For research centers
The grant funded the science. Nobody budgeted the reporting.
AI implementation for National Science Foundation and Department of Energy research centers and university research offices. The grant is the budget and the Principal Investigator decides, so nothing waits on institutional procurement.
MRSEC, PREM, DMREF, EPIIC, NeuroNex, MIP, and EFRC on the Department of Energy side. We have run Division of Materials Research sites for over a decade.
01
Who this is for
- Center directors and PIs
- Running an MRSEC, PREM, DMREF, EPIIC, NeuroNex, MIP or EFRC with a reporting and broader-impacts obligation that currently runs on somebody's evenings.
- Center coordinators
- You are almost certainly doing two people's jobs. The part we take is the chasing, the transcribing, and the version control, not the judgment.
- Research development offices
- The people running limited-submission competitions and broader-impacts sections, who want AI inside the proposal and evaluation workflow rather than in a pilot that never ships.
02
What we build
- The record a report is built from
- Publications imported by DOI with the acknowledgment matched to the award number. Roles carrying start and end dates, so the participant list is a query rather than a memory. Events, outreach and partnerships captured where they happen. Running today across research center sites at nine universities.
- Capability finders across a whole program
- Retrieval over every tool page, publication and program record, answering with a link to the source and a route to the facility manager who owns the instrument. Built on what your sites already publish, so nobody takes on a new task to keep it alive.
- Outreach chatbots with real citations
- Retrieval over your actual corpus, answering with links back to the page, the paragraph, or the second of the video. Nothing asserted that a user cannot check in one click.
- Broader-impacts assessment
- Structured scoring built to survive a site visit and a reviewer who asks how the number was derived.
- Grant-advisor assistants
- Proposal support grounded in the solicitation, the program guidance, and the office's own funded proposals, so the advice is specific enough to act on at four in the afternoon.
- SimplyScholar, productized
- The agentic operations layer for a center, licensed annually and budgetable straight into the award. simplyscholar.com
03
How we engage
- Scope and proof, 6 to 8 weeks
- Fixed-fee proof of concept against one real workflow, with a written brief that fixes the scope and the price before anyone opens an editor.
- Direct action, 3 to 6 months
- Implementation build, deployed into your environment, with your team trained on it before we leave.
- Standing capability
- SimplyScholar as a budgeted line inside the award, so the operating layer is funded for the life of the grant rather than re-argued every year.
04
Reference cases
-
Proposal help that knows the solicitation
Grounded in the program guidance and the office's own funded proposals.
University research office
In production
05
By program
Every program asks for the same year of work in a different order.
One page each on what that program's annual report actually requires, and which sections cost a coordinator the most time. Written as reference, not as a pitch.
-
National Science Foundation
MRSEC
Materials Research Science and Engineering Center
Multi-institutional materials centers. The report turns on thrust structure and the shared-facilities story, and both need data collected all year.
-
National Science Foundation
PREM
Partnership for Research and Education in Materials
Partnerships between an R1 and a minority-serving institution. The report is read for education and workforce outcomes, especially the student pipeline.
-
National Science Foundation
DMREF
Designing Materials to Revolutionize and Engineer our Future
Smaller, focused materials-design awards. The reporting machinery is nearly a center's, without a center's coordinator.
-
National Science Foundation
EPIIC
Enabling Partnerships to Increase Innovation Capacity
Capacity-building awards. The report has to evidence new institutional capability, which leaves a much fainter trail than research output.
-
National Science Foundation
MIP
Materials Innovation Platform
Mid-scale user facilities for materials synthesis, characterization and theory. Most reportable output comes from external users.
-
National Science Foundation
NeuroNex
Next Generation Networks for Neuroscience
Neurotechnology hubs and networks. Activity is distributed across institutions the award does not employ, which breaks single-site reporting.
-
Department of Energy
EFRC
Energy Frontier Research Center
The Department of Energy analog to a MRSEC. Different reporting template and portal, near-identical underlying data.
Which deadline hurts most?
Tell us which report, which review, or which workflow is eating the most time. We will tell you whether it is worth building for.