, I’ll show you how to write a winning dissertation proposal, from scratch.

Before you start:

– Understand exactly what a research proposal is – Ask yourself these 4 questions

The 5 essential ingredients:

• The title/topic
• The introduction chapter
• The scope/delimitations
• Preliminary literature review
• Design/ methodology
• Practical considerations and risks 

What Is A Research Proposal?

The research proposal is literally that: a written document that communicates what you propose to research, in a concise format. It’s where you put all that stuff that’s spinning around in your head down on to paper, in a logical, convincing fashion.

Convincing   is the keyword here, as your research proposal needs to convince the assessor that your research is   clearly articulated   (i.e., a clear research question) ,   worth doing   (i.e., is unique and valuable enough to justify the effort), and   doable   within the restrictions you’ll face (time limits, budget, skill limits, etc.). If your proposal does not address these three criteria, your research won’t be approved, no matter how “exciting” the research idea might be.

PS – if you’re completely new to proposal writing, we’ve got a detailed walkthrough video covering two successful research proposals here . 

How do I know I’m ready?

Before starting the writing process, you need to   ask yourself 4 important questions .  If you can’t answer them succinctly and confidently, you’re not ready – you need to go back and think more deeply about your dissertation topic .

You should be able to answer the following 4 questions before starting your dissertation or thesis research proposal:

• WHAT is my main research question? (the topic)
• WHO cares and why is this important? (the justification)
• WHAT data would I need to answer this question, and how will I analyse it? (the research design)
• HOW will I manage the completion of this research, within the given timelines? (project and risk management)

If you can’t answer these questions clearly and concisely,   you’re not yet ready   to write your research proposal – revisit our   post on choosing a topic .

If you can, that’s great – it’s time to start writing up your dissertation proposal. Next, I’ll discuss what needs to go into your research proposal, and how to structure it all into an intuitive, convincing document with a linear narrative.

The 5 Essential Ingredients

Research proposals can vary in style between institutions and disciplines, but here I’ll share with you a   handy 5-section structure   you can use. These 5 sections directly address the core questions we spoke about earlier, ensuring that you present a convincing proposal. If your institution already provides a proposal template, there will likely be substantial overlap with this, so you’ll still get value from reading on.

For each section discussed below, make sure you use headers and sub-headers (ideally, numbered headers) to help the reader navigate through your document, and to support them when they need to revisit a previous section. Don’t just present an endless wall of text, paragraph after paragraph after paragraph…

Top Tip:   Use MS Word Styles to format headings. This will allow you to be clear about whether a sub-heading is level 2, 3, or 4. Additionally, you can view your document in ‘outline view’ which will show you only your headings. This makes it much easier to check your structure, shift things around and make decisions about where a section needs to sit. You can also generate a 100% accurate table of contents using Word’s automatic functionality.

Ingredient #1 – Topic/Title Header

Your research proposal’s title should be your main research question in its simplest form, possibly with a sub-heading providing basic details on the specifics of the study. For example:

“Compliance with equality legislation in the charity sector: a study of the ‘reasonable adjustments’ made in three London care homes”

As you can see, this title provides a clear indication of what the research is about, in broad terms. It paints a high-level picture for the first-time reader, which gives them a taste of what to expect.   Always aim for a clear, concise title . Don’t feel the need to capture every detail of your research in your title – your proposal will fill in the gaps.

Need a helping hand?

Ingredient #2 – Introduction

In this section of your research proposal, you’ll expand on what you’ve communicated in the title, by providing a few paragraphs which offer more detail about your research topic. Importantly, the focus here is the   topic   – what will you research and why is that worth researching? This is not the place to discuss methodology, practicalities, etc. – you’ll do that later.

You should cover the following:

• An overview of the   broad area   you’ll be researching – introduce the reader to key concepts and language
• An explanation of the   specific (narrower) area   you’ll be focusing, and why you’ll be focusing there
• Your research   aims   and   objectives
• Your   research question (s) and sub-questions (if applicable)

Importantly, you should aim to use short sentences and plain language – don’t babble on with extensive jargon, acronyms and complex language. Assume that the reader is an intelligent layman – not a subject area specialist (even if they are). Remember that the   best writing is writing that can be easily understood   and digested. Keep it simple.

Note that some universities may want some extra bits and pieces in your introduction section. For example, personal development objectives, a structural outline, etc. Check your brief to see if there are any other details they expect in your proposal, and make sure you find a place for these.

Ingredient #3 – Scope

Next, you’ll need to specify what the scope of your research will be – this is also known as the delimitations . In other words, you need to make it clear what you will be covering and, more importantly, what you won’t be covering in your research. Simply put, this is about ring fencing your research topic so that you have a laser-sharp focus.

All too often, students feel the need to go broad and try to address as many issues as possible, in the interest of producing comprehensive research. Whilst this is admirable, it’s a mistake. By tightly refining your scope, you’ll enable yourself to   go deep   with your research, which is what you need to earn good marks. If your scope is too broad, you’re likely going to land up with superficial research (which won’t earn marks), so don’t be afraid to narrow things down.

Ingredient #4 – Literature Review

In this section of your research proposal, you need to provide a (relatively) brief discussion of the existing literature. Naturally, this will not be as comprehensive as the literature review in your actual dissertation, but it will lay the foundation for that. In fact, if you put in the effort at this stage, you’ll make your life a lot easier when it’s time to write your actual literature review chapter.

There are a few things you need to achieve in this section:

• Demonstrate that you’ve done your reading and are   familiar with the current state of the research   in your topic area.
• Show that   there’s a clear gap   for your specific research – i.e., show that your topic is sufficiently unique and will add value to the existing research.
• Show how the existing research has shaped your thinking regarding   research design . For example, you might use scales or questionnaires from previous studies.

When you write up your literature review, keep these three objectives front of mind, especially number two (revealing the gap in the literature), so that your literature review has a   clear purpose and direction . Everything you write should be contributing towards one (or more) of these objectives in some way. If it doesn’t, you need to ask yourself whether it’s truly needed.

Top Tip:  Don’t fall into the trap of just describing the main pieces of literature, for example, “A says this, B says that, C also says that…” and so on. Merely describing the literature provides no value. Instead, you need to   synthesise   it, and use it to address the three objectives above.

Ingredient #5 – Research Methodology

Now that you’ve clearly explained both your intended research topic (in the introduction) and the existing research it will draw on (in the literature review section), it’s time to get practical and explain exactly how you’ll be carrying out your own research. In other words, your research methodology.

In this section, you’ll need to   answer two critical questions :

• How   will you design your research? I.e., what research methodology will you adopt, what will your sample be, how will you collect data, etc.
• Why   have you chosen this design? I.e., why does this approach suit your specific research aims, objectives and questions?

In other words, this is not just about explaining WHAT you’ll be doing, it’s also about explaining WHY. In fact, the   justification is the most important part , because that justification is how you demonstrate a good understanding of research design (which is what assessors want to see).

Some essential design choices you need to cover in your research proposal include:

• Your intended research philosophy (e.g., positivism, interpretivism or pragmatism )
• What methodological approach you’ll be taking (e.g., qualitative , quantitative or mixed )
• The details of your sample (e.g., sample size, who they are, who they represent, etc.)
• What data you plan to collect (i.e. data about what, in what form?)
• How you plan to collect it (e.g., surveys , interviews , focus groups, etc.)
• How you plan to analyse it (e.g., regression analysis, thematic analysis , etc.)
• Ethical adherence (i.e., does this research satisfy all ethical requirements of your institution, or does it need further approval?)

This list is not exhaustive – these are just some core attributes of research design. Check with your institution what level of detail they expect. The “ research onion ” by Saunders et al (2009) provides a good summary of the various design choices you ultimately need to make – you can   read more about that here .

Don’t forget the practicalities…

In addition to the technical aspects, you will need to address the   practical   side of the project. In other words, you need to explain   what resources you’ll need   (e.g., time, money, access to equipment or software, etc.) and how you intend to secure these resources. You need to show that your project is feasible, so any “make or break” type resources need to already be secured. The success or failure of your project cannot depend on some resource which you’re not yet sure you have access to.

Another part of the practicalities discussion is   project and risk management . In other words, you need to show that you have a clear project plan to tackle your research with. Some key questions to address:

• What are the timelines for each phase of your project?
• Are the time allocations reasonable?
• What happens if something takes longer than anticipated (risk management)?
• What happens if you don’t get the response rate you expect?

A good way to demonstrate that you’ve thought this through is to include a Gantt chart and a risk register (in the appendix if word count is a problem). With these two tools, you can show that you’ve got a clear, feasible plan, and you’ve thought about and accounted for the potential risks.

Tip – Be honest about the potential difficulties – but show that you are anticipating solutions and workarounds. This is much more impressive to an assessor than an unrealistically optimistic proposal which does not anticipate any challenges whatsoever.

Final Touches: Read And Simplify

The final step is to edit and proofread your proposal – very carefully. It sounds obvious, but all too often poor editing and proofreading ruin a good proposal. Nothing is more off-putting for an assessor than a poorly edited, typo-strewn document. It sends the message that you either do not pay attention to detail, or just don’t care. Neither of these are good messages. Put the effort into editing and proofreading your proposal (or pay someone to do it for you) – it will pay dividends.

When you’re editing, watch out for ‘academese’. Many students can speak simply, passionately and clearly about their dissertation topic – but become incomprehensible the moment they turn the laptop on. You are not required to write in any kind of special, formal, complex language when you write academic work. Sure, there may be technical terms, jargon specific to your discipline, shorthand terms and so on. But, apart from those,   keep your written language very close to natural spoken language   – just as you would speak in the classroom. Imagine that you are explaining your project plans to your classmates or a family member. Remember, write for the intelligent layman, not the subject matter experts. Plain-language, concise writing is what wins hearts and minds – and marks!

Let’s Recap: Research Proposal 101

And there you have it – how to write your dissertation or thesis research proposal, from the title page to the final proof. Here’s a quick recap of the key takeaways:

• The purpose of the research proposal is to   convince   – therefore, you need to make a clear, concise argument of why your research is both worth doing and doable.
• Make sure you can ask the critical what, who, and how questions of your research   before   you put pen to paper.
• Title – provides the first taste of your research, in broad terms
• Introduction – explains what you’ll be researching in more detail
• Scope – explains the boundaries of your research
• Literature review – explains how your research fits into the existing research and why it’s unique and valuable
• Research methodology – explains and justifies how you will carry out your own research

Hopefully, this post has helped you better understand how to write up a winning research proposal. If you enjoyed it, be sure to check out the rest of the Grad Coach Blog . If your university doesn’t provide any template for your proposal, you might want to try out our free research proposal template .

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Research Proposal Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

You Might Also Like:

30 Comments

Thank you so much for the valuable insight that you have given, especially on the research proposal. That is what I have managed to cover. I still need to go back to the other parts as I got disturbed while still listening to Derek’s audio on you-tube. I am inspired. I will definitely continue with Grad-coach guidance on You-tube.

Thanks for the kind words :). All the best with your proposal.

First of all, thanks a lot for making such a wonderful presentation. The video was really useful and gave me a very clear insight of how a research proposal has to be written. I shall try implementing these ideas in my RP.

Once again, I thank you for this content.

I found reading your outline on writing research proposal very beneficial. I wish there was a way of submitting my draft proposal to you guys for critiquing before I submit to the institution.

Hi Bonginkosi

Thank you for the kind words. Yes, we do provide a review service. The best starting point is to have a chat with one of our coaches here: https://gradcoach.com/book/new/ .

Hello team GRADCOACH, may God bless you so much. I was totally green in research. Am so happy for your free superb tutorials and resources. Once again thank you so much Derek and his team.

You’re welcome, Erick. Good luck with your research proposal 🙂

thank you for the information. its precise and on point.

Really a remarkable piece of writing and great source of guidance for the researchers. GOD BLESS YOU for your guidance. Regards

Thanks so much for your guidance. It is easy and comprehensive the way you explain the steps for a winning research proposal.

Thank you guys so much for the rich post. I enjoyed and learn from every word in it. My problem now is how to get into your platform wherein I can always seek help on things related to my research work ? Secondly, I wish to find out if there is a way I can send my tentative proposal to you guys for examination before I take to my supervisor Once again thanks very much for the insights

Thanks for your kind words, Desire.

If you are based in a country where Grad Coach’s paid services are available, you can book a consultation by clicking the “Book” button in the top right.

Best of luck with your studies.

May God bless you team for the wonderful work you are doing,

If I have a topic, Can I submit it to you so that you can draft a proposal for me?? As I am expecting to go for masters degree in the near future.

Thanks for your comment. We definitely cannot draft a proposal for you, as that would constitute academic misconduct. The proposal needs to be your own work. We can coach you through the process, but it needs to be your own work and your own writing.

Best of luck with your research!

I found a lot of many essential concepts from your material. it is real a road map to write a research proposal. so thanks a lot. If there is any update material on your hand on MBA please forward to me.

GradCoach is a professional website that presents support and helps for MBA student like me through the useful online information on the page and with my 1-on-1 online coaching with the amazing and professional PhD Kerryen.

Thank you Kerryen so much for the support and help 🙂

I really recommend dealing with such a reliable services provider like Gradcoah and a coach like Kerryen.

Hi, Am happy for your service and effort to help students and researchers, Please, i have been given an assignment on research for strategic development, the task one is to formulate a research proposal to support the strategic development of a business area, my issue here is how to go about it, especially the topic or title and introduction. Please, i would like to know if you could help me and how much is the charge.

This content is practical, valuable, and just great!

Thank you very much!

Hi Derek, Thank you for the valuable presentation. It is very helpful especially for beginners like me. I am just starting my PhD.

This is quite instructive and research proposal made simple. Can I have a research proposal template?

Great! Thanks for rescuing me, because I had no former knowledge in this topic. But with this piece of information, I am now secured. Thank you once more.

I enjoyed listening to your video on how to write a proposal. I think I will be able to write a winning proposal with your advice. I wish you were to be my supervisor.

Dear Derek Jansen,

Thank you for your great content. I couldn’t learn these topics in MBA, but now I learned from GradCoach. Really appreciate your efforts….

From Afghanistan!

I have got very essential inputs for startup of my dissertation proposal. Well organized properly communicated with video presentation. Thank you for the presentation.

Wow, this is absolutely amazing guys. Thank you so much for the fruitful presentation, you’ve made my research much easier.

this helps me a lot. thank you all so much for impacting in us. may god richly bless you all

How I wish I’d learn about Grad Coach earlier. I’ve been stumbling around writing and rewriting! Now I have concise clear directions on how to put this thing together. Thank you!

Fantastic!! Thank You for this very concise yet comprehensive guidance.

Even if I am poor in English I would like to thank you very much.

Thank you very much, this is very insightful.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

Research Proposal: A step-by-step guide with template

Making sure your proposal is perfect will drastically improve your chances of landing a successful research position. Follow these steps.

There’s no doubt you have the most cutting-edge research idea to date, backed up by a solid methodology and a credible explanation proving its relevance! There are thousands of research ideas that could change the world with many new ideologies.

The truth is, none of this would matter without support. It can be daunting, challenging, and uncertain to secure funding for a research project. Even more so when it isn’t well-thought-out, outlined, and includes every detail.

An effective solution for presenting your project, or requesting funding, is to provide a research proposal to potential investors or financiers on your behalf.

It’s crucial to understand that making sure your proposal is perfect will drastically improve your chances of landing a successful research position. Your research proposal could result in the failure to study the research problem entirely if it is inadequately constructed or incomplete.

It is for this reason that we have created an excellent guide that covers everything you need to know about writing a research proposal, and includes helpful tips for presenting your proposal professionally and improving its likelihood of acceptance!

What Is a Research Proposal?

Generally, a research proposal is a well-crafted, formal document that provides a thorough explanation of what you plan to investigate. This includes a rationale for why it is worth investigating, as well as a method for investigating it.

Research proposal writing in the contemporary academic environment is a challenging undertaking given the constant shift in research methodology and a commitment to incorporating scientific breakthroughs.

An outline of the plan or roadmap for the study is the proposal, and once the proposal is complete, everything should be smooth sailing. It is still common for post-graduate evaluation panels and funding applications to submit substandard proposals.

By its very nature, the research proposal serves as a tool for convincing the supervisor, committee, or university that the proposed research fits within the scope of the program and is feasible when considering the time and resources available.

A research proposal should convince the person who is going to sanction your research, or put another way, you need to persuade them that your research idea is the best.

Obviously, if it does not convince them that it is reasonable and adequate, you will need to revise and submit it again. As a result, you will lose significant time, causing your research to be delayed or cut short, which is not good.

A good research proposal should have the following structure

A dissertation or thesis research proposal may take on a variety of forms depending on the university, but  most generally a research proposal will include the following elements:

• Titles or title pages that give a description of the research
• Detailed explanation of the proposed research and its background
• Outline of the research project
• An overview of key research studies in the field
• Description the proposed research design (approach)

So, if you include all these elements, you will have a general outline. Let’s take a closer look at how to write them and what to include in each element so that the research proposal is as robust as the idea itself.

A step-by-step guide to writing a research proposal

#1 introduction.

Researchers who wish to obtain grant funding for a project often write a proposal when seeking funding for a research-based postgraduate degree program, or in order to obtain approval for completing a thesis or PhD. Even though this is only a brief introduction, we should be considering it the beginning of an insightful discussion about the significance of a topic that deserves attention.

Your readers should understand what you are trying to accomplish after they read your introduction. Additionally, they should be able to perceive your zeal for the subject matter and a genuine interest in the possible outcome of the research.

As your introduction, consider answering these questions in three to four paragraphs:

• In what way does the study address its primary issue?
• Does that subject matter fall under the domain of that field of study?
• In order to investigate that problem, what method should be used?
• What is the importance of this study?
• How does it impact academia and society overall?
• What are the potential implications of the proposed research for someone reviewing the proposal?

It is not necessary to include an abstract or summary for the introduction to most academic departments and funding sources. Nevertheless, you should confirm your institution’s requirements.

#2 Background and importance

An explanation of the rationale for a research proposal and its significance is provided in this section. It is preferable to separate this part from the introduction so that the narrative flows seamlessly.

This section should be approached by presuming readers are time-pressed but want a general overview of the whole study and the research question.

Please keep in mind that this isn’t an exhaustive essay that contains every detail of your proposed research, rather a concise document that will spark interest in your proposal.

While you should try to take into account the following factors when framing the significance of your proposed study, there are no rigid rules.

• Provide a detailed explanation of the purpose and problem of the study. Multidimensional or interdisciplinary research problems often require this.
• Outline the purpose of your proposed research and describe the advantages of carrying out the study.
• Outline the major issues or problems to be discussed. These might come in the form of questions or comments.
• Be sure to highlight how your research contributes to existing theories that relate to the problem of the study.
• Describe how your study will be conducted, including the source of data and the method of analysis.
• To provide a sense of direction for your study, define the scope of your proposal.
• Defining key concepts or terms, if necessary, is recommended.

The steps to a perfect research proposal all get more specific as we move forward to enhance the concept of the research. In this case, it will become important to make sure that your supervisor or your funder has a clear understanding of every aspect of your research study.

#3 Reviewing prior literature and studies

The aim of this paragraph is to establish the context and significance of your study, including a review of the current literature pertinent to it.

This part aims to properly situate your proposed study within the bigger scheme of things of what is being investigated, while, at the same time, showing the innovation and originality of your proposed work.

When writing a literature review, it is imperative that your format is effective because it often contains extensive information that allows you to demonstrate your main research claims compared to other scholars.

Separating the literature according to major categories or conceptual frameworks is an excellent way to do this. This is a more effective method than listing each study one by one in chronological order.

In order to arrange the review of existing relevant studies in an efficient manner, a literature review is often written using the following five criteria:

• Be sure to cite your previous studies to ensure the focus remains on the research question. For more information, please refer to our guide on how to write a research paper .
• Study the literature’s methods, results, hypotheses, and conclusions. Recognize the authors’ differing perspectives.
• Compare and contrast the various themes, arguments, methodologies, and perspectives discussed in the literature. Explain the most prominent points of disagreement.
• Evaluate the literature. Identify persuasive arguments offered by scholars. Choose the most reliable, valid, and suitable methodologies.
• Consider how the literature relates to your area of research and your topic. Examine whether your proposal for investigation reflects existing literature, deviates from existing literature, synthesizes or adds to it in some way.

#4 Research questions and objectives

The next step is to develop your research objectives once you have determined your research focus.

When your readers read your proposal, what do you want them to learn? Try to write your objectives in one sentence, if you can. Put time and thought into framing them properly.

By setting an objective for your research, you’ll stay on track and avoid getting sidetracked.

Any study proposal should address the following questions irrespective of the topic or problem:

• What are you hoping to accomplish from the study? When describing the study topic and your research question, be concise and to the point.
• What is the purpose of the research? A compelling argument must also be offered to support your choice of topic.
• What research methods will you use? It is essential to outline a clear, logical strategy for completing your study and make sure that it is doable.

Some authors include this section in the introduction, where it is generally placed at the end of the section.

#5 Research Design and Methods

It is important to write this part correctly and organize logically even though you are not starting the research yet.  This must leave readers with a sense of assurance that the topic is worthwhile.

To achieve this, you must convince your reader that your research design and procedures will adequately address the study’s problems. Additionally, it seeks to ensure that the employed methods are capable of interpreting the likely study results efficiently.

You should design your research in a way that is directly related to your objectives.

Exemplifying your study design using examples from your literature review, you are setting up your study design effectively. You should follow other researchers’ good practices.

Pay attention to the methods you will use to collect data, the analyses you will perform, as well as your methods of measuring the validity of your results.

If you describe the methods you will use, make sure you include the following points:

• Develop a plan for conducting your research, as well as how you intend to interpret the findings based on the study’s objectives.
• When describing your objectives with the selected techniques, it is important to also elaborate on your plans.
• This section does not only present a list of events. Once you have chosen the strategy, make sure to explain why it is a good way to analyse your study question. Provide clear explanations.
• Last but not least, plan ahead to overcome any challenges you might encounter during the implementation of your research design.

In the event that you closely follow the best practices outlined in relevant studies as well as justify your selection, you will be prepared to address any questions or concerns you may encounter.

We have an amazing article that will give you everything you need to know about research design .

#6 Knowledge Contribution and Relevance

In this section, you describe your theory about how your study will contribute to, expand, or alter knowledge about the topic of your study.

You should discuss the implications of your research on future studies, applications, concepts, decisions, and procedures. It is common to address the study findings from a conceptual, analytical, or scientific perspective.

If you are framing your proposal of research, these guide questions may help you:

• How could the results be interpreted in the context of contesting the premises of the study?
• Could the expected study results lead to proposals for further research?
• Is your proposed research going to benefit people in any way?
• Is the outcome going to affect individuals in their work setting?
• In what ways will the suggested study impact or enhance the quality of life?
• Are the study’s results going to have an impact on intervention forms, techniques, or policies?
• What potential commercial, societal, or other benefits could be derived from the outcomes?
• Policy decisions will be influenced by the outcomes?
• Upon implementation, could they bring about new insights or breakthroughs?

Throughout this section, you will identify unsolved questions or research gaps in the existing literature. If the study is conducted as proposed, it is important to indicate how the research will be instrumental in understanding the nature of the research problem.

#7 Adherence to the Ethical Principles

In terms of scientific writing style, no particular style is generally acknowledged as more or less effective. The purpose is simply to provide relevant content that is formatted in a standardized way to enhance communication.

There are a variety of publication styles among different scholarly disciplines. It is therefore essential to follow the protocol according to the institution or organization that you are targeting.

All scholarly research and writing is, however, guided by codes of ethical conduct. The purpose of ethical guidelines, if they are followed, is to accomplish three things:

1) Preserve intellectual property right;

2) Ensure the rights and welfare of research participants;

3) Maintain the accuracy of scientific knowledge.

Scholars and writers who follow these ideals adhere to long-standing standards within their professional groups.

An additional ethical principle of the APA stresses the importance of maintaining scientific validity. An observation is at the heart of the standard scientific method, and it is verifiable and repeatable by others.

It is expected that scholars will not falsify or fabricate data in research writing. Researchers must also refrain from altering their studies’ outcomes to support a particular theory or to exclude inconclusive data from their report in an effort to create a convincing one.

#8 The budget

The need for detailed budgetary planning is not required by all universities when studying historical material or academic literature, though some do require it. In the case of a research grant application, you will likely have to include a comprehensive budget that breaks down the costs of each major component.

Ensure that the funding program or organization will cover the required costs, and include only the necessary items. For each of the items, you should include the following.

• To complete the study in its entirety, how much money would you require?
• Discuss the rationale for such a budget item for the purpose of completing research.
• The source of the amount – describe how it was determined.

When doing a study, you cannot buy ingredients the way you normally would. With so many items not having a price tag, how can you make a budget? Take the following into consideration:

• Does your project require access to any software programs or solutions? Do you need to install or train a technology tool?
• How much time will you be spending on your research study? Are you required to take time off from work to do your research?
• Are you going to need to travel to certain locations to meet with respondents or to collect data? At what cost?
• Will you be seeking research assistants for the study you propose? In what capacity and for what compensation? What other aspects are you planning to outsource?

It is possible to calculate a budget while also being able to estimate how much more money you will need in the event of an emergency.

#9 Timeline

A realistic and concise research schedule is also important to keep in mind. You should be able to finish your plan of study within the allotted time period, such as your degree program or the academic calendar.

You should include a timeline that includes a series of objectives you must complete to meet all the requirements for your scholarly research. The process starts with preliminary research and ends with final editing. A completion date for every step is required.

In addition, one should state the development that has been made. It is also recommended to include other relevant research events, for instance paper or poster presentations . In addition, a researcher must update the timeline regularly, as necessary, since this is not a static document.

#10 A Concluding Statement

Presenting a few of the anticipated results of your research proposal is an effective way to conclude your proposal.

The final stage of the process requires you to reveal the conclusion and rationale you anticipate reaching. Considering the research you have done so far, your reader knows that these are anticipated results, which are likely to evolve once the whole study is completed.

In any case, you must let the supervisors or sponsors know what implications may be drawn. It will be easier for them to assess the reliability and relevance of your research.

It will also demonstrate your meticulousness since you will have anticipated and taken into consideration the potential consequences of your research.

