mirror of
https://github.com/K-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-skills.git
synced 2026-01-26 16:58:56 +08:00
feat(research-grants): Add comprehensive Taiwan NSTC proposal support
- Add new nstc_guidelines.md with official requirements and practical insights - Include CM03 format specifications and page limits by field - Integrate LaTeX templates (CTAN package, Overleaf templates) - Add practical writing strategies from three expert reviewers: * Prof. Huang You-Ping (NPU): Scoring thresholds and section strategies * Prof. Guo Yao-Huang: Closed-loop logic and KPI formulation * President Wei Yao-Hui (Mackay): SMART principles and review dimensions - Include budget preparation guidance and common pitfalls - Update SKILL.md to reference NSTC in overview and agency list This comprehensive guide provides 700+ lines of actionable guidance for Taiwan NSTC (formerly MOST/NSC) research proposal writing.
This commit is contained in:
backtrue
733
scientific-skills/research-grants/references/nstc_guidelines.md
Normal file
733
scientific-skills/research-grants/references/nstc_guidelines.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,733 @@
|
||||
# Taiwan NSTC (National Science and Technology Council) Proposal Guidelines
|
||||
|
||||
> ⚠️ **IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER**: This guide is based on publicly available information and general academic writing principles. **Always consult the official NSTC website and your specific program's solicitation for the most accurate and up-to-date requirements.** Requirements may vary by field, program type, and year.
|
||||
|
||||
## Overview
|
||||
|
||||
**Official Name**: 國家科學及技術委員會 (National Science and Technology Council, NSTC)
|
||||
**Former Name**: 科技部 (Ministry of Science and Technology, MOST)
|
||||
**Official Website**: https://www.nstc.gov.tw/
|
||||
|
||||
**Mission**: Advance Taiwan's scientific and technological development through research funding, with emphasis on scientific breakthrough, industrial application, and societal impact.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## CM03: Research Proposal Content (研究計畫內容)
|
||||
|
||||
CM03 is the core technical document of your NSTC proposal. It is officially titled "Contents of Grant Proposal" (計畫書本文).
|
||||
|
||||
### Official Format Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
Based on official NSTC documentation:
|
||||
|
||||
**Paper Size**: A4 (29.7 cm × 21 cm)
|
||||
|
||||
**Font**:
|
||||
- Chinese: PMingLiU (新細明體) or BiauKai (標楷體)
|
||||
- English: Times New Roman or Arial
|
||||
- Size: 12-point minimum
|
||||
|
||||
**Spacing**: Single space for English; no extra spacing between lines for Chinese
|
||||
|
||||
**Page Limits** (varies by field and program type):
|
||||
- **Humanities**: Individual 1-year: 30 pages; Multi-year: 45 pages
|
||||
- **Engineering**: Individual 1-year: 20 pages; Multi-year: 25 pages
|
||||
- **Natural Sciences**: Individual: 30 pages; Integrated: 45 pages
|
||||
- **Life Sciences**: Individual: 25 pages
|
||||
- **⚠️ CRITICAL**: Page limits include references and figures. Exceeding limits may result in automatic rejection.
