PRDV009: Writing Grant Proposals

The following guidance may help you develop a strong application that allows reviewers to evaluate your proposal's science and merit better. This page provides tips for demonstrating to reviewers and the National Institute of Health (NIH) staff the high quality of the personnel involved in your project and documenting resources and institutional support of the project. We also provide information for new investigators and foreign applicants.

Though the advice is relevant for all research grants, it is general and geared toward the NIH Research Project (R01). The tips should not replace your organization's internal guidance, specific advice from the NIH program or grants management staff, or instructions in the funding opportunity announcement or application guide.

Before You Start Writing

• Find a Funding Opportunity Announcement and Related Application Forms
• Plan Your Application

What to Know Before You Start Writing

Where to Find Instructions for Writing Your Application

Application forms are posted with each funding opportunity announcement. Form-by-form, field-by-field instructions for completing your application may be found on the How to Apply – Application Guide page under the blue header for Form Instructions. Use these instructions with the guidance in the funding opportunity announcement (including the Related Notices section) to develop your application.

What Peer Reviewers Look For

Careful preparation and understanding of how your application will be reviewed can help you build a solid application. We convene a panel of non-Federal scientists during NIH's peer review process to review your application. Although several factors contribute to whether your application will be funded, we greatly emphasize the review of scientific merit. The following sections describe the criteria reviewers employ to evaluate applications. Read them carefully for helpful hints on the information and content you should include in the application to garner a favorable evaluation.

Overall Impact

Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood of the project exerting a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, considering the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the proposed project).

Scored Review Criteria

Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in determining scientific and technical merit and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have a major scientific impact. For example, a project that is not innovative may be essential to advancing a field.

Significance. Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? Is there a strong scientific premise for the project? If the project aims are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successfully completing the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions driving this field?

Investigator(s). Are the PD/PIs, collaborators, and other researchers well-suited to the project? If the Early Stage Investigators or New Investigators are in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance, and organizational structure appropriate for the project?

Innovation. Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches, methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches, methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?

Approach. Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the project's specific aims? Have the investigators presented strategies to ensure a robust and unbiased approach, as appropriate for the work proposed? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility, and will particularly risky aspects be managed? Have the investigators presented adequate plans to address relevant biological variables, such as sex, for studies in vertebrate animals or human subjects?

If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for 1) protecting human subjects from research risks and 2) including minorities and members of both sexes/genders, as well as children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?

Environment. Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment, and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?

Note that an application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have a major scientific impact. For example, a project that is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.

Additional Review Criteria

As applicable to the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit and providing an overall impact score, but they will not give separate scores for these items.

• Protections for Human Subjects
• Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children
• Vertebrate Animals
• Biohazards
• Resubmission
• Renewal
• Revision

Be sure to address any additional review criteria that apply to your application. Reviewers will consider them when assigning overall impact/priority scores.

Note: These are general review criteria for evaluating unsolicited research project grant applications. NRSA fellowship awards, career development awards, and specific funding opportunity announcements (FOAs) may have different or additional special review criteria. Applicants should look in the funding opportunity announcement to which they apply and familiarize themselves with the review criteria by which their application will be evaluated.

Additional Review Considerations

As applicable to the project proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items but will not give scores for them and should not consider them in providing an overall impact score.

• Applications from Foreign Organizations
• Select Agent
• Resource Sharing Plans
• Authentication of Key Biological and/or Chemical Resources
• Budget and Period Support

Note: Certain funding opportunity announcements (FOAs) published in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts may list additional elements related to the specific FOA requirements under each of the above criteria.

Research Resources, Institutional Support, and Available Expertise

Sufficient information must be included to demonstrate to reviewers and NIH staff the high quality of the PD/PI, the co-investigators, available research resources, and the applicant institution and its support of the project.

Resources

Applicants should clearly state that they have the appropriate research resources, such as adequate equipment and laboratory space. When possible, include letters of commitment for these resources.

• Understand the level of resources needed to compete.
• Conduct an organizational assessment.
• Determine what resources and support your organization has and what additional support you will need.
• Consider whether the available equipment and facilities are adequate and whether the environment is conducive to the research.

