scientific-skills/research-grants/references/nstc_guidelines.md
⚠️ 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.
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 is the core technical document of your NSTC proposal. It is officially titled "Contents of Grant Proposal" (計畫書本文).
Based on official NSTC documentation:
Paper Size: A4 (29.7 cm × 21 cm)
Font:
Spacing: Single space for English; no extra spacing between lines for Chinese
Page Limits (varies by field and program type):
File Format: PDF recommended for submission
Based on official CM03 templates, the proposal must include:
Requirements:
Content:
Required Elements:
Required Elements:
Required Elements:
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:
Thesis Disclosure:
Based on official guidelines:
Personnel (人事費):
Equipment (設備費):
Consumables (耗材費):
Travel (差旅費):
Other (其他費用):
Note: Specific scoring weights are not publicly disclosed by NSTC. The following are general evaluation dimensions based on academic practice:
NSTC Website: https://www.nstc.gov.tw/
Application System: Access through "學術研發服務網" (Academic Research Service Network)
Help Desk:
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).
For those who prefer LaTeX for proposal writing, there are excellent community-contributed templates available:
nstc-proposal - Professional LaTeX classes for NSTC proposals:
tlmgr install nstc-proposal\ProposalBackground, \ProposalMethod, \ProposalPlan, \ProposalIntegration)Installation:
# 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:
\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}
Engineering Division Template:
Overleaf Templates:
audachang's CM03 Template (Recommended for Overleaf users):
background.tex, methods.tex, expected_outcomes.tex)Other Overleaf Templates:
⚠️ 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-proposalCTAN package is regularly maintained and is the most reliable option.
📚 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.
Based on Engineering Division (工程司) - Automation/Control field experience:
Scoring Thresholds:
Key Insight: The difference between "passing" (81) and "excellent" (88+) often lies in the strength of preliminary data, clarity of innovation, and demonstrated feasibility.
Reviewer Expectations:
Critical Question: Does the abstract make the reviewer want to read more?
What Reviewers Look For:
Common Weakness: Vague problem statements that don't clearly identify what gap you're filling.
Quality Over Quantity:
Reviewer's Perspective: A well-curated 20-paper review with critical analysis is far superior to a 50-paper list without synthesis.
Feasibility is Critical:
Red Flags for Reviewers:
Be Specific and Quantifiable:
Include Multiple Dimensions:
Alignment with Research Plan:
International Conference Travel:
Reviewer's Check: Does the budget match the proposed activities? Are there unexplained large expenses?
For New Faculty:
Building Academic Visibility:
Timeline:
Handling Rejection:
Professional Presentation:
Before submitting, ask yourself:
Innovation:
Feasibility:
Impact:
Presentation:
📚 Sources: This section integrates insights from two comprehensive guides:
- "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)
- "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).
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:
Example of Closed Logic:
Before writing, ensure your proposal meets SMART criteria:
| Criterion | Meaning | Application |
|---|---|---|
| Specific | Concrete goals | Define exact technical metrics (e.g., "improve accuracy to 95%") |
| Measurable | Quantifiable KPIs | Use numbers, percentages, counts |
| Achievable | Realistic scope | Match available resources, personnel, equipment, budget |
| Realistic | Scientific basis | Grounded in data and logical reasoning |
| Timely | Clear timeline | Specific milestones with dates |
Reviewers evaluate proposals across four key dimensions:
Weak Proposal: Generic problem statement without urgency
Strong Proposal: Cites specific policy documents, demonstrates time-sensitive need
Red Flag: Overly ambitious goals without preliminary data or risk mitigation
Reviewer's Question: Why do you need this expensive equipment when similar facilities exist?
Key Insight: Reviewers increasingly value societal impact over pure academic metrics.
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:
KPI Best Practices:
Progressive Targets: Show year-by-year progress, not just final goals
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:
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.
For complex multi-year projects, include Gantt charts to show:
Professional Presentation: Use visual tools to demonstrate project management capability.
The Two Questions Every Budget Item Must Answer:
Example - Equipment Justification:
Critical Rule: Strictly separate "recurrent" (經常門) and "capital" (資本門) expenses.
Recurrent (經常門):
Capital (資本門):
Forbidden: Using science and technology funds for general administrative work
If including outsourcing costs:
Typical Range: NT$70,000 - 100,000
Required Justification:
Based on actual reviewer feedback from government proposals:
Remember: You're writing for busy reviewers, not for yourself.
Best Practices:
Critical Question: After reading your abstract, does the reviewer want to read more?
Essential: Connect your research to national priorities.
How to Demonstrate Alignment:
Example: "This research directly supports Taiwan's '5+2 Innovative Industries' initiative, specifically the biomedical sector, by developing..."
Requirement: Long-term projects must include sustainability plans.
Key Questions:
Components:
For public service projects: Include feedback and assessment systems.
Components:
Before submission:
This guide is for reference only. Official requirements may change annually and vary by program. Always consult:
For the most authoritative information, visit: https://www.nstc.gov.tw/