Identifying Strengths and Weaknesses in Your Proposal Angela

Identifying Strengths and Weaknesses in Your Proposal Angela V. Klaus, Ph. D Proposal Consultant Office of Research and Project Administration Feb. 8 th 2010

Strengths and Weaknesses • A strength is any quality of your proposal that catches the reviewers’ attention in a positive way • A weakness is any quality of your proposal that catches the reviewers’ attention in a negative way

Good vs. Competitive A good proposal is a good idea, well expressed, with a clear indication of methods for pursuing the idea, evaluating the findings, and making them known to all who need to know. A Competitive Proposal is… All of the above Appropriate for the Program Responsive to the PA or RFA

NIH Standard Review Criteria 1. Significance. Does this study address an important problem? If the aims of the application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge or clinical practice be advanced? What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field? 2. Approach. Are the conceptual or clinical framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well integrated, well reasoned, and appropriate to the aims of the project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics? 3. Innovation. Is the project original and innovative? For example: Does the project challenge existing paradigms or clinical practice; address an innovative hypothesis or critical barrier to progress in the field? Does the project develop or employ novel concepts, approaches, methodologies, tools, or technologies for this area? 4. Investigators. Are the investigators appropriately trained and well suited to carry out this work? Is the work proposed appropriate to the experience level of the principal investigator and other researchers? Does the investigative team bring complementary and integrated expertise to the project (if applicable)? 5. Environment. Does the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Do the proposed studies benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, or subject populations, or employ useful collaborative arrangements? Is there evidence of institutional support?

Additional Review Criteria • Some RFAs and PAs will have specific review criteria in addition to the standard criteria • Mechanisms other than R 01 will have different additional criteria READ THE ANNOUNCEMENT CAREFULLY

Review Criteria at a Glance http: //grants. nih. gov/grants/peer/reviewer_guidelines. htm

Never forget Your proposal is being read and judged by human beings Make their job as easy as possible http: //cms. csr. nih. gov/nr/rdonlyres/d 254 e 67 d-44 f 7 -4 b 8 a-9340 -a 5578 e 9077 dd/19740/adviceforreviewers. pdf

Center for Scientific Review If you are new to the peer review process Take time to read these sections http: //cms. csr. nih. gov/

Never forget Your proposal is being read and judged by human beings This is a good place to check that your proposal is being read by the correct human beings http: //cms. csr. nih. gov/Peer. Review. Meetings/

Easy things to address • Avoid hyperbole • Use good organization • Include hypothesis in your specific aims (this might seem obvious, but I often see this mistake) • Proofread – sloppiness will count against you • Have a friend (a brutally honest one) read your proposal

Avoid hyperbole But don’t sell yourself short, either Use language that indicates confidence, but not arrogance, overconfidence or bravado And on the opposite end of the scale (Avoid the word “hope” when describing your expectations. Use “expect” or “anticipate”)

Organize your proposal Use section numbers/letters and bold headings Your proposal should have a logical flow You are telling a story, as well as articulating your science

Specific Aims • Include your hypothesis (be specific for each aim: “We hypothesize that…” • Spend a lot of time on the Specific Aims – this may be the only section most reviewers have time to read with full attention. • There is a good chance the bulk of the proposal will be scanned rather than read in detail

Specific Aims • Think of the specific aims as the Executive Summary of your proposal • Think of the reviewers as the very busy executives with only enough time to read the summary. • The reviewers are the ones who decide to (a) score you or not, (b) what scores to give

Have an honest friend read your proposal • Reviewers are not going to try to spare your feelings • Better to hear negative comments from a friend first • Don’t be defensive when hearing negative comments

Learn Good “Grantsmanship” If you are inexperienced: Consult those who have been successful in the past Consult as many references as possible on grant-writing (and good writing, in general)

Reminder Never forget - Your proposal is being read and judged by human beings The people who are reading and reviewing your proposal are busy people (just like you) It’s your job to make your writing as concise and lucid as possible

New 12 -page limit In order to be competitive your writing must be: • Clear • Concise • Lucid Mistake: Important ideas are buried in muddy, convoluted sentences

New 12 -page limit In order to be competitive your writing must be • Clear • Concise • Lucid “improvement would be to include a bit more “white space” in pages 2 -4. This section is very densely written, and thus a bit overwhelming to read. Breaking this section up by paragraphing with a space between paragraphs would alleviate the visual monotony and make it more appealing to reviewers. ” Mistake: Too much information is crammed into too little space

Provide summary statements At the end of sections Provide summary paragraphs for the reviewers At the end of the • Specific Aims • Introduction • Etc Provide as much summary and conclusion to the reviewers as possible

Specifically call out - • Significance • Innovation Be specific: “Our approach is innovative because. . . ” Do this early in the proposal, not towards the end Point out important highlights right up front Provide as much summary and conclusion to the reviewers as possible

Buried Alive Don’t bury a key or main point in the middle of a paragraph with no emphasis If you must put key info in the middle of a paragraph, use bold and underline for emphasis

Language is important • Any language that is potentially unclear or confusing to a reviewer is a WEAKNESS Remember: some reviewers will only scan the body of your proposal. Don’t take for granted that each reviewer will have time or energy to interpret complexities

Very often -Reviewers are probing for weaknesses, rather than looking at strengths It may be cynical, but it’s true

Reminder of NIH Review Criteria Significance: Is the problem important? Approach: Is the experimental design appropriate? Innovation: Is the project original and innovative? Investigators: Are they trained/experienced enough to carry out this work? Environment: Support, subject populations, collaborative colleagues available to make success more likely?

For instrumentation, servers and databases • Avoid the “If we build it, users will come” angle, this almost never works • Describe a known user base • Describe competing instrumentation, justify your choice • Describe adequate institutional support (people and $$)

If your proposal is not funded • Read your reviews • Take a few days to cool off (they are not personal) • Go back and read your reviews again, very carefully

Pay careful attention to each reviewer’s critique Did your proposal go to the correct study section? Did the reviewer become confused because of unclear writing?

Don’t let reviewer comments hurt your confidence • More often than not, reviewers are probing for weaknesses, rather than looking at strengths. • They may want to mentor you, but they most likely won’t have time • Seek mentorship from experienced PIs at your institution • Seek advice from variable personality types, because this is what you will encounter during the review process

Pay special attention to Study Section Summary Statement This statement represents the consensus view of the study section participants Look for a possible “fatal flaw” in this statement

Never forget Your proposal is being read and judged by human beings Make their job as easy as possible Try to write and proofread your proposal with the above image in mind