Print

Active funding opportunity

This document is the current version.

NSF 25-506: Geosciences Open Science Ecosystem (GEO OSE)

Program Solicitation

Document Information

Document History

Download the solicitation (PDF, 0.9mb)
View the program page

Program Solicitation NSF 25-506

NSF Logo

U.S. National Science Foundation

Directorate for Geosciences
     Division of Research, Innovation, Synergies, and Education

Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization's local time):

February 14, 2025

Track 1 only

November 14, 2025

Track 2 only

Important Information And Revision Notes

This solicitation supersedes NSF 23-534. Changes from the previous Geosciences Open Science Ecosystem (GEO OSE) solicitation include:

  1. The Synopsis, Introduction, Program Description, and Proposal Preparation Instructions have been revised to reflect updated program goals.
  2. Specific Requirements and associated Solicitation Specific Review Criteria have been updated.
  3. Anticipated award information and guidelines for funding tracks (Track 1 and Track 2) have been modified, including proposal deadlines, budget limits, and goals for each funding track.
  4. Eligibility Information has been updated. Please note that prospective proposers from Other Federal Agencies and Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), including NSF sponsored FFRDCs, must follow the guidance in PAPPG Chapter I.E.2(d) regarding limitations on eligibility.

Any proposal submitted in response to this solicitation should be submitted in accordance with the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) that is in effect for the relevant due date to which the proposal is being submitted. The NSF PAPPG is regularly revised and it is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that the proposal meets the requirements specified in this solicitation and the applicable version of the PAPPG. Submitting a proposal prior to a specified deadline does not negate this requirement.

Summary Of Program Requirements

General Information

Program Title:

Geosciences Open Science Ecosystem (GEO OSE)

Synopsis of Program:

The Geosciences Open Science Ecosystem (GEO OSE) program seeks to realize the benefits of open science practices toward advancing research and education in the geosciences. To achieve this vision, the GEO OSE program encourages efforts to foster adoption of open, inclusive, and equitable scientific practices across geoscience domains. The program supports development of innovative open science approaches that advance geosciences research and education through leveraging expanding information resources and computing capabilities. The program also supports initiatives to strengthen the capacity of current and future geoscientists to access, utilize, and collaborate within the growing ecosystem of open science resources.

GEO OSE projects may pursue a variety of activities to advance open science practices within the geosciences. This includes community/cohort building around defining a shared vision for open science and adopting open science practices within and across geoscience domains. It also includes development and implementation of open science approaches that accelerate geoscience research discovery via seamless workflows connecting data, software, physical collections, and computing. In addition, GEO OSE supports educational activities that instill open science practices and broaden adoption of cyberinfrastructure resources to reduce barriers to geoscience research and education.

Broadening Participation In STEM

NSF recognizes the unique lived experiences of individuals from communities that are underrepresented and/or under-served in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and the barriers to inclusion and access to STEM education and careers. NSF highly encourages the leadership, partnership, and contributions in all NSF opportunities of individuals who are members of such communities supported by NSF. This includes leading and designing STEM research and education proposals for funding; serving as peer reviewers, advisory committee members, and/or committee of visitor members; and serving as NSF leadership, program, and/or administrative staff. NSF also highly encourages demographically diverse institutions of higher education (IHEs) to lead, partner, and contribute to NSF opportunities on behalf of their research and education communities. NSF expects that all individuals, including those who are members of groups that are underrepresented and/or under-served in STEM, are treated equitably and inclusively in the Foundation's proposal and award process.

NSF encourages IHEs that enroll, educate, graduate, and employ individuals who are members of groups underrepresented and/or under-served in STEM education programs and careers to lead, partner, and contribute to NSF opportunities, including leading and designing STEM research and education proposals for funding. Such IHEs include, but may not be limited to, community colleges and two-year institutions, mission-based institutions such as Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), women's colleges, and institutions that primarily serve persons with disabilities, as well as institutions defined by enrollment such as Predominantly Undergraduate Institutions (PUIs), Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs), and Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs).

