NSF Grant Writing Guide 2026: From Concept to Submission

The National Science Foundation funds approximately 25% of all federally supported basic research conducted at U.S. colleges and universities. In fiscal year 2025, NSF's budget was approximately $9.9 billion, supporting over 11,000 new awards across every discipline of science and engineering. If you are a researcher at a university, a small college, or a nonprofit research institution, NSF is likely one of your primary funding targets.

But NSF proposals operate under different conventions than NIH proposals, different assumptions than DOD proposals, and different review criteria than foundation grants. This guide covers the full arc of an NSF proposal -- from understanding the agency's structure through submission via Research.gov -- with the detail that general-purpose guides leave out.

Understanding NSF's Structure

NSF is organized into seven research directorates plus several offices that fund research. Each directorate contains divisions, and each division manages specific programs. Understanding this hierarchy matters because it determines which program officer you should contact, which review panel will evaluate your proposal, and what types of research the program prioritizes.

The Seven Directorates

Biological Sciences (BIO). Funds research in molecular and cellular biosciences, integrative organismal systems, and environmental biology. Annual budget approximately $900 million.

Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE). Covers computing, communication, and information science, including AI, cybersecurity, networking, and human-computer interaction. One of the fastest-growing directorates.

Engineering (ENG). Funds research in chemical, bioengineering, environmental, and transport systems; civil, mechanical, and manufacturing innovation; electrical, communications, and cyber systems; and engineering education. Also houses the Engineering Research Centers program.

Geosciences (GEO). Covers atmospheric and geospace sciences, earth sciences, and ocean sciences. GEO also manages the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS). Funds research in astronomy, chemistry, materials research, mathematical sciences, and physics.

Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE). Covers behavioral and cognitive sciences, social and economic sciences, and the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics.

STEM Education (EDU). Formerly the Directorate for Education and Human Resources. Funds research on STEM education, graduate fellowships (GRFP), and institutional capacity-building programs.

Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (TIP). The newest directorate, established in 2022. Manages the Regional Innovation Engines program, the NSF Convergence Accelerator, and partnerships with the private sector. TIP also houses NSF's SBIR/STTR program.

Finding the Right Program

The single most impactful thing you can do before writing an NSF proposal is identify the right program and talk to the program officer. Here is how:

1. Search NSF's active funding opportunities. The NSF website lists all current solicitations and program descriptions. Filter by directorate and division.

2. Read the program description, not just the solicitation. The program description tells you the intellectual scope of the program. The solicitation tells you the logistics of applying. Both matter, but the program description is where you determine fit.

3. Search NSF Award Search. Look for funded projects similar to yours. Note which programs funded them, who the program officers were, and what the abstracts describe. This tells you where your proposal fits within NSF's portfolio.

4. Contact the program officer. This is not optional for your first submission to a program. Email the program officer with a one-paragraph description of your proposed research and ask whether it fits within the program's scope. Program officers will tell you whether your idea aligns with their program, suggest alternative programs if it does not, and occasionally flag upcoming solicitation changes that affect your plans. They will not comment on the quality of your idea or predict funding outcomes.

The Two Merit Review Criteria

Every NSF proposal is evaluated on exactly two criteria: Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts. Understanding what these mean in practice -- not just in the abstract -- is critical.

Intellectual Merit

Intellectual Merit encompasses the potential to advance knowledge. Reviewers consider:

• How important is the proposed activity to advancing knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields?
• How well qualified is the proposer (individual or team) to conduct the project?
• To what extent does the proposed activity suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
• How well conceived and organized is the proposed activity?
• Is there sufficient access to resources?

The key phrase is "advance knowledge." NSF funds basic research -- research motivated by curiosity and the desire to expand human understanding. If your proposal reads like an engineering development project or a clinical trial, it may be a better fit for DOD, DOE, or NIH. NSF wants to know what fundamental question you are asking and why the answer matters to science.

Broader Impacts

Broader Impacts encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes. This is where most first-time NSF applicants lose points.

Broader Impacts is not an afterthought. It is not a paragraph about outreach tacked onto the end of your proposal. It is a criterion weighted equally with Intellectual Merit, and reviewers evaluate it with the same rigor.

NSF identifies several categories of Broader Impacts:

• Full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and underrepresented minorities in STEM
• Improved STEM education and educator development at any level
• Increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology
• Improved well-being of individuals in society
• Development of a diverse, globally competitive STEM workforce
• Increased partnerships between academia, industry, and others
• Improved national security
• Increased economic competitiveness of the United States
• Enhanced infrastructure for research and education

You do not need to address all of these. You need to address at least one with specificity, sincerity, and a concrete plan. The strongest Broader Impacts plans are integrated with the research itself, not bolted on. A computational biology project that develops open-source software used by hundreds of labs has inherent broader impacts. A chemistry project that trains undergraduate researchers from community colleges in advanced analytical techniques has broader impacts that flow naturally from the work.

