what is contained in the introduction of a research proposal

The format of a research proposal varies between fields, but most proposals will contain at least these elements:

Literature review

• Research design

Reference list

While the sections may vary, the overall objective is always the same. A research proposal serves as a blueprint and guide for your research plan, helping you get organized and feel confident in the path forward you choose to take.

Proposal Format

The proposal will usually have a  title page  that includes:

• The proposed title of your project
• Your supervisor’s name
• Your institution and department

Introduction The first part of your proposal is the initial pitch for your project. Make sure it succinctly explains what you want to do and why.. Your introduction should:

• Introduce your  topic
• Give necessary background and context
• Outline your  problem statement  and  research questions To guide your  introduction , include information about:  
• Who could have an interest in the topic (e.g., scientists, policymakers)
• How much is already known about the topic
• What is missing from this current knowledge
• What new insights will your research contribute
• Why you believe this research is worth doing

As you get started, it’s important to demonstrate that you’re familiar with the most important research on your topic. A strong  literature review  shows your reader that your project has a solid foundation in existing knowledge or theory. It also shows that you’re not simply repeating what other people have done or said, but rather using existing research as a jumping-off point for your own.

In this section, share exactly how your project will contribute to ongoing conversations in the field by:

• Comparing and contrasting the main theories, methods, and debates
• Examining the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches
• Explaining how will you build on, challenge, or  synthesize  prior scholarship

Research design and methods

Following the literature review, restate your main  objectives . This brings the focus back to your project. Next, your  research design  or  methodology  section will describe your overall approach, and the practical steps you will take to answer your research questions. Write up your projected, if not actual, results.

Contribution to knowledge

To finish your proposal on a strong note, explore the potential implications of your research for your field. Emphasize again what you aim to contribute and why it matters.

For example, your results might have implications for:

• Improving best practices
• Informing policymaking decisions
• Strengthening a theory or model
• Challenging popular or scientific beliefs
• Creating a basis for future research

Lastly, your research proposal must include correct  citations  for every source you have used, compiled in a  reference list . To create citations quickly and easily, you can use free APA citation generators like BibGuru. Databases have a citation button you can click on to see your citation. Sometimes you have to re-format it as the citations may have mistakes. 

• << Previous: Writing a Literature Review

Edit this Guide

Log into Dashboard

Use of RIT resources is reserved for current RIT students, faculty and staff for academic and teaching purposes only. Please contact your librarian with any questions.

Help is Available

Email a Librarian

A librarian is available by e-mail at [email protected]

Meet with a Librarian

Call reference desk voicemail.

A librarian is available by phone at (585) 475-2563 or on Skype at llll

Or, call (585) 475-2563 to leave a voicemail with the reference desk during normal business hours .

Chat with a Librarian

Social/behavioral sciences research guide infoguide url.

https://infoguides.rit.edu/researchguide

Use the box below to email yourself a link to this guide

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Indian J Anaesth
• v.60(9); 2016 Sep

How to write a research proposal?

Department of Anaesthesiology, Bangalore Medical College and Research Institute, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Devika Rani Duggappa

Writing the proposal of a research work in the present era is a challenging task due to the constantly evolving trends in the qualitative research design and the need to incorporate medical advances into the methodology. The proposal is a detailed plan or ‘blueprint’ for the intended study, and once it is completed, the research project should flow smoothly. Even today, many of the proposals at post-graduate evaluation committees and application proposals for funding are substandard. A search was conducted with keywords such as research proposal, writing proposal and qualitative using search engines, namely, PubMed and Google Scholar, and an attempt has been made to provide broad guidelines for writing a scientifically appropriate research proposal.

INTRODUCTION

A clean, well-thought-out proposal forms the backbone for the research itself and hence becomes the most important step in the process of conduct of research.[ 1 ] The objective of preparing a research proposal would be to obtain approvals from various committees including ethics committee [details under ‘Research methodology II’ section [ Table 1 ] in this issue of IJA) and to request for grants. However, there are very few universally accepted guidelines for preparation of a good quality research proposal. A search was performed with keywords such as research proposal, funding, qualitative and writing proposals using search engines, namely, PubMed, Google Scholar and Scopus.

Five ‘C’s while writing a literature review

BASIC REQUIREMENTS OF A RESEARCH PROPOSAL

A proposal needs to show how your work fits into what is already known about the topic and what new paradigm will it add to the literature, while specifying the question that the research will answer, establishing its significance, and the implications of the answer.[ 2 ] The proposal must be capable of convincing the evaluation committee about the credibility, achievability, practicality and reproducibility (repeatability) of the research design.[ 3 ] Four categories of audience with different expectations may be present in the evaluation committees, namely academic colleagues, policy-makers, practitioners and lay audiences who evaluate the research proposal. Tips for preparation of a good research proposal include; ‘be practical, be persuasive, make broader links, aim for crystal clarity and plan before you write’. A researcher must be balanced, with a realistic understanding of what can be achieved. Being persuasive implies that researcher must be able to convince other researchers, research funding agencies, educational institutions and supervisors that the research is worth getting approval. The aim of the researcher should be clearly stated in simple language that describes the research in a way that non-specialists can comprehend, without use of jargons. The proposal must not only demonstrate that it is based on an intelligent understanding of the existing literature but also show that the writer has thought about the time needed to conduct each stage of the research.[ 4 , 5 ]

CONTENTS OF A RESEARCH PROPOSAL

The contents or formats of a research proposal vary depending on the requirements of evaluation committee and are generally provided by the evaluation committee or the institution.

In general, a cover page should contain the (i) title of the proposal, (ii) name and affiliation of the researcher (principal investigator) and co-investigators, (iii) institutional affiliation (degree of the investigator and the name of institution where the study will be performed), details of contact such as phone numbers, E-mail id's and lines for signatures of investigators.

The main contents of the proposal may be presented under the following headings: (i) introduction, (ii) review of literature, (iii) aims and objectives, (iv) research design and methods, (v) ethical considerations, (vi) budget, (vii) appendices and (viii) citations.[ 4 ]

Introduction

It is also sometimes termed as ‘need for study’ or ‘abstract’. Introduction is an initial pitch of an idea; it sets the scene and puts the research in context.[ 6 ] The introduction should be designed to create interest in the reader about the topic and proposal. It should convey to the reader, what you want to do, what necessitates the study and your passion for the topic.[ 7 ] Some questions that can be used to assess the significance of the study are: (i) Who has an interest in the domain of inquiry? (ii) What do we already know about the topic? (iii) What has not been answered adequately in previous research and practice? (iv) How will this research add to knowledge, practice and policy in this area? Some of the evaluation committees, expect the last two questions, elaborated under a separate heading of ‘background and significance’.[ 8 ] Introduction should also contain the hypothesis behind the research design. If hypothesis cannot be constructed, the line of inquiry to be used in the research must be indicated.

Review of literature

It refers to all sources of scientific evidence pertaining to the topic in interest. In the present era of digitalisation and easy accessibility, there is an enormous amount of relevant data available, making it a challenge for the researcher to include all of it in his/her review.[ 9 ] It is crucial to structure this section intelligently so that the reader can grasp the argument related to your study in relation to that of other researchers, while still demonstrating to your readers that your work is original and innovative. It is preferable to summarise each article in a paragraph, highlighting the details pertinent to the topic of interest. The progression of review can move from the more general to the more focused studies, or a historical progression can be used to develop the story, without making it exhaustive.[ 1 ] Literature should include supporting data, disagreements and controversies. Five ‘C's may be kept in mind while writing a literature review[ 10 ] [ Table 1 ].

Aims and objectives

The research purpose (or goal or aim) gives a broad indication of what the researcher wishes to achieve in the research. The hypothesis to be tested can be the aim of the study. The objectives related to parameters or tools used to achieve the aim are generally categorised as primary and secondary objectives.

Research design and method

The objective here is to convince the reader that the overall research design and methods of analysis will correctly address the research problem and to impress upon the reader that the methodology/sources chosen are appropriate for the specific topic. It should be unmistakably tied to the specific aims of your study.

In this section, the methods and sources used to conduct the research must be discussed, including specific references to sites, databases, key texts or authors that will be indispensable to the project. There should be specific mention about the methodological approaches to be undertaken to gather information, about the techniques to be used to analyse it and about the tests of external validity to which researcher is committed.[ 10 , 11 ]

The components of this section include the following:[ 4 ]

Population and sample

Population refers to all the elements (individuals, objects or substances) that meet certain criteria for inclusion in a given universe,[ 12 ] and sample refers to subset of population which meets the inclusion criteria for enrolment into the study. The inclusion and exclusion criteria should be clearly defined. The details pertaining to sample size are discussed in the article “Sample size calculation: Basic priniciples” published in this issue of IJA.

Data collection

The researcher is expected to give a detailed account of the methodology adopted for collection of data, which include the time frame required for the research. The methodology should be tested for its validity and ensure that, in pursuit of achieving the results, the participant's life is not jeopardised. The author should anticipate and acknowledge any potential barrier and pitfall in carrying out the research design and explain plans to address them, thereby avoiding lacunae due to incomplete data collection. If the researcher is planning to acquire data through interviews or questionnaires, copy of the questions used for the same should be attached as an annexure with the proposal.

Rigor (soundness of the research)

This addresses the strength of the research with respect to its neutrality, consistency and applicability. Rigor must be reflected throughout the proposal.

It refers to the robustness of a research method against bias. The author should convey the measures taken to avoid bias, viz. blinding and randomisation, in an elaborate way, thus ensuring that the result obtained from the adopted method is purely as chance and not influenced by other confounding variables.

Consistency

Consistency considers whether the findings will be consistent if the inquiry was replicated with the same participants and in a similar context. This can be achieved by adopting standard and universally accepted methods and scales.

Applicability

Applicability refers to the degree to which the findings can be applied to different contexts and groups.[ 13 ]

Data analysis

This section deals with the reduction and reconstruction of data and its analysis including sample size calculation. The researcher is expected to explain the steps adopted for coding and sorting the data obtained. Various tests to be used to analyse the data for its robustness, significance should be clearly stated. Author should also mention the names of statistician and suitable software which will be used in due course of data analysis and their contribution to data analysis and sample calculation.[ 9 ]

Ethical considerations

Medical research introduces special moral and ethical problems that are not usually encountered by other researchers during data collection, and hence, the researcher should take special care in ensuring that ethical standards are met. Ethical considerations refer to the protection of the participants' rights (right to self-determination, right to privacy, right to autonomy and confidentiality, right to fair treatment and right to protection from discomfort and harm), obtaining informed consent and the institutional review process (ethical approval). The researcher needs to provide adequate information on each of these aspects.

Informed consent needs to be obtained from the participants (details discussed in further chapters), as well as the research site and the relevant authorities.

When the researcher prepares a research budget, he/she should predict and cost all aspects of the research and then add an additional allowance for unpredictable disasters, delays and rising costs. All items in the budget should be justified.

Appendices are documents that support the proposal and application. The appendices will be specific for each proposal but documents that are usually required include informed consent form, supporting documents, questionnaires, measurement tools and patient information of the study in layman's language.

As with any scholarly research paper, you must cite the sources you used in composing your proposal. Although the words ‘references and bibliography’ are different, they are used interchangeably. It refers to all references cited in the research proposal.

Successful, qualitative research proposals should communicate the researcher's knowledge of the field and method and convey the emergent nature of the qualitative design. The proposal should follow a discernible logic from the introduction to presentation of the appendices.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

• 301 Academic Skills Centre
• Study skills online

How to write a research proposal

Advice and guidance on writing a proposal for a student research project.

Purpose of a Research Proposal

A research proposal should describe what you will investigate, why it is important to the discipline and how you will conduct your research.

Simply put, it is your plan for the research you intend to conduct. All research proposals are designed to persuade someone about how and why your intended project is worthwhile. 

In your proposal you will need to explain and defend your choices. Always think about the exact reasons why you are making specific choices and why they are the best options available to you and your project. 

Your research proposal aims should be centred on: 

• Relevance - You want to convince the reader how and why your research is relevant and significant to your field and how it is original. This is typically done in parts of the introduction and the literature review.
• Context - You should demonstrate that you are familiar with the field, you understand the current state of research on the topic and your ideas have a strong academic basis (i.e., not simply based on your instincts or personal views). This will be the focus of your introduction and literature review. 
• Approach - You need to make a case for your methodology, showing that you have carefully thought about the data, tools and procedures you will need to conduct the research. You need to explicitly defend all of your choices. This will be presented in the research design section. 
• Feasibility - You need to demonstrate clearly that your project is both reasonable and feasible within the practical constraints of the course, timescales, institution or funding. You need to make sure you have the time and access to resources to complete the project in a reasonable period. 

301 Recommends:

Our Research Writing workshop will look at some of the main writing challenges associated with writing a large-scale research project and look at strategies to manage your writing on a day-to-day basis. It will identify ways to plan, organise and map out the structure of your writing to allow you to develop an effective writing schedule and make continuous progress on your dissertation project.

Proposal format

The format of a research proposal varies between fields and levels of study but most proposals should contain at least these elements: introduction, literature review, research design and reference list.

Generally, research proposals can range from 500-1500 words or one to a few pages long. Typically, proposals for larger projects such as a PhD dissertation or funding requests, are longer and much more detailed.

Remember, the goal of your research proposal is to outline clearly and concisely exactly what your research will entail and accomplish, how it will do so and why it is important. If you are writing to a strictly enforced word count, a research proposal can be a great test of your ability to express yourself concisely!

Introduction

The first part of your proposal is the initial pitch for your project, so make sure it succinctly explains what you want to do and why. In other words, this is where you answer the reader’s “so what?” It should typically include: introducing the topic , outlining your problem statement and research question(s) and giving background and context. Some important questions to shape your introduction include: 

• Who has an interest in the topic (e.g. scientists, practitioners, policymakers, particular members of society)?
• How much is already known about the problem and why is it important?
• What is missing from current knowledge and why?
• What new insights will your research contribute?
• Why is this research worth doing?

If your proposal is very long, you might include separate sections with more detailed information on the background and context, problem statement, aims and objectives, and importance of the research.

Literature Review 

It’s important to show that you’re familiar with the most important research on your topic. A strong literature review convinces the reader that your project has a solid foundation in existing knowledge or theory (i.e. how it relates to established research in the field).

Your literature review will also show that you’re not simply repeating what other people have already done or said. This is also where you explain why your research is necessary. You might want to consider some of the following prompts:

• Comparing and contrasting: what are the main theories, methods, debates and controversies?
• Being critical: what are the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches?
• Showing how your research fits in: how will you build on, challenge or synthesise the work of others? 
• Filling a gap in the existing body of research: why is your idea innovative? 

Research design and methods

Following the literature review, it is a good idea to restate your main objectives, bringing the focus back to your own project. The research design/ methodology section should describe the overall approach and practical steps you will take to answer your research questions. You also need to demonstrate the feasibility of the project keeping in mind time and other constraints. 

You should definitely include:

• Qualitative vs quantitative research? Combination? 
• Will you collect original data or work with primary/secondary sources? 
• Is your research design descriptive, correlational or experimental? Something completely different?
• If you are undertaking your own study, when and where will you collect the data? How will you select subjects or sources? Ethics review? Exactly what or who will you study?
• What tools and procedures will you use (e.g. systematic reviews, surveys, interviews, observation, experiments, bibliographic data) to collect your data? 
• What tools/methods will you use to analyse your data? 
• Why are these the best methods to answer your research question(s)? This is where you should justify your choices. 
• How much time will you need to collect the data? 
• How will you gain access to participants and sources?
• Do you foresee any potential obstacles and if so, how will you address them?

Make sure you are not simply compiling a list of methods. Instead, aim to make an argument for why this is the most appropriate, valid and reliable way to approach answering your question. Remember you should always be defending your choices! 

Implications and Contributions to Knowledge

To ensure you finish your proposal on a strong note, it is a good idea to explore and/or emphasise the potential implications of the research. This means: what do you intend to contribute to existing knowledge on the topic?

Although you cannot know the results of your research until you have actually done the work, you should be going into the project with a clear idea of how your work will contribute to your field. This section might even be considered the most critical to your research proposal’s argument because it expresses exactly why your research is necessary. 

You should consider covering at least some of the following topics:

• Ways in which your work can challenge existing theories and assumptions in your field. 
• How your work will create the foundation for future research and theory. 
• The practical value your findings will provide to practitioners, educators and other academics in your field. 
• The problems or issues your work can potentially help to resolve. 
• Policies that could be impacted by your findings. 
• How your findings can be implemented in academia or other settings and how this will improve or otherwise transform these settings. 

This part is not about stating the specific results that you expect to obtain but rather, this is the section where you explicitly state how your findings will be valuable. 

This section is where you want to wrap it all up in a nice pretty bow. It is just like the concluding paragraph that you would structure and craft for a typical essay, see our essay planning template  for guidance. You should briefly summarise your research proposal and reinforce your research purpose. 

Reference List or Bibliography

Your research proposal MUST include proper citations for every source you have used and full references. Please consult your departmental referencing styles to ensure you are citing and referencing in an appropriate way. 

Common mistakes to avoid 

Try and avoid these common pitfalls when you are writing your research proposal: 

• Being too wordy: Remember formal does not mean flowery or pretentious. In fact, you should really aim to keep your writing as concise and accessible as possible. The more economically you can express your goals and ideas, the better. 
• Failing to cite relevant information/sources: You are adding to the existing body of knowledge on the subject you are covering. Therefore, your research proposal should reference the main research pieces in your field (while referencing them correctly!) and connect your proposal to these works in some way. This does not mean just communicating the relevance of your work, it should explicitly demonstrate your familiarity with the field. 
• Focusing too much on minor issues: Your research is most likely important for so many great reasons. However, they do not all need to be listed in your research proposal. Generally, including too many questions and issues in your research proposal can serve as a red flag and detract from your main purpose(s). This will in turn weaken your proposal. Only involve the main/key issues you plan to address. 
• Failing to make a strong argument for your research: This is the simplest way to undermine your proposal. Your proposal is a piece of persuasive and critical writing . This means that, although you are presenting your proposal in an academic and hopefully objective manner, the goal is to get the reader to say ‘yes’ to your work. 
• Not polishing your writing : If your proposal has spelling or grammatical errors, an inconsistent or inappropriate tone or even just awkward phrasing it can undermine your credibility. Check out some of these resources to help guide you in the right direction: Manchester Academic Phrasebank , Proofreading Guide , Essay Checklist and Grammar Guide . Remember to double and triple check your work. 

Links and Resources

You might also need to include a schedule and/or a budget depending on your requirements. Some tools to help include: 

• Guidance for candidates
• Manchester University Academic Phrasebank
• Leeds Beckett Assignment Calculator
• Calendarpedia

For guidance regarding specific research proposals (including templates), please check with your specific departments.

Related information

Dissertation planning

Writing a literature review

Research methods

The Summer Skills Spark: 5 weeks to ignite your research skills

Are you working on a dissertation or research project this summer? 

The Summer Skills Spark offers workshops to support you through every step of the process. You'll have opportunities to plan your projects, develop your research skills, explore dissemination techniques, and consider a future career in research. 

Collaboration between 301 Academic Skills Centre, the University Library, Digital Learning, and the Careers and Employability Service.

Writing a Research Proposal

Parts of a research proposal, prosana model, introduction, research question, methodology.

• Structure of a Research Proposal
• Common Proposal Writing Mistakes
• Proposal Writing Resources

A research proposal's purpose is to capture the evaluator's attention, demonstrate the study's potential benefits, and prove that it is a logical and consistent approach (Van Ekelenburg, 2010).  To ensure that your research proposal contains these elements, there are several aspects to include in your proposal (Al-Riyami, 2008):

• Objective(s)
• Variables (independent and dependent)
• Research Question and/or hypothesis

Details about what to include in each element are included in the boxes below.  Depending on the topic of your study, some parts may not apply to your proposal.  You can also watch the video below for a brief overview about writing a successful research proposal.

Van Ekelenburg (2010) uses the PROSANA Model to guide researchers in developing rationale and justification for their research projects.  It is an acronym that connects the problem, solution, and benefits of a particular research project.  It is an easy way to remember the critical parts of a research proposal and how they relate to one another.  It includes the following letters (Van Ekelenburg, 2010):

• Problem: Describing the main problem that the researcher is trying to solve.
• Root causes: Describing what is causing the problem.  Why is the topic an issue?
• fOcus: Narrowing down one of the underlying causes on which the researcher will focus for their research project.
• Solutions: Listing potential solutions or approaches to fix to the problem.  There could be more than one.
• Approach: Selecting the solution that the researcher will want to focus on.
• Novelty: Describing how the solution will address or solve the problem.
• Arguments: Explaining how the proposed solution will benefit the problem.

Research proposal titles should be concise and to the point, but informative.  The title of your proposal may be different from the title of your final research project, but that is completely normal!  Your findings may help you come up with a title that is more fitting for the final project.  Characteristics of good proposal titles are (Al-Riyami, 2008):

• Catchy: It catches the reader's attention by peaking their interest.
• Positive: It spins your project in a positive way towards the reader.
• Transparent: It identifies the independent and dependent variables.

It is also common for proposal titles to be very similar to your research question, hypothesis, or thesis statement (Locke et al., 2007).

An abstract is a brief summary (about 300 words) of the study you are proposing.  It includes the following elements (Al-Riyami, 2008):

• Your primary research question(s).
• Hypothesis or main argument.
• Method you will use to complete the study.  This may include the design, sample population, or measuring instruments that you plan to use.

Our guide on writing summaries may help you with this step.

• Writing a Summary by Luann Edwards Last Updated May 22, 2023 2568 views this year

The purpose of the introduction is to give readers background information about your topic.  it gives the readers a basic understanding of your topic so that they can further understand the significance of your proposal.  A good introduction will explain (Al-Riyami, 2008):

• How it relates to other research done on the topic
• Why your research is significant to the field
• The relevance of your study

Your research objectives are the desired outcomes that you will achieve from the research project.  Depending on your research design, these may be generic or very specific.  You may also have more than one objective (Al-Riyami, 2008).

• General objectives are what the research project will accomplish
• Specific objectives relate to the research questions that the researcher aims to answer through the study.

Be careful not to have too many objectives in your proposal, as having too many can make your project lose focus.  Plus, it may not be possible to achieve several objectives in one study.

This section describes the different types of variables that you plan to have in your study and how you will measure them.  According to Al-Riyami (2008), there are four types of research variables:

• Independent:  The person, object, or idea that is manipulated by the researcher.
• Dependent:  The person, object, or idea whose changes are dependent upon the independent variable.  Typically, it is the item that the researcher is measuring for the study.
• Confounding/Intervening:  Factors that may influence the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable.  These include physical and mental barriers.  Not every study will have intervening variables, but they should be studied if applicable.
• Background:   Factors that are relevant to the study's data and how it can be generalized.  Examples include demographic information such as age, sex, and ethnicity.

Your research proposal should describe each of your variables and how they relate to one another.  Depending on your study, you may not have all four types of variables present.  However, there will always be an independent and dependent variable.

A research question is the main piece of your research project because it explains what your study will discover to the reader.  It is the question that fuels the study, so it is important for it to be precise and unique.  You do not want it to be too broad, and it should identify a relationship between two variables (an independent and a dependent) (Al-Riyami, 2008).  There are six types of research questions (Academic Writer, n.d.):

• Example: "Do people get nervous before speaking in front of an audience?"
• Example: "What are the study habits of college freshmen at Tiffin University?"
• Example: "What primary traits create a successful romantic relationship?"
• Example: "Is there a relationship between a child's performance in school and their parents' socioeconomic status?"
• Example: "Are high school seniors more motivated than high school freshmen?"
• Example: "Do news media outlets impact a person's political opinions?"

