Submitting a maximally reviewer friendly grant application is essential to developing advocacy among the assigned reviewers of your proposal. Document legibility is central to that and refers to the ease with which a reader can distinguish one character from another in a body of text. Legibility involves many factors…
ACCESS EARLIER POSTS
RELATED TO:
GWSW Workbooks offer comprehensive, step-by-step instruction for creating proposals for a variety of funding agencies.
Owning your authentic scientific voice
Owning your authoritative scientific “voice” is critical for ensuring that reviewers see you as a knowledgeable, credible expert prepared to undertake the work proposed in the application. When providing background information and describing the findings of other investigators, many applicants use…
Three strategies to increase odds of winning a first grant
Winning a major grant by a first-time/inexperienced applicant is a daunting task that has become substantially more challenging recently due to “hypercompetition” for research funding. Indeed, with success rates for grants…
Inclusion of senior investigators on junior investigator grant proposals
Young/junior/early career investigators attending one of our Write Winning Grant Proposals seminars frequently ask whether teaming up with senior/established investigators on a grant application will increase their chances of meriting an independent grant award. The answer is…
Strategies for avoiding common problems with research manuscripts
Today’s blog is intended to help authors avoid common mistakes that can diminish the impact, or prompt outright rejection, of a research manuscript…
Reviewer Fatigue
Reviewer Fatigue implies that an Editor’s Request to Review a manuscript is more likely to be ignored or declined today than it would have been 10-15 years ago. Although many Editorials address concerns about Reviewer Fatigue…
Salami Slicing Science
When I was a graduate student, one particular research group caught my attention because they seemed to publish a manuscript at least monthly. It didn’t take long, however, for me to appreciate that all of their publications were very similar; it was only the Results Section that changed substantively from one publication to the next.
At a time when writing research manuscripts intimidated me, I realized how easy preparing new manuscripts…
Guidance on authorship
At virtually every Biomedical Publication Seminar I present, attendees line up during breaks to seek my input on conflicts they are currently facing regarding authorship. Thus, if you find yourself struggling to decide who should or shouldn’t be included as an author of a manuscript, you’re not alone.
Vera-Badillo et al. (Eur J Cancer, 2016) recently investigated the issue of Honorary and Ghost Authors of manuscripts…
Open Access and Predatory Publications
In a study published in 2013, John Bohannon provided alarming information about open-access scientific journals. The author submitted a manuscript representing a fabricated study, from a fabricated author, from a non-existent research institute to 304 open-access journals. The manuscript contained…
Should I recommend a reviewer for my manuscript?
Many biomedical journals offer authors an opportunity to identify potential reviewers for their manuscript. Published evidence has consistently supported the conclusion that author-recommended reviewers respond more favorably to submitted manuscripts than editor-selected reviewers. In a recent…
“The best-kept secrets to winning grants” – Nature
In a recent article from the May 25, 2017 issue of Nature entitled “The best-kept secrets to winning grants”, author Kendall Powell interviewed a number of experts, including our own Dr. John Robertson, who revealed their top tips and tricks…
Summary of words to avoid in grant applications
Because our contact list has grown substantially since we began posting blogs more than a year ago, we thought this would be a good time to offer a summary of our popular blog series, “Dangerous Words to Avoid in Grant Applications.” This blog series and our other blog posts are…
Part 8: Dangerous words to avoid in grant proposals
In a series of blogs over the past year we have discussed a number of errors that many novice (and sometimes experienced) proposal writers make in the preparation of their grant proposals. Each of these blogs have been predicated upon the argument that it is critically important that…
Data show vs data shows – which is correct?
Over the past year in these posts, we have frequently emphasized the critical importance of proper usage of the English language. This emphasis is predicated upon the fundamental concept that it is important to say what you mean and mean what you say, particularly in writing grant applications. We recently received a query…
The MOST IMPORTANT reason grant applications fail
Approximately two months ago, we posted a commentary in which we listed thirty reasons why applications for grant support were likely to fail. That post attracted significant interest among our readers as well as several comments. One of the more frequent questions concerned the issue as to whether the list of thirty reasons was presented in order of relative importance…
Will a panel reviewer actually read my grant application?
As we have discussed in earlier blog posts, there are certainly many things that a grant applicant must consider in writing his or her proposal. Probably one of the most important things that we suspect that most applicants have never thought about is…
NIH Impact Factor 26 (34%) NOT FUNDED – What do I do now?
