The “ROSES” (Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Sciences) initiative is considered one of the most important research programs offered by the Science Directorate at NASA, aimed at funding research that enhances our understanding of space and Earth sciences. In this article, we will review the main updates for the ROSES initiative in 2024, compared to the changes that have occurred in past years. We will highlight the most prominent changes, including the use of artificial intelligence tools in proposal preparation, double-blind proposal review techniques, and new inclusivity plan requirements. Understanding these developments is not only important for researchers and proposers but also contributes to enhancing competitiveness and the quality of research under NASA’s supervision. Keep reading to find out how to benefit from these updates in your upcoming research proposals.
Changes in ROSES 2024
Many scientific research efforts are directed towards NASA’s monitoring and study website, specifically on the ROSES 2024 page. Researchers and academics should pay attention to the fundamental changes that have been made to allow for more effective and accurate proposal submissions and contests. One of the biggest changes is the allowance for the use of generative artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT in preparing proposals or required reports. However, NASA emphasizes the importance of acknowledging any content not produced by the proposing team. This coincides with changes in practices that should be detailed in submissions, which include annual progress reports requiring a lot of transparency and adherence to best practices that enhance scientific accuracy.
Double-Blind Review
The previous barriers to academic publishing have been reinforced through the implementation of new measures such as Double-Blind Proposal Review (DAPR). This review will be increasingly applied across more than 30 program elements in ROSES-2024. Enhancing transparency and objectivity in proposal evaluations requires proposing teams to prepare their materials according to specific guidelines on how to format materials to consider this review. For example, a clear structure and justified presentation for each part of the proposed project are required, contributing to increased confidence in the entire scientific process.
Inclusion Plans and Participation Requirements
Some ROSES-2024 programs require the submission of an inclusion plan. This criterion is important to ensure diverse participation from all segments of the scientific community, including individuals from diverse backgrounds. This reinforces ongoing efforts to build an inclusive research community. Although these plans will not directly impact rankings or recommendations, they represent a step towards improving participation and diversifying scientific efforts that contribute to research development.
Challenges Related to Foreign Partnerships
NASA continues to exercise caution regarding partnerships with organizations or individuals from countries designated as national security risks. The increasing complexity of these processes requires proposing teams to be more prepared to provide biological and administrative information in the event of potential international collaboration. These restrictions serve officially to ensure that research and studies conducted under U.S. auspices are done within a secure framework. Such issues are critical to prevent the leakage of sensitive information.
Proposal and Progress Report Deadlines
Proposers must adhere to deadlines for submitting proposals and progress reports. To this end, NASA has advanced the models and information related to complex submissions, enabling researchers to gain a better understanding of all requirements. The importance of these aspects lies in improving the chances of proposal success, thereby expediting the analysis and evaluation process, ensuring precise adherence to specified dates.
Data Management and Open Science Techniques
ROSES-2024 programs also re-emphasize data management and open science. There is a clear call for proposers to use specific models to ensure data transparency and management practices. Researchers are encouraged to intensify efforts to make research data publicly available, contributing to fostering a spirit of collaboration and opening new avenues for scientific research.
Investments
NASA of the Future
Future investment plans are evident through clear changes in the ROSES program elements, including the inclusion of new elements such as emission monitoring and assessment and new technology applications. This signals the agency’s readiness to support projects that serve research related to climate change and space. It is essential to pay attention to these new trends to guide research efforts toward the most pressing and sensitive topics.
Conclusion of Ideas and Future Trends
The ongoing interest from space agencies in updating policies and technologies – ranging from the use of artificial intelligence in studies to the increasing need for integration and partnership with marginalized communities. The ROSES-2024 plan is a step in the right direction towards creating a fair and effective research environment, allowing scientists from all backgrounds to work together to achieve the future visions that humanity aspires to. The shift in the way proposals are examined suggests that expectations for lowering barriers and increasing transparency will continue to positively guide research at both national and international levels.
Changes in Recent Scientific Research Programs
The NASA space agency is making significant adjustments to its scientific research programs, reflecting the increasing importance of developing planetary sciences, astronomy, and biological and physical sciences. In this context, information related to most programs has been integrated into Appendix (C) of Section C.1 concerning the overview of the planetary science research program. It is important for applicants to read this section thoroughly to ensure that all necessary information is available for compliance when submitting their proposals. In Appendix (D) related to astronomy, new program elements may be introduced this year, such as D.18 the Euclid General Investigation Program, and D.19 the Habitable Observatory System Technologies. These elements are linked to essential technologies for large telescopes, with specific deadlines for proposal submissions, highlighting the importance of keeping up with deadlines and updates.
