Fine isn’t fundable.
Mock NSF panel reviews for grant proposals, from GRFP to CAREER. I’ve served on NSF review panels every year for a decade, and I’ll tell you what the panel will say before you submit.
Think of me as the aunt who notices everybody’s flaws at Thanksgiving, and says it out loud. Exhausting at family dinners. Extremely useful two weeks before a deadline.
A 1–2 page mock panel review, written like the ones panelists submit to NSF program officers. Never sugarcoated.
When to send it: after you have a full first draft and before you start polishing. If you need an editor or writing coach, I can point you to someone.
GRFP to CAREER. My specialty is ecology and evolutionary biology, and I’ve reviewed proposals across the biological sciences.
GRFP or PRFB applications.
$300
70% below my standard rate.
| 5 business days | $300 |
|---|---|
| 48 hours | $375 |
A full NSF proposal (about 15 pages).
$1,000
| 7–10 business days | $1,000 |
|---|---|
| 3–5 business days | $1,250 |
| 48 hours | $2,000 |
The full proposal plus supplementary documents.
$1,400
| 7–10 business days | $1,400 |
|---|---|
| 3–5 business days | $1,750 |
| 48 hours | $2,800 |
If your institution requires contractor forms and a W-9, email me for a scope of work. If I’m booked for your deadline, ask to be added to the waitlist.
Include the program, your deadline, the package, and the turnaround you need.
I confirm dates and send an invoice and any forms your institution needs.
A complete draft, not an outline.
Your panel-style review arrives by the agreed date.
I’m Catherine Hulshof, a tropical ecologist and Associate Professor at Virginia Commonwealth University. NSF has funded my work continuously for nearly 20 years: REU, GRFP, PRFB, IRES, Macrosystems, EPSCoR, and a CAREER award.
I’ve served on NSF panels for a decade, often several times a year, across multiple divisions and programs. I’ve read hundreds of proposals, some inspiring and some dead in the water.
After tenure I figured out the two things I’m strangely good at: measuring trees and reviewing grant proposals. This is the second one.
Posts on NSF proposals and review panels.
Two CAREER mistakes I see on NSF panels: a lukewarm departmental letter and weak integration of research and education, and how to fix both.
NSF BIO has changed its peer-review process. Why a pre-submission review now matters more, especially for early-career and niche researchers.
Performative inclusion, narrow benefit, no feasibility, no creativity: the Broader Impacts problems that sink NSF proposals with strong science.
Email me and I’ll reply with my availability and a scope of work.
catherine.hulshof [at] gmail [dot] com
Copy this into your email and fill it in:
Package: Student Boost / Base / Deluxe
Turnaround: standard / expedited / rush
Program or solicitation:
Submission deadline:
Page count:
Institutional payment (W-9 needed)? yes / no