Reviewing and editing a draft proposal
A draft proposal needs scientific scrutiny, checks against the funder's instructions, and editing for clarity and consistency. Feedback from colleagues, programme officers and mock panels can expose problems before external review, while self-editing and staged team reviews check the document's completeness and presentation.
Readers and review time
An experienced internal adviser can help with a grant application, a competent scientific writer can proofread it, and an experienced academic can check conformity with academic standards. Spelling and grammatical errors can distract readers and damage a proposal's credibility.
Experienced colleagues should be asked to identify errors, conflicting reasoning and omissions, with up to two weeks allowed for their review. Completing the proposal early also leaves time for institutional research-services review and approval before submission, particularly when many applications share a deadline.
Early-career clinician-scientists may write alone in gaps around clinical duties and, with limited mentorship, overlook the value of external feedback. Writers can encourage them to seek feedback from programme officers and peers and plan it into the writing schedule. Peers can assess the case for an important knowledge gap, technical soundness and fit to the announcement's review criteria, taking the assessment beyond the writer's own contribution.
In 2023, NIH programme officers offered advice on programme and panel fit, forthcoming funding announcements, review processes and critiques. Their contact details were generally in the announcement or could be found through the RePORT Matchmaker tool; identifying programme staff at other funders could also be worthwhile. An investigator should email the proposal concept and draft specific aims and suggest a call or virtual meeting; a writing consultant can help a reluctant investigator make contact.
Internal mock panels can provide feedback from four or five reviewers and a live discussion, and data from one institution showed increased success of NIH submissions after internal review. Securing this review requires requesting it and supplying at least a draft specific aims page several weeks before the deadline.
Self-editing checklist
A grant-specific checklist can supplement a general editorial checklist and be adapted to the type of proposal. The following checklist asks:
- Does the title clearly and accurately convey the focus?
- Are the abstract and other summary sections informative and clear?
- Are the goals or hypotheses clear?
- Is the originality apparent?
- Is the work clearly relevant to the funding source's mission?
- Is its importance explained?
- Is sufficient context provided?
- Is the amount of work realistic?
- Is the personnel's capability clear?
- Are choices such as methods sufficiently justified?
- Is sufficient supporting evidence included?
- Are budget items sufficiently justified?
- Is sufficient information provided about any cost sharing?
- Are preliminary studies sufficiently described where required or advisable?
- Is a timeline included where advisable?
- Are evaluation plans sufficient where needed?
- Are dissemination plans sufficient where needed?
- Have all content and format instructions, including the request for proposals, been followed?
Staged team reviews
In 2017, one proposal team used colour-coded reviews during drafting:
- Blue checks the outline and section assignments.
- Green reviews the budget.
- Pink reviews the proposal at 65%–70% completion, including graphics and tables.
- Red brings it to 85%–90% completion through formatting, editing and team revisions.
- Gold checks completeness before submission.
- White performs a visual review for obvious errors before submission.
Writers and editors with smaller teams may find value in adapting colour-coded reviews.
Editing for flow and development
Proposal editing should make the text effortless to read and ensure that its logic flows back to the main objective. The research story should include its expected ending, and cutting length and wording should preserve consistent flow across the document. Word's navigation pane can help check consistency across the pieces of a grant.
A writer's editing can range from early conceptual partnership to final copy editing, addressing clarity, completeness, conformity to instructions and professionalism. Explaining suggested changes and offering to answer questions can make editing a professional-development experience; partnership and a supportive tone help bring investigators back for resubmissions and future proposals. Helping clinician-scientists consider the document from funders' and reviewers' perspectives can improve funding prospects and develop grantsmanship for future applications.