text-only page produced automatically by LIFT Text
Transcoder Skip all navigation and go to page contentSkip top navigation and go to directorate navigationSkip top navigation and go to page navigation
National Science Foundation HomeNational Science Foundation - Directorate for Math and Physical Sciences (MPS)
Chemistry (CHE)
design element
CHE Home
About CHE
Funding Opportunities
Career Opportunities
Highlight Your CHE Award
Become a Reviewer for NSF CHE
Newsletters, Dear Colleague Letters, and Workshop Reports
See Additional CHE Resources
View CHE Staff
MPS Organizations
Astronomical Sciences (AST)
Chemistry (CHE)
Materials Research (DMR)
Mathematical Sciences (DMS)
Physics (PHY)
Office of Multidisciplinary Activities (OMA)
Proposals and Awards
Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide
Proposal Preparation and Submission
bullet Grant Proposal Guide
  bullet Grants.gov Application Guide
Award and Administration
bullet Award and Administration Guide
Award Conditions
Merit Review
NSF Outreach
Policy Office
Additional CHE Resources
Career Opportunities
Image Credits

NSF Division of Chemistry Review Process

The Division of Chemistry handled approximately 1400 proposals in 2002. Proposals are typically reviewed by at least three experts. Mail review, panel review or a combination of both is used. After carefully examining a proposal, the Program Officer identifies experts and solicits their reviews electronically. Reviewers' advice is used in the Program Officer's decision to recommend funding or declination of a proposal. When the process is completed, proposers (the Principal Investigators or PIs) receive electronic copies of the reviews from the Program Officer but the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed.


Suggestions for Reviewers

  1. When you receive a review request, please respond as quickly as possible. If you cannot provide a timely review, if you have a conflict of interest, or if you do not feel qualified to review the proposal, please decline to review over FastLane or by emailing the Program Officer. Even if you are unable to review the proposal, we welcome your suggestions for other qualified reviewers.
  2. Reviews are written as advice to the Program Officer and should reflect your professional opinion of the proposal. The PI will receive an anonymous copy of your review. Constructive criticisms and suggestions can be especially helpful for strengthening the project.
  3. Please consider both the NSF merit review criteria as well as any program-specific review criteria.
  4. Program Officers look for creativity, a well-developed strategy for achieving project objectives, and impact. Please comment on these, as appropriate.
  5. If the PI has had prior support from NSF, please comment on the work that has previously been supported using both merit review criteria.
  6. If a proposal requests instrumentation, please comment on the appropriateness of the instrumentation.
  7. Please comment on the adequacy of resources and expertise available to the project.


Email this pagePrint this page
Back to Top of page