MAPP PI Survey

OMB Control Number 0690-0030
Expiration Date: 07/31/2023

A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be
subject to a penalty for failure to comply with an information collection subject to the requirements of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 unless the information collection has a currently valid OMB Control Number. The approved
OMB Control Number for this information collection is 0690-0030. Without this approval, we could not conduct this
survey. Public reporting for this information collection is estimated to be approximately 12 minutes per response,
including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing the information collection. All responses to this information collection are
voluntary. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this information collection,
including suggestions for reducing this burden to the NOAA Climate Program Office, Daniel.Barrie@noaa.gov.

MAPP PI survey
The purpose of the survey is to (1) gain insights into researcher perspectives on the
efficiency of the MAPP grant application processes and its merits, limitations, and
challenges; (2) explore researcher responses to some ideas of improving MAPP award
processes and distribution.
* Required

What stage are you in your career? (Years since received PhD degree) *

Choose

With what type of entity are you affiliated? *
NOAA Federal Employee
NOAA Affiliate Employee
Other Federal Institution
Academic
International
Other:

Within which OPM-designated metropolitan locality is your institution
located?
Request
edit access
Sorted alphabetically by region first, then state

Choose

How much of your total current research funding is from your MAPP award(s)? *

Choose
This is a required question

How many awards have you received from MAPP in your career? *

Choose

How many and what type of full- and part-time researchers are involved in your
typical MAPP-funded project? *
0

1/4

1/2

3/4

1

2

3

undergraduate
students
graduate
students
post-doc
researchers
professors or
research
associates
other staff

Request edit access

Next
Never submit passwords through Google Forms.
This form was created inside of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Report Abuse

 Forms

Request edit access

MAPP PI survey
* Required

Application Experience

What motivated you to apply to a CPO/MAPP solicitation? *
Please rank from least important = 1 to most important = 5

1 (least
important)

2

3

4

5 (most
important)

Generally
secure more
research
funding
Interest in
MAPP
research
topic
Desire to
work on
NOAArelevant
issues
Pursue
research
relevant to
expertise
Support postdoc or
student

How many working hours did it take to prepare and submit your most recent
proposal to MAPP including all aspects of the proposal writing and submission
process? *
Your answer

For a typical MAPP-sized award of $510K over a three-year period, the time it
takes you to develop and submit a proposal is__ given the size/duration of the
award: *
1
too short

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10
too long

To what extent do you feel the following categorical factors influence
CPO/MAPP’s peer review process, impacting your proposal’s evaluation? *
1 (Weakly
Influence)
researcher
career stage
researcher
gender
researcher
race
institution
type
institution
location
amount of
funding
requested
quality of
proposed
science
qualifications
of applicants
relevance to
agency
relevance to
program
relevance to
solicitation

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements about the
review process *
Strongly
Agree
The review panel
feedback I
received was
constructive and
informative
I incorporated
the panel review
comments into
my research over
the course of the
project
I used the panel
review summary
to improve my
future proposal
submissions to
CPO/MAPP
I have a clear
understanding of
the grant review
process
Grant peer review
is the best
method to
allocate research
funding
Grant peer review
treats junior
researchers
objectively
Grant peer review
encourages
innovative or
risky research

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Other methods,
besides grant
peer review, are
needed to
allocate research
funding
A double blind
peer review
processes
(where identity of
the PIs is kept
anonymous to
the reviewers)
would reduce
inherent bias
toward your
proposal in the
CPO/MAPP
review process
MAPP should
use a doubleblind review
process
MAPP should
include
mail/external
reviewers in
addition to the
panel review
Local economic
factors (e.g.
market salaries,
cost of living,
institutional
costs) have a
significant
impact on the
costcompetitiveness
my proposal
Proposal budget
limits should be
proportional to
the local cost of

living, as
opposed to a
single fixed
ceiling
everywhere
The Research
Performance
Progress Report
allows me to
effectively
communicate
project progress

What percentage of your submitted MAPP proposals would you estimate are
ultimately funded? *
0-20%
20-40%
40-60%
60-80%
80-100%

Thinking about your most recent proposal submitted to MAPP, what would be
the optimal budget limit for your proposed work to reach the scientific
objectives related to the competition? *
Keep in mind that larger individual grants would cause lower proposal success rates since program funds
are limited.

Choose

Do you have any comments on the current process to submit proposals, things
we might consider to make the process simpler and less arduous, suggestions on
factors to consider when considering proposal budget caps, or any other
comments regarding your application experience?

Your answer

Back

Next

Never submit passwords through Google Forms.
This form was created inside of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Report Abuse

 Forms

MAPP PI survey
* Required

Alternative funding models
This section explores alternative options to disburse funding efficiently and effectively.
In some theoretical cases, successful proposals could receive seed as opposed to full funding depending
on results from the panel review. Seed funding may provide start-up funds to early career researchers
learning how to submit successful proposals, target meritorious tasks in otherwise non-meritorious
projects enhancing project success, and provide at least some compensation for the submission of a
proposal instead of a limited all-or-nothing proposition as exists currently. Implementing a seed funding
option would necessitate a reduction in the success rate of fully-funded proposals since program funds
are limited.
Currently, MAPP receives 30-40 proposals per competition and funds proposals at or near their requested
amount (depending on panel comments and typically maximum $170K per year) at a 1/4-1/3 success rate.

What would be an optimal minimum amount of seed funding to usefully support
a discrete task from a proposal (use your best estimation of a typical proposal
task)? *

Choose

Which of the following funding models would be most beneficial to the broad
research community? *
This hypothetical assumes a typical competition with 40 submitted proposals at $170k/year each, and 13
successful proposals. Seed funding options use $70k/year value. Note that the hybrid full/seed funding
models would never fund proposals or tasks deemed deficient in the panel review.

Choose

Please indicate your position for the following statements on the new seeds
funding model. *
Strongly
Agree
The seed fund
approach
would reduce
my overall time
spent
submitting
proposals by
distributing
funds more
broadly
Seed funds
would help my
research and
career
development
The availability
of seed awards
with an overall
higher success
funding rate
would motivate
me to submit
more proposals
to MAPP
I would be
comfortable
with the review
panel
identifying
components of

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

my proposal to
receive with
seed funding
Elements of my
proposals can
typically be
discretely
divided into
components
for partial
funding

If you received seed instead of full funding, what would you use the funding for?
*
Please rank from least likely = 1 to most likely = 5

1 (least likely
application

2

3

4

5 (most likely
application)

PI salary

postdoc
graduate
student
travel

publications

Do you have any thoughts or concerns about this hypothetical seed funding
system which are not covered by the questions above? *
Your answer

Back

Submit

Never submit passwords through Google Forms.
This form was created inside of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Report Abuse

 Forms