For more information on the different types of research questions, you can view the "Research Questions and Hypotheses" tutorial on Academic Writer, located below.  If you are unfamiliar with Academic Writer, we also have a tutorial on using the database located below.

Compose papers in pre-formatted APA templates. Manage references in forms that help craft APA citations. Learn the rules of APA style through tutorials and practice quizzes.

Academic Writer will continue to use the 6th edition guidelines until August 2020. A preview of the 7th edition is available in the footer of the resource's site. Previously known as APA Style Central.

• Academic Writer Tutorial by Pfeiffer Library Last Updated May 22, 2023 34065 views this year

If you know enough about your research topic that you believe a particular outcome may occur as a result of the study, you can include a hypothesis (thesis statement) in your proposal.  A hypothesis is a prediction that you believe will be the outcome of your study.  It explains what you think the relationship will be between the independent and dependent variable (Al-Riyami, 2008).  It is ok if the hypothesis in your proposal turns out to be incorrect, because it is only a prediction!  If you are writing a proposal in the humanities, you may be writing a thesis statement instead of a hypothesis.  A thesis presents the main argument of your research project and leads to corresponding evidence to support your argument.

Hypotheses vs. Theories

Hypotheses are different from theories in that theories represent general principles and sets of rules that explain different phenomena.  They typically represent large areas of study because they are applicable to anything in a particular field.  Hypotheses focus on specific areas within a field and are educated guesses, meaning that they have the potential to be proven wrong (Academic Writer, n.d.).  Because of this, hypotheses can also be formed from theories.

For more information on writing effective thesis statements, you can view our guide on writing thesis statements below.

• Writing Effective Thesis Statements by Luann Edwards Last Updated May 23, 2023 474 views this year

In a research proposal, you must thoroughly explain how you will conduct your study.  This includes things such as (Al-Riyami, 2008):

• Research design:  What research approach will your study take?  Will it be quantitative or qualitative?
• Research subjects/participants:  Who will be participating in your study?  Does your study require human participants?  How will you determine who to study?
• Sample size:  How many participants will your study require?  If you are not using human participants, how much of the sample will you be studying?
• Timeline:  A proposed list of the general tasks and events that you plan to complete the study.  This will include a time frame for each task/event and the order in which they will be completed.
• Interventions:  If you plan on using anything on human participants for the study, you must include information it here.  This is especially important if you plan on using any substances on human subjects.
• Ethical issues:  Are there any potential ethical issues surrounding this study?
• Potential limitations:  Are there any limitations that could skew the data and findings from your study?
• Appendixes:  If you need to present any consent forms, interview questions, surveys, questionnaires, or other items that will be used in your study, you should include samples of each item with an appendix to reference them.  If you are using a copyrighted document, you may need written permission from the original creator to use it in your study.  A copy of the written permission should be included in your proposal.
• Setting:  Where will you be conducting the study?
• Study instruments:  What measuring tools or computer software will you be using to collect data?  How will you collect the data?
• How you will analyze the data:  What strategies or tools will you use to analyze the data you collect?
• Quality control:  Will you have precautions in place to ensure that the study is conducted consistently and that outside factors will not skew the data?
• Budget:  What type of funding will you need for your study?  This will include the funds needed to afford measuring tools, software, etc.
• How you will share the study's findings:  What will you plan to do with the findings?
• Significance of the study: How will your study expand on existing knowledge of the subject area?

For more information on research methodologies, you can view our guide on research methods and methodologies below.

• Research Methodologies by Pfeiffer Library Last Updated Aug 2, 2022 40625 views this year
• << Previous: Welcome
• Next: Structure of a Research Proposal >>
• Last Updated: May 22, 2023 10:46 AM
• URL: https://library.tiffin.edu/writingaresearchproposal

• Customer Reviews
• Extended Essays
• IB Internal Assessment
• Theory of Knowledge
• Literature Review
• Dissertations
• Essay Writing
• Research Writing
• Assignment Help
• Capstone Projects
• College Application
• Online Class

What Are The Elements Of A Good Research Proposal?

by  Antony W

March 10, 2023

The key to writing a great research proposal for your upcoming research project is to make sure the document has the right structure.

Your paper must include all the components that your professor expects to see. So in this guide, we’ll outline all the elements of a good research proposal and explain why they’re important.

The elements of a good research proposal are the title, the introduction, literature review, aims and objectives, methodology, scope of the research, outline and timetable, and bibliography.

It’s important to include these elements in your research proposal exactly in the order in which they appear in the list above.

Why The Key Elements Of A Research Proposal Matter

The basic elements of a research proposal are important because they communicate your thought process, present the originality of your ideas, and demonstrate that you’re passionate about the subject in question.

If you structure and write your research proposal well, your paper can convince your professor that your project is feasible and you have what it takes to take   your research project to the next level.

Have no time to read this guide and would rather get quick writing help? Let us write your research proposal for you! 

7 Key Elements of a Research Proposal 

While developing a detailed and comprehensive research proposal requires a lot of planning, attention to details, and academic writing skills , understanding the core elements of the paper is the first step to getting your proposal accepted.

So here are the elements that you should include in your research proposal.

It sounds somewhat obvious when we say that your research proposal with a title. To say the least, you already know you should.

But perhaps the most common mistake that many students make is to write general titles that lack focus.

Instead of writing a long title that’s hard to read or a short title that fails to highlight the theme of your research, write a clear and concise headline that tells your reader what your research proposal is about at a first glance.

2. Introduction

The starting paragraph to a research project is one of the elements of a good research proposal because it introduces the subject you wish to address or a research problem you wish to analyze.

Because the introduction of a research proposal is what sets the tone for the rest of the paper, it’s important to start with a hook and then organize your thoughts in a logical and organized manner.

The introduction to your research proposal should give background information and explain why you believe a research question is worth exploring. While not mandatory, you can briefly describe your methodologies in the introduction and then expand them later on.

Your introduction should be clear and concise. Make sure you include only the most relevant information in this section so you don’t make it unnecessarily too long.

3. Literature Review

Although a research proposal doesn’t include a full literature review , it’s important to include an overview of the most significant studies in your field.

The section should feature evidence and statistical data to demonstrate the significance of your research.

Through the literature review, you can easily draw your reader’s attention to existing research, identify gaps in existing studies, and make your reader understand how your proposal will contribute to the already existing research.

4. Aims and Objectives

Aims and objectives are what you wish your research proposal to accomplish. Your aims will be your overall outcome or what you want the research to achieve.

Objectives tend to be narrower and more focused. More often than not, you need to provide an explanation for each of your objectives to show how they will help to meet the aims of your study.

Unless required, you don’t really have to include a hypothesis that your research proposal looks forward to test.

5. Research Methodology

Methodologies are simply the research methods you will use to conduct your study and they must appear in your research proposal whether or not you’re conducting an experimental research.

The methodologies include analysis and sampling techniques equipment, research approaches, and ethical concerns.

Make sure your explanation for each methodology is clear and precise. It helps to justify why you’ve chosen to use a certain methodology over an alternative. This will go a long way to show that you took your time to think about your methodologies before picking them.

It’s important to explain how you will collect data, the sample size you plan to consider for your research investigation, and the techniques you consider the most appropriate to analyze the data.

6. Scope of the Research

Because you’ll be working with limited time and resource, it’s reasonable to include a section on the scope of the research in your proposal. In other words, you have to show your reader that you can start and complete your research within the constraints of these two resources.

Remember, your research will more than likely have limits, and addressing them in this section not only shows that you have given them a thought but also makes your research proposal strong and authentic.

Don’t just focus on the challenges that you’re likely to come across during your studies. You should also propose alternative solutions that you can use and why they might help.

7. Outline and Timetable

Your professor expects to see an outline and a timetable in your research proposal so it’s important that you include them in your research proposal.

The purpose of the outline is to show how you plan to structure your dissertation . Briefly note what each section will cover and explain how it all fits into the argument of your research project.

The purpose of the timetable is to show how much time you’ll need to complete your research. In particular, you need to make sure you mention exactly how long you expect each stage of your study to take.

Don’t just mention how long the research process will take. Make sure you also indicate how long you’ll take to compile your research.

Get Help with Research Proposal Writing

Knowing the elements of a good research proposal is one thing. Writing the proposal is where there’s a lot of work. If you don’t have the time to complete the work yourself, feel free to take advantage of our research proposal writing and get the paper done on time.

About the author 

Antony W is a professional writer and coach at Help for Assessment. He spends countless hours every day researching and writing great content filled with expert advice on how to write engaging essays, research papers, and assignments.

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

What are the Sections of a Research Proposal?

Research proposals that are written by graduate students or academic researchers typically follow a similar format consisting of headings and sections that explain the purpose of the research, specify the scope and scale of the study, and argue for its importance in contributing to the scientific literature. Knowing how to write a research proposal checklist  is crucial to getting your dissertation or thesis project accepted.

Although the research proposal sections may vary depending on whether it is a grant,  doctoral dissertation , conference paper, or professional project, there are certainly some sections in common. This article will cover sections you will often see in research proposals, explain their purpose, and provide a sample research proposal template.

What are the sections of a research proposal?

Let’s take a look at each section of a research proposal:

• Overall purpose
• Background literature
• Research question
• Definitions of terms and nomenclature
• Research methodology
• Problems and limitations
• Required resources and budget
• Ethical considerations
• Proposed timetable

What is the purpose of each research proposal section?

The research proposal sections and headings above resemble a fully edited and published academic journal article, which you probably can recognize if you are a new PhD or master’s graduate student who is just starting out reading peer-reviewed academic journal articles. 

However, the purpose of each heading in a research proposal is quite different from that of a final article. 

Purpose : To explain briefly, in a few words, what the research will be about.

What you should do:  Give your research proposal a concise and accurate title. Include the name of your faculty mentor (and his/her academic department).

Note : Title pages for research proposals are generally standardized or specified and provide or summarize basic administrative information‌, such as the university or research institution. Titles should be concise and brief enough to inform the reader of the purpose and nature of the research.

Related Article:  How to choose the best title for your research manuscript

Purpose:  To provide an overview of the study, which you will expand on in detail in later sections of the research proposal.

What you should do:  Provide a brief overview of your project. Include the goals of your research proposal and clearly specify the research questions you want to address. Explain the hypotheses you want to test.

Note : A good summary should emphasize the problems the applicant intends to solve, identify the solution to the problems, and specify the objectives and design‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌research. It should also describe the applicant’s qualifications and budget requirements.

Check out a webinar on how to write an effective research introduction

Overall purpose.

Purpose:  To state the overall goal of the work in a clear, concise manner.

What you should do : Summarize your problem for someone who is scientifically knowledgeable but potentially uninformed regarding your specific research topic.

Note : The aim or purpose of a research proposal should be results-oriented as opposed to process-oriented. For example, the result of a research study may be “To determine the enzyme involved in X” while the process is “to perform a protein electrophoresis study on mice expressing Y gene.” There should be at least three objectives per proposal. 

Background Literature Review

Purpose : To demonstrate the relationship between the goals of the proposed study and what has already been established in the relevant field of study.

What you should do : Selectively and critically analyze the literature. Explain other researchers’ work so that your professor or project manager has a clear understanding of how you will address past research and progress the literature.

Note : One of the most effective ways to support your research’s purpose and importance is to address gaps in the literature, controversies in your research field, and current trends in research. This will put into context how your dissertation or study will contribute to general scientific knowledge. Learn  how to write a literature review  before writing this section.

Research Question or Hypothesis

Purpose : To state precisely what the study will investigate or falsify.

What you should do : Clearly distinguish the dependent and independent variables and be certain the reader understands them. Make sure you use your terms consistently. Whenever possible, use the same nomenclature.

Note : A research question presents the relationship between two or more variables in the form of a question, whereas a hypothesis is a declarative statement of the relationship between two or more variables. Knowing  where to put the research question in a science paper  is also crucial to writing a strong Introduction section.

Definition of Terms

Purpose : To define the meanings of the key terms used in the research.

What you should do:  Align your term and nomenclature usage throughout your entire research proposal. Clearly define abbreviations and make sure they are understandable to scientists from other disciplines.

Note : Different scientific fields of study often use different terms for the same thing. Further, there are language consistency issues that should be considered. In organic chemistry, there are international standards for naming compounds, but common names are still regularly used, e.g., acetic acid versus ethanoic acid.

Research Methodology

Purpose:  To break down the steps of your research proposal.

What you should do:   Explain how you will achieve‌ ‌your research goals ‌specified‌ ‌earlier using terms that a general reader can understand. Explain your approach, design, and methods.

Note : Your research proposal should explain the broad scope of your research to other researchers‌ ‌in‌ ‌your‌ ‌field. This section represents the most important part of a research proposal and is therefore ‌the‌ ‌primary‌ ‌concern‌ ‌of‌ ‌reviewers. Knowing  how to explain research methodology for reproducibility  is important to explaining your methodology to dissertation or thesis advisors and committees. 

Problems and Limitations

Purpose:  To demonstrate awareness of any study limitations, potential problems, and barriers to answering the research question, and how to deal with them

What you should do:  Thoroughly head off any criticisms before they can torpedo your research proposal. Explain that any limitations or potential conflicts will only delay your research or alter/narrow its scope; they will not fundamentally degrade the importance of your research.

Note : Any research proposal or scientific study will have limitations in its scope and execution. Sometimes it may be a key procedure that is problematic or a material you cannot readily obtain. Discussing limitations is key to demonstrating you are an adept and experienced researcher worth approving.

Related Article:  How to present study limitations and alternatives

Required resources and budget.

Purpose:  To list what resources your research may require and what costs and timelines may affect your completion.

What you should do:  Think as a businessperson. Breakdown what resources are available at your institution or university as well as the required resources you still need. These can be materials, machinery, lab equipment, and computers. Resources can also be human: expertise to perform a procedure and other kinds of collaboration. 

Note : This section underscores why your funding institution or academic committee should fund your university, laboratory team, or yourself for this particular research. 

Ethical Considerations

Purpose:  To state how participants will be advised of

the overall nature and purpose of the study and how informed consent will

be obtained.

What you should do:  Consult with your academic institution, PhD advisor, and laboratory colleagues. Do not gloss over this part since it has legal consequences.

Note : Often, these types of legal disclaimers are well established and readily available in template format from your research institution or university. Just obtain the proper clearance and permission and have the legal authority at your institution check it over.

Read about how  conflicts of interest  should be disclosed in research proposals

Proposed timeline.

Purpose:  To give a projected timeline for planning, completing, verifying, and reporting your research.

What you should do:  Approach this part with a project management style. In an organized fashion, set out a specific timeline for how long each part of your research will take. Identify bottlenecks and specify them.

Note:  Savvy time management is something that comes with lots of research experience. Ask your professor or colleagues if you have questions about how long certain procedures will take.

Purpose:  To provide detailed bibliographic and reference citations.

What you should do:  Use an online citation machine ( APA citation machine , MLA citation machine , Chicago citation machine , Vancouver citation machine ) that can instantly organize your references in any format. Make sure you do this as you go, not saving it for the last when you have lost track.

Note:  The bibliographic format used varies according to the research discipline. Consistency is the main consideration; whichever style is chosen should be followed carefully throughout the entire paper. 

Related Article:  How many references to include in a research proposal?

Purpose : To include any extra materials or information.

What you should do:  Add letters of endorsement or collaboration and reprints of relevant articles if they are not available electronically. In addition to the above, you may want to include data tables, surveys, questionnaires, data collection procedures, clinical protocols, and informed consent documents.

Notes : Many writers tend to attach supporting documents to support their research proposal. But remember, more is not always better. Be sure to only include information that strengthens your case, not simply make it longer.

Note : Savvy time management is something that comes with lots of research experience. Ask your professor or colleagues if you have questions about how long certain procedures will take.

The Bottom Line

Whether your research is academic (PhD or master’s graduate student) or professional (competing for government or private funding), how you organize your research proposal sections is one of the first things evaluators will notice. Many academic reviewers will simply scan and check for key section headings. If any headings are missing or strangely written, they may instantly give the reviewer a bad impression of your proposal. 

One tip before submitting or even writing your research proposal is to search for the best journal to publish your research in and follow the guidelines in the Guide for Authors section, as well as read as many articles from that journal as possible to gain an understanding of the appropriate style and formatting.

Preparing Your Research Proposal for Publication

So make sure to use some of our resources, such as our  FREE APA citation generator  and  research proposal checklist , or contact us to ask about  professional proofreading services , including academic editing and manuscript editing for academic documents.

And check our guide on the  editing process  to learn more about how language editing for manuscripts can enhance your writing and increase your chances of publication.

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Active funding opportunity

Nsf 24-582: nsf small business innovation research / small business technology transfer fast-track pilot programs (sbir-sttr fast-track), program solicitation, document information, document history.

• Posted: June 17, 2024

Program Solicitation NSF 24-582

Full Proposal Deadline(s) (due by 5 p.m. submitting organization’s local time):

     September 18, 2024

     November 06, 2024

     March 05, 2025

     July 02, 2025

     November 05, 2025

Important Information And Revision Notes

The NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track programs (also known as America’s Seed Fund powered by NSF) provide non-dilutive, fixed amount cooperative agreements for the development of a broad range of technologies based on discoveries in science and engineering with the potential for societal and economic impacts .

This new pilot effort shares the same goals as the NSF SBIR/STTR Phase I and Phase II funding opportunities, but the NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track pilot programs have different eligibility requirements. Small businesses applying to the NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track pilot programs must have a lineage of NSF research funding, at least one Senior/Key Personnel to have undergone formal customer discovery training, and the entire team must already be in place (not yet to be determined) at the time of proposal submission. For further information see Eligibility Criteria.

The maximum total SBIR/STTR Fast-Track award amount is $1,555,000 (inclusive of direct and indirect costs, Technical and Business Assistance (TABA) funding, and the small business fee) : $400,000 maximum for the Phase I component and $1,155,000 maximum for the Phase II component. The expected project duration will be between 24 months and 36 months. The duration of a Phase I component can be between 6 months and 12 months, to be specified by the company. The duration of a Phase II component can be between 18 months and 24 months, to be specified by the company.

NSF proposals are confidential and will only be shared with a select number of reviewers and NSF staff (as appropriate). All reviewers have agreed to maintain the confidentiality of the proposal content. Proposals to NSF do not constitute a public disclosure. If selected for an award, the company will be prompted to write a publicly available abstract that summarizes the intellectual merit and broader impact of the project.

The NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track pilot programs do not support clinical trials or proposals from companies whose commercialization pathway involves the production, distribution, or sale by the company of chemical components, natural or synthetic variations thereof, or other derivatives related to Schedule I controlled substances.

All proposals must be submitted through Research.gov .

NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track pilot proposals will not be accepted in Grants.gov. NSF Fast-Track SBIR and STTR pilot proposals are nearly identical but differ in the amount of work performed by the small business and a not-for-profit institution or a Federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) (as noted in the budget). For more details about the unique requirements of NSF STTR Fast-Track pilot awards, please refer to the Eligibility Information and Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions sections of this solicitation.

NSF SBIR Fast-Track Pilot proposals submitted to this solicitation that meet all the requirements of an NSF STTR Fast-Track pilot proposal may, at NSF’s discretion, be converted to NSF STTR Fast-Track pilot proposal for award. Similarly, NSF STTR Fast-Track pilot proposals may be converted to NSF SBIR Fast-Track pilot awards at NSF’s discretion.

America’s Seed Fund powered by NSF is committed to assisting SBIR/STTR Phase II recipients to successfully commercialize their innovation research, grow their company and create jobs by attracting new investments and partnerships. To reinforce these commitments, the programs support a broad number of supplements and other opportunities . For more information, see: Supplemental Funding Overview , and the linked Dear Colleagues Letters.

• Funding Agreement : As used in this solicitation, the funding agreement is a Grant – a legal instrument of financial assistance between NSF and a recipient, consistent with 31 USC 6302-6305 and as noted in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Introduction, Section D ("Definitions & NSF-Recipient Relationships").
• Small Business Concerns (SBCs) : SBCs are independently owned and operated businesses that are not dominant in the field of operation. For this solicitation, firms qualifying as a small business concern are eligible to participate in the SBIR/STTR programs (see Section II. "Eligibility Information" of this solicitation for more details). Please note that the size limit of 500 employees includes affiliates. The firm must be in compliance with the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive and the Code of Federal Regulations (13 CFR 121) .
• SBIR/STTR Data : As defined by the SBA SBIR/STTR Policy Directive , SBIR/STTR Data is all Data developed or generated in the performance of an SBIR or STTR award, including Technical Data and Computer Software developed or generated in the performance of an SBIR or STTR award. The term does not include information incidental to contract or grant administration, such as financial, administrative, cost or pricing or management information.
• SBIR/STTR Data Rights : The Federal Government may, use, modify, reproduce, perform, display, release, or disclose SBIR/STTR Data that are Technical Data within the Government; however, the Government shall not use, release, or disclose the data for procurement, manufacturing, or commercial purposes; or release or disclose the SBIR/STTR Data outside the Government except as permitted by paragraph 10(B) of the SBIR/STTR Policy Directive 's Data Rights Clause or by written permission of the recipient.
• the application of creative, original, and potentially transformative concepts to systematically study, create, adapt, or manipulate the structure and behavior of the natural or man-made worlds;
• the use of the scientific method to propose well-reasoned, well-organized activities based on sound theory, computation, measurement, observation, experiment, or modeling;
• the demonstration of a well-qualified individual, team, or organization ready to deploy novel methods of creating, acquiring, processing, manipulating, storing, or disseminating data or metadata; and/or
• the novel integration of new theories, analysis, data, or methods regarding cognition, heuristics, and related phenomena, which can be supported by scientific rationale.
• Non-Dilutive Funding : financing that does not involve equity, debt, or other elements of the business ownership structure.
• Technical Risk : Technical risk assumes that the possibility of technical failure exists for an envisioned product, service, or solution to be successfully developed. This risk is present even to those suitably skilled in the art of the component, subsystem, method, technique, tool, or algorithm in question. If the new product, service, or solution is successfully realized and brought to the market, it would be difficult for a well-qualified, competing firm to reverse-engineer or otherwise neutralize the competitive advantage generated by leveraging fundamental science or engineering research techniques.
• Technological Innovation  indicates that the new product or service is differentiated from current products or services; that is, the new technology holds the potential to result in a product or service with a substantial and durable advantage over competing solutions on the market. It also generally provides a barrier to entry for competitors.

The proposal submission system, Research.gov, will stop accepting proposals at 5:00 pm submitting organization’s local time. If your submission is late, you will not be able to submit again until the next deadline. Proposers are strongly urged to submit well in advance of the deadline.

An Intellectual Property (IP) Rights agreement is required for STTR proposals and strongly recommended for SBIR proposals when there is a subaward to another institution . A fully signed agreement is not required for STTR proposals at the initial proposal submission but will be required before a recommendation for an award can be made.

A small business must receive an official invitation via the Project Pitch , a process to submit a full Fast-Track proposal. Details regarding this process as well as how to submit a Fast-Track Project Pitch can be found in Section III.A. of this document. Small businesses that meet the Fast-Track eligibility criteria can submit a Fast-Track Project Pitch at any time. Small businesses that have been invited to submit a full Fast-Track proposal can submit a proposal based on that Project Pitch at any time up to 4 months after the date of the invitation.

In addition to the standard NSF Merit Review Criteria, this solicitation provides additional clarification on how Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact might be applied to startups and small businesses. Additional solicitation-specific merit review criteria focused on Commercialization Potential is also applied.

Four documents: Biographical Sketch(es), Current and Pending (Other) Support forms, Collaborators and Other Affiliations (COA), and Synergistic Activities must be submitted for the PI, Co-PI (if STTR), and each Senior/Key Personnel specified in the proposal. Biographical Sketches and Current and Pending Support forms must be prepared using SciENcv: Science Experts Network Curriculum Vitae . Collaborators & Other Affiliations (COA) Information is prepared using the instructions and spreadsheet template .