"Broadening participation in STEM" is the comprehensive phrase used by NSF to refer to the Foundation's goal of increasing the representation and diversity of individuals, organizations, and geographic regions that contribute to STEM teaching, research, and innovation. To broaden participation in STEM, it is necessary to address issues of equity, inclusion, and access in STEM education, training, and careers. Whereas all NSF programs might support broadening participation components, some programs primarily focus on supporting broadening participation research and projects. Examples can be found on the NSF Broadening Participation in STEM website.

Cognizant Program Officer(s):

Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

Applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number(s):

  • 47.050 --- Geosciences

Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award: Standard Grant or Continuing Grant

Estimated Number of Awards: 3 to 8

Estimated number of awards is the number of projects to be supported per competition. The actual number of awards will be determined based on the results of the merit review process and availability of funds.

Anticipated Funding Amount: $2,000,000 to $4,000,000

Anticipated funding amount is per competition. Estimated program budget, number of awards, and average award size/duration are subject to the availability of funds.

Eligibility Information

Who May Submit Proposals:

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:

  • Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) - Two- and four-year IHEs (including community colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in the US, acting on behalf of their faculty members. Special Instructions for International Branch Campuses of US IHEs: If the proposal includes funding to be provided to an international branch campus of a US institution of higher education (including through use of sub-awards and consultant arrangements), the proposer must explain the benefit(s) to the project of performance at the international branch campus, and justify why the project activities cannot be performed at the US campus.
  • Non-profit, non-academic organizations: Independent museums, observatories, research laboratories, professional societies and similar organizations located in the U.S. that are directly associated with educational or research activities.
  • Tribal Nations: An American Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges as a federally recognized tribe pursuant to the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. §§ 5130-5131.
  • Other Federal Agencies and Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs): Prospective proposers from Other Federal Agencies and Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), including NSF sponsored FFRDCs, must follow the guidance in PAPPG Chapter I.E.2(d) regarding limitations on eligibility.

Who May Serve as PI:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or co-PI:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

  • Letters of Intent: Not required
  • Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not required
  • Full Proposals:

B. Budgetary Information

  • Cost Sharing Requirements:

    Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

  • Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations:

    Not Applicable

  • Other Budgetary Limitations:

    Not Applicable

C. Due Dates

  • Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization's local time):

    February 14, 2025

    Track 1 only

    November 14, 2025

    Track 2 only

Proposal Review Information Criteria

Merit Review Criteria:

National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review criteria apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Award Administration Information

Award Conditions:

Additional award conditions apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Reporting Requirements:

Standard NSF reporting requirements apply.

I. Introduction

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) defines Open Science as the principle and practice of making research products and processes available to all, while respecting diverse cultures, maintaining security and privacy, and fostering collaborations, reproducibility, and equity. In 2023, OSTP launched the Year of Open Science, and agencies across the federal government announced initiatives to advance open, equitable, and secure research. This included the launch of NSF's new Geosciences Open Science Ecosystem (GEO OSE) program intended to advance open and equitable research in the geosciences. The GEO OSE program promotes many Year of Open Science themes, including Investing in Open Science Infrastructures, Supporting the Research Community in Building Open Science Skills, and Engaging Communities to Broaden Participation in Open Science.

In recent years, grassroots efforts within the scientific community have established foundational principles for open science. These principles include the FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable), the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, and Ethics), and the TRUST Principles for digital repositories (Transparency, Responsibility, User focus, Sustainability, and Technology), as well as Reproducibility and Replicability (see NSF 23-108, "Dear Colleague Letter: Reproducibility and Replicability in Science"). Many of these principles undergird NSF's Public Access Initiative, which seeks to ensure that the outputs of NSF-funded scientific research are made publicly available to the greatest extent possible to maximize scientific and societal impact. However, the pathway to translating these aspirational open science principles into everyday practices of geoscientists is not straightforward. For example, there are wide variations among geoscience research communities in perceptions of what it means for data to be FAIR. Many geoscience researchers want to practice open science, but they are not sure how to do so.