|
||||
|
||||
**File Format**: PDF recommended for submission
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Required Content Sections
|
||||
|
||||
Based on official CM03 templates, the proposal must include:
|
||||
|
||||
### 1. Abstract (摘要)
|
||||
|
||||
**Requirements**:
|
||||
- **Chinese abstract**: Maximum 500 characters
|
||||
- **English abstract**: Maximum 500 words
|
||||
- **Keywords**: 3-5 keywords in both languages
|
||||
|
||||
**Content**:
|
||||
- Research background and problem statement
|
||||
- Research objectives
|
||||
- Key methods and approaches
|
||||
- Expected outcomes and impact
|
||||
|
||||
### 2. Research Background and Objectives (研究計畫之背景及目的)
|
||||
|
||||
**Required Elements**:
|
||||
- Problem statement and significance
|
||||
- Research originality and innovation
|
||||
- Expected impact
|
||||
- Review of domestic and international related research
|
||||
- Important references with critical evaluation
|
||||
- **For continuing projects**: Progress from previous year
|
||||
|
||||
### 3. Research Methods, Steps, and Timeline (研究方法、進行步驟及執行進度)
|
||||
|
||||
**Required Elements**:
|
||||
- Research principles and methodology
|
||||
- Justification for chosen methods
|
||||
- Innovative aspects of the approach
|
||||
- Anticipated problems and solutions
|
||||
- Equipment and instrumentation needs
|
||||
- **For international travel**: Justification and expected benefits
|
||||
- **Timeline**: Year-by-year breakdown of activities
|
||||
|
||||
### 4. Expected Outcomes (預期完成之工作項目及成果)
|
||||
|
||||
**Required Elements**:
|
||||
- Expected research tasks (by year)
|
||||
- Personnel training plans
|
||||
- Expected outputs:
|
||||
- Journal articles (specify target journals)
|
||||
- Conference papers
|
||||
- Patents
|
||||
- Technology transfer
|
||||
- Other deliverables
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 114年度 (2025) Application Requirements
|
||||
|
||||
Based on official announcements:
|
||||
|
||||
**Application Method**: Fully online through NSTC Academic Research Service Network (學術研發服務網)
|
||||
|
||||
**Project Start Date**: Most projects begin August 1, 2025 (114年8月1日)
|
||||
|
||||
**Academic Ethics Requirement**:
|
||||
- First-time applicants and first-time participants must complete **at least 6 hours** of academic ethics training within 3 years before submission
|
||||
- Must provide certification
|
||||
|
||||
**Thesis Disclosure**:
|
||||
- If proposal content involves student theses supervised by the PI, it must be clearly disclosed or cited
|
||||
- Already published work (including student theses) should not be hidden as new research content
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Budget Categories (經費編列)
|
||||
|
||||
Based on official guidelines:
|
||||
|
||||
**Personnel (人事費)**:
|
||||
- Postdoctoral researchers
|
||||
- Research assistants
|
||||
- Part-time staff
|
||||
- **Note**: PI salary typically not allowed
|
||||
|
||||
**Equipment (設備費)**:
|
||||
- Items exceeding NT$10,000 with service life > 2 years
|
||||
- Items exceeding NT$200,000 may require price appraisal
|
||||
|
||||
**Consumables (耗材費)**:
|
||||
- Lab supplies, reagents, software licenses
|
||||
|
||||
**Travel (差旅費)**:
|
||||
- Domestic and international conferences
|
||||
- Research collaborations
|
||||
|
||||
**Other (其他費用)**:
|
||||
- Publication fees, data collection, outsourcing
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Review Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
**Note**: Specific scoring weights are not publicly disclosed by NSTC. The following are general evaluation dimensions based on academic practice:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Innovation (創新性)**: Novelty of concept and approach
|
||||
2. **Feasibility (可行性)**: Methodology soundness and preliminary data
|
||||
3. **PI Capability (主持人研究能力)**: Track record and expertise
|
||||
4. **Value (價值)**: Academic contribution and societal/industrial impact
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Official Resources
|
||||
|
||||
**NSTC Website**: https://www.nstc.gov.tw/
|
||||
|
||||
**Application System**: Access through "學術研發服務網" (Academic Research Service Network)
|
||||
|
||||
**Help Desk**:
|
||||
- Computer/System Issues: 0800-212-058 or (02)2737-7592
|
||||
- Regulation Questions: (02)2737-7440, 7568, 7847, 7980, 8010
|
||||
|
||||
**Important**: Always download the latest application forms and guidelines from the official NSTC website under "專題研究計畫專區" (Research Project Area).
