An NSF data management plan (DMP) is a required proposal component describing how a project will handle, share, and preserve research data — and since 27 April 2026, its exact content is set by a structured Research.gov webform that adapts to the proposal’s lead directorate, meaning BIO, ENG, GEO, MPS, OPP, SBE, and EDU proposals no longer follow one identical template. Treating NSF as a single monolithic funder — the default approach in most DMP guides — now produces plans that miss directorate-specific expectations.
A data management and sharing plan (DMSP) is the National Science Foundation’s formal proposal document setting out how a funded project will manage, share, and archive the data, samples, and other research products it produces. Under the Proposal & Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) section II.D.2(ii) and Policy Notice NSF 26-202, every full proposal must include one — or a documented justification if the project will not generate data.
- What does an NSF data management plan require in 2026?
- How do requirements differ by directorate — BIO, ENG, GEO, MPS, OPP, SBE?
- What changed with the April 2026 Research.gov webform?
- NSF data management plan checklist, by directorate
- Common questions about NSF data management plans
- What this means for research administrators
What Does an NSF Data Management Plan Require in 2026?
Every NSF proposal must address six general elements under PAPPG II.D.2(ii), regardless of directorate. These form the baseline that directorate-specific guidance then narrows or extends.
- The types of data, samples, physical collections, software, and curriculum materials the project will produce
- The standards used for data and metadata format and content, with a documented workaround where no standard exists
- Policies for data access and sharing, including privacy, confidentiality, security, and intellectual-property protections
- Policies for data reuse, redistribution, and the production of derivative products
- Plans for archiving data and other research products and preserving long-term access to them
Under Policy Notice NSF 26-202, a proposal that will not generate data does not need a full plan — a short justification statement satisfies the requirement instead.
How Do NSF DMP Requirements Differ by Directorate?
NSF publishes supplementary DMP guidance for seven directorates and offices — BIO, ENG, GEO, MPS, OPP, SBE, and EDU — plus at least one program-specific supplement (DMREF, under MPS). Where a directorate has issued no supplement, the general PAPPG rules apply by default. The table below summarises what each adds on top of the baseline.
| Directorate/Office | Distinguishing emphasis |
|---|---|
| Biological Sciences (BIO) | Deposit in community-recognized public repositories (e.g. GenBank-class databases) with persistent identifiers linking data to publications |
| Engineering (ENG) | Broad coverage of software, models, and physical collections; attention to intellectual property where research has commercial potential |
| Geosciences (GEO) | Discipline-specific repository requirements — Ocean Sciences awardees, for example, are directed to the Biological and Chemical Oceanography Data Management Office (BCO-DMO) |
| Mathematical & Physical Sciences (MPS) | General guidance, plus a dedicated program-level supplement for the Designing Materials to Revolutionize and Engineer our Future (DMREF) programme |
| Office of Polar Programs (OPP) | Governed by a separate Dear Colleague Letter establishing a distinct data and code/sample management policy rather than the standard DMSP framework alone |
| Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences (SBE) | Heavy emphasis on human-subjects protections — anonymisation, handling of personally identifiable information, informed consent for data sharing, and deposit in recognised social-science archives |
| STEM Education (EDU) | Maintains its own directorate-level data-management-plans page addressing education-research data and human-subjects considerations |
This directorate layering is why a plan drafted for a BIO proposal will read very differently from one drafted for an SBE or OPP proposal, even though both start from the same PAPPG baseline.
What Changed With the April 2026 Research.gov Webform?
Effective 27 April 2026, NSF replaced the free-standing two-page PDF data management and sharing plan with a structured webform submitted directly through Research.gov. This is the single most consequential change to NSF DMP practice since the policy’s creation, and it makes most “download the template” search results obsolete.
- The plan is now entered field-by-field in Research.gov rather than uploaded as a standalone PDF attachment
- The webform adapts its prompts to the proposal’s selected lead directorate, formalising the differences long implied but not enforced by the old PDF format
- Investigators should verify current guidance for their directorate before assuming a saved PDF template from a prior submission still matches the required fields
Institutional research offices that maintain locally cached “NSF DMP template” documents should retire the PDF version and point investigators to the live Research.gov webform for the current submission year.
NSF Data Management Plan Checklist, by Directorate
Use this sequence to build a directorate-appropriate plan rather than a generic one:
- Confirm the proposal’s lead directorate and pull its specific guidance page (BIO, ENG, GEO, MPS, OPP, SBE, or EDU) alongside the general PAPPG II.D.2(ii) requirements
- List every data type, sample, and software product the project will generate
- Identify the metadata standard and, for BIO or GEO proposals, the target public repository (e.g. BCO-DMO for ocean sciences)
- For SBE or human-subjects work, document anonymisation, consent, and PII-handling procedures explicitly
- For OPP proposals, check whether the relevant Dear Colleague Letter policy supersedes the standard DMSP structure
- Set an archiving and long-term preservation plan with a named repository or institutional data service
- Submit through the Research.gov webform rather than attaching a standalone PDF
Common Questions About NSF Data Management Plans
Does NSF require a data management plan?
Yes. NSF requires a data management and sharing plan as a mandatory component of every full proposal, per PAPPG II.D.2(ii). Proposals that will not produce data must instead include a written justification explaining why no plan is needed.
What is included in a data management plan?
A complete plan covers the types of data produced, the metadata standards applied, access and sharing policies, provisions for reuse and derivatives, and an archiving and preservation plan for long-term accessibility.
Do I need a data management plan?
Any NSF full proposal needs one unless the project genuinely generates no data, samples, or research products — in which case a short justification statement, not a full plan, satisfies the requirement under Policy Notice NSF 26-202.
What This Means for Research Administrators
Directorate-tailored webforms shift the compliance burden earlier in the proposal cycle. Research offices that previously offered a single boilerplate DMP template now need directorate-aware review checkpoints, because a plan that satisfies BIO’s repository expectations will not automatically satisfy SBE’s human-subjects requirements or OPP’s separate policy letter. Institutions supporting multi-directorate portfolios should update internal guidance documents to reference the correct directorate page rather than a single generic NSF DMP resource.
The Outlook for NSF Data Management Requirements
The move to a structured, directorate-tailored webform signals that NSF intends to enforce, rather than merely suggest, discipline-specific data practices. Investigators and research offices that continue treating the NSF data management plan as a single generic two-pager risk submitting plans that technically comply with PAPPG but miss the sharper, directorate-specific expectations now built into the submission system itself.