Independence and Institutional Support

This is important for all investigators, but particularly for new and early-stage investigators or those who are early in their independent careers:

• Provide reviewers evidence that you have the appropriate experience and training to lead and manage the research project.
• Letters of reference and institutional commitment are important.
• Mention any start-up funds, support for a technician, etc. This is a positive indicator of institutional commitment to the peer reviewers.

Collaborators and Consultants

Determine the expertise needed for your research study team (individuals, collaborating organizations, resources, etc.). Most scientific work requires research collaboration, and NIH is dedicated to fostering such relationships.

• Include letters of commitment in your application that clearly spell out the collaborators' roles. The grant application should contain a signed letter from each collaborator to the applicant listing the contribution he or she intends to make and his or her commitment to the work. These letters are often the reviewers' primary assurance that this work will be done.
  
  
• For consultants, letters should include the rate/charge for consulting services.
  
  
• If you are planning to apply with multiple principal investigators, then consider the following:
  • The format, peer review, and administration of applications submitted with multiple PIs differ significantly from those of the traditional single-PI application. Therefore, it is essential to consider all aspects of the funding mechanism before applying, regardless of the type of research proposal to be submitted.
  • All applicants proposing team science efforts are strongly encouraged to contact their NIH program officials as soon as possible to discuss the appropriateness of submitting with multiple PIs to support their research.

Cover Letter and PHS Assignment Request Form

Although optional in most cases, the Cover Letter attachment on the SF424 (R&R) form and the PHS Assignment Request Form can convey information to the Division of Receipt and Referral (DRR) in the Center for Scientific Review.

• Use the Cover Letter attachment to provide narrative information to DRR staff. The application form instructions on the How to Apply - Application Guide page include a list of situations requiring a cover letter.
  • Late applications
  • Required agency approvals, if needed (e.g., approval to apply with budget period(s) of $500k or more)
  • Explanation of sub-award budgets not active in all budget periods
  • Intent to submit a video
  • Anticipation of large-scale genomic data
  • Proposed use of human fetal tissue from elective abortions
    
    
• Use the PHS Assignment Request Form to suggest
  • Institute or Center assignment
  • Study section assignment
    • Review the rosters of the scientific review groups to suggest assignments to a study section with the appropriate expertise to review your project.
  • Reviewers that may have a conflict of interest and why they should not be considered to review your application
    
    
• Only NIH staff who need to know can access your assignment request and cover letter. Reviewers cannot access them.

Are You a New or Early Stage Investigator?

• Determine whether you qualify as a new investigator based on the NIH definition of a new investigator. NIH offers funding opportunities tailored to new investigators, such as the NIH Director's New Innovator Award. YOu can find more information on NIH programs for new investigators on the New Investigators Program Web page.
  
  
• NIH staff is on the lookout for new and early-stage investigators. Check your eRA Commons account and ensure your funding history and the date of your residency or terminal degree are accurate to ensure that you are identified appropriately as a new or early-stage investigator. The eRA system calculates eligibility based on the information associated with the applicant's PD/PI profile and account.
  • Identifying yourself as a new investigator is advantageous because reviewers are instructed to give special consideration to new investigators. Reviewers will consider the proposed approach more than the track record.
  • First-time applicants may have less preliminary data and fewer publications than more seasoned investigators, and NIH reviewers understand this. Reviewers instead emphasize how the investigator has demonstrated that he or she is truly independent of any former mentors, whether he or she has some of his or her resources and institutional support, and whether he or she can lead the research independently.

Foreign Involvement: Institution and/or Investigator

• Foreign PD/PIs and those from foreign institutions should ensure their eligibility by checking the eligibility guidelines provided in every FOA.
  
  
• Foreign PD/PIs and those from foreign institutions are highly encouraged to contact an NIH program officer as soon as possible in the planning and writing stages.
  
  
• Foreign applicants can learn more at our Information for Foreign Applicants and Grantees page.

Develop Your Budget

This step will be one of the most time-consuming in the writing process.

• Know what type of budget will be required to submit with your application (found in your FOA).
  
  
• Understand the various components of the budget, working with your institution's central grants office and department administrator.
  
  
• Contact NIH program officials regarding allowability and other budgetary questions.