|
||||
|
||||
### LaTeX Templates
|
||||
|
||||
For those who prefer LaTeX for proposal writing, there are excellent community-contributed templates available:
|
||||
|
||||
#### Official CTAN Package (Recommended)
|
||||
|
||||
**nstc-proposal** - Professional LaTeX classes for NSTC proposals:
|
||||
- **GitHub**: https://github.com/L-TChen/nstc-proposal
|
||||
- **CTAN**: Available via `tlmgr install nstc-proposal`
|
||||
- **Supports**: Both CM03 and CM302 (bibliography format)
|
||||
- **Features**:
|
||||
- Compatible with pdfLaTeX and XeTeX
|
||||
- Bilingual support (Chinese/English)
|
||||
- Pre-defined section commands (`\ProposalBackground`, `\ProposalMethod`, `\ProposalPlan`, `\ProposalIntegration`)
|
||||
- Multiple font options (standard, Libertine, KaiTi)
|
||||
- Proper formatting for NSTC requirements
|
||||
|
||||
**Installation**:
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# Via TeX package manager (easiest)
|
||||
tlmgr install nstc-proposal
|
||||
|
||||
# Or manual installation from GitHub
|
||||
git clone https://github.com/L-TChen/nstc-proposal.git
|
||||
cd nstc-proposal
|
||||
latex nstc-proposal.ins
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Basic Usage Example**:
|
||||
```latex
|
||||
\documentclass{nstc-cm03}
|
||||
\usepackage{microtype}
|
||||
|
||||
\begin{document}
|
||||
\ProposalBackground
|
||||
% Your content here
|
||||
|
||||
\ProposalMethod
|
||||
% Your content here
|
||||
|
||||
\ProposalPlan
|
||||
% Your content here
|
||||
|
||||
\nocite{*}
|
||||
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
||||
\bibliography{references}
|
||||
\end{document}
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
#### Alternative Templates
|
||||
|
||||
**Engineering Division Template**:
|
||||
- GitHub: https://github.com/mcps5601/NSTC-proposal-LaTeX
|
||||
- Provides CM03 format specifically for Engineering Division (工程司)
|
||||
- **Note**: Format requirements may differ by division
|
||||
|
||||
**Overleaf Templates**:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **audachang's CM03 Template** (Recommended for Overleaf users):
|
||||
- GitHub: https://github.com/audachang/taiwan-nstc-cm03-template
|
||||
- Overleaf: Direct import from GitHub
|
||||
- **Features**:
|
||||
- Includes official CM03.doc file for reference
|
||||
- Uses XeCJK with BiauKai (標楷體) font for Traditional Chinese
|
||||
- Organized structure with separate section files (`background.tex`, `methods.tex`, `expected_outcomes.tex`)
|
||||
- **Important**: Must use XeLaTeX or LuaLaTeX compiler
|
||||
- Based on Chen Wen-sheng's template
|
||||
|
||||
2. **Other Overleaf Templates**:
|
||||
- Search for "國科會研究計畫內容: CM03" on Overleaf
|
||||
- Various community-contributed templates available
|
||||
|
||||
> ⚠️ **Important**: These are community-contributed templates. Always verify that the format complies with the latest official NSTC requirements for your specific field and program type. The `nstc-proposal` CTAN package is regularly maintained and is the most reliable option.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Practical Insights from Reviewers
|
||||
|
||||
> 📚 **Source**: This section is based on "國科會計畫撰寫經驗分享" by Prof. Huang You-Ping (黃有評), President of National Penghu University of Science and Technology. These insights reflect the **reviewer's perspective** and are particularly relevant for Engineering Division proposals.
|
||||
|
||||
> ⚠️ **Important**: Scoring thresholds and specific criteria may vary by division (Humanities, Engineering, Natural Sciences, Life Sciences, etc.). Always check with your specific field's requirements.
|
||||
|
||||
### Understanding the Scoring System
|
||||
|
||||
Based on Engineering Division (工程司) - Automation/Control field experience:
|
||||
|
||||
**Scoring Thresholds**:
|
||||
- **92+ points (Top 5%)**: Outstanding research level - eligible for Distinguished Research Award (傑出研究獎)
|
||||
- **88+ points (Top 15%)**: Required threshold if applying for a second concurrent project
|
||||
- **81+ points (Top 54-55%)**: **Passing threshold** - proposals scoring 81 or above are recommended for approval
|
||||
- **80 points or below**: Not recommended for approval
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Insight**: The difference between "passing" (81) and "excellent" (88+) often lies in the strength of preliminary data, clarity of innovation, and demonstrated feasibility.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Section-by-Section Writing Strategies
|
||||
|
||||
#### Abstract (摘要)
|
||||
|
||||
**Reviewer Expectations**:
|
||||
- Must demonstrate **innovation** and **problem-solving strategy** immediately
|
||||
- Should capture attention in the first reading
|
||||
- Clearly state what makes this proposal different from existing work
|
||||
|
||||
**Critical Question**: Does the abstract make the reviewer want to read more?
|
||||
|
||||
#### Research Background and Motivation (研究背景及目的)
|
||||
|
||||
**What Reviewers Look For**:
|
||||
- **Clear problem definition**: Is the core problem well-defined?
