��ֱ����

The university provides a budget template for SDSU faculty and staff to use in preparing applications for sponsored funding.

The budget template includes calculations for facilities and administrative (or indirect) rates, fringe benefits, salaries for personnel and graduate research assistants and other items specific to sponsor and university guidelines. A budget justification template is also available.

• Tuition remission: These funds are charged to the project in relation to tuition provided to a graduate research assistant.
• Participant support costs: Costs budgeted to support participants in a project or program. Participants are not employees. Participants are provided training or workshop as part of a sponsored project. Costs may include stipends, per diem, travel and scholarships.
• Cost share or match: Funds or in-kind services provided by the applicant and/or partners to support the project, as required by a sponsor. These are included in a project budget if the sponsor requires cost share or match.
• : Refers to the process of estimating and budgeting for the costs associated with travel for a research project. These costs may include airfare, lodging, meals, transportation and other expenses related to travel. When preparing a budget, refer to the state .

• Advance Fund: Provides a principal investigator the opportunity to initiate their sponsored research project and begin incurring necessary project expenses prior to the institutional acceptance of an award due to delay from an external sponsor. The need to establish an advance fund may arise when:

  • SDSU has received an award but spending is necessary prior to the official start date of the project so expenses will fall outside the period of performance of an award.
  • Spending is necessary prior to the receipt of an award but expenses will fall within the anticipated period of performance of an award.

  To initiate advance spending, the principal investigator completes the . After the department head, director or dean approves the request, this approval and documentation should be forwarded to Grants and Contracts Administration. Approval is contingent on the criteria listed in the form and satisfactory completion of applicable compliance requirements (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, Institutional Review Board, Institutional Biosafety Committee, and conflict of interest).

  Advance spending funds are not allowed on a project with a private (nongovernmental) entity per .

• (budget, preaward, postaward, etc.)

Working with external collaborators can serve to expand a project's capacity, impact and opportunity for success. These relationships can take different forms based on the nature of the work and of the collaborator.

• Subaward (to a subawardee): Means SDSU is a pass-through for the award to its collaborator. A subawardee is responsible to the objectives of the project and programmatic decision-making. A subawardee is responsible for providing a budget and other proposal documents to the lead organization during proposal development.
• Contractor: Provides goods and services to the project and is not responsible to the project's objectives or decision-making. The goods and services a contractor provides are part of its normal business operations.
• The federal rule helps differentiate the roles.
• A principal investigator may choose to use an adviser or a consultant as an unfunded collaborator, depending on the nature and length of the relationship. Refer to the sponsor's guidance to learn how to document an unfunded collaborator in the application.

The indirect costs of research — also referred to as the facilities and administrative costs of research — are essential to conducting world-class research effectively, efficiently, safely and securely. Federal agencies reimburse institutions for the facilities and administrative costs they incur to support research overall; these are expenses that are difficult to attribute to specific research projects on an individual basis (e.g., libraries, physical lab operation and maintenance, utility costs, security and other similar needs). Without support of facilities and administrative costs, research labs would literally go dark (Council on Government Relations, 2025).

Here's a breakdown of direct vs. indirect costs in proposal budgets:

• Direct costs: These are expenses directly related to the specific project or activity for which the grant is awarded. Direct costs can include items such as faculty and project staff salaries, supplies, equipment and travel expenses that are directly tied to the project's implementation.
• Indirect costs: Indirect costs are the overhead expenses that support the institution's research but are not easily attributable to individual projects. Examples of indirect costs include facilities maintenance, utilities, preaward and postaward administrative support, accounting, legal services, libraries and general office supplies and equipment.

• The National Science Foundation's GEO Directorate has compiled for writing a compelling NSF proposal, applicable to all directorates.
• General  (2015). Note, while the general advice may be applicable, refer to the current National Science Foundation proposal guide for specific application instructions.
• U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture offers a to aid in preparing competitive grant proposals.
• The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases with the National Institutes of Health offer .
• Use the to develop a persuasive broader impact section that will satisfy the National Science Foundation review criterion and strengthen your proposal.
• , SDSU’s institutional repository, is your comprehensive solution for storing, managing and sharing data. Posted in the document library on the right is a descriptive paragraph you may choose to include in your data management plan.

• (Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities): The APLU defines public impact research as any research that benefits the public. The site offers examples of public impact research and an activation guide for best practices and recommendations.
• (Advancing Research Impact in Society from National Science Foundation, 2023)
• (American Association for the Advancement of Science): AAAS no longer host workshops as of July 2022. For resources, visit and the .
• : The purpose of ARIS is to advance impacts of research for the betterment of society and the expansion of research.
• : Including Broader Impacts toolkit, science communication, outreach and engagement resources and activities, webinars and more.
• The guiding principles and questions component breaks down each of the five criteria by which National Science Foundation reviewers are instructed to review the broader impacts of a proposal. It also includes principles and questions to consider when developing a plan to address the criteria (ARIS).
• COMPASS Science Communication offers and . The Message Box tool allows users to develop their message for any number of channels and audiences.

