What reviewers look for
Funders publish their criteria. The proposal's job is to answer them in order.
The questions behind every section
Section names vary between funders. The questions reviewers are asking are much the same everywhere.
| Section | Reviewer's question | Make sure you |
|---|---|---|
| Summary | Can I tell what this is in a minute? | State the problem, aims and outcome plainly |
| Aims | What will exist at the end that doesn't now? | Give outcomes, not activities |
| Background | Is the need real and is this new? | Cite recent evidence for the gap |
| Approach | Will these methods deliver these aims? | Map each method to an aim |
| Team and environment | Can these people do it? | Show relevant experience and access |
| Impact | Who benefits, and how will they hear? | Name users and routes to them |
| Budget | Is the cost justified? | Tie each item to an activity |
The first page carries the proposal
Many reviewers form their view from the summary and aims, then read the rest to confirm it. Some funders formalize this: the US National Institutes of Health, for example, requires a one-page Specific Aims section.
Whatever the format, a reader should know by the end of page one what you will do, why it matters and what will come out of it.
Feasibility and risk
Show preliminary data or prior work where you have it. Give a timeline that shows aims overlapping sensibly. Name the main risks and what you would do if they happened.
Avoid aims that depend entirely on an earlier aim succeeding. If Aim 1 fails, the reviewer wants to know the project still produces something.
Write for a mixed panel
Panels often include people outside your subfield and sometimes lay members. Define terms, use headings and short paragraphs, and put the main point of each section in its first sentence.