Application Guides & Resources

An ORCID iD is a free, persistent digital identifier that distinguishes you from every other researcher and reliably links your name to your publications, grants, and affiliations — even after an institution or a name changes. A growing number of sponsors, NIH among them, now require one on funding applications, and linking it to SciENcv lets your profile pre-populate a biosketch instead of being retyped every time.

Register for free at orcid.org, set your profile visibility to "everyone" so sponsors and collaborators can find it, and use the same sign-in method every time — switching methods is the most common way researchers accidentally end up with two separate, duplicate ORCID profiles.

SciENcv (Science Experts Network Curriculum Vitae) is a free tool from the US National Library of Medicine that helps researchers assemble a biosketch and a current-and-pending-support statement from one profile, in the specific "common form" layout that NIH and NSF both now require. Rather than reformatting a CV for every sponsor, you maintain one SciENcv profile and export a compliant PDF per application.

Pick one sign-in method and stick with it — switching between sign-in providers is the main cause of duplicate SciENcv profiles. Linking your ORCID iD to SciENcv lets it pre-populate your affiliations and publications automatically, which is worth doing before your first proposal.

A data management plan explains how a project's data will be collected, stored, protected, and — where appropriate — shared during and after the funded work. Most federal and major international funders now require one as a standard part of the application, whether or not the solicitation explicitly asks for it, and NIH and NSF each publish their own specific criteria for what a compliant plan must cover.

Treat it as a living document, not a one-time form: revisit it whenever your research plan changes materially, since a plan that no longer matches what you're actually doing is a compliance gap waiting to be found at renewal or audit. Start it early, too — the storage, repository, and data-sharing costs it identifies belong in your budget from the first draft, not bolted on afterward.

NSF's Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) is the master reference for formatting, eligibility, and content requirements on any NSF proposal — always check the version current at the time you submit, since it's revised periodically and a stale copy is a common source of avoidable rejections. ORSPA maintains an internal NSF proposal checklist the Pre-Award team can walk through with you; note that an individual funding opportunity can still add requirements the general checklist doesn't cover.

Every PI, Co-PI, senior personnel member, and any undergraduate, graduate, or postdoctoral researcher supported by an NSF award must complete Responsible and Ethical Conduct of Research (RCER) training, including a mentorship component, before the award can be set up. Contact ORSPA if you're unsure whether a role on your team requires it.

NSF accepts SciENcv as the approved format for both the Biographical Sketch and the Current and Pending (Other) Support sections of a proposal — SciENcv generates an NSF-compliant PDF of each directly from your profile. Every source of research support you hold, at IVAN or anywhere else, has to be disclosed here regardless of its size, so keep your SciENcv profile current between applications rather than reconstructing it from memory each time you apply.

NSF's PAPPG requires the institution to certify it has a plan for a safe and inclusive working environment for any proposal involving off-campus or off-site research — NSF defines that as data, information, or samples being collected away from the home institution, such as fieldwork or research aboard a vessel or aircraft. The plan has to describe how the team will address abuse, harassment, stalking, bullying, or hazing in any form — verbal, physical, electronic, or written — and any other unwelcome, offensive, or disorderly conduct.

A compliant plan also covers how the team will build an inclusive field environment — training, a shared code of conduct, mentor/mentee check-ins — and how communication will work in the field, avoiding a single point of contact wherever possible, especially when multiple organizations or third parties are involved. It must name a clear process for reporting an incident and how a report will be resolved, and has to be shared with every participant before departure. NSF does not want the plan submitted to it directly, except for certain Biological Sciences and Geosciences solicitations that specifically request one as a supplemental document.

ORSPA can provide a plan template on request. If your project involves any off-campus or off-site data collection, send ORSPA your completed, project-specific plan before the proposal is submitted, not after.

Does a short day trip count as "off-campus"? A same-day excursion with no overnight stay — a school visit, a museum, a public survey site — usually doesn't need a plan, unless the nature of the work itself raises the risk of harassment (for example, research on sexual activity or with incarcerated individuals), in which case create one regardless. Attending or presenting at a conference doesn't require a plan on its own; if research activities happen alongside the conference, it does. If there's any doubt at all, write the plan — it costs little and closes an easy compliance gap.

Can the plan name a backup contact? Yes, and it's advisable to list two — a primary and a secondary — since the PI must be named but may delegate day-to-day point-of-contact duties to someone actually present in the field. Include a cell number and email for both.

What if the person accused of misconduct is the named contact? This is exactly why two contacts should be listed. With phone or internet access, a participant can also reach a supervisor or the Institute's own misconduct-reporting channel directly; without access, they may wait until it's safe to report, or raise it with another senior member of the field team.

NIH's General Application Guide for NIH and Other PHS Agencies sets the baseline formatting and content rules for an NIH submission, but individual Funding Opportunity Announcements and periodic NIH policy notices can supersede it — always check both before you draft. NIH has also adopted common-form versions of the Biographical Sketch and Current and Pending (Other) Support documents shared with NSF and several other federal agencies, which SciENcv can generate directly in NIH-compliant format.

