NSERC Discovery grant applications are judged according to four criteria: (1) Excellence of the researcher, (2) Merit of the proposal, (3) Contribution to the training of HQP, and (4) Cost of research. Each criterion has six possible merit indicators: Exceptional, Outstanding, Very strong, Strong, Moderate, and Insufficient. This presentation describes the process from a candidate's point of view and a reviewer's point of view. It discusses funding decisions, including bins and ER vs. ECR. It gives some advice, including graduating PhD students, having a story, and limiting the number of main objectives.

1. Yann-Gaël Guéhéneuc
Département de génie informatique et de génie logiciel
This work is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-
ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License
NSERC
DG Advices
yann-gael.gueheneuc@polytmtl.ca
Version 0.5
2013/07/07

2. 2/89
Questions: I welcome them all at
yann-gael.gueheneuc@polymtl.ca

3. 3/89
Disclaimer: I cannot be held responsible for
the failure or success of your applications,
were you to follow or not these advices

4. 4/89
NSERC DG Advices
 Each NSERC DG application is evaluated
according to 4 criteria and 6 merit indicators
– Excellence of the researcher
– Merit of the proposal
– Contribution to the training HQP
– Cost of research

5. 5/89
NSERC DG Advices
 Each NSERC DG application is evaluated
according to 4 criteria and 6 merit indicators
– Exceptional
– Outstanding
– Very strong
– Strong
– Moderate
– Insufficient

6. 6/89
NSERC DG Advices
 How are these criteria rated by the reviewers
using the indicators?
 How to ease the reviewers’ jobs?
And, how to be possibly more successful?

7. 7/89
Outline
 Process in a nutshell
– Candidate’s point of view
– Internal reviewer’s point of view
• Off-line work
• Competition week
 Funding decisions
– In a nutshell
– Bins
– ER vs. ECR
 Criteria and indicators
– “Values” of criteria
– “Meanings” of indicators
– NSERC rating form
– My own rating form
 Advices
– Introduction
– Excellence of the researcher
– Merit of the proposal
– Contribution to the training HQP
– Form 100
– Form 101
 Conclusion
 Further readings

8. 8/89
Outline
 Process in a nutshell
– Candidate’s point of view
– Internal reviewer’s point of view
• Off-line work
• Competition week
 Funding decisions
– In a nutshell
– Bins
– ER vs. ECR
 Criteria and indicators
– “Values” of criteria
– “Meanings” of indicators
– NSERC rating form
– My own rating form
 Advices
– Introduction
– Excellence of the researcher
– Merit of the proposal
– Contribution to the training HQP
– Form 100
– Form 101
 Conclusion
 Further readings

9. 9/89
Process in a Nutshell
 From the candidate’s point of view
– August 1st: submission of Form 180
– November 1st: final submission of Forms 100,
101, and publications
– March/April: announcement of the results

10. 10/89
Process in a Nutshell
 From the internal reviewer’s point of view
– Two main parts
• Off-line work, e-mails/readings
• Competition week in Ottawa

11. 11/89
Process in a Nutshell
 Off-line work
– August 27th: reception of all the submissions
• In 2012, 322 submissions
– September 7th: ratings (expertise levels and
conflicts) of all the submissions
• High, Medium, Low, Very Low, Conflict, X (language)
– September 24th: final choice of the 1st internal
reviewers for each applications
• In 2012, 14 applications as 1st internal reviewer, 15
as 2nd internal reviewer, 17 as reader = 46

12. 12/89
Process in a Nutshell
 Off-line work
– October 5th: choice by the 1st internal reviewer of
5 external referees
• In 2012, 14 applications = 70
• May include referees suggested by the candidate but
may also replace all of them
– October 22nd: ratings of applications from other
evaluation groups
• In 2012, 1 application

13. 13/89
Process in a Nutshell
 Off-line work
– Early December: final list of readings
• In 2012, 47 applications
– January/February: reception of tge reports from
the external referees
• In 2012, 123 reports
– February 18th to 22nd: competition week in
Ottawa during which each application is
discussed and rated