Synergistic Activities. Each individual identified as a Senior/Key person must provide a document of up to one-page that includes a list of up to five distinct examples of synergistic activities that demonstrate the broader impact of the individual’s professional and scholarly activities that focus on the integration and transfer of knowledge as well as its creation.

In compliance with the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 , section 10636 (Person or entity of concern prohibition; 42 U.S.C. 19235 ): No person published on the list under section 1237(b) of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 ( Public Law 105-261 ; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note ) or entity identified under section 1260h of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 ( 10 U.S.C. 113 note ; Public Law 116-283 ) may receive or participate in any grant, award, program, support, or other activity under the Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (TIP) .

In accordance with Section 10632 of the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 (42 U.S.C. § 19232), the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must certify that all individuals identified as Senior/Key Personnel have been made aware of and have complied with their responsibility under that section to certify that the individual is not a party to a Malign Foreign Talent Recruitment Program.

In accordance with Section 223(a)(1) of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (42 U.S.C. § 6605(a)(1)), each individual identified as Senior/Key Personnel is required to certify in SciENcv that the information provided in the Biographical Sketch and Current and Pending (Other) Support documents are accurate, current, and complete. Senior/Key Personnel are required to update their Current and Pending (Other) Support disclosures prior to award, and at any subsequent time the agency determines appropriate during the term of the award. See additional information on NSF Disclosure Requirements in the PAPPG, Chapter II.B. Each Senior/Key Person must also certify prior to proposal submission that they are not a party to a Malign Foreign Talent Recruitment Program and annually thereafter for the duration of the award.

Three (3) Letters of Support from potential product/service users or customers are required; Up to five (5) Letters of Support may be submitted.

Letters of Commitment that confirm the role of any subaward organization(s) in the project and explicitly state the subaward amount are also required.

Additional information on the due diligence process , used as part of the review and selection process, is included in Section VI. The due diligence process may include requests for clarification of the company structure, key personnel, conflicts of interest, foreign influence, cybersecurity practices, or other issues as determined by NSF. Participation in the due diligence process is not a guarantee that an award will be made.

SBIR/STTR Fast-Track proposals that have been declined by NSF are NOT eligible for reconsideration . A decision by NSF not to provide additional funding following either the Stage Gate 1 or Stage Gate 2 review will NOT be eligible for reconsideration or termination review as defined in Chapter XII.A.4 of the PAPPG .

This solicitation contains many instructions that deviate from the standard NSF PAPPG proposal preparation instructions. In the event of a conflict between the instructions in this solicitation and the PAPPG, use this solicitation’s instructions as a guide.

Any proposal submitted in response to this solicitation should be submitted in accordance with the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) that is in effect for the relevant due date to which the proposal is being submitted. The NSF PAPPG is regularly revised and it is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that the proposal meets the requirements specified in this solicitation and the applicable version of the PAPPG. Submitting a proposal prior to a specified deadline does not negate this requirement.

Summary Of Program Requirements

General information.

Program Title:

NSF Small Business Innovation Research / Small Business Technology Transfer Fast-Track Pilot Programs (SBIR-STTR Fast-Track)

The NSF SBIR/STTR and SBIR/STTR Fast-Track pilot programs support moving scientific excellence and technological innovation from the lab to the market. By funding startups and small businesses, NSF helps build a strong national economy and stimulates the creation of novel products, services, and solutions in private, public, or government sectors with potential for broad impact; strengthens the role of small business in meeting federal research and development needs; increases the commercial application of federally supported research results; and develops and increases the US workforce, especially by fostering and encouraging participation by socially and economically disadvantaged and women-owned small businesses. These NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track pilot programs provide fixed amount cooperative agreements for the development of a broad range of technologies based on discoveries in science and engineering with potential for societal and economic impacts. Unlike fundamental or basic research activities that focus on scientific and engineering discovery itself, the NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track pilot programs support the creation of opportunities to move use-inspired and translational discoveries out of the lab and into the market or other use at scale, through startups and small businesses. The NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track pilot programs do not solicit specific technologies or procure goods and services from startups and small businesses. Any invention conceived or reduced to practice with the assistance of SBIR/STTR funding is subject to the Bayh-Dole Act. For more information refer to SBIR/STTR Frequently Asked Questions #75 . NSF promotes inclusion by encouraging proposals from diverse populations and geographic locations. The traditional NSF SBIR/STTR programs include two funding Phases – Phase I and Phase II. All proposers to the programs must first apply for Phase I funding – there is no direct-to-Phase II option. Under a traditional NSF SBIR/STTR Phase I award, a small business can receive non-dilutive funding for research and development (R&D) to demonstrate technical feasibility over 6 to 12 months and then, after completion of a Phase I project, companies may apply for Phase II funding to further develop the proposed technology. There are significant benefits for SBIR/STTR Fast-Track recipients: the submission of only one proposal for Phase I and Phase II and a faster transition from Phase I to Phase II. While startups and small businesses face many challenges, NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track funding is intended to specifically focus on challenges associated with technological innovation; that is, on the creation of new products, services, and other scalable solutions based on fundamental science or engineering. A successful Fast-Track proposal must demonstrate how NSF funding will help the small business create a proof-of-concept or prototype by retiring technical risk. NSF seeks unproven, leading-edge, technology innovations that demonstrate the following characteristics: The innovations are underpinned and enabled by a new scientific discovery or meaningful engineering innovation. The innovations still require intensive technical research and development to be fully embedded in a reliable product or service. The innovations have not yet been reduced to practice by anyone and it is not guaranteed, at present, that doing so is technically possible. The innovations provide a strong competitive advantage that are not easily replicable by competitors (even technically proficient ones). Once reduced to practice, the innovations are expected to result in a product or service that would either be disruptive to existing markets or create new markets/new market segments. The NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track pilot programs focus on stimulating technical innovation from diverse entrepreneurs and start-ups by translating new scientific and engineering concepts into products and services that can be scaled and commercialized into sustainable businesses with significant societal benefits. The programs provide non-dilutive funding for research and development (R&D) of use-inspired scientific and engineering activities at the earliest stages of the company and technology development. During the course of the award, the emphasis is expected to shift from de-risking those aspects preventing the innovation from reaching technical feasibility and driving the intended impact to a greater focus on commercially relevant development activities that will allow the company to differentiate itself and drive new value propositions to the market and society. NSF encourages input and participation from the full spectrum of diverse talent that society has to offer which includes underrepresented and underserved communities. These NSF programs are governed by 15 USC 638 and the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended ( 42 USC §1861, et seq. ). Introduction to the Program The NSF SBIR/STTR programs focus on stimulating technical innovation from diverse entrepreneurs and startups by translating new scientific and engineering discoveries emerging from the private sector, federal labs, and academia into products and services that can be scaled and commercialized into sustainable businesses with significant societal benefits. These NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track pilot programs enable companies based on previous NSF awards (NSF award lineage) to submit a single proposal that, if awarded, can provide a faster pathway from Phase I to Phase II funding. Receipt of full funding under the Fast-Track pilot programs is contingent on the results of a company’s Phase II transition review. The NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track pilot programs are part of the Directorate for Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (TIP) , which was recently launched to accelerate innovation and enhance economic competitiveness by catalyzing partnerships and investments that strengthen the links between fundamental research and technology development, deployment, and use.

Cognizant Program Officer(s):

Please note that the following information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

NSF SBIR/STTR Inbox, telephone: (703) 292-5111, email: [email protected]

• 47.041 --- Engineering
• 47.049 --- Mathematical and Physical Sciences
• 47.050 --- Geosciences
• 47.070 --- Computer and Information Science and Engineering
• 47.074 --- Biological Sciences
• 47.075 --- Social Behavioral and Economic Sciences
• 47.076 --- STEM Education
• 47.079 --- Office of International Science and Engineering
• 47.083 --- Office of Integrative Activities (OIA)
• 47.084 --- NSF Technology, Innovation and Partnerships

Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award: Fixed Amount Cooperative Agreement

• Approximately 20 awards for SBIR Fast-Track, pending the availability of funds.
• Approximately 16 awards for STTR Fast-Track, pending the availability of funds.
• Approximately $31 M for SBIR Fast-Track
• Approximately $25 M for STTR Fast-Track

Estimated program budget, number of awards and average award size/duration are subject to the availability of funds.

Eligibility Information

Who May Submit Proposals:

Proposals may only be submitted by the following: Small businesses concerns must meet ALL of the following requirements: Proposers that have submitted a SBIR/STTR Fast-Track Project Pitch and received an official invitation from a cognizant NSF SBIR/STTR Program Officer within the 4 months preceding the proposal submission date. To start this process, proposers must first create a log in and submit a Project Pitch document via the NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track Project Pitch online form . The cognizant NSF SBIR/STTR Program Officer will use the Project Pitch to determine whether the proposed project is a good fit for the Fast-Track program. Companies qualifying as a small business concern are eligible to participate in the NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track pilot programs (see Guide to SBIR/STTR Program Eligibility for more information). Please note that the size limit of 500 employees includes affiliates. The firm must be in compliance with the SBIR/STTR Policy Directive and the Code of Federal Regulations . For STTR proposals, the proposing small business must also include a partner research institution in the project, see additional details below. The SBIR/STTR Fast-Track pilot effort shares the same goals as the NSF SBIR/STTR Phase I and Phase II funding opportunities, but the Fast-Track pilot programs have different eligibility requirements. Small businesses applying to the NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track pilot programs must have 1) a lineage of NSF research funding, 2) at least one Senior/Key Personnel to have undergone formal customer discovery training, and 3) the entire team must already be in place (not yet to be determined) at the time of proposal submission. If the small business concern does not meet all three of these criteria, their proposal will be transferred to the NSF SBIR/STTR Phase I program for consideration. Lineage Eligibility Requirement. The technical innovation in the Fast-Track proposal must be derived from a prior NSF research award that is either currently active or was active within the previous five years from the date of submission of the Fast-Track proposal. The Fast-Track Project Pitch and proposal must include the NSF award number and title of the research award that is relied upon to meet the lineage requirement. The Fast-Track proposal’s PI or at least one Senior/Key Personnel must have been supported under the lineage award. If the Fast-Track team member relied upon to meet the lineage requirement is named on the lineage award, no further documentation will be required. If not, the Fast-Track proposal must include a letter from the PI or a Co-PI of the lineage award confirming that either the PI or a named Senior/Key Personnel on the Fast-Track team was engaged in research undertaken under the lineage award. In addition to regular NSF research awards (e.g., CAREER, individual investigator awards, center/institute awards, etc.), Partnerships for Innovation (PFI) and NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP) awards do count as NSF lineage for SBIR/STTR Fast-Track eligibility. NSF Innovation Corps (I-Corps) and NSF SBIR/STTR awards do not count as NSF research lineage and do not convey SBIR/STTR Fast-Track eligibility . Formal Customer Discovery Eligibility Requirement. Companies must have received formal customer discovery training, defined as follows, within the previous two years from the date of the Fast-Track proposal submission. At least one of the Senior/Key Personnel on the Fast-Track proposal must have undergone formal customer discovery training in relation to the proposed technology via a suitably qualified program, such as the NSF I-Corps program or a program at an incubator or accelerator, with a result that at the start of the Fast-Track project the proposing company has a clear understanding of the product-market fit and initial target customers for the proposed technology. Complete Team Eligibility Requirement. Companies must have a complete Fast-Track team in place at the time of proposal submission – i.e., there must be no “to-be-determined” company personnel in budget lines A or B; all company personnel in budget lines A and B must have confirmed their availability for the proposed Fast-Track project per the proposed Phase I and Phase II component budgets; the proposing team must possess the required expertise to perform the proposed Fast-Track project; and the team members must dedicate sufficient time to the technical tasks that must be undertaken to achieve the objectives of the Fast-Track project. In compliance with the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 , Section 10636 (Person or entity of concern prohibition; 42 U.S.C. 19235): No person published on the list under section 1237(b) of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) or entity identified under section 1260h of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (10 U.S.C. 113 note; Public Law 116-283) may receive or participate in any grant, award, program, support, or other activity under the Directorate for Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships. Individuals who are a current party to a Malign Foreign Talent Recruitment Program are not eligible to serve as a Senior/Key Person on an NSF proposal or on any NSF award made after May 20, 2024. See current PAPPG for additional information on required certifications associated with Malign Foreign Talent Organization. The Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must certify that all individuals identified as Senior/Key Personnel have been made aware of and have complied with their responsibility under that section to certify that the individual is not a party to a Malign Foreign Talent Recruitment Program. The small business concern’s R&D must be performed within the United States. Startups and small businesses funded by NSF must be majority U.S.-owned companies. The companies may not be majority-owned by one or more venture capital operating companies (VCOCs), hedge funds, or private equity firms. Proposals from joint ventures and partnerships are permitted, provided the proposing entity qualifies as a small business concern (see Guide to SBIR/STTR Program Eligibility for more information). “Collaborative Proposal from Multiple Organizations” (a special proposal type in Research.gov) are not allowed. Socially and economically disadvantaged small businesses and women-owned small businesses are also encouraged to apply.

Who May Serve as PI:

The primary employment of the Principal Investigator (PI) must be with the small business concern at the time of award and for the duration of the award, unless a new PI is approved by NSF. Primary employment is defined as at least 51 percent employed by the small business. NSF normally considers a full-time work week to be 40 hours and considers employment elsewhere of greater than 19.6 hours per week to be in conflict with this requirement. The PI must have a legal right to work for the proposing company in the United States, as evidenced by citizenship, permanent residency, or an appropriate visa. The PI does not need to be associated with an academic institution. There are no PI degree requirements (i.e., the PI is not required to hold a Ph.D. or any other degree). A PI must devote a minimum of three calendar months of effort per six months of performance to an NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track project.

Limit on Number of Proposals per Organization: 1

An organization must wait for a determination from NSF (e.g., award, decline, or returned without review) regarding a pending NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track pilot proposal before submitting a new Project Pitch in the next window. An organization that has submitted a traditional SBIR/STTR Project Pitch, received an invitation to submit a traditional SBIR/STTR Phase I proposal, or has a traditional SBIR/STTR Phase I proposal under review may not submit a Fast-Track Project Pitch until either the traditional SBIR/STTR Project Pitch has been declined (i.e., not invited) or the outcome of the invited traditional SBIR/STTR proposal submission has been made available to the organization. Proposals that have been Returned Without Review may be submitted using the same Project Pitch invitation (assuming that the proposal is received within 4 months of the original invitation).

Limit on Number of Proposals per PI or co-PI: 1

For NSF SBIR Fast-Track – 1 PI, co-PIs are not allowed. For NSF STTR Fast-Track - 1 PI and 1 Co-PI are required (the PI must be an employee of the proposing small business and the Co-PI must be part of the STTR partner research institution). An individual may be listed as the PI for only one proposal submitted at a time to the NSF SBIR/STTR programs (including traditional and Fast-Track). For NSF STTR Fast-Track proposals, a person may act as co-PI on an unlimited number of proposals.

Proposal Preparation and Submission Instructions

A. proposal preparation instructions.

• Letters of Intent: Not required
• Preliminary Proposal Submission: Not required

Full Proposal Preparation Instruction: This solicitation contains information that deviates from the standard NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) proposal preparation guidelines. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

B. Budgetary Information

Cost Sharing Requirements:

Inclusion of voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

Indirect Cost (F&A) Limitations:

Not Applicable

Other Budgetary Limitations:

Other budgetary limitations apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

C. Due Dates

Proposal review information criteria.

Merit Review Criteria:

National Science Board approved criteria. Additional merit review criteria apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Award Administration Information

Award Conditions:

Additional award conditions apply. Please see the full text of this solicitation for further information.

Reporting Requirements:

Standard NSF reporting requirements apply.

I. Introduction

The NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track pilot programs focus on stimulating technical innovation from diverse entrepreneurs and startups by translating new scientific and engineering discoveries emerging from the private sector, federal labs, and academia into products and services that can be scaled and commercialized into sustainable businesses with significant societal benefits. The NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track pilot programs support moving scientific excellence and technological innovation from the lab to the market. By funding startups and small businesses, NSF helps build a strong national economy and stimulates the creation of novel products, services, and solutions in private, public, or government sectors with potential for broad impact; strengthens the role of small business in meeting federal research and development needs; increases the commercial application of federally supported research results; and develops and increases the US workforce, especially by fostering and encouraging participation by socially and economically disadvantaged and women-owned small businesses.

While startups and small businesses face many challenges, the NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track pilot programs are intended to specifically focus on challenges associated with technological innovation; that is, on the creation of new products, services, and other scalable solutions based on fundamental science or engineering. A successful Fast-Track proposal must demonstrate how NSF funding will help the small business create a proof-of-concept or prototype by retiring technical risk.

NSF seeks unproven, leading-edge, technology innovations that demonstrate the following characteristics:

• The innovations are underpinned and enabled by a new scientific discovery or meaningful engineering innovation.
• The innovations still require intensive technical research and development to be fully embedded in a reliable product or service.
• The innovations have not yet been reduced to practice by anyone and it is not guaranteed, at present, that doing so is technically possible
• The innovations provide a strong competitive advantage that are not easily replicable by competitors (even technically proficient ones).
• Once reduced to practice, the innovations are expected to result in a product or service that would either be disruptive to existing markets or create new markets/new market segments.

The NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track pilot programs provide non-dilutive funding for the development of deep technologies, based on discoveries in fundamental science and engineering, that offer the potential for societal and economic impacts. The NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track pilot programs provide fixed amount cooperative agreements for the development of a broad range of technologies based on discoveries in science and engineering with potential for societal and economic impacts. Unlike fundamental or basic research activities that focus on scientific and engineering discovery itself, the NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track pilot programs support the creation of opportunities to move use-inspired and translational discoveries out of the lab and into the market or other use at scale, through startups and small businesses. The NSF SBIR/STTR pilot programs do not solicit specific technologies or procure goods and services from startups and small businesses. The funding provided is non-dilutive and NSF does not receive any stake or interest in the company or in the intellectual property resulting from the funded effort. NSF promotes inclusion by encouraging proposals from diverse populations and geographic locations.

II. Program Description

The aim of the NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track pilot programs is to enable eligible companies (see Section IV of this document) that have a complete R&D team (i.e., no “to-be-determined” team members) to submit a single proposal that, if awarded, can provide a faster pathway from Phase I to Phase II funding. A Fast-Track proposal will include a Phase I component and a Phase II component, each with a corresponding budget. Both Phase I and Phase II components of a Fast-Track proposal will be reviewed prior to the start of a Fast-Track project. On completion of the Phase I component, and contingent upon the results of a company’s Phase II transition review (see below for details), a Fast-Track awardee company will be able to transition directly to the Phase II component of the project. The primary benefits for Fast-Track awardee companies are (i) a pathway at the start of an awarded Fast-Track project to the full funding opportunities of the NSF SBIR/STTR Phase I and Phase II programs, and (ii) a faster transition from Phase I to Phase II than for traditional NSF SBIR/STTR Phase I awardees. Receipt of full funding under the Fast-Track programs is contingent upon the success of a company’s Phase II transition review.

The NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track pilot programs welcome proposals from almost all areas of technology. The program website presents a number of topic areas, but these are only meant to be suggestive of the types of topic areas that are anticipated. The programs are also open to proposals that focus on technical and market areas not explicitly noted in the aforementioned topics. Proposals that do not have an obvious fit in one of the specific topic areas can be submitted to “Other Topics”. NSF encourages eligible companies from all technology sectors and geographic areas to apply for funding. NSF does not test, verify, or otherwise use the technology developed under its SBIR/STTR Fast-Track awards.

The NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track pilot programs are expected to be highly competitive. Only a fraction of proposals submitted will be selected for an award. Thus, there may be many qualified businesses applying to the programs that do not receive funding.

NSF evaluates SBIR/STTR Fast-Track proposals under three distinct, but related merit review criteria: Intellectual Merit, Broader Impacts, and Commercialization Potential.

In addition to the standard NSF Merit Review Criteria (Section VI.A.), the following provides additional clarification of how Intellectual Merit and Broader Impact might be applied to startups and small businesses (Section II and IV.A.2).

The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance knowledge and leverage fundamental science or engineering research techniques to overcome technical risk. This can be conveyed through the Research and Development (R&D ) of the project.

NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track proposals are evaluated via the concepts of Technical Risk and Technological Innovation. Technical Risk assumes that the possibility of technical failure exists for an envisioned product, service, or solution to be successfully developed. This risk is present even to those suitably skilled in the art of the component, subsystem, method, technique, tool, or algorithm in question. Technological Innovation indicates that the new product or service is differentiated from current products or services; that is, the new technology holds the potential to result in a product or service with a substantial and durable advantage over competing solutions on the market. It also generally provides a barrier to entry for competitors. This means that if the new product, service, or solution is successfully realized and brought to the market, it should be difficult for a well-qualified, competing firm to reverse-engineer or otherwise neutralize the competitive advantage generated by leveraging fundamental science or engineering research techniques.

The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential for the company to drive a benefit to society in terms of addressing major societal challenges. Considering the products developed under these programs will have a broad societal reach, will be widely distributed, and will therefore have impacts that are far reaching with people and communities. It is important to ensure adequate assessment of potential benefits and unintended consequences of the proposed technology.

The NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track pilot programs support the vision of the NSF, which is a nation that leads the world in science and engineering research and innovation to the benefit of all, without barriers to participation. Proposers may also consider the Broader Impacts Review Criterion at 42 U.S.C. §1862p-14 as related to the potential for broadest societal impact.

An additional, solicitation-specific merit review criteria focused on Commercialization Potential is also required. The Commercialization Potential of the proposed product or service is the potential for the resulting technology to disrupt the targeted market segment by way of a strong and durable value proposition for the customers or users.

• The proposed product or service addresses an unmet, important, and scalable need for the target customer base.
• The proposed small business is structured and staffed to focus on aggressive commercialization of the product/service.
• The proposed small business can provide evidence of good product-market fit (as validated by direct and significant interaction with customers and related stakeholders).

More details and information regarding the NSF SBIR/STTR merit review criteria can be found in Section VI.A of this solicitation and the NSF SBIR/STTR website .

The review of an NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track proposal includes both the Phase I and Phase II components of the proposal. A team submitting an NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track proposal must have NSF-funded research lineage (see Section IV); customer discovery training in order to develop an understanding of the target market, product-market fit and initial target customers; and a complete team (no “to-be-determined” members).

The Phase I and Phase II components of an NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track proposal will be reviewed and evaluated separately. For cases in which reviewers and the cognizant Program Officer deem that the Phase I component is meritorious, but the Phase II component is not, the Program Officer may consider recommending the Fast-Track proposal for a traditional NSF SBIR/STTR Phase I award. The company would subsequently be eligible to apply for NSF SBIR/STTR Phase II funding via the traditional process (i.e., not via the Fast-Track process).

An NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track proposal must include specific, quantifiable performance targets for the Phase I component of the project. These Phase I targets may be renegotiated with the cognizant Program Officer during post-review diligence, so that at the start of the Fast-Track project there will be agreed performance targets in place for the Phase I component.

Phase II Transition Review : The Phase II transition review will consist of two stage gates:

Stage Gate 1: Progress Evaluation.

Approximately three (3) months prior to the end of the Phase I component, the NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track recipient will be required to participate in a reverse site visit during which they will present to NSF the results of the Phase I project to date. Detailed guidance regarding the reverse site visit will be provided to the recipient four to six weeks prior to the reverse site visit. NSF will evaluate progress made by the Fast-Track recipient company during the Phase I component, taking into account a number of factors including, but not limited to:

• Phase I performance compared with the agreed performance targets;
• commercial progress and commercial traction during Phase I;
• team suitability for Phase II; and
• additional resources – including company personnel, advisors, and funding that are accessible to the company for technical, regulatory, or commercial activities associated with the Phase II component.