The Appendix section is required by some funding sources and academic institutions. This is extra information that is not in the main argument of the proposal, but appears to enhance the points made.

For example, data in the form of tables, consent forms, clinical/research guidelines, and procedures for data collection may be included in this document.

Research Proposal Template

Now that you know all about each element that composes an ideal research proposal, here is an extra help: a ready to use research proposal example. Just hit the button below, make a copy of the document and start working!

Avoid these common mistakes

In an era when rejection rates for prestigious journals can reach as high as 90 percent, you must avoid the following common mistakes when submitting a proposal:

• Proposals that are too long. Stay to the point when you write research proposals. Make your document concise and specific. Be sure not to diverge into off-topic discussions.
• Taking up too much research time. Many students struggle to delineate the context of their studies, regardless of the topic, time, or location. In order to explain the methodology of the study clearly to the reader, the proposal must clearly state what the study will focus on.
• Leaving out significant works from a literature review. Though everything in the proposal should be kept at a minimum, key research studies must need to be included. To understand the scope and growth of the issue, proposals should be based on significant studies.
• Major topics are too rarely discussed, and too much attention is paid to minor details. To persuasively argue for a study, a proposal should focus on just a few key research questions. Minor details should be noted, but should not overshadow the thesis.
• The proposal does not have a compelling and well-supported argument. To prove that a study should be approved or funded, the research proposal must outline its purpose.
• A typographical error, bad grammar or sloppy writing style. Even though a research proposal outlines a part of a larger project, it must conform to academic writing standards and guidelines.

A final note

We have come to the end of our research proposal guide. We really hope that you have found all the information you need. Wishing you success with the research study.

We at Mind the Graph create high quality illustrative graphics for research papers and posters to beautify your work. Check us out here .

Subscribe to our newsletter

Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.

Unlock Your Creativity

Create infographics, presentations and other scientifically-accurate designs without hassle — absolutely free for 7 days!

About Fabricio Pamplona

Fabricio Pamplona is the founder of Mind the Graph - a tool used by over 400K users in 60 countries. He has a Ph.D. and solid scientific background in Psychopharmacology and experience as a Guest Researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry (Germany) and Researcher in D'Or Institute for Research and Education (IDOR, Brazil). Fabricio holds over 2500 citations in Google Scholar. He has 10 years of experience in small innovative businesses, with relevant experience in product design and innovation management. Connect with him on LinkedIn - Fabricio Pamplona .

Content tags

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Research process
• How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates

Published on 30 October 2022 by Shona McCombes and Tegan George. Revised on 13 June 2023.

A research proposal describes what you will investigate, why it’s important, and how you will conduct your research.

The format of a research proposal varies between fields, but most proposals will contain at least these elements:

Introduction

Literature review.

• Research design

Reference list

While the sections may vary, the overall objective is always the same. A research proposal serves as a blueprint and guide for your research plan, helping you get organised and feel confident in the path forward you choose to take.

Table of contents

Research proposal purpose, research proposal examples, research design and methods, contribution to knowledge, research schedule, frequently asked questions.

Academics often have to write research proposals to get funding for their projects. As a student, you might have to write a research proposal as part of a grad school application , or prior to starting your thesis or dissertation .

In addition to helping you figure out what your research can look like, a proposal can also serve to demonstrate why your project is worth pursuing to a funder, educational institution, or supervisor.

Research proposal length

The length of a research proposal can vary quite a bit. A bachelor’s or master’s thesis proposal can be just a few pages, while proposals for PhD dissertations or research funding are usually much longer and more detailed. Your supervisor can help you determine the best length for your work.

One trick to get started is to think of your proposal’s structure as a shorter version of your thesis or dissertation , only without the results , conclusion and discussion sections.

Download our research proposal template

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Writing a research proposal can be quite challenging, but a good starting point could be to look at some examples. We’ve included a few for you below.

• Example research proposal #1: ‘A Conceptual Framework for Scheduling Constraint Management’
• Example research proposal #2: ‘ Medical Students as Mediators of Change in Tobacco Use’

Like your dissertation or thesis, the proposal will usually have a title page that includes:

• The proposed title of your project
• Your supervisor’s name
• Your institution and department

The first part of your proposal is the initial pitch for your project. Make sure it succinctly explains what you want to do and why.

Your introduction should:

• Introduce your topic
• Give necessary background and context
• Outline your  problem statement  and research questions

To guide your introduction , include information about:

• Who could have an interest in the topic (e.g., scientists, policymakers)
• How much is already known about the topic
• What is missing from this current knowledge
• What new insights your research will contribute
• Why you believe this research is worth doing

As you get started, it’s important to demonstrate that you’re familiar with the most important research on your topic. A strong literature review  shows your reader that your project has a solid foundation in existing knowledge or theory. It also shows that you’re not simply repeating what other people have already done or said, but rather using existing research as a jumping-off point for your own.

In this section, share exactly how your project will contribute to ongoing conversations in the field by:

• Comparing and contrasting the main theories, methods, and debates
• Examining the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches
• Explaining how will you build on, challenge, or synthesise prior scholarship

Following the literature review, restate your main  objectives . This brings the focus back to your own project. Next, your research design or methodology section will describe your overall approach, and the practical steps you will take to answer your research questions.

To finish your proposal on a strong note, explore the potential implications of your research for your field. Emphasise again what you aim to contribute and why it matters.

For example, your results might have implications for:

• Improving best practices
• Informing policymaking decisions
• Strengthening a theory or model
• Challenging popular or scientific beliefs
• Creating a basis for future research

Last but not least, your research proposal must include correct citations for every source you have used, compiled in a reference list . To create citations quickly and easily, you can use our free APA citation generator .

Some institutions or funders require a detailed timeline of the project, asking you to forecast what you will do at each stage and how long it may take. While not always required, be sure to check the requirements of your project.

Here’s an example schedule to help you get started. You can also download a template at the button below.

Download our research schedule template

If you are applying for research funding, chances are you will have to include a detailed budget. This shows your estimates of how much each part of your project will cost.

Make sure to check what type of costs the funding body will agree to cover. For each item, include:

• Cost : exactly how much money do you need?
• Justification : why is this cost necessary to complete the research?
• Source : how did you calculate the amount?

To determine your budget, think about:

• Travel costs : do you need to go somewhere to collect your data? How will you get there, and how much time will you need? What will you do there (e.g., interviews, archival research)?
• Materials : do you need access to any tools or technologies?
• Help : do you need to hire any research assistants for the project? What will they do, and how much will you pay them?

Once you’ve decided on your research objectives , you need to explain them in your paper, at the end of your problem statement.

Keep your research objectives clear and concise, and use appropriate verbs to accurately convey the work that you will carry out for each one.

I will compare …

A research aim is a broad statement indicating the general purpose of your research project. It should appear in your introduction at the end of your problem statement , before your research objectives.

Research objectives are more specific than your research aim. They indicate the specific ways you’ll address the overarching aim.

A PhD, which is short for philosophiae doctor (doctor of philosophy in Latin), is the highest university degree that can be obtained. In a PhD, students spend 3–5 years writing a dissertation , which aims to make a significant, original contribution to current knowledge.

A PhD is intended to prepare students for a career as a researcher, whether that be in academia, the public sector, or the private sector.

A master’s is a 1- or 2-year graduate degree that can prepare you for a variety of careers.

All master’s involve graduate-level coursework. Some are research-intensive and intend to prepare students for further study in a PhD; these usually require their students to write a master’s thesis . Others focus on professional training for a specific career.

Critical thinking refers to the ability to evaluate information and to be aware of biases or assumptions, including your own.

Like information literacy , it involves evaluating arguments, identifying and solving problems in an objective and systematic way, and clearly communicating your ideas.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. & George, T. (2023, June 13). How to Write a Research Proposal | Examples & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved 29 April 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/the-research-process/research-proposal-explained/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, what is a literature review | guide, template, & examples, how to write a results section | tips & examples.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Indian J Anaesth
• v.60(9); 2016 Sep

How to write a research proposal?

Department of Anaesthesiology, Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Devika Rani Duggappa

Writing the proposal of a research work in the present era is a challenging task due to the constantly evolving trends in the qualitative research design and the need to incorporate medical advances into the methodology. The proposal is a detailed plan or ‘blueprint’ for the intended study, and once it is completed, the research project should flow smoothly. Even today, many of the proposals at post-graduate evaluation committees and application proposals for funding are substandard. A search was conducted with keywords such as research proposal, writing proposal and qualitative using search engines, namely, PubMed and Google Scholar, and an attempt has been made to provide broad guidelines for writing a scientifically appropriate research proposal.

INTRODUCTION

A clean, well-thought-out proposal forms the backbone for the research itself and hence becomes the most important step in the process of conduct of research.[ 1 ] The objective of preparing a research proposal would be to obtain approvals from various committees including ethics committee [details under ‘Research methodology II’ section [ Table 1 ] in this issue of IJA) and to request for grants. However, there are very few universally accepted guidelines for preparation of a good quality research proposal. A search was performed with keywords such as research proposal, funding, qualitative and writing proposals using search engines, namely, PubMed, Google Scholar and Scopus.

Five ‘C’s while writing a literature review

BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF A RESEARCH PROPOSAL

A proposal needs to show how your work fits into what is already known about the topic and what new paradigm will it add to the literature, while specifying the question that the research will answer, establishing its significance, and the implications of the answer.[ 2 ] The proposal must be capable of convincing the evaluation committee about the credibility, achievability, practicality and reproducibility (repeatability) of the research design.[ 3 ] Four categories of audience with different expectations may be present in the evaluation committees, namely academic colleagues, policy-makers, practitioners and lay audiences who evaluate the research proposal. Tips for preparation of a good research proposal include; ‘be practical, be persuasive, make broader links, aim for crystal clarity and plan before you write’. A researcher must be balanced, with a realistic understanding of what can be achieved. Being persuasive implies that researcher must be able to convince other researchers, research funding agencies, educational institutions and supervisors that the research is worth getting approval. The aim of the researcher should be clearly stated in simple language that describes the research in a way that non-specialists can comprehend, without use of jargons. The proposal must not only demonstrate that it is based on an intelligent understanding of the existing literature but also show that the writer has thought about the time needed to conduct each stage of the research.[ 4 , 5 ]

CONTENTS OF A RESEARCH PROPOSAL

The contents or formats of a research proposal vary depending on the requirements of evaluation committee and are generally provided by the evaluation committee or the institution.

In general, a cover page should contain the (i) title of the proposal, (ii) name and affiliation of the researcher (principal investigator) and co-investigators, (iii) institutional affiliation (degree of the investigator and the name of institution where the study will be performed), details of contact such as phone numbers, E-mail id's and lines for signatures of investigators.

The main contents of the proposal may be presented under the following headings: (i) introduction, (ii) review of literature, (iii) aims and objectives, (iv) research design and methods, (v) ethical considerations, (vi) budget, (vii) appendices and (viii) citations.[ 4 ]

Introduction

It is also sometimes termed as ‘need for study’ or ‘abstract’. Introduction is an initial pitch of an idea; it sets the scene and puts the research in context.[ 6 ] The introduction should be designed to create interest in the reader about the topic and proposal. It should convey to the reader, what you want to do, what necessitates the study and your passion for the topic.[ 7 ] Some questions that can be used to assess the significance of the study are: (i) Who has an interest in the domain of inquiry? (ii) What do we already know about the topic? (iii) What has not been answered adequately in previous research and practice? (iv) How will this research add to knowledge, practice and policy in this area? Some of the evaluation committees, expect the last two questions, elaborated under a separate heading of ‘background and significance’.[ 8 ] Introduction should also contain the hypothesis behind the research design. If hypothesis cannot be constructed, the line of inquiry to be used in the research must be indicated.

Review of literature

It refers to all sources of scientific evidence pertaining to the topic in interest. In the present era of digitalisation and easy accessibility, there is an enormous amount of relevant data available, making it a challenge for the researcher to include all of it in his/her review.[ 9 ] It is crucial to structure this section intelligently so that the reader can grasp the argument related to your study in relation to that of other researchers, while still demonstrating to your readers that your work is original and innovative. It is preferable to summarise each article in a paragraph, highlighting the details pertinent to the topic of interest. The progression of review can move from the more general to the more focused studies, or a historical progression can be used to develop the story, without making it exhaustive.[ 1 ] Literature should include supporting data, disagreements and controversies. Five ‘C's may be kept in mind while writing a literature review[ 10 ] [ Table 1 ].

Aims and objectives

The research purpose (or goal or aim) gives a broad indication of what the researcher wishes to achieve in the research. The hypothesis to be tested can be the aim of the study. The objectives related to parameters or tools used to achieve the aim are generally categorised as primary and secondary objectives.

Research design and method

The objective here is to convince the reader that the overall research design and methods of analysis will correctly address the research problem and to impress upon the reader that the methodology/sources chosen are appropriate for the specific topic. It should be unmistakably tied to the specific aims of your study.

In this section, the methods and sources used to conduct the research must be discussed, including specific references to sites, databases, key texts or authors that will be indispensable to the project. There should be specific mention about the methodological approaches to be undertaken to gather information, about the techniques to be used to analyse it and about the tests of external validity to which researcher is committed.[ 10 , 11 ]

The components of this section include the following:[ 4 ]

Population and sample

Population refers to all the elements (individuals, objects or substances) that meet certain criteria for inclusion in a given universe,[ 12 ] and sample refers to subset of population which meets the inclusion criteria for enrolment into the study. The inclusion and exclusion criteria should be clearly defined. The details pertaining to sample size are discussed in the article “Sample size calculation: Basic priniciples” published in this issue of IJA.

Data collection

The researcher is expected to give a detailed account of the methodology adopted for collection of data, which include the time frame required for the research. The methodology should be tested for its validity and ensure that, in pursuit of achieving the results, the participant's life is not jeopardised. The author should anticipate and acknowledge any potential barrier and pitfall in carrying out the research design and explain plans to address them, thereby avoiding lacunae due to incomplete data collection. If the researcher is planning to acquire data through interviews or questionnaires, copy of the questions used for the same should be attached as an annexure with the proposal.

Rigor (soundness of the research)

This addresses the strength of the research with respect to its neutrality, consistency and applicability. Rigor must be reflected throughout the proposal.

It refers to the robustness of a research method against bias. The author should convey the measures taken to avoid bias, viz. blinding and randomisation, in an elaborate way, thus ensuring that the result obtained from the adopted method is purely as chance and not influenced by other confounding variables.

Consistency

Consistency considers whether the findings will be consistent if the inquiry was replicated with the same participants and in a similar context. This can be achieved by adopting standard and universally accepted methods and scales.

Applicability

Applicability refers to the degree to which the findings can be applied to different contexts and groups.[ 13 ]

Data analysis

This section deals with the reduction and reconstruction of data and its analysis including sample size calculation. The researcher is expected to explain the steps adopted for coding and sorting the data obtained. Various tests to be used to analyse the data for its robustness, significance should be clearly stated. Author should also mention the names of statistician and suitable software which will be used in due course of data analysis and their contribution to data analysis and sample calculation.[ 9 ]

Ethical considerations

Medical research introduces special moral and ethical problems that are not usually encountered by other researchers during data collection, and hence, the researcher should take special care in ensuring that ethical standards are met. Ethical considerations refer to the protection of the participants' rights (right to self-determination, right to privacy, right to autonomy and confidentiality, right to fair treatment and right to protection from discomfort and harm), obtaining informed consent and the institutional review process (ethical approval). The researcher needs to provide adequate information on each of these aspects.

Informed consent needs to be obtained from the participants (details discussed in further chapters), as well as the research site and the relevant authorities.

When the researcher prepares a research budget, he/she should predict and cost all aspects of the research and then add an additional allowance for unpredictable disasters, delays and rising costs. All items in the budget should be justified.

Appendices are documents that support the proposal and application. The appendices will be specific for each proposal but documents that are usually required include informed consent form, supporting documents, questionnaires, measurement tools and patient information of the study in layman's language.

As with any scholarly research paper, you must cite the sources you used in composing your proposal. Although the words ‘references and bibliography’ are different, they are used interchangeably. It refers to all references cited in the research proposal.

Successful, qualitative research proposals should communicate the researcher's knowledge of the field and method and convey the emergent nature of the qualitative design. The proposal should follow a discernible logic from the introduction to presentation of the appendices.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Assignments

• Annotated Bibliography
• Analyzing a Scholarly Journal Article
• Group Presentations
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• Types of Structured Group Activities
• Group Project Survival Skills
• Leading a Class Discussion
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Works
• Writing a Case Analysis Paper
• Writing a Case Study
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Reflective Paper
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Generative AI and Writing
• Acknowledgments

The goal of a research proposal is twofold: to present and justify the need to study a research problem and to present the practical ways in which the proposed study should be conducted. The design elements and procedures for conducting research are governed by standards of the predominant discipline in which the problem resides, therefore, the guidelines for research proposals are more exacting and less formal than a general project proposal. Research proposals contain extensive literature reviews. They must provide persuasive evidence that a need exists for the proposed study. In addition to providing a rationale, a proposal describes detailed methodology for conducting the research consistent with requirements of the professional or academic field and a statement on anticipated outcomes and benefits derived from the study's completion.

Krathwohl, David R. How to Prepare a Dissertation Proposal: Suggestions for Students in Education and the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2005.

How to Approach Writing a Research Proposal

Your professor may assign the task of writing a research proposal for the following reasons:

• Develop your skills in thinking about and designing a comprehensive research study;
• Learn how to conduct a comprehensive review of the literature to determine that the research problem has not been adequately addressed or has been answered ineffectively and, in so doing, become better at locating pertinent scholarship related to your topic;
• Improve your general research and writing skills;
• Practice identifying the logical steps that must be taken to accomplish one's research goals;
• Critically review, examine, and consider the use of different methods for gathering and analyzing data related to the research problem; and,
• Nurture a sense of inquisitiveness within yourself and to help see yourself as an active participant in the process of conducting scholarly research.

A proposal should contain all the key elements involved in designing a completed research study, with sufficient information that allows readers to assess the validity and usefulness of your proposed study. The only elements missing from a research proposal are the findings of the study and your analysis of those findings. Finally, an effective proposal is judged on the quality of your writing and, therefore, it is important that your proposal is coherent, clear, and compelling.

Regardless of the research problem you are investigating and the methodology you choose, all research proposals must address the following questions:

• What do you plan to accomplish? Be clear and succinct in defining the research problem and what it is you are proposing to investigate.
• Why do you want to do the research? In addition to detailing your research design, you also must conduct a thorough review of the literature and provide convincing evidence that it is a topic worthy of in-depth study. A successful research proposal must answer the "So What?" question.
• How are you going to conduct the research? Be sure that what you propose is doable. If you're having difficulty formulating a research problem to propose investigating, go here for strategies in developing a problem to study.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

• Failure to be concise . A research proposal must be focused and not be "all over the map" or diverge into unrelated tangents without a clear sense of purpose.
• Failure to cite landmark works in your literature review . Proposals should be grounded in foundational research that lays a foundation for understanding the development and scope of the the topic and its relevance.
• Failure to delimit the contextual scope of your research [e.g., time, place, people, etc.]. As with any research paper, your proposed study must inform the reader how and in what ways the study will frame the problem.
• Failure to develop a coherent and persuasive argument for the proposed research . This is critical. In many workplace settings, the research proposal is a formal document intended to argue for why a study should be funded.
• Sloppy or imprecise writing, or poor grammar . Although a research proposal does not represent a completed research study, there is still an expectation that it is well-written and follows the style and rules of good academic writing.
• Too much detail on minor issues, but not enough detail on major issues . Your proposal should focus on only a few key research questions in order to support the argument that the research needs to be conducted. Minor issues, even if valid, can be mentioned but they should not dominate the overall narrative.

Procter, Margaret. The Academic Proposal.  The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Sanford, Keith. Information for Students: Writing a Research Proposal. Baylor University; Wong, Paul T. P. How to Write a Research Proposal. International Network on Personal Meaning. Trinity Western University; Writing Academic Proposals: Conferences, Articles, and Books. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing a Research Proposal. University Library. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Structure and Writing Style

Beginning the Proposal Process

As with writing most college-level academic papers, research proposals are generally organized the same way throughout most social science disciplines. The text of proposals generally vary in length between ten and thirty-five pages, followed by the list of references. However, before you begin, read the assignment carefully and, if anything seems unclear, ask your professor whether there are any specific requirements for organizing and writing the proposal.

A good place to begin is to ask yourself a series of questions:

• What do I want to study?
• Why is the topic important?
• How is it significant within the subject areas covered in my class?
• What problems will it help solve?
• How does it build upon [and hopefully go beyond] research already conducted on the topic?
• What exactly should I plan to do, and can I get it done in the time available?

In general, a compelling research proposal should document your knowledge of the topic and demonstrate your enthusiasm for conducting the study. Approach it with the intention of leaving your readers feeling like, "Wow, that's an exciting idea and I can’t wait to see how it turns out!"

Most proposals should include the following sections:

I.  Introduction

In the real world of higher education, a research proposal is most often written by scholars seeking grant funding for a research project or it's the first step in getting approval to write a doctoral dissertation. Even if this is just a course assignment, treat your introduction as the initial pitch of an idea based on a thorough examination of the significance of a research problem. After reading the introduction, your readers should not only have an understanding of what you want to do, but they should also be able to gain a sense of your passion for the topic and to be excited about the study's possible outcomes. Note that most proposals do not include an abstract [summary] before the introduction.

Think about your introduction as a narrative written in two to four paragraphs that succinctly answers the following four questions :

• What is the central research problem?
• What is the topic of study related to that research problem?
• What methods should be used to analyze the research problem?
• Answer the "So What?" question by explaining why this is important research, what is its significance, and why should someone reading the proposal care about the outcomes of the proposed study?

II.  Background and Significance

This is where you explain the scope and context of your proposal and describe in detail why it's important. It can be melded into your introduction or you can create a separate section to help with the organization and narrative flow of your proposal. Approach writing this section with the thought that you can’t assume your readers will know as much about the research problem as you do. Note that this section is not an essay going over everything you have learned about the topic; instead, you must choose what is most relevant in explaining the aims of your research.

To that end, while there are no prescribed rules for establishing the significance of your proposed study, you should attempt to address some or all of the following:

• State the research problem and give a more detailed explanation about the purpose of the study than what you stated in the introduction. This is particularly important if the problem is complex or multifaceted .
• Present the rationale of your proposed study and clearly indicate why it is worth doing; be sure to answer the "So What? question [i.e., why should anyone care?].
• Describe the major issues or problems examined by your research. This can be in the form of questions to be addressed. Be sure to note how your proposed study builds on previous assumptions about the research problem.
• Explain the methods you plan to use for conducting your research. Clearly identify the key sources you intend to use and explain how they will contribute to your analysis of the topic.
• Describe the boundaries of your proposed research in order to provide a clear focus. Where appropriate, state not only what you plan to study, but what aspects of the research problem will be excluded from the study.
• If necessary, provide definitions of key concepts, theories, or terms.

III.  Literature Review

Connected to the background and significance of your study is a section of your proposal devoted to a more deliberate review and synthesis of prior studies related to the research problem under investigation . The purpose here is to place your project within the larger whole of what is currently being explored, while at the same time, demonstrating to your readers that your work is original and innovative. Think about what questions other researchers have asked, what methodological approaches they have used, and what is your understanding of their findings and, when stated, their recommendations. Also pay attention to any suggestions for further research.

Since a literature review is information dense, it is crucial that this section is intelligently structured to enable a reader to grasp the key arguments underpinning your proposed study in relation to the arguments put forth by other researchers. A good strategy is to break the literature into "conceptual categories" [themes] rather than systematically or chronologically describing groups of materials one at a time. Note that conceptual categories generally reveal themselves after you have read most of the pertinent literature on your topic so adding new categories is an on-going process of discovery as you review more studies. How do you know you've covered the key conceptual categories underlying the research literature? Generally, you can have confidence that all of the significant conceptual categories have been identified if you start to see repetition in the conclusions or recommendations that are being made.

NOTE: Do not shy away from challenging the conclusions made in prior research as a basis for supporting the need for your proposal. Assess what you believe is missing and state how previous research has failed to adequately examine the issue that your study addresses. Highlighting the problematic conclusions strengthens your proposal. For more information on writing literature reviews, GO HERE .

To help frame your proposal's review of prior research, consider the "five C’s" of writing a literature review:

• Cite , so as to keep the primary focus on the literature pertinent to your research problem.
• Compare the various arguments, theories, methodologies, and findings expressed in the literature: what do the authors agree on? Who applies similar approaches to analyzing the research problem?
• Contrast the various arguments, themes, methodologies, approaches, and controversies expressed in the literature: describe what are the major areas of disagreement, controversy, or debate among scholars?
• Critique the literature: Which arguments are more persuasive, and why? Which approaches, findings, and methodologies seem most reliable, valid, or appropriate, and why? Pay attention to the verbs you use to describe what an author says/does [e.g., asserts, demonstrates, argues, etc.].
• Connect the literature to your own area of research and investigation: how does your own work draw upon, depart from, synthesize, or add a new perspective to what has been said in the literature?

IV.  Research Design and Methods

This section must be well-written and logically organized because you are not actually doing the research, yet, your reader must have confidence that you have a plan worth pursuing . The reader will never have a study outcome from which to evaluate whether your methodological choices were the correct ones. Thus, the objective here is to convince the reader that your overall research design and proposed methods of analysis will correctly address the problem and that the methods will provide the means to effectively interpret the potential results. Your design and methods should be unmistakably tied to the specific aims of your study.

Describe the overall research design by building upon and drawing examples from your review of the literature. Consider not only methods that other researchers have used, but methods of data gathering that have not been used but perhaps could be. Be specific about the methodological approaches you plan to undertake to obtain information, the techniques you would use to analyze the data, and the tests of external validity to which you commit yourself [i.e., the trustworthiness by which you can generalize from your study to other people, places, events, and/or periods of time].