The NSF Directorate for Geosciences (GEO) is interested in supporting a suite of activities that foster open science practices through an ecosystem of accessible and interconnected cyberinfrastructure and collaborative approaches that maximize the openness and accessibility of research and education in the geosciences. As a part of this overarching goal, this Geosciences Open Science Ecosystem (GEO OSE) program solicitation specifically seeks to support open science planning, coordination, and capacity-building within and across geoscience domains. As one component of the Geosciences Cyberinfrastructure (GEO CI) Incubator within GEO's Division of Research, Innovation, Synergies, and Education (RISE), the GEO OSE program complements related NSF initiatives that contribute to advancing open science capabilities and practices in the geosciences. These include programs across GEO Divisions and Offices, in NSF's Office of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure (OAC), and in NSF's Directorate for Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (TIP). GEO OSE also complements open science efforts across federal agencies, including the USGS Community for Data Integration and NASA Transform to Open Science (TOPS) initiative, which are establishing open science communities of practice tied to their respective agency missions.

II. Program Description

This updated Geosciences Open Science Ecosystem (GEO OSE) program solicitation seeks to support efforts that foster open, inclusive, and equitable research practices and that leverage expanding information resources and computing capabilities to address interdisciplinary grand challenge research questions at the forefront of the geosciences. In this solicitation, "geosciences" refers to those research disciplines directly supported by the Geosciences Directorate at NSF, which includes the domains of atmospheric and geospace sciences, ocean sciences, Earth sciences, and polar sciences. Further details on the scientific topics that are supported in the geosciences can be found within descriptions of individual GEO programs (https://www.nsf.gov/funding/programs.jsp?org=GEO).

Priority goals for this GEO OSE solicitation are to:

  1. Develop and foster adoption of open, inclusive, and equitable research practices across geoscience domains informed by open science principles, including (but not limited to) the FAIR, CARE, and TRUST Principles, as well as Reproducibility and Replicability;
  2. advance transformational and innovative open science approaches that advance geosciences research and education by leveraging and building connections across the existing ecosystem of cyberinfrastructure resources, including data repositories, open-source software communities, and shared computing (e.g., high-performance and cloud computing);
  3. strengthen the capacity of current and future geoscientists to access, utilize, and collaborate within the growing ecosystem of open science resources, and to enable input and participation from the full spectrum of diverse talent that society has to offer which includes underrepresented and under-served communities.

To achieve these goals, this GEO OSE solicitation supports a variety of efforts to advance open science practices within the geosciences. This includes community/cohort building around defining a shared vision for open science and adopting open science practices within and across geoscience domains. It also includes development and implementation of open science approaches that accelerate geoscience research discovery via seamless workflows connecting data, software, physical collections, and computing, harnessing existing cyberinfrastructure, and building on common data/metadata standards. In addition, GEO OSE supports educational activities that instill open science practices and broaden adoption of cyberinfrastructure resources to reduce barriers to geoscience research and education.

Proposals in response to this solicitation may be submitted to either of two tracks that acknowledge the range of readiness levels across geosciences communities. The selection of tracks should primarily be determined by the size and scope of proposed efforts:

  • Track 1: These awards support smaller-scale activities seeking to organize geoscience research communities toward adoption of open science practices that accelerate scientific discovery in the geosciences. Awards may include open science planning activities for geoscience domains (e.g., development of community roadmaps), education/training initiatives that enable adoption of technologies that support open science practices, and/or mobilization campaigns to improve the openness of existing geoscience research programs. It is expected that supported projects will facilitate broad stakeholder involvement and address community-driven open science needs in the geosciences. Projects may guide the future design, development, and deployment of open science resources, possibly via separate NSF funding opportunities (see below). Funding will be provided for 2 years with a maximum budget size of $500,000 per project.
  • Track 2: These awards target larger-scale activities aimed at fostering transformation of geoscience research communities toward open science practices. Projects should be designed to grow user/developer communities within the existing ecosystem of capabilities (e.g., data repositories, software packages, computational resources) toward broad and sustained efforts to embed open science practices in the day-to-day research/education workflows of geoscientists. Submission to Track 2 does not require prior Track 1 support, but all Track 2 proposals must thoroughly describe the nature, extent, and outcomes of relevant prior efforts. Funding will be provided for 3 years with a maximum budget size of $1,000,000 per project.

