Welcome!

By participating in today’s event, you acknowledge that you have read and will comply with our Code of Conduct, http://bit.ly/CitSciLeadersCode.

You’re listening to informal chat with today’s speaker, Max Bernstein, and the Planning Team.

We’ll start the program at 3:00 pm EDT.

Please use the Zoom Q&A tool to share what you want to learn today about NASA’s ROSES!

Unwrapping ROSES with Max Bernstein

Max Bernstein

Start Q&A

Woody Turner

Continue Q&A

Formally end at top of hour

Continue with informal chat for those who can

Bonus slides from Max Bernstein

Max Bernstein

Science Mission Directorate Lead for Research

Research Opportunities in Space �and Earth Science (ROSES)

4

5

• Caveats
• What is ROSES
• Content
• Structure and precedence
• Tables of ROSES including…
• NOI vs. 2-Step, No Due Date
• Example Call for Proposals
• Bold notice for anything special
• Summary Table of Key Information
• Citizen Science as Topic vs Approach
• Closing

Agenda

6

• I will include far too many slides in this talk for the time allotted.
• Moreover, there are far too many slides in backup after the black ending slide.
• This is in hopes that these slides may be more useful if you need to refer to them later.
• However, that means I’ll pass over some very quickly.
• Later, if you need to write/submit a ROSES proposal or run a ROSES programs and you have questions don’t hesitate to ask me. You may always write to me or to SARA@nasa.gov
• Slides will be shared. See speaker notes for links!

Caveats

What is ROSES

7

The 2023 "ROSES" omnibus research solicitation was released ~ February 14

ROSES has >100 individual "program elements" each with its own topics, cadence, and due dates, searchable through tables (next slide).

ROSES is regularly updated with new opportunities and changes (tips on tracking these later).

Instructions for Google due date calendars here.

Blog of amendments, corrections etc. here.

Parts of ROSES You Need to Know

8

Table 1: Checklist for proposals

Table 2: Elements listed chronologically by proposal due dates

Table 3: Elements organized by Division

Summary of Solicitation (Blah Blah)

Division Research Overview (A.1, B.1, etc.) and…

​

The program element(s) to which you will propose (the actual call for proposals, with the technical info) - this is the most important.

ROSES will change over the course of the year.

Main ROSES Page on NSPIRES

9

https://solicitation.nasaprs.com/ROSES2023

​

Table 1 of ROSES

10

Checklist of proposal parts:

• Any excluded requirements
• Optional or mandatory page limits
• Etc.

Here is an example:

Tables 2 and 3 of ROSES

11

• Table 2: Program elements by due date
• Table 3: Program elements by Division:

A = Earth Science

B = Heliophysics

C = Planetary Science

D = Astrophysics

E = Biological and Physical Sciences

F = Cross Division (e.g., cit sci seed funding)

​

​

​

ROSES Layered Structure

12

​

Default rules (about all the boring stuff like fonts, policies, etc.) is (mostly) relegated to the "ROSES-2023 Summary of Solicitation (SOS or SoS)”

​

Read the Summary once and then focus on the science or technology in the much shorter program element text (the call call for proposals).

Structure and Order of precedence

13

1. Read the program element, and do what it says
2. If there is something not addressed in the element, do what Division overview says
3. If there is something not addressed in the overview do what the ROSES SoS says
4. If there is something not addressed in the ROSES SoS do what the NASA guidebook for Proposers says.
5. The program element takes precedence over everything else.

​

​

14

Table 2 of ROSES (sorted by due date)

NOI Required

NOI Optional

Step-1s are always Mandatory

No NOI

Appendix Program element title and hypertext link NOI/Step-1 Prop/Step-2

Submit at any time

NOI vs Step-1 Proposal

15

An NOI is submitted by you, so it may be dashed off and submitted the evening that its due.

A proposal (Step-1 or Step-2) is submitted by your organization, not by the Principal Investigator (PI).

• The PI "releases" proposal to the organization; an authorized official at the organization submits proposal.
• Follow your organizations rules about how far in advance a proposal must be released to org.
• NSPIRES proposal submission cut off is typically 11:59 pm eastern time on the due date, but that’s really just for Hawaii.
• If you’re on the mainland and release your proposal to your organization >5 pm local time it may not get submitted.

No Due Date – 2 types

​

16

Many programs will accept proposals at any time without any preliminary statement (e.g., NOI or Step-1 proposal). Two types:

1. No Due Date (NoDD) programs that will review proposals with a cadence that will depend on the rate at which proposals are submitted and
2. Programs that will review quarterly.

