Another year, another NSERC DG deadline past. Phew. I’m already on to my next deadline(s) and hopefully shall see the light of day (and my family) in December. (Reading between the lines here, you may (correctly!) presume that posts will remain few and far between over the coming weeks.)

While I’ve put blogging on the backburner in the near term, because I have so much other material to write, I’m still reading (an important thing that everyone needs to do to improve their writing). Yesterday I came across this great article and I just had to share.

In The Scientist, Grant wrote “Right your Writing“, a nice exploration of how to improve your scientific writing and communication skills (and productivity). The primary focus is on writing manuscripts for journals, but most of the tips are relevant to any non-fiction prose including grant applications. The article also includes examples of how you can sharpen your writing techniques and provides suggestions for further reading (for those so inclined).

Well as expected and promised, last week was a little sparse in the posting arena. I may have to forgo these easy to do recap posts in the next coming weeks because there won’t be enough to recap!

In any event, here is a recap of last week’s posts:

DG2010 - T minus 3 weeks is basically a time marker post reminding everyone about the nearness of the NSERC Discovery grant deadline. It also speaks a little bit about the average “total input time” invested per grant submission. Then it leads into the next post on CVs by talking about the amount of time invested in a research project and how that might be annotated (and perceived) in the CV module.

DG2010 - CV Tips & Tricks is a mashup of all the tips that I can think of relating to the NSERC CV module, also known as Form 100. The notes in this post are non-specific to the Discovery grant competition, since this form is used for all NSERC applications.

And that was all I wrote! Hope this week is a little less crazy!

When preparing or updating your Form 100 (NSERC’s CV module) be sure to follow the instructions! There are many different aspects to the form portion of the document, however, most of the errors and issues seem to occur in the free form attachment portion of the module also called “Contributions”.

NSERC is pretty particular about requiring that you follow their heading format, which is listed in the instructions. There is even a specific order for segregating the research contributions and practical applications section (read = publications, etc.).

General comments:

• proof your forms!! I cannot stress this enough!
• make sure that you aren’t committing to too many hours per month in research activity (for example, it is pretty hard to commit to 160 hours of research per month if you also have a teaching load)
• start your page numbering for the free form section with page number 5 (to follow the forms page numbering convention)
• be sure to follow formatting guidelines
• the research support portion of the forms is for the past four (4) years
• the research contributions for the attachment are for the past six (6) years. Now, technically this would be November 1, 2003 to November 1, 2009, HOWEVER, in practice NSERC allows contributions from January 1, 2003 to November 1, 2009.
• you only have five (5) pages for the free form section, so be selective about how you present information
• be sure to preview your forms to proof them as it is quite easy to insert/miss errors during data entry

Tips for each specific section in the ‘Contributions’ portion of the CV:

1. Most Significant Contributions to Research and/or Practical Applications

• focus on the top five clusters of contributions that have occurred in the past 6 years. If there are contributions that were made earlier, but they have become significant in the past 6 years, speak to them too.
• don’t list the citations, describe the research and the impact of the research in point or narrative form (you will list the citations in the following section

2. Research Contributions and Practical Applications

• This is where the detailed list order comes into play from the instructions
• use a consistent bibliographic method
• ensure that student’s names are bolded within the author lists (i.e. use a reference style that includes the names of all authors)
• list the sources of funding for each contribution with parenthetical emphasis on the primary source
• clarify your role in multi-authored papers
• the research contributions in the attachment are for the past six (6) years. Now, technically this would be November, 1 2003 to November, 1 2009, HOWEVER, in practice NSERC allows contributions from January 1, 2003 to November 1, 2009.
• it is useful if you use a numerical format for your references to demonstrate your total publication record (i.e. start your numbering with 30, if you already have 30 publications under your belt that fall outside of the contributions reporting period)

3. Other Evidence of Impact and Contributions

• list any other activities as indicated in NSERC’s instructions (awards, editorships, consulting, public service, etc.)

4. Delays in Research Activity

• Describe any delays in research activity including dates (“parental leave, bereavement, single parent situations, illness, extraordinary administrative duties or other circumstances”); include a statement even if it is “No delays in research activity.”
• It is not necessary to go into significant detail, unless the circumstances require exceptional explanation

5. Contributions to the Training of Highly Qualified Personnel (HQP)

• Include any aggregate data on HQP including “discussion of training in particularly important or challenging areas of research, specialized methodologies and techniques, interdisciplinary or industrial collaborations, as well as your role in co-supervision of some of your HQP, the lack of recent contribution to training, etc.”
• This is the area where you describe PAST training! Use your research proposal to describe FUTURE training
• Be sure to also list any past/current/future participation in outreach activities to engage students in natural sciences and engineering, especially PromoScience, CRYSTAL and CWSE

A few last words . . .

• Be sure that you obtain and MAINTAIN completed consent forms relevant to your HQP data forms. It is also ideal if you can update your student’s present position.
• It is somewhat more favorable if you can obtain consent from your students as it can be perceived that you maintain a positive relationship with former trainees once they leave the lab, thus nurturing a strong network of students, but don’t get too hung up about it. Sometimes it is just not possible to track down your former students (or maintain a good relationship with them).

Happy CV updating!

We’re getting down to the wire and I can bet that there are quite a few people that are just starting to get organized to write their proposals. If you are a regular reader, you know that I encourage an early start to ensure that adequate preparation goes into the proposal. That said, surveys of academics in North America suggest that the average researcher spends about two weeks on grant preparation*. So, if within the next three weeks, you can find ‘80 hours’ to commit to proposal preparation get out of those starting blocks!

I put ‘80 hours’ in quotes because I don’t know one person in academic research (or in many professions) where a work week equals 40 hours. More like 80 hours per week, although theoretically you could work over 100 hours a week, if you needed little sleep and had no other life to speak of. I am not sure that I could sustain the mental energy to do that on a regular basis, but I have been known to have short bursts of insanity occasionally.

In any event, if you are on a more moderate schedule, it would probably be a good idea to pull out your CV, review and update it, if you haven’t done so already. I’ll be posting a few CV related tidbits tomorrow.

*I can’t find the darn reference - but when I do, I’ll update the post. If I am being honest, don’t expect it until after fall granting season, i.e. December.

The next few weeks are going to be dicey, so I am not going to commit to posting regularly. Boy, this sounds just like the intro to last week’s recap . . .

If you would like to subscribe to this blog feed, just click on the orange RSS logo on the upper right hand portion of the screen - or you can use the subscribe function in your web browser.

And, for anyone that is visiting the blog for the first time and would like to see post summaries, use the drop down box on the left sidebar to search for the category “recap” or click this link and you will find posts that summarize the blog topics over the past few weeks.

Here is a recap of last week’s posts:

DG2010 - Programs versus projects talks a little bit about how important it is to ensure that your NSERC discovery proposal describes a program of research. An excerpt from the peer review manual was added to the post on Friday.

Views on proposal writing is a mashup of blog posts from academic bloggers espousing their views on grant proposals.

DG2010 - References covers a few tips and tricks to think about when you are writing and proofing your reference list for your NSERC discovery grant application. These tips are also relevant for other documents that include reference lists . . .(read: journal submissions)! I belong to the Council of Science Editors and you wouldn’t believe the amount of editorial research that is done on reference error analysis. A scintillating topic, I know, but an interesting factoid nonetheless.

TOOLS: TERMIUM Plus® is now free and available online. Best of all, you can access a searchable version of The Canadian Style through Termium.

DG2010 - Relative cost of research is my long-promised post on the cost of research evaluation indicator. There are also links to the Peer Review Manual and other FAQ files on the revised review process.