In short
NSF permits proposers to use generative AI. Proposers are encouraged, but not required, to say in the project description whether they used it and how. Proposers remain responsible for the accuracy and integrity of everything they submit. NSF reviewers are prohibited from uploading any proposal or review content to non-approved generative AI tools.
Permits AI. Applicants may use AI and stay responsible for what they submit.
For applicants
- NSF encourages applicants to state in the project description to what extent, if any, they used generative AI to develop the proposal, and how they used it. The statement is encouraged and not required. [1]
- Applicants are responsible for the accuracy and authenticity of the whole proposal submitted for merit review. This includes content developed with the help of generative AI tools. [1]
- Generative AI tools may create risks of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. NSF's Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) addresses these as research misconduct. Applicants and awardees are responsible for ensuring the integrity of the proposal and the reporting of research results. [1]
For reviewers
- Reviewers are prohibited from uploading any content from proposals, review information, or related records to non-approved generative AI tools. NSF will consider this a violation of the agency's confidentiality pledge and other applicable laws, regulations, and policies. The duty to keep merit review information confidential extends to the use of generative AI tools. [1]
- Reviewers may share publicly available information with current generation generative AI tools. [1]
Sources
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 what the funder has published and is not legal advice. Policies change, and one solicitation can add its own rules. Confirm against the funding announcement before you apply.