The scope of supported GEO OSE activities seeks to maximize the distinctive impact of this program while acknowledging related funding opportunities (see below). As a result, neither Track 1 nor Track 2 supports development of data repositories, software packages, development/acquisition of computational hardware, or other efforts primarily intended to create or maintain cyberinfrastructure, though projects that leverage the capabilities of existing cyberinfrastructure are appropriate.

For project ideas that do not fit within the priority goals and program tracks described above, proposers may wish to consider alternative programs:

Proposers are strongly encouraged to contact program director(s) from the list of Cognizant Program Officers, in the Division(s)/Office(s) associated with the scientific discipline(s) for which the proposed open science activities would be applicable, to ascertain the appropriate focus and scope of intended proposal submissions.

Specific Requirements:

Proposals submitted in response to this solicitation must address the following Specific Requirements. Proposals will be evaluated on how successfully they meet these requirements (see Section VI.A, Merit Review Principles and Criteria):

  1. Geosciences Advancement: Proposals must address how proposed activities will contribute to demonstrated needs for advancing geosciences research and/or education. Proposed activities should attract and include broad participation of geoscientists in the relevant domains throughout the duration of the project, starting in the first year. Projects should help to unlock new applications of geoscientific information and/or computing capabilities toward advancing geosciences understanding. Proposed developments should broadly benefit geosciences research and/or education communities beyond the immediate proposal team.
  2. Open Science Alignment: Proposals must articulate a vision for advancing open science efforts within the geosciences, including how they envision and define open science for their target communities and how they will complement the existing ecosystem of open science resources and initiatives. Expected open science outcomes should extend beyond increasing the openness of a single product, tool, or dataset; instead, projects should lead to a fundamental transformation of scientific practices within the intended geoscience domain(s).

Utilizing Shared Computing Resources:

This solicitation does not support the development of new computer hardware capabilities or significant hardware acquisition, nor does it support projects that are primarily intended to develop new cyberinfrastructure. PIs are encouraged to consider using the wide range of NSF-supported advanced computing, data, and analysis capabilities, which are described in PAPPG Chapter II.E.7. PIs are also encouraged to explore emerging opportunities through NSF's Office of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure (OAC), including the National Artificial Intelligence Research Resource Pilot and the National Discovery Cloud for Climate. Proposers may also request specific allocations for cloud computing in tandem with their proposal submission; this is described in further detail in the Proposal Preparation Instructions of this solicitation (Section V.A).

III. Award Information

Estimated Number of Awards: 3-8

Estimated number of awards is the number of projects to be supported per competition. The actual number of awards will be determined based on the results of the merit review process and availability of funds.

Anticipated Funding Amount: $2,000,000 to $4,000,000

Anticipated funding amount is per competition. Estimated program budget, number of awards, and average award size/duration are subject to the availability of funds.

Estimated Award Size and Duration:

Track 1 projects will be 2 years in duration with a maximum budget size of $500,000. Track 2 projects will be 3 years in duration with a maximum budget size of $1,000,000. Specific budgets for Track 1 and Track 2 projects are expected to be commensurate with the size and scope of the project and anticipated scientific impact.

IV. Eligibility Information

Who May Submit Proposals:

Proposals may only be submitted by the following:

  • Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) - Two- and four-year IHEs (including community colleges) accredited in, and having a campus located in the US, acting on behalf of their faculty members. Special Instructions for International Branch Campuses of US IHEs: If the proposal includes funding to be provided to an international branch campus of a US institution of higher education (including through use of sub-awards and consultant arrangements), the proposer must explain the benefit(s) to the project of performance at the international branch campus, and justify why the project activities cannot be performed at the US campus.
  • Non-profit, non-academic organizations: Independent museums, observatories, research laboratories, professional societies and similar organizations located in the U.S. that are directly associated with educational or research activities.
  • Tribal Nations: An American Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges as a federally recognized tribe pursuant to the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. §§ 5130-5131.
  • Other Federal Agencies and Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs): Prospective proposers from Other Federal Agencies and Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), including NSF sponsored FFRDCs, must follow the guidance in PAPPG Chapter I.E.2(d) regarding limitations on eligibility.

