Criteria for CMSN Preproposals, Review Documents, and their Review

In addition to the basic requirements that all DOE proposals must meet , preproposals/review documents for CMSN must include a number of specific emphases because of its mission: namely, to advance computational materials science by bringing together diverse sets of researchers to work together in teams to solve relevant materials problems. These emphases are noted under the relevant evaluation criterion. If a preproposal is judged promising, the applicants will be asked to present their projects to the Scientific Oversight Committee which, at its option, will work with the applicants to insure their plans properly match the CMSN mission. Successful outcome of this process will be a full preproposal and a recommendation to submit an application review document to the program manager via Email. No other CRT applications will be considered. The full preproposal should become the extended abstract for the review document. The format of these documents is thus fractal and is described below.

REVIEW AND SELECTION OF RESEARCH PROJECTS AND SPECIAL FEATURES FOR CMSN

The basic requirements for all DOE proposals are described on the DOE web pages

Office of Science (SC) Merit Review System

and are briefly outlined below with the special features needed for Collaborative Research Teams.

All research projects supported by the Office of Basic Energy Sciences (BES) undergo regular peer review * and merit evaluation based on procedures set down in 10 CFR Part 605 for the extramural grant program and in an analogous process for the laboratory programs and scientific user facilities. The BES peer review process evaluates following the following criteria, which are listed below. The standard BES examples are necessary conditions to the team but already have been reviewed to some degree when the base funding was initiated. The order is normally that of decreasing importance but the CMSN mission dictates a few modifications as noted.

  1. Scientific and/or technical merit of the project

    • Standard BES examples include the influence that the results might have on the direction, progress, and thinking in relevant scientific fields of research; the likelihood of achieving valuable results; and the scientific innovation and originality indicated in the proposed research.

    • Relationship to existing DOE-BES-funded projects. Projects should complement, build on, and extend existing BES projects.

    • What is the likelihood of achieving valuable results? What is the scientific innovation and originality indicated in the proposed project? What tools will have been developed. Who will have access? Will there be a synergism with experimental and industrial efforts?

    • Clear path to relevance (i.e., theory, modeling, real materials issues) should be demonstrated. What are the critical theoretical computational materials science challenges?

  2. Appropriateness of the proposed method or approach

    • Standard BES examples include the logic and feasibility of the research approaches and soundness of the conduct of the research.

    • For a CMSN CRT, the Management plan has a much enhanced significance. Team leaders must present a rigorous and clear management plan, including mechanisms for determining scientific accountability, how and by whom resource allocation decisions will be made, and how changes and reprioritization of scientific directions will be decided.

    • Algorithm and code sharing together with the integration as explicit deliverables - Is there a clear emphasis here?

  3. Competency of the personnel and adequacy of proposed resources.

    • Standard BES examples include the background, past performance, and potential of the investigator(s); and the research environment and facilities for performing the research.

  4. Reasonableness and appropriateness of the proposed budget.

    • The actual budgets will occur in the funding documents that implement the team. However, reasonableness and appropriateness of the intended spending plan should be demonstrated. Justify how the team can achieve it plans (shared junior researchers, travel between CRT member institutions, coordination meetings, etc.) on the funds that will be made available.

    The criteria for review may also include other appropriate factors established and announced by the Office of Basic Energy Sciences. In the case of CMSN,

  5. Rationale for the Team.

    • Is the team composed of members who would not ordinarily have the opportunity to partner without CMSN support?

    • Scientific goals should be of the type best pursued through broad-focused cooperative efforts, as opposed to those problems best tackled by single-investigator groups or currently existing small collaborations.

    • Teams should define both short-term deliverables and long-term objectives. The short-term deliverables are what the team expects to achieve during its formal existence and the long-term objectives should reveal their vision of the future.

The BES peer review and merit evaluation procedures are described within the following documents:

BES Merit Review Procedures for Projects at DOE Laboratories

For more information about SC's merit review system, please browse the Grants and Contracts Division homepage.

* Peer Reviews are independent assessments of the scientific merit of research by experts having knowledge of the research area equal to that of the performers of the work.

FORMAT OUTLINE FOR PREPROPOSALS/REVIEW DOCUMENT

The full preproposal is expected to be an extended abstract of the review document. Thus the two documents should have the same structure:

  1. Introduction: abstract, describing goals and scientific/technical merit of the project (< 75 words for the preproposal)

    2.
  2. Overview
    1. How will science be advanced? What influence will the results have on the direction, progress, and thinking in relevant scientific fields of research?
    2. What is the rationale for a team effort - is the team composed of members who would not ordinarily have the opportunity to partner without CMSN support? Is the proposed project one that emphasizes a broad-focused cooperative approach?
    3. What is the expected impact? Who will care and why? Is there a synergism with experimental and industrial efforts?
    4. How does the proposal build on existing DOE-BES-funded projects? Projects should complement and build on existing BES projects.
  3. Issues - the science
    1. Is there a clear emphasis on algorithm and code integration and sharing as explicit deliverables?
    2. Is there a clear path to relevance (theory, modeling, real materials issues) demonstrated? What are the critical theoretical computational materials science challenges?
    3. What is the scientific innovation and originality indicated in the proposed project?
    4. What are the objectives? Are both short-term deliverables and long-term objectives defined? (Long term objectives may exceed the period of the team's formal existence.)
  4. Project Plan
    1. What will be done? Is the proposed method or approach appropriate for the objectives and goals? What is the logic and feasibility of the research approach and the soundness of the conduct of the research?
    2. What kinds of computer resources are available now and what will be required at various stages of the project (time, memory, storage, networking, etc.)? Will MPP be needed? Would significantly increased resources have a big impact?
    3. What accomplishments are expected within the 3 year time frame of the project?
  5. Partnering and Management
    1. What is the rationale for partnering? Is the team composed of members who would not ordinarily have the opportunity to partner without CMSN support? Are the goals of the proposal best met with a broad-focused cooperative effort?
    2. Who are the key members of the team? Draft a list and include, for example, the background, past performance, and potential of the investigator(s) and the research environment and facilities for performing the research.
    3. What is the structure of the team? Present a clear management plan including mechanisms for determining scientific accountability, how and by whom resource allocation decisions will be made (including reallocations), and how changes or reprioritization of scientific directions will be decided.
    4. How will the team members communicate with each other? How will the results of your CMSN-funded research be disseminated?
    5. How will the partnering money be used? Present a reasonable and appropriate budget plan.

  6. Outcome
    1. What is the likelihood of achieving valuable results?
    2. What are the implications of success? What science or technology advances will be achieved? What tools will have been developed? Who will have access?
    3. What might a success story look like?

If you have any questions or concerns about this process, send email to:

cmsn AT phys DOT washington DOT edu

UW Seal

This website is hosted at the Department of Physics at the University of Washington.
Email cmsn AT physDOT washingtonDOT edu with questions or comments.
Last update: 17-Sep-2008