NSF 25-533: Findable Accessible Interoperable Reusable Open Science (FAIROS)

NSF 25-533: Findable Accessible Interoperable Reusable Open Science (FAIROS)

FAIROS is one of the NSF’s core opportunities for teams that want to improve research data and open science infrastructure at system level, not just launch a single project. The solicitation is identified as NSF 25-533 and is still shown by NSF as an active program page, with future submissions aligned to annual second Wednesday in April cycles and the next visible full proposal deadline listed as April 14, 2027. It is positioned under NSF’s public access and open science priorities and is meant to support teams that can improve how data, software, methods, and community workflows are shared, curated, and reused.

Key details at a glance

What this opportunity is actually funding

FAIROS is often misunderstood as a “broad innovation fund” for any data project, but the solicitation is narrower than that. NSF’s program language emphasises socio-technical cyberinfrastructure change: not just technical assets, but the systems around them. In practical terms, a good fit project does two things at once:

• Improves FAIR-aligned research data practice (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable), and
• Builds community-level reuse or coordination, typically through cross-institutional collaboration.

The NSF description for FAIROS includes four core activity areas:

1. Open science and research data management research/education capacity, across disciplines.
2. New models of scientific communication and publication.
3. Data portals and commons, including approaches that function as national services.
4. Infrastructure and workflows that lower barriers to access, curation, integration, and long-term sustainability.

What matters is that the program is intended to scale impact beyond one team. NSF is not primarily funding a single software package in isolation; it prioritizes collaborative and sustainable designs that can actually move communities toward better practices. The program is thus very attractive for institutions and networks trying to turn open science principles into repeatable systems.

The “why now” point matters. This is not just an archival call. The presence of a specific upcoming 2027 submission date means teams can still move now on the 2026/2027 cycle, and because submissions are annually recurring, projects that miss this round can still attempt the next with better sequencing.

Why this is relevant for 2026/2027 planning

Even though NSF published this solicitation in 2025, it is still operational and explicitly has a recurring annual next-deadline pattern. For teams planning budgets in 2026, this gives a concrete planning anchor:

• If you can submit in spring 2027, use that round as your anchor cycle.
• If your institution is waiting on internal compliance pieces (legal review, SAM.gov/UEI checks, budget authority) the annual recurrence creates a second chance, rather than a one-time loss.

The 2027 deadline shown in the program page makes this especially relevant for those who only recently reached sufficient project readiness: your 2026 strategic planning can still map directly to a live federal opportunity.

It also means this is useful for organizations with a two-speed strategy: one year dedicated to shaping a proposal and building pilot partnerships, and year two dedicated to applying with stronger data and stronger institutional buy-in.

Who is most likely to be a strong applicant

From the program text and solicitation summaries, FAIROS works best for teams with one or more of these characteristics:

• You already have an active data ecosystem (or are integrating several datasets or repositories) and need a governance and sustainability upgrade.
• You already collaborate across institutions and are ready to coordinate across at least two organizations.
• Your work has a reusable component (data standards, pipelines, curation protocol, repository governance, or communication model).
• You are trying to lower reproducibility, interoperability, or sharing burdens across labs/consortia.

The program has explicit room for broad collaboration. NSF states that collaborative research proposals are allowable under the research category and that proposals are expected to be community-oriented and multidisciplinary.

In contrast, this is usually not the best fit for a project that:

• Is a single-lab technology proof-of-concept with no external user path,
• Has no institutional plan for interoperability, stewardship, and curation,
• Or is focused on a small private outcome that does not require cross-community scaling.

Your strongest angle should always be: this work creates shared infrastructure and better reuse for the larger ecosystem, not just a short-term deliverable.

Eligibility: where teams pass and fail early

NSF lists proposer and PI rules by category and also imposes strict PI participation limits for this solicitation.

What can submit

The following are explicitly listed in the program details and associated solicitation summary:

• Institutions of higher education (IHE): two- and four-year IHEs, including community colleges, with U.S. accreditation and campus presence.
• Non-profit, non-academic organizations directly associated with research or education (such as museums, observatories, research laboratories, professional societies).
• Federally recognized tribal nations.
• Federal agencies and FFRDCs where additional restrictions in NSF rules apply.

For IHE-driven proposals with international branch campuses, NSF asks for a clear justification of why work at that branch is necessary and cannot be done at a U.S. campus.

PI participation limits

Eligibility is often lost in process details. FAIROS has a hard one-proposal-per-person participation rule per deadline: one PI/co-PI (or senior/key personnel participation role) may appear in only one FAIROS submission per deadline date. NSF applies this at the individual level.

This is operationally important for consortium planning because institutions frequently prepare two teams and two submissions from overlapping people. If the same PI appears on both, NSF can return one without review.

PI restrictions and cost sharing

According to the solicitation summaries, there are no additional PI role restrictions stated beyond the solicitation’s normal PI requirements, and there are no declared restrictions on number of proposals per organization for this program. Importantly, the program explicitly states that voluntary committed cost sharing is prohibited.

Eligibility hygiene checklist before writing

Before you begin narrative drafting, complete this checklist:

1. Confirm proposer category is supported.
2. Confirm PI and core team names are not duplicated across other FAIROS proposals in same cycle.
3. Confirm each organization can be administered through NSF submission systems.
4. Confirm any international branch campus activity has strong written justification.
5. Confirm your proposal budget model fits the $600,000/3-year ceiling.