Who May Serve as PI:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization:

There are no restrictions or limits.

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or co-PI:

There are no restrictions or limits.

V. Proposal Preparation And Submission Instructions

A. Proposal Preparation Instructions

Full Proposal Preparation Instructions: Proposers may opt to submit proposals in response to this Program Solicitation via Research.gov or Grants.gov.

  • Full Proposals submitted via Research.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the general guidelines contained in the NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG). The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg. Paper copies of the PAPPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov. The Prepare New Proposal setup will prompt you for the program solicitation number.
  • Full proposals submitted via Grants.gov: Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation via Grants.gov should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide: A Guide for the Preparation and Submission of NSF Applications via Grants.gov. The complete text of the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide is available on the Grants.gov website and on the NSF website at: (https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=grantsgovguide). To obtain copies of the Application Guide and Application Forms Package, click on the Apply tab on the Grants.gov site, then click on the Apply Step 1: Download a Grant Application Package and Application Instructions link and enter the funding opportunity number, (the program solicitation number without the NSF prefix) and press the Download Package button. Paper copies of the Grants.gov Application Guide also may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov.

In determining which method to utilize in the electronic preparation and submission of the proposal, please note the following:

Collaborative Proposals. All collaborative proposals submitted as separate submissions from multiple organizations must be submitted via Research.gov. PAPPG Chapter II.E.3 provides additional information on collaborative proposals.

See PAPPG Chapter II.D.2 for guidance on the required sections of a full research proposal submitted to NSF. Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the PAPPG instructions.

The following provides additional guidance beyond that contained in the PAPPG or NSF Grants.gov Application Guide.

Title:

To appropriately identify proposal submissions associated with this program solicitation, proposal titles must include "GEO OSE Track 1:" or "GEO OSE Track 2:" as appropriate.

Project Summary:

If cloud computing resources are being requested from CloudBank.org, then the keyword "CloudAccess" (one word without space) should be included at the end of the Overview section (before the section on Intellectual Merit) of the Project Summary page. More information on Cloud Computing Resource requests, including additional proposal preparation requirements for these requests, is provided below.

Project Description:

All proposals should explicitly address within the Project Description how the project meets both of the Specific Requirements listed in the Program Description of this solicitation (Section II). Text addressing these Specific Requirements should be provided in the Project Description section of the proposal and should be organized under individual subheadings for each of the two requirements listed (i.e., "Geosciences Advancement" and "Open Science Alignment").

Budget:

Award recipients are expected to participate in annual PI meetings with travel costs supported by the award. These travel costs must be included in the proposal budget. For budgeting purposes, proposers may assume costs associated with travel for a 2-3 day meeting in the Washington, DC, area, or another location with similar costs. Collaborative projects do not need to send PIs and co-PIs for all of the lead and non-lead partners.

The total budget of the project, including any cloud computing resource request from CloudBank.org, may not exceed the budget limits for the respective tracks described in this solicitation. The total cost of the cloud computing resources requested from CloudBank.org should not be included in the NSF budget, and should be specified only in the associated supplementary document (see below for additional instructions).

Cloud Computing Resources:

Proposals may request cloud computing resources to use public clouds such as Amazon Web Services (AWS), Google Cloud Platform (GCP), IBM Cloud, and Microsoft Azure. Cloud computing resources described in proposals may be obtained through an external cloud access entity (CloudBank) supported by NSF.

Proposers should describe this request in a Supplementary Document including: (a) which public cloud providers will be used; (b) anticipated annual and total costs for accessing the desired cloud computing resources, based on pricing currently available from the public cloud computing providers; and (c) a technical description of, and justification for, the requested cloud computing resources. The proposal budget should not include the costs for accessing public cloud computing resources via CloudBank.

