Grant reviewers are remarkable. They willingly immerse themselves in piles of research proposals, each one promising to cure a disease, revolutionise a field, or at the very least keep a postdoc employed for another year. I should know, I have submitted enough wildly speculative grant requests.
It can be overwhelming for reviewers, requiring considerable skills to determine which projects they should favour. And so, they are often delighted if your request for funding includes one of these sins (see below) in your documentation – because they can quickly kill your application. So, in the spirit of scientific self‑improvement, let us revisit these missteps and explore how to avoid them, with I hope a touch of humour and a nod to the literature.
Writing for Experts: The Curse of Jargon
The first sin to consider is writing as though your reviewer is the world authority on your favourite signalling pathway. They are not. Many grant panels include generalists, and even subject specialists have limits. Excessive jargon is a well‑known barrier to comprehension and engagement, reducing clarity and increasing cognitive load [1]. If your proposal reads like a crossword puzzle for molecular biologists, you are in trouble.
Here’s a good rule: if your sentence contains more acronyms than verbs, start again. Reviewers appreciate precision, but they also appreciate being able to understand what you are proposing without a glossary and a stiff drink.
No Hypothesis: The Proposal Without a Pulse
A proposal without a hypothesis is like a ship without a rudder. It may drift somewhere interesting, but no one will fund the voyage. Avoid statements such as “The hypothesis is to study the role of our unique testing kit,” which is not a hypothesis but a description of an activity. A real hypothesis is a testable, falsifiable statement grounded in prior evidence, a principle articulated since the early days of modern scientific method [2].
Reviewers want to know why you are planning to undertake your project, not merely what you plan to do. A clear hypothesis signals intellectual discipline and helps reviewers judge feasibility, significance, and coherence.
Screening Proposals: The Graveyard of Enthusiasm
Screening grant applications occupies a special place in the reviewer psyche. They are often perceived as dull, unfocused, and lacking conceptual depth. Unless your screening approach uses genuinely innovative technology, and unless you can justify why the world desperately needs this particular screen, reviewers will quickly lose interest.
My scepticism is not unfounded. Large‑scale screening without a strong conceptual framework has long been criticised for generating data faster than it generates insight [3]. If your proposal resembles a fishing expedition, reviewers will assume you are hoping to catch something, anything, to justify the grant.
Failing to Check Your Work: The Silent Assassin
Nothing erodes reviewer confidence faster than typographical errors, missing sections, contradictory statements, or figures that have little context. It goes without saying that “incomplete submissions or ones filled with errors imply sloppiness,” and reviewers will assume that the same sloppiness will infect your experimental work.
This is not paranoia. Studies of scientific manuscripts show that errors, even minor ones, reduce perceived credibility and trustworthiness [4]. A grant proposal is not merely a plan; it is a demonstration of your ability to execute that plan with care.
Overambition: When Your Proposal Attempts to Cure Everything
Ambition is admirable. Overambition is fatal. Reviewers are adept at spotting proposals that promise to solve problems that have eluded entire fields for decades. If your 3‑year project claims it will cure cancer, eradicate antimicrobial resistance, and develop a universal vaccine, reviewers will smile politely and decline.
Feasibility is a core criterion in most funding schemes, and overly grandiose aims are consistently associated with lower success rates [5]. Modesty, backed by strong preliminary data, is far more persuasive than sweeping claims of imminent scientific revolution.
Out of Scope: The Art of Not Reading the Call
Some applicants adopt a scattergun approach, submitting the same proposal to every funding body in the hope that someone, somewhere, will “take a punt.” They will not. Reviewers are quick to reject proposals that do not align with the call, and funding agencies are increasingly explicit about thematic boundaries.
This is not bureaucracy for its own sake. Funding bodies design calls to address specific scientific or societal needs, and proposals that ignore these priorities are simply wasting everyone’s time. Alignment with the call is one of the strongest predictors of success [6].
No Foundation: The Perils of Insufficient Preliminary Data
My final sin is that of submitting a proposal without evidence that your idea has any chance of working. It is virtually impossible to instil confidence if you cannot show that you have some preliminary data. Reviewers are naturally sceptical, and feasibility scores plummet when applicants cannot demonstrate proof‑of‑concept.
Preliminary data serve as a bridge between aspiration and execution. They show that you have tested your assumptions, refined your methods, and reduced risk. The importance of such data in competitive funding environments has been recognised for decades [7]. Interestingly, your preliminary experience also gives you some insight into the extent of resource you will need to complete your project.
Walking the Virtuous Path
Avoiding my seven deadly sins will not guarantee funding. I followed them to the letter in a 2013 grant application to develop software to write regulatory documents and save time in drug development [8]. Considering what we have since learned of machine learning are the field of artificial intelligence, it seems that their rejection was somewhat short sighted.
In your case we can only hope it will dramatically improve your chances. A clear hypothesis, a well‑structured narrative, realistic aims, and evidence of feasibility form the backbone of successful proposals. Above all, respect your reviewers (until the reject you at least). They want to support good science, but they also want to understand what you are doing, why you are doing it, and whether you can deliver.
Grant writing is an art, but it is also a discipline. Treat it with the same care you apply to your experiments, and you may find yourself walking the virtuous path to funding enlightenment.
References
- Plavén‑Sigray P, Matheson GJ, Schiffler BC, Thompson WH. The readability of scientific texts is decreasing over time. eLife. 2017;6:e27725.
- Popper K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge; 1959.
- Butcher EC. Can cell systems biology rescue drug discovery? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2005;4(6):461‑467.
- Hartley J. Academic writing and publishing: a practical handbook. Abingdon: Routledge; 2008.
- von Hippel T, von Hippel C. To apply or not to apply: a survey analysis of grant writing costs and benefits. PLoS One. 2015;10(3):e0118494.
- Bornmann L, Daniel HD. Selection of research fellowship recipients by committee peer review. Scientometrics. 2005;63(2):297‑320.
- Hall KL, Stokols D, Stipelman BA, et al. Assessing the value of team science. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35(2 Suppl):S157‑S165.
- Hardman TC (2013). Can Software Write a Clinical Study Report? A Vision for the Future of Regulatory Documentation.