Introduction

The growing use of artificial intelligence in proposal writing has changed the way tasks are accomplished, providing tools for streamlining processes and creating content. However, this convenience has considerable risks. Overreliance on AI can end creativity, compromise ethical standards and expose sensitive data to privacy violations. AI-generated information frequently lacks the depth, accuracy and expertise required for professional and academic work.

AI has become a useful tool for researchers and groups looking for funds, from making rough drafts and generating ideas to analyzing huge datasets. When AI is misused, it can lead to mistakes, breaking ethics or applications being turned down. Furthermore, many organizations and funding agencies have strong rules or prohibitions on AI use, emphasizing the value of human insight and effort. Misuse of AI can lead to ethical violations, proposal rejections and damage to personal and professional reputation.

When AI is used in proposal creation, it can speed up the process and make funding applications better. To keep the funding process honest, however, it must be used in a responsible, moral and legal way that follows all relevant rules and policies. Here are some important guidelines from different funding agencies.

Last updated: March 24, 2025

Guidance on the use of artificial intelligence in writing proposals for funding opportunities

1. Data privacy and confidentiality: Stay away from putting private, secret or sensitive data into AI tools that store data elsewhere, as this could make your data less safe. Make sure that data privacy laws and funding agency rules about using third-party AI tools are followed. Examples: names, addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, etc. (Example: Grammarly (for text editing), DALL-E (image generation) are AI tools that prioritize and minimize data collection)
2. Transparency: If the funding agency asks you to, make it clear what part AI played in the proposal development process. Make sure that all material created with AI meets the standards for originality and intellectual contribution by the applicant. This could be generating draft abstracts or initial idea brainstorming, to illustrate appropriate applications
3. Human oversight: Know that the results that AI produces might have mistakes or claims that are not backed up. Before putting any text, analysis or suggestions that were made by AI into your proposal, you should always check and make sure they are correct. Check data that was generated by AI against data from reliable sources.
4. Ethical use: Do not use AI to make up study data, findings or outcomes or to lie about them. When using material made by AI, make sure you follow the rules for authorship, attribution and intellectual property.
5. Following the rules: Read and follow the funding organizations’ rules about how to use AI in proposals. Some funding groups might want clear explanations about how much AI was used in the proposal-making process.
6. As a guide: AI tools should be used to help and support human work, not in place of creativity, expertise and critical thinking. Ensure that the end proposals reflect the voice and goals of the lead researcher or research team.
7. Stay up to date: AI rules for funding methods are changing quickly. Check with funding agencies often to see if AI rules have changed. Use resources for professional development and training on AI ethics and the best ways to write a study proposal.
8. Make AI tools better in practice: Use AI to do things like writing initial sketches or summaries that are not too technical: looking for holes or trends in literature or making visual tools like graphs and charts. Do not rely too much on AI for jobs that need deep understanding or domain expertise.

Funding agency policies on the use of AI

• U.S. Department of Agriculture:
• National Institutes of Health:
• National Science Foundation:
• Department of Defense:
• Department of Justice:
• NASA:

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Can I use AI to generate content for my funding proposal?
   Yes, but with caution. AI should be used as a support tool for brainstorming, summarizing and drafting, not as a replacement for human creativity and expertise. All AI-generated content must be verified for accuracy and originality.
2. Are there specific funding agencies that regulate AI use in proposals?
   Yes, agencies like NIH, NSF, USDA, DOD, DOJ and NASA have specific guidelines on AI use. Some, like NIH, prohibit generative AI in peer reviews to protect evaluation integrity.
3. What kind of AI tools are preferred for proposal writing?
   AI tools that prioritize privacy and minimize data collection (e.g., Grammarly for editing, DALL-E for image generation) can be used, if they comply with data privacy laws and funding agency policies.
4. Do I need to disclose AI usage in my proposal?
   It depends on the funding agency. Some agencies may require transparency regarding AI’s role in the writing process. Always check the specific guidelines of the funding organization.
5. How can I ensure AI-generated content is accurate?
   Always conduct human oversight by fact-checking AI-generated text, verifying references and cross-checking with reliable sources before incorporating content into your proposal.
6. Can I use AI to generate research data or findings?
   No. AI should never be used to fabricate data, findings or outcomes. Doing so violates ethical research standards and can lead to proposal rejection or reputational damage.
7. How can AI enhance my proposal without violating guidelines?
   AI can be used for:
   • Drafting abstracts and summaries
   • Identifying gaps or trends in literature
   • Creating visual aids (charts, graphs)
   • Improving grammar and clarity in writing
8. What are the risks of using AI tools for proposal writing?
   Possible risks include:
   • Compromising data privacy
   • Unintended plagiarism
   • Producing inaccurate or misleading information
   • Violating funding agency regulations
   • Weakening originality and intellectual contribution
9. What should I do if an agency updates its AI policy after I’ve submitted my proposal?
   Stay proactive. If the policy changes before submission deadlines, revise your proposal accordingly. Look for an effective date, if changes occur after submission, consult the agency for guidance on compliance.
10. How can I be sure my data is secure?
    Be careful of the information you upload and input into the AI tool you are using. AI tools like generative pretrained transformers retain any form of data they are given. Stay away from putting private and sensitive data to ensure data privacy and confidentiality.