The total cost of the project, including this cloud computing resource request from CloudBank.org, may not exceed the budget limit described in this solicitation. For example, consider a proposal submitted to Track 1, which has a total proposal budget limit of $500,000. If a PI wishes to request $20,000 in cloud computing resources through CloudBank, then such proposal should request, as part of the proposal budget, no more than $480,000. The remaining $20,000 for cloud computing resources should be specified in the Supplementary Document. If a proposal is a collaborative project with two PIs from two different organizations, then each PI may request cloud computing resources separately through independent Supplementary Documents as long as the total budget (on the budget pages plus in the Supplementary Documents) does not exceed $500,000.

Proposers seeking CloudBank funds should include "CloudAccess" (one word without space) at the end of the list of keywords in the Project Summary (before the section on Intellectual Merit). Proposers may contact CloudBank (see https://www.cloudbank.org/faq/) for consultation on estimating the costs for using cloud computing resources.

B. Budgetary Information

Cost Sharing:

Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

Budget Preparation Instructions:

Award recipients are expected to participate in annual PI meetings with travel costs supported by the award. These travel costs must be included in the proposal budget. See the Proposal Preparation Instructions (Section V.A) for more information.

Prospective PIs are reminded that proposals with budgets exceeding the associated limit for the project track of the proposal, as described in this solicitation, will be returned without review. For this purpose, a multi-organization collaborative project is treated as one project, for which the above limits apply.

C. Due Dates

  • Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization's local time):

    February 14, 2025

    Track 1 only

    November 14, 2025

    Track 2 only

D. Research.gov/Grants.gov Requirements

For Proposals Submitted Via Research.gov:

To prepare and submit a proposal via Research.gov, see detailed technical instructions available at: https://www.research.gov/research-portal/appmanager/base/desktop?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=research_node_display&_nodePath=/researchGov/Service/Desktop/ProposalPreparationandSubmission.html. For Research.gov user support, call the Research.gov Help Desk at 1-800-381-1532 or e-mail rgov@nsf.gov. The Research.gov Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the Research.gov system. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity.

For Proposals Submitted Via Grants.gov:

Before using Grants.gov for the first time, each organization must register to create an institutional profile. Once registered, the applicant's organization can then apply for any federal grant on the Grants.gov website. Comprehensive information about using Grants.gov is available on the Grants.gov Applicant Resources web page: https://www.grants.gov/applicants. In addition, the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide (see link in Section V.A) provides instructions regarding the technical preparation of proposals via Grants.gov. For Grants.gov user support, contact the Grants.gov Contact Center at 1-800-518-4726 or by email: support@grants.gov. The Grants.gov Contact Center answers general technical questions related to the use of Grants.gov. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this solicitation.

Submitting the Proposal: Once all documents have been completed, the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must submit the application to Grants.gov and verify the desired funding opportunity and agency to which the application is submitted. The AOR must then sign and submit the application to Grants.gov. The completed application will be transferred to Research.gov for further processing.

The NSF Grants.gov Proposal Processing in Research.gov informational page provides submission guidance to applicants and links to helpful resources including the NSF Grants.gov Application Guide, Grants.gov Proposal Processing in Research.gov how-to guide, and Grants.gov Submitted Proposals Frequently Asked Questions. Grants.gov proposals must pass all NSF pre-check and post-check validations in order to be accepted by Research.gov at NSF.

When submitting via Grants.gov, NSF strongly recommends applicants 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, an applicant can only correct and submit the in-progress proposal in Research.gov.

Proposers that submitted via Research.gov may use Research.gov to verify the status of their submission to NSF. For proposers that submitted via Grants.gov, until an application has been received and validated by NSF, the Authorized Organizational Representative may check the status of an application on Grants.gov. After proposers have received an e-mail notification from NSF, Research.gov should be used to check the status of an application.

VI. NSF Proposal Processing And Review Procedures

Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for acknowledgment and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and award process (and associated timeline) is included in PAPPG Exhibit III-1.

