This is the next post in my ongoing series on “Writing a Strong NSF CAREER Proposal.” Read all the posts here.
🎃 It’s October, and spooky season is here (at least in the U.S.). Soon, kids, teens, and parents will be picking out costumes, trying to be the scariest, coolest, or funniest trick-or-treater around.
On Halloween, I dress up, answer the door, and hand out candy. But my favorite part of the season is my own tradition: every October, I watch 13 scary movies — from gore to cheese to thrills and chills, I love to be scared.
But for some faculty members, what’s scarier is hiding in their NSF CAREER reviewer comments — not under the bed. 👻 We’re just a few weeks away from the first panel summaries being released, and for many pre-tenure faculty, that email notification is more nerve-wracking than any ghost story.
I’ve been there myself. I’ve also read hundreds of NSF reviewer comments — both as a PI and as a reviewer — and I have seen certain patterns that show up again and again. So I put together this list of 13 “terrifying” reviewer comments — inspired by real panels I’ve served on and reviews I’ve received* — decoded, demystified, and de-fanged.
I’ve included a plain-language translation for each one (for when you just need to know what they really mean) and a tip for how to respond in your next draft. Keep this list handy the next time you need to turn feedback fright into revision fuel.
*(For privacy and confidentiality reasons, these are not direct quotes, but they closely reflect common themes and phrasings across CAREER reviews.)
🎃 13 Scary NSF CAREER Reviewer Comments (and How to Respond)
1. “While the proposal touches on several interesting directions, the panel was unclear on the central research question uniting them.”
💬 Translation: “What’s the point?”
🌱 Reframe: Clarify your through-line early — use consistent phrasing to tie everything together.
2. “It remains uncertain how the proposed approach advances beyond existing frameworks or the PI’s prior work.”
💬 Translation: “What’s new or novel here?”
🌱 Reframe: Be explicit about what’s innovative — don’t make it a guessing game for the reviewers.
3. “The proposed methods are described at a conceptual level, and the panel would have appreciated more detail on implementation or evaluation plans.”
💬 Translation: “We can’t tell what you’re doing.”
🌱 Reframe: Include concrete methods with realistic analysis plans — it’s an idea, not a promise.
4. “The work as proposed may be overly ambitious for a single investigator within the five-year period.”
💬 Translation: “You’re trying to do too much.”
🌱 Reframe: Prioritize and refine — focus on your core study and your stretch goal to show both realism and vision.
5. “The contribution to fundamental understanding is not fully articulated; it is unclear whether the outcomes will generalize beyond the proposed context.”
💬 Translation: “Why does this matter?”
🌱 Reframe: Emphasize principles or theories others could build on — not just what your own outcomes will be.
6. “While the proposal is well written, it reads more as an application than as research with testable hypotheses.”
💬 Translation: “This is ‘just’ engineering.”
🌱 Reframe: Motivate your engineering tasks — highlight the questions that show discovery, not just delivery.
7. “The proposed metrics of success focus on engineering outputs rather than research insights.”
💬 Translation: “Evaluations shouldn’t be a checklist.”
🌱 Reframe: Go beyond completion — add at least one metric that will reveal new knowledge.
8. “The education plan is interesting but appears only loosely connected to the research activities.”
💬 Translation: “Education plan feels tacked-on.”
🌱 Reframe: Integrate your research and education plans directly — form public & community partnerships to impact lifelong learning.
9. “The proposed activities are commendable but may be difficult to sustain without identified institutional partners.”
💬 Translation: “Can you really pull this off?”
🌱 Reframe: Name your institutional partners or resources — make sure your Chair’s Letter is specific.
10. “The panel appreciated the intent to broaden participation but noted the lack of specific strategies or assessment plans.”
💬 Translation: “Project needs to measure success.”
🌱 Reframe: Add evaluation details for all research and education activities — how many, how often, what changed?
11. “The mentoring plan would benefit from more detail on structure and frequency of interactions.”
💬 Translation: “Are you taking this seriously?”
🌱 Reframe: Don’t look like an “absentee PI” — add details about cadence and advising style so it feels real.
12. “The PI’s background in [specific subfield] is limited; additional expertise may be needed.”
💬 Translation: “You need backup.”
🌱 Reframe: Cover that skill gap — even though CAREER is single-PI, advisory boards and informal mentors add legitimacy.
13. “The timeline is optimistic, particularly for Aim #, which depends on outcomes from earlier tasks.”
💬 Translation: “Your schedule is too tight.”
🌱 Reframe: Show task dependencies and pacing — realistic plans inspire confidence.
👻 Final Word
Reviewer comments aren’t skeletons in the closet — they’re clues to the way out of the funhouse. Each one points to something you can clarify, connect, or calibrate.
Have you seen any of these reviewer comments? Let us known in the comments how you addressed them!
—
📢 And, if this is your “Year of the CAREER,” you don’t have to face the music alone. Learn more about Write Your CAREER — my step-by-step small-group coaching program for pre-tenure faculty preparing NSF CAREER proposals. 🪻
If you find yourself in need of an editor or coach to get your proposal, paper, or other manuscript across the finish line, contact me to chat about my services. 🙂
Ghost photo by cottonbro studio under CC.
Leave a Reply