|
||||
- **Reasonable design and objectives**: Are the goals achievable and well-justified?
|
||||
- **Logical flow**: Does the background naturally lead to your research objectives?
|
||||
|
||||
**Common Weakness**: Vague problem statements that don't clearly identify what gap you're filling.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Literature Review (文獻探討)
|
||||
|
||||
**Quality Over Quantity**:
|
||||
- Select **highly relevant** literature, not just many papers
|
||||
- **Critical synthesis**: Don't just list papers - analyze strengths, weaknesses, and gaps
|
||||
- **Recency matters**: Include publications from the **last 2-3 years** to show awareness of current state-of-the-art
|
||||
- **Strategic positioning**: Use literature review to guide readers toward your research objectives
|
||||
|
||||
**Reviewer's Perspective**: A well-curated 20-paper review with critical analysis is far superior to a 50-paper list without synthesis.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Research Methods and Implementation (研究方法、進行步驟及執行進度)
|
||||
|
||||
**Feasibility is Critical**:
|
||||
- **Avoid over-idealization**: Proposals that are too ambitious without clear mitigation strategies often fail
|
||||
- **Logical progression**: Each step should follow naturally from the previous one
|
||||
- **Comparison with existing methods**: Clearly show how your approach differs and why it's better
|
||||
- **Contingency planning**: Address potential problems and provide alternative approaches
|
||||
|
||||
**Red Flags for Reviewers**:
|
||||
- Methods that are too difficult without demonstrated capability
|
||||
- Lack of logical connection between steps
|
||||
- No discussion of potential challenges
|
||||
- Missing preliminary data for novel approaches
|
||||
|
||||
#### Expected Outcomes (預期完成之工作項目及成果)
|
||||
|
||||
**Be Specific and Quantifiable**:
|
||||
- ✅ **Good**: "Improve system efficiency by 15% compared to baseline method X"
|
||||
- ❌ **Weak**: "Improve system efficiency"
|
||||
|
||||
**Include Multiple Dimensions**:
|
||||
- **Academic value**: Target journals and expected number of publications
|
||||
- **Economic benefits**: Potential industrial applications
|
||||
- **Talent cultivation**: Number and level of students to be trained
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Budget Preparation Tips
|
||||
|
||||
**Alignment with Research Plan**:
|
||||
- Every budget item should directly support a specific research activity
|
||||
- Personnel costs should reflect actual time commitment
|
||||
- Equipment justification should explain why existing facilities are insufficient
|
||||
|
||||
**International Conference Travel**:
|
||||
- Typical budget: NT$70,000 - 100,000
|
||||
- **Must justify**: Explain your track record of international conference participation and contributions