Based on the results of NSF’s SBIR/STTR Fast-Track Stage Gate 1 review, if NSF determines, based on this progress evaluation, that a Fast-Track award recipient should have the opportunity to transition to the Phase II component, the company will advance to Stage Gate 2.

Alternatively, NSF may decide that an NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track award will not transition to the Phase II component. In such cases, the Fast-Track project will be limited to Phase I funding, and the award will conclude at the end of the Phase I component. NSF will communicate its decision and rationale back to the Fast-Track awardee. The company will not be eligible to apply for regular SBIR/STTR Phase II funding based on the Fast-Track award. NOTE: NSF’s decision not to provide SBIR/STTR Phase II funding following Stage Gate 1 is not subject to reconsideration or termination review as defined in Chapter XII.A.4 of the PAPPG.

Stage Gate 2: CAP Review

NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track award recipients who progress beyond the Stage Gate 1 will be required to prepare and submit administrative and supporting financial documentation for review by the NSF Cost Analysis and Pre-Award (CAP) Branch. See https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/caar/sbirrev.jsp for detailed requirements. CAP reviews are conducted to evaluate a prospective recipient's ability to manage a federal award effectively and efficiently, as well as to establish the reasonableness of the dollar amount for the Phase II component of the award. Based on the results of the Stage Gate 2 review, NSF may decide that a Fast-Track award will not receive additional Phase II funding, and the award will conclude at the end of the Phase I component. NSF will communicate its decision and rationale back to the Fast-Track recipient. The company will not be allowed to apply for regular SBIR/STTR Phase II funding based on the Fast-Track award. NOTE: NSF’s decision not to provide SBIR/STTR Phase II funding following Stage Gate 2 is not subject to reconsideration or termination review as defined in Chapter XII.A.4 of the PAPPG.

Companies who pass both Stage Gates 1 and 2 will receive a funding increment for the Phase II component of the award, and they will be eligible to apply for the same Phase II supplemental funding opportunities as are available to a traditional NSF SBIR/STTR Phase II awardee.

III. Award Information

Anticipated Type of Award: Fixed Amount Cooperative Agreement Estimated Number of Awards: 36

Anticipated Funding Amount: $56,000,000

IV. Eligibility Information

Additional Eligibility Info:

Required Project Pitch Invitation: Potential proposers must receive an invitation to submit a full NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track pilot proposal. Please see Project Pitch website for details. STTR Research Institution.  The  SBIR/STTR Policy Directive  requires that STTR proposals include an eligible research institution as a subawardee on the project budget. The STTR partner research institution is typically either a not-for-profit institution focused on scientific or educational goals (such as a college or university), or a Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC). For an NSF STTR Fast-Track proposal, a minimum of 40% of the research, as measured by the budget, must be performed by the small business concern, and a minimum of 30% must be performed by a single partner research institution, with the balance permitted to be allocated to either of these, or to other subawards or consultants. Partnering. Proposing companies are encouraged to collaborate with experienced researchers at available facilities such as colleges, universities, national laboratories, and from other research sites. Funding for such collaborations may include research subawards or consulting agreements. The employment of faculty and students by the small business is allowed, however: For an NSF SBIR Fast-Track proposal , a minimum of two-thirds of the research, as measured by the budget, must be performed by the small business during the Phase I component of the project, and a minimum of one-half of the research, as measured by the budget, must be performed by the small business during the Phase II component of the project. The balance of the budget may be outsourced to subawards or consultants or a combination thereof. The proportion requirements cited above must be met in both the Phase I and Phase II budgets independently. For an NSF STTR Fast-Track proposal , the SBIR/STTR Policy Directive requires proposals to include an eligible research institution as a subawardee on the project budget. The institution is typically either a not-for-profit institution focused on scientific or educational goals (such as a college or university), or a Federally funded research and development center (FFRDC). A minimum of 40% of the research, as measured by the budget, must be performed by the small business. A minimum of 30% must be performed by a single partner research institution. The balance (remaining 30%) may be allocated to the small business, partner research institution, or to other subawards or consultants. The percentage requirements cited above must be met in both the Phase I and Phase II budgets independently. For Both SBIR and STTR Fast-Track proposals, proposals should NOT be marked as a "Collaborative Proposal from Multiple Organizations" during submission. Companies are allowed to switch between SBIR and STTR, and vice versa, as they transition from Phase I to Phase II. Government-Wide Required Benchmarks (applies to previous SBIR/STTR recipients only): Phase I to Phase II Transition Rate Benchmark. For Phase I proposers that have received more than 20 Phase I SBIR/STTR awards from any federal agency over the past five fiscal years, the minimum Phase I to Phase II Transition Rate over that period is 25%. Small businesses that fail to meet this transition requirement will be notified by the Small Business Administration and will not be eligible to submit a Phase I proposal for one (1) year. Commercialization Benchmark (applies to previous SBIR/STTR recipients only). The commercialization benchmark required by the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011 only applies to proposers that have received more than 15 Phase II Federal SBIR/STTR awards over the past 10 fiscal years, excluding the last two years. These companies must have achieved the minimum required commercialization activity to be eligible to submit a Phase I proposal, as determined by the information entered in the company registry, see Completing the Company Registry Commercialization Report: Instructions and Definitions . For more information, see Performance Benchmark Requirements .

V. Proposal Preparation And Submission Instructions

Full Proposal Instructions : Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation should be prepared and submitted in accordance with the guidelines specified in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG). The complete text of the PAPPG is available electronically on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg . Paper copies of the PAPPG may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from [email protected] .

See PAPPG Chapter II.D.2 for guidance on the required sections of a full research proposal submitted to NSF. Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the PAPPG instructions.

This solicitation contains MANY instructions that deviate from the standard NSF PAPPG proposal preparation instructions. This solicitation contains the information needed to prepare and submit a proposal and refers to specific sections of the PAPPG ONLY when necessary (and noted throughout the solicitation). In the event of conflict between the instructions in this solicitation and the PAPPG, use this solicitation's instructions as a guide.

The following project activities are not responsive to the solicitation:

• Evolutionary development or incremental modification of established products or proven concepts;
• Straightforward engineering or test and optimization efforts that are not hypothesis driven;
• Evaluation or testing of existing products;
• Basic scientific research or research not connected to any specific market opportunity or potential new product;
• Business development, market research, and sales and marketing;
• Clinical trials;
• Research or commercialization pathways involving chemical components, natural or synthetic variations thereof, or other derivatives related to Schedule I controlled substances; or
• Non-profit business concerns.

Non-responsive proposals may be returned without review.

An NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track pilot proposal that is Returned Without Review as being not responsive to the solicitation may be significantly revised and submitted for the next deadline if the proposal is still within the timeframe for eligible submission.

Required Project Pitch submission: To submit a full NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track proposal, potential proposers must first submit a Project Pitch and receive an invitation. The Project Pitch gives NSF the ability to review for appropriateness to the NSF STTR/STTR Fast-Track programs prior to the full proposal submission process, ensuring that proposers do not expend time or resources preparing full proposals that are not aligned with the program requirements. To start this process, proposers must first create a log-in and submit a Project Pitch via the NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track Project Pitch online form . NSF SBIR/STTR program staff will use the Project Pitch to determine whether the proposed project is a good fit for the program objectives.

• All NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track Project Pitches MUST be submitted to “Fast-Track” using the drop-down on the site and MUST nominate the most appropriate technical topic area from the list,
• Proposers may submit a Project Pitch at any time, regardless of the NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track pilot solicitation window.
• Proposers must include their prior NSF award number (NSF lineage) in the Project Pitch.
• When submitting an SBIR/STTR Fast-Track proposal in Research.gov, you must enter your invited SBIR/STTR Fast-Track Project Pitch Number in the SBIR/STTR Fast-Track Questionnaire . The Phase I award number must be validated before you can continue with the proposal preparation.

REQUIRED REGISTRATIONS: Small businesses applying for NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track funding must be registered in the following systems in order to submit a proposal to NSF. The registrations below can take several weeks or even months to process, so please start early.

You must register your company name, physical address, and all other identifying information identically in each of these systems. We recommend that you register your small business in the following order:

• NSF will validate that each proposer’s UEI and SAM registration are valid and active prior to allowing submission of a proposal to NSF. If a registration is not active, an organization will not be able to submit a proposal. Additionally, if the SAM registration is not renewed annually and is not valid, NSF will block any award approval actions.
• Any subawardees or subcontractors are also required to obtain a UEI and register in Research.gov. Entities can obtain a SAM UEI without full SAM registration. If you have a subrecipient that is not fully registered in SAM, but has been assigned a UEI number, please call the IT Help desk for further assistance.
• Small Business Administration (SBA) Company Registration . A Small Business Concern Identification number (SBC ID) is required prior to submission of the proposal. SBA maintains and manages the Company Registry for SBIR/STTR proposers in order to track ownership and affiliation requirements. All SBCs must report ownership information prior to each SBIR/STTR proposal submission and update the SBC if any information changes prior to award. This registration process is free.
• Research.gov. Research.gov is NSF’s online grant management system – how you submit your proposal. For more information, consult the "About Account Management" page. This registration process is free.

Beware of scammers charging fees for SAM and/or SBA registrations.

B. Tips on the Proposal Preparation and Submission

It is suggested that you create a single PDF document for each section of the proposal, aggregate those PDF documents into a single file joining the various sections, then upload this single PDF to Research.gov. This will avoid issues resulting from Research.gov conversion to PDF formats.

Submit a complete proposal:

• Cover Sheet
• SBIR (or STTR) Fast-Track Questionnaire
• SBIR (or STTR) Fast-Track Certification Questions
• Project Summary
• Project Description
• References Cited
• Budget(s) (and Subaward Budget(s), if needed)
• Budget Justification(s) (and Subaward Budget Justification(s), if needed)
• Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources
• Biographical Sketch
• Current and Pending (Other) Support
• Collaborations and Other Affiliations (Single Copy Document)
• Synergistic Activities
• Data Management and Sharing Plan
• Mentoring Plan (Conditionally required)
• Project Schedule
• Letter(s) of Support (Required)
• IP (Intellectual Property) Rights Agreement (Required for STTR proposals and strongly recommended for SBIR proposals when there is a subaward to another institution)
• Other Personnel Biographical Information
• Other Supplementary Documents
• List of Suggested Reviewers (Single Copy Document)
• List of Reviewers Not to Include (Single Copy Document)
• Deviation Authorization (Single Copy Document)
• Additional Single Copy Documents

DO NOT upload information beyond what is specifically required and permitted into the proposal (e.g., do not include marketing materials, research results, academic papers, patent applications, etc.).

DO NOT include samples, videotapes, slides, appendices, or other ancillary items within a proposal submission. Websites containing demonstrations and Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) (if applicable) must be cited in the References Cited section. Note: reviewers are not required to access any information outside the proposal document. Please refer to the NSF PAPPG (Chapter II.C) for more details on accepted proposal fonts and format.

C. Detailed Instructions on Proposal Preparation

Full Proposal Set-up: In Research.gov , complete the following steps:

• Select "Prepare & Submit Proposals,” “Letters of Intent and Proposals”
• Select “Prepare New” and from the pull down “Full Proposal.”
• Funding Opportunity. Either filter by “SBIR” or “STTR” or “Fast-Track”, and select radio button for the NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track Pilot Programs.
• Where to Apply. Select program: SBIR Fast-Track or STTR Fast-Track.
• Proposal Type: Select SBIR or STTR.
• Proposal Details: Answer questions:
• Is your organization a sole proprietorship? Yes or No
• Enter Proposal Title, then click on Prepare Proposal
• You will now be on a new proposal page – Select Due Date (upper right corner)

Cover Sheet. The Cover Sheet requests general information about the proposal and proposing organization.

Other Federal Agencies (if applicable). If this proposal is being submitted to other Federal agencies, state or local governments, or non-governmental entities, enter a reasonable abbreviation, up to 10 characters, for each agency or entity. Only the first 5 agencies you enter will appear on the PDF version of the proposal, but all should be entered below. IT IS ILLEGAL TO ACCEPT DUPLICATE FUNDING FOR THE SAME WORK. IF A PROPOSER FAILS TO DISCLOSE EQUIVALENT OR OVERLAPPING PROPOSALS, THE PROPOSER COULD BE LIABLE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, CIVIL, AND/OR CRIMINAL SANCTIONS.

Human Subjects (if applicable). According to 45 CFR 46 , a human subject is "a living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student) conducting research:

• Obtains information or biospecimens through intervention or interaction with the individual, and uses, studies, or analyzes the information or biospecimens; or
• Obtains, uses, studies, analyzes, or generates identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens.”

NIH provides a Decision Tool to assist investigators in determining whether their project involves non-exempt human subjects research, meetings the criteria for exempt human subjects research, or does not involve human subjects research.

Projects involving research with human subjects must ensure that subjects are protected from research risks in conformance with the relevant Federal policy known as the Common Rule ( Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, 45 CFR 690 ). All projects involving human subjects must either (1) have approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) before issuance of an NSF award; or (2) must obtain a statement from the IRB indicating research exemption from IRB review; or 3) must obtain a just in time IRB designation and documentation. This documentation needs to be completed during due diligence discussions, in accordance with the applicable subsection, as established in section 101(b) of the Common Rule. If certification of exemption is provided after submission of the proposal and before the award is issued, the exemption number corresponding to one or more of the exemption categories also must be included in the documentation provided to NSF. The small business has three basic options with regard to human subjects review:

• Establish your own IRB (see Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/irbs-and-assurances.html#registernew .
• Use the review board of a (usually local) university or research institution, either via consultants to the project, a project subaward, or directly through its own contacts;
• Use a commercial provider.

For projects lacking definite plans for the use of human subjects, their data, or their specimens, pursuant to 45 CFR § 690.118 , NSF can accept a determination notice that establishes a limited time period under which the PI may conduct preliminary or conceptual work that does not involve human subjects. See more information and instructions regarding this documentation in the PAPPG.

Live Vertebrate Animals (if applicable). Any project proposing use of vertebrate animals for research or education shall comply with the Animal Welfare Act ( 7 USC 2131, et seq. ) and the regulations promulgated thereunder by the Secretary of Agriculture ( 9 CFR 1 .1 -4.11 ) pertaining to the humane care, handling, and treatment of vertebrate animals held or used for research, teaching or other activities supported by Federal awards.

In accordance with these requirements, proposed projects involving use of any vertebrate animal for research or education must be approved by the submitting organization's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) before an award can be made. For this approval to be accepted by NSF, the organization must have a current Public Health Service (PHS) Approved Assurance. See also PAPPG for additional information on the administration of awards that utilize vertebrate animals. This documentation must be completed before issuance of an NSF award.

SBIR (or STTR) Fast-Track Questionnaire. The SBIR/STTR Fast-Track Questionnaire MUST be filled in completely including Topic and Subtopic, Project Pitch Number, Authorized Company Officer Information, Proposing Small Business Information, SBIR/STTR Award History, Affiliated Companies, and Other Information (including NSF Funding Lineage).

Other Information.

Proprietary Information. To the extent permitted by law, the Government will not release properly identified and marked technical and commercially sensitive data.

If the proposal does not contain proprietary information, uncheck the box in the Phase I Questionnaire.

If the proposal does contain proprietary information identify the proprietary technical data by clearly marking the information and also providing a legend. NSF SBIR/STTR data, including proposals, are protected from disclosure by the participating agencies for not less than 20 years from the delivery of the last report or proposal associated with the given project. Typically, proprietary information is identified in the text either with an asterisk at the beginning and end of the proprietary paragraph, underlining the proprietary sections, or choosing a different font type. An entire proposal should not be marked proprietary.

For Statistical Purposes. Please check all of the appropriate boxes and fill in award numbers as needed.

SBIR (or STTR) Fast-Track Certification Questions. The Fast-Track Certification Questions MUST be filled in completely.

Project Summary . One (1) page MAXIMUM]. The Project Summary should be written in the third person, informative to other persons working in the same or related fields, and insofar as possible, understandable to a scientifically or technically literate lay reader. It should not be an abstract of the proposal. Do not include proprietary information in the summary.

The Project Summary is completed in Research.gov by entering information into the three text boxes in the Project Summary. To be valid, a heading must be on its own line with no other text on that line.

• Overview: Describe the potential outcome(s) of the proposed activity in terms of a product, process, or service. Provide a list of key words or phrases that identify the areas of technical expertise to be invoked in reviewing the proposal and the areas of application that are the initial target of the technology. Provide the subtopic name.
• Intellectual Merit: This section MUST begin with “This Small Business Innovation Research (or Small Business Technology Transfer) Fast-Track project...” Address the intellectual merits of the proposed activity. Briefly describe the technical hurdle(s) that will be addressed by the proposed R&D (which should be crucial to successful commercialization of the innovation), the goals of the proposed R&D, and a high-level summary of the plan to reach those goals.
• Broader Impacts and Commercial Potential: Discuss the expected outcomes in terms of how the proposed project will bring the innovation closer to commercialization under a sustainable business model. In this box, also describe the potential commercial and market impacts that such a commercialization effort would have, if successful. Also discuss potential broader societal and economic impacts of the innovation (e.g., educational, environmental, scientific, societal, or other impacts on the nation and the world).

Project Description. Ten (10) pages MINIMUM and fifteen (15) pages MAXIMUM). The project description is the core of the proposal document, where the PI convinces the expert reviewers/panelists and NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track Program Officer that their proposed R&D project meets NSF’s criteria for Intellectual Merit, Broader Impacts, and Commercialization Potential. Note: The incorporation of URLs or websites within the Project Description is not acceptable and the proposal may not be accepted or will be Returned without Review.

The Project Description for a Fast-Track proposal is divided into the following sections:

• Succinctly describe the proposed technical innovation, highlighting those aspects that are innovative and transformative relative to the current state of the art. Describe the innovation in sufficient technical detail for a knowledgeable reviewer to understand why it is innovative and how it can provide benefits in the target applications.
• Describe the primary technical risks associated with developing the proposed innovation and the key technical objectives to be accomplished during Phase I, clearly explaining why these technical objectives are commercially relevant.
• Provide an R&D plan to achieve the key Phase I technical objectives, along with a corresponding timeline. The R&D plan must leverage fundamental science or engineering research and techniques. Associated with this R&D plan, provide a set of clear, quantitative Phase I technical performance targets. Note that these performance targets, if met, must be sufficient to establish or strongly suggest technical viability of the proposed technology, although it is recognized that substantial further development work will likely be needed to generate a commercial product or service.
• If the project involves subawards, explain why the subawardee(s) is(are) appropriate partners and describe the intended outcomes of the subawards.
• Describe the technical performance metrics that you will need to achieve in order to develop (i) a minimum viable product or service, and (ii) a first-generation commercial-grade product or service. Describe the intended technical outcomes of the Phase II component of the project in terms of these two stages of development, clearly explaining how far you plan to progress towards a commercial solution during Phase II.
• Describe the major non-commercial hurdles that will need to be overcome to achieve the above Phase II technical outcomes.
• Provide a detailed R&D plan to transition the Phase I results into the intended Phase II technical outcomes described above, along with a corresponding timeline.
• Clearly describe any security and privacy practices or standards, regulatory requirements, or other industry standards or practices that the proposed technology will need to comply with in order to be widely adopted and explain how you will ensure that the technology is compliant.
• Discuss manufacturing/production, deployment/distribution, and technical scalability of the proposed solution.
• If the project involves subawards, explain why the subawardee(s) is(are) appropriate partners and describe the intended outcomes of the or subawards.
• Explain the motivation for the company in proposing this project.
• Provide a concise description of the relevant qualifications, experience, and expertise of the company founders and the Senior/Key Personnel on the proposed project.
• Describe your vision for the company and the company's expected impact over the next five years.
• Describe any existing company operations and explain how the proposed effort would fit into these activities.
• Provide the revenue and funding history of the company. Include and explicitly indicate any government funding (federal, state, or local) and private investment.
• Describe the expertise and contributions to the project of any consultants that you proposed to engage during the project.
• Describe how you expect to expand the team going into Phase II and present a rationale for the team changes relative to Phase I. In your response include a discussion of Phase II team members who will not be supported by NSF funds.
• Describe the target market (including the size and geography of the target market) and initial target customer(s), with examples where possible.
• Describe results of ongoing customer discovery activities to date. Provide supporting data if possible.
• Clearly describe the proposed product or service, and how it will be delivered to the target customers.
• Clearly describe the value proposition.
• Describe the proposed commercialization and monetization models. Provide a pricing model with supporting evidence.
• Discuss commercial scalability of the proposed solution.
• Describe the competition and explain how your company will build a sustainable competitive advantage.
• Describe the company’s intellectual property strategy and provide a current status.
• Present a financing plan to bring the company to profitability and explain how you will enact this plan.
• Provide a 5-year pro-forma, with underlying assumptions and supporting evidence for the assumptions. Be sure to include a detailed breakdown of expected revenues, cost of goods sold, and company expenses.
• Describe how the proposed product or service offers the potential for broader societal impacts as well as economic benefit (through commercialization under a sustainable business model). Examples of such outcomes may include (but are not limited to) those found in the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act ( P.L. 114-329, Section 102 ) Broader Impacts Review Criterion.
• The NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track pilot programs fund the development of new, high-risk technology innovations intended to generate positive societal outcomes. Discuss the envisioned broader impacts and the specific implementation plan, including: the relevant metrics and measurement plan; potential partners; potential risks and associated mitigation strategies; and additional anticipated needs for resources and the plan to secure them.

References Cited. Provide a comprehensive listing of relevant references, including websites or relevant URLs, patent numbers, and other relevant intellectual property citations. If there are no references, include a statement to that effect.

Budget(s) and Budget Justification(s) . Proposers are required to submit budgets with their proposals, including specific dollar amounts by budget category. Proposers must submit a written justification explaining these amounts in detail. NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track Program Officers review these proposed budgets and rely on them in determining the final amount awarded for a given SBIR/STTR Fast-Track project. Enter budget figures for each project year into Research.gov. The system will automatically generate a cumulative budget for the entire project.

Detailed documentation of all budget line items is required and MUST be documented in detail on the Budget Justification. The budget should reflect the needs of the proposed R&D project. The maximum total budget shall not exceed $1,555,000: $400,000 for the Phase I component and $1,155,000 for the Phase II component.

IMPORTANT: The budget and budget justification for the Phase I component of the proposed SBIR/STTR Fast-Track project must be uploaded to the year 1 budget in Research.gov, while the Phase II component of the proposed Fast-Track project must be uploaded to the year 2 and year 3 budget in Research.gov.

The Budget Justification must be uploaded to the Research.gov Budget as a single PDF with two distinct sections – one section for the Phase I component of the Fast-Track project budget and one for the Phase II component. For each component, provide details for each non-zero line item of the budget, including a description and cost estimates. Identify each line item by its letter (e.g., A. Senior/Key Personnel). There is a five-page limit for the Budget Justification . Each Subaward Budget Justification, where required, also has a five-page limit. Additional information to help prepare your proposal budget is available here . The Budget Justification must also clearly state the expected duration of the corresponding Phase I or Phase II project component.

You can add Subaward Organization(s) to your proposal (required for STTR submissions and allowed for SBIR submissions), and make changes to personnel information by navigating to the Budget “Manage Personnel and Subaward Organizations” tab.

All activities on an NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track pilot project, including services that are provided by consultants, must be carried out in the United States ("United States" means the 50 states, the territories and possessions of the U.S. Federal Government, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau).Based on a rare and unique circumstance, agencies may approve a particular portion of the R/R&D work to be performed or obtained in a country outside of the United States, for example, if a supply or material or other item or project requirement is not available in the United States. The Funding Agreement officer must approve each such specific condition in writing.

Guidelines for the budget and budget justification follows.

