RTE Review Process

## Rapid Turnaround Experiment (RTE) Review Process All RTE proposals are reviewed for feasibility, program relevance, and technical/scientific merit. The technical/scientific peer reviewers are selected from the nuclear community. Proposals are scored on scientific merit (50%), technical feasibility (30%), and capability of the group (20%). The scientific merit criterion includes the importance of the scientific or technological need addressed in the proposal as well as the innovation, including such aspects as the influence that the project might have on the future direction, progress, and thinking within the area of science and technology; the likelihood of achieving valuable results; and the scientific innovation and originality indicated in the proposed research. The proposal should demonstrate a logical approach to applying materials characterization to solve a technological problem and/or provide new scientific knowledge as well as a high degree of innovation being substantially different from work being pursued elsewhere. The technical review criterion provides an assessment of the technical approach and research tasks outlined in the proposal. The proposal must 1. show the appropriateness of the proposed research methods, equipment and approach; 1. address the risk posed by the approach; and 1. identify an acceptable approach to ensure a successful research outcome based on information in relevant literature, and from the knowledge-base of the field. In addition, the proposal should address potential showstoppers, present a project schedule (including a sequence of project tasks, principal milestones, and times for each task), detail the planned assignment of responsibilities, and highlight the required technical expertise available to the applicant in carrying out the project at the NSUF partner facility. The group capability criterion will take into consideration the background, past performance, and potential of the principal investigator as well as the research environment and facilities that will be provided by the PI and co-PIs. Research potential and background will be weighted more heavily for a junior investigator with a more limited track record than an established researcher. Each proposal receives relevancy reviews performed by DOE-NE staff and NSUF program leads. In the event of a review conflict, a determination of relevancy is made by the NSUF Director. Proposals submitted should directly support the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) research and development programs. Information on these programs can be found on the [Office of Nuclear Energy website](https://energy.gov/ne/about-us). Please note fusion energy and isotope production are not included in the NE mission. The programmatic relevance abstract should: 1. describe how the proposed research advances DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy mission; 1. describe how the proposed research supports and advances a specific DOE-NE topic(s); 1. demonstrate significant, easily recognizable ties to the mission and relevant topics; 1. focus on critical knowledge gaps or where limited work is currently being performed; and 1. outline how your project will build on synergies with ongoing direct- or competitively-funded projects or meets a critical mission need. The proposed work scope should not replace or supplant ongoing or planned DOE-NE programmatic work. Proposals that do not directly tie to the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy mission, but that demonstrate innovative ideas and approaches to the advancing of nuclear energy, including industry needs, may be considered. Feasibility reviews will be performed by the NSUF facility requested in the proposal. Each proposal will be evaluated on cost, schedule, and availability/capability of instruments requested to perform the proposed work. A panel performs a review of submitted technical comments and scores to ensure consistency across the reviews. Based on the results of the review, the panel provides a ranked list to the NSUF Director. The NSUF Director considers the panel ranking, along with other programmatic considerations, in order to make the final award recommendation to DOE-NE. These considerations include: NSUF endeavors to balance the distribution of funds in a single call to impact a broad group of researchers. To do so, NSUF may limit the number of awards to a single partner, a single institution, a single research group, self-applications, awards to non-US institutions, and may decline proposals with very large budgets out of proportion to the guidelines. NSUF may award HPC-only applications, even if the score is below the threshold for the RTE call. NSUF may also restrict awards to applicants who have a poor record of completing awarded RTEs within the nine-month period and/or have a poor record of timely publication and/or acknowledgment of NSUF-funded research. Duplication of NSUF Program Activities Proposals that completely duplicate previous or on-going NSUF, Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD), or other DOE-NE supported studies will not be considered. A complete list of NSUF awards can be found under the R&D section on [neup.inl.gov](https://neup.inl.gov/){^} website. In addition, please review recent competitive awards, R&D program websites, and documents.