• : (National Science Foundation) Addresses using goals, objectives and outcomes in project evaluation; evaluating cognitive and affective outcomes; interpreting evaluation data; writing an evaluation plan for a proposed project; and working with an evaluator.
• : Check the resource library and webinars for evaluation education.
  • : Writing Better Evaluation Sections in Your Proposals (2020)
  • (2016)
• : (webinar slides, American Association for the Advancement for Science, 2020)
• : (January 2021, American Association for the Advancement of Science/Improving Undergraduate STEM Education)

Read about the policies under these sections on the university's policies and procedures:

Section 2

• 2:23 Public Access

Section 5

• 5:1 Contract, Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding Review and Approval
• 5:8 Service Centers
• 5:15 Employee Travel
• 5:22 Research Subject and Incentive Payments
• 5:27 Fixed-Price ��ֱ���� Residual Balances
• 5:29 Cost Share
• 5:30 Participant Support Costs on Sponsored Projects
• 5:31 Program Income from Sponsored Projects
• 5:32 Charging Direct Costs on Sponsored Projects
• 5:33 Cost Transfers on Sponsored Projects
• 5:34 Minimum Effort on Sponsored Projects
• 5:36 Department Responsibilities with University Funds
• 5:39 ��ֱ���� and Budget Revision to Sponsored Projects
• 5:40 Expenditure Monitoring of Sponsored Projects

Section 8

• 8:1 Export Controls
• 8:2 Responsible Conduct of Research Training
• 8:3 University Reporting of Applications for External Funding
• 8:4 Indirect Cost Recovery (facilities and administration)
• 8:5 Institutional Biosafety
• 8:6 Institutional Animal Care and Use
• 8:7 Protection of Human Subjects
• 8:8 Sponsored Programs Risk Management Fund
• 8:9 Research Infrastructure Improvement Fund
• 8:10 Unmanned Aircraft Systems
• 8:11 Dual-Use Research of Concern
• 8:12 Research, Scholarly and Creative Activity Misconduct

Section 9

• 9:2 Intellectual Property Disclosure and Management
• 9:4 Copyright

Section 12

• 12.5.1 PI Responsibility
• 12.5.4 Advance Fund Setup

Serving as a peer reviewer for a sponsor is an excellent way to learn about the sponsor, see the process from the review side and understand what might make a good proposal. It can also be an opportunity to network with colleagues and program officers and serve your research community.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (2020) presents the benefits, aspects and process of being a reviewer.

Generally, to be considered as a reviewer, contact the program officer for the area in which you’re interested. Often, they will request background information, including your biographical sketch or CV.

For specific programs and agencies:

• : This site is specific to reviewers for NIH, from how to become a reviewer, to meeting information and guidelines and tools.
• : The program aims to help early career scientists become more competitive as grant applicants through firsthand experience with peer review and to enrich the Center of Scientific Review’s pool of trained reviewers.
• : Program officers identify at least three external reviewers to review submitted proposals after they have conducted a preliminary compliance review. To serve as a National Science Foundation reviewer, of the program in which you're interested.
• : Serving as a Graduate Research Fellowship Program reviewer is an opportunity to apply your research and career expertise to help identify future science and engineering leaders and to gain valuable perspectives to share with faculty and students at your institution.
• : This page outlines the review process and offers a video on how to serve as a panelist.
• : This registration form is intended for those who are new to National Endowment for the Humanities and have never applied for a grant. Complete the form if you’d like to serve as an National Endowment for the Humanities peer reviewer. Learn more about the .
• : National Institute of Food and Agriculture convenes peer review panels comprised of research, education, extension and other subject matter experts to review competitive grant proposals. Panelist duties include reviewing proposals; drafting and submitting individual ratings and written reviews; and attending and participating in a panel meeting.

