The document provides information about eligibility and the application process for NSERC Discovery Grants. It outlines who is eligible to apply, including faculty requirements. It also describes the review process, which involves external peer review, merit assessment by evaluation groups, and funding recommendations. The document provides tips for completing key parts of the application, such as the CCV, research proposal, budget, and relationship to other support. It aims to help applicants understand the requirements and successfully navigate the application process.

1. NSERC Discovery
Grant Workshop
Charity Parr-Vásquez, PhD | Sept 12, 2013

2. Eligibility
Faculty
• hold, or have a firm offer of, an academic
appointment at a Canadian institution (minimum
three-year term position) and take up the position no
later than September 1 of the year of the award;
• be in a position that requires independent research
and allows supervision of highly qualified personnel
(HQP); and
• spend a minimum of six months per year at an
eligible Canadian institution (if holding a position
outside Canada).
http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/NSERC-CRSNG/Eligibility-Admissibilite/faculty-
corpsprof_eng.asp

3. Eligibility
Subject Matter
• Discovery Grants support:
–research programs in the natural sciences
and engineering (NSE); and
–interdisciplinary research that is
predominantly in the NSE
•Significance, impact, advancement of
knowledge or practical applications in NSE
http://www.science.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=FEE7261A-1#SSHRC1

4. Eligibility of health-related
research
Eligible for NSERC support:
• animal health and veterinary medicine.
• nutraceuticals or functional foods.
• fundamental processes in humans.
• development of monitoring and diagnostic
Not eligible for NSERC support:
• refinement of existing health technology
• vaccines, active pharmaceutical ingredients (API)
• investigation/treatment of injuries or performance.
• animal models of human diseases

5. Psychology
• fundamental psychological processes (their underlying neural
mechanisms, development within individuals, and
evolutionary and ecological context)
– Sensation and perception;
– Sensorimotor integration;
– Motivation, emotion and reward;
– Learning and memory;
– Cognition and language;
– Sleep, arousal and the chronobiological modulation of
behaviour; and,
– Statistical methods for analysis of psychological data.

6. Timeline
Aug 1
Submit
NOI
Sept 21
ORS editing
revision
assistance
ORS
proofreading
and budget
Oct 14 Oct 21
ORS
internal
deadline
Submission
to NSERC
Nov 1 Mar/Apr
Results
announced

7. Review Process
Three-step process
1) External Peer review
2) Merit assessment
3) Funding recommendations.
The process
has changed!

8. External Peer Review
• Applications are sent to 0-4 peer reviewers
• Maybe from the list provided, but not always
• Provide feedback based on review criteria
• Used to inform NSERC review committee, and
provide feedback to applicant

9. • Currently 12 evaluation groups
• Each application is reviewed and voted on by
5 Evaluation Group members
– depending on the proposal focus it may be
reviewed by members from 1 or more Evaluation
Group
• Generate the final report
1501 Genes, Cells and Molecules 1509 Civil, Industrial and
1502 Biological Systems and Functions Systems Engineering
1503 Evolution and Ecology 1510 Electrical and Computer
1504 Chemistry Engineering
1505 Physics 1511 Materials and Chemical
1506 Geosciences Engineering
1507 Computer Science 1512 Mechanical Engineering
1508 Mathematics and Statistics
Merit Assessment: Evaluation Group

10. Merit Assessment:
Evaluation Criteria
Excellence
of
Researcher
HQP training
Merit of
Proposal

11. Excellence of Researcher
Excellence
of
Researcher
HQP training
Merit of
Proposal
Knowledge, expertise and
experience
Quality of past or potential
contributions and impact on
the proposed and other areas
of research
Importance of contributions to-
and use by- other researchers
and end-users
Complementarity of expertise
of the members of the team
and synergy (where applicable)

12. HQP training
HQP
training
Excellence
of
Researcher
Merit of
Proposal
Quality and extent of past
and potential contributions
to the training of HQP (e.g.,
post-doctoral fellows,
graduate and undergraduate
students, technicians)
Appropriateness of the
proposal for the training of
HQP
Enhancement of training
arising from a collaborative
or interdisciplinary
environment (where
applicable)

13. Merit of the Proposal
Merit of
Proposal
HQP training
Excellence
of
Researcher
Originality and innovation
Proposal suggests and explores novel or
potentially transformative concepts and lines of
inquiry
Significance and expected contributions to
research or potential for technological impact
Clarity and scope of objectives
Clarity and appropriateness of methodology
Feasibility
Extent to which the scope of the proposal
addresses all relevant issues, including the need
for varied expertise within or across disciplines
Appropriateness and justification for the budget
Explanation of the relationship between other
sources of funding and the current proposal
Extent to which it is clear, comprehensive, and
convincing