|
||||
- Show how conference attendance benefits the research
|
||||
|
||||
**Reviewer's Check**: Does the budget match the proposed activities? Are there unexplained large expenses?
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Strategic Career Advice
|
||||
|
||||
**For New Faculty**:
|
||||
1. **Always apply**: New investigators have certain advantages - don't miss the opportunity
|
||||
2. **Build foundation**: Use undergraduate research projects (大專學生研究計畫) to develop preliminary data
|
||||
3. **Self-assessment**: Use the review criteria checklist to evaluate your proposal before submission
|
||||
|
||||
**Building Academic Visibility**:
|
||||
- Join professional societies (e.g., IEEE, CAA)
|
||||
- Serve as reviewer for journals and conferences
|
||||
- Take on roles as Associate Editor (AE) or board member
|
||||
- **Why it matters**: Reviewers are more likely to recognize and trust researchers who are active in the community
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Preparation and Mindset
|
||||
|
||||
**Timeline**:
|
||||
- **Start early**: Successful proposals require multiple revisions
|
||||
- **Iterate**: Don't wait until the deadline to start writing
|
||||
- **Seek feedback**: Have colleagues review your draft
|
||||
|
||||
**Handling Rejection**:
|
||||
- **Learn from feedback**: Carefully review all reviewer comments
|
||||
- **Revise and resubmit**: Address criticisms in next submission
|
||||
- **Consider alternatives**: If fundamental issues exist, consider different program types or focus areas
|
||||
|
||||
**Professional Presentation**:
|
||||
- **Figures and tables**: Must be clear, numbered, and properly labeled
|
||||
- **Formatting**: Professional layout demonstrates attention to detail
|
||||
- **Proofreading**: Typos and formatting errors suggest carelessness
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Self-Assessment Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
Before submitting, ask yourself:
|
||||
|
||||
**Innovation**:
|
||||
- [ ] Is my approach genuinely novel or just incremental?
|
||||
- [ ] Have I clearly explained what's new compared to existing work?
|
||||
- [ ] Do I have evidence (preliminary data) that my innovation is feasible?
|
||||
|
||||
**Feasibility**:
|
||||
- [ ] Are my methods well-described and logical?
|
||||
- [ ] Do I have the necessary expertise and resources?
|
||||
- [ ] Have I addressed potential problems?
|
||||
- [ ] Is my timeline realistic?
|
||||
|
||||
**Impact**:
|
||||
- [ ] Are my expected outcomes specific and measurable?
|
||||
- [ ] Have I explained both academic and practical value?
|
||||
- [ ] Does my proposal align with national priorities or industrial needs?
|
||||
|
||||
**Presentation**:
|
||||
- [ ] Are all figures clear and properly labeled?
|
||||
- [ ] Is the writing clear and free of errors?
|
||||
- [ ] Does the budget align with proposed activities?
|
||||
- [ ] Have I included all required sections?
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Advanced Writing Strategies from Government Reviewers
|
||||
|
||||
> 📚 **Sources**: This section integrates insights from two comprehensive guides:
|
||||
> 1. "如何提升政府科技發展計畫書撰寫品質" by **Prof. Guo Yao-Huang (郭耀煌教授)**
|
||||
> 2. "如何提升政府科技發展計畫書撰寫品質" by **President Wei Yao-Hui (魏耀揮校長)**, Mackay Medical College
|
||||
>
|
||||
> These guides are based on extensive experience reviewing government science and technology proposals (including NSTC and other ministry programs).
|
||||
|
||||
### The Closed-Loop Logic Framework
|
||||
|
||||
**Core Principle**: A high-quality proposal must demonstrate complete logical coherence from problem to performance.
|
||||
|
||||
**The Loop**:
|
||||
```
|
||||
Problem Discovery → Goal Definition → Strategy Formulation →
|
||||
Concrete Measures → Execution Plan → Performance Indicators (KPI)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Critical Requirement**: Every element must connect logically.
|
||||
|
||||
**Example of Broken Logic**:
|
||||
- ❌ **Goal**: Improve industrial technology
|
||||
- ❌ **Strategy**: Provide student scholarships
|
||||
- **Problem**: The strategy doesn't directly support the goal
|
||||
|
||||
**Example of Closed Logic**:
|
||||
- ✅ **Goal**: Improve industrial technology
|
||||
- ✅ **Strategy**: Develop advanced manufacturing process
|
||||
- ✅ **Measures**: Establish testing facility, train engineers
|
||||
- ✅ **KPI**: Achieve 15% efficiency improvement, train 20 engineers
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### SMART Principle for Proposal Planning
|
||||
|
||||
Before writing, ensure your proposal meets **SMART** criteria:
|
||||
|
||||
| Criterion | Meaning | Application |
|
||||
|-----------|---------|-------------|
|
||||
| **S**pecific | Concrete goals | Define exact technical metrics (e.g., "improve accuracy to 95%") |
|
||||
| **M**easurable | Quantifiable KPIs | Use numbers, percentages, counts |
|
||||
| **A**chievable | Realistic scope | Match available resources, personnel, equipment, budget |
|
||||
| **R**ealistic | Scientific basis | Grounded in data and logical reasoning |
|
||||
| **T**imely | Clear timeline | Specific milestones with dates |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Four Dimensions of Review Criteria
|
||||
|
||||
Reviewers evaluate proposals across four key dimensions:
|
||||
|
||||
#### 1. **Necessity (需求性)**
|
||||
- Does it align with national science and technology policies?