A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is available on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/.

Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in Leading the World in Discovery and Innovation, STEM Talent Development and the Delivery of Benefits from Research - NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2022 - 2026. These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities.

One of the strategic objectives in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions must recruit, train, and prepare a diverse STEM workforce to advance the frontiers of science and participate in the U.S. technology-based economy. NSF's contribution to the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research under the guidance of the Nation's most creative scientists and engineers. NSF also supports development of a strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce by investing in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching and learning.

NSF's mission calls for the broadening of opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.

A. Merit Review Principles and Criteria

The National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of science and engineering research and education. To identify which projects to support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes." NSF makes every effort to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent merit review process for the selection of projects.

1. Merit Review Principles

These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations when preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards. Given that NSF is the primary federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and education, the following three principles apply:

  • All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the potential to advance, if not transform, the frontiers of knowledge.
  • NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly to achieving societal goals. These "Broader Impacts" may be accomplished through the research itself, through activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. The project activities may be based on previously established and/or innovative methods and approaches, but in either case must be well justified.
  • Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects should be based on appropriate metrics, keeping in mind the likely correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the resources provided to implement projects. If the size of the activity is limited, evaluation of that activity in isolation is not likely to be meaningful. Thus, assessing the effectiveness of these activities may best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level than the individual project.

With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project. Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of those activities.

These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better understand their intent.

2. Merit Review Criteria

All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board approved merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.

The two merit review criteria are listed below. Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria. (PAPPG Chapter II.D.2.d(i). contains additional information for use by proposers in development of the Project Description section of the proposal). Reviewers are strongly encouraged to review the criteria, including PAPPG Chapter II.D.2.d(i), prior to the review of a proposal.

When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful. These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers will be asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria:

  • Intellectual Merit: The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance knowledge; and
  • Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.

The following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria:

  1. What is the potential for the proposed activity to
    1. Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
    2. Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?
  2. To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
  3. Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?
  4. How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities?
  5. Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?

Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and other underrepresented groups in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM); improved STEM education and educator development at any level; increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology; improved well-being of individuals in society; development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce; increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others; improved national security; increased economic competitiveness of the United States; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education.

Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the Data Management and Sharing Plan and the Mentoring Plan, as appropriate.

Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria

Proposals will be evaluated on how successfully they meet the Specific Requirements of the Program Description:

  1. Geosciences Advancement: How well do proposed activities contribute to demonstrated needs for advancing geosciences research and/or education? Do proposed activities include effective plans and strategies to achieve broad participation of geoscientists throughout the project and lead to broad benefit beyond the immediate proposal team?
  2. Open Science Alignment: How effective and feasible is the vision for open science, and how well do the proposed activities help the project move towards this vision? How well does the proposed work complement the existing ecosystem of open science resources and initiatives? Will the project lead to transformation toward open science practices within the intended geoscience domain(s)?

B. Review and Selection Process

Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review.

Reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals using two National Science Board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable, additional program specific criteria. A summary rating and accompanying narrative will generally be completed and submitted by each reviewer and/or panel. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation.

After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. NSF strives to be able to tell proposers whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. Large or particularly complex proposals or proposals from new recipients may require additional review and processing time. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director acts upon the Program Officer's recommendation.

After programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements or the Division of Acquisition and Cooperative Support for review of business, financial, and policy implications. After an administrative review has occurred, Grants and Agreements Officers perform the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk.

Once an award or declination decision has been made, Principal Investigators are provided feedback about their proposals. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers or any reviewer-identifying information, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Officer. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding.

VII. Award Administration Information

A. Notification of the Award

Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program administering the program. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See Section VI.B. for additional information on the review process.)

B. Award Conditions

An NSF award consists of: (1) the award notice, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award notice; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1)*; and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award notice. Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC) and the applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are electronically signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail.

*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at https://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF. Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from nsfpubs@nsf.gov.

More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg.