14. Merit Assessment
Exceptional
Outstanding
VeryStrong
Strong
Moderate
Insufficient
Funding"Bins"
A (L, N, H)
B (L, N, H)
C (L. N. H)
D (L, N, H)
.
.
.
N
O
P
Exceptional
Outstanding
VeryStrong
Strong
Moderate
Insufficient
Funding"Bins"
Excellence of
researcher
Merit of proposal
Contribution to
training of HQP
Cost of research High Normal Low
Exceptional
Outstanding
VeryStrong
Strong
Moderate
Insufficient
Funding"Bins"
A (L, N, H)
B (L, N, H)
C (L. N. H)
D (L, N, H)
.
.
.
N
O
P
Exceptional
Outstanding
VeryStrong
Strong
Moderate
Insufficient
Funding"Bins"
Excellence of
researcher
Merit of proposal
Contribution to
training of HQP
Cost of research High Normal Low
A=EEE
B=EEO
C=EOO
D=EOO
E=OOO
•
J=SSS
K=SSM
L=SMM
Established
researcher
Early
researcher

15. A rating in any
of the three
categories of
‘insufficient’
will result in an
unsuccessful
application

16. Funding Recommendations
$$$$$$
$$$$$
$$$$
$$$
Quality bin determines the amount of
funding an application will receive;
Applications assigned to bin A receive the
highest possible funding;
Allotted funding is reduced for each
successive bin;
All applications in the same bin within an
Evaluation Group receive a similar grant
amount;
Funding levels also vary across Evaluation
Groups.

17. The Grant Application
A full Discovery Grant application includes:
• an Application for a Grant (research portal),
with supporting documentation;
• a CCV for the applicant and all co-applicants

18. CCV and Research portal

19. Changes from past years
• Eligibility profile- New section
• HQP training plan- text box
• Past contributions to the training of HQP –
text box (previously found in Form 100)
• Most Significant Contributions – text box
(previously found in Form 100)

20. • Additional information on contributions – text
box (previously found in Form 100)
• Research Team –text box
• Activity details – new section
• Proposal – Five pages for both individual or
team application
Changes from past years

21. CCV

22. CCV- Checklist
Personal information (person profile, current
employment, address)
Education
Recognitions (awards, distinctions, honours)
User profile(application/field key words)
Employment
Research funding history
Supervisory experience
Contributions (publications, patents, etc)
Other

23. CCV Tips
• Only go back 6 years with the exception of
funding (4 years), recognitions, employment
details, academic details (unlimited)
• All time bound entries must include month
and year
– Six year cut off is to the month
– If you don’t remember the month, take you best
guess
– If is ongoing, estimate a future end date

24. Where do I put…?
• Administrative positions (ie Chair, grad
coordinator)- under “work experience”
• Book edited- under “editorial activities”
• Leadership roles in professional societies-
under “other committees”
• Grant review duties- under “other committee”
• Journal refereeing- under “information on
other contributions” in application

25. HQP
• If trainee was an undergraduate at the time
(summer student, volunteer, thesis student,
research assistant)– Bachelors
• If trainee was a technician or employee-do not
include in table but speak about in written
content of the application

26. Oral presentations vs conference
publications
• If you gave a talk at a conference only list that
contribution in the “presentation” section
only
• For all other conference contributions put in
the “conference publications” section
• If your contribution was more than one type
(paper, abstract, poster) pick one

27. The Proposal
Program vs. Project
“The Discovery Grants Program supports
ongoing programs of research (with long-term
goals) rather than a single short-term project
or collection of projects.”

28. Application
 Identification
Summary of proposal (3800 characters)
Proposed expenditures
Budget Justification (2 page attachment)
Relationship to other support (15200 characters)
HQP training (7600 characters/researcher)
Past contributions to HQP training (3800
characters/researcher, 6 years or 10 years if non-
academic)
Most significant contributions (11400 characters, 6
years, or 10 years if non-academic)

29. Application
Additional information on Contributions (3800
characters/researcher)
Research team (3800 characters)
Activity details (ethics, environmental impact)
Proposal (5 page attachment)
Other support sources (10mb, CIHR or SSHRC
summary and budget page)
References (2 pages)
Samples of Research Contributions (4 max)

30. Recent research progress
related to the proposal (or
attributable to your previous DG)
Objectives–short-AND long-term
Pertinent literature–put your research
into context
Methods and proposed approach
Anticipated significance
The 5-Page Proposal
Original, innovative and
feasible
Clear and concise
Do not underestimate
presentation and style
Use headlines from
the guidelines
Proofread!
Write for both
experts and non-
experts