When describing the methods you will use, be sure to cover the following:

• Specify the research process you will undertake and the way you will interpret the results obtained in relation to the research problem. Don't just describe what you intend to achieve from applying the methods you choose, but state how you will spend your time while applying these methods [e.g., coding text from interviews to find statements about the need to change school curriculum; running a regression to determine if there is a relationship between campaign advertising on social media sites and election outcomes in Europe ].
• Keep in mind that the methodology is not just a list of tasks; it is a deliberate argument as to why techniques for gathering information add up to the best way to investigate the research problem. This is an important point because the mere listing of tasks to be performed does not demonstrate that, collectively, they effectively address the research problem. Be sure you clearly explain this.
• Anticipate and acknowledge any potential barriers and pitfalls in carrying out your research design and explain how you plan to address them. No method applied to research in the social and behavioral sciences is perfect, so you need to describe where you believe challenges may exist in obtaining data or accessing information. It's always better to acknowledge this than to have it brought up by your professor!

V.  Preliminary Suppositions and Implications

Just because you don't have to actually conduct the study and analyze the results, doesn't mean you can skip talking about the analytical process and potential implications . The purpose of this section is to argue how and in what ways you believe your research will refine, revise, or extend existing knowledge in the subject area under investigation. Depending on the aims and objectives of your study, describe how the anticipated results will impact future scholarly research, theory, practice, forms of interventions, or policy making. Note that such discussions may have either substantive [a potential new policy], theoretical [a potential new understanding], or methodological [a potential new way of analyzing] significance.   When thinking about the potential implications of your study, ask the following questions:

• What might the results mean in regards to challenging the theoretical framework and underlying assumptions that support the study?
• What suggestions for subsequent research could arise from the potential outcomes of the study?
• What will the results mean to practitioners in the natural settings of their workplace, organization, or community?
• Will the results influence programs, methods, and/or forms of intervention?
• How might the results contribute to the solution of social, economic, or other types of problems?
• Will the results influence policy decisions?
• In what way do individuals or groups benefit should your study be pursued?
• What will be improved or changed as a result of the proposed research?
• How will the results of the study be implemented and what innovations or transformative insights could emerge from the process of implementation?

NOTE:   This section should not delve into idle speculation, opinion, or be formulated on the basis of unclear evidence . The purpose is to reflect upon gaps or understudied areas of the current literature and describe how your proposed research contributes to a new understanding of the research problem should the study be implemented as designed.

ANOTHER NOTE : This section is also where you describe any potential limitations to your proposed study. While it is impossible to highlight all potential limitations because the study has yet to be conducted, you still must tell the reader where and in what form impediments may arise and how you plan to address them.

VI.  Conclusion

The conclusion reiterates the importance or significance of your proposal and provides a brief summary of the entire study . This section should be only one or two paragraphs long, emphasizing why the research problem is worth investigating, why your research study is unique, and how it should advance existing knowledge.

Someone reading this section should come away with an understanding of:

• Why the study should be done;
• The specific purpose of the study and the research questions it attempts to answer;
• The decision for why the research design and methods used where chosen over other options;
• The potential implications emerging from your proposed study of the research problem; and
• A sense of how your study fits within the broader scholarship about the research problem.

VII.  Citations

As with any scholarly research paper, you must cite the sources you used . In a standard research proposal, this section can take two forms, so consult with your professor about which one is preferred.

• References -- a list of only the sources you actually used in creating your proposal.
• Bibliography -- a list of everything you used in creating your proposal, along with additional citations to any key sources relevant to understanding the research problem.

In either case, this section should testify to the fact that you did enough preparatory work to ensure the project will complement and not just duplicate the efforts of other researchers. It demonstrates to the reader that you have a thorough understanding of prior research on the topic.

Most proposal formats have you start a new page and use the heading "References" or "Bibliography" centered at the top of the page. Cited works should always use a standard format that follows the writing style advised by the discipline of your course [e.g., education=APA; history=Chicago] or that is preferred by your professor. This section normally does not count towards the total page length of your research proposal.

Develop a Research Proposal: Writing the Proposal. Office of Library Information Services. Baltimore County Public Schools; Heath, M. Teresa Pereira and Caroline Tynan. “Crafting a Research Proposal.” The Marketing Review 10 (Summer 2010): 147-168; Jones, Mark. “Writing a Research Proposal.” In MasterClass in Geography Education: Transforming Teaching and Learning . Graham Butt, editor. (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015), pp. 113-127; Juni, Muhamad Hanafiah. “Writing a Research Proposal.” International Journal of Public Health and Clinical Sciences 1 (September/October 2014): 229-240; Krathwohl, David R. How to Prepare a Dissertation Proposal: Suggestions for Students in Education and the Social and Behavioral Sciences . Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2005; Procter, Margaret. The Academic Proposal. The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Punch, Keith and Wayne McGowan. "Developing and Writing a Research Proposal." In From Postgraduate to Social Scientist: A Guide to Key Skills . Nigel Gilbert, ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2006), 59-81; Wong, Paul T. P. How to Write a Research Proposal. International Network on Personal Meaning. Trinity Western University; Writing Academic Proposals: Conferences , Articles, and Books. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing a Research Proposal. University Library. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

• << Previous: Writing a Reflective Paper
• Next: Generative AI and Writing >>
• Last Updated: Mar 6, 2024 1:00 PM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/assignments

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

11.2 Steps in Developing a Research Proposal

Learning objectives.

• Identify the steps in developing a research proposal.
• Choose a topic and formulate a research question and working thesis.
• Develop a research proposal.

Writing a good research paper takes time, thought, and effort. Although this assignment is challenging, it is manageable. Focusing on one step at a time will help you develop a thoughtful, informative, well-supported research paper.

Your first step is to choose a topic and then to develop research questions, a working thesis, and a written research proposal. Set aside adequate time for this part of the process. Fully exploring ideas will help you build a solid foundation for your paper.

Choosing a Topic

When you choose a topic for a research paper, you are making a major commitment. Your choice will help determine whether you enjoy the lengthy process of research and writing—and whether your final paper fulfills the assignment requirements. If you choose your topic hastily, you may later find it difficult to work with your topic. By taking your time and choosing carefully, you can ensure that this assignment is not only challenging but also rewarding.

Writers understand the importance of choosing a topic that fulfills the assignment requirements and fits the assignment’s purpose and audience. (For more information about purpose and audience, see Chapter 6 “Writing Paragraphs: Separating Ideas and Shaping Content” .) Choosing a topic that interests you is also crucial. You instructor may provide a list of suggested topics or ask that you develop a topic on your own. In either case, try to identify topics that genuinely interest you.

After identifying potential topic ideas, you will need to evaluate your ideas and choose one topic to pursue. Will you be able to find enough information about the topic? Can you develop a paper about this topic that presents and supports your original ideas? Is the topic too broad or too narrow for the scope of the assignment? If so, can you modify it so it is more manageable? You will ask these questions during this preliminary phase of the research process.

Identifying Potential Topics

Sometimes, your instructor may provide a list of suggested topics. If so, you may benefit from identifying several possibilities before committing to one idea. It is important to know how to narrow down your ideas into a concise, manageable thesis. You may also use the list as a starting point to help you identify additional, related topics. Discussing your ideas with your instructor will help ensure that you choose a manageable topic that fits the requirements of the assignment.

In this chapter, you will follow a writer named Jorge, who is studying health care administration, as he prepares a research paper. You will also plan, research, and draft your own research paper.

Jorge was assigned to write a research paper on health and the media for an introductory course in health care. Although a general topic was selected for the students, Jorge had to decide which specific issues interested him. He brainstormed a list of possibilities.

If you are writing a research paper for a specialized course, look back through your notes and course activities. Identify reading assignments and class discussions that especially engaged you. Doing so can help you identify topics to pursue.

• Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) in the news
• Sexual education programs
• Hollywood and eating disorders
• Americans’ access to public health information
• Media portrayal of health care reform bill
• Depictions of drugs on television
• The effect of the Internet on mental health
• Popularized diets (such as low-carbohydrate diets)
• Fear of pandemics (bird flu, HINI, SARS)
• Electronic entertainment and obesity
• Advertisements for prescription drugs
• Public education and disease prevention

Set a timer for five minutes. Use brainstorming or idea mapping to create a list of topics you would be interested in researching for a paper about the influence of the Internet on social networking. Do you closely follow the media coverage of a particular website, such as Twitter? Would you like to learn more about a certain industry, such as online dating? Which social networking sites do you and your friends use? List as many ideas related to this topic as you can.

Narrowing Your Topic

Once you have a list of potential topics, you will need to choose one as the focus of your essay. You will also need to narrow your topic. Most writers find that the topics they listed during brainstorming or idea mapping are broad—too broad for the scope of the assignment. Working with an overly broad topic, such as sexual education programs or popularized diets, can be frustrating and overwhelming. Each topic has so many facets that it would be impossible to cover them all in a college research paper. However, more specific choices, such as the pros and cons of sexual education in kids’ television programs or the physical effects of the South Beach diet, are specific enough to write about without being too narrow to sustain an entire research paper.

A good research paper provides focused, in-depth information and analysis. If your topic is too broad, you will find it difficult to do more than skim the surface when you research it and write about it. Narrowing your focus is essential to making your topic manageable. To narrow your focus, explore your topic in writing, conduct preliminary research, and discuss both the topic and the research with others.

Exploring Your Topic in Writing

“How am I supposed to narrow my topic when I haven’t even begun researching yet?” In fact, you may already know more than you realize. Review your list and identify your top two or three topics. Set aside some time to explore each one through freewriting. (For more information about freewriting, see Chapter 8 “The Writing Process: How Do I Begin?” .) Simply taking the time to focus on your topic may yield fresh angles.

Jorge knew that he was especially interested in the topic of diet fads, but he also knew that it was much too broad for his assignment. He used freewriting to explore his thoughts so he could narrow his topic. Read Jorge’s ideas.

Conducting Preliminary Research

Another way writers may focus a topic is to conduct preliminary research . Like freewriting, exploratory reading can help you identify interesting angles. Surfing the web and browsing through newspaper and magazine articles are good ways to start. Find out what people are saying about your topic on blogs and online discussion groups. Discussing your topic with others can also inspire you. Talk about your ideas with your classmates, your friends, or your instructor.

Jorge’s freewriting exercise helped him realize that the assigned topic of health and the media intersected with a few of his interests—diet, nutrition, and obesity. Preliminary online research and discussions with his classmates strengthened his impression that many people are confused or misled by media coverage of these subjects.

Jorge decided to focus his paper on a topic that had garnered a great deal of media attention—low-carbohydrate diets. He wanted to find out whether low-carbohydrate diets were as effective as their proponents claimed.

Writing at Work

At work, you may need to research a topic quickly to find general information. This information can be useful in understanding trends in a given industry or generating competition. For example, a company may research a competitor’s prices and use the information when pricing their own product. You may find it useful to skim a variety of reliable sources and take notes on your findings.

The reliability of online sources varies greatly. In this exploratory phase of your research, you do not need to evaluate sources as closely as you will later. However, use common sense as you refine your paper topic. If you read a fascinating blog comment that gives you a new idea for your paper, be sure to check out other, more reliable sources as well to make sure the idea is worth pursuing.

Review the list of topics you created in Note 11.18 “Exercise 1” and identify two or three topics you would like to explore further. For each of these topics, spend five to ten minutes writing about the topic without stopping. Then review your writing to identify possible areas of focus.

Set aside time to conduct preliminary research about your potential topics. Then choose a topic to pursue for your research paper.

Collaboration

Please share your topic list with a classmate. Select one or two topics on his or her list that you would like to learn more about and return it to him or her. Discuss why you found the topics interesting, and learn which of your topics your classmate selected and why.

A Plan for Research

Your freewriting and preliminary research have helped you choose a focused, manageable topic for your research paper. To work with your topic successfully, you will need to determine what exactly you want to learn about it—and later, what you want to say about it. Before you begin conducting in-depth research, you will further define your focus by developing a research question , a working thesis, and a research proposal.

Formulating a Research Question

In forming a research question, you are setting a goal for your research. Your main research question should be substantial enough to form the guiding principle of your paper—but focused enough to guide your research. A strong research question requires you not only to find information but also to put together different pieces of information, interpret and analyze them, and figure out what you think. As you consider potential research questions, ask yourself whether they would be too hard or too easy to answer.

To determine your research question, review the freewriting you completed earlier. Skim through books, articles, and websites and list the questions you have. (You may wish to use the 5WH strategy to help you formulate questions. See Chapter 8 “The Writing Process: How Do I Begin?” for more information about 5WH questions.) Include simple, factual questions and more complex questions that would require analysis and interpretation. Determine your main question—the primary focus of your paper—and several subquestions that you will need to research to answer your main question.

Here are the research questions Jorge will use to focus his research. Notice that his main research question has no obvious, straightforward answer. Jorge will need to research his subquestions, which address narrower topics, to answer his main question.

Using the topic you selected in Note 11.24 “Exercise 2” , write your main research question and at least four to five subquestions. Check that your main research question is appropriately complex for your assignment.

Constructing a Working ThesIs

A working thesis concisely states a writer’s initial answer to the main research question. It does not merely state a fact or present a subjective opinion. Instead, it expresses a debatable idea or claim that you hope to prove through additional research. Your working thesis is called a working thesis for a reason—it is subject to change. As you learn more about your topic, you may change your thinking in light of your research findings. Let your working thesis serve as a guide to your research, but do not be afraid to modify it based on what you learn.

Jorge began his research with a strong point of view based on his preliminary writing and research. Read his working thesis statement, which presents the point he will argue. Notice how it states Jorge’s tentative answer to his research question.

One way to determine your working thesis is to consider how you would complete sentences such as I believe or My opinion is . However, keep in mind that academic writing generally does not use first-person pronouns. These statements are useful starting points, but formal research papers use an objective voice.

Write a working thesis statement that presents your preliminary answer to the research question you wrote in Note 11.27 “Exercise 3” . Check that your working thesis statement presents an idea or claim that could be supported or refuted by evidence from research.

Creating a Research Proposal

A research proposal is a brief document—no more than one typed page—that summarizes the preliminary work you have completed. Your purpose in writing it is to formalize your plan for research and present it to your instructor for feedback. In your research proposal, you will present your main research question, related subquestions, and working thesis. You will also briefly discuss the value of researching this topic and indicate how you plan to gather information.

When Jorge began drafting his research proposal, he realized that he had already created most of the pieces he needed. However, he knew he also had to explain how his research would be relevant to other future health care professionals. In addition, he wanted to form a general plan for doing the research and identifying potentially useful sources. Read Jorge’s research proposal.

Before you begin a new project at work, you may have to develop a project summary document that states the purpose of the project, explains why it would be a wise use of company resources, and briefly outlines the steps involved in completing the project. This type of document is similar to a research proposal. Both documents define and limit a project, explain its value, discuss how to proceed, and identify what resources you will use.

Writing Your Own Research Proposal

Now you may write your own research proposal, if you have not done so already. Follow the guidelines provided in this lesson.

Key Takeaways

• Developing a research proposal involves the following preliminary steps: identifying potential ideas, choosing ideas to explore further, choosing and narrowing a topic, formulating a research question, and developing a working thesis.
• A good topic for a research paper interests the writer and fulfills the requirements of the assignment.
• Defining and narrowing a topic helps writers conduct focused, in-depth research.
• Writers conduct preliminary research to identify possible topics and research questions and to develop a working thesis.
• A good research question interests readers, is neither too broad nor too narrow, and has no obvious answer.
• A good working thesis expresses a debatable idea or claim that can be supported with evidence from research.
• Writers create a research proposal to present their topic, main research question, subquestions, and working thesis to an instructor for approval or feedback.

Writing for Success Copyright © 2015 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

• Locations and Hours
• UCLA Library
• Research Guides
• Research Tips and Tools

Advanced Research Methods

• Writing a Research Proposal
• What Is Research?
• Library Research

What Is a Research Proposal?

Reference books.

• Writing the Research Paper
• Presenting the Research Paper

When applying for a research grant or scholarship, or, just before you start a major research project, you may be asked to write a preliminary document that includes basic information about your future research. This is the information that is usually needed in your proposal:

• The topic and goal of the research project.
• The kind of result expected from the research.
• The theory or framework in which the research will be done and presented.
• What kind of methods will be used (statistical, empirical, etc.).
• Short reference on the preliminary scholarship and why your research project is needed; how will it continue/justify/disprove the previous scholarship.
• How much will the research project cost; how will it be budgeted (what for the money will be spent).
• Why is it you who can do this research and not somebody else.

Most agencies that offer scholarships or grants provide information about the required format of the proposal. It may include filling out templates, types of information they need, suggested/maximum length of the proposal, etc.

Research proposal formats vary depending on the size of the planned research, the number of participants, the discipline, the characteristics of the research, etc. The following outline assumes an individual researcher. This is just a SAMPLE; several other ways are equally good and can be successful. If possible, discuss your research proposal with an expert in writing, a professor, your colleague, another student who already wrote successful proposals, etc.

Author, author's affiliation

Introduction:

• Explain the topic and why you chose it. If possible explain your goal/outcome of the research . How much time you need to complete the research?

Previous scholarship:

• Give a brief summary of previous scholarship and explain why your topic and goals are important.
• Relate your planned research to previous scholarship. What will your research add to our knowledge of the topic.

Specific issues to be investigated:

• Break down the main topic into smaller research questions. List them one by one and explain why these questions need to be investigated. Relate them to previous scholarship.
• Include your hypothesis into the descriptions of the detailed research issues if you have one. Explain why it is important to justify your hypothesis.

Methodology:

• This part depends of the methods conducted in the research process. List the methods; explain how the results will be presented; how they will be assessed.
• Explain what kind of results will justify or  disprove your hypothesis. 
• Explain how much money you need.
• Explain the details of the budget (how much you want to spend for what).

Conclusion:

• Describe why your research is important.

References:

• List the sources you have used for writing the research proposal, including a few main citations of the preliminary scholarship.

• << Previous: Library Research
• Next: Writing the Research Paper >>
• Last Updated: Jan 4, 2024 12:24 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.ucla.edu/research-methods

Proposal Preparation and Submission

Categories:

Introduction

A proposal is more than a pitch document; it’s a work plan. If the agency awards the project, you will have to follow the plan that your proposal represents. Proposals are complex documents with specific requirements for each section. Be sure that you understand each component and allocate adequate time to put together your budget and gather the necessary components for your proposal. Keep in mind that some components require additional review so that should also be accounted for in your preparation timeline.

Proposal Development and Routing

Stanford internally tracks, collects, and routes all the proposal documents and approvals and waivers necessary for review and endorsement by Stanford University within the Stanford Electronic Research Administration (SeRA) System using the SeRA Proposal Development and Routing Form (PDRF).  

For School of Medicine (SoM) proposals, the PI/ department should initiate, complete and route a SeRA Proposal Intake Form (PIF) to RMG for review and approval (recommended at least 30 days in advance of the sponsor deadline). The RMG Research Process Manager will follow up with a draft budget, internal deadlines, additional proposal guidance as needed, and will initiate the SeRA PDRF.

Note: the SoM SeRA PIF Process excludes SoM post doctoral fellowships and industry sponsored clinical trials.

For non-School of Medicine proposals, the PI/ department should initiate, complete and route a SeRA Proposal Development Routing Form (PDRF) to OSR for review and endorsement in accordance with the Stanford internal proposal deadline policy . 

Visit the SeRA Proposal Routing webpage for complete proposal routing instructions and additional resources.

Review and Approvals

The Principal Investigator’s review and approval collected in the PDRF provides the certifications required by government agencies, and an agreement to comply with Stanford and sponsor policies.

Departmental review and approvals confirm financial commitments made in a proposal, and that stated personnel and facilities are available to carry out the project. Other required special approvals that are provided by the applicable Stanford office (such as SLAC involvement, international activity, PI waivers, etc.) are also collected and documented in the PDRF. 

Final Review and Endorsement

The Institutional Official (IO) reviews the information contained in the PDRF to endorse the proposal. The IO submits the endorsed proposal to the sponsor on behalf of Stanford University.

Proposal Timeline

As you complete the PDRF, you will get a better understanding of the complexity of your proposal including the approvals that you may have to obtain from various offices on campus.

Keep in mind, reviews do not have to be sequential. If you know a proposal will require a special approval, e.g., an indirect cost waiver or waiver for PIship, initiate those requests as soon as possible. Your timeline’s starting point is the sponsor’s deadline. From there, you will factor in your institutional official’s proposal review policy (+5 business days) as well as any other special approvals you may need (see picture above). Remember to allow for extra time when the proposal includes components with external approvals such as subawards or work conducted abroad. Also don’t forget to check the timezone that your proposal is due by (PST, CT, EST, Greenwich time, etc.). Understand what is required by reading the OSR Internal Proposal Deadline Policy Memo 2015 , Q&A Clarifying the University Proposal Deadline Policy and the School of Medicine Internal Proposal Deadline Policy and FAQs .

Proposal Timeline Guidance

The PI and support staff prepare the proposal in time for routing through department and school channels for approval. The complexity of your proposal and the approvals needed from other offices/departments will determine the length of your timeline. 

30 days or more to prepare the proposal budget

In the School of Medicine, the PI and support staff work in close collaboration with the Research Management Group (RMG). The Research Process Manager (RPM) assigned to the applicable SoM department will also create the budget for the proposal. RMG requests a 30-day or more advance notification (School of Medicine only).

For other schools, a similar timeframe +30 days will ensure sufficient time to complete all the steps in the proposal preparation process. 

In the School of Engineering, the PI and supporting staff work with the Engineering Research Administration (ERA) group to put together all the proposal documentation.

In other schools, the PI and support staff complete all of the documentation that ultimately gets routed for department/school approvals and institutional endorsement and submission.

PI Eligibility & Exceptions

Eligibility to serve as a PI or Co-PI on externally-funded research projects is a privilege generally granted only to members of the Stanford Academic Council or to the Medical Center Line faculty. This policy is intended to ensure that the intellectual direction of research and scholarship is explicitly recognized as the responsibility of the PI. Designation as a project PI confers primary responsibility for the scientific, technical, and fiscal direction of the project to that individual. This designation, once granted to a specific named PI, may not be delegated to any other faculty member or staff member.

However, the University recognizes that there may be special situations for which it is acceptable to grant PI-ship to other individuals. Exceptions to the policy may be granted under special circumstances, and a waiver of PI status is required.

• For example, a researcher who is otherwise not eligible may be approved to serve as PI on externally-funded activities related to the sponsorship of conferences, exhibits, workshops, or public events; specific projects that are part of a larger interdisciplinary program; or career development awards. These exceptions must be approved by the department chair and the school dean.  
• In addition, the University recognizes that there may be other unique and rare situations that warrant an exception to the policy, such as allowing short-term PI-ship for a visiting faculty member or granting permission for a not-yet-approved faculty member to submit a proposal. In addition to department and school approval, these requests must also be approved by the Dean of Research. To learn more see RPH 2.1: Principal Investigator Eligibility and Criteria for Exceptions .
• Note also that the University distinguishes between PI or co-PI and other project personnel designations (e.g., Associate Investigators), as may be needed in the presentation of specific proposal staffing requirements.   

Submission of the proposal in the name of a "nominal" Principal Investigator who then delegates primary responsibility to an ineligible PI is inconsistent with the responsibility of Academic Council members for the intellectual direction of the University and is not permitted. See RPH 14.2: Academic Policies Pertaining to Sponsored Project Proposals .

Check with your school for time required to request a waiver of indirect (F&A) costs

The Dean of Research will consider requests for indirect (F&A) cost waivers in very limited circumstances. The PI should initiate the request for approval first to her department chair and school dean's office; requests must adhere to RPH . If approval is obtained, the request must be sent to the Dean of Research Office for approval.

For projects administered within the School of Medicine, the request must be sent to the Dean of the School of Medicine through the Research Management Group once it is approved by the PI’s department chair.

10 business days or more prior to sponsor deadline

The PI and School/Departmental approvals of the PDRF including attachments (at a minimum, a copy of the draft scientific portion of the proposal, internal budget and budget justification)  should have been completed by now in the SeRA system. This will ensure that approvals from other offices (indirect cost waiver, global affairs review, export control review, etc.) will be completed on time for the final review and endorsement by the Institutional Official (IO). Finally, the proposal forms and documentation should be simultaneously accessible for review in the sponsor’s proposal application portal (ASSIST, Cayuse 424, Fastlane, Research.gov, etc.).  

5 business days or more prior to sponsor deadline

The approvals from other offices are now complete in the PDRF (some are collected within the PDRF such as the export control review while others require for the e-mail approval to be attached to the PDRF, i.e. foundation relations approval) and the proposal is now ready for the institutional official to review. During this review period, your IO will let you know if changes or corrections are needed. 

By the sponsor's deadline date and time

Once the proposal is fully compliant, the proposal is endorsed and submitted by your IO in OSR or RMG (SoM only) to the sponsor on behalf of the University via the sponsor's requested method. Remember that the proposal may be due by a set time in a different time zone from ours (e.g., MST, EST, foreign country time zone, etc..)

Check eProtocol for panel schedule

If the proposal has an extremely high probability of being awarded soon, request a protocol approval by Stanford compliance panels when the research involves human subjects, stem cells, animal subjects, or hazardous substances.

Who is My Preaward Institutional Official?

The Institutional Official (IO) is an individual named by Stanford, who is authorized to act for the institution, and to assume the obligations imposed by federal, state and local laws, regulations, requirements and conditions, as well as Stanford policy that applies to a proposal and award.

The IO reviews, endorses, signs and submits proposals to the sponsor on behalf of Stanford. In signing a proposal and in accepting a corresponding award, this individual certifies that Stanford will comply with the assurances and certifications referenced in the application. 

This individual's signature further certifies that Stanford will be accountable both for appropriate use of funds awarded and performance of the sponsored project activities resulting from the application.

IO Responsibilities by Central Office

Stanford proposal preparation resources.

The Office of Sponsored Research , the School of Medicine's  Research Management Group  and the School of Engineering's Engineering Research Administration group along with your school-based research administrators can help you with your proposal.

In addition Stanford offers support for your proposals from the following offices:

Stanford Research Development Office (RDO), is a unit under VPDoR that aims to strengthen collaborative or strategic research and scholarly activities through support for funding applications. RDO supports research teams from across the University, with an emphasis on complex or strategic proposals. This often includes large, multi-PI, multi-disciplinary proposals, but can also apply to other projects depending on the discipline or specific situation.

RDO’s goal is to enhance the competitiveness of proposals through grantsmanship while reducing the burden on PIs. They provide (pre-)preaward support that might include finding the right fit between project and sponsor, supporting team formation and concept development, coordinating proposal development, and editing of proposals.

