FACACLASSIC

Note: An Annual Comprehensive Review, as required by §7 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, is conducted each year on committee data entered for the previous fiscal year (referred to as the reporting year). The data for the reporting year is not considered verified until this review is complete and the data is moved to history for an agency/department. See the Data From Previous Years section at the bottom of this page for the committee’s historical, verified data.

Details on agency responses to committee recommendations can be found under the Performance Measures section for each committee in the fields “Agency Feedback” and “Agency Feedback Comment.”

NSF - 10747 - Proposal Review Panel for Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences - Agency Authority

GENERAL INFORMATION

Committee Name	Proposal Review Panel for Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences	Agency Name	National Science Foundation
Fiscal Year	2025	Committee Number	10747
Original Establishment Date	10/1/1993	Committee Status	Chartered
Actual Termination Date		Committee URL
Actual Merged Date		Presidential Appointments*	No
New Committee This FY	No	Max Number of Members*	Unlimited
Terminated This FY	No	Designated Fed Officer Position Title*	Division Director, Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences
Merged This FY		Designated Federal Officer Prefix	Dr.
Current Charter Date	6/27/2025	Designated Federal Officer First Name*	Joan
Date Of Renewal Charter	6/27/2027	Designated Federal Officer Middle Name
Projected Termination Date		Designated Federal Officer Last Name*	Sereno
Exempt From Renewal*	No	Designated Federal Officer Suffix
Specific Termination Authority		Designated Federal Officer Phone*	(703) 292-8847
Establishment Authority*	Agency Authority	Designated Federal Officer Fax*	(703) 292-9068
Specific Establishment Authority*	ADM IV-100	Designated Federal Officer Email*	jsereno@nsf.gov
Effective Date Of Authority*	10/1/1993
Exempt From EO 13875 Discretionary Cmte	Not Applicable
Committee Type*	Continuing
Presidential*	No
Committee Function*	Grant Review Committee

RECOMMENDATION/JUSTIFICATIONS

Agency Recommendation*	Continue
Legislation to Terminate Required	No
Legislation Status	Not Applicable
How does cmte accomplish its purpose?*	During fiscal year 2024, the Panel reviewed and evaluated about 1658 proposals which include dissertation research proposals. The scope and objectives of the committee is to advise the National Science Foundation (NSF) on the merit of proposals requesting financial support of research and research-related activities. The panel will review proposals submitted to NSF under the review of the Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences (BCS). The duties and responsibilities are to review and evaluate proposals, which may include site visits, and provide written recommendations on proposals as part of the selection process for awards.
How is membership balanced?*	The membership of the Advisory committee consists of men and women throughout the United States who demonstrate expertise in the major subfields of the following disciplines and topical areas: biological anthropology, archaeology and archaeometry, cultural anthropology, geography and other spatial sciences, social psychology, cognitive and perceptual psychology, developmental and learning sciences, cognitive neuroscience, linguistics and the documentation of endangered languages.
How frequent & relevant are cmte mtgs?*	These meetings provide an opportunity for review and comment on proposals submitted to standing programs as well as to cross-disciplinary activities such as Strengthening American Infrastructure (SAI) and Major Research Instrumentation (MRI). The review panels consider and discuss individual proposals, and assess them for their intellectual merit and broader impacts in accordance with general NSF criteria as well as criteria specific to the area of science. The panels advise NSF on the importance and transformative potential of the individual proposals as well as new research opportunities in order to help NSF accomplish its mission of advancing the behavioral and cognitive sciences. Relevance and timeliness of the considerations are achieved by intense discussions among experts in the appropriate area of science and rotation of these experts over time.
Why advice can't be obtained elsewhere?*	This committee serves a critical aspect to the merit review process by providing thorough, efficient and insightful review to research proposals. This advice from practicing scientists give a fair peer evaluation of proposals and offer effective scientific long-range planning. The breadth of knowledge of this committee surpasses that of the NSF staff. The substance of the peer review system is that those scientists most knowledgeable about a field judge the worthiness and importance of a proposal in that area. This requires the Division to consult with many members of the scientific community to ensure fair and reasonable evaluation of a proposal.
Why close or partially close meetings?	These meetings are closed because the proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.
Recommendation Remarks	N/A