Proposal structure and track logic

NSF’s page states FAIROS proposals must focus on one of two track types:

• Disciplinary Improvements
• Cross-Cutting Improvements

A clean strategy is to decide this before writing your first draft. If you choose disciplinary, structure around a specific community with strong evidence of need and adoption. If cross-cutting, structure around transferability and interoperability across communities. Submitting mixed or blended narratives in a single track usually weakens review clarity.

Standard proposal format

FAIROS uses standard research proposal mechanics and is a standard-type NSF funding opportunity rather than an exploratory-only mechanism. That means your narrative needs to read as an implementable, review-ready NSF proposal:

• Clear problem definition,
• Defined community of practice,
• Realistic technical and governance model,
• Evidence that your methods increase openness and reuse,
• Implementation and sustainability plan.

Application process and 2027 preparation workflow

Because the next published date is in April 2027, teams should map backward from it. A strong preparation plan for institutions in 2026 can be split into phases:

Phase 1: Concept and eligibility lock (June–September 2026)

• Finalize problem area and track.
• Confirm proposer and PI eligibility.
• Identify collaborating institutions and draft a governance map (roles, data ownership, release principles, maintenance responsibilities).
• Decide budget structure to stay below NSF caps.

Phase 2: Draft and evidence build (October–December 2026)

• Write impact statement around FAIR and interoperability value.
• Draft community-readiness evidence: existing user base, partner commitments, repository maturity, policy alignment.
• Start technical and operations plan with budget breakdown aligned with 3-year project horizon.

Phase 3: Compliance and polish (January–March 2027)

• Build complete submission package in Research.gov or Grants.gov.
• Verify page/format compliance and required forms.
• Align all names, attachments, and signatures with institution-level compliance.
• Build at least a soft pre-review inside your institution.

For Grants.gov submissions, NSF guidance strongly recommends early submission to handle compliance issues before deadline; this is worth planning into your internal timeline even if the official deadline is one date.

What to include in the proposal

The strongest FAIROS proposals tie technical plans to open science outcomes. Reviewers usually judge whether a project could sustain itself in real use, so include:

Technical and operational design

• Data management architecture: how data, code, and outputs become easier to discover and reuse.
• Interoperability design decisions (formats, metadata, interfaces, access models).
• Governance model: who approves standards, resolves versioning issues, manages releases.

Community and collaboration evidence

• Current collaborators and intended user groups.
• Commitment language showing shared ownership across institutions.
• Clear description of why this collaboration is needed across disciplinary or service boundaries.

Execution plan

• Milestones tied to measurable outcomes.
• Staffing and role clarity.
• Sustainability logic after grant period: maintenance ownership, onboarding plan, documentation practice.

Budget logic

Keep the budget within the explicit cap and show that expenses map to actual implementation, not infrastructure vanity. NSF caps research proposals at $600,000 total and up to three years, with no voluntary committed cost sharing.

Common application mistakes to avoid

1. Treating it as a single lab grant instead of a community problem. FAIROS is ecosystem-oriented; reviewers expect broader impact beyond one team.
2. Ignoring PI participation limits. Internal teams often duplicate PI names across concept papers “just in case,” which can cause immediate review filtering.
3. Overstating outcomes without community pathway. “Build a repository” is not sufficient without adoption, policy, and maintenance design.
4. Weak justification for branch campus involvement. If using non-U.S. branch activity, proposal must include explicit benefit and non-transferability rationale.
5. Late portal issues. Technical submission failures are common and can collapse a otherwise strong concept.

FAQ

Is this still open for application right now?

The program page is active and NSF presents full-proposal dates, with the next upcoming date shown as April 14, 2027. Treat this as an active recurring cycle, not a one-time 2025-only window.

Is this grant cycle open only in 2027?

This solicitation follows annual second Wednesday in April cycles. It is therefore relevant for 2027 and expected to recur in future cycles unless NSF updates the program.

Who can be PI?

As reflected in public program summaries, there are no special PI restrictions beyond the general solicitation rules, but each individual should participate in only one FAIROS submission per deadline.

Are NSF grants or cooperative agreements possible?

The anticipated award type is standard continuing grants in this solicitation context.

Is there a fixed award size?

The program page gives the per-proposal ceiling: up to $600,000 for up to 3 years, with at most $200,000 per year. Total awards are small and selective by cycle (4–10).

Can non-university organizations apply?

Yes, where they fall within eligible categories (non-profit, non-academic organizations linked to research/education, federal agencies/FFRDCs under NSF rules, and eligible tribal entities).

Practical reviewer lens

NSF reviewers usually score NSF applications on whether you can execute what you claim, not only on how compelling the concept sounds. For FAIROS, this means:

• Are community outcomes realistic?
• Do governance and access plans hold under multi-institution complexity?
• Is FAIR-oriented infrastructure actually built into deliverables and operations?
• Does the budget match timeline and measurable outcomes?

If these are weak, technical novelty can still lose. If these are strong, a well-scoped infrastructure proposal can be persuasive even in a competitive cycle.

Official links

• Opportunity page (official): https://www.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/fairos-findable-accessible-interoperable-reusable-open-science
• Current solicitation text: https://www.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/fairos-findable-accessible-interoperable-reusable-open-science/nsf25-533/solicitation
• NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG): https://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=pappg
• Research.gov submission guidance: https://www.research.gov/research-portal/appmanager/base/desktop?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=research_node_display&_nodePath=/researchGov/Service/Desktop/ProposalPreparationandSubmission.html
• NSF Public Access information: https://www.nsf.gov/public-access

If you are deciding whether to apply, start with a one-page fit memo first: one paragraph on the community problem, one paragraph on reuse model, and one paragraph on execution timeline. If that memo is not clearly tied to both FAIR and governance, you should delay drafting until those pieces are stronger.