University Corporate and Foundation Relations (UCFR) is a central university office that helps to foster relationships between Stanford University and companies and private professional foundations. Part of the Office of Development, they help faculty and external funding partners connect and collaborate to advance mutual goals that align with the university’s research and teaching mission. 

The Office of Science Outreach  (OSO) helps faculty engage in science outreach, including organized activities targeted at youth, school teachers, and the general public that will increase their interest, understanding, and involvement in math, science, and engineering.  

OSO serves faculty throughout the University by assisting them in creating outreach project ideas and proposals, identifying potential partners for them (both within Stanford as well as externally), and facilitating information and resource sharing among all of the University's science outreach programs. 

They can brainstorm/suggest outreach ideas to incorporate in your proposal, review and give feedback on a draft proposal, find a specific audience/partner for your project, or write/acquire letters of support from project partners/participants. OSO also provides programs faculty members can tap into to fulfill outreach requirements while continuing to conduct research and perform teaching duties.

The Stanford Center for Clinical and Translational Education and Research (Spectrum) is an independent research center funded in part by an NIH Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA). Its goal is to accelerate and enhance medical research, from basic discovery to improved patient care.

Global Business Services

Are you planning travel abroad to study, research, or volunteer? Will you be collaborating with international visitors either here at Stanford or abroad? If so, you must be aware of your individual responsibilities for understanding the laws, regulations, and requirements that apply. Prepare for your international academic activity with the wealth of tools and services available to you.

University Libraries Data Management Services

Data management is emerging as a key component of funding agency requirements. Stanford University Libraries offers tools and services to help researchers comply with funding agency provisions on data management and to improve the visibility of their research.

The Data Management Planning Tool provides templates, Stanford-specific guidance, and suggested answer text for creating a data management plan for your next grant submission. The Stanford Digital Repository provides long-term preservation of your important research data in a secure, sustainable stewardship environment, combined with a persistent URL (PURL) that allows for easy data discovery, access, sharing, and reuse.

Sponsor Proposal Preparation Guidelines

Before you prepare a proposal, study and follow the current specific agency/sponsor guidelines to understand your responsibilities. 

Federal agencies

Most federal agencies issue guidelines with the funding opportunities and are attached to the grants.gov listing. 

The National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, two of our top funders, provide many resources for proposal preparation and award management:

• NIH How to Apply
• NIH Grants Policy
• NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) and Policy Information

Proposal Submission

Once the proposal has been reviewed by the institutional official, it gets submitted to the sponsor via the method prescribed in the associated solicitation/funding opportunity announcement. The vast majority of our proposals must be submitted via an electronic portal by an institutional official. To guide you in determining the portal to use, please see the below table:

Federal Agencies

• Grants.gov is the official funding opportunity announcement website for the federal government. Stanford University does not use Grants.gov’s electronic proposal submission portal called Workspace.  Once you locate a program announcement in Grants.gov, use the table above to determine the method of submission applicable to that program announcement.  
• Cayuse Proposals (S2S) is a web-based software service that provides faculty researchers and support staff an easier, faster interface to Grants.gov for submitting research proposals to federal agencies. 
• NSF Research.gov is the National Science Foundation online system that support all functions of the proposal process: submission, review, award, and reporting. All reporting functionality (technical and financial)  is in Research.gov. The old NSF FastLane system has been retired.  For a status update on FastLane system decommissioning and transition to Research.gov transition click Here .
• NASA NSPIRES - NASA utilizes this online system to announce NASA funding opportunities. In some instances, pre-proposals and/or full proposals are accepted via NSPIRES.
• NIH ERA Commons is an investigator registration system that works in conjunction with ASSIST and Grants.gov to insure receipt of applications by the National Institutes of Health. All investigators must be registered in NIH Commons prior to submitting proposals to NIH and other Public Health Service agencies.

Private Agencies

Proposals to foundations, corporations and other non-profit agencies are submitted via a variety of methods. Make sure to check the instructions from the sponsor and verify that we are registered for their electronic method of submission. Some foundations also require coordination and prior approval with foundation relations. Please refer to the  Restricted Foundation List.  Applications to restricted foundations require coordination with the  Office of University Foundation Relations.

• Proposal Central supports a variety of non-profit funding agencies in proposal submission. Agencies that utilize this system include the American Cancer Society, the Arthritis Foundation, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, and the Muscular Dystrophy Association.

Created: 04.01.2021

Updated: 04.26.2024

• Research Process

Writing a Scientific Research Project Proposal

• 5 minute read
• 99.5K views

Table of Contents

The importance of a well-written research proposal cannot be underestimated. Your research really is only as good as your proposal. A poorly written, or poorly conceived research proposal will doom even an otherwise worthy project. On the other hand, a well-written, high-quality proposal will increase your chances for success.

In this article, we’ll outline the basics of writing an effective scientific research proposal, including the differences between research proposals, grants and cover letters. We’ll also touch on common mistakes made when submitting research proposals, as well as a simple example or template that you can follow.

What is a scientific research proposal?

The main purpose of a scientific research proposal is to convince your audience that your project is worthwhile, and that you have the expertise and wherewithal to complete it. The elements of an effective research proposal mirror those of the research process itself, which we’ll outline below. Essentially, the research proposal should include enough information for the reader to determine if your proposed study is worth pursuing.

It is not an uncommon misunderstanding to think that a research proposal and a cover letter are the same things. However, they are different. The main difference between a research proposal vs cover letter content is distinct. Whereas the research proposal summarizes the proposal for future research, the cover letter connects you to the research, and how you are the right person to complete the proposed research.

There is also sometimes confusion around a research proposal vs grant application. Whereas a research proposal is a statement of intent, related to answering a research question, a grant application is a specific request for funding to complete the research proposed. Of course, there are elements of overlap between the two documents; it’s the purpose of the document that defines one or the other.

Scientific Research Proposal Format

Although there is no one way to write a scientific research proposal, there are specific guidelines. A lot depends on which journal you’re submitting your research proposal to, so you may need to follow their scientific research proposal template.

In general, however, there are fairly universal sections to every scientific research proposal. These include:

• Title: Make sure the title of your proposal is descriptive and concise. Make it catch and informative at the same time, avoiding dry phrases like, “An investigation…” Your title should pique the interest of the reader.
• Abstract: This is a brief (300-500 words) summary that includes the research question, your rationale for the study, and any applicable hypothesis. You should also include a brief description of your methodology, including procedures, samples, instruments, etc.
• Introduction: The opening paragraph of your research proposal is, perhaps, the most important. Here you want to introduce the research problem in a creative way, and demonstrate your understanding of the need for the research. You want the reader to think that your proposed research is current, important and relevant.
• Background: Include a brief history of the topic and link it to a contemporary context to show its relevance for today. Identify key researchers and institutions also looking at the problem
• Literature Review: This is the section that may take the longest amount of time to assemble. Here you want to synthesize prior research, and place your proposed research into the larger picture of what’s been studied in the past. You want to show your reader that your work is original, and adds to the current knowledge.
• Research Design and Methodology: This section should be very clearly and logically written and organized. You are letting your reader know that you know what you are going to do, and how. The reader should feel confident that you have the skills and knowledge needed to get the project done.
• Preliminary Implications: Here you’ll be outlining how you anticipate your research will extend current knowledge in your field. You might also want to discuss how your findings will impact future research needs.
• Conclusion: This section reinforces the significance and importance of your proposed research, and summarizes the entire proposal.
• References/Citations: Of course, you need to include a full and accurate list of any and all sources you used to write your research proposal.

Common Mistakes in Writing a Scientific Research Project Proposal

Remember, the best research proposal can be rejected if it’s not well written or is ill-conceived. The most common mistakes made include:

• Not providing the proper context for your research question or the problem
• Failing to reference landmark/key studies
• Losing focus of the research question or problem
• Not accurately presenting contributions by other researchers and institutions
• Incompletely developing a persuasive argument for the research that is being proposed
• Misplaced attention on minor points and/or not enough detail on major issues
• Sloppy, low-quality writing without effective logic and flow
• Incorrect or lapses in references and citations, and/or references not in proper format
• The proposal is too long – or too short

Scientific Research Proposal Example

There are countless examples that you can find for successful research proposals. In addition, you can also find examples of unsuccessful research proposals. Search for successful research proposals in your field, and even for your target journal, to get a good idea on what specifically your audience may be looking for.

While there’s no one example that will show you everything you need to know, looking at a few will give you a good idea of what you need to include in your own research proposal. Talk, also, to colleagues in your field, especially if you are a student or a new researcher. We can often learn from the mistakes of others. The more prepared and knowledgeable you are prior to writing your research proposal, the more likely you are to succeed.

Language Editing Services

One of the top reasons scientific research proposals are rejected is due to poor logic and flow. Check out our Language Editing Services to ensure a great proposal , that’s clear and concise, and properly referenced. Check our video for more information, and get started today.

• Manuscript Review

Research Fraud: Falsification and Fabrication in Research Data

Research Team Structure

You may also like.

Descriptive Research Design and Its Myriad Uses

Five Common Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Biomedical Research Paper

Making Technical Writing in Environmental Engineering Accessible

To Err is Not Human: The Dangers of AI-assisted Academic Writing

When Data Speak, Listen: Importance of Data Collection and Analysis Methods

Choosing the Right Research Methodology: A Guide for Researchers

Why is data validation important in research?

Writing a good review article

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

Proposal Preparation and Submission

About proposal preparation and submission, proposal submission capabilities, letter of intent faqs, preliminary proposals, collaborative proposals, uploading documents, proposal sections, proposal submission, proposal withdrawal, grants.gov submitted proposals.

• In Progress Statuses
• Submitted Statuses
• PFU/BR Statuses

Access and User Roles

Demo site features, video tutorials, how-to guides, links to resources.

The Research.gov Proposal Submission System modernizes proposal preparation and submission capabilities by improving the user experience while also reducing administrative burden through an intuitive interface and expanded automated proposal compliance checking. NSF has transitioned all preparation and submission functionality from FastLane to Research.gov, and FastLane proposal preparation and submission functions were fully decommissioned on September 30, 2023. Please see the FastLane Decommissioning page for additional information. All NSF proposals must be submitted in Research.gov or Grants.gov in accordance with the instructions for a specific funding opportunity.

Proposals submitted via Grants.gov are processed in Research.gov. See the Grants.gov Proposal Processing in Research.gov page and Grants.gov Proposal Processing in Research.gov how-to guide for additional information. When submitting via Grants.gov, NSF strongly recommends proposers initiate proposal submission at least five business days in advance of a deadline to allow adequate time to address NSF compliance errors and resubmissions by 5:00 p.m. submitting organization’s local time on the deadline. Please note that some errors cannot be corrected in Grants.gov. Once a proposal passes pre-checks but fails any post-check, the proposer can only correct and submit the in-progress proposal in Research.gov.

Access the Research.gov Proposal Submission System

Explore the Research.gov Proposal Preparation Demo Site (User prompted to sign in to Research.gov if not already signed in.)

Research.gov Proposal Preparation Benefits

• Fast and easy proposal setup wizard to find funding opportunities and initiate a proposal
• Quick process to share proposal access with administrative staff. Expanded compliance checking ( View Research.gov compliance checks  )
• Expanded compliance checking ( View Research.gov compliance checks )
• Immediate compliance feedback in each proposal section
• Unaltered PDF uploads
• Minimized return without review of proposals due to compliance issues
• On-screen references to relevant sections of the Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG)
• Better management of personnel and subawards
• Improved performance and less system downtime

Help NSF Continue to Refine the Research.gov Proposal Submission System

NSF wants your feedback! Vital feedback from the community helps ensure the system is working as intended and to identify areas of improvement.

Ways to provide feedback and stay informed:

• Send feedback to NSF via the Research.gov's Feedback page
• Join the NSF System Updates listserv! Sign up to receive Research.gov updates by sending a blank email to  [email protected]

Contacts for Questions

• For program-specific questions, please contact the cognizant NSF Program Officer
• Email the NSF IT Service Desk at [email protected]
• Call the NSF IT Service Desk at 1-800-381-1532
• Email the NIH Help Desk at  [email protected]
• Create a ticket:   https://support.nlm.nih.gov/support/create-case/
• Policy-related questions should be directed to  [email protected]
• This table will be updated as additional capabilities are added.
• Unless otherwise specified in an NSF solicitation, proposals to NSF may be submitted via Grants.gov or Research.gov. See the Grants.gov Proposal Processing in Research.gov page for information about Grants.gov submissions.
• NSF wants feedback from the research community about the Research.gov Proposal Submission System so NSF can continue to make improvements. Feedback may be submitted on the Research.gov Feedback page.
• Additional information about the Research.gov Proposal Submission System and the Research.gov proposal preparation demo site, such as Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) by topic, is available on the Research.gov About Proposal Preparation and Submission page.
• Please see the Research.gov About Supplemental Funding Requests Preparation and Submission page for FAQs about preparation and submission of supplemental funding requests in Research.gov as well as information on the Research.gov supplemental funding request demo site. Supplemental funding requests can be submitted in Research.gov regardless of the system used (Research.gov, FastLane, or Grants.gov) for proposal submission.

Letter of Intent FAQs  

  Who can initiate and submit a Letter of Intent (LOI) in Research.gov?

A user with the Principal Investigator (PI), Sponsored Project Officer (SPO), or Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) role can initiate and submit an LOI in Research.gov. For a funding opportunity that requires AOR submission, the PI or SPO must share the LOI with the AOR. LOIs must be prepared and submitted in Research.gov and cannot be prepared and submitted in Grants.gov.

  How do I associate my LOI to my full proposal?

For solicitations that require or request submission of an LOI, there is a field on the full proposal Cover Sheet labeled Letter of Intent ID Number. Enter your LOI number in this field and then save the Cover Sheet. A green confirmation message will display and will include your LOI title below the LOI ID number field. Additionally, there will be a blue information message at the top of the full proposal Cover Sheet confirming the successful association of your LOI and your full proposal. If the LOI ID number you entered is invalid or is for an LOI for which you do not have access, you will receive an error message and the LOI will not be associated to your full proposal.

  Will I be required to associate my LOI to my full proposal in Research.gov when the solicitation requires the submission of an LOI?

Yes. Follow the solicitation requirements and enter the LOI number on the full proposal Cover Sheet. Although the system allows this entry to be optional, the cognizant Program Office will verify compliance of the submitted full proposal with the solicitation.

  How do I remove an LOI number that is associated with a full proposal?

To remove an LOI number that is associated with a full proposal, go to the full proposal Cover Sheet, clear the Letter of Intent Number field, and then save the Cover Sheet.

  When associating an LOI to a full proposal, what is considered a valid LOI?

A valid LOI must meet the following criteria:

• Exists in the user's Submitted LOI list
• Is not associated with another submitted full proposal
• Belongs to the same organization as the full proposal
• Was created using the same solicitation as the full proposal

  What information does Research.gov require for an LOI?

Research.gov will require that each LOI has an LOI Title, a Project Synopsis, and an associated PI.

The following LOI attributes are solicitation-dependent:

• Number of Senior Personnel
• Number of Participating Organizations
• Organization and Project Information
• Additional information permitted in the Other Comments section

  Can an LOI be associated to a collaborative proposal in Research.gov?

Yes, an LOI can be associated to a single submission collaborative proposal with subaward or to a lead organization proposal that is part of a separately submitted collaborative proposal from multiple organizations. An LOI cannot be associated with a non-lead organization separately submitted collaborative proposal.

Proposal FAQs  

  What is a proposal Temporary ID Number?

A proposal Temporary ID Number is a unique identifier that is generated by the system to keep track of and manage proposals before they are submitted. Once submitted to NSF, proposals are assigned permanent proposal IDs. The Temporary ID Number is also used by lead and non-lead organizations to link separately submitted collaborative proposals from multiple organizations.

  What is the PAPPG?

The Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide     (PAPPG) is comprised of documents relating to the Foundation's proposal and award process for the assistance programs of NSF. The policy and procedural guidance contained in Part I of the PAPPG pertains to proposals submitted via the NSF Research.gov system. Relevant PAPPG sections are linked to within each proposal section in Research.gov to assist proposal preparers.

  What is the difference between a compliance “Error” and a “Warning”?

Automated proposal compliance checks triggering an error message will stop proposal submission to NSF, whereas checks triggering a warning message will still allow proposal submission. Expanded compliance checking in Research.gov helps to reduce administrative burden for the research community and NSF staff, as well as minimizes the return without review of proposals. Research.gov performs automated compliance checks on full proposals, renewal proposals, accomplishment-based renewal proposals, preliminary proposals, LOIs and supplemental funding requests. Refer to the Automated Compliance Checking of NSF Proposals    page for the current automated proposal checks. Proposers who receive a compliance error or warning message should check the Automated Compliance Checking of NSF Proposals    page and the solicitation for specific proposal requirements. Proposers should also review the topic-specific FAQs on the Research.gov About Proposal Preparation and Submission page. For example, the Uploading Documents FAQ topic includes document formatting FAQs, and the Proposal Sections FAQ topic includes Cover Sheet and budget FAQs.

  How can I view the proposal "Error" and "Warning" messages? 

The Proposal Actions section on the proposal main page has a new Check Error(s) and Warning(s) button. After clicking this button, the Check Error(s) and Warning(s) page will display to show the identified automated compliance error and warning messages for the proposal. Individuals with a PI, co-PI, SPO, AOR, or Other Authorized User (OAU) role on the proposal can view the error and warning messages for the proposal. If there are no errors or warnings, this page will display a green success message. Please refer to the Automated Compliance Checking of NSF Proposals    page for a listing of the current compliance checks.

  Can a PI be swapped with any co-PI on an in-progress proposal? 

No, PI/co-PI swaps can only be done on an in-progress proposal when the PI and co-PI are from the same organization. If the Change Role option is not clickable in Research.gov, it means that the option is disabled for the specified individual. If the Change Role option is not clickable and users see a red X, it means that the PI role cannot be changed because there are no other co-PIs from the same organization on the proposal.

  I initiated a proposal as a PI but now I want to assign myself as a co-PI and assign a different individual as the PI on the proposal. How do I make this swap? 

The prime organization can swap an individual with a PI role on an in-progress proposal or proposal file update with an individual with a co-PI role on the in-proposal proposal or proposal file update provided that the individuals are affiliated with the same prime organization. To initiate the swap, the PI or co-PI navigates to the Manage Personnel (Prime Organization) page and clicks the Change Role link in the Proposal Actions column. The Change Role link for the PI will be enabled only if there is a co-PI listed in the prime organization's personnel list. The Change Role link for the co-PI will be enabled only if the PI on the proposal is from the same prime organization. After successfully swapping the PI and co-PI on the in-progress proposal or proposal file update, a green success message will display, and an email notification will be sent to the PI, co-PI(s), and OAU(s) associated with the proposal.

  Can an individual from a subrecipient organization be added to a proposal as a co-PI? 

An individual from a subrecipient organization with a UEI from SAM but not registered in SAM cannot be added to a proposal as a co-PI but can be added as Senior Personnel.

  Can an individual be added to a proposal more than once? 

No, an individual cannot be added to a proposal more than once. For example, an individual cannot be added on a proposal as Senior Personnel and also as an OAU. Also, an individual cannot be added as Senior Personnel on a proposal for more than one organization, such as adding someone as a co-PI for the prime organization and adding the same person as Senior Personnel for a subrecipient organization.

  I am using Chrome and trying to download the PDF of my proposal but I am encountering an error. What can I do?

Individuals who are using Chrome will encounter a networking error when attempting to use the download file functionality. NSF recommends clicking on the Print icon and Save as PDF or using a different browser.

  What happens to an in-progress proposal if the funding opportunity selected for the proposal has expired? 

An in-progress proposal (i.e., letter of intent, preliminary proposal, or full proposal) in response to a funding opportunity that has expired cannot be edited or submitted in Research.gov. A new proposal with an active funding opportunity must be created in order to submit. Please contact the NSF IT Service Desk at 1-800-381-1532 (7:00 AM - 9:00 PM ET; Monday - Friday except federal holidays) or via email to [email protected] if you need further assistance.

  Can I delete or withdraw a submitted proposal?

Submitted proposals cannot be deleted but they can be withdrawn from NSF. To initiate a proposal withdrawal, the PI, SPO, or AOR can navigate to their Submitted Proposals list, select the appropriate proposal for withdrawal, and click on the Withdraw Proposal button in the Proposal Actions section of the proposal main page. For more information, see the Proposal Withdrawal FAQ topic . An Ideas Lab preliminary proposal cannot be withdrawn.

Accessing the Research.gov Proposal Submission System

  How do I access the Research.gov Proposal Submission System?

To access the Research.gov Proposal Submission System:

• Open Research.gov and select Sign In at the top of the page
• After entering credentials, you will be navigated to the Research.gov homepage.
• Click the Prepare and Submit Proposals link under Proposals.
• Click Continue to Proposal System after reviewing the modal message and then you will be on the proposal preparation landing page.

  Can InCommon access login credentials be used for a user to access the Research.gov Proposal Submission System? 

Yes, InCommon access login credentials can be used. From the Research.gov Sign In page, select your organization from the organization drop-down menu to be taken to the InCommon Log In page for your organization. (Note: Only InCommon Federation participants can use their organization-issued credentials to sign in to Research.gov. If you are signing in with your organization-issued credentials, you will be prompted to link your credentials to your NSF ID if they are not already linked.)

  Can Login.gov credentials be used to access the Research.gov Proposal Submission System? 

Yes, Login.gov credentials can be used. After entering your Login.gov credentials on the Research.gov Sign In page, you will be prompted to link your Login.gov credentials to your NSF ID if they are not already linked.

Permissions

  What permissions does an SPO have?

An SPO is able to review and edit proposals, proposal file updates, and revised budgets after the proposal's PI or co-PI shares proposal access. The SPO can also initiate LOIs and proposal withdrawal requests for approval and submission by the AOR.

  What permissions does an AOR have?

An AOR is authorized to sign on behalf of the proposing organization. The AOR is able to view, edit, and submit proposals after they are shared with the AOR by the proposal's PI or co-PI. The AOR can initiate and submit LOIs and proposal withdrawals. In addition, the AOR reviews LOIs and proposal withdrawal requests initiated by PIs and SPOs and submits the approved LOIs and withdrawals to NSF. The AOR also submits the Current and Pending (Other) Support update requested by the Program Officer.

  Can individuals with other user roles (e.g., SPO or AOR) initiate proposals in Research.gov?

Only a PI can initiate a proposal in Research.gov; however, individuals with other roles (e.g., SPO, AOR, and OAU) who are granted access to the proposal by the PI will be able to prepare and edit the proposal.

  How does a PI or co-PI provide the SPO/AOR access to a proposal?

A PI or co-PI can share a proposal with the SPO/AOR even before required proposal data is entered or uploaded and sections are completed. On the proposal main page, select Share Proposal with SPO/AOR and then select the type of access to provide the SPO/AOR: No access, View-only access, Edit access, or Edit access with Allow proposal submission (AOR only). The Allow proposal submission (AOR only) checkbox is automatically checked as the default when the Edit access radio button is selected. However, it is possible for the PI or co-PI to remove the check from the Allow proposal submission (AOR) checkbox and then add it again for proposal submission.

  As a user with the Other Authorized User (OAU) role, am I required to have any additional organization-approved roles to assist with preparing proposals in Research.gov?

No,users with the OAU role can assist with proposal preparation in Research.gov without being required to also have another organization-approved role (e.g., View Only role). Users with the OAU role can assist with preparing proposals already created by selecting the Work with In Progress link under In Progress on the proposal preparation landing page

Users without the OAU role can request this role from their organization by following the instructions in the Add a New Organizational Role section  of the Account Management Guide.

  Can Other Senior Personnel view, access, or edit proposals in Research.gov?

No, individuals added to a Research.gov proposal as Other Senior Personnel cannot view, access, or edit the proposal.

Renewals and Accomplishment-Based Renewal Proposals

  Why is my previous award number not listed in the Previous Awards(s) dropdown in Step 4 (Proposal Details) of the proposal setup wizard?

A previous award will not be reflected in the Previous Awards(s) dropdown in Step 4 (Proposal Details) of the proposal setup wizard if any of the following scenarios is valid:

• The previous award was made as a result of submission of a RAISE, Ideas Lab, or Equipment proposal in Research.gov or in FastLane.
• You were not the PI or a co-PI on the previous award.
• The previous award was an accomplishment-based renewal.
• Your organization differs from the organization on the previous award.

If you believe your previous award is missing in error, contact the NSF IT Service Desk at 1 (800) 381-1532 (7:00 AM - 9:00 PM ET; Monday - Friday except federal holidays) or  [email protected]

  How can I renew my Planning, RAPID, or EAGER award?

Renewed funding of Planning, RAPID, or EAGER awards must be submitted as a Research proposal type. To renew a Planning, RAPID, or EAGER award, select the Research proposal type during Step 3 (Proposal Type) of the proposal setup wizard when initiating your renewal proposal.

  How can I renew my Center or Research Infrastructure award?

To renew a Center award, prepare a renewal or accomplishment-based renewal proposal. For the proposal type, select the Center or Research Infrastructure proposal type during Step 3. (Proposal Type) of the proposal setup wizard.

To renew a Research Infrastructure award, prepare a renewal or accomplishment-based renewal proposal. For the proposal type, select the Research Infrastructure proposal type during Step 3 (Proposal Type) of the proposal preparation setup wizard.

Please see PAPPG, Chapter V    for additional information about renewal proposals.

  What if my previous award was from a proposal submitted in FastLane?

Previous awards from proposals submitted in both FastLane and Research.gov are reflected in the Research.gov Previous Award(s) dropdown in proposal setup wizard Step 4 (Proposal Details); however, please refer to the earlier FAQ regarding reasons your previous award may not be listed. See PAPPG, Chapter V    for additional information about renewal proposals.

Managing Where to Apply and Secondary Units of Consideration

  How do I determine the directorate/office and division of the program I want to apply to?

On NSF.gov    you can find a list of all directorates/offices and divisions under Find Funding & Apply    on the top menu bar. Go to the By Directorate option under Explore funding to view all programs associated with a particular directorate, office, or division. NSF's Funding Search also allows you to explore funding opportunities by keyword, eligibility and other criteria.

