Directorate for Education and Human Resources/NSF AI policy
In short
NSF allows proposers to use generative AI. It encourages, but does not require, proposers to say in the project description whether and how they used it, and proposers stay responsible for the accuracy and integrity of everything they submit. NSF reviewers may not upload any proposal or review content to non-approved generative AI tools.
These rules come from U.S. National Science Foundation, which sets policy for Directorate for Education and Human Resources/NSF applicants.
For applicants
- NSF encourages you to state in the project description whether you used generative AI to develop the proposal, how much, and how. This is encouraged, not required.[1]
- You are responsible for the accuracy and authenticity of the whole proposal, including any content drafted with generative AI.[1]
- NSF warns that generative AI tools may create risks of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, which its research misconduct rules in the PAPPG cover. You are responsible for ensuring the integrity of your proposal.[1]
For reviewers
- Reviewers (ad hoc reviewers and panelists) may not upload any content from proposals, review information, or related records to non-approved generative AI tools. NSF treats this as a breach of the reviewer confidentiality pledge.[1]
- Reviewers may share publicly available information with current generative AI tools.[1]
Sources
- [1]Notice to Research Community: Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence Technology in the NSF Merit Review Process
U.S. National Science Foundation, December 14, 2023
“Proposers are encouraged to indicate in the project description the extent to which, if any, generative AI technology was used and how it was used to develop their proposal.”
“Proposers are responsible for the accuracy and authenticity of their proposal submission in consideration for merit review, including content developed with the assistance of generative AI tools.”
“Generative AI tools may create these risks, and proposers and awardees are responsible for ensuring the integrity of their proposal and reporting of research results.”
“NSF reviewers are prohibited from uploading any content from proposals, review information and related records to non-approved generative AI tools. If reviewers take this action, NSF will consider it a violation of the agency's confidentiality pledge and other applicable laws, regulations and policies.”
“NSF reviewers may share publicly available information with current generation generative AI tools.”
“The obligation to maintain confidentiality of merit review related information extends to the use of generative AI tools.”
“NSF's Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) addresses research misconduct, which includes fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing or performing NSF-funded research, or in reporting results funded by NSF.”
This page summarizes published guidance and is not legal advice. Policies change, and a specific solicitation can add its own rules, so confirm against the funding announcement before you apply. See every funder's AI policy.