Additionally, Appendix (E) refers to biological and physical sciences, where significant changes resulted from the decadal survey published in the summer of 2023. NASA plans to review proposals using a new two-part evaluation process for proposals. While new programs have been introduced to highlight research in biological sciences, research in animals and plants will be separated as independent elements, reflecting the increasing focus on precise disciplines in this field.
In Appendix (F), which pertains to interdisciplinary studies, a new program element has been introduced regarding the socio-economic and political analysis for lunar surface sustainability, reflecting NASA’s interest in the political and social challenges related to lunar exploration. This modern approach emphasizes the necessity of integrating diverse knowledge to develop tangible strategies in the field of sustainability for future missions. By incorporating these elements, NASA aims to support innovative scientific research and facilitate collaboration among various research teams.
Monitoring Changes in ROSES
The NASA space agency manages about 100 active program elements each year, with many starting as drafts or undefined spatial elements before their final texts and deadlines become available later in the year. This constant change adds new challenges for applicants, as unexpected changes or amendments can lead to confusion regarding current programs.
To avoid any misunderstandings, proposers are encouraged to subscribe to the mailing lists of the Directorate of Science. By reviewing the list of deadline updates using Google Calendar, applicants can maintain full awareness of updated deadlines. Following the blog provided by NASA offers regular updates on new program elements and any modifications that occur.
They must
Applicants should be cautious in reviewing the documents related to their proposals. For instance, dealing with ROSES-2024 documents requires awareness that complete proposals are not impossible until after the deadlines for ROSES-2023 have passed. This overlap between different years can cause some confusion for researchers and emphasizes the importance of accuracy in tracking timelines and specified dates. Therefore, everyone should ensure they review the timelines and the correct references before submitting any proposal.
Following Instructions and Operational Guidelines
Proposals may face some challenges due to a lack of alignment between the operational guidelines and ROSES. However, the document emphasizes that ROSES preference will be applicable in case of any inconsistencies. This is crucial to ensure that proposers can handle the instructions correctly, and they should always follow the specified instructions in the program elements. If there is any significance to understanding the details of forms and processes, following the specified guidelines is fundamental to achieving the desired results.
When encountering situations that require support letters for a resource or facility, the document considers exceptions for resources that are not under direct control. For example, if the proposal relies on an expensive tool located in another lab, it requires a support letter indicating access to the resource. Among the basic steps that can help proposers here is verifying their eligibility for the required resources before submitting the application.
Furthermore, proposal submission is divided into two processes: submitting a Step-1 proposal, which should be uploaded as an institution in the NSPIRES system. Some program elements require submission of a Step-1 proposal before the winner is able to submit a complete Step-2 proposal. This process is aimed at enhancing specialization and accuracy in sharing information and data. Although this process may be demanding, it ultimately ensures the submission of higher quality proposals that can contribute more significantly to the program plans.
Proposal Submission Process in ROSES
The proposal submission process within the ROSES (Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Science) program is conducted in two phases, and it is one of the more common processes. The first phase involves submitting an initial proposal known as “Step-1,” which is evaluated based on a set of criteria and provides feedback to proposers. Proposals can be encouraged or discouraged at this stage, but this does not prevent proposers from advancing to the second phase, known as “Step-2.” This system allows for greater flexibility as proposers can use the feedback received to revise their proposals and improve their quality.
In most cases, the proposal in the first phase is considered non-binding, meaning that even if the proposal is discouraged, the opportunity to progress to the second phase is still available. However, there are some rare cases where proposals are not accepted if they do not meet the program standards or funding policies. For instance, if there are concerns related to compliance or policies, the proposal may be rejected in the first phase. It has been noted that proposals receiving negative responses in the first phase typically have lower chances of acceptance during the second phase. For example, in some previous solicitations (such as H-GI in ROSES-2013 and HSR in ROSES-2014), none of the proposals that were discouraged in the first phase were accepted in the second phase.
It is worth noting that the outcomes of the first phase do not always accurately reflect the fate of the proposal in the second phase, as the reasons for non-success can vary. For example, the proposal may need to be rephrased, the timing may not be right, or even again, the space provided in the first proposal may be insufficient to comprehensively present the idea. More importantly, proposers can engage with the feedback received and resubmit their proposals in new ways that reflect developments in the idea or research.