Unfortunately, the above peer reviewer evaluation of a first submission of a grant application occurs all too often, invariably leaving the applicant with the difficult decision of whether to resubmit the proposal. Obviously, there is no easy answer to this question and there are a number of factors that should be considered…
Part 7: Dangerous words to avoid in grant proposals
Over the past year, we have posted a number of short blogs in which we have discussed issues that careful proposal writers should try to avoid in order to be entirely accurate in communicating information. In other words, we are committed to the concept that applicants should…
30 reasons your grant proposal may not have been funded
Why was my outstanding grant application so intensely disliked by the reviewer panel? Although this is certainly a reasonable question for any failed applicant to ask, at least initially, in the vast majority (but unfortunately, not 100%) of cases, the answer is usually not too difficult to surmise. In our experience…
Part 6: Dangerous words to avoid in grant proposals
Over the past several months, we have posted a number of blogs related to relatively common errors and misuses of words in the English language that have the potential to alter the meaning of an applicant’s intended usage, usually not to the applicant’s benefit. In this respect, we are firm believers in…
Part 5: Dangerous words to avoid in grant proposals
In the past several months, we have discussed a number of relatively common words and phrases used by grant applicants that are, at best, inappropriate, and at worst, potentially misleading and wrong…
Ask the Experts: Use of a text box
I would like to ask you if you have seen the use of “boxes” to explain methods in detail in the Approach section? I have seen one grant (proposal) doing that, and one of my PIs would like to do it…
MUST READING: Rigorous Science: a how-to guide
As readers of this blog know well, and indeed, as most informed grant applicants interested in NIH funding know, the NIH has recently (May, 2016) instituted a number of policy changes. Foremost among these are changes regarding the critical importance of the underlying Scientific Premise for any proposed research project, as well as the requirement that all proposals must adhere to principles of Scientific Rigor…
Hints: Writing Your Objectives
One of the fundamental points that is relevant to almost all grant proposals is the fact that the proposal is (or at least should be), designed to address a problem or need (that the target funding agency also recognizes as important). Thus, the primary (but certainly not only) purpose of the proposal should then be to explain to the funding agency (and/or the reviewers) what the applicant’s idea(s) would be as to how to address that need or fix the problem. To achieve these goals…
Ask the Experts – NEVER let this happen to you!
We recently received the following correspondence from an NSF grant applicant:
“Dear GWSW,
I was very recently unable to complete the submission of my CRII proposal, which was due to the NSF last Wednesday. I, unfortunately, made one of the worst mistakes I could make in my life. I delayed all the document uploading until the last minute without considering the delays that may occur during web document conversion. The deadline was passed by a minute or less when the proposal package was finally ready for submission, but it was unfortunately too late…
Part 4: Dangerous words to avoid in grant applications
Over the past several months, as a regular component of our weekly blog, we have been discussing the inappropriate usage of various English language words in grant applications. In many cases, such inappropriate usage can present concerns among reviewers as to what exactly is meant by the applicant…
Part 3: Dangerous words to avoid in grant applications (and publications)
During the past several months, we have posted a series of blogs concerning what types of words and phrases to avoid in the preparation of grant applications. In this month’s blog on this topic, we consider the commonly used phrase…
Part 2: Dangerous words to avoid in grant applications
Probably among the most commonly used words in grant proposals is the verb/noun “(to) understand”. Applicants very frequently plan grant applications that have been designed to “understand” something, whether an explanation for a certain social phenomenon, a biochemical pathway, clarification of an as yet to be identified series of observations, or even a way to explain the underlying reasons for a given historical event. Thus, how common it is to read: “The objective in this proposal is to understand the underlying reasons for…”. Alternatively, there are those applicants who feel it important to be…
Part 1: Dangerous words that should be avoided in grant proposals
Two words that should usually be avoided by applicants in preparing their grant applications are “IF” and “WHETHER”. These words represent distinct manifestations of the same concept, since “If” implies “It might or it might not”, and “Whether” always provides for the option “Whether or not”. The primary problem with their use is that they both provide opportunities for a negative outcome to occur. While it is certainly possible that either a positive or an alternative…
NIH and NSF Versions of Workbook Updated for 2020
GWSW has recently updated both the NIH and NSF versions of The Grant Application Writer’s Workbook. Here are the details…
New NIH rules affect clinical research applications
We have earlier posted a number of blogs regarding extremely important recent changes at the NIH concerning the preparation of grant proposals to the NIH. In keeping with the renewed focus on reproducibly, the NIH last September enacted a change in policy affecting all applicants submitting grant applications describing proposed randomized clinical trials. This proposed policy change has…
Important Changes for Submission & Post Submission of NIH Grant Applications
Last summer, the NIH released new policy requirements for submission of NIH grant applications to be effective January 25, 2017. While we suspect that most NIH-savvy applicants have probably read a summary of these forthcoming changes when they were first published, we also suspect that many will have forgotten these over the time span leading to their actual enactment…
Tips on optimizing opportunities for success in science
It is a simple fact of life that, similar to every other profession, scientists uniformly aspire to be successful in their chosen profession. Of potential importance, therefore, a very important recently published study by Andrew Higginson and Marcus Munato in the well-respected journal, PLOS Biology, November 10, 2016, page 1371 provides a fascinating insight into one way to do this…
Sex as a biological variable in funded research
As we have discussed previously in a number of blog posts, the NIH (and the CIHR-Canadian Institute for Health Research) have recently implemented strict new policies for the consideration of sex and/or gender in all studies involving vertebrate animals and human subjects. The genesis for such considerations…
Successful Proposals to Any Agency Workbook Updated
GWSW announces the extensively updated Successful Proposals to Any Agency workbook, issued September 2016
Our GWSW family is delighted to bring to your attention the latest updates of our grant proposal writing and publication workbooks, designed to allow you to stay abreast of the latest changes at our nation’s funding agencies…