14. 14/89
Process in a Nutshell
 Off-line work
– In 2012 (and I suspect every year), a lot of work!
• 322 submissions
• 47 applications (including joint publications)
• 70 referees
• 123 referee reports

15. 15/89
Process in a Nutshell
 Off-line work
– In 2012 (and I suspect every year), a lot of work!
• 322 submissions
• 47 applications (including joint publications)
• 70 referees
• 123 referee reports
Make it easier
for the reviewers

16. 16/89
Process in a Nutshell
 Competition week
– February 18th to 22nd: competition week in
Ottawa during which each application is
discussed and rated
– 5 days
• In 2012 (and I suspect every year), very intense,
demanding, and tiring

17. 17/89
Process in a Nutshell
 Competition day
– Starts at 8:30am
– Divides into
• 31 15-minute slots
• 2 15-minute breaks
• 1 45-minute lunch
– Ends at 5:15pm
• If no deferred applications to re-discuss
– In 2012, 1 application

18. 18/89
Process in a Nutshell
 Competition slot
– In a 15-minute slot, the ratings of an application
are chosen by the reviewers
– Or the application is “deferred”, to be re-
discussed at the end of the day

19. 19/89
Process in a Nutshell
 Competition slot
– 1st internal reviewer gives ratings with
justifications, which must be facts in the Forms
– 2nd internal reviewers contrasts, supports, adds
missing facts from the Forms
– The readers complement or challenge ratings
given by 1st and 2nd internal reviewers, must be
supported by facts from the Forms

20. 20/89
Process in a Nutshell
 Competition slot
– 1st internal reviewer gives ratings with
justifications, which must be facts in the Forms
• In 2012, a typical presentation follow this pattern
– Candidate: career, funding, visibility, publications, HPQ
record, planned training
– Proposal: context, lacks, characteristics (Incremental?
Applicable? Feasible?)
– External: summary of the referees' reviews, summary of the
provided contributions
then, the reviewer would give his ratings

21. 21/89
Process in a Nutshell
 Competition slot
– 1st internal reviewer gives ratings with
justifications, which must be facts in the Forms
• In 2012, a typical presentation follow this pattern
– Candidate: career, funding, visibility, publications, HPQ
record, planned training
– Proposal: context, lacks, characteristics (Incremental?
Applicable? Feasible?)
– External: summary of the referees' reviews, summary of the
provided contributions
then, the reviewer would give his ratings
Not exactly the
NSERC criteria

22. 22/89
Process in a Nutshell
 Competition slot
– Session chair keeps the time strictly
– Session chairs makes sure that any
discussion sticks to the facts

23. 23/89
Process in a Nutshell
 Competition slot
– Ratings are anonymous
• Secret electronic vote
• Session chair announce results
– Ratings are consensual
• If reviewers/readers strongly disagree, the application
will be re-discussed at the end of the day
– In 2012, I did not see any strong debates: mostly 1st and 2nd
internal reviewers agreed, backed-up by the readers
– In 2012, some facts were sometimes highlighted and ratings
were changed accordingly

24. 24/89
Process in a Nutshell
 Competition slot
– Any criteria rated as moderate or insufficient
receive comments from the committee, reflecting
the consensus of the reviewers (highly focused)
• In 2012, NSERC provided typical comments, for
example: “The applicant did not take advantage of the
available space in Form 100 to make a compelling
case about his/her most significant research
contributions. Given the lack of information, the EG
was unable to carry out a thorough assessment and
potentially recommend a higher rating.”

25. 25/89
Outline
 Process in a Nutshell
– Candidate’s point of view
– Internal reviewer’s point of view
• Off-line work
• Competition week
 Funding decisions
– In a nutshell
– Bins
– ER vs. ECR
 Criteria and indicators
– “Values” of criteria
– “Meanings” of indicators
– NSERC rating form
– My own rating form
 Advices
– Introduction
– Excellence of the researcher
– Merit of the proposal
– Contribution to the training HQP
– Form 100
– Form 101
 Conclusion
 Further readings

