The Review criteria below are from the 2023 DiG application cycle. These criteria may be updated before the 2025 DiG proposal deadline.
Reviewers will use a point system that weights the relative importance of each category and allows for direct comparison of multiple proposals. All proposals must satisfactorily address all of the following requirements and must include all of the requested application materials to be considered for funding. The committee may decide to partially fund proposals.
Proposals will be evaluated based on their (100 points total):
1. Potential to successfully recruit and select the target student group (35 points)
Extent to which the project: i) clearly identifies and justifies the minoritized group(s) to be targeted; and ii) provides new opportunities for a cohort of these students to engage in geochronology. This includes an effective recruitment and selection plan for the student participants.
2. Potential to successfully mentor and train the student cohort (35 points)
General likelihood that the project will successfully mentor, retain, and train a cohort of students in geochronology methods and in the science behind the proposed project. This includes the strength of the project’s proposed support plan for the students, including interaction with the mentor/PI, professional development, and demonstration of the safe and welcoming environment for the activities. Priority will be given to projects that emphasize authentic research experiences for the student cohort.
3. Science motivations (15 points)
How compelling is the science motivation and how well is it aligned with NSF Earth Sciences priorities (https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25761/a-vision-for-nsf-earth-sciences-2020-2030-earth-in)? This may include geoscience education motivation questions. How appropriate is/are the geochronology method(s) for the research questions?
4. Coordination, timeline, and budget (15 points)
Evaluation of the proposed timeline and budget, specifically considering the time required for project implementation and completion. This criterion relies partially on good coordination between the proponent and any partners, evaluated based on the proposal and any support letters.