Line A – Senior/Key Personnel. List the PI, co-PI (if STTR), and Senior/Key Personnel by name, their time commitments (in calendar months), and the dollar amount requested. Only salaries and wages for employees of the proposing organization should be included on Line A. Research effort is to be estimated in “Months” (1 Month = 173 hours). Months do not include paid time off and represents actual effort that will be dedicated to the project. The PI must be budgeted for a minimum of three calendar months of effort per six months of performance to the proposed NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track project.

In the Budget Justification provide the name; title; a brief description of responsibilities for the PI, co-PI (if STTR), and each of the Senior/Key Personnel as well as the annual, monthly, or hourly salary rate; time commitment; and a calculation of the total requested salary.

You can add additional senior/key personnel to your proposal (e.g., for STTR submissions), and make changes to personnel information by navigating to the Budget “Manage Personnel and Subaward Organizations” tab.

The best source for determining an appropriate salary request is the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). In the Budget Justification provide the title; annual, monthly, or hourly salary rate; time commitment; a calculation of the total requested salary; and a description of responsibilities for the PI, co-PI (if STTR), and each of the Senior/Key Personnel.

You can add additional senior/key personnel to your proposal (e.g., for STTR submissions), and make changes to personnel information by navigating to the "Manage Personnel and Subaward Organizations" page.

Line B - Other Personnel. List the number of people, months, and funding for additional personnel: Other Professionals (Technicians, Programmers, etc.), Administrative/Clerical, and/or Other. These personnel must be employed at the proposing company. The budget justification should state individual employee names and titles (to the extent known), expected role in the project, effort in months and annual salary for each person.

Postdoctoral scholars and students (undergraduate and graduate) are generally listed on a subaward budget to a research institution. If they are employees of the company, they may be listed in Line A. Senior/Key Personnel (Line A), or Line B. Other Professionals or Other, as appropriate.

Line C - Fringe Benefits. It is recommended that proposers allot funds for fringe benefits here ONLY if the proposer's usual (established) accounting practices provide that fringe benefits be treated as direct costs. If Fringe Benefits are included on Line C, describe what is included in fringe benefits and the calculations that were used to arrive at the amount requested.

Otherwise, fringe benefits should be included in Line I. Indirect Costs.

Line D - Equipment. Equipment is defined as non-expendable, tangible personal property, having a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more per unit. However, organizations may elect to establish their capitalization threshold as less than $5,000. Equipment should be budgeted consistently with the proposing organization's capitalization policy. Requests should not be made for general purpose or routine equipment that a business conducting research in the field should be expected to have available. The budget justification must explain the need for any equipment and include the item identification/description, vendor identification, quantity, price, and extended amount. The budget justification should also include, as a separate document if needed, pricing documentation (e.g., quotes, invoices, links to online price lists, past purchase orders, etc.) for each budgeted piece of equipment.

Note that the purchase of Equipment may NOT be included in the budget of the Phase I component of a Fast-Track proposal (Year 1), but MAY be included in the budget of the Phase II component of a Fast-Track proposal (Years 2 and 3).

Line E - Travel. NSF requires that the PI budget travel (for the first year of the project only) to attend the NSF SBIR/STTR Awardee Workshop. A good estimate for the Awardee Workshop is $2,000 per person and is limited to $4,000 per year. Other than the Awardee Workshop and funds for Technical And Business Assistance (TABA, see below), all budgeted travel must be directly related to the execution of the research effort. Only domestic travel will be considered.

The Budget Justification must include the purpose for domestic travel and, for each budgeted trip: the destination, purpose of travel, number of days, and the estimated costs for airfare, cab fare, car rental, per diem rates, hotel, and other incidentals. No supporting detail is required for attendance at the Awardee Workshop at $2,000 (or less) per person. If the workshop is organized as virtual only, proposers can (if awarded) reallocate these funds towards other project activities, pending the approval of the cognizant SBIR/STTR Program Officer.

Travel for purposes other than the project R&D effort (e.g., marketing, customer engagements) is not permitted in the NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track budget.

Foreign travel expenses are NOT permitted.

Line F - Participant Support Costs. Participant support costs are NOT permitted on an NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track budget.

Line G. Other Direct Costs.

Materials and Supplies. Materials and supplies are defined as tangible personal property, other than equipment, costing less than $5,000, or other lower threshold consistent with the policy established by the proposing organization. The Budget Justification should indicate the specifics of the materials and supplies required, including an itemized listing with item/description, vendor, unit cost, quantity, price, and extended amount. Items with a total cost exceeding $5,000 may require pricing documentation (e.g., quote, link to online price list, prior purchase order or invoice) after the proposal is reviewed, as part of the NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track Program Officer's due diligence efforts. Please see Section VI. for details.

Publication Costs/Documentation/Distrib. Publication, documentation and distribution costs are not allowed.

Consultant Services. Consultant services include specialized work that will be performed by professionals that are not employees of the proposing small business. All consultant activities must be carried out in the United States (see above).

No person who is an equity holder, employee, or officer of the proposing small business may be paid as a consultant unless an exception is recommended by the cognizant SBIR/STTR Fast-Track Program Officer and approved by the Division Director of Translational Impacts (TI).

The proposal must include a signed agreement ( Letter of Commitment ) from each consultant confirming the services to be provided (role in the project), primary organizational affiliation, number of days committed to the research effort, availability to provide services, and consulting daily rate. The agreement must clearly state the number of days on the project, the consulting daily rate (8 hours/day) and the total dollar amount of the consulting agreement. Include a copy of the signed Letter of Commitment in the "Other Supplementary Documents" section. Multiple letters should be combined as a single PDF before uploading.

The consulting daily rate represents the total labor compensation for an 8-hour period and may not exceed $1,000 per day. Any miscellaneous costs, such as supplies, that are not included as part of the daily rate must be identified and justified. Consultant travel should be shown under the domestic travel category, Line E, but counts as an outsourcing expense for the purpose of determining whether the small business concern meets the minimum level of effort for an NSF SBIR/STTR proposal. Any information above and beyond the above will be considered not responsive and may be removed from your proposal .

Biographical sketches for each consultant may be requested by the cognizant NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track Program Officer after the proposal is reviewed, as part of their due diligence efforts. Please see Section VI. for details.

Computer Services . This line can include funds for fee-for-service computing activities or resources (such as supercomputer time, cloud services, etc.). Any extended line item should be accompanied by pricing documentation (e.g., quote, link to online price list, prior purchase order, or invoice) in the budget justification. Requested services with a total cost exceeding $5,000 may require pricing documentation (e.g., quote, link to online price list, prior purchase order or invoice) after the proposal is reviewed, as part of the NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track Program Officer's due diligence efforts.

Subaward(s). Subawards may be utilized when a significant portion of the work is performed by another organization and when the work to be done is not widely commercially available. Work performed by a university or research laboratory is one example of a common subaward.

Subawards require a separate subaward budget and subaward budget justification, in the same format as the main budget. To enter a subaward budget in Research.gov, go to the Budget module tab and add Subaward Organization(s) by opening the “Manage Personnel and Subaward Organizations” tab. Each subawardee will have its own budget pages for each year of the project.

A subawardee research institution partner is mandatory for STTR Fast-Track proposals. Explicitly list who the research partner will be and provide a brief description of the work they will perform. A minimum of 40% of the research, as measured by the budget, must be performed by the small business concern and a minimum of 30% of the research, as measured by the budget, must be performed by a single subawardee research institution, with the balance permitted to be allocated to either of these, or to other subawards or consultants. Subawardees are not permitted to request profit (Line K) as part of their budgets.

The proposing organization's budget justification must discuss the tasks to be performed and how these are related to the overall project. Also discuss any organizational relationships (e.g., common ownership or related parties) between the proposing organization and the subawardee, and the type of subaward contemplated (e.g., fixed price or cost reimbursement).

Subawardees (the institution, not the individual PI or researcher) should also provide a Letter of Commitment that confirms the role of each subaward organization in the project and explicitly states the subaward amount(s). Provide this letter(s) as part of the Other Supplementary Documents.

For NSF SBIR Fast-Track proposals, subaward funds do not count as funds spent by the small business, and the total amount requested for subawards (when added to consultant funds and any other subawards) cannot exceed 1/3 of the total Phase I budget component and cannot exceed 1/2 of the total Phase II budget component.

No significant part of the research or substantive effort under an NSF award may be contracted or otherwise transferred to another organization without prior NSF authorization. The intent to enter into such arrangements should be disclosed in the proposal.

No person who is an equity holder, employee, or officer of the proposing small business may be paid under a subaward unless an exception is recommended by the NSF SBIR/STTR Program Director and approved by the TI Division Director.

Any subrecipients named in the proposal are also required to obtain a SAM UEI and register in Research.gov . Subrecipients named in the proposal, however, do not need to be registered in SAM. Entities can obtain a SAM UEI without full SAM registration. If you have a subrecipient that is not fully registered in SAM, but has been assigned a UEI number, please call the IT Help desk for further assistance.

It is the responsibility of the proposing organization to confirm that submitted subaward budgets have been approved by an Authorized Organizational Representative at the subawardee organization.

An IP (Intellectual Property) Rights Agreement is required for STTR proposals and strongly recommended for SBIR proposals when there is a subaward to another institution. A fully signed agreement is not required for STTR proposals at the initial proposal submission but will be required before a recommendation for an award can be made. Provide this Agreement, as a PDF, as part of the Optional Documents.

Other . This line includes the purchase of routine analytical or other services, or fabricated components from commercial sources. The budget justification must explain the need for the services, provide a description of the services, and give a detailed cost itemization. Any single "other" item with a total cost of $5,000 must be further itemized into smaller costs or supported by pricing documentation (e.g., quote, link to online pricing list, past purchase order) in the budget justification. This detail will be requested as part of the NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track Program Officer's due diligence efforts.

SBIR/STTR Fast-Track Technical and Business Assistance (TABA): Proposers are encouraged to include up to $6,500 in the Phase I component budget and up to $50,000 in the Phase II component budget to assist in technology commercialization efforts (as outlined in the current SBIR/STTR Policy Directive and the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 ). Specifically, this funding is for securing the services of one or more third-party service providers that will assist with one or more of the following commercialization activities:

• Phase II Commercialization Plan research and preparation
• Phase II Broader Impact plan research and preparation
• Making better technical decisions on SBIR/STTR Fast-Track projects;
• Solving technical problems that arise during SBIR/STTR projects;
• Minimizing technical risks associated with SBIR/STTR projects; and
• Commercializing the SBIR/STTR product or process, including securing intellectual property protections

If a proposer is not able to identify what commercial assistance may be required at the time of proposal submission, the proposing small business may block up to the maximum allowable amount for TABA activities (as detailed above) on Line G. Other with the understanding that prior to expending funds for these purposes, the recipient will be required to obtain written approval from the cognizant NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track Program Officer.

In addition to the above, for the Phase I component of a Fast-Track project only, NSF permits the inclusion of additional funds on the G budget line, as follows. The funds noted below may ONLY be spent on the commercial or business purposes explicitly permitted below. The proposer may budget up to $10,000 as a direct charge on line G.6 of a Phase I component budget for the following specific purposes related to financials and accounting:

• Hiring a certified public accountant (CPA) to prepare audited, compiled, or reviewed financial statements;
• Hiring a CPA to perform an initial financial viability assessment based on standard financial ratios so the recipient organization would have time to improve their financial position prior to the CAP assessment for the transition to the Phase II component of the Fast-Track project;
• Hiring a CPA to review the adequacy of the recipient's project cost accounting system; and/or purchasing a project cost accounting system.

If the proposer elects to budget funds for one of the above purposes, the Budget Justification should include a brief description of the desired use of funds. The use of funds must be approved by the cognizant NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track Program Officer prior to award.

Line I - Indirect Costs . Indirect costs are defined as costs that are necessary and appropriate for the operation of the business, but which are not specifically allocated to the NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track project. Common indirect cost expenses include legal and accounting expenses, employee health insurance, fringe benefits, rent, and utilities. If the proposing small business has a Federally negotiated rate, please specify the base and rate and include a copy of the negotiated indirect cost rate agreement. If the proposing business has a history of at least two years of stable operation that reflect the costs expected to occur during the execution of the SBIR/STTR award, please base the indirect rate estimate on this historical data (and provide an explanation if the rate is expected to deviate significantly from the rate used in recent years). Instructions for Indirect Cost Rate (IDC) Proposal Submission Procedures can be found here .

Recipients without experience and knowledge of Federal indirect cost rate negotiation and Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 31 Cost Principles may want to consider engaging professional services in preparing an IDC proposal.

If the proposing small business has no negotiated rate with a federal agency, and no previous experience with Federal indirect cost rate negotiation, you may claim (without submitting justification) a total amount of indirect costs (inclusive of fringe benefits) either up to 50% of total budgeted salary and wages on the project or equal to 10% de minimis on MODIFIED total direct costs on the project. Modified Total Direct Cost (MTDC): MTDC means all direct salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $25,000 of each subaward (regardless of the period of performance of the subawards under the award). MTDC excludes equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs and the portion of each subaward in excess of $25,000. Other items may only be excluded when necessary to avoid a serious inequity in the distribution of indirect costs, and with the approval of the cognizant agency for indirect costs.

Note: NSF does not fund Independent Research and Development (IR&D) as part of an indirect cost rate under its awards. See the FAR 31.205-18(a) for more information.

Line K - Fee . The small business fee is intended to be consistent with normal profit margins provided to profit-making firms for R&D work. Up to seven percent (7%) of the total indirect and direct project costs may be requested as a Small Business Fee for the Phase I budget component. Up to ten percent (10%) of the total indirect and direct project costs may be requested as a fee for the Phase II budget component. The fee applies solely to the small business concern receiving the award and not to any other participant in the project. The fee is not a direct or indirect "cost" item and may be used by the small business concern for any purpose, including additional effort under the NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track award (and including items on the "Prohibited Expenditures" list below).

Prohibited Expenditures including, but not limited to, Equipment (during the Phase I component), Foreign Travel (during the Phase I and Phase II components), Participant Support Cots, and Publication Costs are not allowable expenditures as either direct or indirect costs. However, these expenses may be purchased from the small business fee funds (Line K).

Budget Revisions. Budget revisions may be requested by the cognizant SBIR/STTR Program Officer. Revised budgets must contain a revised and complete Budget Justification as described above. Revised budgets with budget impact statements that only address revisions are not acceptable for budget processing, see Budget Revision Instructions .

Note: Should the proposal be considered for funding, the NSF SBIR/STTR Program Officer will refer the proposer to the Cost Analysis and Pre-Award Review (CAP) Division’s SBIR/STTR Administrative/Financial Reviews website . Proposing small businesses in this category will be given 10 calendar days to provide CAP the underlying supporting documentation for their budget. The organization should review and understand the CAP documentation requirements as it prepares its budget. Once NSF requests the underlying supporting documentation for the CAP review, proposers will not be given an opportunity to re-budget unsupported costs. Funding will be provided for only the dollar amount that is reasonable and adequately supported. The awarded budget will reflect the supported dollar amount for the proposed effort. Organizations that accept awards at less than the proposed dollar amount may not reduce the effort to be provided; however, organizations may choose to decline award offers.

Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources. Specify the availability and location of significant equipment, instrumentation, computers, and physical facilities necessary to complete the portion of the research that is to be carried out by the proposing firm in the Phase I or Phase II component of a Fast-Track project. Note that purchase of equipment is NOT permitted in the Phase I component of a Fast-Track proposal. If the equipment, instrumentation, computers, and facilities for this research are not the property (owned or leased) of the proposing firm, include a statement signed by the owner or lessor which affirms the availability of these facilities for use in the proposed research, reasonable lease or rental costs for their use, and any other associated costs. Upload images of the scanned statements into this section.

Many research projects require access to computational, data, analysis, and/or visualization resources to complete the work proposed. For projects that require such resources at scales beyond what may be available locally, researchers in all disciplines can apply for allocations for computer or data resources from over two dozen high-performance computational systems via the Advanced Cyberinfrastructure Coordination Ecosystem: Services & Support (ACCESS) program. See cognizant Program Officer or PAPPG for additional details. If a proposer wants to arrange the use of unique or one-of-a-kind Government facilities, a waiver must be obtained from the Small Business Administration to approve such use.

If no equipment, facilities, or other resources are required for this project, a statement to that effect should be uploaded here.

Senior/Key Personnel Documents. For the Principal Investigator (PI), Co-PI, and for each person listed in the “Senior/Key Personnel” section, the four required documents are listed below.

Biographical Sketch(es) . All proposals are required to include Biographical Sketches for each PI, co-PI (if STTR), and Senior/Key Personnel (individuals with critical expertise who will be working on the project and are employed at the proposing company or at a subaward organization). Proposers must prepare biographical sketch files using SciENcv (Science Experts Network Curriculum Vitae) , which will produce a compliant PDF. Senior/Key Personnel must prepare, save, certify, and submit these documents as part of their proposal via Research.gov.

Full requirements for these documents can be found in the current NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide. Frequently Asked Questions on using SciENcv can be found here .

Current and Pending (Other) Support. This information will provide reviewers with visibility into the potential availability of company personnel during the period of performance if awarded. All PIs, Co-PIs (if STTR), and Senior/Key Personnel must prepare Current and Pending (Other) Support files using SciENcv . Detailed information about the required content is available in the current PAPPG.

For the PI, co-PI (if STTR), and each of the Senior/Key Personnel listed on Line A or B of the budget, please provide the following information, regardless of whether the person will receive salary from the activity:

• Name of sponsoring organization.
• Total award amount (if already awarded) or expected award amount (if pending) for the entire award period covered (including indirect costs).
• Title and performance period of the proposal or award.
• Annual person-months (calendar months) devoted to the project by the PI or Senior/Key Personnel.

Please report:

• All current and pending support for ongoing projects and proposals (from any source, including in kind support or equity investment), including continuing grant and contract funding.
• Proposals submitted to other agencies. Concurrent submission of a proposal to other organizations will not influence the review of the proposal submitted to NSF.
• Upcoming submissions.
• The current Phase I proposal is considered "pending" and therefore MUST appear in the Current and Pending Support form for each PI and Senior/Key Personnel.

Collaborators and Other Affiliations (COA) Information (Single Copy Document). This document must be provided for the PI, Co-PI (if STTR) and each Senior/Key Person. This document will not be viewable by reviewers but will be used by NSF to manage the selection of reviewers. Download the required Collaborators and Other Affiliations template and follow the instructions. Detailed information about the required content is available in the current PAPPG. Frequently Asked Questions on COA can be found here .

Synergistic Activities. Each individual identified as a senior/key person must provide a PDF document of up to one-page that includes a list of up to five distinct examples that demonstrates the broader impact of the individual’s professional and scholarly activities that focus on the integration and transfer of knowledge as well as its creation. Examples of synergistic activities may include but are not limited to the training of junior scientists and engineers in innovation and entrepreneurship; the development of new and novel products, tools, and/or services based on deep technologies; broadening participation of groups underrepresented in STEM; service to the scientific and engineering communities outside the individual’s company; and/or participation in the national and/or international commercial market.

Data Management and Sharing Plan . The Data Management and Sharing Plan should include the statement, "All data generated in this NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track project is considered proprietary." This single sentence is sufficient to fulfill the Data Management and Sharing Plan requirement, but proposers may add more detail about how the resulting data will be managed, if they desire. The PDF cannot exceed 2 pages.

Mentoring Plan (Conditionally Required). If a proposal requests funding to support postdoctoral scholars or graduate students at a research institution (through a subaward), a Mentoring Plan MUST be uploaded to the system. The mentoring plan must describe the mentoring that will be provided to all postdoctoral scholars or graduate students supported by the project, regardless of whether they reside at the submitting organization or at any subrecipient organization. Describe only the mentoring activities that will be provided to all postdoctoral scholars or graduate students supported by the project. The PDF cannot exceed 1 page.

Individual Development Plans (IDP) for Postdoctoral Scholars and Graduate Students. For each NSF award that provides substantial support to postdoctoral scholars and graduate students, each individual must have an Individual Development Plan, which is updated annually. The IDP maps the educational goals, career exploration, and professional development of the individual. NSF defines “substantial support” as an individual that has received one person month or more during the annual reporting period under the NSF award. Certification that a postdoctoral scholar(s) and/or graduate student(s) has and IDP must be included in the annual and final reports.

Project Schedule. The required Project Schedule must show the estimated duration and timing of major project tasks that are required to implement the research plan. This document should clearly estimate the initiation and completion of tasks in relation to other tasks within the timeline of the award.

NSF recommends downloading the Project Schedule template and uploading a completed version of this form into Research.gov. This schedule should also provide projected levels of effort for each key person during each reporting period of the project. Key personnel to be listed generally include any senior/key personnel listed on Line A of the main project budget, any persons listed on Line A of any subaward budgets, or any budgeted consultants. The schedule should also include estimates of total level of effort (for all project personnel) and total expenditures for each six-month project period.

Optional. NOTE: Various subsections are REQUIRED depending on the type of proposal (SBIR or STTR), whether the company has a commercialization history, whether this proposal is a resubmission, etc. Please read section requirements carefully.

Letter(s) of Support (REQUIRED) . Three (3) Letters of Support from potential product/service users or customers are required; Up to five (5) Letters of Support may be included. All Letters of Support should be uploaded in Research.gov in one PDF.

Letters of Support should address market validation for the proposed innovation, market opportunity, or small business/team, and add significant credibility to the proposed effort. These Letters should ideally demonstrate that the company has developed partnerships and/or a meaningful dialog with relevant stakeholders (e.g., potential customers, strategic partners, or investors) for the proposed innovation and that a real business opportunity may exist. The Letters of Support must contain affiliation and contact information for the signatory stakeholder.

Letters of commitment and supporting documents from consultants and subawards (or any personnel identified in the Budget Justification) are NOT considered letters of support.

IP (Intellectual Property) Rights Agreement (Required for STTR and strongly recommended for SBIR proposals when there is a subaward to another institution). A fully signed Allocation of Intellectual Property Rights is not required at the initial proposal submission but will be required before a recommendation for an award can be made. For proposal submission, place a draft of the Allocation of Intellectual Property Rights or a letter that includes the name of the partner research institution stating that an agreement will be provided upon Program Officer notification of a potential award recommendation.

The SBIR/STTR Policy Directive indicates: “ The model (IP) agreement will direct the parties to, at a minimum:

• State specifically the degree of responsibility, and ownership of any product, process, or other invention or Innovation resulting from the cooperative research. The degree of responsibility shall include responsibility for expenses and liability, and the degree of ownership shall also include the specific rights to revenues and profits.
• State which party may obtain United States or foreign patents or otherwise protect any inventions resulting from the cooperative research.
• State which party has the right to any continuation of research, including non-STTR follow-on awards. ”

Other Personnel Biographical Information (Strongly Recommended) . This section can be used to provide additional biographical information about project participants who are not listed as Senior/Key Personnel for the small business or for a subawardee as well as for writers of Letters of Support. Biographical sketches should be prepared using SciENcv and uploaded as a single PDF.

Other Supplementary Documents. The required other supplementary documents of an NSF SBIR/STTR Phase II proposal are limited to the following (if applicable).

• Company Commercialization History (required if the proposer has received any prior SBIR or STTR Phase II awards). This section is required for any proposer who has ever received a Phase II SBIR or STTR award (from any Federal agency). All items MUST be addressed in the format given in the NSF Commercialization History Template . Changes to the NSF template, additional narratives and/or commercialization history documents from other agencies are not permitted.
• Letters of Commitment from Subawardees and Consultants (Required, but may be provided in post-award diligence). Please refer to Budget and Budget Justification for details.

List of Suggested Reviewers (Single Copy Document). This section can be used to suggest the names of reviewers who might be appropriate to assess the technical and commercial merits of the proposal. Reviewers who have significant personal or professional relationships with the proposing small business or its personnel should generally not be included.