26. 26/89
Funding Decisions
 In a nutshell
– Each proposal is rated by the reviewers secretly
after the discussions
– The medians of the ratings are used for criteria
– For example
• Excellence of researcher: {S, S, M, M, M}, rating is M
• Merit of the proposal: {V, V, S, S, M}, rating is S
• Impact of HQP: {V, S, S, S, M}, rating is S
• The application rating is therefore {M, S, S}

27. 27/89
Funding Decisions
 Bins
– The numeric “values” of the ratings are “added”
• For example, {M, S, S}  2+3+3 = 8
– The application is placed into one of 16 bins
– The bins are labelled A through to P and
correspond numerically to 18 down to 3

28. 28/89
Funding Decisions
 Bins
– Bins A and P are uniquely mapped to {E, E, E}
and {I, I, I} while pther bins contain a mix of
numerically equivalent ratings, e.g., {V, S, M} is
in the same bin as {S, S, S} and {M, S, V}
• For example, the application rated {M, S, S} is in K
– Not all applications in a bin are funded: {S, S, S}
may be funded while {M, S, V} is not
• Because of the moderate indicator for the first criteria
– Cut-off point depends on year

29. 29/89
Funding Decisions
 ER vs. ECR
– Candidates are divided into
• ER: established researchers, who already applied
(funded?) to NSERC DG
• ECR: early-career researchers, who apply to NSERC
DG for the first time
– ECR are funded one bin “lower” (better) than ER

30. 30/89
Outline
 Process in a Nutshell
– Candidate’s point of view
– Internal reviewer’s point of view
• Off-line work
• Competition week
 Funding decisions
– In a nutshell
– Bins
– ER vs. ECR
 Criteria and indicators
– “Values” of criteria
– “Meanings” of indicators
– NSERC rating form
– My own rating form
 Advices
– Introduction
– Excellence of the researcher
– Merit of the proposal
– Contribution to the training HQP
– Form 100
– Form 101
 Conclusion
 Further readings

31. 31/89
Criteria and Indicators
 “Values” of criteria
– Excellence of the researcher
– Merit of the proposal
– Contribution to the training HQP
– Cost of research

32. 32/89
Criteria and Indicators
 “Values” of criteria
– Excellence of the researcher
• Knowledge, expertise and experience
• Quality of contributions to, and impact on, research
areas in the NSE
• Importance of contributions

33. 33/89
Criteria and Indicators
 “Values” of criteria
– Merit of the proposal
• Originality and innovation
• Significance and expected contributions to research;
potential for technological impact
• Clarity and scope of objectives
• Methodology and feasibility
• Extent to which the scope of the proposal addresses
all relevant issues
• Appropriateness of, and justification for, the budget
• Relationship to other sources of funds

34. 34/89
Criteria and Indicators
 “Values” of criteria
– Merit of the proposal
• Originality and innovation
• Significance and expected contributions to research;
potential for technological impact
• Clarity and scope of objectives
• Methodology and feasibility
• Extent to which the scope of the proposal addresses
all relevant issues
• Appropriateness of, and justification for, the budget
• Relationship to other sources of funds
Not really important

35. 35/89
Criteria and Indicators
 “Values” of criteria
– Merit of the proposal
• Originality and innovation
• Significance and expected contributions to research;
potential for technological impact
• Clarity and scope of objectives
• Methodology and feasibility
• Extent to which the scope of the proposal addresses
all relevant issues
• Appropriateness of, and justification for, the budget
• Relationship to other sources of funds
Not really important
Amounts of previous
grants (in particular
NSERC DG) should
be ignored

36. 36/89
Criteria and Indicators
 “Values” of criteria
– Contribution to the training HQP
• Quality and impact of contributions
• Appropriateness of the proposal for the training of
HQP in the NSE
• Enhancement of training arising from a collaborative
or interdisciplinary environment, where applicable

37. 37/89
Criteria and Indicators
 “Values” of criteria
– Cost of research
• Rationale

38. 38/89
Criteria and Indicators
 “Values” of criteria
– Cost of research
• Rationale
Not really important
but you cannot have
more than what you
ask, no matter the merit

39. 39/89
Criteria and Indicators
 “Meanings” of indicators
– Exceptional
– Outstanding
– Very strong
– Strong
– Moderate
– Insufficient