  When creating a new proposal, can multiple programs be selected?

Step 2 (Where to Apply) in the proposal setup wizard will display one or multiple programs, depending on the selected funding opportunity. You can only select one program on Step 2. Once the proposal is created, you may add additional programs by clicking the link labeled "Manage Where to Apply" if allowable for your type of proposal.

  How can I determine in Research.gov whether a particular program is identified in the selected funding opportunity?

In the proposal setup wizard, only the programs identified in the selected funding opportunity will display in Step 2 (Where to Apply). After the proposal is created, lead collaborative and single submission proposers can navigate to the Manage Where to Apply page from the proposal main page Manage Where to Apply link and select the Limit selections to those identified in the funding opportunity checkbox to view relevant programs.

  At what point during proposal preparation can additional programs be added to the proposal?

Programs related to the selected funding opportunity will display as options and can be added to the proposal in Step 2 Where to Apply of the proposal setup wizard. After the proposal is created, the Manage Where to Apply link will display on the proposal main page in single submission proposals and lead collaborative proposals for the following proposal types: Research, Planning, RAISE, RAPID, EAGER, GOALI, FASED, Ideas Lab, Conference, Equipment, Travel, Center, Research Infrastructure, SBIR, and STTR. Clicking the Manage Where to Apply link opens the Manage Where to Apply page where programs related to the selected funding opportunity and programs not related to the funding opportunity can be added or removed. The Manage Where to Apply link will display for in-progress proposals only. Programs cannot be updated during a proposal file update/budget revision. The Manage Where to Apply link will not be available on the proposal main page for postdoctoral fellowship proposals.

  I have started my proposal but have selected the incorrect division and program for the funding opportunity. How can I update that?

After the proposal is created, a Manage Where to Apply link will display on the proposal main page in single submission proposals and lead collaborative proposals for the following proposal types: Research, Planning, RAISE, RAPID, EAGER, GOALI, FASED, Ideas Lab, Conference, Equipment, Travel, Center, Research Infrastructure, SBIR, and STTR. Click the Manage Where to Apply link on the proposal main page. (The link does not appear if Where to Apply cannot be changed.) Follow the Manage Where to Apply page instructions to add, delete, or change order of importance. The ability to make changes is based on the proposal type and funding opportunity selected when the proposal was initiated. Most funding opportunities have one primary program for Where to Apply which cannot be changed. However, many funding opportunities allow you to add program selections and set the order of importance.

Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry (GOALI)

  Can GOALI proposals be prepared and submitted via Grants.gov?

GOALI proposals can be submitted via Grants.gov but must be completed or updated in Research.gov. See the Grants.gov Proposal Processing in Research.gov page and Grants.gov Proposal Processing in Research.gov how-to guide for more information.

  What permissions does the Industrial co-PI have in the preparation of a GOALI proposal?

The Industrial co-PI will have the same permissions in a GOALI proposal as a regular co-PI has after being added to the proposal, including the ability to view and edit the proposal.

  Are there any differences in the budget amount that an Industrial co-PI can request versus a regular co-PI?

In accordance with the PAPPG, industrial participants can request and receive funds from NSF if they are included as Industrial co-PIs in a small business partner subaward organization. An Industrial co-PI added to a GOALI proposal will be listed on the budget page for the small business partner subaward organization, as well as on any Individual Year and Cumulative Budget PDFs of the small business partner subaward organization. If an Industrial co-PI is added to a GOALI proposal in the prime organization or in another subaward organization which is not a small business partner subaward organization, that Industrial co-PI will not display on any budget page nor on any Individual Year and Cumulative Budget PDFs. Refer to PAPPG Chapter II.D.2.g    and Chapter II.F.5    for additional information.

  Is an Industrial co-PI required to obtain an NSF ID and the Investigator role?

Yes, in order for an industrial participant to be added to a GOALI proposal as an Industrial co-PI, the individual must first have an NSF ID and an Investigator role in the NSF Account Management System. All co-PIs have these account management requirements. Refer to the Research.gov About Account Management page for additional information and resources such as the Register for an NSF Account    and the Add a New Organization-Approved Role - Principal Investigator PI/co-PI sections of the Account Management Guide.

  Can an Industrial co-PI change roles to become a regular co-PI and vice versa on a GOALI proposal?

Yes. From the Manage Personnel page, there is a Change Role action that allows for an Industrial co-PI to convert to a regular co-PI, and vice versa.

  How can I distinguish an Industrial co-PI from a regular co-PI?

The Industrial co-PI(s) will be listed as co-Principal Investigator - Industrial on the proposal preparation screen and on the Cover Sheet PDF. A regular co-PI is listed as co-Principal Investigator. A co-PI, if from the same prime organization as the PI on the proposal, can change their role to become either an Industrial co-PI or the PI; however, an Industrial co-PI will not be able to change their role to become the PI on the proposal.

  How do I distinguish a small business partner subaward organization from a subaward organization which is not a small business partner?

A GOALI proposal can have two types of subaward organizations: small business partner subaward organizations and subaward organizations which are not small business partner organizations. On the Manage Personnel page, there are buttons in the subaward organization section of the page to add the desired type of subaward organization to the GOALI proposal. The subaward organization section of the Manage Personnel page also contains a Subaward Type column to indicate whether the subaward organization added is a small business partner. Refer to PAPPG Chapter II.F.5    for additional details on each type of subaward organization for a GOALI proposal.

Postdoctoral Fellowship Proposals

  How do I initiate a postdoctoral fellowship proposal?

You must first have the Proposed Postdoctoral Fellow role to initiate a postdoctoral fellowship proposal in Research.gov. A Proposed Postdoctoral Fellow role is different than a PI role. Postdoctoral fellowship funding opportunities will only display and be available for selection for users preparing a proposal as a Proposed Postdoctoral Fellow. Proposals for fellowship solicitations with reference letter requirements must be prepared and submitted in Research.gov and cannot be prepared and submitted in Grants.gov. Proposers with proposals for fellowship solicitations without reference letter requirements can initiate their submission in Grants.gov but must complete their proposal in Research.gov. See the Grants.gov Proposal Processing in Research.gov page and Grants.gov Proposal Processing in Research.gov how-to guide for more information.

• After signing in to Research.gov, navigate to My Profile at the top right of the page.
• From the left navigation menu, select My Roles > Add a New Role > Add Investigator or Authorized User Role > Proposed Postdoctoral Fellow (third option).
• Proceed to complete the required information as appropriate.
• Once the Proposed Postdoctoral Fellow role has been added, allow up to 60 minutes for the system to process the request.
• Then you will need to sign out of Research.gov and sign back in again before initiating and preparing a postdoctoral fellowship proposal for fellowship solicitations in Research.gov.

Additional guidance is available in the Add a New Organizational Role – Proposed Postdoctoral Fellow section of the Account Management Guide on the Research.gov About Account Management page.

  What happens if I have user roles in addition to the Proposed Postdoctoral Fellow role?

When a user is affiliated with an organization and has multiple roles such as a PI, co-PI, SPO, OAU, or AOR as well as the role of a Proposed Postdoctoral Fellow, all submission types are available to select. When a Proposed Postdoctoral Fellow clicks on Prepare New, they will see the Select Organization for New Proposal modal. To create a postdoctoral fellowship proposal type from the Select Organization drop-down, the Proposed Postdoctoral Fellow must select the I am a Proposed Postdoctoral Fellow (Postdoctoral Fellowship Proposals) option to initiate a postdoctoral fellowship proposal.

  Do postdoctoral fellowship proposals have different document submission requirements?

Yes, the following solicitation-specific proposal sections may be required to be submitted for postdoctoral fellowship proposals:

• Letter(s) of Collaboration
• Letter(s) of Support
• PhD Abstract
• Host Institution Letter(s)
• Research Support
• Reference Letter Request(s)
• Application Form
• Sponsoring Scientist Statement

Refer to the specific program solicitation to determine if submission of these proposal sections is required, optional, or not applicable. Please also see the Automated Compliance Checking of NSF Proposals    page for the related compliance checks.

  Are Personnel documents required to be uploaded for a Mentor/Advisor or Sponsoring Scientist listed on a postdoctoral fellowship proposal?

Some postdoctoral fellowship programs require submission of Personnel documents (i.e., Biographical Sketch, Current and Pending (Other) Support, and/or Collaborators & Other Affiliations) for any Mentor/Advisor listed on the proposal. The Proposed Postdoctoral Fellow should refer to the specific program solicitation to determine Personnel document requirements for a Mentor/Advisor or Sponsoring Scientist. Please also see the Automated Compliance Checking of NSF Proposals    page for the related compliance checks. Note that the Mentor/Advisor and Sponsoring Scientist cannot view or edit the proposal in Research.gov.

  How do I view the budget in a postdoctoral fellowship proposal?

The budget section of all postdoctoral fellowship proposals includes the prepopulated stipend and fellowship allowance based on the selected solicitation. The budget section does not display on the proposal main page after the proposal has been created but can be viewed by clicking Print Proposal. When the Proposed Postdoctoral Fellow submits the proposal, the budget will display as read-only and will be accessible from the proposal main page. The budget section is editable during a proposal file update/budget revision however this should only be performed when requested by the Program Officer.

  How is the proposed duration determined for a postdoctoral fellowship proposal?

The proposed duration for a postdoctoral fellowship proposal is prepopulated, read-only (i.e., not editable), and aligns with the program solicitation selected when initiating the proposal in Research.gov.

  What if I do not have any information to provide in the Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources section in a postdoctoral fellowship proposal?

The Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources section is required in all postdoctoral fellowship proposals. If no information is applicable in this section for your proposal, you must upload a file with the text "Not applicable" to pass the automated compliance checks and submit your proposal. Refer to the program solicitation for specific document submission requirements.

  The solicitation for the postdoctoral fellowship program I am applying to does not require reference letters or information in the application form. Will I be able to submit my proposal without this information?

Research.gov will not require you to have reference letter writers added or the application form completed if the postdoctoral fellowship program solicitation does not specify these requirements.

  Can a reference letter writer submit the reference letter after my proposal has been submitted?

Yes. The system will not prevent the reference letter writer from submitting a reference letter after the proposal has been submitted. However, the reference letter writer must submit the reference letter before the proposal deadline per program solicitation requirements. Please also see the Automated Compliance Checking of NSF Proposals page for the related compliance checks.

  Can I submit my proposal before the reference letter writer(s) have submitted their reference letter(s)?

Yes. If you attempt to submit your proposal and there are reference letter writer(s) who have not yet submitted their reference letter(s), Research.gov will generate a warning that notifies you which reference letter writer(s) have not submitted. However, the system will allow you to submit the proposal. Once the reference writer(s) successfully submit their reference letter(s), the letter(s) will be available to the Program Officer to view.

  How do reference letter writer(s) listed in my proposal submit reference letter(s)?

Reference writer(s) submit reference letters using the Reference Letter Submission module in Research.gov. The reference letter writer must have an NSF account in Research.gov to access this module. After the proposed postdoctoral fellow nominates a reference letter writer in Research.gov, the reference writer will receive a system-generated email with an invitation code required to access the Reference Letter Submission module to upload and submit the reference letter for the proposed postdoctoral fellow. A Postdoctoral Fellowship Proposal Reference Letter Submission Module Guide with step-by-step instructions is available on the Research.gov About Proposal Preparation and Submission page .

  What do I do if I submitted my proposal but my reference letter writer cannot submit a reference letter due to a personal matter such as illness?

When a proposal is submitted, reference letter requests cannot be canceled in the proposal. The proposer must reach out to the cognizant Program Officer for guidance on how to resolve this issue. If a new reference letter writer is identified to replace the reference letter writer unable to submit a reference letter, the new reference letter writer would have to manually provide the reference letter to the Program Officer.

  What if I don't see the organization that I’m trying to add in the search results for the Organization Name section in my application form?

If you have entered text in the Organization Name field and do not see the organization you want to add displayed in the search results, please try the following:

• Ensure you have entered the full organization name. The system will only display a maximum of 10 search results when entering text in the Organization Name field.
• Review the text you have entered to ensure there are no spelling errors.
• If the organization you're attempting to add is still not displaying, click on the Add other organization selection displayed at the very bottom of the search results. Choosing this option will allow you to add a custom organization that is not in the system.

  Where should I upload a curriculum vitae (CV) for a sponsoring scientist?

The CV for the sponsoring scientist should be included in the Sponsoring Scientist Statement section within the proposal.

  Where should I upload a biographical sketch for a sponsoring scientist?

If the solicitation instructions are to include a biographical sketch for the sponsoring scientist, that file must be uploaded on the Biographical Sketch upload page for the sponsoring scientist. That page can be found in the Personnel Documents section on the proposal main page. Refer to the specific program solicitation to determine the submission requirements for these documents.

  If I include a CV for the sponsoring scientist in the file that is uploaded in the Sponsoring Scientist Statement section, will the system generate an error if the file has more than three pages?

No. The system will not enforce the three-page limit for the file uploaded in the Sponsoring Scientist Statement section in the proposal. However, if the file being uploaded does not include the CV for the sponsoring scientist, the file uploaded must adhere to the three-page limit requirement for the Sponsoring Scientist Statement listed in the solicitation. Refer to the specific program solicitation to determine the submission requirements for these documents. Please also see the Automated Compliance Checking of NSF Proposals page for the related compliance checks.

Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR)

  How do I prepare a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) or Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Phase I or Phase II proposal in Research.gov?

Please refer to the SBIR/STTR Research.gov Guide    on how to prepare and submit an SBIR or STTR Phase I or Phase II proposal in Research.gov.

  How do I prepare a preliminary proposal in Research.gov?

On the proposal preparation landing page, select Preliminary from the Prepare New drop-down menu. Step 1 (Funding Opportunity) of the proposal setup wizard will only display the solicitations that require a preliminary proposal and the solicitations that indicate a preliminary proposal is optional. Preliminary proposals must be prepared and submitted in Research.gov and cannot be prepared and submitted in Grants.gov.

  When would I submit a preliminary proposal in Research.gov?

The program solicitation will specify content and submission requirements for preliminary proposals. Please see PAPPG, Chapter I.D.3    for information about preliminary proposals, including the two types of decisions that may be received from NSF upon submission of a preliminary proposal.

  Who can initiate a preliminary proposal in Research.gov?

Only an individual with a PI role can initiate preliminary proposals in Research.gov.

  Will Research.gov prohibit any actions related to an Ideas Lab preliminary proposal?

Research.gov will not permit co-PIs and senior personnel to be added to an Ideas Lab preliminary proposal. In addition, Research.gov will not allow an Ideas Lab preliminary proposal to be withdrawn or to be related to a full proposal. Refer to PAPPG Chapter II.F.6   for additional information about Ideas Lab proposals

  How do I associate my preliminary proposal to my full proposal?

For solicitations that require or request submission of a preliminary proposal, there is a Related Preliminary Proposal Number field on the full proposal Cover Sheet. Enter your preliminary proposal number in this field and then save the Cover Sheet. A green confirmation message will display. Additionally, there will be a blue information message at the top of the full proposal Cover Sheet confirming the successful association of your preliminary proposal with your full proposal. If the preliminary proposal number you entered is invalid or is for a preliminary proposal for which you do not have access, you will receive an error message and the preliminary proposal will not be associated to your full proposal.

Note that an Ideas Lab preliminary proposal cannot be related to a full proposal.

  Will I be required to associate my related preliminary proposal number to my full proposal in Research.gov when the solicitation requires the submission of a preliminary proposal?

Yes. Follow the solicitation requirements and enter the preliminary proposal number on the full proposal Cover Sheet. Although the system allows this entry to be optional, the cognizant Program Office will verify compliance of the submitted full proposal with the solicitation.

  How do I disassociate preliminary proposal from an associated full proposal?

To disassociate a preliminary proposal from a full proposal, remove the related preliminary proposal number associated with a full proposal by going to the full proposal Cover Sheet, clearing the Related Preliminary Proposal Number field, and then saving the Cover Sheet.

  When associating a preliminary proposal to a full proposal, what is considered a valid preliminary proposal?

A valid preliminary proposal must meet the following criteria:

• Submitted in Research.gov and exists in the user's Submitted Preliminary Proposals list
• Has been Invited or Encouraged/Discouraged by NSF

  What proposal sections does Research.gov require for a preliminary proposal?

Research.gov requires that each preliminary proposal has a Cover Sheet, Project Summary, and Project Description. The following preliminary proposal sections are dependent on the requirements listed in the program solicitation:

• References Cited
• Budget Justification(s)
• Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources
• Senior Personnel Documents
• Data Management Plan

Postdoctoral Mentoring Plan

  Can I withdraw a preliminary proposal?

Preliminary proposals other than for Ideas Lab program solicitations can be withdrawn after submission to NSF.

  What is a collaborative proposal?

A collaborative proposal is one in which investigators from two or more organizations wish to collaborate on a unified research project. Collaborative proposals may be submitted to NSF in one of two methods: as a single proposal, in which a single award is being requested (with subawards administered by the lead organization); or by simultaneous submission of proposals from different organizations, with each organization requesting a separate award. In either case, the lead organization’s proposal must contain all of the requisite sections as a single package to be provided to reviewers (that will happen automatically when procedures below are followed). All collaborative proposals must clearly describe the roles to be played by the other organizations, specify the managerial arrangements, and explain the advantages of the multi-organizational effort within the Project Description. Please see PAPPG, Chapter II.E.3.    for additional information about collaborative proposals.

  Can a collaborative proposal be prepared in Research.gov?

Yes, Research.gov supports the preparation and submission of collaborative proposals from one organization (with subawards) and separately submitted collaborative proposals from multiple organizations.

  How many PIs and co-PIs can I have on a collaboration?

In a collaborative proposal from one organization (with subawards), there can be a maximum of five—one PI and up to four co-PIs. In a separately submitted collaborative proposal from multiple organizations, each proposal may have a maximum of five—one PI and up to four co-PIs.

Separately Submitted Collaborative Proposals from Multiple Organizations

  What are the differences between a lead organization proposal and a non-lead organization proposal?

The lead organization's proposal must contain all of the required sections as a single package that will be provided to proposal reviewers. The non-lead organization will inherit the Proposal Title, Funding Opportunity, Where to Apply, Proposal Type, Submission Type, and Due Date from the lead organization proposal after the lead and non-lead organization proposals are successfully linked. For additional details, see the PAPPG, Chapter II.E.3.b   

  Since only the lead organization can enter the proposal title, does the non-lead organization leave that section blank? Can an incomplete Cover Sheet be saved in Research.gov?

The proposal title cannot be blank on the non-lead proposal since it is a mandatory field. The non-lead organization should enter an interim proposal title during preparation until the lead organization's title is inherited upon linking.

  If I indicate during proposal creation that my role on a project is as lead proposer, can I later change my role to a non-lead proposer and prepare a non-lead proposal?

No, during proposal preparation an organization cannot change from a lead proposer role to a non-lead proposer role or vice versa. In this scenario, the in-progress collaborative proposal should be deleted and a new proposal can be initiated with the desired role on the project (i.e., lead proposer or non-lead proposer).

  Why is my non-lead organization proposal missing proposal sections?

Required sections of the proposal differ based on the organization's role. The non-lead organization proposal will only have the following sections available on the proposal main page:

Cover Sheet

• Biographical Sketch(es)
• Current and Pending (Other) Support
• Collaborators and Other Affiliations
• Optional: Other Personnel Biographical Information
• Optional: Other Supplementary Documents
• Optional: List of Suggested Reviewers
• Optional: List of Reviewers Not to Include

For additional information about proposal sections required to be submitted by a lead and non-lead organization in a collaborative proposal from multiple organizations, please see PAPPG, Chapter II.E.3.   

  In a separately submitted collaborative proposal, can both the lead and non-lead organizations upload Other Supplementary Documents and Single Copy Documents?

Yes, both the lead and non-lead organizations can upload Other Supplementary Documents and Single Copy Documents.

  In a separately submitted collaborative proposal, can both the lead and non-lead organizations have subawards as part of the same proposal?

Yes, both the lead and non-lead organizations have the option for subawards in a separately submitted collaborative proposal.

Linking and Unlinking Collaborative Proposals from Multiple Organizations

  What is a linked collaborative proposal?

A linked collaborative proposal results when a lead organization proposal has been joined with one or more non-lead proposals that will be submitted together.

  How do I link a proposal?

The non-lead organization should work offline with the lead organization to provide its Temporary ID Number. The lead organization can then click the Link/View Collaborative Proposals button on its in-progress lead proposal form to enter the non-lead proposal's Temporary ID Number to send the link request to the non-lead organization. The link request must be accepted by the non-lead organization. The PI, co-PI, OAU, SPO and AOR for the non-lead organization proposal will receive a notification in Research.gov and an email notifying them that they have received a proposal link request.

  What happens if the lead organization enters the non-lead proposal Temporary ID Number on its in-progress lead proposal form but the non-lead proposal does not display?

The lead organization should contact the PI for the non-lead organization offline to verify the non-lead proposal Temporary ID Number.

  I am the lead proposer. How do I see the list and status of linked proposals in my collaboration?

By clicking the Link/View Collaborative Proposals button, the lead organization can view the list and status of all non-lead organizations that have been sent link requests. The lead organization will see the non-lead organizations that have accepted or rejected link requests as well as any pending link requests. The non-lead organization(s) will only be able to view the status of the linked lead proposal on the Link/View Collaborative Proposals page.

  How do I unlink my proposal?

A lead organization can unlink a non-lead organization proposal by clicking the Link/View Collaborative Proposals button on the proposal form and clicking Unlink Proposal for the non-lead organization proposal it intends to unlink. Non-lead organizations cannot unlink their proposals from a lead organization and must coordinate with the lead organization to unlink proposals.

  How do I cancel a link request?

Only lead organizations have the ability to cancel link requests. A lead organization can cancel a link request by clicking on the Link/View Collaborative Proposals button on the lead organization proposal main page. Click Cancel Link Request next to the non-lead proposal(s) that has a pending link request (i.e., the non-lead organization hasn’t accepted or rejected the link request). Once the link request is cancelled, the pending link request will no longer display on the Link/View Collaborative Proposal table on both the lead and non-lead organization proposals.

  What happens to a non-lead organization proposal if it is unlinked from a lead organization proposal?

A non-lead organization proposal that has been unlinked from a lead organization proposal will retain the information (i.e., Proposal Title, Funding Opportunity, Where to Apply, Proposal Type, Submission Type, and Due Date) that was inherited from the lead organization proposal, but the non-lead organization proposal cannot be submitted until it is linked with a new lead organization proposal. Upon linking to a new lead organization proposal, the non-lead organization proposal will inherit information (i.e., Proposal Title, Funding Opportunity, Where to Apply, Proposal Type, Submission Type, and Due Date) from the new lead organization proposal.

  Can a non-lead organization proposal be linked to multiple lead organization proposals?

A non-lead organization proposal can only be linked to one lead organization proposal at a time. In addition, a lead organization cannot send a link request to a non-lead organization that has accepted a link request or has a pending link request from another lead organization proposal.

  Is there a limitation on the number of non-lead organizations that can participate in a collaborative proposal?

No, there is no limit on the number of non-lead organizations that can participate in a collaborative proposal.

  What is the maximum number of subawards allowed per lead organization proposal and non-lead organization proposal?

There is no maximum number of subawards for lead and non-lead organization proposals.

  What information from the linked proposals can I see when I print my collaborative proposal?

Once the proposals are linked, a PDF of all proposal pages within the collaboration will be displayed when a PI, co-PI, SPO, AOR, or OAU of either the lead or non-lead organization clicks Print Proposal.

  Does a printed submitted collaborative proposal look different than an in-progress collaborative proposal?

There is only one difference between a submitted collaborative proposal and an in-progress collaborative proposal when printed. When submitted, the header of each lead and non-lead organization proposal page will display the name of the respective PI, and the assigned Proposal Number. The formatting of this display is: Submitted/PI: [PI First Name Last Name] /Proposal No: [Proposal Number].

  Can I link or unlink a proposal after it has been submitted?

No, proposals cannot be linked or unlinked once the collaborative set (i.e., all lead and non-lead organization proposals in the collaboration) has been submitted and has a Submitted to NSF status. In addition, proposals cannot be linked or unlinked during an in-progress proposal file update (PFU)/ budget revision. If the collaborative set has not been fully submitted, the lead has flexibility to add or change linked non-lead proposals if they are not submitted.

Deleting Separately Submitted Proposals

  How do I delete a linked in-progress proposal?

An in-progress separately submitted collaborative proposal can only be deleted by the organization if it is not linked and does not have any pending link requests from another proposal in a collaborative set. Proposers who want to delete an in-progress linked proposal must first un-link it from all other proposals. There is a Delete Proposal button in the Proposal Actions Section (on the left side of the page) available to the PI and co-PI to delete in-progress collaborative proposals.

  Can a PDF document be uploaded if it does not adhere to PAPPG formatting requirements?

Research.gov runs selected automated checks for PAPPG formatting compliance when a PDF document is uploaded. If non-compliance is detected, a warning or error message will display that identifies the issue(s). Some issues stop document upload (i.e., compliance errors), such as a violation of page length, while others allow document upload to complete (i.e., compliance warnings), such as violations of line spacing. For complete information, see the PAPPG, Chapter II.C. proposal preparation instructions    and the Automated Compliance Checking of NSF Proposals    page. If unexpected errors occur when uploading a PDF document, please contact the NSF IT Service Desk at 1-800-381-1532 for assistance. The PDF can be analyzed, and a solution can be identified. The NSF IT Service Desk is available by phone from 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM ET Monday - Friday except federal holidays or via email to  [email protected] .

  Which PDF upload document formatting requirements are currently checked in Research.gov?

The proposal must conform to the formatting requirements specified in PAPPG Chapter II.C.2.    including the proposal font and margin requirements detailed in PAPPG Chapter II.C.2.a.   Refer to the Automated Compliance Checking of NSF Proposals    page for the complete list of current compliance checks.

Line and Margin Requirements per PAPPG Chapter II.C.2    :

• No more than six lines of text within a vertical space of one inch.
• Paper size must be no larger than standard letter paper size (8½ by 11" or 11" by 8½).

  What are some common margin issues to be aware of to ensure my proposal is compliant with PAPPG requirements?