They will display a due date, but it’s just the end of ROSES at which point the next one will be out.

See the text of the program elements, the Research Overviews (A.1, B.1, C.1 etc.), and https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/NoDD

Changes After Release

17

There are a few ways to keep track of changes after ROSES is released:

• Look for red text HTML Tables 2 & 3 of ROSES
• Subscribe to the SMD NSPIRES mailing list(s)
• Download instructions for how to subscribe to the Google Due Date Calendars at https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/library-and-useful-links
• ROSES-23 Blog at: https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/grant-solicitations/roses-2023/

Changes and Additions to ROSES after release:

NSPIRES mailing lists

​

18

Amendments to ROSES:

• New program elements added,
• TBD programs that are finalized, or
• Major changes in scope or due date

Subscribe to SMD mailing list in NSPIRES under "Account Management” to receive alerts!

19

This is the opportunity description

(also called a " Program element")

Example ROSES Program Element

20

F.9 Citizen SCIENCE SEED FUNDING PROGRAM

NOTICE: The page limit for the Science/Technical/Management section of the proposal is six pages. All proposals will be first checked to ensure that they meet the requirement that the proposed project is new or heading into a critical transition. Proposals that do not meet all requirements may be returned without review.

1. Scope of Program

Citizen science is a form of open collaboration in which individuals or organizations participate voluntarily in the scientific process. The Citizen Science Seed Funding Program (CSSFP) of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD) aims to support scientists and other experts to develop citizen science projects and to expand the pool of scientists who use citizen science techniques in their science investigations.

Four Divisions of the SMD are participating in the CSSFP: the Astrophysics Division, the Biological and Physical Sciences Division, the Heliophysics Division and the Planetary Science Division. All proposals must address one or more goal(s) or objective(s) relevant to at least one of these participating SMD divisions. The Earth Science Division is not participating; see below for information on citizen science projects related to Earth Sciences. CSSFP proposals relevant to Biological and Physical Science Research Programs must be focused on using the GeneLab and/or Physical Sciences Informatics databases.

In SMD, "Citizen Science Projects" are defined as science projects that rely on volunteers. In effective citizen science projects, scientists (subject matter experts) give feedback to and receive feedback from these volunteers. Volunteer participation is required for CSSFP funding, as is a strong science motivation of the proposed investigation. In addition, for projects that are not already open to volunteers, proposals must describe when and how projects will be made “open” to new volunteers (this step is sometimes called “launching” the citizen science project). Note that the term "citizen science" does not pertain to citizenship in any particular country, and that "citizen scientists" may include "amateur" scientists.

Bold Notice = Special Requirements

21

"Open Science & Data Management Plan" is now standard.

If this requirement is waived, or if the element does anything else that is not the default set by the Summary of Solicitation, the bold notice at the top will say so.

The call may also:

• Require an Inclusion Plan
• Require a separate explicit statement of relevance
• Specify instructions for dual-anonymous peer review

​

For example, CSSFP notes two things:

• 6-page limit for Scientific/Technical/Management (S/T/M) section
• Special project requirements (“project is new or heading into critical transition”)

8. Summary of Key Information

Citizen Science: Topic or Method?

23

In general, ROSES regards Citizen Science as an approach to science.

​

All program elements in ROSES (that are focused on a certain type of science) welcome proposals that use Citizen Science, if it is an effective approach.

​

Citizen Science is also the focus of elements:

• In F: Citizen Science Seed Funding Program
• In A: (not in 2023) Citizen Science for Earth Systems Program

Useful Resources

24

• Talks on Proposal Writing (See Library)
• Points of Contact for Programs (PO List)
• Selection Statistics (Grant Stats)
• Volunteer reviewer forms (Landing page)
• FAQs on ROSES, DMPs, ROSES Budgets, DAPR, NoDD, etc.
• Boring Policies (See Library)
• Inclusion resources will be posted at https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/inclusion

​

​

SARA Web Page https://sara.nasa.gov

Thank you

25

​

​

Questions?