40. 40/89
Criteria and Indicators
 “Meanings” of indicators
– Exceptional
• In 2012, I did not see any exceptional ratings
– Outstanding
– Very strong
– Strong
– Moderate
– Insufficient

41. Criteria and Indicators

42. 42/89
Criteria and Indicators
 NSERC rating form
– NSERC provides a 2-page rating form
• In 2012, I found that this rating form does not follow
the presentation pattern during the competition slot
because it spreads information
• In 2012, however, each application was obviously
rated according to the 4 criteria and 6 indicators

43. 43/89
Criteria and Indicators
 NSERC rating form (1/2)
Applicant: University: Application I.D.:
Applicant Status:
Title of Application:
Evaluation criteria (See Section 6 of Peer Review Manual for complete details)
Excellence of researcher(s)
Exceptional Outstanding Very Strong
Strong oderate Insufficient
Knowledge, expertise and experience
Quality of contributions to, and impact on, research areas in the NSE
Importance of contributions
For Team applications: complementarity of expertise between members and synergy
Rationale for rating:
Merit of the proposal
Exceptional Outstanding Very Strong
Strong Moderate Insufficient
Originality and innovation
Significance and expected contributions to research; potential for technological impact
Clarity and scope of objectives
Methodology and feasibility
Extent to which the scope of the proposal addresses all relevant issues
Appropriateness of, and justification for, the budget
Relationship to other sources of funds
Rationale for rating:
Contributions to training of highly qualified personnel
Exceptional Outstanding Very Strong
Strong Moderate Insufficient
Quality and impact of contributions during the last six years
Appropriateness of the proposal for the training of HQP in the NSE
Enhancement of training arising from a collaborative or interdisciplinary environment,
where applicable
Rationale for rating:
Cost of research (relative cost of the proposed research program as compared to the norms for the field) Low Normal High
Rationale for Cost of Research:

44. 44/89
Criteria and Indicators
 NSERC rating form (2/2)
Other comments (e.g., duration should exceptionally be less than norm, special circumstances, quality of samples of
contributions provided, environmental impact, ethical concerns. Your Program Officer should be notified accordingly):
Summary of assessment by external referees (please highlight any comments that would be deemed inappropriate for the
Evaluation Group to consider in their discussions):
Points for message to applicant (if rating of “Moderate” or “Insufficient” on any criterion or duration shorter than norm):
Discovery Accelerator Supplement (DAS):
 Regular DAS: Yes No
 DAS in Targeted Areas : Yes No
Rationale for DAS Recommendation:

45. 45/89
Criteria and Indicators
 My own rating form
Career 1: <Indicator>
Funding
Visibility
Publications
HPQ Record 3: <Indicator>
Planned training
Context 2: <Indicator>
Lacks
Incremental?
Applicable?
Feasible?
Summary of the
referees' reviews
Provided
contributions

46. 46/89
Criteria and Indicators
 My own rating form
Career 1: <Indicator>
Funding
Visibility
Publications
HPQ Record 3: <Indicator>
Planned training
Context 2: <Indicator>
Lacks
Incremental?
Applicable?
Feasible?
Summary of the
referees' reviews
Provided
contributions
Researcher

47. 47/89
Criteria and Indicators
 My own rating form
Career 1: <Indicator>
Funding
Visibility
Publications
HPQ Record 3: <Indicator>
Planned training
Context 2: <Indicator>
Lacks
Incremental?
Applicable?
Feasible?
Summary of the
referees' reviews
Provided
contributions
Researcher
Proposal

48. 48/89
Criteria and Indicators
 My own rating form
Career 1: <Indicator>
Funding
Visibility
Publications
HPQ Record 3: <Indicator>
Planned training
Context 2: <Indicator>
Lacks
Incremental?
Applicable?
Feasible?
Summary of the
referees' reviews
Provided
contributions
Researcher
Proposal
HPQ

49. 49/89
Outline
 Process in a Nutshell
– Candidate’s point of view
– Internal reviewer’s point of view
• Off-line work
• Competition week
 Funding decisions
– In a nutshell
– Bins
– ER vs. ECR
 Criteria and indicators
– “Values” of criteria
– “Meanings” of indicators
– NSERC rating form
– My own rating form
 Advices
– Introduction
– Excellence of the researcher
– Merit of the proposal
– Contribution to the training HQP
– Form 100
– Form 101
 Conclusion
 Further readings