Importance
Budget Management and How to Handle It
Budget management is vital in research projects, especially under programs like ROSES. The program often represents hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants, so managing that money carefully is essential to ensure the accomplishment of research objectives. Certainly, delays in spending from year to year can harm the project’s reputation and may also affect the delivery of future budgets. Organizations work to ensure that funds are allocated and used effectively to maintain progress and comply with the requirements of the funding agency.
When researchers receive funding for their research, they have a strong incentive to ensure that all the money they received has been spent by the end of the specified period. Failure to spend funds may negatively impact the investigators’ track record, which could lead to delays in future funding. If there is a slowdown in budget spending, the program officer may prompt the researcher to be vigilant about using the funds. In other words, subsequent years may be postponed based on the amount of money already spent in a previous year.
Researchers should communicate effectively with program officers, especially if they believe that under-spending has been misinterpreted. Thus, writing to the officer to explain the situation and request an extension without cost is a smart step to take in any such case. Commissioners can also support smart proposals to avoid wasting funds or incurring unnecessary delays.
Ultimately, working on a clear and accurate budget is a crucial part of the success of any research project, so researchers should reinforce effective and precise budget management strategies to ensure that past mistakes are not repeated.
Writing and Formatting Requirements for Presentations
Proper formatting of presentations is an integral part of the proposal submission process under the ROSES program. Research documents require researchers to adhere to strict standards that include text formatting and dimensions where the number of characters allowed per horizontal inch should not be exceeded. Texts in tables and figures must comply with these rules, ensuring that headings and texts adhere to specific dimensions to help improve the clarity of reading and understanding the content.
These requirements can make it easier for proposers to provide information from other sources without the need to reproduce tables and data. However, at the same time, the recommended texts should not be overlooked, as confusion in formatting or information quantity may negatively affect the review of the proposal. Researchers should place the necessary texts in the overall presentation and consider the review points that comply with the standards of the funding agency. While these rules may be annoying at times, adherence to them reflects the professionalism and quality of the proposal.
Furthermore, researchers sometimes feel concerned about using smaller fonts in headings or texts within tables, which is unacceptable. The title and main text should conform to the applicable rules that mandate not exceeding 15 characters per horizontal inch, ensuring that the reader can comfortably read the content without complications.
With the emphasis on the need for final preparation of presentations, researchers should also be conscious of other needs such as budget presentation, and formatting tables is considered an effective way to present data in an organized manner that facilitates access. Ultimately, good preparation and compliance with the specified requirements for the research submissions are recommended to achieve success in scientific projects.
The Role of “Science PI” in Scientific Projects
The “Science PI” designation in the NASA NSPIRES electronic publishing system represents a vital aspect that embodies the organizational structure of research within the agency. This term is based on assigning a specific person the responsibility of directing the proposed scientific work within the project. This role is an alternative to traditional roles and is typically used in cases where the institution may not allow the researcher to take on the position of project manager, as is the case with postdoctoral fellows or non-tenured scientists. In other words, when an individual is appointed the role of “Co-I/Science PI,” they significantly influence the direction of the research work and define its core strategies.
Exemplifying
The importance of this role is clear in understanding how NASA handles research proposals. When a proposal is submitted by a U.S. institution that includes an individual designated as “Co-I/Science PI,” the agency recognizes that this person is responsible for developing and achieving the scientific goals of the project. The institution must understand the implications of granting this role, as awards are made to institutions rather than individuals. When the individual designated as “Co-I/Science PI” moves on, the institution often loses a research grant that resulted from a proposal submitted by this person, which usually implies that some funding may remain to support the contributions of other collaborators.
It is worth noting that any additional requirements or advantages granted to the Principal Investigator, such as extra pages for the CV, must also be afforded to the individual designated in the “Co-I/Science PI” role. This means that evaluation and review practices must take this role and the contributions of the researcher within the project’s scope into account.
How to apply for a no-cost extension
If you need more time to finish your funded project, you can apply for a no-cost extension (NCE). The request must be submitted on the NASA NSSC website at least 11 days before the grant expiration date and should ideally be done a few weeks or a month in advance. The first request for an extension does not require approval from the technical officer, but subsequent requests do require that approval to ensure all aspects of the required protocol are covered.
