NEWS15 December 2025Agency staff members say that the changes are reasonable, but they are worried about the potential effects on review.ByDan Garisto0Dan GaristoDan Garisto is a science journalist in Syracuse, New York.View author publicationsSearch author on: PubMed Google ScholarThe National Science Foundation, one of the world’s largest funders of basic science, has reduced the minimum number of external reviews grant proposals must undergo.Credit: Briscoe Savoy for NatureThe US National Science Foundation (NSF) is relaxing some of its requirements for the review of grant proposals in an effort to cope with a backlog of applications and reduced staff numbers. Staff members at the agency, one of the world’s leading funders of basic science, say that the new strategy could have benefits, but raises the risk of grant applications being inadequately reviewed.Previously, proposals for research grants were generally required to undergo at least three external reviews by scientists from outside the agency. Now, two reviews are enough and, under some circumstances, one can be an internal review by a scientist at the NSF.Is academic research becoming too competitive? Nature examines the dataThe change in policy was described in an update of the agency’s Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide that was published on 8 December. Nature also obtained the more detailed internal guidance supplied to NSF programme officers, who are in charge of the review process. To get a better understanding of the changes, Nature spoke to five NSF staff members. All requested anonymity because of concerns about retaliation.Substituting an internal review for an external review could save time, programme officers say. “I’m glad to have a little more flexibility,” one says, especially when they are handling proposals that do not meet basic criteria for funding. “But I would hate to see two reviews becoming the norm for the proposals that are legitimate candidates for funding.” Programme officers say that they value a range of external expert perspectives.Variety of viewsLike other science agencies, the NSF relies heavily on external expertise to assess grant proposals. Proposals are sent to peer-review panels of between three and ten independent specialists, each of whom produces reviews of a handful of proposals. To supplement panellists’ evaluations, programme officers also solicit other external experts for ad hoc reviews.NSF slashes prestigious PhD fellowship awards by halfDuring day-long discussion sessions, panels consider panellists’ reviews and any ad hoc reviews, then produce assessments of proposals. Programme officers use these assessments to make recommendations to division directors, who decide which proposals are funded.Programme officers also write summaries of these assessments, which can provide feedback for researchers. Until now, those summaries were highly detailed and multiple paragraphs long. But new internal guidance limits summaries to 3—5 sentences. It is a shame to limit the summaries, which are “a more helpful synthesis” than other documents from the review process, says Laurel Yohe, a bioinformatics researcher at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte.doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-04067-4 When AI rejects your grant proposal: algorithms are helping to make funding decisions Exclusive: NSF stops awarding new grants and funding existing ones Hundreds more NSF grants terminated after agency director resigns NIH races to spend its 2025 grant money — but fewer projects win funding How your research can survive a US federal grant terminationSubjectsFundingScientific communityGovernmentLatest on:FundingScientific communityGovernmentJobs Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Second Institute of Oceanography, MNRPostdoctoral: marine geology, physical oceanography, marine biology, marine chemistry, coastal dynamics.Hangzhou, Zhejiang, ChinaThe Second Institute of Oceanography, MNR