​

​

​

If you think of a question later, you may always send it to SARA@nasa.gov

Woody Turner

Program Manager for Ecological Conservation and

Program Scientist for Biological Diversity in the NASA Headquarters Earth Science Division

Looking Back: Citizen Science in the NASA Ecological Forecasting Program

​

February 16, 2023

​

Woody Turner

Ecological Conservation Program

June 2018

Science Mission Directorate

Earth Science Division

Applied Sciences Program

NASA Ecological Forecasting Program

• Part of Applied Sciences in the NASA Earth Science Division
• Applications program
• Focused on terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems

​

• Goal: Sought to integrate a) NASA Earth observations, b) in-situ biological data, and c) associated models to develop predictive tools—with uncertainties–for conservation and natural resource management
• As of late 2022, program is now called Ecological Conservation

​

• Primary funding mechanism: open, competed, peer-reviewed solicitations

Crowdsourcing Appears

• ROSES 2012 A.36 Solicitation – Earth Science Applications: Ecological Forecasting for Conservation and Natural Resource Management
• Required some in-situ biological observations of ecosystems, species, and/or genetic components be derived, at least in part, from a crowdsourcing initiative(s)

​

• Why crowdsourcing?
• Harness capabilities of numerous amateur observers making observations of natural world
• Take advantage of new technologies for georeferenced observations and burgeoning Web
• (Not in call but intended) Engage a wider range of observers, beyond the “usual suspects”
• In short, amplify the number of in-situ observations and engage new observers

​

• Welcomed crowdsourcing in ROSES 2016 EcoForecasting call—but not required

​

ROSES A.36 Project Portfolio

Snapshot Wisconsin

Pacific Flyway Avian Abundance with eBird & BirdReturns

Figure 1: Relative abundance estimates for Northern Pintail in California for three dates in 2012.

Rice farmer Amelia Harter flooded her fields for the BirdReturns project. She saw a “jaw dropping” number of birds during the Fall migration, 2015.

​

THANK YOU

NASA Day, May 22

​

Our first in person gathering since 2018!

February 21 Event: cit sci platforms!

• FieldScope
• Zooniverse
• iNaturalist
• CitSci.Org
• Anecdata
• ESRI

for more info and to register, point phone here

March 16 event details:

Lin Chambers, Science Activation program

Sydney Neugebauer, Capacity Building Coordination & Analysis Lead, NASA Applied Sciences, Equity and Environmental Justice program

Maybe one more special guest…

Join us again on March 16!

A Conversation on the Federal Funding Landscape for Citizen Science

with:

Alison Parker, Wilson Center

Marc Kuchner, NASA

Liam O’Fallon, NIEHS

John McLaughlin, NOAA�Ellen McCallie, NSF

Sophia Liu, USGS

Register Here!

Bonus slides from Max Bernstein

Links for Later

39

Top Level ROSES-23: https://solicitation.nasaprs.com/ROSES2023

Table 1 of ROSES-23: https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument?cmdocumentid=913341&solicitationId={274C8365-A038-339F-A3AE-8F5BFE178312}&viewSolicitationDocument=1

Table 2 of ROSES-23: https://solicitation.nasaprs.com/ROSES2023table2

Table 3 of ROSES-23: https://solicitation.nasaprs.com/ROSES2023table3

​

Instructions on how to subscribe to Google due date calendars https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/library-and-useful-links

Blog of amendments and clarifications: http://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/grant-solicitations/ROSES-2023/

​

Dual-anonymous peer review

​

40

The dual-anonymous peer review (DAPR) process is one in which the proposers unaware of the identity the reviewers (normal), AND the reviewers are not told the identity of the proposers until after proposal evaluation.

For these programs there are special instructions in the call for proposals in a file under “other documents” on the NSPIRES page for DAPR calls, and at

https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/dual-anonymous-peer-review

​

​

Inclusion Plans

​

41

Last year, 3 programs required a 2-page "Inclusion Plan" see the APD White Paper on this topic.

New Section IV(e)ii of the ROSES SoS on this topic.

This year the following ROSES program elements will require an Inclusion Plan: A.23 ESI, A.28 IDS, B.22 Space Weather Centers of Excellence (SWxCs), D.3 APRA, D.7 SAT, D.12 TCAN, D.13 Pioneers, D.15 LPS, D.16 Astrophysics Decadal Survey Precursor Science (ADSPS), and F.10 and F.11, the PRISM calls.

The assessment of this plan will not change adjectival ratings or selection recommendations. A satisfactory inclusion plan will be a prerequisite for the grant being made. This is analogous to how we handled DMPs.

​

See what won in the past: program selections

42

🡨

If there is a particular program of interest to you, simply visit the NSPIRES page of that program element from past years and look under "Selections"

See what won in the past

43

But if you don't know of a particular program, you may search the NSSC grant status database to get a list of grants (only) based on key word from the title, university, PI etc., but this is grants only.

https://www.nssc.nasa.gov/grantstatus

​

​

​

​

Example excerpt from grant stats spreadsheet

44

https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/grant-stats Current file is from fall 2021, so the data is only through ROSES-2020 but soon it will be updated to include data from ROSES-2021, which is still ongoing.

