FAQs on Collaborators and Other Affiliations (COA) Information Template

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

on Collaborators and Other Affiliations (COA) Information Template

January 30, 2023

The National Science Foundation (NSF) requires that Collaborators and Other Affiliations

information must be separately provided for each individual identified as senior project personnel

(see NSF Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG), Chapter II.D.2.h(iii)).

The COA information must be provided through use of the COA template. The template has been

developed to be fillable, however, the content and format requirements must not be altered by the

user. This template must be saved in .xlsx format and directly uploaded in Research.gov under

Senior Personnel Documents as a single-copy document.

The following are frequently asked questions that may be useful in preparation of the COA

template.

General

1. Must the information requested for each section be in alphabetical order?

The information provided in the tables is not required to be sorted, alphabetically or otherwise.

2. In previous versions of the COA, instructions required that each PI, co-PI, and

senior personnel provide a list of their postdoctoral scholar sponsor(s) and the

postgraduate-scholar(s) they sponsored. Does this information need to be included in the

current COA?

Submission of information on an individual’s own postdoctoral scholar sponsor(s) and/or advisees

is no longer required.

3. Why does information on postdoctoral sponsor(s) and scholar(s) advised no longer

need to be included on the COA template?

Submission of information on an individual’s postdoctoral sponsor(s) and the postdoctoral

scholar(s) the individual has advised is no longer required. This is purposeful and we no longer

require this information to be reported. These persons may be listed in Table 4 of the COA

template if they were/are co-authors or collaborators of the individual submitting the template.

Where appropriate, the persons also may be included in Table 2 in situations where a personal,

family or business relationship would otherwise preclude their service as a reviewer.

4. Would a “foreign” senior key person need to complete the COA template?

Regardless of whether an individual is located outside the US, all individuals identified as senior

personnel need to complete the template.

5. If there is someone that belongs in more than one category (e.g., PhD advisee and

co-author), should that person be listed in both categories?

If someone belongs in more than one category, list their name in all eligible categories.

6. In situations where an individual is a sponsoring committee member for a

conference, are conference attendees considered collaborators if the individual has

directly interacted with them?

Attendees at a conference are not considered to be collaborators.

7. What does the “Last Active” column mean?

The “last active” column refers to when the individual last interacted with the person in the capacity

to which the table is referring. You may leave this column blank for interactions that are ongoing

or current affiliations.

8. For the “Last Active” fields, can this be an estimated date?

If exact dates are not available, estimated dates may be entered in the “Last Active” fields. "Last

active" dates are optional, but this will help NSF staff easily determine which information remains

relevant for reviewer selection.

9. In Tables 2 through 5, if a person has moved to another organization, which

affiliation should be listed – their current affiliation or the organization which they were at

when the interaction took place?

The person’s current organizational affiliation should be listed.

10. When preparing a separately submitted collaborative proposal, should all of the

COA templates be uploaded to the lead organization’s proposal?

In accordance with PAPPG Chapter II.D.2.h(iii), COA information must be prepared for each

individual identified as senior project personnel, and must be uploaded as a single copy document

in the proposal submission from their organization.

11. Do I need to list all editors that I interacted with as either author or reviewer?

No, do not list editors or reviewers you have interacted with because of a paper submission.

12. How do I add blank rows in order to provide additional entries on the tables?

As noted on the COA template, to insert n blank rows, select n row numbers to move down, right

click, and choose Insert from the menu. If you need further assistance, contact the NSF Help

Desk at (800) 381-1532 or [email protected].

Table 3

1. Table 3 of the COA template only asks for G: The individual’s Ph.D. advisors and T:

All of the individual’s Ph.D. thesis advisees. Where do I list graduate advisors?

The COA template does not ask for graduate advisors to be reported. This is purposeful as NSF

no longer requires that this information be reported. If the individual meets the definition of another

category, report them under that Table.

2. For Table 3, should the designation “G: The individual’s Ph.D. advisors” be used

for postdoctoral students for which the individual has served as lab advisor?

No, “G” should only be used to designate the PhD advisor(s) of the individual. Submission of

information on an individual’s postdoctoral sponsor(s) and the postdoctoral scholar(s) the

individual has advised is no longer required.

Table 4

1. Can supervised master’s students be listed in Table 4? If so, which code should be

used to designate master’s students?

Proposers should use the generic “C” for collaborators on Table 4. However, supervised master’s

students should only be listed if they actually collaborated on research.

2. For co-authors in the last 48 months, does NSF want just senior investigators or all

co-authors?

Regardless of position and/or title, all co-authors in the last 48 months should be listed.

3. If a person has co-authored publications or collaborated with a substantial number

of colleagues in the past four years, do all the colleagues need to be listed? Is there an

acceptable "filter" that can be used, such that only the closest or top collaborators are

listed?

In such situations, individuals should follow the instructions in the solicitation to which they are

submitting or check with a cognizant NSF Program Officer.

4. Should collaborators only be listed if the award has been funded or should Table 4

list collaborators included in the pending proposal?

Only include collaborators on funded proposals, not the people with whom you are collaborating

on the pending proposal.

5. In Table 4, there doesn't appear to be an opportunity to identify individuals as BOTH

Co-author and Collaborator. Do you suggest duplicating the names in A: and C: if the

individual is both?

The co-author and collaborator conflict of interest are both 48 months in duration. In situations

where an individual is both a co-author and a collaborator, there is no need to list the person

twice. NSF recommends listing the person as a collaborator; this is sufficient to capture the

professional relationship.

Table 5

1. I understand that co-editors should be named; however, what about a faculty

member who is an editor-in-chief for a journal? Would all associate/assistant editors of the

journal be considered the editor-in-chief’s co-editors?

Yes, editors-in-chief should list all the associate/assistant editors. The associate/assistant editors,

in turn, would always list their editor-in-chief.

2. When a PI is an associate editor, does the PI need to list just the editor-in-chief?

Must the other associate editors or the editorial advisory board also be listed?

When completing Table 5, individuals should list the specific editor-in-chief. If they interact with

other associate editors, then those associate editors also should be listed. Editors with whom the

PI, co-PI or senior personnel have not communicated need not be listed. Table 5 does not include

“Editorial Advisory Boards”, “International Advisory Boards”, “Scientific Editors”, or any other

subcategory of editorial boards.

3. If a PI is a member of an editorial team for a journal, are all other members of the

team considered collaborators if group e-mails have been exchanged among them all?

If the interaction was limited to group e-mail exchanges, editorial team members need not be

listed.