Some potential margin issue root causes may be:

• Text in headers/footers and page numbers: Be sure that the document has no text in the header or footer including page numbers. Research.gov will automatically paginate and add page numbers for you when the proposal PDF is generated, so page numbers should be removed.
• Document elements not visible or not obvious on inspection: Items such as a space character in the header/footer or code inserted when using LaTeX to create the source file can trigger a margin error.
• Inserted images, figures, shapes, and hyperlinks: Margins can be set to one inch, but an image, figure, shape, or hyperlink can violate the margin rule. Setting the margin rule to one inch would not automatically correct the images, figures, shapes or hyperlinks within margins. Be sure to review all inserted images, figures, shapes, or hyperlinks that may be causing a margin issue.
• Fully justified text (i.e., both the left and right sides of the text have clean edges) may result in right margin issues for some PDF conversions. Some characters, such as commas, can bleed into the margins. If you want to maintain justified text and encounter margin issues, experiment by increasing the right margin settings (e.g., 1.02 - 1.05). Settings will vary and are dependent on the user's software. As an alternative, consider using left justification.
• Some PDF conversion software can overwrite metadata and alter the formatting of files. The NSF IT Service Desk has seen issues with Quartz PDF Context that is prevalent in Macs. Please use alternative methods to perform the PDF conversion.
• The PDF conversion process from older versions of Microsoft Word may alter the margins set in the original document. Please use alternative methods to perform PDF conversions. Other options may include increasing margins or using a more recent Microsoft Word version.
• Be wary of the use of heading styles in Microsoft Word: Using the heading style in Word will automatically add features to the document that collapse and expand text, and users may inadvertently collapse and hide non-compliant content. Starting a page with heading style text can cause top margin issues. It is helpful to check if any content is hidden by pressing Control-A to select the entire document and changing the style to "Normal" to identify hidden content.
• Special characters, equations, or use of bolded font in the first line of text on a page: Documents with special characters, equations, or bolded font in the first line of a page can cause a top margin issue in some versions of Microsoft Word. Inserting an entire blank line or two before the text may resolve this issue. For equations, consider using an image of an equation instead of an equation inserted by Equation Editor.
• Margins less than 72 points: Ensure your document margins are compliant before exporting the document to PDF. The system recognizes one inch as 72 points. If you notice margin issues for your PDF document, try exporting the PDF to Microsoft Word format to correct the margins to one inch. Then save the file as a PDF and upload it again.

  Why is there a line spacing warning when I am using a compliant font type and font size?        Please note: Line spacing warnings will not stop proposal submission.

For line spacing, there should be no more than six lines of text within a vertical space of one inch. Some potential line spacing issue root causes may be:

• Documents originating in LaTeX sometimes will trigger the line spacing warning even though the font type and font size are compliant. Please refer to https://github.com/nsf-open/nsf-proposal-latex-samples as a resource for LaTeX/TeX users.
• Some PDF generators change the size of document content slightly.
• In some versions of Microsoft Word, Arial 10 and Courier New 10 will produce line spacing errors. In this instance, try changing the line spacing to 1.05 as a workaround. Also consider experimenting with a different font or increasing the font to 11 or more. Please note that caption fonts smaller than 10 will trigger line spacing warnings.

In Microsoft Word, the number of lines per inch is dynamic based on font size. An option in Word to try is to format the paragraphs to specify an exact point size to use between lines. Here's how to do this:

• Open the document Layout tab
• Open paragraph settings by clicking the arrow icon below the Spacing Before and After options
• Select the Indents and Spacing tab
• In the Spacing section, go to Line Spacing and select Exactly in the drop-down menu and then 12 pt in the At field.

  Why is there a URL error when I do not see any URLs in my document?

Search on key domain suffixes such as .gov, .edu, .com, .io, .biz, etc.

Search for "www" or "http" text.

Hidden or embedded URLs can be prevalent when using citations. Citations created by Zotero or Paperpile, for example, can create a hidden clickable links. Avoid using third party citation software and type out the citation.

  I am getting an error message that I do not have a required document section heading (i.e., Broader Impacts) but it is included. What is causing this error?

A section heading must be on its own line without any other text for compliance checking purposes. It must be spelled correctly. "Broad Impacts" or "Broader Impact" will generate an error.

  What known issues should I be aware of regarding other validation errors when exporting a file to PDF?

The following are some examples of known issues:

• Outdated software used for exporting the file to PDF (recommend using PDF version 1.5 or higher).
• OpenOffice inserts an unallowable font for superscript and subscript.
• Google Docs may not properly export bulleted text.
• Google Docs Print→Save as PDF is not supported. Use File→Download→PDF Document
• Microsoft Office for Macs Save as PDF functionality and Best for Printing may not be supported. Instead, select the Best for electronic distribution and accessibility (uses Microsoft online service) option.
• For Microsoft Office, do not use Print as PDF to create a PDF. Instead, use Export and Create PDF.

  Are there any resources for LaTeX users?

Yes, a repository of compliant LaTeX/TeX sample input files has been created at https://github.com/nsf-open/nsf-proposal-latex-samples    as a resource for LaTeX/TeX users to reference for their own documents. The NSF IT Service Desk cannot troubleshoot LaTeX files or converting LaTeX files to PDF, however you may reach out to the contact listed on the GitHub site.

  I am getting a warning message when uploading my Collaborators and Other Affiliations (COA) template that not all cells could be saved. When I look at my uploaded PDF file, I see missing data. What is causing this?

The following are some examples of COA missing data possible causes:

• Cell contents exceed the cell limit of 255 characters including spaces.
• Data is missing, especially in column A for tables 2-5.
• Last Active column is entered using a date format other than MM/DD/YYYY.
• Cutting and pasting from other programs or files with formatting has produced errors or brought in invalid fonts and borders that trigger warning(s) on upload.

  I uploaded a COA file which appears to have been uploaded with no issues but when I try to preview it, the file is missing. Why is this happening?

This issue can occur when an invalid year consisting of more than four digits is entered (e.g., 20022) in the COA document which corrupts both the COA and the Budget sections of the proposal. For the Budget section, this issue will prevent data from being saved in the proposal. Please correct the year in the original COA file, save the file, and then re-upload the updated COA file to the proposal. If the issue is not discovered early, it can corrupt the proposal. If you need assistance, please contact the NSF IT Service Desk.

  When is a COA document required for Conference proposals?

A COA document is required for each individual identified as Senior Personnel in a Conference proposal when the budget's total dollar value, including indirect costs, is more than $50,000. COA documents are uploaded on the Senior Personnel Documents screen. Please refer to PAPPG Chapter II.F.9    for additional information.

  Can senior personnel documents (e.g., biographical sketch) be reordered in the PDF?

There is not currently a way to modify the order of senior personnel documents in the PDF. However, NSF will discuss a possible future enhancement to allow reordering of senior personnel documents in the PDF.

  How do I upload an updated current and pending (other) support document?

The cognizant NSF Program Officer will request that an updated version of current and pending (other) support be submitted via Research.gov prior to making a funding recommendation. SciENcv will produce an NSF-compliant PDF version of the updated current and pending (other) support. The Research.gov budget revision feature is used to submit the requested update. The AOR submits the updated current and pending (other) support document for each individual named as senior personnel on the submitted proposal. The information must be provided as specified in PAPPG Chapter II.D.2.h(ii) . See the Preparing Updated Current and Pending(Other) Support how-to guide for a walk-though of the steps.

  I need to correct a submitted Current and Pending (Other) Support update document after the Program Officer requested this. Can I make a correction?

No, once the Program Officer initiates the Current and Pending (Other) Support update request and it was submitted, there cannot be another submission.

  I need to submit a budget revision and an updated Current and Pending (Other) Support document. Can I do this at the same time?

No, you cannot perform these two actions at the same time. If a budget revision is performed first, you must wait until the next day to perform the Current and Pending (Other) Support update. However, you may submit the Current and Pending (Other) Support before a budget revision on the same day.

  I'm trying to upload a PDF (e.g., PDF to the Other Supplementary Documents section) but I'm receiving an error message saying the system has encountered an error. What do I do?

A PDF file that is a certified signed document or is password protected will produce this error. For PDF uploads to the Other Supplementary Documents section, open the PDF file with a browser and print it with the destination set as Adobe PDF (not Save PDF or Save As). If this does not resolve the issue, please contact the NSF IT Service Desk at 1-800-381-1532 (7:00 AM - 9:00 PM ET; Monday - Friday except federal holidays) or via email to  [email protected]

  I don't see a submit button. How do I submit the proposal?

Only the AOR can submit a proposal to NSF. A PI or co-PI must first use the Share Proposal with SPO/AOR button to provide the AOR with submit proposal access. Then the AOR will see the Initiate Proposal Submission button enabled under Proposal Actions on the proposal main page. The AOR will click the Initiate Proposal Submission button to start proposal submission

  I have submitted my collaborative proposal but my status is Submission Pending. What does that mean? 

All lead and non-lead organization proposals in a separately submitted collaborative proposal from multiple organizations are held in a queue with a Submission Pending status upon submission by the respective AORs. The lead and non-lead collaborative proposals can be submitted in any order. Once all proposals in the collaboration have a Submission Pending status, the collaborative set will be fully submitted to NSF and the proposal status for each collaborative proposal will change from Submission Pending to Submitted to NSF (Not Yet Assigned for Review). After the collaborative set is submitted, each proposal will be assigned a proposal number and processed into NSF IT systems where the proposal is accessible by NSF Program Officers.

  My proposal is the lead organization proposal, the submission deadline is approaching, and there are unaccepted link requests to non-lead organization proposals. What can I do to submit on time?

Organizations in a separately submitted collaborative proposal with pending link requests must either accept the link request (non-lead organization action), reject the link request (non-lead organization action), or cancel the link request (lead organization action) before submitting the proposal. If the lead organization chooses to continue with submitting the proposal, all pending link requests to non-lead proposals will automatically be cancelled.

  My proposal is the lead organization proposal in a separately submitted collaborative proposal and one of the non-lead organizations will not be able to submit by the deadline. What can I do to ensure the collaboration is submitted on time? 

In this scenario, the lead organization could unlink its proposal from the non-lead organization proposal not able to submit by its deadline. The lead organization proposal and the remaining linked non-lead proposals could then be submitted to NSF by the deadline. The final collaborative proposal should be revised before submission to account for the change in participating organizations. The lead organization will not be able to link to other non-lead proposals after the entire collaboration is submitted to NSF.

  How do I check proposal status after a proposal has been submitted? 

Within 24 hours of proposal submission in Research.gov (including proposals submitted via Grants.gov and processed in Research.gov), the proposal will be listed on the Research.gov Proposal Status page. Proposers can access the Proposal Status page using the Proposal Status link under Proposals on the Research.gov homepage after signing in. If proposers do not see a submitted proposal listed on the Proposal Status page after 24 hours, the proposer should contact the NSF Service Desk at 1-800-381-1532 for assistance. The NSF Service Desk is available by phone from 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM ET Monday - Friday except federal holidays or via email to  [email protected]

  When is proposal submission required for each separately submitted proposal? If the lead organization is on the East Coast and a non-lead organization is on the West Coast, what would be the submission deadline?

Proposals must be received by 5 p.m. submitter's local time on the established deadline date. In this example, the lead organization on the East Coast must submit by 5 p.m. Eastern Time, and the non-lead organization on the West Coast must submit by 5 p.m. Pacific Time.

Editing a Submitted Proposal

  How can I make changes to my proposal after it is submitted?

How you edit your proposal will depend on the status of your proposal and whether it is a single submission or separately submitted collaborative proposal.

• Single submission or single submission with subawards (collaborative) proposals:All edits must be done via a proposal file update (PFU) or a budget revision. For a PFU, the proposal main page within the submitted proposal will display an Update Submitted Proposal button under Proposal Actions. For a budget revision, the submitted proposal will display a Revise Budget button under Proposal Actions.
• Separately submitted collaborative proposals with Submission Pending Status: A lead or non-lead organization proposal will receive a status of Submission Pending after submission if there are other proposals in the collaboration that have yet to submit. When a lead/non-lead organization proposal has a status of Submission Pending, there will be an Edit Proposal button visible to the PI/co-PIs, SPO, AOR, and OAU of the proposal. Clicking the Edit Proposal button removes the proposal from the Submission Pending status and returns it to an in-progress state. Proposals that are removed from the submission pending status will require a new submission by the AOR.
• Separately submitted collaborative proposal sets submitted to NSF: If all proposals in the collaborative set have been submitted, then each proposal can be edited via the Update Submitted Proposal or Revise Budget buttons on the submitted proposal form. Only the lead or non-lead proposal with the proposal file update/budget revision needs to be resubmitted; the entire collaborative set is not required to be resubmitted.
• See PAPPG, Chapter III.C    for additional information on Proposal File Updates.

  If I initiate a proposal file update (PFU)/budget revision, how does this impact a separately submitted collaborative set?

When a proposal file update (PFU)/budget revision is initiated, the original submitted version remains intact until it is replaced by the proposal file update (PFU)/budget revision. If the proposal file update (PFU)/budget revision is not submitted, the original submission will remain and the collaborative set is not impacted.

  How do I withdraw a proposal that has been submitted? 

To withdraw a submitted proposal, the PI, SPO, or AOR navigates to the Submitted Proposals list, selects the proposal they want to withdraw, and clicks on the Withdraw Proposal button in the Proposal Actions section of the proposal main page to initiate the withdrawal process.This is a final state.

  When can a proposal be withdrawn? 

A submitted proposal may be withdrawn at any time before a funding recommendation is made by the cognizant NSF Program Officer.

  Who can withdraw a submitted proposal? 

The proposal's PI, SPO and AOR may initiate a withdrawal request but only the AOR can approve the request and submit the withdrawal to NSF.

  How long does it take to withdraw a proposal? 

Submitted proposals are withdrawn from NSF as soon as the AOR approves the withdrawal in Research.gov.

  Can my withdrawal request be deleted if I change my mind? 

A pending proposal withdrawal request initiated by the PI or SPO can be deleted at any time before the AOR approves the withdrawal in Research.gov.

  Can I update my submitted proposal using a proposal file update (PFU)/budget revision while there is a pending withdrawal request? 

No, proposals with a pending withdrawal request cannot be updated using the proposal file update (PFU)/budget revision processes. The pending withdrawal request must first be deleted (PI or SPO action) or rejected (AOR action) before a proposal file update (PFU)/budget revision can be prepared to edit the submitted proposal.

  How do I know my proposal has been withdrawn? 

Withdrawn proposals are indicated by a proposal status of Withdrawn on the Submitted Proposals list. In addition, the PI, SPO, and AOR will receive an email and system notification to confirm the proposal withdrawal.

  What happens to an in-progress, unsubmitted proposal file update (PFU)/budget revision when there is a pending withdrawal request? 

If there is an in-progress proposal file update (PFU)/budget revision that was started prior to initiation of a withdrawal request, the in-progress proposal file update (PFU)/budget revision becomes read-only and cannot be submitted unless the proposal withdrawal request is deleted or rejected. A new proposal file update (PFU)/budget revision cannot be prepared when there is a pending withdrawal request or after a proposal has been withdrawn.

  Can I re-submit a withdrawn proposal? 

No. Once a proposal is withdrawn, it cannot be re-submitted to NSF by the organization. However, the PI/SPO/AOR may still view and print the withdrawn proposal in Research.gov.

Withdrawing Separately Submitted Collaborative Proposals from Multiple Organizations

  Can a separately submitted collaborative proposal be withdrawn? 

Yes, separately submitted collaborative proposals from multiple organizations can be withdrawn.

  Who can request a withdrawal when the proposal is a separately submitted collaborative proposal? 

The PI, SPO, or AOR of either the lead or non-lead organization can initiate a proposal withdrawal request.

  If one proposal in a collaboration is withdrawn, what happens to the other proposals in the collaboration? 

If a lead or non-lead proposal in a collaboration is withdrawn, all the linked proposals in the collaboration will be withdrawn and will show a proposal status of Withdrawn. The proposals cannot be edited or re-submitted.

  If one of the proposals in a collaboration has a pending withdrawal request, how does that impact the rest of the linked proposals in the collaboration? 

When one of the proposals in a collaboration has a pending withdrawal request, all the proposals in the collaboration become read-only and cannot be edited until the pending withdrawal request is either approved and submitted by the AOR of the initiating organization or deleted/rejected by the initiating organization's PI, SPO, or AOR.

  Can I submit a withdrawal request for my proposal if another proposal in my collaboration already has a pending withdrawal request? 

No, there can only be one proposal withdrawal request at a time for a separately submitted collaborative proposal.

  When a withdrawal request is initiated for one of the proposals in a collaboration, are the organizations for the linked proposals in the collaboration notified? 

Yes, the associated PIs, SPOs, and AORs of the linked proposals are notified via email and system notification when a lead or non-lead organization in the collaboration has initiated a proposal withdrawal request.

  What happens to an in-progress proposal file update (PFU)/budget revision for a proposal in a collaboration when there is a pending withdrawal request for another linked proposal? 

When one of the proposals in a collaboration has a pending withdrawal request, all of the proposals and in-progress proposal file updates (PFU)/budget revisions in the collaboration will become read-only and cannot be edited until the pending withdrawal request is either approved and submitted by the AOR of the initiating organization or deleted/rejected by the initiating organization's PI, SPO, or AOR.

  Can all NSF proposals be submitted via Grants.gov? 

Please note that the following submissions must be done in Research.gov as Grants.gov does not support the functionality:

• Separately submitted collaborative applications from multiple organizations
• Letters of intent
• Preliminary proposals
• Planning proposals
• Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) proposals
• Postdoctoral fellowship proposals with reference letter requirements

Some proposals can be submitted in Grants.gov but must be completed or updated in Research.gov, such as:

• Proposals with project data forms for the Directorate for STEM Education (EDU)/Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE)
• Postdoctoral fellowship proposals without reference letter requirements
• Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry (GOALI) proposals
• Proposals with subawards
• Proposals with budgets of six years or more

  Where does a proposal submitted via Grants.gov display in Research.gov when the proposal has passed all pre-check and post-check validations and has been successfully submitted to and accepted by NSF? 

When a proposal submitted via Grants.gov is successfully submitted to and accepted by NSF, the proposal will display on the Submitted and Updates page under the Proposals (Full and Renewals) tab. Access this tab by signing in to Research.gov and clicking the Prepare and Submit Proposals link under Proposals on the Research.gov homepage. From the Prepare and Submit Proposals landing page, click the View/Update Submitted button in the Submitted and Updates tile and select Proposals (Full and Renewals).

  Where does a proposal submitted via Grants.gov display in Research.gov when the proposal has post-check validation errors or warnings? 

If a proposal submitted via Grants.gov and processed in Research.gov has any post-check validation errors or warnings, the proposal will display on the Research.gov In Progress page. Access this page by signing in to Research.gov and clicking the Prepare and Submit Proposals link under Proposals on the Research.gov homepage. From the Prepare and Submit Proposals landing page, click on the Work with In Progress button in the In Progress tile and select Proposals (Full and Renewals). Proposals submitted via Grants.gov will have Grants.gov text displayed directly next to the proposal title.

Proposals with compliance warnings can be submitted in Research.gov whereas proposals with compliance errors must be fixed in Research.gov and then resubmitted in Research.gov. See the Grants.gov Proposal Processing in Research.gov page and Grants.gov Proposal Processing in Research.gov how-to guide for additional Information. Please refer to the Automated Compliance Checking of NSF Proposals    page for Research.gov automated compliance checks.

  I submitted my proposal via Grants.gov but I don't see it displayed in Research.gov. Why did this happen? 

If your proposal does not pass the Grants.gov pre-check validations (i.e., Grants.gov initial compliance checks) to be processed in Research.gov, your proposal will not display in Research.gov. You must fix the issues listed in the system-generated email sent to the PI and then resubmit via Grants.gov. See the Grants.gov Proposal Processing in Research.gov page and Grants.gov Proposal Processing in Research.gov how-to guide for additional Information. Please see the Automated Compliance Checking of NSF Proposals    page for the Grants.gov initial compliance checks.

  What happens if my Grants.gov submitted proposal is processed in Research.gov but does not pass all the post-check validations? 

If a Grants.gov proposal passes the Grants.gov pre-check validations (i.e., Grants.gov initial compliance checks) to be successfully processed in Research.gov but there are post-check compliance warnings and/or errors to be addressed, the proposal will display on the Research.gov In Progress page but the proposal has not been successfully submitted to NSF. To view the error and warning messages in Research.gov, users can click the Check Error(s) and Warning(s) button under Proposal Actions on the proposal main page. Proposals with compliance warnings can be submitted in Research.gov whereas proposals with compliance errors must be fixed in Research.gov and then resubmitted in Resesrch.gov. Refer to the Automated Compliance Checking of NSF Proposals for the Research.gov automated compliance checks. SPO(s) are automatically provided edit access in Research.gov and AORs are automatically provided edit and submit access in Research.gov when a Grants.gov proposal is processed in Research.gov but has an in progress status. Ensure the proposal is successfully submitted in Research.gov by the relevant 5:00 pm submitter's local time deadline. Users with AOR and Proposed Postdoctoral Fellow roles click the Initiate Proposal Submission button to resubmit the proposal in Research.gov.

Users with AOR and Proposed Postdoctoral Fellow roles click the Initiate Proposal Submission button to resubmit the proposal in Research.gov.

  What system-generated emails are sent after I submit my proposal via Grants.gov? 

Please see the following list of system-generated emails and associated scenarios:

• If the Grants.gov submitted proposal does not pass the pre-check validations (i.e., Grants.gov initial compliance checks) necessary to process the proposal in Research.gov, a system-generated email will be sent to the PI notifying them of the issues that must be fixed in Grants.gov before the proposal can be resubmitted in Grants.gov for processing in Research.gov.
• If the Grants.gov submitted proposal does not pass the pass the post-check validations (i.e., Research.gov automated compliance checks), a system-generated email will be sent to the PI, SPO(s) and AOR(s) associated with the prime organization notifying them the proposal is in progress in Research.gov and has not been successfully submitted to NSF. Proposals with compliance warnings can be submitted in Research.gov whereas proposals with compliance errors must be fixed in Research.gov and then resubmitted in Research.gov. The proposal must be successfully submitted in Research.gov by the relevant 5:00 pm submitter's local time deadline.
• If the Grants.gov submitted proposal is successfully submitted to NSF, a system-generated notification email will be sent to the PI, co-PI(s), OAU(s) and AOR associated with the prime organization.

  Why is my Grants.gov submitted proposal in progress in Research.gov if there were no errors or warnings listed in the email I received? 

In addition, there are some scenarios where information in Grants.gov proposals cannot be transferred into your proposal processed in Research.gov. Review the specific system messaging in each proposal section and make updates as required. In particular, please review the budget(s), subaward organization(s), personnel listed in the proposal, and senior personnel document(s). The proposal must be successfully submitted in Research.gov by the relevant 5:00 pm submitter's local time deadline. Please contact the NSF IT Service Desk at 1-800-381-1532 (7:00 AM - 9:00 PM ET; Monday - Friday except federal holidays) or via [email protected] if you need assistance.

Proposal FAQs

  What if the proposed duration is zero or left blank? 

Saving the Cover Sheet when the proposed duration is zero or has been left blank will result in an error message. A proposal cannot be submitted without a valid proposed duration saved on the Cover Sheet. Refer to funding opportunity for any potential duration requirements. Proposal duration is prepopulated on postdoctoral scholarship proposals.  Note: The system will not enforce any funding opportunity-specific duration requirements.

  Does the proposed duration on the Cover Sheet have to align with the number of years in the budget? 

The number of months entered for proposed duration should align with the number of years entered in the prime organization’s budget. The proposed duration should not extend beyond five years (60 months) unless otherwise specified in a program solicitation. Use the chart below for appropriate alignment:   

Project Description

  What are the Research.gov page limitations for Project Descriptions?

Proposers must follow the Project Description page limit guidance in the program solicitation for the proposal. The limits in a single solicitation may vary by track or program. For a program solicitation that does not include Project Description page limit guidance, follow the guidance in the PAPPG for the proposal type.

  Do academic and summer months need to be provided as part of the proposal budget?

As a general policy, NSF limits the salary compensation requested in the proposal budget for senior personnel to no more than two months of their regular salary in any one year. It is the organization's responsibility to define and consistently apply the term "year", and to specify this definition in the budget justification. Please see PAPPG Chapter II.D.2.f.i.    for additional information.

Currently, when a printable PDF of the proposal is displayed in Research.gov, the academic and summer month labels will display as blank fields. In the future, these fields will also be removed from the Research.gov print view.

  When does the cost sharing budget line (Line M) appear in the proposal's budget during proposal preparation?

Cost sharing is rarely required in NSF proposals. For those programs with required cost sharing, Line M on the proposal budget will only appear in year 1 of the prime organization proposal budget. A list of NSF programs with required cost sharing is available at https://nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/   

  Does Cost Sharing Line M of the proposal budget count as part of the Total Requested Amount?

No, cost sharing is not included as part of a proposal's Total Requested Amount and is treated as a separate and independent amount in the budget.

  Why don't I see the Cost Sharing Line M in year 2 of my proposal's budget?

The cost sharing budget line (Line M of the Proposal Budget) will appear in the Prime Award Organization budget directly under the Total Amount Requested budget line (Line J) when the funding opportunity selected requires cost sharing. The cost sharing data will only appear under the Year 1 column within the Prime Award Organization's budget page and will represent the total proposed cost sharing amount.

  Is there any justification or documentation required when including a cost sharing amount?

An explanation of the source, nature, amount and availability of any proposed cost sharing must be provided in the budget justification. The budget justification upload screen can be found on the proposal main page below the Budget section.

  Can cost sharing be modified as part of a proposal file update (PFU)/budget revision?

Yes, the cost sharing amount on Line M on the Proposal Budget can be added, removed, or edited as part of a proposal file update (PFU)/budget revision.

  Can a proposal be submitted if the cost sharing amount entered on Line M of the Budget is $0 

Yes, proposals that require cost sharing can be shared or submitted with a cost sharing amount of $0 entered on Line M of the Prime Award Organization's Year 1 Budget. Although the proposer will be prompted with a warning to check that the amount entered is correct based on solicitation requirements, the warning will not stop proposal submission and can be bypassed to allow the AOR to submit the proposal. A value of $0 is acceptable because based on the solicitation, certain institutions are exempt from the mandatory cost sharing requirement. For example, the Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) program provides that, "only non-Ph.D.- granting academic institutions of higher education are exempt from the cost-sharing requirement and cost sharing by those institutions may not be provided."

