proposals

The Starchive: An open access, open source database of the nearest stars and beyond

by Guest April 27, 2015

Angelle Tanner is an assistant professor at Mississippi State University with interests in multiple methods of exoplanet detection and characterization. Situation 1:You make a preliminary list of target stars using SIMBAD and then follow up with a tedious search through Vizier and individual papers for all the additional observational data you need to motivate a […]

{ 1 comment }

Read more →

NSF Deadline Approaching!

by Danny Barringer October 15, 2014

As we’re sure many of you know, the deadline for all things NSF, including the NSF Graduate Fellowship, is fast approaching (some faster than others!), and will be on us before we know it. To make your lives easier, we would like to remind you of the resources the AstroBetter Wiki has at your disposal. […]

{ 0 comments }

Read more →

Honing your Hubble Application

by Guest August 20, 2014

This is an anonymous guest post from two past members of the Hubble Fellowship committee. The Hubble Postdoctoral Fellowship among the most prestigious awards in our field and is worn as a badge of honor throughout an Astronomer’s entire career. About 10–20 are awarded each year to applicants from around the world to fund a […]

{ 15 comments }

Read more →

Top 10 Ways to Improve Your NSF Astronomy & Astrophysics Postdoctoral Fellowship (AAPF) Proposal

by Guest August 13, 2014

Joan Schmelz is a solar physicist at the University of Memphis. She works with EUV and X-ray images and spectroscopy in order to address the coronal heating problem. She is also the chair of the Committee on the Status of Women in Astronomy and is currently serving as a rotator in NSF’s astronomy division. The […]

{ 5 comments }

Read more →

A tale of three proposals

by Guest November 20, 2013

This is a guest post from Dr. Joseph Harrington, a Professor at the University of Central Florida. The post is written in response to an earlier AstroBetter guest post, The Inside Scoop  on NSF Review Panels. A recent guest post on AstroBetter, The Inside Scoop  on NSF Review Panels, is an excellent writeup of the facts, […]

{ 9 comments }

Read more →

Learning to Accept Rejection, the Likely Outcome for Most of our Proposals

by Jane October 28, 2013

The other day a postdoc told me that his big telescope proposal was rejected. He’d also gotten a rejection letter for a scientific fellowship he’d applied for.* He seemed really bummed out. I felt bad for him — rejection is a bummer. As a co-I on the proposal and one of his letter-writers, I was […]

{ 9 comments }

Read more →

ADS: How to find author names and affiliations

by Guest July 22, 2013

This is a guest post by Alessondra Springmann. The original article can be found here. The astronomy and planetary science communities have a fantastic tool for finding scientific papers previously published: the Astrophysics Data System, or ADS, supported by NASA and run out of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.  The main feature I use is […]

{ 2 comments }

Read more →

The Inside Scoop on NSF Review Panels

by Guest July 8, 2013

This is a guest post by an anonymous contributor. There has been a lot of talk recently about the effect that sequester cuts have had on the funding situation in astronomy (and science in general).  Our field depends greatly on federal grant money (jobs! job! jobs!) and the pot is shrinking.  This means that every […]

{ 4 comments }

Read more →

Collaborative LaTeX writing: a review of ScribTeX

by Jane March 26, 2012

I’ve recently been experimenting with different methods to collaboratively write papers and proposals. In this post, I’ll review the strengths and weaknesses of ScribTeX. The upshot is I love this powerful, easy-to-use tool, despite a few flaws, and encourage you to check it out. ScribTeX is like Google Docs, but for LaTeX documents. It’s an […]

{ 9 comments }

Read more →

Revised NSF Merit Review Criteria

by Kelle June 21, 2011

The NSF has been reviewing the merit review criteria (i.e., Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts). Based on the largely consistent input of 5,100 individuals, they have now drafted revised review criteria (below). To me, the criteria are actually the same, it’s just the wording has been changed to clarify the intent. In addition, they have […]

{ 1 comment }

Read more →