I have several copies of NSF books and project application guidelines in hand. The research field of the applied project does not belong to the geoscience discipline I am engaged in. In order to deeply understand the characteristics of American NSF project application, I have used various opportunities to have in-depth exchanges with some scholars studying in the United States on Relevant Issues in American NSF project application. I have some feelings and hope to be helpful to the managers and applicants of China's Natural Science Foundation (NSFC). This is the motivation of this blog post. Although these American NSF books belong to the discipline of engineering technology, I naturally can't make a correct judgment on whether the project topic selection and scientific and technological problem selection are accurate and in place. However, I have carefully studied the format style of the content design of these books, and have interpreted some different style characteristics from China's NSFC project application.

Some experts and scholars have introduced the characteristics of NSF project application in the United States on the Internet. Therefore, this paper does not intend to discuss some universal issues in the American NSF application. In addition, I have written many blog articles on the writing of China's NSFC Book combined with my own scientific research experience and evaluation experience, and published them on science.com. Some blog articles have been recognized by some netizens, which provides some help for young scholars to apply for NSFC projects.

From the application of a national basic and applied basic science research project, the basic content pattern of NSF book is roughly the same as that of China's NSFC book. The main contents of the design include: putting forward the scientific basis of the project; Research objectives and main research contents of the project; Research plan; Research methods and routes; Research team; Fund allocation, etc. The main difference between the two is that China's NSFC book specifically designs some basic terms and allows the applicant to fill in (template) in strict accordance with these terms. The US NSF book does not set this template, but the basic content framework is put forward in the application guide, and the terms are set by the applicant. Obviously, the basic provisions are similar. The design format and style of these American NSF books are basically similar, but there are slight differences in the expression of a few articles between them.

These NSF books attach great importance to literature research. Each book has more than 100 references (145 at most and 103 at least), which are strictly corresponding one by one in the main body of this book. In fact, although the main content of the NSF book is similar to the basic content of our NSFC book, we can still see the important differences between the two from the details of format: for example, in the innovative discussion of project topic selection, our NSFC book is mainly reflected in the first part: "project basis", while the American NSF book has the content of broadrimact in addition to the preface, Although the impact of the project and innovation discourse are not exactly the same, they are closely related.

In addition, in the "influence" part of NSF sub project, there are contents about the application in "education": "educational, and outreach activities, or transition to industry, educational impact". In my opinion, this requirement is unique and has profound connotation and significance. Someone told me that this content is not "empty", but reflects that the National Natural Science Foundation project attaches importance to cultivating the next generation of scientific and technological talents, which is one of the important measures for the sustainable development of science and technology in a country. The content of "educational significance" is mainly aimed at popular science education for primary and middle school students, in order to make children have some preliminary perceptual knowledge of science and technology since childhood. It is said that the U.S. government requires university professors to regularly go to designated primary and secondary schools to provide scientific and technological service guidance for children, stimulate their scientific enthusiasm, and lay a foundation for children to enter higher institutions of learning professional knowledge when they grow up. Some people may think that setting such a content in the NSFC project is a bit of a fuss and impractical. However, I think it is a major event related to the "eternal cause" of the country, but the NSF project is implemented in specific actions. In fact, as a National Natural Science Fund provided by the state finance, it should have made contributions in two aspects: scientific achievements and talent achievements. However, our talent training is mainly for graduate students, involving a little undergraduate students at most. Although NSF in the United States is mainly for graduate students (the main source of paying graduate subsidies), it clearly puts forward the service content of "primary and secondary school" education in the idea of project establishment. It can be said that "popular science education starts from children", and its far-reaching significance is self-evident.

However, the people I communicated with said that there was a big difference between NSF and NSFC in explaining the scientific significance of the project. According to my own experience (including applying for and reviewing NSFC projects), some applicants often use some vague words when discussing the "scientific significance of the project" in the "project basis" section. There are almost some "routines" in terms of words. For example, the research of this project has important scientific significance in,,, and has broad application prospects in,,, etc. In the preface of NSF book, "motivation, fundamental challenges, objectives and key innovations", it is generally required to elaborate the importance and significance of topic selection with detailed data and materials, with strong pertinence. As the saying goes, "empty words speak without foundation, data speak". In fact, this is to test the applicant's information research ability. Therefore, the applicant often spends a lot of time looking for relevant and accurate "data information" on the government website or some enterprise public websites. If the data is inaccurate, the topics and scientific problems you think are highly innovative will be greatly reduced. This is also the reason why there are many references in NSF book. For those of us who are engaged in the basic research of Earth Science, we mainly focus on the research published in the literature published by peers at home and abroad. If the literature research is not detailed or accurate, there will be major defects in the quality of your NSFC book.

I once said frankly in the "doing my own scientific research" report that a person may be able to publish some "high if" academic articles even after better academic training in the high-level "boss" research group in the graduate (especially doctoral) and post doctoral research stage. In addition to your own efforts, the influence of your boss may not be underestimated. However, if he or she does not make full use of the opportunity to train and learn to write (participate in the mentor project application) project application, he or she is still far from an independent scholar. This is often encountered when we review the NSFC book. Maybe the topic selection of the project is OK, but whether from the expression of "scientific problems", the arrangement of content or professional words, it seems very immature, and even some sentences are impassable and punctuation is used indiscriminately. It is conceivable that such NSFC books can pass through the rigorous and serious peers.