The weakest Broader Impacts plans are vague promises: "We will develop educational materials." "Results will be disseminated at conferences." "The PI will mentor students." These signal that the PI does not take Broader Impacts seriously, and they cost points.

Proposal Structure

NSF proposals follow a prescribed structure defined in the Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG). Deviations from this structure will result in your proposal being returned without review.

Project Summary (1 page)

The Project Summary is a one-page document with three required sections, each clearly labeled:

1. Overview. A plain-language description of the proposed work. This is what appears in public databases if your proposal is funded.
2. Intellectual Merit. A summary of the intellectual merit of the proposed activity.
3. Broader Impacts. A summary of the broader impacts of the proposed activity.

Each section should be a substantive paragraph, not a sentence. The Project Summary must stand alone -- a reviewer should be able to understand your project's goals, significance, and broader value from this page alone.

Project Description (15 pages maximum)

The Project Description is the core of your proposal. Fifteen pages is a firm limit -- not a target, not a suggestion, not a guideline. If your proposal exceeds 15 pages, it will be returned without review.

The PAPPG does not prescribe a specific internal structure for the Project Description, but a conventional and effective structure includes:

Introduction (1-2 pages). State the problem, the gap in current knowledge, your proposed approach, and the expected contribution. This section should make a compelling case for why the work matters and why it matters now.

Background and Related Work (2-3 pages). Review the relevant literature, but do it strategically. Your literature review should establish that you know the field thoroughly, identify the specific gap your work will address, and position your proposed approach relative to existing methods. Do not write an exhaustive review -- write an argument.

Proposed Research (7-9 pages). This is where you describe what you will do, organized by aims, objectives, or research questions. For each component:

• State the research question or hypothesis
• Describe the methods in enough detail that a reviewer can evaluate feasibility
• Identify potential risks and your mitigation strategies
• Describe the expected outcomes and how they advance knowledge

Broader Impacts Plan (1-2 pages). Describe your broader impacts activities with the same specificity and rigor as your research plan. Who will be reached? What will they gain? How will you evaluate success?

Timeline and Management Plan (0.5-1 page). A table or Gantt chart showing the schedule of research activities, milestones, and deliverables. If the project involves multiple investigators or institutions, describe the management structure and collaboration plan.

Results from Prior NSF Support (up to 5 pages per award, included in the 15-page limit). If you or any co-PI has received NSF funding in the past five years, you must summarize the results. This is not optional -- it is a required element if applicable, and it counts against your 15 pages. Include the award number, amount, period, title, a summary of results, and a list of publications. Also describe the relationship between the prior work and the proposed project.

References Cited (no page limit)

References are listed separately from the Project Description and do not count against the 15-page limit. Use a consistent citation format throughout. NSF does not specify a required citation style, but completeness and accuracy matter.

Budget and Budget Justification

NSF budgets follow the standard federal categories (personnel, fringe, equipment, travel, participant support, other direct costs, indirect costs). Key NSF-specific budget norms:

• Senior personnel salaries. NSF limits salary recovery for senior project personnel to two months per year across all NSF awards. If you are requesting one month of summer salary from this grant and already have one month from another NSF award, you have reached the cap.
• Participant support costs. These are common in education and workforce development proposals. They cover stipends, travel, subsistence, and other expenses for participants (not project staff) and are excluded from the indirect cost base.
• Domestic travel. Budget for at least one trip per year to present results at a disciplinary conference. NSF expects dissemination.
• Publication costs. Open-access publication fees are allowable and increasingly expected.

Facilities, Equipment, and Other Resources

A two-page document describing the institutional resources available to support the project. This is not a wish list -- it is an inventory of what exists. Describe laboratory space, computing infrastructure, specialized equipment, and institutional support (reduced teaching loads, startup funds, etc.).

Data Management Plan (2 pages, required)

NSF requires every proposal to include a Data Management Plan describing how data generated by the project will be managed, preserved, and shared. The plan should address:

• Types of data the project will generate
• Standards and formats for data and metadata
• Policies for access and sharing, including provisions for privacy and intellectual property
• Policies for re-use and redistribution
• Plans for archiving and preservation, including the repository where data will be deposited

Data Management Plans are evaluated as part of the merit review. A boilerplate plan signals carelessness. Tailor your plan to the specific data your project generates and the norms of your field. If your directorate has published specific data management guidance (many have), follow it.

Mentoring Plan (required for proposals with postdocs)

If your budget includes postdoctoral researchers, you must include a one-page mentoring plan describing how you will support their professional development. This should cover career guidance, training in research ethics, opportunities to develop teaching and mentoring skills, and strategies for building a professional network.

