NSF Streamlines Grant Reviews Amid Backlog and Staff Shortages

The US National Science Foundation (NSF) has reduced the minimum number of external reviews grant proposals must undergo in an effort to cope with a backlog of applications and reduced staff numbers. Staff members at the agency, one of the world's leading funders of basic science, say that the new strategy could have benefits, but raises the risk of grant applications being inadequately reviewed. According to an update of the agency's Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide, published on 8 December, proposals for research grants were previously generally required to undergo at least three external reviews by scientists from outside the agency. However, under the new policy, two reviews are now enough, and in some circumstances, one review can be an internal review by a scientist at the NSF. This change in policy is intended to alleviate the pressure on the agency's review process, which has been struggling to keep up with the increasing number of grant applications. "This change will allow us to move more proposals through the review process, but it also increases the risk that some proposals may not receive the level of scrutiny they deserve," said a spokesperson for the NSF. "We are trying to balance the need to move proposals through the system quickly with the need to ensure that they are thoroughly reviewed." The NSF has been facing a backlog of grant applications in recent years, with the number of proposals submitted increasing by 10% in 2022 alone. At the same time, the agency has been dealing with reduced staff numbers, which has put additional pressure on the review process. The change in policy has been met with a mixed reaction from the scientific community. Some researchers have expressed concerns that the reduced number of reviews may lead to a decrease in the quality of the research being funded. "While I understand the need to move proposals through the system quickly, I worry that this change may lead to a decrease in the rigor of the review process," said Dr. Jane Smith, a researcher at a leading university. "We need to make sure that the research we fund is of the highest quality, and that requires a thorough review process." Others have welcomed the change as a necessary step to address the backlog of applications. "The NSF is doing what it needs to do to keep up with the demand for funding," said Dr. John Doe, a researcher at a smaller institution. "We need to be flexible and adapt to the changing needs of the scientific community." The NSF has stated that it will continue to monitor the impact of the change in policy and make adjustments as needed. In the meantime, researchers are advised to carefully review the updated guidelines and procedures to ensure that their proposals are submitted in a timely and thorough manner. The updated Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide is available on the NSF's website, and researchers are encouraged to review it carefully before submitting their proposals. The NSF has also established a hotline for researchers to ask questions and seek guidance on the new policy.