List of Reviewers Not to Include (Single Copy Document).This section can be used by the proposer to suggest names (or even specific affiliations) of reviewers/panelists not to be involved in the review of their proposal.

Deviation Authorization (Single Copy Document).This section should generally not be used unless NSF staff have specifically instructed the proposer to do so.

Additional Single Copy Documents. This section should be blank.

Cost Sharing:

Proposers are required to prepare and submit all proposals for this solicitation via Research.gov. Detailed instructions regarding the technical aspects or proposal preparation and submission via Research.gov are available at: https://www.research.gov/research-portal/appmanager/base/desktop?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=research_node_display&_nodePath=/researchGov/Service/Desktop/ProposalPreparationandSubmission.html . For Research.gov user support, call the Research.gov Help Desk at 1-800-673-6188 or e-mail [email protected] . The Research.gov Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the Research.gov system. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity.

D. Research.gov Requirements

Proposers are required to prepare and submit all proposals for this program solicitation through use of the NSF Research.gov system. Detailed instructions regarding the technical aspects of proposal preparation and submission via Research.gov are available at: https://www.research.gov/research-web/content/aboutpsm . For Research.gov user support, call the Research.gov Help Desk at 1-800-381-1532 or e-mail [email protected] . The Research.gov Help Desk answers general technical questions related to the use of the Research.gov system. Specific questions related to this program solicitation should be referred to the NSF program staff contact(s) listed in Section VIII of this funding opportunity.

Submission of Electronically Signed Cover Sheets . The Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) must electronically sign the proposal Cover Sheet to submit the required proposal certifications (see PAPPG Chapter II.C.1.d for a listing of the certifications). The AOR must provide the required electronic certifications at the time of proposal submission. Further instructions regarding this process are available on the Research.gov Website at: https://www.research.gov/research-web/content/aboutpsm .

VI. NSF Proposal Processing And Review Procedures

Proposals received by NSF are assigned to the appropriate NSF program for acknowledgement and, if they meet NSF requirements, for review. All proposals are carefully reviewed by a scientist, engineer, or educator serving as an NSF Program Officer, and usually by three to ten other persons outside NSF either as ad hoc reviewers, panelists, or both, who are experts in the particular fields represented by the proposal. These reviewers are selected by Program Officers charged with oversight of the review process. Proposers are invited to suggest names of persons they believe are especially well qualified to review the proposal and/or persons they would prefer not review the proposal. These suggestions may serve as one source in the reviewer selection process at the Program Officer's discretion. Submission of such names, however, is optional. Care is taken to ensure that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the proposal. In addition, Program Officers may obtain comments from site visits before recommending final action on proposals. Senior NSF staff further review recommendations for awards. A flowchart that depicts the entire NSF proposal and award process (and associated timeline) is included in PAPPG Exhibit III-1.

A comprehensive description of the Foundation's merit review process is available on the NSF website at: https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/merit_review/ .

Proposers should also be aware of core strategies that are essential to the fulfillment of NSF's mission, as articulated in Leading the World in Discovery and Innovation, STEM Talent Development and the Delivery of Benefits from Research - NSF Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years (FY) 2022 - 2026 . These strategies are integrated in the program planning and implementation process, of which proposal review is one part. NSF's mission is particularly well-implemented through the integration of research and education and broadening participation in NSF programs, projects, and activities.

One of the strategic objectives in support of NSF's mission is to foster integration of research and education through the programs, projects, and activities it supports at academic and research institutions. These institutions must recruit, train, and prepare a diverse STEM workforce to advance the frontiers of science and participate in the U.S. technology-based economy. NSF's contribution to the national innovation ecosystem is to provide cutting-edge research under the guidance of the Nation's most creative scientists and engineers. NSF also supports development of a strong science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) workforce by investing in building the knowledge that informs improvements in STEM teaching and learning.

NSF's mission calls for the broadening of opportunities and expanding participation of groups, institutions, and geographic regions that are underrepresented in STEM disciplines, which is essential to the health and vitality of science and engineering. NSF is committed to this principle of diversity and deems it central to the programs, projects, and activities it considers and supports.

A. Merit Review Principles and Criteria

The National Science Foundation strives to invest in a robust and diverse portfolio of projects that creates new knowledge and enables breakthroughs in understanding across all areas of science and engineering research and education. To identify which projects to support, NSF relies on a merit review process that incorporates consideration of both the technical aspects of a proposed project and its potential to contribute more broadly to advancing NSF's mission "to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes." NSF makes every effort to conduct a fair, competitive, transparent merit review process for the selection of projects.

1. Merit Review Principles

These principles are to be given due diligence by PIs and organizations when preparing proposals and managing projects, by reviewers when reading and evaluating proposals, and by NSF program staff when determining whether or not to recommend proposals for funding and while overseeing awards. Given that NSF is the primary federal agency charged with nurturing and supporting excellence in basic research and education, the following three principles apply:

• All NSF projects should be of the highest quality and have the potential to advance, if not transform, the frontiers of knowledge.
• NSF projects, in the aggregate, should contribute more broadly to achieving societal goals. These "Broader Impacts" may be accomplished through the research itself, through activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. The project activities may be based on previously established and/or innovative methods and approaches, but in either case must be well justified.
• Meaningful assessment and evaluation of NSF funded projects should be based on appropriate metrics, keeping in mind the likely correlation between the effect of broader impacts and the resources provided to implement projects. If the size of the activity is limited, evaluation of that activity in isolation is not likely to be meaningful. Thus, assessing the effectiveness of these activities may best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level than the individual project.

With respect to the third principle, even if assessment of Broader Impacts outcomes for particular projects is done at an aggregated level, PIs are expected to be accountable for carrying out the activities described in the funded project. Thus, individual projects should include clearly stated goals, specific descriptions of the activities that the PI intends to do, and a plan in place to document the outputs of those activities.

These three merit review principles provide the basis for the merit review criteria, as well as a context within which the users of the criteria can better understand their intent.

2. Merit Review Criteria

All NSF proposals are evaluated through use of the two National Science Board approved merit review criteria. In some instances, however, NSF will employ additional criteria as required to highlight the specific objectives of certain programs and activities.

The two merit review criteria are listed below. Both criteria are to be given full consideration during the review and decision-making processes; each criterion is necessary but neither, by itself, is sufficient. Therefore, proposers must fully address both criteria. (PAPPG Chapter II.D.2.d(i). contains additional information for use by proposers in development of the Project Description section of the proposal). Reviewers are strongly encouraged to review the criteria, including PAPPG Chapter II.D.2.d(i), prior to the review of a proposal.

When evaluating NSF proposals, reviewers will be asked to consider what the proposers want to do, why they want to do it, how they plan to do it, how they will know if they succeed, and what benefits could accrue if the project is successful. These issues apply both to the technical aspects of the proposal and the way in which the project may make broader contributions. To that end, reviewers will be asked to evaluate all proposals against two criteria:

• Intellectual Merit: The Intellectual Merit criterion encompasses the potential to advance knowledge; and
• Broader Impacts: The Broader Impacts criterion encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes.

The following elements should be considered in the review for both criteria:

• Advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields (Intellectual Merit); and
• Benefit society or advance desired societal outcomes (Broader Impacts)?
• To what extent do the proposed activities suggest and explore creative, original, or potentially transformative concepts?
• Is the plan for carrying out the proposed activities well-reasoned, well-organized, and based on a sound rationale? Does the plan incorporate a mechanism to assess success?
• How well qualified is the individual, team, or organization to conduct the proposed activities?
• Are there adequate resources available to the PI (either at the home organization or through collaborations) to carry out the proposed activities?

Broader impacts may be accomplished through the research itself, through the activities that are directly related to specific research projects, or through activities that are supported by, but are complementary to, the project. NSF values the advancement of scientific knowledge and activities that contribute to achievement of societally relevant outcomes. Such outcomes include, but are not limited to: full participation of women, persons with disabilities, and other underrepresented groups in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (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; and enhanced infrastructure for research and education.

Proposers are reminded that reviewers will also be asked to review the Data Management and Sharing Plan and the Mentoring Plan, as appropriate.

Additional Solicitation Specific Review Criteria

The NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track programs have additional criteria that reflect the emphasis on commercialization and complement the standard NSF review criteria listed above. The following elements will be considered in the review of the Commercialization Potential .

• Is there a significant market opportunity that could be addressed by the proposed product, process, or service?
• Does the company possess a significant and durable competitive advantage, based on scientific or technological innovation, that would be difficult for competitors to neutralize or replicate?
• Is there a compelling potential business model?
• Does the proposing company/team have the essential elements, including expertise, structure, and experience, that would suggest the potential for strong commercial outcomes?
• Will NSF support serve as a catalyst to improve substantially the technical and commercial impact of the underlying commercial endeavor?

NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track Award Considerations

An NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track proposal includes Phase I and Phase II components. Each component includes an R&D plan and a budget. In addition, the proposal will include a section on the company and team and a section on the Commercialization Plan. Hence, the core of a Fast-Track proposal comprises the following elements:

• Phase I Budget and Budget Justification
• Phase II Budget and Budget Justification
• The Company and Team
• Commercialization Plan

The review of an NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track proposal will include a review of both the Phase I and Phase II components of the proposal. A team submitting an NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track proposal must have NSF-funded research lineage; an understanding of the target market, product-market fit and initial target customers; and a complete team.

An NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track proposal must include specific, quantifiable performance targets for the Phase I component of the project. These Phase I targets may be renegotiated with the cognizant Program Officer during post-review diligence, so that at the start of the Fast-Track project, there will be agreed performance targets in place for the Phase I component.

Due Diligence. Once the panel and/or ad hoc review of an individual NSF SBIR or STTR Fast-Track proposal has concluded and the proposal is considered potentially meritorious, a follow-on due diligence process may be conducted in which the Principal Investigator will be asked to provide additional information and/or to answer questions specific to their proposal in order to inform the final decision. This due diligence process will address weaknesses and questions raised during the external merit review as well as by the cognizant SBIR/STTR Fast-Track Program Officer. The due diligence process may include requests for clarification of the company structure, key personnel, conflicts of interest, foreign influence, cybersecurity practices, or other issues as determined by NSF. Participation in the diligence process is not a guarantee of an award.

Financial Viability. If the small business' proposal is to be further considered for funding after it is competitively reviewed, the cognizant NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track Program Officer will refer the proposer to the Cost Analysis and Pre-Award Review (CAP) Administrative/Financial Reviews Site . These reviews are conducted to evaluate a prospective recipient's ability to manage a Federal award responsibly, effectively, and efficiently.

After programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements for review of business, financial, and policy implications. After an administrative review has occurred, Grants and Agreements Officers perform the processing and issuance of an award or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations, or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with an NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk.

The Phase I and Phase II components of a NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track proposal will be reviewed and evaluated separately. NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track proposals submitted to this solicitation for which the Phase I component is considered meritorious but the Phase II component is not considered meritorious may, based on budgetary considerations and at NSF's discretion, be considered for award as regular NSF SBIR/STTR Phase I projects, in which case (if awarded) the company would subsequently apply for NSF SBIR/STTR Phase II funding via the regular process (i.e., not via the Fast-Track process).

NSF requires each NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track recipient company to attend and participate in the NSF SBIR/STTR Phase I Awardees Conference.

Once an award or declination decision has been made, Principal Investigators are provided feedback about their proposals. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers or any reviewer-identifying information, and the panel summary (if a panel summary was prepared) will be available to the proposer via research.gov.

NSF SBIR Phase II proposals submitted to this solicitation which are considered meritorious, and which meet all the requirements of the NSF STTR Phase II program may, based on budgetary considerations and at NSF's discretion, be converted for award as an NSF STTR Phase II project. NSF may also, at its discretion, convert NSF STTR Phase II proposals to NSF SBIR Phase II proposals.

Supplemental Funding. America’s Seed Fund powered by NSF is committed to assisting SBIR/STTR Phase II recipients to successfully commercialize their innovation research, grow their company and create jobs by attracting new investments and partnerships. To reinforce these commitments, the programs support a broad number of supplements and other opportunities. For more information, see: Supplemental Funding Overview , and the linked Dear Colleagues Letters.

Debriefing on Unsuccessful Proposals . As outlined in Chapter IV of the PAPPG, a proposer may request additional information from the cognizant Program Officer or Division Director. Proposers may contact the cognizant Program Officer to set up a date/time for a debrief call.

Resubmission. Declined NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track proposals are NOT eligible for resubmission. A proposer of a previously declined proposal must submit a new Project Pitch and, if invited, submit a new proposal after substantial revision, addressing the reviewers’, panel’s (if appropriate), and Program Officer’s concerns.

B. Review and Selection Process

Proposals submitted in response to this program solicitation will be reviewed by Ad hoc Review and/or Panel Review.

Reviewers will be asked to evaluate proposals using two National Science Board approved merit review criteria and, if applicable, additional program specific criteria. A summary rating and accompanying narrative will generally be completed and submitted by each reviewer and/or panel. The Program Officer assigned to manage the proposal's review will consider the advice of reviewers and will formulate a recommendation.

After scientific, technical and programmatic review and consideration of appropriate factors, the NSF Program Officer recommends to the cognizant Division Director whether the proposal should be declined or recommended for award. NSF strives to be able to tell proposers whether their proposals have been declined or recommended for funding within six months. Large or particularly complex proposals or proposals from new recipients may require additional review and processing time. The time interval begins on the deadline or target date, or receipt date, whichever is later. The interval ends when the Division Director acts upon the Program Officer's recommendation.

After programmatic approval has been obtained, the proposals recommended for funding will be forwarded to the Division of Grants and Agreements or the Division of Acquisition and Cooperative Support for review of business, financial, and policy implications. After an administrative review has occurred, Grants and Agreements Officers perform the processing and issuance of a grant or other agreement. Proposers are cautioned that only a Grants and Agreements Officer may make commitments, obligations or awards on behalf of NSF or authorize the expenditure of funds. No commitment on the part of NSF should be inferred from technical or budgetary discussions with a NSF Program Officer. A Principal Investigator or organization that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of a grant or cooperative agreement signed by the NSF Grants and Agreements Officer does so at their own risk.

Once an award or declination decision has been made, Principal Investigators are provided feedback about their proposals. In all cases, reviews are treated as confidential documents. Verbatim copies of reviews, excluding the names of the reviewers or any reviewer-identifying information, are sent to the Principal Investigator/Project Director by the Program Officer. In addition, the proposer will receive an explanation of the decision to award or decline funding.

VII. Award Administration Information

A. notification of the award.

Notification of the award is made to the submitting organization by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer. Organizations whose proposals are declined will be advised as promptly as possible by the cognizant NSF Program administering the program. Verbatim copies of reviews, not including the identity of the reviewer, will be provided automatically to the Principal Investigator. (See Section VI.B. for additional information on the review process.)

B. Award Conditions

An NSF award consists of: (1) the award notice, which includes any special provisions applicable to the award and any numbered amendments thereto; (2) the budget, which indicates the amounts, by categories of expense, on which NSF has based its support (or otherwise communicates any specific approvals or disapprovals of proposed expenditures); (3) the proposal referenced in the award notice; (4) the applicable award conditions, such as Grant General Conditions (GC-1)*; or Research Terms and Conditions* and (5) any announcement or other NSF issuance that may be incorporated by reference in the award notice. Cooperative agreements also are administered in accordance with NSF Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (CA-FATC) and the applicable Programmatic Terms and Conditions. NSF awards are electronically signed by an NSF Grants and Agreements Officer and transmitted electronically to the organization via e-mail.

*These documents may be accessed electronically on NSF's Website at https://www.nsf.gov/awards/managing/award_conditions.jsp?org=NSF . Paper copies may be obtained from the NSF Publications Clearinghouse, telephone (703) 292-8134 or by e-mail from [email protected] .

More comprehensive information on NSF Award Conditions and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg .

Administrative and National Policy Requirements

Build America, Buy America

As expressed in Executive Order 14005, Ensuring the Future is Made in All of America by All of America’s Workers (86 FR 7475), it is the policy of the executive branch to use terms and conditions of Federal financial assistance awards to maximize, consistent with law, the use of goods, products, and materials produced in, and services offered in, the United States.

Consistent with the requirements of the Build America, Buy America Act (Pub. L. 117-58, Division G, Title IX, Subtitle A, November 15, 2021), no funding made available through this funding opportunity may be obligated for infrastructure projects under an award unless all iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials used in the project are produced in the United States. For additional information, visit NSF’s Build America, Buy America webpage.

Special Award Conditions:

NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track awards are subject to the availability of funds. NSF has no obligation to make any specific number of Fast-Track awards based on a solicitation and may elect to make several or no awards under any specific technical topic or subtopic.

The NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track fixed amount cooperative agreements will not exceed $1,555,000 per award and normally will be made for a 24-month period of performance.

NSF requires each NSF SBIR/STTR Fast-Track recipient company to attend and participate in the NSF SBIR/STTR Awardees’ Conference.

Terms and Conditions for awards made under this SBIR/STTR Phase II solicitation were posted in May 2024 and are available on the Award Conditions page, under SBIR/STTR Terms and Conditions . The linked page includes "SBIR/STTR Phase II Cooperative Agreement Financial & Administrative Terms and Conditions (SBIR/STTR-II-CA-FATC)" AND "SBIR/STTR Phase II General Terms & Conditions."

The award notice specifies a pre-determined, fixed amount of NSF support for the project described in the referenced proposal. This amount is based upon the budget approved by NSF for the referenced proposal, as amended.

Phase II Transition:

Phase II component funding will be released to the Fast-Track recipient contingent on successfully passing both Stage Gates 1 and 2 of the Phase II Transition Review.

Companies that do not pass either Stage Gate 1 or 2 will be limited to Phase I funding, and the award will conclude at the end of the Phase I component. The final $25,000 will be made available to the company upon submission and NSF approval of the Phase I final project report and upon submission of a Project Outcomes report.

A decision by NSF not to provide additional funding following either the Stage Gate 1 or Stage Gate 2 review will NOT be eligible for reconsideration or termination review as defined in Chapter XII.A.4 of the PAPPG.

Payment Schedule:

Companies that pass both Stage Gates 1 and 2 will receive access to the final $25,000 of Phase I component funding and a funding increment for the Phase II component of the award. Phase II component payments will generally be managed in accordance with the following schedule:

• 25% Advance Payment.
• 25% upon acceptance by an NSF SBIR Fast-Track Program Officer of first interim report.
• 25% upon acceptance by an NSF SBIR Fast-Track Program Officer of second interim report.
• The remainder of funds, less $25,000, upon acceptance by an NSF SBIR Fast-Track Program Officer of third interim report.
• Final $25,000 upon acceptance by an NSF SBIR Fast-Track Program Officer of a satisfactory final annual project report and upon submission of a Project Outcomes report.

A deviation from the standard payment schedule can be requested if the standard schedule poses significant difficulties for the recipient or would negatively affect the execution of the project. If the standard payment schedule as described above is not appropriate, please request alternative amounts for each payment, and provide a brief justification for the departure from the standard schedule.

Payment of the award amount is subject to compliance with the award terms and conditions and NSF's acceptance of the reports submitted by the recipient. On the basis of its review of these reports and/or other pertinent information, NSF reserves the right to modify the payment schedule or suspend or terminate the award, if NSF determines that such actions are appropriate. If estimated total expenditures are significantly less than the award amount, the recipient shall contact NSF to renegotiate the scope of this award. Similarly, if the recipient expects that the full scope of work will be completed at a total cost significantly lower than the award amount, it is the obligation of the recipient to promptly notify NSF.

C. Reporting Requirements

For all multi-year grants (including both standard and continuing grants), the Principal Investigator must submit an annual project report to the cognizant Program Officer no later than 90 days prior to the end of the current budget period. (Some programs or awards require submission of more frequent project reports). No later than 120 days following expiration of a grant, the PI also is required to submit a final annual project report, and a project outcomes report for the general public.

Failure to provide the required annual or final annual project reports, or the project outcomes report, will delay NSF review and processing of any future funding increments as well as any pending proposals for all identified PIs and co-PIs on a given award. PIs should examine the formats of the required reports in advance to assure availability of required data.

PIs are required to use NSF's electronic project-reporting system, available through Research.gov, for preparation and submission of annual and final annual project reports. Such reports provide information on accomplishments, project participants (individual and organizational), publications, and other specific products and impacts of the project. Submission of the report via Research.gov constitutes certification by the PI that the contents of the report are accurate and complete. The project outcomes report also must be prepared and submitted using Research.gov. This report serves as a brief summary, prepared specifically for the public, of the nature and outcomes of the project. This report will be posted on the NSF website exactly as it is submitted by the PI.

More comprehensive information on NSF Reporting Requirements and other important information on the administration of NSF awards is contained in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG) Chapter VII, available electronically on the NSF Website at https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg .

VIII. Agency Contacts

Please note that the program contact information is current at the time of publishing. See program website for any updates to the points of contact.

General inquiries regarding this program should be made to:

For questions related to the use of NSF systems contact:

• NSF Help Desk: 1-800-381-1532
• Research.gov Help Desk e-mail: [email protected]

For questions relating to Grants.gov contact:

Grants.gov Contact Center: If the Authorized Organizational Representatives (AOR) has not received a confirmation message from Grants.gov within 48 hours of submission of application, please contact via telephone: 1-800-518-4726; e-mail: [email protected] .

IX. Other Information

The NSF website provides the most comprehensive source of information on NSF Directorates (including contact information), programs and funding opportunities. Use of this website by potential proposers is strongly encouraged. In addition, "NSF Update" is an information-delivery system designed to keep potential proposers and other interested parties apprised of new NSF funding opportunities and publications, important changes in proposal and award policies and procedures, and upcoming NSF Grants Conferences . Subscribers are informed through e-mail or the user's Web browser each time new publications are issued that match their identified interests. "NSF Update" also is available on NSF's website .

Grants.gov provides an additional electronic capability to search for Federal government-wide grant opportunities. NSF funding opportunities may be accessed via this mechanism. Further information on Grants.gov may be obtained at https://www.grants.gov .

About The National Science Foundation

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent Federal agency created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 USC 1861-75). The Act states the purpose of the NSF is "to promote the progress of science; [and] to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields of science and engineering."

NSF funds research and education in most fields of science and engineering. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to more than 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 school systems, businesses, informal science organizations and other research organizations throughout the US. The Foundation accounts for about one-fourth of Federal support to academic institutions for basic research.

NSF receives approximately 55,000 proposals each year for research, education and training projects, of which approximately 11,000 are funded. In addition, the Foundation receives several thousand applications for graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. The agency operates no laboratories itself but does support National Research Centers, user facilities, certain oceanographic vessels and Arctic and Antarctic research stations. The Foundation also supports cooperative research between universities and industry, US participation in international scientific and engineering efforts, and educational activities at every academic level.

Facilitation Awards for Scientists and Engineers with Disabilities (FASED) provide funding for special assistance or equipment to enable persons with disabilities to work on NSF-supported projects. See the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide Chapter II.F.7 for instructions regarding preparation of these types of proposals.

The National Science Foundation has Telephonic Device for the Deaf (TDD) and Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) capabilities that enable individuals with hearing impairments to communicate with the Foundation about NSF programs, employment or general information. TDD may be accessed at (703) 292-5090 and (800) 281-8749, FIRS at (800) 877-8339.

The National Science Foundation Information Center may be reached at (703) 292-5111.