50. 50/89
Advices
 Introduction
– Reviewers receive 2-3 dozens of applications
– Overall, upon firs review, the quality is
impressive, thus generating a positive reaction
– The objective is to discriminate, however,
initiating a vigorous search for flaws

51. 51/89
Advices
 Introduction
– Reviewers may perceive aspects of applications
as confusing, ambiguous, incomplete, or just not
compelling
– They will not give the benefits of the doubt
• In 2012, I witness some excellent researchers
receiving low ratings because of sloppiness in
their applications

52. 52/89
Advices
 Introduction
– Reviewers will most likely “mine” the Forms 100,
101, and publications to make up their minds
regarding the 4 criteria
Make it easy for them to mine your applications!

53. 53/89
Advices
 Introduction
Career 1: <Indicator>
Funding
Visibility
Publications
HPQ Record 3: <Indicator>
Planned training
Context 2: <Indicator>
Lacks
Incremental?
Applicable?
Feasible?
Summary of the
referees' reviews
Provided
contributions

54. 54/89
Advices
 Introduction
Career 1: <Indicator>
Funding
Visibility
Publications
HPQ Record 3: <Indicator>
Planned training
Context 2: <Indicator>
Lacks
Incremental?
Applicable?
Feasible?
Summary of the
referees' reviews
Provided
contributions
Form 100

55. 55/89
Advices
 Introduction
Career 1: <Indicator>
Funding
Visibility
Publications
HPQ Record 3: <Indicator>
Planned training
Context 2: <Indicator>
Lacks
Incremental?
Applicable?
Feasible?
Summary of the
referees' reviews
Provided
contributions
Form 100
Form 101

56. 56/89
Advices
 Introduction
– Form 100
• Is used for two of the three important criteria
– Form 101
• Is used for the merit of the proposal mostly

57. 57/89
Excellence of the Researcher
 Form 100
– Career: pages 1-2
– Funding: pages 3-…
– Visibility
• “Other Evidence of Impact and Contributions”
• Awards, chairing, editorship, organisation, seminars:
anything showing external acknowledgments
– Publications
• “Other Research Contributions”
• Quantity and quality

58. 58/89
Excellence of the Researcher
 Form 101
– Essentially nothing
 Contributions
– Important for the experts, should be explained
for the non-experts in Form 100, “Most
Significant Contributions to Research”
 External reviewers
– Confirm/contrast findings in the Form 100, 101,
and the publications

59. 59/89
Merit of the Proposal
 Form 101
– Context
• Is the application well positioned?
– Lacks
• Any problems not discussed?
– Incremental?
• How innovative?
– Applicable?
• Usefulness, even remote?
– Feasible?
• Methodology

60. 60/89
Merit of the Proposal
 Form 101
– Reviewers may also look for
• Knowledge of the key issues (background)
• Originality and innovation (background limits)
• Clarity of scope and objectives
• Methodology
– Trust/confidence that you can do work
• Significance

61. 61/89
Merit of the Proposal
 Form 100
– Essentially nothing
 Contributions
– Essentially nothing
 External reviewers
– Confirm/contrast findings in the Form 101

62. 62/89
Contribution to the Training of HQP
 Form 100
– HPQ Record
• Pages 1, 5-…
• Make it consistent, report what the students do now
– Planned training
• “Contributions to the Training of Highly Qualified
Personnel”

63. 63/89
Contribution to the Training of HQP
 Form 101
– Last part on “Contribution to the Training of
Highly Qualified Personnel (HQP)”
 Contributions
– Essentially nothing
 External reviewers
– Confirm/contrast findings in the Form 100, 101

64. 64/89
Forms 100 and 101
 In 2012, in general, my reading/rating was
made easier when the application carefully
followed the NSERC suggested
guidelines/templates
– Any missing/misplace/different category was
disruptive and sent a bad signal: “I want to do
differently from others”

