Writing a proposal a tired reviewer can score

Grant proposals need to present technically complete information clearly to reviewers who may be tired, distracted or reading out of order. A funder-focused argument, predictable structure, informative figures and readable formatting help reviewers find what they need to compare proposals.

Funder-focused persuasion

Persuasive proposals focus on what the funder wants to know and show that the team knows the field and the work and can finish on time and on budget. ¹ The six C's offer a writing technique: ¹

• Be compliant with application guidelines.
• Be clear about what will be done and how.
• Be credible, showing expertise without bragging.
• Be concise, removing distracting wordiness, buzzwords and jargon.
• Be compelling, avoiding passive voice and making key points obvious.
• Be client-focused, showing how the project advances the agency's goals.

¹

Information density and terminology

A positive experience for a reviewer can give a proposal an edge among other high-quality applications. ² Most grant reviewing is unpaid and additional to primary duties, so the anticipated reader may be a highly intelligent but short-tempered scientist reading at 11 pm. ³ Technical reviewers need the right information density expressed clearly, rather than information omitted to make reading easier. ³

Field-specific terminology can demonstrate knowledge and provide precision; writers working in an unfamiliar subfield should learn its vocabulary from key articles. ⁴

A predictable introduction

Creative organisation can lower a competitive proposal's score if reviewers cannot easily find information for comparison. ⁵ An introduction should move from the big picture to details by answering these questions in order: ⁵

1. What is the overall problem and its magnitude?
2. What solutions have been tried, and why did they fail?
3. What new information, technology or strategy will overcome these roadblocks?
4. What are the team's credentials for addressing the problem?
5. What specific problem will this proposal solve?

⁵

Demonstrations of competence

Showing competence rather than asserting it can reduce word count. ⁶ Three approaches are recommended: ⁶

• Cite methods used in previous work to show peer-review standards and the team's publication record.
• Use workflow diagrams for complex designs or infrastructure programmes.
• Show analytical methods, including statistics, in preliminary-data figures rather than detailing analysis for every experiment.

⁶

Emotional appeals should establish broad impact but remain limited and supported by technical information. ⁷ For example, a hypothetical disease causing hospitalisation or death in 300,000 European children annually is a more convincing funding argument than saying it kills children or telling one child's story. ⁷

Navigation and standalone figures

A proposal should retain its value when a reviewer skims, becomes distracted, reads first pages for an initial ranking, prints in black and white, or looks for related information online. ⁷ Informative subheadings help readers scan for key points: “Protein X is overexpressed in breast cancer cells” conveys more than “Results from breast cancer cells.” ⁷ Highlighting figure callouts and a few key phrases can break up text and orient readers. ⁸ Figures should stand alone with titles, informative legends within charts and clear statistical notation, because some reviewers examine data before text. ⁸

Presentation checks

A professional, inviting page should allow space between lines and sections rather than include every possible word. ⁸ A presentation checklist asks:

• Is the proposal within the page or word limit?
• Are fonts and sizes acceptable?
• Are margins correct?
• Are heading styles consistent?
• Are figures legible at their current size?
• Are figures legible for colour-blind readers?
• Are figures near the text that cites them?
• Have editing marks and comments been removed?
• Are references correctly formatted?

^{8, 9, 10}