The incentive plan encourages faculty and eligible professional staff to secure externally funded sponsorship for research, scholarship and creative activity and rewards them for their successes. The program offers a one-time incentive payment if the grant budget includes base salary and fringe benefits (not summer salary) and generates indirect facilities and administrative costs. See the policy for greater detail.

To be considered for the program, personnel must indicate as such on the key project personnel compliance questions from the routing form. This is then reviewed for eligibility during the administrative review process.

List of Glossaries

Common Terms and Acronyms

• Biographical sketch or biosketch: A personnel’s list of training, appointments, publications, etc., like a CV or resume. Refer to sponsor guidelines for specific formatting and information requested.
• C&P or CPS: Current and pending support (list of current and pending grants and proposals)
• CFDA: Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
• COA or COI: Collaborators and other affiliations (National Science Foundation) or conflicts of interest (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, DOE)
• Collaborative proposal (National Science Foundation): Multiorganization application, typically with subawards but sometimes submitted separately and simultaneously. If submitted separately, each organization prepares an application in research.gov, which are linked within the system.
• Consortium (National Institutes of Health): Collaborative or proposal with a subaward.
• EPSCoR: Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
• FOA: Funding opportunity announcement
• GRA: Graduate research assistant
• JIT: Just In Time (National Institutes of Health)
• LOC: Letter of commitment or letter of collaboration
  • LOI: Letter of intent
• LOS: Letter of support
• NOA: Notice of award
• NOFO: Notice of funding opportunity
• OAU: Other authorized user (National Science Foundation)
• PA: Parent announcement (National Institutes of Health)
• PI: Principal investigator (the project’s lead personnel)
• PD: Project director or program director
• PO: Program officer, typically with a federal agency’s grants program
• SKP: Senior/key personnel. Project personnel who are key to a project and have input in the direction of a project. Often, senior personnel provide quantified effort and are salaried on a project.
• Solicitation: Announcement requesting or soliciting proposals for funding (National Science Foundation).
• STTR: Small Business Technology Transfer
• SBIR: Small Business Innovation Research

Learn more about the , including the R series for research, K series for career development and the T and F series for training and fellowships.

If you don't have an eRA Commons ID, contact the grant development specialist .

Review the grants application guide here at .
Follow the National Institutes of Health . Personnel should to create this document for their proposals.

The agency issued new guidance and policy, effective January 2023, around . National Institutes of Health offers additional guidance on .

This one-page guide provides information on in National Institutes of Health applications.

Getting Started

, effective May 20, 2024. New in 2024: Investigators should to the required personnel documents, mentoring plans for graduate students and postdocs and guidance on working with tribal entities.

: Affiliate your Research.gov account with SDSU via "My Profile" then "My Roles/Add a New Role." You will select the "Add Investigator" or "Authorized User Role." Use UEI DNZNC466DGR7 to affiliate with SDSU. Submit applications using .

Key Components

Refer to the of the National Science Foundation Proposal and ��ֱ���� Policies and Procedures Guide for overall guidance on format and required proposal content and sections, including the project summary, project description and budget. Also refer to the program solicitation for guidelines specific to that call for proposals. The National Science Foundation requires these : biographical sketch and current and pending support documents formatted in scienCV, the collaborators and other affiliations table in the Excel template and a separate list of synergistic activities. Personnel must use for creating the biographical sketch and current and pending support to fit National Science Foundation guidelines. Refer to the .

Prepare your according to National Science Foundation’s general guidance. You may also find guidance specific to directorates and/or divisions for your data management plan. PIs can also use to generate their plans. The tool includes prompts and SDSU-specific language (log in using single sign-on).

If you use LaTeX to create your proposal, National Science Foundation offers a library of .

U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture application guidance

The lays out instructions for applying to the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

The Grants Application Guide serves as the umbrella guidance for the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Always refer to the funding opportunity announcement (e.g. request for applications) for specific requirements. The request for applications instructions supersede the instructions in the guide.

include those for conflict of interest, project summary and current and pending support.

Personnel documents: Refer to the application guide for the biographical sketch (page 47), current and pending (page 48) and conflict of interest (page 81). The U.S. Department of Agriculture does not have a required template for the biographical sketch.

If a logic model is required, see : and refer to the

A is required for all competitive grants programs.

NASA application guidelines

The lays out instructions for applying to NASA.

The Grant and Cooperative Agreement Manual serves as the umbrella guidance for NASA. Always refer to the funding opportunity announcement (e.g. request for applications of notice of funding opportunity) for specific requirements. The funding opportunity instructions supersede the instructions in the guide.

NASA recently began requiring biographical sketches and current and pending support documents for all principal investigators, co-principal investigators and co-investigators. Please see for guidance on completing these disclosures.