We have always been asked to remove them after we’ve submitted the proposal and before the proposal moves on for review. I always encourage faculty to only include letters of commitment or collaboration.
Sharon D. Smith, M.S., CRA, Ed.D.
Research Development Specialist
MTSU Office of Research Services
(615) 898-5894 (Office)
(615) 898-5028 (Fax)
(251) 610-0194 (Cell)
From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org]
On Behalf Of Michael Spires
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 12:26 PM
To: xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org
Subject: Re: [RESADM-L] NSF: letters of support
Hi, Pat—
At best, you’ll be contacted after submission and asked to remove them. At worst, they’ll return the proposal without review.
Increasingly, solicitations are prescribing the exact form allowed for letters of collaboration/commitment—and keeping those to the absolute minimum possible:
“I have read the proposal and agree to participate as described/provide the resources described in the project description.”
Whenever I have an NSF project and people are considering drafting letters, I always make sure to tell them that they should stick to either the language prescribed
by the solicitation, or else stick to the facts about what it is they’re providing to the project (time, resources, access, etc.), and absolutely avoid any comments on the merits of the proposal, the project team, or encouragement to the program staff to fund
it. Those are just asking for trouble.
Michael Spires, M.A., M.S., CRA
Principal Proposal Analyst
Office of Contracts and Grants
Woodbury 401, 572 UCB
University of Colorado Boulder
Boulder, Colorado 80309-0572
O (303) 492-6646
F (303) 492-6421
From: Research Administration List [mailto:xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org]
On Behalf Of Patricia Turnbull
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2016 11:13 AM
To: xxxxxx@lists.healthresearch.org
Subject: [RESADM-L] NSF: letters of support
Greetings,
Does anyone have a sense of how NSF is handling letters of support recently? Specifically, has anyone had something RWR for including support letters that were not required? I'm asking because the GPG wording has changed a little--we still rule against this,
but are we being too cautious?
NSF 15-1 GPG stated that letters of support should not be included (unless required) as they are not a standard proposal component, and specifically noted that proposals not consistent with
these instructions would be returned without review.
NSF 16-1 GPG gives the same instructions, but the "return without review" sentence was removed from this part. Granted, the GPG notes throughout that proposals not in conformance with instructions
may be returned without review, I'm just wondering why they removed the warning from this section specifically and what others have experienced lately.
Thanks!
Pat
=========================================================
Patricia Turnbull, CRA - Research Process Manager
University of Michigan-Dearborn, Office of Research & Sponsored Programs
4901 Evergreen, 2070 IAVS Dearborn, MI 48128-2406
Phone:
313.593.0515
Email secured by Check Point
<br> ======================================================================<br> Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including<br> subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available<br> via our web site at
http://www.healthresearch.org (click on the<br> "LISTSERV" link in the upper right corner)<br> <br> A link directly to helpful tips:
http://tinyurl.com/resadm-l-help<br> ======================================================================<br>
<br> ======================================================================<br> Instructions on how to use the RESADM-L Mailing List, including<br> subscription information and a web-searchable archive, are available<br> via our web site
at http://www.healthresearch.org (click on the<br> "LISTSERV" link in the upper right corner)<br> <br> A link directly to helpful tips:
http://tinyurl.com/resadm-l-help<br> ======================================================================<br>