Your Research Plan

The plan describes the proposed research, stating its significance and how it will be conducted. Remember, your application has two audiences: the majority of reviewers who will probably not be familiar with your techniques or field and a smaller number who will be familiar.

• All reviewers are important to you because each reviewer gets one vote.
  • To succeed in peer review, you must win over the assigned reviewers. They act as your advocates in guiding the review panel's discussion of your application.
  • Write and organize your application so the primary reviewer can readily grasp and explain what you are proposing and advocate for your application.
  • Appeal to the reviewers and the funding ICs by using language that stresses the significance of your proposed work.

Additional Elements Required in a Grant Application

The following elements need to be included in the grant application as appropriate. Unless stated, these elements do not influence the application's rating (priority score). However, the reviewers are asked to comment on the adequacy of the information provided for each element. Any concerns the reviewers identify may negatively affect and postpone the award's granting.

Bibliography & References Cited

Provide a bibliography of any references cited in the Research Plan. Each reference must include the names of all authors (in the same sequence in which they appear in the publication; you can use the "et al." convention in place of listing all authors in a citation), the article and journal title, book title, volume number, page numbers, and year of publication. Make sure that only bibliographic citations are included. Be especially careful to follow scholarly practices in providing citations for source materials relied upon when preparing any section of the application.

Care and Use of Vertebrate Animals in Research

If you are planning to use live vertebrate animals in the project, you must adhere to the requirements in the Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (Policy): HTML Version and PDF Version. See the Vertebrate Animals Section webpage for an overview of what is required in your application and detailed instructions. Additional information can be found at:

• Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare
• PHS Policy Tutorial
• What Investigators Need to Know About the Use of Animals (PDF)
• Interactive training module: Vertebrate Animals Section (VAS) in Grant Applications
• NIAID's tutorial: Requirement for Grantees Using Research Animals

Consortium/Contractual Arrangements

Explain the programmatic, fiscal, and administrative arrangements between the applicant and consortium organizations (s).

Consultants and Collaborators

Attach appropriate letters from all consultants and collaborators confirming their roles in the project. For consultants, letters should include the rate/charge for consulting services.

Facilities & Other Resources

This information is used to assess the capability of the organizational resources available to perform the effort proposed. Identify the facilities to be used (Laboratory, Animal, Computer, Office, Clinical, and Other). If appropriate, indicate their capacities, pertinent capabilities, relative proximity, and extent of availability to the project. Describe only those resources that are directly applicable to the proposed work.

Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children in Research

Peer reviewers will also assess the adequacy of plans to include subjects from both genders, all racial and ethnic groups (and subgroups), and children, as appropriate, for the scientific goals of the research will be assessed. Plans for the recruitment and retention of subjects will also be evaluated. Check out the NIH Inclusion of Women and minorities policy website, which has resources such as a decision tree to help you determine which of your studies are subject to NIH's inclusion policy.

Multiple PD/PI

You must include a leadership plan for applications designating multiple PDs/PIs.

Protection of Human Subjects from Research Risk

Applicants must assure NIH that all human subjects are protected. Reviewers will assess the potential risk to human subjects in the proposed research and evaluate what protections are in place to guard against any research-related risk. Awards cannot be made until assurances are on file with the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP). Decision charts are presented that are helpful in thinking through relevant human subject protection issues (see http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/checklists/decisioncharts.html).

Resource Sharing Plan(s)

This section includes the Data Sharing Plan and Sharing Model Organisms, when applicable.

Select Agents

Identify any select agents to be used in the proposed research. Select agents are hazardous biological agents and toxins that HHS or USDA have identified as having the potential to pose a severe threat to public health and safety, animal and plant health, or animal and plant products. CDC maintains a list of HHS and USDA Select Agents and Toxins.

Use of Internet Sites

NIH instituted a policy prohibiting using website addresses (URLs) instead of text describing the same material in grant applications. This is because URLs could provide a large amount of extra material from a website beyond what would fit in the page limit, thereby giving an unfair advantage to some applicants and a large additional burden for reviewers.

Important Writing Tips

You have planned, researched, and understood the application…now it is time to write. A well-written, well-formatted application is an important key to success. Remember the details when formatting attachments.