Points of contact for ROSES

at https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/program-officers-list/

45

Example NSPIRES email to Division list

​

46

From: "smdh@listsrv2.nasaprs.com" <smdh@listsrv2.nasaprs.com>�Reply-To: "smdh@listsrv2.nasaprs.com" <smdh@listsrv2.nasaprs.com>�Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 at 10:15 AM�To: "smdh@listsrv2.nasaprs.com" <smdh@listsrv2.nasaprs.com>�Subject: [Smdh] Heliophysics Templates for ROSES-22 Posted

​

Heliophysics Templates for ROSES-22 Posted

Beginning with ROSES-2022, all proposals to Appendix B Elements must include a Current and Pending Support (C&P) table for PIs and Co-Is following a standardized format. 

Proposals that do not include a C&P table in the correct format, even if selectable, may not be funded until an appropriate C&P table is submitted. PDF, MS Excel and MS Word templates of this table and instructions for their use have now been posted at:

https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/templates-heliophysic-division-appendix-b-roses-proposals

​

​

You are receiving this email because you have subscribed, through NSPIRES, to the Heliophysics mailing list under the NASA Science Mission Directorate.

If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, access your NSPIRES account, click on Account Management, then click the Email Subscriptions link.

If you need assistance, please contact the NSPIRES Help Desk at NSPIRES-Help@nasaprs.com or call 202-479-9376.

Example NSPIRES email to SMD General Subscription list

47

From: "smd@listsrv2.nasaprs.com" <smd@listsrv2.nasaprs.com>�Reply-To: "smd@listsrv2.nasaprs.com" <smd@listsrv2.nasaprs.com>�Date: Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:42 AM�To: "'smd@listsrv2.nasaprs.com'" <smd@listsrv2.nasaprs.com>�Subject: [Smd] ROSES-22 Amendment 1: B.10 H-FOS Final Text and Due Date .

​

ROSES-22 Amendment 1: B.10 H-FOS Final Text and Due Date

​

B.10 Heliophysics Flight Opportunities Studies (H-FOS) solicits proposals of up to twelve-month for studies of potential Heliophysics Science mission concepts at the pre-phase A level. Proposals to enable application of new technologies (platform and/or instrumentation) are encouraged. NASA intends to award a range of studies across the spectrum of heliophysics science and mission costs. However, mission concepts appropriate for proposals to B.11 H-FORT are of particular interest. Investigations must be responsive to the Heliophysics Division Science Goals and must identify a potential future mission.

ROSES-2022 Amendment 1 releases final text and announces the proposal due date for B.10 H-FOS. Neither Notices of Intent nor Step-1 proposals are requested for this program element. Proposals are due September 1, 2022.

On or about February 17, 2022, this Amendment to the NASA Research Announcement "Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Sciences (ROSES) 2022" (NNH22ZDA001N) will be posted on the NASA research opportunity homepage at http://solicitation.nasaprs.com/ROSES2022 and will appear on SARA's ROSES blog at: https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/grant-solicitations/roses-2022/

Questions concerning B.10 H-FOS may be directed to Roshanak Hakimzadeh at hakimzadeh@nasa.gov.

​

You are receiving this email because you have subscribed, through NSPIRES, to the NASA Science Mission Directorate mailing list.

If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, access your NSPIRES account, click on Account Management, then click the Email Subscriptions link.

If you need assistance, please contact the NSPIRES Help Desk at NSPIRES-Help@nasaprs.com or call 202-479-9376.

High Risk - High Impact

​

48

• Identification of high-(intellectual) risk high-impact proposals by proposers and peer reviewers will continue.
• high-risk is not technological risk. Think "transformative" or "out of the box" technology ideas or paradigm-shifting research.
• SMD funds HR/HI proposals at a higher rate than other proposals. So don’t be afraid to submit them!

​

​

​

49

Any program element that is using DAPR will:

1. clearly indicate that this is the case in the call,
2. contain a special section with detailed instructions about how to prepare proposals,
3. link to a special web FAQ on this subject, at https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/dual-anonymous-peer-review
4. and the NSPIRES page of any program using DAPR will host "Guidelines for Anonymous Proposals" under "Other documents".

​

​

Dual-anonymous peer review, cont.

​

50

People have told me that this will not work because they will be able to tell who wrote the proposal even without the name on it.