The National Science Foundation promotes and advances scientific progress in the United States by competitively awarding grants and cooperative agreements for research and education in the sciences, mathematics, and engineering. To get the latest information about program deadlines, to download copies of NSF publications, and to access abstracts of awards, visit the NSF Website at 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314 (NSF Information Center) (703) 292-5111 (703) 292-5090 Send an e-mail to: or telephone: (703) 292-8134 (703) 292-5111 Privacy Act And Public Burden Statements The information requested on proposal forms and project reports is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended. The information on proposal forms will be used in connection with the selection of qualified proposals; and project reports submitted by proposers will be used for program evaluation and reporting within the Executive Branch and to Congress. The information requested may be disclosed to qualified reviewers and staff assistants as part of the proposal review process; to proposer institutions/grantees to provide or obtain data regarding the proposal review process, award decisions, or the administration of awards; to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers and educators as necessary to complete assigned work; to other government agencies or other entities needing information regarding proposers or nominees as part of a joint application review process, or in order to coordinate programs or policy; and to another Federal agency, court, or party in a court or Federal administrative proceeding if the government is a party. Information about Principal Investigators may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potential candidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See System of Record Notices , NSF-50 , "Principal Investigator/Proposal File and Associated Records," and NSF-51 , "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records.” Submission of the information is voluntary. Failure to provide full and complete information, however, may reduce the possibility of receiving an award. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OMB control number for this collection is 3145-0058. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 120 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions. Send comments regarding the burden estimate and any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: Suzanne H. Plimpton Reports Clearance Officer Policy Office, Division of Institution and Award Support Office of Budget, Finance, and Award Management National Science Foundation Alexandria, VA 22314 Study protocol Open access Published: 02 July 2024 Improving medication adherence among persons with cardiovascular disease through m-health and community health worker-led interventions in Kerala; protocol for a type II effectiveness-implementation research-(SHRADDHA-ENDIRA) Jaideep C. Menon 1 , Denny John 2 , Aswathy Sreedevi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6037-9265 3 , Chandrasekhar Janakiram 4 , Akshaya R 3 , Sumithra S 5 , Aravind M S 6 , Mathews Numpeli 7 , Bipin Gopal 8 , Renjini B A 7 , Sajeev P K 9 , Ravivarman Lakshmanaswamy 10 & Abhishek Kunwar 11   Trials volume  25 , Article number:  437 ( 2024 ) Cite this article 11 Accesses 7 Altmetric Metrics details Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of mortality worldwide, and at present, India has the highest burden of acute coronary syndrome and ST-elevation myocardial infarction (MI). A key reason for poor outcomes is non-adherence to medication. The intervention is a 2 × 2 factorial design trial applying two interventions individually and in combination with 1:1 allocation ratio: (i) ASHA-led medication adherence initiative comprising of home visits and (ii) m-health intervention using reminders and self-reporting of medication use. This design will lead to four potential experimental conditions: (i) ASHA-led intervention, (ii) m-health intervention, (iii) ASHA and m-health intervention combination, (iv) standard of care. The cluster randomized trial has been chosen as it randomizes communities instead of individuals, avoiding contamination between participants. Subcenters are a natural subset of the health system, and they will be considered as the cluster/unit. The factorial cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) will also incorporate a nested health economic evaluation to assess the cost-effectiveness and return on investment (ROI) of the interventions on medication adherence among patients with CVDs. The sample size has been calculated to be 393 individuals per arm with 4–5 subcenters in each arm. A process evaluation to understand the effect of the intervention in terms of acceptability, adoption (uptake), appropriateness, costs, feasibility, fidelity, penetration (integration of a practice within a specific setting), and sustainability will be done. The effect of different types of intervention alone and in combination will be assessed using a cluster randomized design involving 18 subcenter areas. The trial will explore local knowledge and perceptions and empower people by shifting the onus onto themselves for their medication adherence. The proposal is aligned to the WHO-NCD aims of improving the availability of the affordable basic technologies and essential medicines, training the health workforce and strengthening the capacity of at the primary care level, to address the control of NCDs. The proposal also helps expand the use of digital technologies to increase health service access and efficacy for NCD treatment and may help reduce cost of treatment. Trial registration The trial has been registered with the Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI), reference number CTRI/2023/10/059095. Peer Review reports Administrative information Note: the numbers in curly brackets in this protocol refer to SPIRIT checklist item numbers. The order of the items has been modified to group similar items (see http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/spirit-2013-statement-defining-standard-protocol-items-for-clinical-trials/ ). Title {1} SPIRIT guidance: Descriptive title identifying the study design, population, interventions, and, if applicable, trial acronym. Trial registration {2a and 2b}. SPIRIT guidance: Trial identifier and registry name. If not yet registered, name of intended registry. Item 2b is met if the register used for registration collects all items from the World Health Organization Trial Registration Data Set. Protocol version {3} SPIRIT guidance: Date and version identifier. Version 3. 23 February 2024. Funding {4} SPIRIT guidance: Sources and types of financial, material, and other support. Financial support from WHO, Geneva, Alliance for Health Policy and System research Author details {5a} SPIRIT guidance: Affiliations of protocol contributors. Jaideep C Menon, Professor, Adult Cardiology, AIMS, Kochi Denny John, Adjunct Professor, Ramaiah University of applied Sciences Aswathy S, Professor, Community Medicine Chandrasekhar J, Professor, Public Health Dentistry Akshaya R, Senior Resident, Community Medicine Sumithra S, Senior Lecturer, St John’s research Institute Aravind MS, Research Associate, Public Health, AIMS, Kochi Mathews Numpeli, CHC MO, DHS, Govt of Kerala Bipin Gopal, State nodal Officer- NCDs, Kerala Renjini BA, MO, DHS, Govt of Kerala Sajeev PK, NHM Coordinator, Kalady Ravivarman L, WHO NCD officer, India Country Office Abhishek Kunwar, NPO NCD, WHO India Name and contact information for the trial sponsor {5b} SPIRIT guidance: Name and contact information for the trial sponsor. Dr Sarah Rylance, Medical Officer for Chronic Respiratory Diseases, Focal point for NCD Research and Innovation World Health Organization HQ Role of sponsor {5c} SPIRIT guidance: Role of study sponsor and funders, if any, in study design; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; and the decision to submit the report for publication, including whether they will have ultimate authority over any of these activities. Study sponsor does not have any role in the study design, collection, management, analysis and interpretation of data Introduction Background and rationale {6a}. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of mortality worldwide, and at present, India has the highest burden of acute coronary syndrome and ST-elevation myocardial infarction (MI) [ 1 ]. A key reason for poor outcomes is non-adherence to medication. The WHO has reported that non-adherence to drugs in chronic conditions is as high as 50%, and 30% of re-admissions are related to non-compliance to medication. In its 2003 report [ 2 ], WHO states that “increasing the effectiveness of adherence interventions may have a far greater impact on the health of the population than any improvement in specific medical treatment.” A systematic review published in 2015 on adherence to medication had eleven studies from India reporting adherence rates (using pills taken, prescribed doses taken, changes, etc.) using Morisky Medication Adherence Score (MMAS) in the range of 0–51.2% [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 ]. The factors associated with non-adherence to medications were forgetfulness, difficulty in remembering, and stopping medication upon feeling better/worse. Various interventions have been studied to increase medication adherence for cardiovascular disease in India. These include the use of combination therapy or polypill [ 9 , 10 , 11 ], use of community health workers (CHW) for simplified hypertension management with the aid of a smart-phone-based electronic decision support system [ 12 ], “task shifting” interventions to CHWs for CVD risk reduction through behavioral change [ 13 ], improving adherence to drugs, lifestyle changes, and clinical risk markers in patients of acute coronary syndromes [ 14 , 15 ] and use of CHWs and doctors in primary health center (PHC) to assess CVD risk with clinical decision support being provided through an m-health platform by doctors sitting remotely [ 16 ]. Studies have also identified the use of mobile technology by health workers in resource-limited settings for health delivery improvement [ 17 ]. The different studies mentioned have looked at m-health or CHWs alone to improve adherence to medication, lifestyle changes, or as a platform for treatment, with varied results. We measured adherence in 2064 patients of coronary artery disease (CAD) the ENDIRA cohort using the MMAS-8 in the year 2019. Our results revealed poor adherence to chronic care medications in CAD patients. On an average, only 2.8 of the mandated 4 drugs (beta blocker, ACE Inhibitor /ARB, statin, and anti-platelet) were being taken by patients regularly [ 18 ]. The mean value of MMAS was 4 out of a possible 8, reflecting poor adherence [ 19 ]. A study on the feasibility of an m-health intervention in the same cohort for the prevention and management of CAD revealed that the use and ownership of mobiles was 88% (2015), 92% were willing to receive mobile health advice [ 19 ], 70% preferred voice calls over SMS, 85.9% would send self-recorded blood pressure, weight, and blood glucose to a doctor or community health worker [ 19 ]. Given that the results of our study revealed poor adherence and that use of m-health for CVD was both acceptable and feasible, the obvious next step would be in trying to improve adherence using these resources. Objectives {7} Primary objective. To assess the effectiveness of using m-health and community health worker-led interventions for improving adherence to drugs in patients with cardiovascular disease using m-health and community health worker intervention individually and in combination in comparison to control group. Secondary objective To assess the effects of using the interventions (m-health and community health worker-led interventions) for improving adherence to drugs among heart disease patients on implementation outcomes such as acceptability and adoption. To assess the cardiometabolic risk factors among first degree relatives of patients with heart disease Trial design {8} It is a 2 × 2 factorial design trial applying two interventions individually and in combination with a 1:1 allocation ratio. Two interventions are applied individually and in combination: (i) ASHA-led medication adherence initiative comprising of home visits, and (ii) m-health intervention using reminders and self-reporting of medication use. This design will lead to four potential experimental conditions: (i) ASHA-led intervention, (ii) m-health intervention, (iii) ASHA and m-health intervention combination, (iv) standard of care. Methods: participants, interventions, and outcomes Study setting {9}. The study will be implemented in the ENDIRA (Epidemiology of Non-communicable Diseases in Rural Areas) cohort (n-114,064 individuals) which includes 2064 patients with heart disease in whom adherence to drugs for heart disease has already been assessed. The ENDIRA cohort is spread over 5 primary health centers consisting of 18 subcenters where the health details of all individuals have been recorded. In order to avoid contamination in the treatment allocation and its response, at least 10 km of distance among villages will be maintained and they will be clubbed into 4 groups. The intervention will be implemented in Angamaly block consisting of five local self-government areas namely Mookkannoor, Kalady, Thuravoor, Karukutty, and Manjapra with a population of 18,638, 20,407, 20,475, 26,811, and 14,668 in Ernakulam district [ 20 ] in Kerala state, India, respectively. Eligibility criteria {10} The study samples will consist of adult community members with diagnosis of CAD, valvular disease, heart failure, and rhythm disorders in the target areas who provide informed consent. Eligibility criteria Diagnosed case of CAD who have received treatment for MI/STEMI/UA or diagnosed using a coronary angiogram or CT coronary angiogram or have undergone revascularization and are on medications. Other cardiovascular cases such as rhythm disorders, valve disorders, and heart failure identified as pumping disorders by the community will also be a part of the study. Male or female aged 18 years or more will be considered. Resident of village during the baseline survey. Has no plans to migrate in next 12 months from the date of initiation of intervention. Exclusion criteria Persons who are bedridden and are unable to answer the questions. Pregnant or lactating mothers Individuals with cognitive impairment Who will take informed consent? {26a} Informed consent will be taken by the accredited social health activist of the area who will be collecting the data. The data collection will be through an application called SHRADDHA (which means care). The participant’s digital signature will be obtained on the tablet. Additional consent provisions for collection and use of participant data and biological specimens {26b} Blood samples will be collected to assess random blood sugar and HbA1c among cardiac patients with type 2 DM after obtaining consent. These samples will be tested using point-of-care devices and will not be stored. We will request consent for review of participants’ medical records, and for the collection of blood samples to assess random blood sugar and HbA1c among the cardiac patients with type 2 diabetes. But this trial does not involve collecting biological specimens for storage. Interventions Explanation for the choice of comparators {6b}. Results of our study revealed poor adherence and that use of m-health for CVD was both acceptable and feasible. Various interventions have been studied to increase medication adherence for cardiovascular disease in India such as use of combination therapy or polypill, use of community health workers (CHW) for simplified hypertension management with the aid of a smart phone-based electronic decision support system, so we decided to use factorial study design where study units would be assigned to ASHA and no ASHA group. Following this they would be assigned to m-health and no m-health group. Thus, there are four arms to the study: namely ASHA, ASHA and m-health, m-health, and standard of care. Intervention description {11a} The intervention content is prepared after discussion with the stakeholders such as ASHAs, Medical Officers, and patients. Qualitative data would be obtained from unstructured or semi-structured interviews exploring the individual’s understanding of the use of medicines, potential obstacles and incentives to adherence, useful strategies to improve adherence. Interview guide for In-Depth-Interviews and Key-Informant Interviews will be developed after a thorough literature search. In-Depth Interviews will be done with the participants and their relatives to identify individual’s understanding of the use of medicines, potential obstacles and incentives to adherence, useful strategies to improve adherence, and other questions spontaneously raised during the interview. For Key-Informant Interviews, Health care providers such as doctors, the multipurpose health worker, ASHAs, and pharmacists (about 10) will be interviewed till saturation Is reached. Focus group discussions (FGD) will be conducted among adherent CVD patients and nonadherent CVD patients. About 3-4 such FGD will be conducted till data saturation is reached. This will be repeated at endline. Community health worker directed visits to the house of the patient, where they will explain the use of drugs and the various roles of the different classes of drugs along with taking a pill count and giving health advice and counselling with a PowerPoint on a tablet. The frequency of visits is twice a month for the first 3 months, and once a month for the next 3 (11 visits in all). A schedule of visits with the areas to be highlighted in each visit such as diet, physical activity, tobacco, and alcohol will be prepared and given. Before the commencement of the intervention training, sessions for community health workers (ASHAs) in the intervention arm will be conducted. This will comprise of three sessions of 6 h each and would include curriculum-based training modules on CVD, HTN, diabetes, dyslipidemia; awareness of the role each of the 4 classes of drugs in AS-CVD plays in secondary prevention; sensitization to the role of adherence in preventing recurrence; sensitization to the side effects of the drugs and counselling skill training. Role of lifestyle changes such as diet, physical activity, tobacco, and alcohol will also be carried out. The envisaged m-health platform is a two-way system through which messages or jingles (audio clips) could be passed back and forth between the care provider (ASHA, Research assistant, or doctor) and the recipient (patient). Individual patient details gathered and entered on a Tab PC get stored on a central server. The data is anonymized and coded individually, with a 12-digit UID. In clusters where the m-health intervention is planned, individual patients could download and activate an already developed App, which is a free download from the Google play store [Ente app (my app)]. The individual patient would be able to access his personal health record as entered, by way of the App. This App would serve as a two-way channel of communication between the patient and caregiver. In the other clusters, individual patients could download their personal data and the App, with the communication channel remaining blocked. Bi-monthly reminders via text or audio messages and weekly reminders on taking medicines at the time of a scheduled dose by way of a beep or tune and health advice by way of messages are sent for the first 3 months, followed by monthly reminders of text messages the next 3 and weekly drug reminder tunes. Community health worker and m-health Health worker (ASHA)-directed visits to the house of the patient, where they will explain the use of drugs and the various roles of the different classes of drugs along with taking a pill count and giving health advice and counselling. The frequency of visits is twice a month for the first 3 months, and once a month for the next 3. In addition, bi-monthly reminders via text or audio messages and weekly reminders on taking medicines at the time of a scheduled dose by way of a beep or tune and health advice by way of messages are sent for the first 3 months, followed by monthly reminders of text messages the next 3 and weekly drug reminder tunes. Standard of care (SoC) is patient-initiated physician visit with health advice and treatment as prescribed by the treating doctor. In all the groups, the patients can visit the doctor in case of any need or emergency. After completion of baseline survey in all clusters, intervention will be implemented in intervention clusters for 6 months. All the participants in the intervention and control arms will be permitted to use standard treatment for CVD. Community health worker-directed visits to the house of the patient, where they will explain the use of drugs and the various roles of the different classes of drugs along with taking a pill count and giving health advice and counselling. The frequency of visits is twice a month for the first 3 months, and once a month for the next 3 (9 visits in all). Table 1 shows the timepoint for the intervention implementation. Criteria for discontinuing or modifying allocated interventions {11b} This is not applicable as the intervention is to improve medication adherence, so there will be no special criteria for discontinuing or modifying allocated intervention. Strategies to improve adherence to interventions {11c} The various interventions are for the improvement of adherence as measured by the Morisky Medication Adherence scale [ 21 ]. Relevant concomitant care permitted or prohibited during the trial {11d} Relevant concomitant care is permitted. Provisions for post-trial care {30} This is a non-pharmacological intervention; therefore, there are no specific post trial care provisions.  Outcomes {12} Primary, secondary, and other outcomes. The primary outcome is the adherence of patients as measured by Morisky adherence scale [ 21 ] at the beginning of the study, midterm, and at the end. The secondary outcomes include Quality of Life (EuroQOL) [ 22 ], blood pressure, random blood sugar, HbA1c among the cardiac patients with type 2 diabetes, mortality events, and other unintended outcomes will also be recorded. The analysis will include change from baseline. Adherence is chosen as the main outcome as the objective is to study the impact of the various interventions singly and in combination on adherence in comparison to standard of care. Various symptoms, such as dyspnea, fatigue, edema, difficulty sleeping, depression, and chest pain associated with CVD limits activities of daily life [ 23 ]. Therefore, it is important to measure the quality of life before and after the intervention. Metabolic control can result from better adherence to medication and a better awareness of the importance to adhering to medication. Therefore, meeting targets of blood pressure, blood sugar levels, and HbA1c will be considered as secondary outcomes. Participant timeline {13} Sample size {14}. Based on the learnings from the previous study, the rate of missing data due to electronic data collection will be low. Phases 1 and 2: planning and baseline evaluation The process of developing the intervention will start with the development of the initial concepts based on the available literature and interaction with healthcare professionals working in the rural areas. Baseline study Selection and training of team : The team will deliver the training to the selected project coordinator and the field staff. Field staff (part-time) will be recruited by the investigators on the advice of village head and/or NCD clinic in-charge. He/she should be a member of community preferably the accredited social health activist with an interest in health care and community, willingness to learn, and leadership qualities. A strong commitment to work in the community will be identified as an important criteria for the selection of all the team members. After a sensitization session of the data collectors/field staff, they will be asked to prepare a list of persons with cardiovascular disease including coronary artery disease, valvular disease, arrhythmias, and heart failure. Hands on sessions to download the App and collect data will be provided. In Phase 2, baseline evaluation will be initiated in the study areas after obtaining the ethics committee approval. Written informed consent will be obtained from the study participants. Participants will receive a participant information sheet (PIS) outlining the rationale for the study, details on interventions, the steps, and protocols to be followed throughout the study, potential side effects and risks, benefits, a confidentiality statement, the option to withdraw from the study at any time, and the investigators’ contact information. The baseline survey performed by ASHAs will be done through a survey app called SHRADDHA. The variables collected would include (1) basic demographic information, including age, income, gender, marital status, religion, and occupation; (2) lifestyle-related factors such as physical activity, tobacco use, and alcohol consumption, dietary factors intake of fruits and vegetables, cooking oil and red meats; (3) disease details including for diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, stroke and CAD, COPD, and surgeries; and (4) current medications. Questions will be explained to each participant to help them get familiar with the contents, instructions for filling them out will be given, and the responses will be recorded. On the home visit, the Field staff/ASHA will also record height and weight, measure sugars with a glucometer, and take a photo of the most recent prescription. All of this will be recorded in the app. Glycosylated hemoglobin will also be measured among the cardiac patients with diabetes using the point of care device called Lumira Dx. Sample size : Sample size was estimated assuming an improvement of 10% in medication adherence at the end of a 6-month period in either m-health or community health worker-led intervention compared to control group. This 10% improvement will lead to an effect size of 0.4 units in medication adherence through m-health or community health worker-led intervention and an effect size of 0.8 units in combined intervention (m-health and community health worker-led intervention) compared to the control group. The 10% was an assumption considering that large differences are not possible in a community setting and was based on another community-based study which has also used 10% improvement of adherence score [ 24 ]. To observe a difference of 0.4 units in the medication adherence between study groups, with a standard deviation of 1.8, 5% level of significance (adjusted for multiple comparison) and 80% power, the sample size needed will be 238 participants in each of the study groups. After accounting for a design effect (cluster effect) and 10% attrition, the number of participants required per group will be 393, a total of 1572 participants. Recruitment {15} Working through the public health system, keeping in mind the proximity of the ASHAs to the community, it is expected that adequate participant enrolment can be achieved. Monitoring and supervision by the project team will assist in timely completion. The time period of recruitment is from February to May, 2024. After the recruitment, the randomization will be done and intervention will be administered for 6 months. Expected to finish by November 2024 and endline assessment in December 2024. Assignment of interventions: allocation Sequence generation {16a}. Allocation of intervention and sequence generation will be as follows. Codes will be randomly assigned to the four interventions (ASHA, m-health, ASHA + m-health, and control groups) namely A, B, C, and D. In the next step, randomization list will be generated using RANDOM ALLOC software. Eighteen subcenters will be randomized into 4 study groups (A, B, C, and D) using different permutations of ABCD. Each subcenter will be allocated random numbers ranging from 1 to 18 using random number generators and random shuffling of this number. Interventions will be allocation to the subcenters in the sequence of random shuffled numbers as per the randomization list. Concealment mechanism {16b} It will be an open-label trial as concealment is not possible. However, study site allocation will be done only after completing baseline assessment and agreements with sites to participate. Implementation {16c} The allocation sequence will be generated by the Statistician, enrolment will be by the Field coordinator and the Field coordinator will assign subcenter as it is a cluster randomized trial. Assignment of interventions: blinding Who will be blinded {17a}. Data analysts will be blinded. The ASHA workers, patients, and outcome assessors are not blinded. Procedure for unblinding if needed {17b} In this study, the ASHA workers, patients, and outcome assessors will not be blinded. Only the data analysts will be blinded. The data analyst will be unblinded if there are any outlier biochemical values which requires immediate action so that the patient can be intimated. Data collection and management Plans for assessment and collection of outcomes {18a}. The primary outcome adherence will be measured by Morisky 8-item adherence questionnaire which has been validated in various countries including India and in various disease conditions. The eight-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8) is a structured self-report measure of medication-taking behavior that has been widely used in various cultures [ 25 , 26 , 27 ].It has a maximum score of 8. The quality of life will be measured by the EuroQol five‐dimensions – 3‐level (EQ5D) which is a versatile quality of life (QOL) instrument with five dimensions (mobility, self‐care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression) and a visual analog scale. The questionnaire has also been found to be valid and reliable in various disease conditions including cardiovascular and cancer in India and neighboring countries [ 28 , 29 ].Random blood sugar among the patient and family member will be measured by the ASHA as per standard methods using a glucometer. Blood pressure will also be measured using the electronic Blood pressure will be recorded with the OMRON HEM 7124 automatic blood pressure monitor (Shimogyo-ku, Kyoto, Japan) by measuring upper arm BP. A laboratory technician will measure Glycosylated Haemoglobin using the Lumira Dx point of care device. Real-time data entry will be monitored, and wherever there are difficulties with using the app, support will be provided by the field coordinator. Plans to promote participant retention and complete follow-up {18b} All efforts will be made to retain all participants in the study. As they are also part of the earlier ENDIRA study, there is a good rapport with the study group, local self-government, and frontline health workers. Loss to follow-up may result from migration to their children’s places of living or death or for other reasons. The characteristics of the patients who drop out will be recorded and compared to those who are in the study. Data management {19} As the data is collected through the SHRADDHA app, the data will be exported to