  What is the limit on budget years in a subaward budget? 

The number of years in a subaward budget must be equal to or less than the number of years in the prime organization budget. If the number of years in a subaward budget exceeds the number of years in the prime organization budget, an automated compliance error will be generated and the proposal will be stopped from being submitted to NSF.

  For a FASED proposal, where should I include information regarding funding requests for special equipment or assistance to facilitate the participation of individuals with disabilities? 

These funding requests should be included in the proposed budget for the project and documented in the Budget Justification. The specific nature, purpose and need for such equipment or assistance should be described in sufficient detail in the Project Description to permit evaluation of the request by knowledgeable reviewers.

  I am receiving the following error message when attempting to save the budget: "The system has encountered an error and was unable to save the budget. Please try saving the budget again and if this issue persists, you may contact the NSF IT Service Desk at [email protected] or 1 (800) 381-1532."How can I fix this? 

This issue can occur when an invalid year consisting of more than four digits is entered (e.g., 20022) in the COA document under Senior Personnel Documents which corrupts both the COA and the Budget sections of the proposal. For the Budget section, this issue will prevent data from being saved in the proposal. Please correct the year in the original COA file, save the file, and then upload the updated COA file to the proposal.In some cases, especially if there are subrecipient organization budgets, you may not be able to resolve the issue on your own and must contact the NSF IT Service Desk for assistance.

Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources

  When does a Conference or Travel proposal require a Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources document? 

A Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources document is required for a Conference or Travel proposal when there will be support from other sources. This selection is made when initiating the proposal using the proposal setup wizard but can be changed on the Cover Sheet. Please see PAPPG Chapter II.F.9.    for additional information on Conference proposals and PAPPG Chapter II.F.11.    for Travel Proposals.

Project Data Form

  What is a project data form and when is it required? 

A project data form is currently only required for some proposals to the Directorate for STEM Education (EDU)/Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE). The information that is provided in the project data form is used to direct proposals to appropriate reviewers and to determine the characteristics of projects supported by DUE.

The project data form must be included in a proposal only when specified in a program solicitation. The following programs currently require the project data form, but it is not an exhaustive list:

• Advanced Technological Education (ATE)Improving Undergraduate STEM Education: Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI Program)
• Improving Undergraduate STEM Education: Directorate for STEM Education (IUSE:EDU)
• Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program
• NSF Scholarships in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (S-STEM)

  How must a project data form be included as part of the proposal? 

If the selected funding opportunity requires a project data form, it must be included for single submissions as well as lead and non-lead collaboratives that are full proposals, renewal proposals, or accomplishment-based renewal proposals.

  How is the project data form included for proposals submitted via Grants.gov?

A Grants.gov proposal requiring a project data form will automatically be set as an in-progress proposal in Research.gov, and the proposer must access Research.gov to complete the form and submit the proposal in Research.gov. The proposer will not be able to check the status of the proposal until this information is provided in Research.gov and the complete proposal is submitted in Research.gov and accepted by NSF. See the Grants.gov Proposal Processing in Research.gov page and Grants.gov Proposal Processing in Research.gov how-to guide for more information.

  Will a Program Track or Category be required on the project data form if the program selected doesn't have any corresponding program tracks or categories? 

No. The Program Track and Category fields are not required if there are no program tracks or categories that correspond to the program where the proposal will be submitted within NSF. In this scenario, the following read-only text will be displayed under the Program Track and/or Category section: Not applicable for the selected program.

  Does the Prime Organization Information section in my non-lead project data form refer to the lead proposal's organization information? 

No. The Prime Organization Information section in a non-lead collaborative proposal project data form refers to the prime/awardee organization for the non-lead proposal. The non-lead proposer should choose the appropriate selections based on the prime/awardee organization for its non-lead proposal when completing the Highest Degree and Institution Type fields.

  Should I add subaward organizations in the Add Other Organizations section in my project data form? 

Yes. The organizations that should be added in the Add Other Organizations section in your project data form are organizations involved in the project directly or through shared use of equipment, including subaward organizations. Subaward organizations should also be added on the Add Subaward Organizations page within the proposal to report any necessary budget information, personnel, and senior personnel documents.

  What if I don't see the organization I’m trying to add in the search results in the Add Other Organizations section in my project data form? 

If you have entered text in the Organizations field and do not see the organization you want to add displayed in the search results, please try the following:

• Ensure you have entered the full organization name. The system will only display a maximum of 10 search results when entering text in the Organization(s)'field.
• If the organization you're attempting to add is still not displaying, click on the Add other organization: selection displayed at the very bottom of the search results. Selecting this option will allow you to add a custom organization that is not in the system.

  What should I do if I don't see the subdiscipline I want to select in the Subdiscipline drop-down after choosing a Discipline? 

If you do not see the desired subdiscipline in the subdiscipline selection drop-down, please select the Other (Specify) selection. Once selected, a text field will be displayed where you can enter a custom subdiscipline. This custom subdiscipline information will also display in the project data form PDF.

  What if my project doesn't apply to any of the strategic areas listed in the Strategic Area drop-down in the project data form? 

The Strategic Area section is an optional section in the project data form. If your project does not apply to any of the strategic areas listed in the drop-down, you do not need to make a selection in this section.

  Should I enter zero ('0') in the individual category fields in the Estimated Number of Individuals Involved if there are no individuals in the category that benefited/will benefit from the project? 

Yes. The system will require you to enter a value in all the individual categories within the Estimated Number of Individuals Involved section. If there are individual categories where no individuals were involved, enter zero ('0') in those fields. Leaving any individual category field blank will result in a compliance error stopping proposal submission.

  What are the required sections in a project data form that must be completed before a single submission or a lead collaborative proposal can be submitted in Research.gov? 

The following sections in the project data form are required to be completed in a single submission and in a lead collaborative proposal before the proposal can be submitted in Research.gov:

• Program Track (if the program has corresponding program tracks that can be selected)
• Categories (if the program has corresponding categories that can be selected)
• Highest Degree
• Institution Type
• Are there other organizations involved in the project's operation question? (if Yes is selected, at least one organization must be provided)
• Primary Academic Focus Level
• Private Sector Participation
• Estimated Number of Individuals Involved (a value must be entered in all individual category fields within this section)

  What are the required sections in a project data form that must be completed before a non-lead collaborative proposal can be submitted in Research.gov? 

The following sections in the project data form are required to be completed in a non-lead collaborative proposal before the proposal can be submitted:

After a non-lead collaborative proposal is submitted, it will be held in a submission pending queue until all proposals in the collaboration have been submitted. When all proposals in the collaboration are in the submission pending queue, the non-lead proposal and the other proposals in the collaboration will be submitted to NSF.

  What information does a non-lead collaborative proposal project data form inherit from the lead collaborative proposal? 

The information below is inherited in the non-lead proposal project data form based on the information entered on the lead collaborative proposal project data form. The inherited information in the non-lead proposal project data form will be read-only on the Research.gov proposal preparation screen when preparing the non-lead proposal and will be reflected on the non-lead proposal project data form PDF. If information has not yet been entered on the lead collaborative proposal project data form, the following read-only text will display on the non-lead project data form for each section where the lead organization has not yet provided information: Not yet specified in the lead proposal.

• Program Track
• Other Organizations
• subdiscipline
• Audience(s)
• Strategic Area
• Project Feature(s)

  What if the information inherited from the lead collaborative proposal project data form does not display correctly in my non-lead proposal project data form? 

If the inherited information from the lead collaborative proposal project data form does not display correctly in the non-lead project data form, try refreshing the page by clicking the Refresh button in your web browser, Ctrl + F5 (Windows), or Command + Option + R (Mac) to reload the page. After reloading the page, the inherited information from the lead proposal project data form should display in your non-lead proposal project data form.

  Can a linked non-lead collaborative proposal be submitted before the lead collaborative proposal has entered in all data in the project data form? 

Yes. If the non-lead organization has provided the required data that the non-lead is responsible to provide in the project data form, the non-lead will be able to submit their proposal but it will be held in a submission pending queue until all proposals in the collaboration have been submitted. The information will be inherited in the non-lead proposal project data form after the lead organization provides data in each of the project data form sections.

  If a proposal file update is submitted for a lead collaborative proposal and changes have been made in the project data form, will the linked non-lead proposal(s) automatically inherit the updates in their project data form(s)? 

Yes. Proposal file updates made in the lead proposal project data form will be automatically inherited in the project data form for all non-lead proposals in the collaboration.

Single Copy Documents

  What are Single Copy documents? 

Certain categories of information submitted in conjunction with a proposal are for "NSF Use Only" and not provided to reviewers for use in the review of the proposal. Single Copy Documents include: Collaborators and Other Affiliations Information, Proprietary or Privileged Information, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, Nature of Natural or Anthropogenic Event, Deviation Authorization, and Additional Single Copy Documents. Please see PAPPG, Chapter II.D.1.    for additional information about Single Copy Documents.

  How do I access the upload sections for Single Copy Documents such as Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, Proprietary or Privileged Information and Special Exception to the Deadline Date Policy?

Navigate to the proposal Cover Sheet and select the checkbox for the Single Copy Document you would like to add to your proposal and then save the Cover Sheet. At the top of the saved Cover Sheet, you will see a blue information message with a link to the added Single Copy Document upload section. Additionally, if you scroll down to the Other Information section of the Cover Sheet, you will see a clickable link below the checkbox you selected, and this link will also navigate you to the associated upload screen for the specified Single Copy Document.

  What is a Deviation Authorization and how do I include one in my proposal? 

A Deviation Authorization permits the proposer exceptions to the PAPPG standard proposal preparation requirements, per PAPPG Chapter II.A.1  . On the Deviation Authorization text entry screen, the proposer can provide either the program solicitation number or the name and title of the NSF official who authorized the deviation and the date of the authorization.

  What is a Proprietary or Privileged Information document and when should it be included in my proposal?

Patentable ideas, trade secrets, privileged or confidential commercial or financial information, disclosure of which may harm the proposer, should be included in proposals only when such information is necessary to convey an understanding of the proposed project. The checkbox for Proprietary or Privileged Information must be checked on the Cover Sheet when the proposal contains such information. While NSF will make every effort to prevent unauthorized access to such material, the Foundation is not responsible or in any way liable for the release of such material. Such information may be included as a separate statement and must be submitted as a Single Copy Document. Please refer to PAPPG Chapter II.D.1.c   

  I have uploaded a Proprietary or Privileged Information document, but don't I see it in the print preview of my proposal?

A Proprietary or Privileged Information Single Copy Document is not included as part of the printed proposal (or on the print preview screen) and is not shared with reviewers. This Single Copy Document can only be seen in the official system of record after proposal submission.

  What is a Disclosure of Lobbying Activities document and when should it be included in my proposal? 

The checkbox for Disclosure of Lobbying Activities must be checked on the Cover Sheet if, pursuant to the Lobbying certification provided in the System for Award Management (SAM), submission of the Form SF LLL is required. The SF LLL form can be downloaded from the Disclosure of Lobbying Activities upload screen. For more information, refer to PAPPG Chapter I.G.2.    and PAPPG Chapter II.D.1.d.   

  What is the Special Exception to the Deadline Date Policy checkbox and when should it be used? 

In the case of a natural or anthropogenic event, or other reason that interferes with an organization's ability to meet a proposal submission deadline, proposers are instructed to check the Special Exception to the Deadline Date Policy checkbox on the NSF Cover Sheet and, if available, upload written approval from the cognizant NSF Program Officer. Note that checking this box and uploading a Nature of Natural or Anthropogenic Event document will allow the proposer to submit the proposal after the listed deadline date, but acceptance is still at the discretion of the Program Officer. Please see PAPPG Chapter I.F.3.    for more information.

  I have uploaded a Nature of Natural or Anthropogenic Event document but why don't I see it in the print preview of my proposal?

A Nature of Natural or Anthropogenic Event Single Copy Document is not included as part of the printed proposal (or on the print preview screen) and is not shared with reviewers. This Single Copy Document can only be seen in the official system of record after proposal submission.

  Can a Special Exception to the Deadline Date be added as part of a proposal file update (PFU)/budget revision? 

No, a special exception to the deadline date and the corresponding Nature of Natural or Anthropogenic Event Single Copy Document must be added prior to proposal submission. The Nature of Natural or Anthropogenic document can be viewed when executing a proposal file update (PFU)/budget revision but cannot be added through this mechanism after a proposal has been submitted.

  When is the Additional Single Copy Documents Category Used?

Other Single Copy Documents that are seen only by NSF and not included in the proposal seen by reviewers should be uploaded as Additional Single Copy Documents and include:

• AOR designation of a substitute negotiator
• Other documents as specified in the relevant funding opportunity
• Documents without their own separate section

  When is a Postdoctoral Mentoring Plan required and will the lead organization be notified if requested funding for a postdoctoral scholar(s) is added to a non-lead proposal or a preliminary proposal?

For a separately submitted collaborative full proposal, a Postdoctoral Mentoring Plan is required as part of a lead organization separately submitted collaborative proposal when funds are requested for postdoctoral scholars in the lead organization proposal budget or in a linked non-lead organization proposal budget. Refer to the program solicitation for separately submitted collaborative preliminary proposal requirements related to the Postdoctoral Mentoring Plan

The lead organization's PI, co-PI, and OAU will receive an email notifying them when requested funding for postdoctoral scholars is added for the first time or is removed entirely from the collaborative proposal set.

  When is a Postdoctoral Mentoring Plan required for a single submission full proposal with subaward or preliminary proposal?

For full single submission collaborative proposals (i.e., single submission proposal with subaward), a Postdoctoral Mentoring Plan is required when funds are requested for postdoctoral scholars in any of the proposal's budgets. Refer to the program solicitation for separately submitted collaborative preliminary proposal requirements related to the Postdoctoral Mentoring Plan.

In Progress Proposal Statuses

  = Has access

Submitted Proposal Statuses

Proposal file update/budget revision statuses.

Demo Site FAQs  

  What are the benefits of using the Research.gov proposal preparation demo site? 

The proposal preparation demo site provides the research community an opportunity to initiate and edit proposals as well as check compliance of uploaded proposal documents (e.g., Collaborators and Other Affiliations and Biographical Sketch) before preparing proposals in the actual Research.gov Proposal Submission System. The demo site also is accessible by NSF staff.

  What can users do in the proposal preparation demo site? 

All demo site users are able to perform the proposal preparation functions that a PI is able to perform in the actual Research.gov Proposal Submission System, such as initiating and editing proposals, uploading proposal documents, and adding budgets. The demo site does not support proposal submission and will not trigger any system-generated email notifications (e.g., link requests for separately submitted collaborative proposals).

Note that demo site proposals are not available in the actual Research.gov Proposal Submission System, and information cannot be transferred between the demo site and the actual Research.gov Proposal Submission System.

  How do I provide feedback about the proposal preparation demo site? 

The Give Feedback button is displayed on all demo site proposal pages for proposals created in the demo site. When this button is clicked, a new browser tab will open and displays the Research.gov Feedback page. Select the Proposal Preparation Demo Site option under Site Area to submit feedback about the demo site. Demo site feedback from users will help NSF improve the site, as well as identify potential enhancements to improve the user experience when preparing proposals in the Research.gov Proposal Submission System.

  How does the research community access the proposal preparation demo site?

External users can access the demo site by following these steps:

• Navigate to Research.gov .
• Click "Sign In" located at the top right of the Research.gov page.
• Sign in to Research.gov using your primary email address, NSF ID, your organization-issued credentials, or Login.gov credentials. (Note: Only InCommon Federation participants can use their organization-issued credentials to sign in to Research.gov. If you are signing in with your organization-issued credentials, you will be prompted to link your credentials to your NSF ID if they are not already linked. If you are signing in with Login.gov credentials, you will be prompted to link your credentials to your NSF ID if they are not already linked.)
• From the top menu bar, select Prepare and Submit Proposals, then select Demo Site: Prepare Proposals.
• From the tiles on the page, select the Prepare and Submit Proposals tile, then select Demo Site: Prepare Proposals.

  How do I access the demo site if I am a new researcher and don't have an NSF ID? 

You will first need to create an NSF account and obtain an NSF ID by clicking Register on the Research.gov homepage to be able to access the demo site. View the Register for a New NSF Account video tutorial for a walk-through of steps. Additional information about creating an NSF account is available on the Research.gov About Account Management page . Users with an existing NSF account (i.e., nine-digit NSF ID) will use that account to access the demo site. After signing in to Research.gov, you will land on the homepage, where there are two ways to access the demo site.

  I signed in to Research.gov with my NSF ID but I'm not affiliated with an organization and I don't have any user role(s). Will this be an issue in accessing the demo site?

No, you are able to access the demo site if you have an NSF ID and can sign in to Research.gov. All demo site users are given the PI role for demo site use only and are not required to obtain a special user role to access the demo site. All demo users have the National Science Foundation as their organization for purposes of the demo site. The demo site PI role will not be available in the user's NSF account profile for use on the actual Research.gov Proposal Submission System.

  Will any of my user roles or affiliated organization(s) that I have in my NSF account profile be available to me in the demo site? 

The organization(s) that you are affiliated with in your NSF account profile will be incorporated when you are in the proposal preparation demo site, but the user role(s) that you have will not be available in the demo site. All users who access the demo site are given the role of PI, and unaffiliated users including NSF staff will be assigned National Science Foundation as their organization. Users with an affiliated organization in their NSF account profile will have that organization and the NSF organization incorporated in the demo site. All affiliated organizations will be included if the user is affiliated with multiple organizations.

  What user roles are supported in the proposal preparation demo site?

All demo site users have the PI role and can perform the same PI functions as in the actual Research.gov Proposal Submission System. The Proposed Postdoctoral Fellow role must be specifically added to prepare a postdoctoral fellowship proposal in the demo site. The demo site does not include the OAU, SPO or AOR roles.

  If I add a co-PI or OAU to a proposal by entering the individual's NSF ID in the demo site, will they be able to access the proposal if they sign into the demo site?

Yes. Any individual added to a demo proposal as a co-PI or OAU by entering the individual's NSF ID will be able to access that proposal in the demo site via the In Progress Proposals section on the Proposal Preparation demo site homepage. The permissions and available functions for the co-PI and OAU in the demo site are identical to the permissions and available functions for the co-PI and OAU in the actual Research.gov Proposal Submission System.

  If I share proposal access (i.e., view, edit, and/or submit) with an SPO/AOR on the demo site, will the SPO/AOR be able to view, edit, and/or submit the proposal?

No. All demo site users have the PI role and can perform the same PI functions as in the actual Research.gov Proposal Submission System. You will be able to go through the process of sharing proposal access (view, edit and/or submit) with the SPO/AOR, but the SPO/AOR will not be able to view, edit, and/or submit the proposal since SPO and AOR roles and proposal submission are not supported in the demo site. In addition, no system-generated email notifications will be created or sent to the SPO/AOR in the demo site.

  How do I prepare a postdoctoral fellowship proposal in the demo site?

You must first have the Proposed Postdoctoral Fellow role to initiate a postdoctoral fellowship proposal in the demo site. A Proposed Postdoctoral Fellow role is different than a PI role. Postdoctoral fellowship funding opportunities will only display and be available for selection for users preparing the proposal as a Proposed Postdoctoral Fellow.

After signing in to the Research.gov proposal preparation demo site, a message box will display with demo site information. From within the message box, click the 'Add a New Role' hyperlink. Proceed to complete the required information as appropriate. Once the Proposed Postdoctoral Fellow role has been added, allow up to 60 minutes for the system to process the request. Then you will need to sign out of Research.gov and sign back in again before initiating and preparing a postdoctoral fellowship proposal.

  Will I be able to add real subaward organization(s) in a demo site proposal?

Yes. You can add real subaward organization(s) to any proposal that’s created in the demo site. However, no system-generated email notifications will be created or sent to personnel affiliated to the subaward organization(s) when their organizations are added to your demo proposal.

  Are system-generated email notifications going to be sent as a result of performing certain actions in the demo site?

No. All system-generated email notifications are disabled in the demo site.

  Why can't I submit proposals in the demo site?

The proposal preparation demo site currently only supports the initiation, preparation, and editing of non-collaborative and collaborative proposals.

  How long will my demo proposal be available in the demo site? 

Proposals created in the demo site will be available for six months and then will be deleted by NSF. Neither NSF nor users will be able to access deleted demo proposal data. If your demo proposal was created within the previous six months and your proposal data is not visible, please contact the NSF IT Service Desk at 1-800-381-1532 (7:00 AM - 9:00 PM ET; Monday - Friday except federal holidays) or via  [email protected] for assistance.

  Are proposal compliance checks enabled in the demo site?

Yes. All compliance checks that are enabled in the actual Research.gov Proposal Submission System will also apply to proposals in the demo site. The demo site can be used to check compliance of uploaded proposal documents (e.g., Collaborators and Other Affiliations and Biographical Sketch). Refer to the Automated Compliance Checking of NSF Proposals    page for the current automated proposal checks.

  Are all proposal types and submission types available on the demo site? 

Yes, all proposal types and submission types in the actual Research.gov Proposal Submission System are also in the demo site. The demo site is a replica of the actual system. View the Proposal Submission Capabilities for details.

  Does the proposal data I create in the demo site appear or transfer into the actual Research.gov Proposal Submission System?

No. Proposal data created in the demo site will not be displayed in and cannot be transferred to the actual Research.gov Proposal Submission System. Proposal data created in the demo site is only available in the demo site.

  Will other users in the demo site be able to see the proposals I create in the demo site?

The only time other users will be able to view or edit any proposals that you create in the demo site is if you add them to the proposal as a co-PI or OAU by entering their NSF ID. If you don't add any users to the proposal, no one will else will be able to access, view, or edit your demo proposal.

  Can I link lead and non-lead proposals that are created in the demo site to lead and non-lead proposals in the actual Research.gov Proposal Submission System?

No. If you attempt to link a lead/non-lead proposal created in the demo site to a lead/non-lead proposal that was created in the actual Research.gov Proposal Submission System, you will receive an error and will not be able to link the proposals together. You are only able to link lead and non-lead proposals together that were created in the demo site and that are affiliated with different organizations.

Please click the following links to view videos which provide assistance with using functionality in the application:

  How to Manage Personnel and Senior Personnel Documents (3:01 minutes)

  How to Work on a Proposal Budget (2:30 minutes)

  How to Upload a Collaborators and Other Affiliations Document (1:34 minutes)

Research.gov Proposal Demo (16:58 minutes)

• Setting up a proposal
• Uploading a document and compliance messaging
• Preparing proposal file update (PFU)/budget revisions

  Research.gov Proposal Demo (22:49 minutes) 

• Preparing a letter of intent
• Preliminary proposal and accomplishment-based renewal proposal submission types
• Conference, Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry (GOALI), and Planning proposal types

  Initiating a New Proposal

  Adding or Removing a co-PI and Other Senior Personnel

  Swapping PIs and co-PIs from Same Organization

  Adding or Removing an OAU

  Sharing Proposal and Proposal File Update/Budget Revision Access with SPO/AOR

  Entering Proposal Budgets

  Adding or Removing Subaward Organizations

  Adding or Removing Collaborators and Other Affiliations

  Deleting an In Progress Letter of Intent, Proposal, or Proposal File Update/Budget Revision

  Submitting Letters of Intent and Proposals

  Preparing Proposal File Updates

  Preparing Budget Revisions

  Submitting Proposal File Updates/Budget Revisions

  Preparing Updated Current and Pending (Other) Support

  Grants.gov Proposal Processing in Research.gov

  Postdoctoral Fellowship Reference Letter Submission (MSPRF and PRFB only)

NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG)

FAQs on Proposal Preparation and Award Administration Related to the PAPPG

NSF Biographical Sketch and Current and Pending (Other) Support pages

Automated Compliance Checking of NSF Proposals page

FastLane Decommissioning page

Grants.gov Proposal Processing in Research.gov page

Research.gov About Account Management page

Research.gov Account Management – Reviewer page

Research.gov About Proposal Preparation and Submission page

Research.gov Research.gov About Supplemental Funding Request Preparation and Submission page

Research.gov Proposal Preparation Demo Site (User prompted to sign into Research.gov if not already signed in)

Research.gov Supplemental Funding Request Demo Site (User prompted to sign into Research.gov if not already signed in)

Resources for LaTeX Users: https://github.com/nsf-open/nsf-proposal-latex-samples

SciENcv: Science Experts Network Curriculum Vitae

• Office of Sponsored Programs
• Prepare Proposals

Guide to Proposal Preparation

The Guide for Proposal Preparation provides a general overview for faculty and staff preparing a proposal for funding. The guide covers the following topics:

Preparing your Proposal

Sponsoring agencies generally have guidelines for proposal preparation. In an Request For Quote, Request For Proposal, or other type of formal request, these guidelines can be very detailed with specific forms required to accompany proposal text. Often there are limitations for page length, type size, title length, or supporting documents.

When no guidelines are provided, there are some general rules of thumb to follow. A cover page should always accompany the  proposal.  It should include space for approval signatures for Penn State and a list of items such as title, PI(s) name(s), submitting department, unit or campus, funding request, and performance period.

Page numbers are essential and a table of contents is helpful to the reviewers.

An abstract accompanying the proposal should be both concise and complete. Agencies often use abstracts in their annual reports.

The proposal text should include a clear statement of the project goals and objectives as well as a description of the proposed work. Preliminary studies or those by other investigators should be summarized. Care should be taken in the text to explain the need for unusual or large expenses such as equipment, special travel or use of facilities. References should be included and, when necessary, a full bibliography.

The budget is often reviewed separately from the proposal. Provide  budget notes  detailing the use of all funds requested, and identify the role of each person (including staff support) included in the project budget. This provides an opportunity to justify the funds requested.