|
||||
- Is there urgent need for this research?
|
||||
- Why must this problem be solved **now**?
|
||||
- Why is **your institution** the right one to do this?
|
||||
|
||||
**Weak Proposal**: Generic problem statement without urgency
|
||||
**Strong Proposal**: Cites specific policy documents, demonstrates time-sensitive need
|
||||
|
||||
#### 2. **Feasibility (可行性)**
|
||||
- Are the goals achievable within the proposed timeline?
|
||||
- Is the team qualified (track record, expertise)?
|
||||
- Are the methods sound and well-justified?
|
||||
- Is the management plan realistic?
|
||||
|
||||
**Red Flag**: Overly ambitious goals without preliminary data or risk mitigation
|
||||
|
||||
#### 3. **Appropriateness (適當性)**
|
||||
- Does the budget match the work scope?
|
||||
- Are personnel allocations reasonable?
|
||||
- Is existing equipment utilized effectively?
|
||||
- Are expensive items properly justified?
|
||||
|
||||
**Reviewer's Question**: Why do you need this expensive equipment when similar facilities exist?
|
||||
|
||||
#### 4. **Impact and Benefits (效益與影響)**
|
||||
- Beyond academic output, what are the societal effects?
|
||||
- Economic benefits or industrial applications?
|
||||
- Environmental, health, or national security impacts?
|
||||
- Long-term sustainability?
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Insight**: Reviewers increasingly value **societal impact** over pure academic metrics.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Performance Indicators (KPI): The Three Levels
|
||||
|
||||
Understanding the difference between input, output, and outcome is critical:
|
||||
|
||||
| Level | Type | Examples | Reviewer Value |
|
||||
|-------|------|----------|----------------|
|
||||
| **Input** | Resources invested | Personnel, budget, equipment | Basic requirement |
|
||||
| **Output** | Direct products | Papers, patents, conferences | Minimum expectation |
|
||||
| **Outcome** | Real-world impact | Industry adoption, health improvement, policy influence | **High value** |
|
||||
|
||||
**Example Comparison**:
|
||||
- ❌ **Weak KPI**: "Publish 3 papers" (output only)
|
||||
- ✅ **Strong KPI**: "Publish 3 papers in Q1 journals AND transfer technology to 2 companies, generating NT$5M in licensing revenue" (output + outcome)
|
||||
|
||||
**KPI Best Practices**:
|
||||
- **Relevance**: Directly tied to project goals
|
||||
- **Ease**: Simple to measure and verify
|
||||
- **Credibility**: Based on realistic projections
|
||||
- **Cost-efficiency**: Achievable within budget
|
||||
|
||||
**Progressive Targets**: Show year-by-year progress, not just final goals
|
||||
- Year 1: 30% completion
|
||||
- Year 2: 70% completion
|
||||
- Year 3: 100% completion + sustainability plan
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Practical Analysis Tools
|
||||
|
||||
#### SWOT Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
Use SWOT to position your proposal strategically:
|
||||
|
||||
| Strengths | Weaknesses |
|
||||
|-----------|------------|
|
||||
| Your unique expertise | Resource limitations |
|
||||
| Existing facilities | Lack of certain skills |
|
||||
| Strong track record | Time constraints |
|
||||
|
||||
| Opportunities | Threats |
|
||||
|---------------|---------|
|
||||
| Policy alignment | Competing teams |
|
||||
| Industry partnerships | Technology changes |
|
||||
| Emerging trends | Funding cuts |
|
||||
|
||||
**Critical**: Don't just list SWOT - **provide response strategies** for Weaknesses and Threats.
|
||||
|
||||
**Example**:
|
||||
- **Weakness**: Lack of high-performance computing cluster
|
||||
- **Response**: Partner with National Center for High-performance Computing (國網中心)
|
||||
|
||||
#### Fishbone Diagram (魚骨圖)
|
||||
|
||||
Use fishbone diagrams to demonstrate deep problem understanding:
|
||||
|
||||
```
|
||||
Main Problem
|
||||
↑
|
||||
┌───────┬────────┼────────┬───────┐
|
||||
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
|
||||
│ │ │ │
|
||||
Sub-causes Sub-causes Sub-causes Sub-causes
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
**Purpose**: Show reviewers you've thoroughly analyzed root causes, not just symptoms.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Gantt Chart
|
||||
|
||||
For complex multi-year projects, include Gantt charts to show:
|
||||
- Task dependencies
|
||||
- Resource allocation over time
|
||||
- Milestones and deliverables
|
||||
- Risk management checkpoints
|
||||
|
||||
**Professional Presentation**: Use visual tools to demonstrate project management capability.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Budget Preparation: Critical Details
|
||||
|
||||
#### Necessity and Reasonableness
|
||||
|
||||
**The Two Questions Every Budget Item Must Answer**:
|
||||
1. **Why is this necessary?** (Link to specific research activity)
|
||||
2. **How was this calculated?** (Show detailed breakdown)
|
||||
|
||||
**Example - Equipment Justification**:
|
||||
- ❌ **Weak**: "High-performance workstation: NT$150,000"
|
||||
- ✅ **Strong**: "High-performance workstation (Intel Xeon 32-core, 128GB RAM, RTX 4090 GPU) for deep learning model training: NT$150,000. Current lab computers (8GB RAM) cannot handle the 50GB dataset required for Aim 2. Estimated training time reduction from 2 weeks to 2 days."
|
||||
|
||||
#### Budget Category Separation
|
||||
|
||||
**Critical Rule**: Strictly separate "recurrent" (經常門) and "capital" (資本門) expenses.
|
||||
|
||||
**Recurrent (經常門)**:
|
||||
- Personnel salaries
|
||||
- Travel expenses
|
||||
- Consumables
|
||||
- Publication fees
|
||||
|
||||
**Capital (資本門)**:
|
||||
- Equipment ≥ NT$10,000 with lifespan ≥ 2 years
|
||||
- Items ≥ NT$200,000 may require price comparison
|
||||
|
||||
**Forbidden**: Using science and technology funds for general administrative work
|
||||
|
||||
#### Outsourcing (委辦費用)
|
||||
|
||||
If including outsourcing costs:
|
||||
- Specify exact scope of work
|
||||
- Explain why in-house execution is not feasible
|
||||
- Describe selection and oversight procedures
|
||||
- Provide cost breakdown
|
||||
|
||||
#### International Conference Travel
|
||||
|
||||
**Typical Range**: NT$70,000 - 100,000
|
||||
|
||||
**Required Justification**:
|
||||
- Your track record of international presentations
|
||||
- Specific conference name and dates (if known)
|
||||
- How attendance benefits the research (networking, collaboration, dissemination)
|
||||
- Why this conference is important for your field
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Common Review Comments to Avoid
|
||||
|
||||
Based on actual reviewer feedback from government proposals:
|
||||
|
||||
#### 1. **Vague Objectives**
|
||||
- ❌ "Promote development of..."
|
||||
- ❌ "Research on..."
|
||||
- ✅ "Develop algorithm achieving 95% accuracy on benchmark X"
|
||||
|
||||
#### 2. **Redundancy and Overlap**
|
||||
- **Problem**: Multiple agencies funding similar work
|
||||
- **Solution**: Clearly differentiate from existing programs; coordinate with other ministries before submission
|
||||
|
||||
#### 3. **Lack of Continuity Explanation**
|
||||
- **For continuing projects**: Must explain relationship between previous results and new proposal
|
||||
- Show how you're building on (not repeating) past work
|
||||
|
||||
#### 4. **Technology Push Without Market Pull**
|
||||
- **Problem**: Developing technology without considering industry needs or market readiness
|
||||
- **Solution**: Include industry partner letters, market analysis, or user needs assessment
|
||||
|
||||
#### 5. **Ignoring Negative Impacts**
|
||||
- **Common oversight**: Privacy concerns, environmental impact, ethical issues
|
||||
- **Solution**: Include risk assessment and mitigation strategies
|
||||
|
||||
#### 6. **Excessive Administrative Overhead**
|
||||
- **Problem**: Too many project management offices (PMO) or coordinators
|
||||
- **Solution**: Justify administrative structure based on project complexity
|
||||
|
||||
#### 7. **Missing Customer Definition**
|
||||
- **Question**: Who will use your research results?
