Maybe it’s time for another @nsf thread. This time on how to read reviews and what you can and can’t take away from them. First, important reminder - while I’ve reviewed many, many NSF proposals and even worked at NSF for a while, these views are my own. 1/15

OK, here we go. As anyone who’s served on an NSF panel has been told, the panel summary is the most important document a PI will receive. (I’d say this is true for declined proposals. For funded proposals, It’s probably the official award notification!) 2/15

Now, why is the summary so important? Because it should summarize the panel discussion of the proposal and the discussion of the proposal is how/when panel recommendations get made. Therefore, the summary should reflect why the panel recommended a certain outcome. 3/15

The strengths and weaknesses outlined in the summary are those that were discussed. They’re the ones the panelists thought were important enough to include in the summary. Does this mean you can ignore the individual reviews? 4/15

No, but it also means to not dwell on a negative comment or a weakness that was only identified by one reviewer and didn’t make it into the summary. Maybe the weakness was discussed by the panel, but if it’s not in the summary, the panel didn’t deem it v. important. 5/15

About the reviews themselves - yes, there are reviews that contain inappropriate comments. Yes, there are reviews that contain mistakes and incorrect information. Getting these reviews sucks. It just does, there’s no way around it. 6/15

And, NSF can, and probably should, do more to work with the community of reviewers to eliminate inappropriate comments and/or mistakes as much as possible. 7/15

However, in all the panels I’ve participate in as a panelist and as a rotating PO, any inappropriate comments are ignored (or they’re discussed in the sense that they were totally inappropriate and not at all germane to the proposal). 8/15

Mistakes are corrected. Hell, I’m certain I’ve made factual mistakes in some of my reviews and they let me work at NSF. But, the beauty of a panel, populated with lots of smart people is that in nearly every instance, those mistakes are caught and fixed or they’re ignored. 9/15

Some people wonder why NSF doesn’t throw out reviews or redact parts of reviews. Both those options are technically possible, but are really only available in extremely narrow situations. 10/15

To bring this back to the summary - that’s what you should pay close attention to. Read it, let it sink in for a few days and then read it again. If you have questions, reach out to the PO handling the proposal. 11/15

Send them an email first, don’t cold call them. POs take lots of notes. Their own notes on the proposals, notes on the panel discussion, etc. In fact, many POs take notes on the nature of the panel discussion. 12/15

This may include notes on whether one panelist dominated the conversation. Or whether all the panelists were in complete agreement about the strengths and weaknesses. Or was one panelist a real advocate even if the ultimate fate of the proposal was a decline. 13/15

So, don’t cold call them because they’ll want time to look up your proposal, go over their notes, go over the panel summary, etc. They can help you read between the lines of the panel summary, but they need time to review the materials in order to be as helpful as possible. 14/15

Long story short - pay attention to the panel summary. Have questions? Reach out to your PO.

Finally, what questions fo you have about the panel summary/review process? 15/15