excel and checked for completion each day. According to the data collected, feedback, and monitoring will be done to ensure correct and complete entries. Duplicate entries will be checked for and removed. Confidentiality {27} The data of the patients will be anonymized, and each patient will be assigned a unique id. From the app de-identified anonymized data will be stored in Excel. This will be stored confidentially before, during, and after the trial. Plans for collection, laboratory evaluation, and storage of biological specimens for genetic or molecular analysis in this trial/future use {33} In this study, blood samples will be collected to assess random blood sugar and HbA1c. These tests are done using point-of-care devices. The blood samples will not be stored in the current trial. Statistical methods Statistical methods for primary and secondary outcomes {20a}. Several models will be run to test for the main outcomes, implementation outcomes, and related research questions. Mixed linear and logistic effects models as appropriate will be used to identify differences between the groups (ASHA, ASHA and m-health, m-health, control group), where random effects will be used for the clusters and fixed effects will be used for effects of ASHA workers and of m-health. The primary dependent variable in the models will be change in adherence measured by the Morisky scale. Models will also be fitted for the secondary outcomes such as change in blood pressure, random blood sugar, Hba1c levels, and quality of life. Subsequently, covariates such as age, sex, and co-morbidities will be added to the models to adjust for potential confounders. Interim analyses {21b} In this study, the intervention is done to improve the medication adherence through health education by ASHA workers, m-health, or both. Since the risk due to the intervention is minimal or none, interim analysis, and stopping guidelines have not been prescribed by the ethical committee and therefore there will not be any stopping guidelines. Methods for additional analyses (e.g., subgroup analyses) {20b} Subgroup analysis will not be carried out. However, for the primary and secondary outcome variables, covariates such as age, sex, and co-morbidities will be considered as potential confounders in the mixed effect model analysis. Methods in analysis to handle protocol non-adherence and any statistical methods to handle missing data {20c} Nonadherence will be managed by the intention to treat analysis and if there are too many missing data, imputations will be considered. Mixed method analysis will be considered for intention to treat analysis. Also depending on the percentage of data missingness and assumption for data missing in the study variables, appropriate missing data imputation technique will be used. Plans to give access to the full protocol, participant-level data, and statistical code {31c} Full protocol can be given. Full dataset can be given with the permission of the Institution, WHO, and Government. Oversight and monitoring Composition of the coordinating center and trial steering committee {5d}. There is only one site for the study; therefore, the coordinating and steering committee will be situated at the site. The coordinating center is the Community Health Centre (CHC). The ASHA’s work is coordinated through the CHC by the National Health mission coordinators. The trial steering committee (TSC) monitors recruitment, communicates, and provides conflict resolution and timely advice. They meet every 6 weeks. Local organization and implementation is taken care of by the NHM coordinators and a responsible person reporting to the Principal Investigator from the Project management group. Trainings and other group meetings are conducted by the project management group. Consent is obtained by the ASHA. Periodic meetings are conducted by the Project management group (investigators) team to monitor progress. The stakeholder groups are apprised of the progress of the trial, role of intervention, and its possible benefit. Composition of the data monitoring committee, its role and reporting structure {21a} This study is measuring adherence which is a low-risk intervention; therefore, a data monitoring committee is not required. The project management group meets every 2 weeks. The Trial Steering Group and the independent Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee meet to review conduct throughout the trial period. Adverse event reporting and harms {22} As this study is measuring adherence of an intervention, no adverse events or serious adverse events and harms from the intervention are anticipated. But if there are any, they will be reported to relevant regulatory bodies such as Project management group, Trial steering Committee, District Health Authority, and Ethics Committee. Trial deviations will be reported to the ethical committee. Frequency and plans for auditing trial conduct {23} The meetings of the Project management group, Trial Steering group, independent data monitoring, and Ethics Committee periodically will also serve to audit the trial. Plans for communicating important protocol amendments to relevant parties (e.g. trial participants, ethical committees) {25} Before the start and at the start, there have been some minor modifications which has been updated to the ethical committee and subsequently uploaded in the CTRI. Dissemination plans {31a} The results of the study will be published in standard journals. Social media and Stakeholder workshops will be used to disseminate the findings. A lay summary  will be shared with all participants. The present study will promote much needed research and innovation for increasing adherence among patients with cardiovascular disease. The effect of different types of intervention alone and in combination will be assessed using a cluster randomized design involving 18 subcenter areas. This factorial cluster randomized controlled trial will benefit by increasing the drug adherence for NCD using m-health platform and frontline health workers. The trial will explore local knowledge, perceptions and empower people by shifting the onus onto themselves for their medication adherence. The proposal is aligned to the WHO-NCD aims of improving the availability of affordable basic technologies and essential medicines, improving adherence for non-communicable diseases (NCDs). It also aligns to WHO-NCD aim of training the health workforce and strengthening the capacity of health systems, particularly at the primary care level, to address the control of NCDs. The proposal also helps expand the use of digital technologies to increase health service access and efficacy for NCD treatment and may help reduce the cost of treatment. The proposal helps implementation of WHO-PEN protocol for Self-Care guidelines including utilizing frontline health workers in improving self-care in patients of heart disease, counselling to improving adherence and self-care, considering patients’ beliefs and concerns about drugs and their effect. The research is also aligned to the WHO-HEARTS package, both by way of A&T of the HEARTS where A- consists of information on CVD medicine and technology procurement, quantification, distribution, management, and handling of supplies at facility level. T- consists of guidance and examples on team-based care and task shifting related to the care of CVD. The research is also aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) goal in relation to NCD of reducing by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment. There are significant expected implementation challenges to note. First, the trial involves working with the primary clinics providing NCD screening and detection services, and building an effective partnership with the state government of Kerala where the project will be implemented will be crucial for its success. Second, medication nonadherence for patients with chronic diseases is extremely common with 40–50% of patients prescribed medications for management of diabetes and hypertension [ 30 ]. There exist treatment-related barriers, such as treatment complexity, side effects (or fear of side effects), inconvenience, cost, and time, and other barriers such as poor practitioner-patient relationship, aspects of which are beyond the scope of the intervention [ 30 ]. If successful, the medication adherence intervention, using m-health and ASHAs, has the potential to constitute evidence-based practice for improving medication adherence for CVD in India, and in similar developing countries. Trial status The current protocol is version 3 dated 23–02-2024. The recruitment began on November 30, 2023 and is expected to be complete by May 30, 2024. The submission has been delayed due to unavoidable circumstances such as elections and heatwave. Availability of data and materials {29} The investigators will have access to the final data set. There are no contractual agreements which limit access to investigators. The investigators in the field collect the data and the data is with them. Any data required to support the protocol can be supplied on request. Abbreviations Angiotensin-converting enzyme Angiotensin II receptor blocker Accredited social health activist Coronary artery disease Community health workers Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease Cluster randomized control trial Computed tomography Clinical Trials Registry—India Cardiovascular diseases Epidemiology of Non-Communicable Diseases in Rural Areas Hypertension Low-middle-income countries Mobile Health Myocardial infarction Morisky Medication Adherence Score Non-communicable diseases Primary health center Quality of Life Return on investment Sustainable Development Goals Short Message Service ST elevation myocardial infarction Unstable angina World Health Organization Sreeniwas Kumar A, Sinha N. Cardiovascular disease in India: A 360 degree overview. Medical Journal Armed Forces India. 2020;76(1):1–3. Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar   Sabaté E, ed. Adherence to Long-Term Therapies: Evidence for Action. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2003. Baroletti S, Dell’Orfano H. Medication adherence in cardiovascular disease. Circulation. 2010;121:1455–8. Article   PubMed   Google Scholar   Prabhakaran D, Jeemon P, Roy A. Cardiovascular disease in India, Current epidemiology and future directions. Circulation. 2016;133:1605–20. Akeroyd JM, Chan WJ, Kamal AK, Palaniappan L, Virani SS. Adherence to cardiovascular medications in the South Asian population: A systematic review of current evidence and future directions. World J Cardiol. 2015;7(12):938–47. Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar   Fathima FN, Shanbhag DN, Hegde SKB, Sebastian B, Briguglio S. Cross Sectional Study of Adherence to Prescribed Medications among Individuals Registered at a High Risk Clinic in a Rural Area in Bangalore, India. Indian J Publ Health Research and Development. 2013;4(3):90–4. Article   Google Scholar   Venkatachalam J, Abrahm SB, Singh Z, Stalin P, Sathya GR. Determinants of Patient’s Adherence to Hypertension Medications in a Rural Population of Kancheepuram District inTamilNadu. SouthIndia Indian J Community Med. 2015;40:33–7. Article   CAS   Google Scholar   Kumar N, Unnikrishnan B, Thapar R, Mithra P, Kulkarni V, Holla R, Bhagawan D, Mehta I. Factors associated with adherence to antihypertensive treatment among patients attention atertiary care hospital in Mangalore. South India IJCRR. 2014;6:77–85. Google Scholar   Bahl VK, Jadhav UM, Thacker HP. Management of hypertension with the fixed combination of perindopril and amlodipine in daily clinical practice: results from the STRONG prospective, observational, multicenter study. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs. 2009;9:135–42. Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar   Soliman EZ, Mendis S, Dissanayake WP, Somasundaram NP, Gunaratne PS, Jayasingne IK, Furberg CD. A Polypill for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a feasibility study of the World Health Organization. Trials. 2011;12:3. Thom S, Poulter N, Field J, Patel A, Prabhakaran D, Stanton A, Grobbee DE, Bots ML, Reddy KS, Cidambi R, et al. Effects of a fixed-dose combination strategy on adherence and risk factors in patients with or at high risk of CVD:theUMPIRE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2013;310:918–29. Ajay VS, Tian M, Chen H, Wu Y, Li X, Dunzhu D, et al. A cluster-randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effects of a simplified cardiovascular management program in Tibet, China and Haryana, India: study design and rationale. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1):924. Jeemon P, Narayanan G, Kondal D, et al. Task shifting of frontline community health workers for cardiovascular risk reduction: design and rationale of a cluster randomised controlled trial (DISHAstudy) in India. BMC Public health. 2016;16:264. Kamath DY, Xavier D, Gupta R, Devereaux PJ, Sigamani A, Hussain T, et al. Rationale and design of a randomized controlled trial evaluating community health worker–based interventions for the secondary prevention of acute coronary syndromes in India (SPREAD). Am Heart J. 2014;168(5):690–7. Sharma KK, Gupta R, Mathur M, Natani V, Lodha S, Roy S, Xavier D. Non-physician health workers for improving adherence to medications and healthy lifestyle following acute coronary syndrome: 24-month follow-up study. Indian Heart J. 2016;68(6):832–40. Peiris D, Praveen D, Kishor M, et al. SMART health India: A stepped-wedge, a cluster randomised controlled trial of a community health worker managed mobile health intervention for people assessed at high cardiovascular disease risk in rural India. PLOS One. 2019;14(3):e0213708. Free C, Phillips G, Watson L, Galli L, Felix L, Edwards P, et al. The effectiveness of mobile-health technologies to improve health care service delivery processes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2013;10(1): e1001363. Banerjee A, Menon JC, et al. A learning health system for secondary prevention in cardiovascular disease in Kerala using informatics and non-physician health workers (LHSCVD). Indian Heart J. 2018;70:S2. Feinberg L, Menon JC, et al. Potential for mobile health (m-Health) prevention of cardiovascular diseases in Kerala: A population-based survey. Indian Heart J. 2017;69:182–99. Angamaly Municipality City Population Census 2011-2024 | Kerala. [cited 2024 Jun 3]. Available from: https://www.census2011.co.in/data/town/803285-angamaly-kerala.html Janežič A, Locatelli I, Kos M. Criterion validity of 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale in patients with asthma. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(11):e0187835. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187835.PMID:29190693;PMCID:PMC5708647 . EQ-5D-3LUserguide-23–07.pdf. [cited 2024 Jun 3]. Available from: https://euroqol.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/EQ-5D-3LUserguide-23-07.pdf Heo S, Lennie TA, Okoli C, Moser DK. Quality of life in patients with heart failure: ask the patients. Heart Lung. 2009;38(2):100–8. Xavier D, Gupta R, Kamath D, Sigamani A, Devereaux PJ, George N, et al. Community health worker-based intervention for adherence to drugs and lifestyle change after acute coronary syndrome: a multicentre, open, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2016;4(3):244–53. Surekha A, Fathima FN, Agrawal T, Misquith D. Psychometric Properties of Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS) in Known Diabetic and Hypertensive Patients in a Rural Population of Kolar District, Karnataka. Indian Journal of Public Health Research & Development. 2016;7(2):250. Grover A, Oberoi M. Self-reported Morisky eight item medication adherence scale is a reliable and valid measure of compliance to statins in hyperlipidemic patients in India. Indian Heart J. 2020;72(4):319–20. Okello S, Nasasira B, Muiru ANW, Muyingo A. Validity and Reliability of a Self-Reported Measure of Antihypertensive Medication Adherence in Uganda. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(7):e0158499. Mahesh PKB, Gunathunga MW, Jayasinghe S, Arnold SM, Senanayake S, Senanayake C, et al. Construct validity and reliability of EQ-5D-3L for stroke survivors in a lower middle-income setting. Ceylon Med J. 2019;64(2):52–8. Tripathy S, Hansda U, Seth N, Rath S, Rao PB, Mishra TS, et al. Validation of the EuroQol Five-dimensions - Three-Level Quality of Life Instrument in a Classical Indian Language (Odia) and Its Use to Assess Quality of Life and Health Status of Cancer Patients in Eastern India. Indian J Palliat Care. 2015;21(3):282–8. Kleinsinger F. The Unmet Challenge of Medication Nonadherence. Perm J. 2018;22:18–033. https://doi.org/10.7812/TPP/18-033 . Download references Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the Accredited Social Health Activists, Dr Naseema Najeeb CHC MO, Dr Sunil Kumar, and Mr Sunny V V. Funded by WHO NCD Division and NCD Alliance, Geneva. WHO Reference 2023/1376413–0. The funding body does not have a role in the design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation of data. Author information Authors and affiliations. Adult Cardiology, AIMS, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, India Jaideep C. Menon Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences, Bengaluru, India Community Medicine, AIMS, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, India Aswathy Sreedevi & Akshaya R Public Health Dentistry, Amrita School of Dentistry, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, India Chandrasekhar Janakiram StJohn’s Research Institute, Bangalore, India AIMS, Kochi, India Aravind M S MO, DHS, Govt of Kerala, Ernakulam, India Mathews Numpeli & Renjini B A NCD, DHS, Govt of Kerala, Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, India Bipin Gopal CHC, Kalady, Kalady, India India Country Office, New Delhi, India Ravivarman Lakshmanaswamy NPO NCD, WHO India, New Delhi, India Abhishek Kunwar You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar Contributions ➙JCM is the Chief investigator, conceived the study, led the proposal and protocol development, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Review & Editing ➙DJ—Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Review & Editing ➙AS—Development of proposal, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Review & Editing ➙CJ—Development of proposal, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Project Administration, Formal Analysis, Writing – Review & Editing ➙AR—Analysis, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Review & Editing ➙SS—Analysis, Sample calculation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing—Review & Editing ➙AMS—Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Review & Editing ➙MN—Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing ➙BG—Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing ➙RBA—Project administration, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing, ➙RL—Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing ➙AK—Investigation, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing ➙All the authors have read and approved the final manuscript. Corresponding author Correspondence to Aswathy Sreedevi . Ethics declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate {24}. Ethical Review Board of Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences had approved the study dated 23–02-2024 number ECASM-AIMS-2024–098. Written, informed consent to participate will be obtained from all participants. Ethical approval has been obtained. Consent for publication {32} Informed consent has been obtained and the model consent form can be made available. No identifying images or other personal or clinical details of participants are presented here or will be presented in reports of the trial results. Competing interests {28} The authors declare that there are no competing interests. Additional information Publisher’s note. Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Rights and permissions Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. Reprints and permissions About this article Cite this article. Menon, J.C., John, D., Sreedevi, A. et al. Improving medication adherence among persons with cardiovascular disease through m-health and community health worker-led interventions in Kerala; protocol for a type II effectiveness-implementation research-(SHRADDHA-ENDIRA). Trials 25 , 437 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-08244-0 Download citation Received : 09 May 2024 Accepted : 11 June 2024 Published : 02 July 2024 DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-08244-0 Share this article Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative Factorial study design Valvular disease Heart failure Implementation Research Medication adherence Morisky Medication Adherence Scale ISSN: 1745-6215 Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us General enquiries: [email protected] 222 IMAGES How to Write a Successful Research Proposal SOLUTION: How to write a research proposal 11 Research Proposal Examples to Make a Great Paper How to Write a Successful Research Proposal Introduction How to Write a Research Paper Introduction in 4 Steps components of a research proposal introduction VIDEO Proposal 101: What Is A Research Topic? Creating a research proposal Developing a Research Proposal Introduction to CIMS V4 & RCI Module Training Introduction Research Proposal Introduction To Research Proposal Writing 1 COMMENTS How to write the introduction of a research proposal? To begin with, the introduction must set context for your research by mentioning what is known about the topic and what needs to be explored further. In the introduction, you can highlight how your research will contribute to the existing knowledge in your field and to overall scientific development. The introduction must also contain a ... How to Write a Research Proposal Research proposal examples. Writing a research proposal can be quite challenging, but a good starting point could be to look at some examples. We've included a few for you below. Example research proposal #1: "A Conceptual Framework for Scheduling Constraint Management". Writing a Research Paper Introduction Table of contents. Step 1: Introduce your topic. Step 2: Describe the background. Step 3: Establish your research problem. Step 4: Specify your objective (s) Step 5: Map out your paper. Research paper introduction examples. Frequently asked questions about the research paper introduction. How To Write A Research Proposal Here is an explanation of each step: 1. Title and Abstract. Choose a concise and descriptive title that reflects the essence of your research. Write an abstract summarizing your research question, objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes. It should provide a brief overview of your proposal. 2. How to write a research proposal A research proposal is a concise and coherent summary of your proposed research. You'll need to set out the issues that are central to the topic area and how you intend to address them with your research. To do this, you'll need to give the following: an outline of the general area of study within which your research falls. Writing a Research Proposal The Academic Proposal. The Lab Report. University College Writing Centre. University of Toronto; Punch, Keith and Wayne McGowan. "Developing and Writing a Research Proposal." In From Postgraduate to Social Scientist: A Guide to Key Skills. Nigel Gilbert, ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2006), 59-81; Wong, Paul T. P. How to Write a Research Proposal. What Is A Research Proposal? Examples + Template The purpose of the research proposal (its job, so to speak) is to convince your research supervisor, committee or university that your research is suitable (for the requirements of the degree program) and manageable (given the time and resource constraints you will face). The most important word here is "convince" - in other words, your ... How to Write a Research Proposal in 2024: Structure, Examples & Common A. Introduction. A research proposal is commonly written by scholars seeking grant funding for a research project when enrolling for a research-based postgraduate degree. ... This contains supplemental material that is not a core element of a proposal's main narrative but is considered valuable in enhancing the views and arguments raised in ... Write a Research Proposal Some proposals include. a research question, written as a question. or, a hypothesis as a potential response to the research question. or, a thesis statement as an argument that answers the research question. or, aims and objects as accomplishment or operational statements. Foreshadow the outcomes of your research. Research Proposal Academic Research Proposal. This is the most common type of research proposal, which is prepared by students, scholars, or researchers to seek approval and funding for an academic research project. It includes all the essential components mentioned earlier, such as the introduction, literature review, methodology, and expected outcomes. Writing a Research Proposal The format of a research proposal varies between fields, but most proposals will contain at least these elements: Title page; Introduction; Literature review; Research design; Reference list; While the sections may vary, the overall objective is always the same. How to write a research proposal? A proposal needs to show how your work fits into what is already known about the topic and what new paradigm will it add to the literature, while specifying the question that the research will answer, establishing its significance, and the implications of the answer. [ 2] The proposal must be capable of convincing the evaluation committee about ... How to write a research proposal The format of a research proposal varies between fields and levels of study but most proposals should contain at least these elements: introduction, literature review, research design and reference list. Generally, research proposals can range from 500-1500 words or one to a few pages long. Typically, proposals for larger projects such as a PhD ... PDF Chapter 4: How to Write a Research Proposal I. The introduction section of your proposal. The purpose of this section is to introduce your research idea, establish its importance (i.e., you want to "sell" it to your reader), and explain its significance. Flow of the introduction: Start with a general introduction that. defines the research topic. demonstrates its importance. How To Write A Proposal Develop an Outline. Create a clear and logical structure: Divide your proposal into sections or headings that will guide your readers through the content. Consider the typical structure of a proposal: Introduction: Provide a concise overview of the problem, its significance, and the proposed solution. Background/Context: Offer relevant ... What is involved in a research proposal background and introduction The background has to provide the context of the study. It has to talk about the broader research area, what the current literature says about the research area, what are some of the gaps in existing studies, and how this led to the gap or need you intend to examine in your study. The background for a proposal has to provide a solid start and ... What Is a Research Proposal? (Plus How To Write One) A research proposal is a formal document expressing the details of a research project, which is usually for science or academic purposes, and it's typically four to seven pages long. Research proposals often include a title page, an abstract, an introduction, background information, research questions, a literature review and a bibliography. Parts of a Research Proposal A research proposal's purpose is to capture the evaluator's attention, demonstrate the study's potential benefits, and prove that it is a logical and consistent approach (Van Ekelenburg, 2010). To ensure that your research proposal contains these elements, there are several aspects to include in your proposal (Al-Riyami, 2008): Title; Abstract What Are The Elements Of A Good Research Proposal? So in this guide, we'll outline all the elements of a good research proposal and explain why they're important. The elements of a good research proposal are the title, the introduction, literature review, aims and objectives, methodology, scope of the research, outline and timetable, and bibliography. It's important to include these ... What are the Sections of a Research Proposal? Purpose: To provide an overview of the study, which you will expand on in detail in later sections of the research proposal. What you should do: Provide a brief overview of your project. Include the goals of your research proposal and clearly specify the research questions you want to address. Explain the hypotheses you want to test. How to Write a Research Proposal First, a research proposal is sent to the guide or mentor for approval. Only after their approval can you proceed with the research. No matter what your reasons are for drafting a research proposal, the format remains the same. The researcher portrays how and why the research topic is relevant to the field. They explain the research gap and the ... Q: How do I write the background to my research proposal? Note that these are merely pointers; a detailed literature search might help you arrive at sharper points for pursuit. Note also that you will need to write a background in your final paper. So, that in the proposal needs to be shorter (crisper). The proposal is more to convey to your professor/supervisor how much you know about research in ... What Are The Sections Of A Research Proposal? The introduction is the main point of the research proposal. It introduces the audience to the story by explaining the background and reasons behind your research. NSF Small Business Innovation Research / Small Business Technology Introduction to the Program. ... See PAPPG Chapter II.D.2 for guidance on the required sections of a full research proposal submitted to NSF. Please note that the proposal preparation instructions provided in this program solicitation may deviate from the PAPPG instructions. ... If the proposal does contain proprietary information identify the ... Arabidopsis PROTODERMAL FACTOR2 binds ... Introduction Interactions between proteins and lipids are dynamic in living organisms, yet the full extent and biological significance of such interactions is underexplored, especially in plants. In Arabidopsis thaliana (hereafter Arabidopsis ), 16 homeodomain leucine zipper transcription factors of the class IV family (HD-Zip IV TFs) contain a ... SEC.gov The Securities and Exchange Commission today adopted rules requiring registrants to disclose material cybersecurity incidents they experience and to disclose on an annual basis material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy, and governance. Improving medication adherence among persons with cardiovascular Background Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of mortality worldwide, and at present, India has the highest burden of acute coronary syndrome and ST-elevation myocardial infarction (MI). A key reason for poor outcomes is non-adherence to medication. Methods The intervention is a 2 × 2 factorial design trial applying two interventions individually and in combination with 1:1 ... assignment essay homework paper phd report resume review speech