Technical Review Criteria

Scientific Merit (50%)
This criterion covers the importance of the scientific or technological need addressed in the proposal, as well as its innovation. Consider the influence the characterization might have on the future direction, progress, and thinking within the area of science and technology; the likelihood of achieving valuable results; and the scientific innovation and originality of the proposed research. A proposal can demonstrate strong scientific merit by either of two paths, and does not need both: - Novelty and innovation — the research is scientifically innovative or original and advances the direction, progress, or thinking within the field; - Or critical data for the U.S. nuclear (fission) energy industry — the research generates data that answers an important question or fills a critical gap for the industry, even where the work is not highly novel. Where a proposal follows the second path, the applicant is responsible for identifying the recognized industry need being addressed; reviewers should assess whether that connection is clearly established. Proposals that will generate confirmatory data should address the need for the confirmation and explain how the resulting data will advance the industry. Questions to consider: - Does the proposal describe a logical approach in applying materials characterization to solve a technological problem and/or provide new scientific knowledge? - Does the proposal demonstrate a high degree of innovation, or does it generate critical data addressing a recognized need of the U.S. nuclear (fission) energy industry? - If the work is largely confirmatory or overlaps work pursued elsewhere, has the applicant established why the confirmation is needed and how the data advances the industry?
Technical Approach (30%)
This criterion assesses the technical approach and research tasks outlined in the proposal. Evaluate the appropriateness of the proposed research methods, equipment, and approach, including the risk posed by the approach, and the extent to which the strategy and plan identify an acceptable path to a successful research outcome. Based on the information in the proposal, the relevant literature, and your own knowledge of the field, is it reasonable to expect that the proposed tasks can be completed successfully? Please confine this assessment to the technical merit of the approach itself. Cost, schedule practicality at the facility, instrument availability, and NE mission relevance are **outside** the scope of your review. Questions to consider: - Are there potential showstoppers that have not been addressed? - Is the proposed methodology and its underlying reasoning meritorious and realistic? - Is there a clear project schedule, including the sequence of project tasks, principal milestones, and estimated times for each task? - Is the planned assignment of responsibilities appropriate? - Is the necessary technical expertise available to the applicant for carrying out the project at the NSUF partner facility?
Capability of Group (20%)
This criterion considers the background, past performance, and/or potential of the principal investigator, and the research environment and facilities provided by the PI and team member(s). Research potential and background should be weighted more heavily for a junior investigator, who may have a more limited track record than an established researcher. Questions to consider: - Does the PI have a background appropriate for leading the proposed collaboration? - Does the assembled research team have expertise in all of the key areas needed to achieve the project objectives? If the team lacks some of the needed technical expertise, is that expertise available at the NSUF partner facility? - Does the group publish regularly in highly regarded, high-impact, peer-reviewed journals?

Feasibility Review Criteria

Feasibility Review
Please indicate whether this proposal is feasible, given the facility capabilities, scheduling, and resources. If this proposal is feasible, please insert the cost into the box (avoid using dollar sign) and upload a detailed cost estimate spreadsheet for this project.

Relevance Review Criteria

Programmatic Relevance Review
This is intended to be a narrative of 500 words or less.

The programmatic relevance statement should:
  • describe how the proposed research advances DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy mission;
  • describe how the proposed research supports and advances a specific DOE-NE topic(s);
  • demonstrate significant, easily recognizable ties to the mission and relevant topics;
  • focus on critical knowledge gaps or where limited work is currently being performed;
  • outline how your project will build on synergies with ongoing direct- or competitively-funded projects or meets a critical mission need.
The proposed workscope should not replace or supplant ongoing or planned DOE-NE programmatic work. Proposals that do not directly tie to the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy mission, but that demonstrate innovative ideas and approaches to the advancing of nuclear energy, including industry needs, may be considered.

Information regarding the Office of Nuclear Energy mission and topics can be found at the following: https://www.energy.gov/ne/about-us