Supplementary Documents

NSF solicitations often require or allow supplementary documents: letters of collaboration, data management plans from collaborating institutions, facilities descriptions from subaward sites, and others. Only include documents that are explicitly requested or permitted by the solicitation. Unsolicited supplementary documents may cause your proposal to be returned without review.

Letters of collaboration should be brief statements of commitment, not detailed endorsements. NSF provides a recommended format: "If the proposal submitted by [PI name] entitled [proposal title] is selected for funding by NSF, it is my intent to collaborate and/or commit resources as detailed in the Project Description." Anything more elaborate raises concerns about improper lobbying of reviewers.

Submitting Through Research.gov

All NSF proposals are submitted through Research.gov. The system requires that you and your organization have active accounts and appropriate roles.

Account Requirements

• PI/Co-PI. Each PI and co-PI needs a Research.gov account linked to their institution. Registration requires an institutional email address.
• Sponsored Projects Office (SPO). Your institution's SPO must have an Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) who certifies and submits proposals on behalf of the institution. You cannot submit your own proposal -- the AOR does.
• Subaward institutions. If your proposal includes subawards, each subaward institution needs to prepare its budget and documents in Research.gov, and its AOR needs to approve them before your institution can submit the full proposal.

Submission Timeline

NSF has two types of deadlines: fixed deadlines and target dates. Missing a fixed deadline means your proposal is not reviewed. Missing a target date means your proposal will be reviewed in the next cycle, which could delay funding by six months or more.

Most SPOs require proposals to be submitted to them for internal review at least five business days before the NSF deadline. Some require ten. Know your institution's policy and build it into your timeline.

Common NSF-Specific Mistakes

Treating NSF like NIH. The two agencies fund different types of research, use different review criteria, and have different cultural norms. NIH proposals emphasize clinical significance and translational potential. NSF proposals emphasize fundamental knowledge and creative exploration. An NIH-style proposal submitted to NSF will read as too applied; an NSF-style proposal submitted to NIH will read as too theoretical.

Neglecting Broader Impacts. Fully 50% of the merit review criteria concerns broader impacts, yet many proposals devote less than one page to this topic. Reviewers notice, and they score accordingly.

Exceeding the two-month salary rule. Requesting three months of summer salary when you already have one month from another NSF award is a compliance violation that can delay or jeopardize your award.

Writing for experts only. NSF review panels are multidisciplinary. Your panel may include a materials scientist, a biologist, and an engineer reviewing the same proposal. Write clearly enough that an intelligent non-specialist can follow your argument.

Ignoring the program officer's advice. If a program officer tells you that your proposal does not fit their program, listen. Submitting anyway wastes your time and theirs, and it may color future interactions.

Submitting without prior NSF support results. If you have received NSF funding and do not include results from prior support, your proposal will be returned without review. This is a hard requirement.

Weak collaboration letters. Overly enthusiastic letters of collaboration suggest that collaborators are trying to influence the review. Use the standard NSF template.

Not reading the PAPPG. The Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide is updated regularly and contains every rule your proposal must follow. The current version is always available on the NSF website. Read it before you write, not after your proposal is returned.

Practical Timeline for an NSF Submission

Working backward from a typical October deadline:

• May-June (T-5 months). Identify the program and contact the program officer. Discuss your idea's fit with the program scope.
• June-July (T-4 months). Draft the Project Summary and the Introduction section of the Project Description. Share with colleagues for early feedback.
• July-August (T-3 months). Write the Proposed Research section. Develop your Broader Impacts plan. Begin assembling the budget.
• August-September (T-2 months). Complete the full Project Description draft. Write the Data Management Plan, Facilities document, and Mentoring Plan if applicable. Circulate for internal review.
• September (T-1 month). Incorporate feedback. Finalize budget and budget justification. Collect letters of collaboration. Coordinate with subaward institutions.
• Early October (T-2 weeks). Submit to your SPO for internal review and AOR certification.
• Mid-October (deadline). SPO submits through Research.gov.

If you are writing your first NSF proposal, add four to six weeks to this timeline. The format, conventions, and review criteria all have a learning curve.

Whether you are preparing your first NSF submission or refining a resubmission, Granted's AI coaching helps researchers address both Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts with the specificity reviewers expect -- see how Granted supports researchers.

Keep Reading

• Addressing Broader Impacts: A Guide to Enhancing Your NSF Proposal
• What NSF Reviewers Wish You Knew
• Data Management Plans: A Key Component of Your NSF Application
• See how Granted AI drafts every section

Ready to find and win your next grant? Granted AI searches 85,000+ opportunities, analyzes your RFP, coaches you through each section, and runs AI committee review before you submit. Start free -- no credit card required.