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Outcome Improvement To Health Or Safety*	No	Action Reorganize Priorities*	No
Outcome Trust In Government	No	Action Reallocate Resources	No
Outcome Major Policy Changes	No	Action Issued New Regulations	No
Outcome Advance In Scientific Research	Yes	Action Proposed Legislation	No
Outcome Effective Grant Making	Yes	Action Approved Grants Or Other Payments	Yes
Outcome Improved Service Delivery	No	Action Other	No
Outcome Increased Customer Satisfaction	No	Action Comment	N/A
Outcome Implement Laws/Reg Requirements	No	Grants Review*	Yes
Outcome Other	No	Number Of Grants Reviewed	1,658
Outcome Comment	NA	Number Of Grants Recommended	317
Cost Savings*	Unable to Determine	Dollar Value Of Grants Recommended	$102,092,075.00
Cost Savings Comment	The use of panelists to review proposals for the Agency is an invaluable asset. The cost of obtaining the expertise, insight, and information received by the Division using alternative methods, such as hiring the expertise as full or part-time employees, would be extremely high.	Grants Review Comment	The panelists/advisory committee members provided information on the merit of the proposal, which includes an overall rating.The number of proposals above includes pre-proposals submitted to NSF for review. The pre-proposals are not included in the number of “grants recommend” or “dollar value of grants” recommended for approval.
Number Of Recommendations*	1,658	Access Contact Designated Fed. Officer*	Yes
Number Of Recommendations Comment	This is an ongoing committee. Therefore, the number of recommendations produced by the committee is for the fiscal year.	Access Agency Website	No
% of Recs Fully Implemented*	100.00%	Access Committee Website	No
% of Recs Fully Implemented Comment	The word “implement” is not applicable to grant review panels. All recommendations are “considered” by the agency.	Access GSA FACA Website	No
% of Recs Partially Implemented*	0.00%	Access Publications	No
% of Recs Partially Implemented Comment	Not applicable. Please see answer directly above.	Access Other	No
Agency Feedback*	Yes	Access Comment	N/A
Agency Feedback Comment*	Although panelists may not receive direct feedback, each committee member may use the NSF FastLane, a public web-based program, which provides information on awards made the agency to determine the outcome of proposals reviewed by the panel.	Narrative Description*	The NSF mission is set out in the NSF Act of 1950 authorizes and directs the Agency to initiate and support: basic scientific research and research fundamental to the engineering process; and science and engineering education programs at all levels and in all fields of science and engineering. The involvement of knowledgeable peers from outside the Foundation in the review of proposals is the keystone of NSF’s proposal review system. Their judgments of the extent to which proposals address the merit review criteria are vital for informing NSF staff and influencing funding recommendations.

COSTS

1. Payments to Non-Federal Members*		1. Est Paymnts to Non-Fed Membrs Nxt FY*
2. Payments to Federal Members*		2. Est. Payments to Fed Members Next FY*
3. Payments to Federal Staff*		3. Estimated Payments to Federal Staff*
4. Payments to Consultants*		4. Est. Payments to Consultants Next FY*
5. Travel Reimb. For Non-Federal Membrs*		5. Est Travel Reimb Non-Fed Membr nxtFY*
6. Travel Reimb. For Federal Members*		6. Est Travel Reimb For Fed Members*
7. Travel Reimb. For Federal Staff*		7. Est. Travel Reimb to Fed Staf Nxt FY*
8. Travel Reimb. For Consultants*		8. Est Travel Reimb to Consltnts Nxt FY*
10. Other Costs		10. Est. Other Costs Next FY*
11. Total Costs	$0.00	11. Est. Total Next FY*	$0.00
Date Cost Last Modified	2/19/2025 11:03 AM	Est. Fed Staff Support Next FY*
Federal Staff Support (FTE)*		Est Cost Remarks
Cost Remarks

Interest Areas

Category Area Research Basic Research

Custom Links

Committee Level Reports