Administrative and National Policy Requirements

Build America, Buy America

As expressed in Executive Order 14005, Ensuring the Future is Made in All of America by All of America's Workers (86 FR 7475), it is the policy of the executive branch to use terms and conditions of Federal financial assistance awards to maximize, consistent with law, the use of goods, products, and materials produced in, and services offered in, the United States.

Consistent with the requirements of the Build America, Buy America Act (Pub. L. 117-58, Division G, Title IX, Subtitle A, November 15, 2021), no funding made available through this funding opportunity may be obligated for infrastructure projects under an award unless all iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials used in the project are produced in the United States. For additional information, visit NSF's Build America, Buy America web page

Special Award Conditions:

Award recipients are expected to participate in annual PI meetings to be held in the Washington, DC, area with travel costs supported by the award.

C. Reporting Requirements

For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer no later than 90 days prior to the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require submission of more frequent project reports). No later than 120 days following expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final annual project report, and a project outcomes report for the general public.

Failure to provide the required annual or final annual project reports, or the project outcomes report, will delay NSF review and processing of any future funding increments as well as any pending proposals for all identified PIs and co-PIs on a given award. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data.

PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system, available through Research.gov, for preparation and submission of annual and final annual project reports. Such reports provide information on accomplishments, project participants (individual and organizational), publications, and other specific products and impacts of the project. Submission of the report via Research.gov constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete. The project outcomes report also must be prepared and submitted using Research.gov. This report serves as a brief summary, prepared specifically for the public, of the nature and outcomes of the project. This report will be posted on the NSF website exactly as it is submitted by the PI.

More comprehensive information on NSF Reporting Requirements and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg.

VIII. Agency Contacts

Please note that the program contact information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:

For questions related to the use of NSF systems contact:

  • NSF Help Desk: 1-800-381-1532
  • Research.gov Help Desk e-mail: rgov@nsf.gov

For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:

  • Grants.gov Contact Center: If the Authorized Organizational Representatives (AOR) has not received a confirmation message from Grants.gov within 48 hours of submission of application, please contact via telephone: 1-800-518-4726; e-mail: support@grants.gov.

IX. Other Information

The NSF website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding opportunities. Use of this website by potential proposers is strongly encouraged. In addition, "NSF Update" is an information-delivery system designed to keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications, important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming NSF Grants Conferences. Subscribers are informed through e-mail or the user's Web browser each time new publications are issued that match their identified interests. "NSF Update" also is available on NSF's website.

Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at https://www.grants.gov.

About The National Science Foundation

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 USC 1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the progress of science; [and] to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields of science and engineering."

NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science organizations and other research organizations throughout the US. The Foundation accounts for about one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic research.

NSF receives approximately 55,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. The agency operates no laboratories itself but does support National Research Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic vessels and Arctic and Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports cooperative research between universities and industry, US participation in international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational activities at every academic level.

Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide Chapter II.F.7 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals.

The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD) and Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that enable individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment or general information. TDD may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and (800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800) 877-8339.

The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at (703) 292-5111.

The National Science Foundation promotes and advances scientific progress in the United States by competitively awarding grants and cooperative agreements for research and education in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering.

To get the latest information about program deadlines, to download copies of NSF publications, and to access abstracts of awards, visit the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov.

  • Location:

2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314
  • For General Information
    (NSF Information Center):

(703) 292-5111
  • TDD (for the hearing-impaired):

(703) 292-5090
  • To Order Publications or Forms:
  

Send an e-mail to:

nsfpubs@nsf.gov

or telephone:

(703) 292-8134
  • To Locate NSF Employees:

(703) 292-5111

Privacy Act And Public Burden Statements

The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; and project reports submitted by proposers will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to proposer institutions/recipients to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies or other entities needing information regarding proposers or nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy; and to another Federal agency, court, or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See System of Record Notices, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records." Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding the burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to:

Suzanne H. Plimpton
Reports Clearance Officer
Policy Office, Division of Institution and Award Support
Office of Budget, Finance, and Award Management
National Science Foundation
Alexandria, VA 22314

Top