65. 65/89
Form 100
 In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“TRAINING OF HIGHLY QUALIFIED PERSONNEL”
– Total numbers of students to know if the
candidate is actively supervising students
– Any increase/decrease
– Any inflation of the numbers just before the
submission, it sends a bad message

66. 66/89
Form 100
 In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“ACADEMIC, RESEARCH AND INDUSTRIAL EXPERIENCE”
– Current and past positions
– Any industrial experience
– Experiences that could explain the absence of
publications, of HQP

67. 67/89
Form 100
 In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“RESEARCH SUPPORT”
– The candidate, given experience, having
appropriate funds?
• NSERC and industry are most important
• Others can help but should be explained, possibly in
the contributions (F100) or in the budget (F101)
• Amounts are not so important but give a signal
• They shows the candidate’s willingness, relevance

68. 68/89
Form 100
 In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“HIGHLY QUALIFIED PERSONNEL (HQP)”
– The candidate’s contribution to the training of
past/current HQP
• Titles of the projects should be meaningful and
focused; unrelated titles send a bad signal
• “Present positions” are important and show that the
candidate follows his/her students
• The degree obtained/pursued by the HQP (Ph.D.?
M.Sc.? B.Sc.? Others?)

69. 69/89
Form 100
 In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“MOST SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS TO RESEARCH”
– Evidence of scientific contributions
• I ask myself “do I know this candidate?” If unknown, I
searched the places of publications to assess the
quality of the contributions
• References must better include where the papers
were published to ease the reviewer’s task
• The contributions should be related to the topic of the
current NSERC DG to show continuation

70. 70/89
Form 100
 In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“ARTICLES IN REFEREED PUBLICATIONS”
– Evidence of scientific contributions
• Quality was first and foremost: I looked at the venues
and assessed their quality
– Acronyms must be explained, publisher names, years…
must be given, systematically
– Bibliographic metric values may be given; Google Scholar
citation counts is accepted; others metrics are discounted
• Quantity was a plus but, without quality, it sent a bad
signal: “I publish without focus”

71. 71/89
Form 100
 In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“OTHER EVIDENCE OF IMPACT AND CONTRIBUTIONS”
– Evidence of external acknowledgments
• Anything that could help me confirm my impression
on the merit of the candidate: awards, chairing,
editorship, organisation, seminars
– Unknown venues just to “fill in” that part must be avoided
• Lack thereof was sending a bad signal: “I am not
involved in the community” or “The community does
not want me”

72. 72/89
Form 101
 In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“TITLE OF THE PROPOSAL”
– The title, which must be relevant and accurate,
for a quick understanding (or not!) of what the
proposal is all about

73. 73/89
Form 101
 In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“PROVIDE A MAXIMUM OF 10 KEY WORDS…”
– The keywords, which must be relevant and
accurate, to get an deeper idea of what the
proposal is all about

74. 74/89
Form 101
 In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“TOTAL AMOUNT REQUESTED FROM NSERC”
– The total amount requested, which could raise
my curiosity if “too” high (say, more than 70 K)
or “too” low (say, less than 30 K)
• I would then read the budget to understand the
detailed numbers

75. 75/89
Form 101
 In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL FOR PUBLIC RELEASE”
– This very important part
• In my domain, would help me understand the
application and form an idea of what to expect
• Outside my domain, would help me understand the
application as a whole
• I would look for clear objectives, expected results and
their significance, and contributions to HQP
• Any typo or grammar error raised warning!

76. 76/89
Form 101
 In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“TOTAL PROPOSED EXPENDITURES”
– The use of the money towards HQP
• “Most” of the money should go to fund HQP; I mean
at least 80%-90%
• But some money should be used for students’ travels
(not only for the candidate’s)
• I would also look for any “surprising” amounts in any
“surprising” category

77. 77/89
Form 101
 In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“BUDGET JUSTIFICATION”
– The use of the money towards HQP
• It should include a table showing, per year, the use of the money
on students and possibly pictures of uncommon equipment
• Budget is not so important but errors or lack of justification sent
a bad signal
• Also, it is important to be consistent: 5 K are not enough to
equipped a whole lab. with computers…
• It should also explain any specific institutional rules or
complementary source of funds
• When naming conferences for travel, only name conferences
relevant to the proposal and possibly justify the choice