When undertaking this procedure, the grant number should be included in the subject when sending any inquiries via email, which facilitates tracking and follow-up. If you are working at a NASA center, your awards do not go through the NSSC; instead, you should communicate directly with the technical officer regarding fund reallocations if necessary.
To address the topic of the extension, any specific requirements or conditions relating to your institution must be considered. For instance, if you are at a government lab that is not part of NASA, it may require further review based on the nature of the government agreement. Institutions should handle this matter carefully to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Submitting the annual report and related forecasts
The annual report is a fundamental part of the requirements imposed on scientists receiving grants from NASA. A notification is sent via email from the NSSC approximately two months before the annual report due date, which must be sent to the NSSC and then to the program officer. This report includes a summary of the research implementation and the goals achieved compared to what was previously proposed, reflecting the researchers’ ability to adhere to the specified objectives.
When preparing the report, it should include a document indicating that it is an annual report, the grant title, the principal investigator’s name, the period covered by the report, and other key information such as the reference number and grant number. It is essential for the report to review any changes in the organizational structure or research direction, as well as to mention any publications or products documented such as scientific papers or patents, reflecting the team’s accomplishments.
This type of report is not just an official document but also serves as a marketing tool for researchers, allowing them to showcase what has been achieved to scientific communities and funders. It is also important in the context of opening up opportunities for securing new funding in the future. Therefore, scientists should focus on the quality of the report and its content, presenting accomplishments in a way that highlights creativity and innovation in their field.
Dealing with final reports and how to submit them
Upon completing the project, it is necessary to prepare final reports that summarize the results and outcomes achieved. The final report should be sent to the program office and to the email address specified by NASA. This phase is critical as it requires presenting a comprehensive summary of the research conducted under the grant, providing detailed information about implementation strategies and the degree of goal achievement.
The reports
The final reports are not confined to longitudinal aspects or narrow formats, giving researchers the freedom to distribute information according to their necessities. These reports should include a comprehensive review of the project’s performance throughout the grant period, which serves as an opportunity to highlight achievements and document significant milestones. Information from previous research phases should be presented, including what has been mentioned in previous progress reports, and then meaningful comparisons should be drawn.
Moreover, obtaining information from other projects and collaborating with colleagues is an effective means to enhance the quality of the final report. Novel methods and potential trends that could assist in future research may be included. This inclusivity in information helps develop a broader understanding of the general research context and adds value that demonstrates the overall impact of the partnership project. Motivational messages and notes aimed at improving workflow serve as an important reference for lessons learned that can be emulated in future projects.
Federal Grants and Research Contracts
In the world of scientific research and innovation, federal grants are a vital tool to support projects and research. Within this framework, federal grants such as those provided by agencies like NASA emerge as a primary means of funding. The importance of these grants lies in their provision of the necessary financial resources for researchers to develop their ideas and turn them into tangible reality. These grants typically offer unconditional support to cover direct and indirect costs associated with research projects. However, researchers should be aware that there are strict criteria regarding how these funds can be used, as federal grant regulations usually do not allow for profit. In some cases, administrative fees may be considered allowable costs, highlighting the importance of understanding the details of the administrative regulations and allowable costs in these grants.
Dealing with federal grants represents a challenge for many successful individuals, but there are specific steps researchers can follow to ensure their proposals comply with necessary standards. For instance, researchers should present a detailed plan on how to manage the budget and clearly and transparently outline all costs associated with the project. This plan is submitted during the application process through platforms such as Grants.gov, which provides a convenient interface for researchers to submit their proposals. This platform serves as a useful hub for all information related to grants, making the process more accessible and clear.
Requirements for Proposal Submission via Grants.gov
Submitting proposals through Grants.gov requires attention to specific details to ensure the proposal’s acceptance. First, before the researcher submits their proposal, it is usually recommended to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) via NSPIRES, which is not required by Grants.gov. This procedure helps gauge the level of interest in the proposals and assists committees in better planning for the review of proposals.
Furthermore, each platform comes with its own set of requirements. For example, in NSPIRES, proposals must consider a maximum of 4000 characters for the abstract, while Grants.gov allows for longer information that may not be properly included when converted to NSPIRES. These constraints make it essential for researchers to be cautious in crafting their proposals and to avoid superfluous or unnecessary information.
It is also worth noting the importance of ensuring that all team members have completed their registration and that their participation has been confirmed electronically. This step supports smooth coordination among team members and helps manage any potential conflicts of interest. Additionally, researchers must ensure that all necessary documents are submitted, which include references, plans related to team members, and the efforts required whether related to the budget or not.
