Potential Reasons for NSF Proposals to be Returned Without Review

NSF sometimes returns proposals without review. The information below shows some common reasons / conditions for NSF to return proposals without review. (Some items may not be an issue depending on the NSF reviewer; however, many have previously been cited by NSF as reasons for proposals to be returned without review.) You are encouraged to conduct careful review of each of these items to ensure that your proposal can enter the review process.

Overall Proposal

• Is a duplicate of, or substantially similar to, one already under consideration by NSF from the same PI/co-PI’s
• Was previously reviewed and has not been substantially revised
• Is inappropriate for funding by the NSF
• Is submitted with insufficient lead-time before the proposed activity is scheduled to begin
• Is not responsive to the NSF Grant Proposal Guide or program announcement/solicitation
• Does not meet the announced proposal deadline date – either submitting after the deadline or submitting too early

Project Summary

• Contains special characters that have been converted to question marks or other characters while copying and pasting pre-prepared project summary into FastLane text boxes
• Contains more than 4,600 characters
• Is in first person
• Does not contain separately labeled sections for Overview, Intellectual Merit, and Broader Impacts

Project Description

• Does not include a section specifically titled “Broader Impacts of the Proposed Work”
• Does not include a section describing prior NSF support
  • Prior NSF support must be reported in the Project Description for each PI and co-PI (limited to 5 pages of the project description), including:
    NSF award number and Funding amount
    Time period
    Title
    Results of the completed work in two separate sections (with headings) for Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts
    Publications / products
    If renewal, relation of the completed work to the proposed work

References

• Does not include reference title
• Contains “et al.”, instead of listing the full names of all authors
• Does not list author names in the same sequence in which they appear in the publication
• Includes parenthetical information, footnotes or figures. This References section must contain citations only

Biosketches

• Does not include institution locations in the Professional Preparation section:
• Does not include a complete list of all authors of each publication (i.e., uses “et al.”, instead of listing full names of all authors) in the Products section
• Does not include publication titles in the Products section
• Exceeds the allowable number of publications and/or synergistic activities
• Combines multiple synergistic activities to appear as one
• Includes additional information other than the five required sections, such as awards and honors

Current & Pending

• Does not include the project you are applying for currently as “pending” with all appropriate fields completed per the NSF format

Budget

• Exceeds the maximum funding amount as outlined in program guidelines
  • Amounts must be realistic, reasonable, well-justified or consistent with program guidelines

Budget Justification

• Exceeds three pages per institution
• Does not contain detailed rates of pay by individual for senior personnel, postdoctoral associates, and other professionals

Cost Share

• Contains cost share
  • Cost share, unless required by the solicitation, is prohibited by NSF

Letters of Commitment

• Submits Letters of Commitment that go beyond just confirming collaborations
  • Letter of Commitment can only confirm a collaboration and not general support
  • Additional remarks about PI/co-PI’s past accomplishments or planned undertakings may not be included
• Contains general Letters of Support from individuals not mentioned in the proposal
  • Letters of support are not accepted by NSF, unless specifically requested in a program solicitation

Font Sizes

• Uses small font size and margins.
  • See Grant Proposal Guide for allowed size/margins