I have reproduced below my comments to the National Science Board and National Science Foundation on the merit review process.
I am writing this e-mail to comment on
First, my research credentials are summarized at
I have had quite negative experiences with NSF respect to climate proposals in recent years. I have posted several weblog discussions on my experience as summarized in
Based on my experience, I have concluded that the review process lacks sufficient accountability. To remedy this deficiency, I have the following recommendations
-Guarantee that the review process be completed within 6 months [my most recent land use and climate proposal was not even sent out for review until 10 months after its receipt!).
-Retain all e-mail communications indefinitely (NSF staff can routinely delete e-mails, such that there is no record to check their accountability).
-Require external independent assessments, by a subset of scientists who are outside of the NSF, of the reviews and manager decisions, including names of referees. This review should be on all accepted and rejected proposals.
Information on my experiences with NSF climate research are provided in these weblog posts
My Experiences With A Lack Of Proper Diligence And Bias In The NSF Review Process For Climate Proposals
Is The NSF Funding Untestable Climate Predictions . My Comments On A $6 Million Grant To Fund A Center For Robust Decision.Making On Climate And Energy Policy.
The National Science Foundation Funds Multi-Decadal Climate Predictions Without An Ability To Verify Their Skill
NSF Decision On Our Request For Reconsideration Of A Rejected NSF Proposal On The Role Of Land Use Change In The Climate System
Is The NSF Funding Process Working Correctly?
I would be glad to elaborate further on the lack of diligence and bias by the NSF review process with respect to climate research.
Roger A. Pielke Sr.