|
||||
- **Answer**: Clearly define your target users/beneficiaries
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Writing for the Reviewer
|
||||
|
||||
**Remember**: You're writing for busy reviewers, not for yourself.
|
||||
|
||||
**Best Practices**:
|
||||
1. **Use visual aids**: Replace dense text with figures, tables, flowcharts
|
||||
2. **Data-driven**: Support claims with specific numbers and citations
|
||||
3. **Objective correctness**: Verify all data and calculations
|
||||
4. **Logical flow**: Each section should naturally lead to the next
|
||||
5. **Professional polish**: Clean formatting, no typos, consistent terminology
|
||||
|
||||
**Critical Question**: After reading your abstract, does the reviewer **want** to read more?
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Policy Alignment
|
||||
|
||||
**Essential**: Connect your research to national priorities.
|
||||
|
||||
**How to Demonstrate Alignment**:
|
||||
- Cite specific government policy documents (e.g., "六大核心戰略產業")
|
||||
- Reference national development plans
|
||||
- Show how your research addresses societal needs
|
||||
- Link to ministry-specific priorities
|
||||
|
||||
**Example**:
|
||||
"This research directly supports Taiwan's '5+2 Innovative Industries' initiative, specifically the biomedical sector, by developing..."
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Exit Strategy (For Multi-Year Projects)
|
||||
|
||||
**Requirement**: Long-term projects must include sustainability plans.
|
||||
|
||||
**Key Questions**:
|
||||
- What happens when funding ends?
|
||||
- How will results be maintained or transferred?
|
||||
- What are the success/failure criteria for early termination?
|
||||
|
||||
**Components**:
|
||||
- Technology transfer plan
|
||||
- Industry partnership agreements
|
||||
- Follow-on funding strategy
|
||||
- Publication and dissemination plan
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### Evaluation Mechanisms
|
||||
|
||||
**For public service projects**: Include feedback and assessment systems.
|
||||
|
||||
**Components**:
|
||||
- User satisfaction surveys
|
||||
- Performance metrics tracking
|
||||
- Regular review milestones
|
||||
- Adjustment mechanisms based on feedback
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Common Mistakes to Avoid
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Exceeding page limits** → Automatic rejection
|
||||
2. **Missing required sections** → Incomplete application
|
||||
3. **Incorrect font or formatting** → Non-compliance
|
||||
4. **Lack of preliminary data** (for applicable programs) → Reduced competitiveness
|
||||
5. **Vague methodology** → Feasibility concerns
|
||||
6. **No connection to Taiwan context** → Lower impact score
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Final Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
Before submission:
|
||||
|
||||
- [ ] Check specific program solicitation for field-specific requirements
|
||||
- [ ] Verify page limit for your field and program type
|
||||
- [ ] Complete academic ethics training (if required)
|
||||
- [ ] Prepare both Chinese and English abstracts
|
||||
- [ ] Include all required forms (CM01, CM02, CM03, etc.)
|
||||
- [ ] Verify all formatting requirements
|
||||
- [ ] Proofread for errors
|
||||
- [ ] Submit through official online system before deadline
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Disclaimer
|
||||
|
||||
**This guide is for reference only.** Official requirements may change annually and vary by program. **Always consult**:
|
||||
1. The latest official NSTC announcements (徵求公告)
|
||||
2. Your specific program's application guidelines
|
||||
3. Your institution's research office
|
||||
4. Senior colleagues in your field
|
||||
|
||||
For the most authoritative information, visit: **https://www.nstc.gov.tw/**
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user