Use the NIH-format SciENcv export for both your Biographical Sketch and your Current and Pending (Other) Support statement — NIH reviewers expect the common-form layout, and a biosketch built in a different format is one of the more common reasons an application comes back for correction before review. ORSPA maintains internal checklists for the most common NIH mechanisms — F-series fellowships, K-series career awards, R-series research grants, and human subjects/clinical trial (HSCTI) applications — ask the Pre-Award team for the one that matches your award type.

Note that NIH multi-project submissions (P-series and similar) typically involve more subawards and more coordination than a standard R-series application — raise them with ORSPA when you first plan the submission, rather than assuming the standard timeline will be enough.

NIH's Data Management and Sharing (DMS) policy requires a prospective plan for how scientific data generated by the project will be preserved and shared, and applies to essentially all NIH-funded research that generates scientific data, regardless of award size or mechanism — this replaced NIH's older, narrower data-sharing requirement that applied only above a $500,000 threshold. Under the policy, NIH expects an institution to plan and budget for data management and sharing, submit a DMS plan for review with the application, and then actually follow the approved plan once funded; individual NIH institutes and centers can layer additional requirements on top of the general policy.

Once awarded, keep a record of where the resulting datasets are archived — funders increasingly expect this to be traceable well after the project itself has closed.

NIH limits the monthly pay rate that can be charged to an NIH award — not the total dollar amount, and not an individual's total compensation, only the portion drawn from the NIH award itself. The cap is tied to the US Federal Executive Pay scale and changes every January 1st as part of the US federal budget process, so the applicable figure needs confirming for the specific year an award is active, not just at the time a proposal is written.

NIH generally asks applicants to budget personnel at their actual institutional base salary, not the cap, so that NIH has accurate figures on file and can apply the correct cap only once an award is made; where a requested salary exceeds the cap in effect at that point, NIH reduces that line item and the total award shrinks accordingly. Effort committed in a proposal becomes a real institutional obligation once awarded, whether or not the sponsor's dollars fully cover it — plan accordingly rather than treating the cap as something to resolve later. ORSPA can confirm the current cap figure and the correct way to reflect it in your budget.

Every senior or key person on an NIH proposal or award has to understand — and act on — their duty to disclose all resources supporting their research, anywhere, regardless of monetary value or which institution the support is based at. NIH has tightened enforcement of this requirement significantly in recent years, and an incomplete disclosure discovered after the fact is treated as a serious compliance matter, not a paperwork oversight.

All senior/key personnel must complete a recognized research-security training module before submission, complete it again for any new senior/key person added to an existing award before that person's salary can be charged to it, and renew the training annually thereafter. ORSPA can point you to an approved training provider and confirm your current status.

USDA's National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) publishes its own Grants Application Guide covering general instructions and NIFA-specific requirements — always work from the version referenced in your specific funding opportunity's application package, since individual solicitations supersede the general guide.

Most NIFA awards fall under the 2018 Farm Bill's indirect cost limitation: indirect costs are capped at whichever is lower of 30% of the Total Federal Funds Awarded, or the Institute's negotiated indirect cost rate. Calculate both and use the smaller figure — without significant excluded costs (equipment, tuition, and similar), the 30%-of-TFFA figure is usually the binding one; with substantial exclusions, the negotiated rate can end up lower instead. Where a budget includes a subaward, the subaward's own indirect costs count toward this same cap, and if IVAN is the lead applicant, the Institute may need to further restrict its own indirect cost claim to keep the whole project under the 30% ceiling, even after already using the lower of the two rates. ORSPA maintains a calculation spreadsheet for this — bring your draft budget to the Pre-Award team rather than estimating it yourself.

NASA's Proposer's Guidebook sets out the policies and process for responding to a NASA funding announcement, whatever form it takes — a Research Announcement, a Cooperative Agreement Notice, a Broad Agency Announcement, or another solicitation type. Before you can submit, you need to be registered in NSPIRES, NASA's proposal system — registration is open at any time, so do it as soon as you know you intend to apply rather than waiting until a deadline is close.

NASA has adopted the same common-form approach as NIH and NSF for the Biographical Sketch and Current and Pending (Other) Support documents; templates and accepted signature formats are published on NASA's own grants policy pages.

DoD funding runs through many separate agencies and offices, most commonly reachable through Grants.gov or SAM.gov, each with its own format and portal — read the specific solicitation closely, since DoD components rarely publish the kind of general proposal guidance NSF, NASA, or NIH do. Watch in particular for what kind of instrument is on offer — a grant, a cooperative agreement, or a contract — ORSPA's preference is a grant or cooperative agreement wherever the solicitation allows a choice.

Many DoD awards carry federal cybersecurity or data-protection clauses, and where they do, the Institute's IT team has to complete a compliance review before the project can be fully set up — expect this to include short training on handling controlled information, a request for a diagram of the systems and data flow the project will use, and coordination on a formal security plan. This review has to finish before an award can be finalized, so flag a DoD proposal to ORSPA as early as possible and respond quickly to IT's requests once they start, rather than treating it as a formality that can wait.

DOE's Office of Science is the most common entry point for DOE research funding — its funding opportunity announcements set out eligibility, proposal instructions, and merit-review criteria, and the Office also keeps a standing, cross-cutting solicitation open year-round alongside its scheduled announcements. Every application goes through peer review for both scientific merit and fit with DOE's current research priorities, so read the specific FOA's review criteria closely before you draft rather than assuming a generic science-merit case is enough.