![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eve_prime"Your application for a National Science Foundation (NSF) Graduate Research Fellowship has been evaluated. We regret to inform you that you were not selected to receive a fellowship in this year’s competition."
Reviewer 1:
Intellectual Merit: good
Well-written/communicated proposal; could have said more in past research experience about study's hypotheses and findings (to give a sense of ability to interpret and communicate findings). Good involvement of publications. Needed better lit review in plan as well as description of methods. More abstract than desirable - need better scientific writing style.
Broader Impacts: good
Important social impacts of past research re: smoking cessation and pregnant women's health. For societal benefits and other broader impacts, could have spelled this out more specifically for proposed study.
I'm not at all clear on how this person thought the cost analysis I did of smoking cessation for new mothers was the least bit relevant...
Reviewer 2:
Intellectual Merit: very good
Candidate's proposal indicated the importance of construct validation and development of nomological networks of relationships of "idealism/ideals" with related constructs, but not many details on even strategies for doing this were presented. This is critical given the number of related constructs (values, goals, principles, etc.). Not clear where this line of thinking goes if not successful in providing clear evidence for a separate construct.
Broader Impacts: very good
Candidate has considerable experience regarding broader impacts of research findings; did not discuss in detail plans to communicate findings of this research outside academic milieu or how to engage diverse groups in the research process.
Oh well. The degree of research plan development they wanted for someone in their fifth week of grad school seems a bit unreasonable. Applicants who are planning to build on their advisors' research would tend to have an advantage over those who are starting from scratch.
Reviewer 1:
Intellectual Merit: good
Well-written/communicated proposal; could have said more in past research experience about study's hypotheses and findings (to give a sense of ability to interpret and communicate findings). Good involvement of publications. Needed better lit review in plan as well as description of methods. More abstract than desirable - need better scientific writing style.
Broader Impacts: good
Important social impacts of past research re: smoking cessation and pregnant women's health. For societal benefits and other broader impacts, could have spelled this out more specifically for proposed study.
I'm not at all clear on how this person thought the cost analysis I did of smoking cessation for new mothers was the least bit relevant...
Reviewer 2:
Intellectual Merit: very good
Candidate's proposal indicated the importance of construct validation and development of nomological networks of relationships of "idealism/ideals" with related constructs, but not many details on even strategies for doing this were presented. This is critical given the number of related constructs (values, goals, principles, etc.). Not clear where this line of thinking goes if not successful in providing clear evidence for a separate construct.
Broader Impacts: very good
Candidate has considerable experience regarding broader impacts of research findings; did not discuss in detail plans to communicate findings of this research outside academic milieu or how to engage diverse groups in the research process.
Oh well. The degree of research plan development they wanted for someone in their fifth week of grad school seems a bit unreasonable. Applicants who are planning to build on their advisors' research would tend to have an advantage over those who are starting from scratch.