NHFP Selection Rubric Overview
The NHFP rubric is designed to encourage reviewers to consider many different factors when evaluating candidates for the NHFP. No candidate is expected to garner the top score in every category. While the oversubscription for the NHFP fellowship is high, do not be discouraged. Many successful applicants are surprised to receive an offer, and you may be too.
Rubric Breakdown
-
The proposed research program is the most important element in an application for an NHFP fellowship. NHFP Fellows are chosen primarily for having made a cogent, persuasive case for an important scientific research program that will advance the frontiers of astrophysics, with potential for lasting impact.
5: The proposed science is compelling, or even ground-breaking, and clearly described. The technical path forward is well-outlined and seems achievable during the fellowship.
4: The proposed science is important, relevant, and well-described. Some questions may remain about the impact of the proposed research or the certainty of achieving all of the stated goals within the fellowship period.
3: The proposed science is interesting and reasonably clear, but either not compelling, or the likelihood of achieving the stated goals within the fellowship period seems low.
2: The proposed science is poorly-focused or redundant with existing work and lacks either strong arguments for its scientific merit, or a clear path to useful results.
1: The proposed science is discussed only superficially or is not within the purview of NASA astrophysics.
-
Preparation encompasses the applicant’s education, experience, technical abilities, past research, productivity, scientific impact, and publication record. When assessing the application package, make every attempt to disentangle preparation from “pedigree” (e.g., high profile advisors or institutes). Please account for career length and where possible, available resources and opportunities.
5: The applicant has made a significant impact in their field, shows impressive skills, creativity and accomplishments, and is well-prepared to carry out their proposed research.
4: The applicant has made a noticeable impact in their field, shows relevant skills, interests and accomplishments, and is prepared to carry out their proposed research.
3: There is evidence of impactful research, and the applicant’s past work lends confidence that they can carry out their proposed research.
2: The applicant does not have significant established work or experience in the scientific areas proposed, but has provided a plan which addresses this concern.
1: The applicant will need significant support to perform this research, and/or has not laid out a clear plan for this support.
-
The overall application includes evidence for the applicant’s independence, creativity, capability, perseverance, and potential to be a leader in the astronomical community. Account for career length and available resources and opportunities.
5: The applicant is already a leader in the community. For example, the applicant is sought after for their imagination, vision and skills, leads fruitful collaborations or important initiatives.
4: The applicant shows strong potential to be a leader in the community. For example, the applicant is capable, creative, independent, and shows initiative.
3: The applicant has only provided tentative evidence for the creativity and independence that is typically needed to be a leader, but appears to be capable of successful research.
2: The applicant has yet to show evidence of leadership potential, but should be successful as an independent researcher.
1: The applicant may need significant support and oversight to perform the proposed research.
-
Each reviewer has three “Golden Buzzers” to award at their discretion. A Golden Buzzer acts like a fourth category, in which the candidate receives a grade of a “5”. When awarding Golden Buzzers, a short explanation is required, which reviewers should enter into the Comments field. Golden Buzzers may be especially useful as a way to highlight perseverance and determination along a path that may have been more difficult than usual, or to reflect other important factors not captured by the above criteria.