Letter from NSF Program Manager
To all,
Pease allow me to provide some feed back from "the other side". As a former NSF program officer, it was my responsibility to make sure the proposals submitted met the guidelines in the GPG. I never enjoyed calling or emailing a PI to tell him/her that their proposal was not accepted for review because of font size or line spacing, but you would be amazed how many PIs tried to bend those rules.
The latest version of the GPG (dated April 2007, to be effective June 1 2007) states (green color and underline mine):
"The guidelines specified above establish the minimum type size requirements; however, PIs are advised that readability is of paramount importance and should take precedence in selection of an appropriate font for use in the proposal. Small type size makes it difficult for reviewers to read the proposal; consequently, the use of small type not in compliance with the above guidelines may be grounds for NSF to return the proposal without review. Adherence to type size and line spacing requirements also is necessary to ensure that no proposer will have an unfair advantage, by using smaller type or line spacing to provide more text in the proposal."
The message to the PI is that they should do *everything* and *anything* they can to make the proposal easy for the reviewer to read. Think about it: if you had to read 10 to 20 proposals in a short amount of time (as many reviewers on panels are asked to do), which ones would you unconscientiously give extra points to? The ones that were easiest to read, of course. Ultimately it is in the PI's best interest to make the proposal as easy to read as possible.
Thus, I would highly recommend that the fonts in tables and figures be made large enough to be easily read by the reviewer, whether it says so in the GPG or not.
My last recommendation would be to make sure you and the PI read the GPG each year and pay special attention to any changes. I once had a PI, who had been funded by NSF for twenty years, have his renewal proposal declined for funding because there had been some changes in the GPG in the review criteria that he had not addressed in his proposal. I got an outraged phone call from this person, as you can imagine. But when I asked him how long it had been since he had read the GPG, he admitted that it had been many years, and he admitted he had not been aware of the changes in the GPG. The PI submitted a revised proposal which addressed the changed review criteria for the next target date, and was funded.
Lise Schioler
Former Program Officer
Division of Materials Science
NSF