You may be surprised to learn that, according to the folks who ran the Hubble review, in the vast majority of cases (like 90%) the reviewers were not able to correctly identify the authors of the proposal.

Please don't assume you have correctly identified the authors of the proposals, because you are wrong 9 times out of 10.

Moreover, social science shows that even just removing the names helps reviewers focus more on the science

​

Dual-anonymous peer review, cont.

​

Dual-anonymous peer review, cont.

​

51

Proposers to these programs must provide two separate documents: an anonymized version of the proposal for peer review and a non-anonymized document that contains components of the proposal that would reveal the identities and affiliations of participating researchers, such as expertise, facilities and resources. The latter will be revealed to the panel only after the evaluation of all proposals and only for a subset of selectable proposals (typically the top third). If there are clear, compelling deficiencies in the expertise required to see through the goals of the proposal, the panel may note this in its comments to NASA. This review may not be used to upgrade proposals for having particularly strong team qualifications, nor may it be used to re-evaluate proposals.

​

Cover Page Budget

52

From http://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/how-to-guide/nspires-CSlabor/

There are three lines for Co-Is at other organizations. First, put funds for Co-I government organizations in lines 8 & 9. Put the funds that pass through your organization in line 5.

Redacted{

Redacted{

53

From http://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/how-to-guide/nspires-CSlabor/

I used Section F line 5, the generic subaward line, for my $60K subcontract to Miskatonic University, not that you can tell, because I could not modify the description of line 5. That this is for M-U will only become apparent later when you read the actual proposal.

Next, I used customizable line 8 for the $150K that will be sent directly to my Co-I at Naval Research Lab and I entered "NRL portion of this award" in the description.

In line 9 I put the GSFC portion of the award and labeled it appropriately.

When the proposal is evaluated by the peer-review panel, they will not see any of the $ numbers in the Personnel Sections or in Section F lines 5, 8 & 9, all of that will be automatically redacted.

Cover Page Budget

54

Include costs of things (including those in a sub award) in the budget detail/justification in the main proposal PDF e.g., explain why does your Co-I need a 6 Series B MSO Mixed Signal Oscilloscope that costs 10s of $ K, why not a TBS1000C or TBS2000B?

​

Also, make reference to the subaward e.g., "0.5 FTE are allocated for Co-I Dr. H. West (Miskatonic, Arkham, Mass) as can be seen in the summary table of work effort and full costs are in Section F line 5 of the cover page budget and in the separately uploaded Total Budget pdf file."

​

Budget Details/Justification

55

Ditto consultants, no salary, fringe and overhead costs in the main proposal PDF. In the budget justification in the main proposal PDF you explain only the part that is not labor e.g., "The total cost of the consultants Goldshtik and Whorfin of the Banzai Institute is provided in the NSPIRES cover page budget in Section F line 3. The consultancy includes the cost of the rental of an oscillation overthruster from Professor Tohichi Hikita of Nagoya university at $157/hour. This cost is quite reasonable given that similar facilities are twice as expensive.

Budget Details/Justification

Total Budget Upload

56

• The Total Budget PDF is uploaded in exactly the same way that the proposal PDF is uploaded, but by choosing document type "Total Budget", see figure below. This Total Budget file will not be seen by peer reviewers. In general, these budget files are for Step-2 proposals only.

57

Table of work effort in the main proposal PDF is merely a reporting of the planned work commitment for all participants, funded by NASA or not. A very simple example from Section IV(b)iii of the ROSES summary of Solicitation will appear on the next slide. Note, this table is outside of and is distinct from budget and the page limited main part of proposal, which must describe what work each team member will be doing. That doesn't belong here.

Templates for the planetary science division may be found at http://tinyurl.com/hbnff8u (refer to #2).

And for the Earth Science Division here.

​

​

Table of Work Effort

58

(Simple) Table of Work Effort

* A letter of support is provided from the (foreign organization) Saturnian School of Medical Sciences for Dr. Claire Finn, participating at no cost to this proposal .

º The Graduate student from Moclan College is funded by a FINESST award and thus participating at no cost to this proposal.

Order of Precedence

59

• There is a section I(h) in the Summary of Solicitation, called Order of Precedence: The Guidebook vs. ROSES vs. Program Elements which tells you what to do if ROSES SOS, the guidebook, and or an individual program element disagree: �Program element > Division Research Overview (e.g., B.1) > SOS > Guidebook.�
• FAQs should merely elaborate, not surprise you or conradict a rule in the program element.

​