Details
The Budget in Research Proposals
The budget is a vital part of any scientific research proposal, and providing accurate details about the budget is essential. Often, researchers are asked to provide additional details when officials at the National Science Office (NSSC) believe it is necessary. In this context, the importance of providing clear information on how costs are determined, such as publication costs or travel expenses, emerges, as researchers should include any references or sites that were the basis for their financial estimates. This is part of the “Basis for Estimate,” and showcases the accuracy of financial planning in the project.
Although detailed estimates may seem burdensome, they are an essential part of the submission process. By providing accurate figures and relying on clear methodologies, researchers can reduce the likelihood of request scrutiny and waiting for more details. Experienced researchers know that delving into specifics such as estimating travel costs at a per diem rate or airfare helps facilitate the acceptance of proposals and shows their commitment to the project. For example, researchers may be expected to provide details about publication costs that could include specific fees based on the number of figures or tables presented.
The Role of Officials in Reviewing Proposals
When submitting proposals, officials in committees play an important role in reviewing the quality and efficiency of the submitted proposals. Researchers must be prepared to be asked by officials for more information or clarifications regarding certain aspects of their proposals. Because these officials are considered experts in their field, their requests are often driven by expectations of federal budget management and securing public funds. In this context, open interaction between researchers and officials helps enhance their understanding of the project’s needs and requirements.
Effective review is an important part of the process. By adhering to feedback, researchers can improve their proposals and achieve a stronger opportunity for funding. In fact, these interactions serve as an opportunity for learning, helping researchers to create clearer and more detailed proposals in the future. Utilizing feedback to build better proposals may lead to improved research quality and enhance the effective use of public funds.
Travel Policies and Financial Support in NASA Grants
Travel policies and financial support are a fundamental part of managing NASA grants, aimed at organizing activities and ensuring research objectives are achieved efficiently. Travel to countries like Canada and Mexico requires specific approval, highlighting the importance of understanding the applicable rules. Policies also state that civilian NASA employees cannot take more leave days than the days spent traveling for work, a rule that does not apply to researchers receiving NASA grants. This illustrates the significant differences between supported research purposes and administrative work constraints, affecting how researchers manage their time and resources.
Moreover, researchers concerned with grants can request a no-cost extension of up to 12 months, reflecting NASA’s commitment to providing a flexible work environment that supports work-life balance. NASA facilitates the process of submitting these requests, giving researchers the opportunity to address significant personal circumstances that may require their absence from work. These policies enhance the potential for employees to take on multiple roles during their time at NASA.
Additionally, space agency priorities, such as NASA’s, regarding travel are based on the need to ensure that research programs achieve their objectives within specified timelines. Researchers must be aware of these policies and prepare for continuous communication with program officials to ensure that their research is not subjected to delays or disruptions.
Holidays
For Family and Medical Reasons
NASA emphasizes the importance of prioritizing researchers’ work-life balance, which is reflected in the policy on family and medical leave. NASA provides researchers with flexibility in managing their time by enabling them to request leave for various reasons, such as caring for family or dealing with health issues, without the need to disclose details. This encourages a more supportive and flexible work environment, helping to reduce the psychological stress on researchers.
These policies contribute to the overall productivity of employees in the long term, allowing them to avoid burnout and provide time to restore their life balance. Granted leave may include maternity or paternity leave, reflecting NASA’s commitment to achieving comprehensive support for its employees. These aspects contribute to building an organizational culture that enhances employee satisfaction and supports innovation and creativity in research work.
Finding the right approach to time management is important in the academic context, as unplanned leave can affect project progress. Therefore, it has become essential to have clear mechanisms that allow researchers to communicate effectively with program officials and manage their projects according to their personal needs.
Dealing with Proposals Involving Scientists from NASA Centers
When it comes to handling proposals involving scientists from NASA centers, there must be a clear understanding of the requirements and constraints associated with directed funding. First, civil employees must verify whether they are receiving sufficient financial support to participate in the project and engage with the relevant program officers for necessary guidance. This reflects the importance of being aware of regulatory rules in managing grant proposals.
Additionally, participation in new proposals can lead to complications concerning the existing work schedule. Therefore, it is essential for researchers to understand how their engagement in a new project affects their current commitments, as well as how to manage the human resources available to them at work. Researchers who submit new proposals must have a high level of understanding with their teams and departments to ensure that there is no conflict of work.