Gifts, Grants, Cooperative Agreements and Contracts

GIFTS  to the University support broad faculty activities. Three general features of gifts include:

• No deliverables are required from the activities supported
• No formal technical reports are required
• No formal financial reports are required

GRANTS  are made to the University on behalf of faculty to perform a specific project. The sponsor generally supports the project as outlined in a proposal. Grant characteristics include:

• Project usually has stated goals and objectives
• The sponsor has expectations about how the funds will be spent
• Grant deliverables may include formal project reports
• A financial report is required

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS   are agreements in which the Federal Government provides funding or a thing of value authorized by public statue and the government plays a substantial role.

A cooperative agreement is a form of assistance.  It reflects a relationship between the US Government and a recipient.  Cooperative Agreements are used when the government's purpose is to assist the intermediary in providing goods or services to the authorized recipient rather than to acquire an intermediary's services, which may ultimately be delivered to a recipient. 

CONTRACTS  are the most formal type of award made to the University.  Under a contract, the sponsor supports clearly defined activities. Contract characteristics include:

• Specific deliverables are stipulated
• Project performance is monitored by the sponsor
• Technical reports are required
• Detailed financial reports are required

All four types of awards must be reviewed by authorized University officials to ensure that Penn State will be able to comply with any sponsor-imposed terms and conditions.

Please review Policy RA04 for futher information regarding gifts, grants and contracts from private sources. 

Estimating your Budget

SALARY  compensation should be based on the percent of time the PSU employee will spend on the project.

• Example:  monthly salary rate x %  of effort x no. of months ($5,000 x 10% x 1 month =$500)

 If the project is multi-year, include the University approved inflation factor beginning each July 1 (some federal agencies require special justification for annual increases in excess of the current inflation factor for multi-year). Salary requests for non-University people should be listed under the category of “Purchased Services” or “Consultants.”

HOURS  and/or hourly rates are occasionally a requirement for proposals.  Always  include the following note when reporting hours and/or rates:

"HOURS – The estimate of hours and/or hourly rates are furnished solely for the purpose of this proposal. It is understood that the University will not be required to maintain a record of hours of effort under any resultant award."

A similar note should be included in proposals that require a cost by task or project breakdown.

FRINGE BENEFITS  are expenses directly associated with employment and are applicable to  all  University salaries and wages. The  rate summary sheet  contains all the current rates. If required by the sponsor, a more  detailed breakdown  can be supplied. Some sponsors also may request a copy of the  current Fringe Benefits Rate Agreement .

FACILITIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS

(F&A) are expenses essential to the conduct of sponsored activities but which cannot be readily attributed and direct charged to specific individual projects. F&A costs are calculated based on the project’s Modified Total Direct Cost (MTDC). To calculate MTDC, use the following formula:

MTDC = Total Direct Costs, Excluding:

• Graduate Assistant Tuition Remission
• Portion of each subcontract/subaward over $25,000 (regardless of period)
• Equipment Purchases (life > 2 yrs. and costing over $5,000)
• Plant Construction
• Building Amortization
• Rental Costs
• Scholarships and Fellowships

Industrial proposals without federal flow through funds have an additional 5% added to the current F&A rate.

Graduate Assistant Tuition Rates can be found on the  rates summary sheet .  Graduate Stipend rates can be found in GURU.

Current F&A rates can be found on the rate summary sheet  and the current F&A rate agreement can be found  here.

All budgets should contain a budget justification using the standard PSU  Budget Notes .

Processing Your Award

NEGOTIATIONS

All awards received by faculty as members of Penn State are actually made to the University on the individual’s behalf. Penn State assumes all financial responsibility and guarantees that the project will be completed.

First, the Office of Sponsored Projects (OSP) receives notification that the sponsor wishes to support the project. OSP enters into formal negotiations with the sponsor by reviewing the award's terms and conditions. After all parties agree upon the contract’s content, the University accepts the award.

Funds are not released to the University until after the project’s official start date is established. This date is predicated upon acceptance of all terms of the award by both parties.

Grant start dates are set by the sponsor in the award. Contracts are not as predictable since in some cases the start date is specified before both parties sign and in others it is determined by the final signature date. The final signatory may be the University or the sponsor, depending on the contract.

FUND NUMBERS

Once the start date is determined, the College/Unit/ FO requests a fund number from Research Accounting. Project expenditures are processed using this assigned unique code which identifies the correct fund.

SUBCONTRACTS/SUBAWARDS

If a subcontract is included in the project, the College/Unit must submit  a  Subcontract/Subaward Request Form  to OSP. OSP will then prepare a subcontract or subaward between Penn State and the third party with applicable terms and conditions.

EXPENDITURES

The PI, with the cooperation of the appropriate Finance Office, manages award funds and initiates all expenditures. The Research Accounting Office monitors expenses and submits any invoices and official financial reports to the sponsor as required.

For some sponsors, the PI will need to expend funds before the award process is completed. In these cases, your College/Unit/FO can generate an Advance Fund Number prior to an award’s acceptance if there is a solid commitment from the sponsor. The College/Unit assumes all risk in covering advance fund number expenditures should the award never become fully executed.

INVESTIGATOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES

The PI must maintain contact with the sponsor’s technical monitor and comply with all technical reporting requirements. The PI must also initiate correspondence with the sponsor’s administrative or contract monitor to request programmatic or budgetary changes. All such requested revisions should be routed through OSP for appropriate approval signatures.

Call for Proposals: Revitalizing STEM education to equip next generations with STEM Competency (Extended deadline: 12 May 2024)

The 15-month project aims to create innovative educational solutions, to increase institutional and professional capabilities, and share knowledge and best practices at both regional and global levels. The project will identify innovative proposals composed of STEM Research Activities and STEM Educational Activities presented by applicant teams. After 6 months of implementation, project teams will be invited to co-create and consolidate results to co-develop a STEM education knowledge hub and a regional inventory of STEM educational resources.

A supervisory board will select up to 5 promising proposals. Project proposals will need to consider national and local STEM educational landscapes and coordinate with relevant stakeholders. Selected teams will receive funding from the project of a total of up to 26,000 USD to implement their innovative STEM education projects within a 6-month period. 

The selected project teams will have the opportunity to share results, best practices, methodologies, and lessons learnt. The generated knowledge will then be scaled up within and across the region.

Each proposal will include both STEM Research Activities and STEM Educational Activities, whose implementation will be executed by project teams in close collaboration with UNESCO.

For STEM Research Activities , the research should focus on one of the following domains:

• Correlation between investments in STEM and educational outcomes
• Female participation in STEM education
• Flexible teaching and learning models and inclusive approaches
• Technologies development and application in STEM education in schools
• Effectiveness of the educational system to deliver STEM education
• National ecosystems and policies for STEM education

For STEM Educational Activities , the activities should relate to one of the following modalities:

• STEM teaching and learning activities for students
• Strengthening teacher development and inclusive STEM pedagogies

Educational agencies, universities, research agencies, independent experts, NGOs, and schools from UNESCO Member States in Europe  (with a priority focus on South-East Europe and the Mediterranean) are all eligible applicants. 

Interested applicants are requested to submit all documents to [email protected] by 12 May 2024 by 23:59 (CET). Applicants may direct questions related to the preparation of the application to the same email address.

For more details on the selection criteria and supporting documents, please download the attached “Call for Proposals” and “Application Form”.

Related items

• Natural sciences
• Basic sciences
• Science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)
• Region: Europe and North America
• SDG: SDG 4 - Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all
• SDG: SDG 9 - Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation
• See more add

This article is related to the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals .

More on this subject

Other recent articles

Article Call for written proposals for a work assignment with UNESCO Office in Dar es Salaam 23 April 2024

EU Health Data Space: more efficient treatments and life-saving research  

Share this page:  .

• Facebook  
• Twitter  
• LinkedIn  
• WhatsApp  
• Citizens will have access across the EU to an electronic health record containing prescriptions, imagery and lab tests  
• Anonymised health data to be shared for research e.g. into rare diseases  
• Strong privacy safeguards governing how and for what purpose sensitive data are shared  

MEPs approved the creation of a European Health Data Space, improving citizens’ access to their personal health data and boosting secure sharing in the public interest.

On Wednesday, MEPs voted with 445 in favour and 142 against (39 abstentions) to approve the inter-institutional agreement on establishing a European Health Data Space. It will empower patients to access their health data in an electronic format, including from a different member state to the one in which they live, and allow health professionals to consult their patients’ files with their consent (so-called primary use), also from other EU countries. These electronic health records (EHR) would include patient summaries, electronic prescriptions, medical imagery and laboratory results.

The law will make it possible to transfer health data safely to health professionals in other EU countries (based on MyHealth@EU infrastructure), for example when citizens move to another state. It will be possible to download the health record free of charge.

Data-sharing for the common good with safeguards

Additionally, the Health Data Space would unleash the research potential of health data in an anonymised or pseudonymised format. Data including health records, clinical trials, pathogens, health claims and reimbursements, genetic data, public health registry information, wellness data and information on healthcare resources, expenditure and financing, could be processed for public interest purposes, including research, statistics and policy-making (so-called secondary use). Data could, for example, be used to find treatments for rare diseases, where small datasets and fragmentation currently prevent advances in treatments.

Secondary use will not be allowed for commercial purposes including advertising, assessing insurance requests or lending conditions or making job market decisions. Access decisions will be made by national data access bodies.

Robust privacy safeguards

The law ensures people will have a say in how their data are used and accessed. Patients will be able to refuse their health data being accessed by practitioners (except where this is necessary for protecting the vital interests of the data subject or another person) or processed for research purposes, apart from certain public-interest, policy-making or statistical purposes. Patients will also have to be informed each time their data are accessed, and will have the right to request corrections to incorrect data.

Tomislav Sokol (EPP, Croatia), Environment Committee co-rapporteur, said: "The Health Data Space can help us to leverage the data we have in a safe and secure manner, giving vital research into new treatments a major boost. It will prevent gaps in treatment by making sure health professional can access their patients’ records across borders. At the same time, opt-outs will ensure that patients have a say, and that the system is trustworthy. It will be a major step forward for digital healthcare in the EU."

Annalisa Tardino (ID, Italy), Civil Liberties Committee co-rapporteur, said: “The Health Data Space will boost everyone's access to healthcare. In future, doctors can be authorised to access their patients’ health records and laboratory results in other regions, or even other EU member states, saving money, resources and providing better cures. We also secured opt-outs to ensure that patients have a say in how their data are used. Although we would have preferred even stronger measures, we were able to find a position that can be accepted by a majority."

The provisional agreement still needs to be formally approved by the Council. Once published in the EU’s Official Journal, it will enter into force twenty days later. It will be applied two years after, with certain exceptions, including primary and secondary use of data categories, which will apply four to six years later, depending on the category..

By adopting the law, Parliament is responding to the demands of citizens put forward in the conclusions of the Conference of the Future of Europe. These include proposal 8(1), which explicitly recommended the creation of a health data space to facilitate exchanges, and proposals 35(7) and 35(8) on data and artificial intelligence.

Contacts:  

Janne ojamo  .

• Phone number: (+32) 2 284 12 50 (BXL)  
• Mobile number: (+32) 470 89 21 92  
• E-mail: [email protected]  
• E-mail: [email protected]  
• Twitter account: @EP_Justice  

Dana POPP  

• Phone number: (+32) 2 28 46330 (BXL)  
• Mobile number: (+32) 470 95 17 07  
• E-mail: [email protected]  
• E-mail: [email protected]  
• Twitter account: @EP_Environment  

Further information  

• Agreed text  
• Procedure file  
• EP Research Service briefing  
• Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety  
• Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs  

Product information  

Coding Careers and Accelerating Research

Discover how Open Source with SLU , a grant-funded initiative in Saint Louis University’s Department of Computer Science , is enhancing research efforts across the University and preparing students to enter today’s workforce with professional software development experience.

We can all recall a time when we brought an assignment home from school. Sometimes, it would take us hours, and other times, only minutes to complete before moving on to the next thing on our to-do list. This whole mentality — checking assignments off a to-do list like a routine — was something that bothered Kate Holdener, Ph.D. , and assistant professor of computer science, when she considered her courses at Saint Louis University. 

“What bothered me about [course] projects is that they were kind of toy projects or throw-away work,” Holdener said. “Students did the work, but it was not going to be used by anyone seriously or be maintained afterward. This felt like a waste because we have so many talented students that could be building something more useful.”

Holdener is a professional software engineer specializing in software engineering, software development, and evolutionary algorithms. In early 2022, she received a two-year grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to create a center that would engage graduate and undergraduate students in open-source software development for SLU research projects. She founded the program called Open Source with SLU.

“I wanted to give students a more realistic environment for software development and also support the faculty that are doing research at SLU,” Holdener said.

“This grant opportunity was looking to support various initiatives that help train a better workforce in open source because it is one of the reasons we have such rapid technological advancement [today]," she said.

Software in the Open

For every piece of technology or automation, a piece of source code is needed to make it function. Once it is ready for release, the creator of the code must answer an essential question: Will the code be closed or open to the public?

The difference between closed and open-source code is in the name itself: It’s either open or closed to public visibility and modification. Open source allows anyone to adjust the code and collaborate to improve performance. It’s a critical learning opportunity for students interested in computer science.

Holdener explained that using open source has an added benefit on university campuses where students' availability and involvement may change from semester to semester.

“We don’t have to reinvent,” she said. “Instead of writing the code from scratch [each semester], we’ll use a library, put code together, and write our own code from there.”

Open Source with SLU gives participating students practical software development experience and helps researchers with their custom software needs. Holdener structured the program to allow SLU researchers to submit a formal request for a software project, and then graduate students lead a team of undergraduate students to execute the work. Graduate students are hired to take on the role of a senior developer, overseeing all stages of the project and checking in with undergraduate developers along the way.

The program has a collaborative atmosphere. Students must develop an actionable plan that includes designing, prototyping, testing and showcasing their work to their clients — much like a corporate software development team. Yet, the greatest takeaway for students is that their capstone project can now be used as professional experience in a job interview.

“Students make contributions to these projects, and all those contributions are visible to anybody,” Holdener said. “As a potential employer, I can go and look at your profile and see these are the things you have worked on and these are the lines of code you wrote. It gives [students] a concrete foundation and proof of what they worked on."

Purpose-Driven Projects

In its first year of operation, Open Source with SLU has contributed to research projects on campus and in the St. Louis community. While each project is research-driven, they are also purpose-driven, developing software that will benefit humanity in the long term. This supports the program’s three learning outcomes that guide student work on their projects — experience, service and promotion.

Daniel Shown, program director for Open Source with SLU, explained that students are able to achieve these goals and gain professional experience as they support research that is interesting or valuable to them.     “First, we are trying to give students real-world software development experience,” he said. “Something more like what they will experience when they are out in the world and less like a class assignment. Second, we are building software that supports research, so we pick clients from across the University who are doing research. The third thing we are trying to do is promote and be a center of gravity for open-source software development and broader conversations about open scholarship on campus.”

At the time of this publication, the program is working on over 13 capstone projects that contribute to research in fields such as mathematics, statistics, chemistry, theology, history and community improvement. One community improvement project includes their recent work with an application that simplifies the process of volunteering at local homeless shelters. This project is in partnership with House Everyone STL.

“This project is a website, where volunteers can easily sign up for shifts at homeless shelters,” said Logan Wyas, SLU graduate student and developer on the project. “It has the ability to make a big impact on our world.”

The application will allow volunteers to sign up, view which shelters have open volunteer shifts, and give shelters the ability to see who is on their schedule. For students, it is the opportunity to address real-world problems in research or the local community that most excites them. When they see the skills they’ve learned in the classroom give them the power to improve the world around them, it makes the work all the more meaningful.

Another mission-driven project is called the Lived Religion Project, which wanted a digital platform that would share media and notes about people’s respective encounters with religion in their everyday life.

“Dr. Adam Parks does research in ethnography, which is how people live, and he is specifically focused on religion and the different ways people experience or engage in religion or religious artifacts,” Holdener said. “He needed a platform that would allow ethnographers to go out in the world, make notes on various religious artifacts, and come home to make more detailed notes after.”

This need developed into the idea for “Where’s Religion?” an application for both desktop and mobile that hosts a platform for collecting, organizing and sharing images, videos and sounds, along with textural notations sourced from a wide range of users. This collection of materials will not only give value to research stemming from history and religion, but also will provide a unique look at several viewpoints of American life.

Undergraduate student Massimo Evelti works on multiple projects within the program to further develop his skills, expand his knowledge of open source, and connect with classmates in a working environment. He said their roles as computer scientists and engineers within Open Source with SLU have an inherent capability to better the world now and into the future.

“Engineering is about creating things to help people, and many of these projects are for the betterment of society and its people,” Evelti said. “If one puts helping others as a priority, there will be plenty of moments to flourish in this field.”

Embracing a Collaborative Environment

Open Source with SLU requires a team effort, which is an expectation that not many of the students face in their other courses. Shown explained that the way scientists work across disciplines is more collaborative than ever, and  putting the open-source work out into the community benefits all.

Holdener built the program to foster a collaborative approach when working on open-source projects. Graduate and undergraduate students come together with their unique interests, varying experience levels, and personal skills to gain the experience they need to move into their careers beyond SLU.

Graduate student Yash Bhatia received his undergraduate degree in computer engineering in 2019 from Mumbai University in India before coming to SLU to obtain his master’s in computer science. He works at Open Source with SLU as a graduate assistant and tech lead for open-source projects, including the “Where’s Religion?” desktop and mobile applications.

Bhatia believes the program helps students gain valuable experience working in a team environment that will prepare students for a career after graduation.

“There are many students who come to the United States with no experience working on real projects or real-time group efforts, where a group leader shapes the team and helps them to become better developers,” Bhatia said. “Open Source with SLU is an excellent initiative that builds skills and makes students learn about different technologies.”

Holdener explained that the program gives students an edge in their resumes. She said most entry-level computer science positions require one to two years of experience, which makes it more challenging for a student entering the job market. This program presents a solution for students — helping them gain relevant and provable experience before entering an interview.

“Whether it's these projects or some other projects, [students] can claim some experience through it,” she said. “Also, it's not just the claim — it's something [they] can demonstrate. I tell my students to list and link their projects on their resume because it’s their development. We run this program in a professional manner just like any software development organization.”

Toward the Discovery of the New

Open Source with SLU is making an immediate impact with computer science students across campus, inviting them to dive into their chosen craft with vigor, innovation and creativity. However, it's not just for students who work in coding and engineering software, but also for students who may have an interest in learning about open-source software.

“A long-term goal for me is to involve students at different levels in the program, and not necessarily from just the computer science department,” Holdener said. “There’s many aspects to these projects that are less technical, and it could be a playground where all students can come, jump in and participate in projects.”

Current students encourage others to reach out and become involved in what projects pique their interest.

“This program is an amazing initiative,” Evelti said. “I highly recommend students to look through the projects, and if there is one that catches your eye, dive in and start with the easiest problem. From there, you will start to understand what you are good at and what you need to work on. The important thing is don’t be timid to ask for help and to finish a problem you have started!”

As Open Source with SLU continues to grow, Holdener is optimistic that this initiative is just the start of an impactful, flourishing open-source community at SLU.

“Students hear about this, and they’ll reach out to say ‘Hey, how do I get involved in this? I want to build up my skills and participate,” she said. “We’re seeing more of this now, and it is exciting to me.”

To learn more about the current projects or to submit a project request to Open Source with SLU, visit their website at https://oss-slu.github.io/ .

Story by Mary Pogue, senior copywriter, Paradigm .

This piece was written for the 2023 SLU Research Institute Annual Impact Report. The Impact Report is printed each spring to celebrate the successes of our researchers from the previous year and share the story of SLU's rise as a preeminent Jesuit research university. Design, photography, and some writing contributions are made by Paradigm . More information can be found here .

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Dear Colleague Letter: IUCRC Proposals for Research and Thought Leadership on Insurance Risk Modeling and Underwriting Related to Terrorism and Catastrophic Cyber Risks: A Joint NSF and U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Insurance Office Call

April 24, 2024

Dear Colleagues:

This Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) invites submission of proposals to the U.S. National Science Foundation's (NSF) Industry-University Cooperative Research Center (IUCRC) program to provide use-inspired research analysis and thought leadership on issues affecting the insurance sector's modeling and underwriting of terrorism and catastrophic cyber risks. The goal of this DCL is to stimulate research in areas that support the effective provision of insurance against terrorism and catastrophic cyber risks. Such research will, in turn, develop best practices and tools; assess policy reforms or solutions that could provide insurers, governments, and other stakeholders with new data; and develop improved modeling and underwriting tools, methodologies, and practices. The DCL is jointly sponsored by the U.S. Department of Treasury Federal Insurance Office (FIO) and the NSF's Directorates for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (TIP), Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE), and Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE).

In this partnership, NSF and FIO support their respective missions. NSF has a mission to promote the progress of science; advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; and secure the national defense. FIO has the authority to monitor all aspects of the insurance sector and administers the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program which provides a system of shared public and private compensation for insured losses resulting from acts of terrorism and ensures continued widespread availability and affordability of terrorism risk insurance. Further, as directed by the 2023 National Cybersecurity Strategy Implementation Plan and at the recommendation of the Government Accountability Office, FIO assesses the need for and possible structures of a federal insurance response to catastrophic cyber incidents. In support of these missions, this NSF/FIO partnership fosters collaboration between industry, academic teams, and the United States government to better predict and insure against the impacts of terrorism and catastrophic cyber risks. Achieving success will depend on cutting-edge scientific research, innovations in financial resilience, and the development of related tools, analytics, and other technologies.

Both terrorism events and catastrophic cyber incidents (whether terrorism related or not) present serious risks that share many common modeling and underwriting challenges. Challenges include the paucity of data for such events due to their historically low frequency of occurrence. The lack of historic event data limits the ability of insurers to predict future risk based upon past loss experience. In addition, both terrorism and catastrophic cyber risk present the potential for high losses because such events are commonly intentional and designed to maximize damage, resulting in significant potential insurer liability with impacts that can spread far beyond the initial target including cascading losses across broad geographic areas and business sectors.

These challenges hinder insurers' capabilities to adequately estimate financial exposure to terrorism and catastrophic cyber risk. The lack of accurate estimates, in turn, impedes insurers from fully underwriting these risks on a commercial basis (i.e., without a government backstop or other support).

NSF and FIO have an interest in supporting an IUCRC project that will focus on developing and refining terrorism and catastrophic cyber insurance modeling and underwriting with a view to strengthening the resilience of the United States' financial system. The objectives of the new IUCRC include: (1) helping insurers to estimate risk with greater certainty, thereby improving insurance pricing, coverage, and policyholder uptake; (2) contributing to the potential expansion of reinsurance and capital markets to help support these risks; and (3) informing the treatment of terrorism and catastrophic cyber risks in government programs.

PROJECT INFORMATION

IUCRC proposals in response to this DCL should be designed to bring together the insurance sector, academic teams, government, and other stakeholders to innovate and advance current terrorism and catastrophic cyber risk modeling and underwriting in support of the goals stated above. Teams responding to this call should conduct research on practice and policy reforms and/or solutions that provide insurers and other insurance industry stakeholders with improved or additional tools, data, and methodologies to increase their assumption of terrorism and cyber risk. Proposals should include plans to bolster the insurance sector's understanding of terrorism and catastrophic cyber risks by evaluating current modeling and underwriting practices and identifying data and issues that affect terrorism and catastrophic cyber risk perception and risk exposure within the United States.

IUCRC PROGRAM OVERVIEW

IUCRCs are powerful vehicles, developed by NSF, through which university faculty and students work with an industry consortium to carry out cutting-edge, use-inspired research focused on the collective needs of a sector of the U.S. economy. Information on IUCRCs, how they work, and other relevant information about them can be found on the IUCRC website: https://iucrc.nsf.gov/about/ and the IUCRC program solicitation: https://iucrc.nsf.gov/universities/solicitation/ .

To initiate an IUCRC, interested faculty teams at one or more universities should interview members of a targeted sector to: (1) identify the most important and high priority challenges facing the sector; (2) converge on a theme of high sector and university faculty interest; and (3) identify companies and other entities willing to participate in a center on the proposed topic.

The first formal step to forming an IUCRC is submitting an IUCRC Planning Grant proposal that demonstrates the interest of the private sector and other stakeholders in the proposed center. Planning Grant proposals or waivers of the planning grant process require submission of a preliminary proposal. If awarded, the proposal team receives funding to carry out industry sector discovery to refine their center research agenda and identifies potential center members willing to pay membership fees and join an industry advisory board for the center.

Investigators responding to this DCL with a Planning Grant proposal should use the following title format: "IUCRC: NSF/FIO: (title)."

A successful planning phase is followed by submission of a proposal for a Phase I IUCRC that has the potential to run for five years. After successful completion of Phase I, the center can compete for another 5 years (Phase II). During this time, center leadership and faculty continue to recruit dues paying members for their advisory board with the goal that, by the end of Phase II, the center is self-supporting without further federal investment.

SUBMISSION and AWARD INFORMATION

Planning Grant proposals or waivers of the planning grant process require submission of a preliminary proposal. Target dates for Planning Grant preliminary proposals are the second Wednesdays in September and March. Full proposal target dates are the second Wednesdays of December and June. See the NSF IUCRC solicitation for more details.

The review of submitted proposals to this DCL and any subsequent awards will be managed by NSF. NSF may share the identities of the Principal Investigator(s) (PI and Co-PI(s)) and the universities and industrial partners as well as the Project Summary of the proposed project and the unattributed reviews with FIO in order for the agencies to discuss and coordinate award funding. No other proposal documentation will be shared. As a funding partner of the IUCRC, FIO may also request access to data, software artifacts, and information provided by the PI if their proposal is awarded. Providing such access is at the sole discretion of the PI and is not a condition of an award.

FIO will be invited to post award meetings and discussions with recipients, as appropriate. FIO understands and acknowledges that the information about PIs, their proposal, and reviewers of such proposals is protected by the Privacy Act of 1974, and is to be treated as confidential.

POINTS OF CONTACT

Jeffrey Stanton - NSF/Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (TIP), ( [email protected] )

Mohan Kumar - NSF/Directorate for Computer and Information Science and Engineering ( [email protected] )

Andy DeSoto - NSF/Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences ( [email protected] )

Dr. Erwin Gianchandani Assistant Director for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (TIP) NSF

Dr. Dilma Da Silva Acting Assistant Director for Computer Information Science and Engineering (CISE) NSF

Dr. Kaye Husbands Fealing Assistant Director for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE) NSF

Steven Seitz Director FIO