78. 78/89
Form 101
 In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER RESEARCH SUPPORT”
– Possible duplication of funds
• If there is a clear relation between two or more funds,
in that case, it should be clear how the money of the
NSERC DG will be used, e.g., students

79. 79/89
Form 101
 In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“PROPOSAL”
– The context, objectives, expected results in the
first few lines or maybe an example to help me
understand what the proposal is all about
– A story
– Any missing/misplace/different category, which
was disruptive and sent a bad signal: “I want to
do differently from others”

80. 80/89
Form 101
 In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“PROPOSAL”
– An up-to-date background
• Few recent references are interesting
• Some discussions of the references and of their
contributions and limitations is definitely needed
• If possible some clear, simple, and convincing
running examples illustrating the references limits

81. 81/89
Form 101
 In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“PROPOSAL”
– The contrast with the background
• Then, the proposal should explain how it will improve
on the limits of the state-of-the-art or state-of-the-
practice and demonstrate its feasibility
• Then, it should also explain how it will go beyond
clear feasibility to show innovation
• It must be limited to 3 main objectives, with
milestones and students

82. 82/89
Form 101
 In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“PROPOSAL”
– Clearly stated goal(s), challenge(s), expected
results and their significance, for each objective
• The proposal should not hide weaknesses and
challenges but explain them and the methodology to
lessen their impacts
• It should also explain how to evaluate the success/
failure of a goal and what happens “if…”

83. 83/89
Form 101
 In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“PROPOSAL”
– The association of students with the objectives
• Possibly, the proposal should explain the recruiting of
students in the next section, “Contribution to HQP”
– Its possible significance
• On society, not on yourself or your small community
• Use of other, existing funds is “proof” of interest from
external, broader society

84. 84/89
Form 101
 In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“CONTRIBUTION TO HQP”
– The context of training and its methodology
• It is a chance to explain how this application will
concretely be used to train students
• It is better if there are already some student names
• If the merit of the candidate is low and the candidate
boast too many students, it can be negative

85. 85/89
Form 101
 In 2012, here is what I particularly looked at
“REFERENCES”
– Consistency
• References should be consistent and well-written,
again, any typo or grammar errors raised a warning!

86. 86/89
Outline
 Process in a Nutshell
– Candidate’s point of view
– Internal reviewer’s point of view
• Off-line work
• Competition week
 Funding decisions
– In a nutshell
– Bins
– ER vs. ECR
 Criteria and indicators
– “Values” of criteria
– “Meanings” of indicators
– NSERC rating form
– My own rating form
 Advices
– Introduction
– Excellence of the researcher
– Merit of the proposal
– Contribution to the training HQP
– Form 100
– Form 101
 Conclusion
 Further readings

87. 87/89
Conclusion
 Follow the guidelines / templates carefully
 Be simple, clear, straightforward
– Even with the weaknesses
 Do not forget anything but do not show off
either, explain, explain, explain
 Avoid at all costs typo / grammar errors

88. 88/89
Outline
 Process in a Nutshell
– Candidate’s point of view
– Internal reviewer’s point of view
• Off-line work
• Competition week
 Funding decisions
– In a nutshell
– Bins
– ER vs. ECR
 Criteria and indicators
– “Values” of criteria
– “Meanings” of indicators
– NSERC rating form
– My own rating form
 Advices
– Introduction
– Excellence of the researcher
– Merit of the proposal
– Contribution to the training HQP
– Form 100
– Form 101
 Conclusion
 Further readings

89. 89/89
Further Readings
 NSERC Discovery Grants – An Insiders View by
Larry W. Kostiuk (Co-Chair, Fluids GSC 1512)
 How to Succeed in the New NSERC Discovery
Grant Competition Model by Evangelos Milios, Nur
Zincir-Heywood, and Stavros Konstantinidis
 NSERC Discovery Grant Applications: Hints and
Insights by Jason P. Leboe-McGowan
 Advice on NSERC Discovery and RTI Applications
by Robert Bridson