Such processes require absolute transparency in communication, as researchers should clarify in their proposals their current funding status and whether there are any potential overlaps. While these procedures help strengthen collaboration among scientists and provide an efficient work environment, the need for guidance and compliance with regulatory rules indicates that success lies not only in thinking and innovation but also in good management of relationships and communication.
Conditions Related to Funding and Resources
Computer resources and infrastructure are significant issues related to funding in NASA grants. Under the new guidelines, researchers can count computer costs as direct costs if those devices are necessary for the overall performance of the grant. This policy indicates aligning research resources with financial goals, thus contributing to enhancing project effectiveness. Researchers need to recognize the importance of utilizing resources correctly, as it requires them to provide convincing justifications for how these devices are used in the context of their respective research.
These requirements necessitate that researchers develop an accurate understanding of the technical needs for their research, which may enhance their chances of successfully obtaining funding. Furthermore, having guidelines issued by the agency itself regarding these matters serves as dual support for all parties involved, as it can help avoid any ambiguity or misunderstanding regarding resource usage.
One essential aspect in this context is the ability to optimize direct costs with other research ministries. This comes in the context of interdisciplinary collaboration that fosters innovation and enhances a holistic approach to thinking that benefits the academic community as a whole. The ability to adapt to the required changes indicates that promoting creative guidance or collective research also requires a higher standard of transparency and effective communication.
Dependence
Pre-approval for Project Changes
When it comes to managing projects funded by an entity like NASA, adhering to established administrative procedures is crucial. Any significant changes to a project, such as budget modifications, require prior approval from the grant officer at the National Space Science Center (NSSC). It is essential to recognize that technical changes, especially those that could lead to the transfer of funds between different categories, require additional steps. The researcher or project manager must contact the technical officer to obtain written approval via email, ensuring a record of the approval is maintained. After that, it is important to follow up with NSSC to ensure that the changes have been implemented correctly.
For example, if there is a need to transfer part of the budget allocated for salaries to purchase specific equipment, the user must first present the idea to the technical officer. Failing to follow these procedures can lead to problems that jeopardize the project and negatively affect the final achievement list. Therefore, it is essential for managers to have a comprehensive understanding of the approval process before taking any action that contributes to the project. Funding entities may also clarify additional requirements, which underscores the importance of carefully reading all grant-related policies, such as those available through official links.
Control of Exported Materials Used in Proposals
Dealing with materials subject to export restrictions is a particularly important context in research projects. According to U.S. laws, space-related parts and equipment are generally classified as “defense articles,” meaning they are subject to strict regulations. It is crucial for researchers to be fully aware of the conditions and procedures governing the management of materials requiring export monitoring, such as ITAR and EAR regulations. NASA emphasizes the necessity of clearly incorporating information related to these materials into proposals, reflecting the level of awareness and compliance expected from researchers.
To support clarity regarding export-controlled materials, certain distinguishing methods should be adopted, such as using a red font or red borders around the relevant information. The main page of the proposal should include a clear warning about export information, assisting the evaluation team in complying with relevant laws and facilitating the approval process. This type of effective submission ensures the safety of information and helps provide suitable working conditions for researchers. Researchers must maintain a high sensitivity to any materials that could be subject to export laws, which is an essential part of professional commitment.
Regulations on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Proposals
With the emergence of generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT, in fields of research and creativity, there is an urgent need to understand the regulations associated with their use in scientific fields specifically. Currently, there are no strict restrictions from SMD at NASA preventing the use of these tools, but there are some guidelines to consider. The team advises that proposal owners are responsible for the accuracy and quality of information, regardless of whether it is derived from human effort or with the assistance of AI tools. Maintaining scientific integrity is of utmost importance at all stages of research.
Researchers who use AI tools must clearly disclose this in the references, reflecting the level of transparency required. This includes providing the concept information used, version number, and date and time of use. Additionally, any contributions from human authors should be acknowledged in the proposals, enhancing the credibility and ethics of the work. Furthermore, careful consideration should be given to the data used to train AI tools, as this may later be utilized by potential competitors.
Submission
Such information is not just an administrative requirement, but a necessary obligation that protects all parties involved. Failing to disclose information can lead to the danger of losing the credibility of the proposal and the effectiveness of the research. Researchers must act responsibly and follow all relevant laws carefully, thus achieving a healthy and effective research environment.
Source link: https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/sara/faqs/
Artificial intelligence was used ezycontent
Leave a Reply