31. Recent progress
• Highlight only research that relates to the
proposal
• Highlight impact
• Describe how it provides a foundation

32. Objectives
The objectives should flow naturally from the
needs you will identify in your literature review
Long-term objective describes the research
thrust of your program
Short term objectives are the essence of the
proposal in terms of what will be accomplished
in the term of the grant

33. Literature review
• Demonstrates your awareness of the
environment you exist in
• Convince the reviewer that there is a need for
your research and your project/program will
address this need
• Prove the need-references, statistics, charts,
etc.
• Do not be afraid to cite your own work (within
reason)

34. Methodology
• Usually longest and most detailed piece of
application
• Explain how you will address the objectives
• Demonstrating that you know what are the
appropriate steps to achieve your objectives
• Specific tasks, and details (for example-
recruitment strategies, pool size, sample size,
statistics, etc)
• Reviewer will not give you the benefit of the
doubt

35. Feasibility
• Demonstrate your experience with the
methodology by referencing publications
• If you do not have direct experience, highlight
partnerships
• Indicate you have access to infrastructure
• Do not describe methodology that depends
strictly on successive success
• Outline mitigation strategies

36. Anticipated significance
• Expectations for impact
• Who/what will benefit and how (industry,
health of Canadians, other researchers in your
field, the environment)
• No ‘motherhood statements’

37. Team Grants
• Same requirements as Individual, but
additional details required:
– Description of expertise, expected roles &
contributions
– Discussion of collaboration among members
– Details of team management and structure

38. The 5-page proposal
Suggested approximate page breakdown
progress report/
lit. review
object-
ives
methods & approach
benefit to
field and
Canada
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5

39. HQP training plan
• Be explicit- Who, why, what, how
• Highlight unique aspects of your training program-
Collaborations, mentorship, interdisciplinary
training, ‘soft skills training’
• Highlight the successes of past students
• Exposure to collaborations with end users
• Highlight unique-to-WLU experiences
• Describe nature of co-supervision

40. Budget/budget Justification
Include costs for:
Salaries
Dissemination
Travel
Materials and Supplies
Equipment (not encouraged,
but allowed)
Do not inflate your
budget
Be specific and
justify all requests
Only request direct
costs of research

41. Relationship to other research support
• Very important section that is often overlooked
• Provide: Main objectives, methodology, budget
details, and HQP info of ALL GRANTS APPLIED
FOR AND HELD
• Must provide details on conceptual and
budgetary relationships
• “applicants who currently hold, or have applied
for, research support from CIHR or SSHRC must
provide the summary and budget page”

42. Past contributions to HQP
• Be specific
– Number
– Names
– Type
– Project
– Current places of employment
– Significant achievements
• Value-add
– Publish
– Conferences
– Soft skills

43. Significant contributions
• Up to 5 significant contributions from the past 6
years (10 years if coming from outside academia)
• Not just a list of publications
• Can be groups of publications, industry-partnerships,
outreach activities, etc.
• Focus on impact, significance and novelty
• If applicable highlight knowledge
mobilization/partnerships
• DO NOT BE HUMBLE

44. Additional Information on
Contributions
• nature of collaborations with other researchers;
• order of authors in the publications listed, and
• inclusion of students in the list of authors;
• role in joint publications;
• reason for selecting certain venues
• impact or potential impact of patents/technology transfer;
• nature of industrially relevant R&D activities;
• the significance of confidential reports
• other activities or information to help committees to
evaluate your contributions

45. Final Steps
• All forms and attachments must be submitted to
NSERC electronically by Laurier internal deadline of
Oct 21
• Once you have submitted the grant through the e-
console, the Laurier ORS must authorize it and do the
final submission
– this is equal to the “institutional signature”
• In addition, submit to the Research Office:
– the External Grant and Contract Cover Sheet, with
signatures by your department chair and dean.

46. Stats
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
successrate(%)
Year
Success Rate Discovery Program
Laurier
All Universities

47. Application Resources
• “Discovery Grants Information Centre”
• Peer Review Manual
• Videos:
– “Tips on applying for an NSERC Discovery Grant”
– “Demystifying the review process for NSERC Discovery
Grants”
• Use of Grant Funds
• Discovery Grant Information Session
• Research portal
• CCV

48. Research Office Application Assistance
Proposal writing, editing, proofreading, budgets,
technical assistance with forms and on-line system
Charity Parr-Vasquez, Research Facilitator for the Natural
Sciences – cparrvasquez@wlu.ca, x4662