TIP #1: Make Your Project's Goals Realistic

Do not propose more work than can be reasonably done during the proposed project period.

• Before writing the application, consider the budget and how it relates to your research plan. Remember that everything in the budget must be justified by the work you have proposed to do.

• Be realistic. Do not propose more work than can be reasonably done during the proposed project period. Ensure the personnel have appropriate scientific expertise and training. Ensure the budget is reasonable and well-justified.

TIP #2: Be Organized and Logical

Why? Reviewers are accustomed to finding information in specific sections of the application. This creates an efficient evaluation process, saving reviewers from hunting for the required information.

Start with an outline, following the suggested organization of the application. The thought process of the application should be easy to follow.

Note: Upon submission, NIH Systems will automatically add headers and footers (time stamping, tracking number, FOA number, and page numbers). Therefore, do not include headers or footers.

• Write clear headings.
  
  
• Use sub-headings, short paragraphs, and other techniques to make the application as easy to navigate as possible. Be specific and informative, and avoid redundancies.
  
  
• Bookmark major sections.
  
  
• Use diagrams, figures, and tables, and include appropriate legends to assist the reviewers in understanding complex information. These should complement the text and be appropriately inserted. Ensure the figures and labels are readable in the size they will appear in the application.
  
  
• Use bullets and numbered lists for effective organization. Indents and bold print add readability. Bolding highlights key concepts and allows reviewers to quickly scan the pages and retrieve information.
  
  
• Use whitespace effectively.

TIP #3: Write in Clear Concise Language

Why? A reviewer must often read 10–15 applications in great detail, so your application has a better chance of being successful if it is easy to read and well-written.

• Write a clear topic sentence for each paragraph with one main point or idea. This is key for readability.
  
  
• Make your points as direct as possible. Avoid jargon or excessive language.
  
  
• Write simple and clear sentences, keeping to about 20 words or less.
  
  
• Be consistent with terms, references, and writing style.
  
  
• Use the active, rather than passive, voice. For example, write "We will develop an experiment, "not "An experiment will be developed".
  
  
• Spell out all acronyms on the first reference.
  
  
• If writing is not your forte, seek help!

TIP #4: Sell Your Idea on Paper

Capture the reviewers' attention by making the case for why NIH should fund your research!

• Include enough background information to enable an intelligent reader to understand your proposed work.
  
  
• Support your idea with collaborators who have expertise that benefits the project.

TIP #5: Edit Yourself, but also Enlist Help

You have most likely been looking repeatedly at the same words, sentences, and paragraphs! Allow someone with fresh eyes to read your content, check your punctuation, and give feedback on whether the content flows.

• Have zero tolerance for typographical errors, misspellings, grammatical mistakes, or sloppy formatting. A sloppy or disorganized application may lead the reviewers to conclude that your research may be conducted similarly.
  
  
• Remember the Details! Format requirements include font size, margins, and spacing. Ensure you are familiar with these before submitting your application and label sections as directed. You do not want your application delayed because these details are not incorporated.
  
  
• If more than one investigator contributes to the writing, having one editor review the application for punctuation errors and ensure a consistent writing style would be helpful.

TIP # 6: Share for Comments

You have most likely been looking at the same words over and over! Allow someone with fresh eyes to read your content, check your punctuation, and give feedback on whether the content flows.

• Request your colleagues or mentors to review the first draft of your specific aims early in the process. This step can save lots of valuable time.
  
  
• Allow time for an internal review by collaborators, colleagues, and mentors, and make revisions/edits from that review. If possible, have experts in your field and those less familiar with your science provide feedback.
  
  
• Ask the reviewers to use a critical eye and evaluate the application using the peer review criteria.
  
  
• Allow sufficient time to put the completed application aside, and then read it from a fresh vantage point yourself. You can also try proofreading by reading the application aloud.
  
  
• Conduct your review based on the NIH's five peer review criteria. How would you rate your application?
  
  
• Before submission, look over the entire grant application one final time. Remember, you want a convincing proposal formatted according to the application guidelines, punctuation error-free, clear to read, and to the point!

---

Source: U.S. National Institutes of Health, https://grants.nih.gov/grants/how-to-apply-application-guide/format-and-write/write-your-application.htm
This work is in the Public Domain.