Recommendations for Writing Successful Proposals from the Reviewer's Perspective. (Shop Talk)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Creating successful proposals involves two components to accomplish the author's goal support for an important project and communication of the goal to the reviewers. Success often hinges on avoiding common mistakes that distract the reviewers from the best features of the proposal. This article reflects the experiences and advice of three individuals who have been successful in obtaining grant funding and who have also acted as reviewers for funding agencies. Examples of lessons learned are presented in hopes that research administrators will find the information beneficial. Making a Match All funding sources require an application or proposal with similar requirements. Good project ideas have to be well-expressed and must fit into the sponsor's high priority areas for funding. Proposal writing fits into the metaphor of the Diving Contest. First, just like great divers who must be ready to perform according to the rules, well-practiced and informed in their field, and with a strong desire to win, so too must proposal writers' principal investigator (PI) be well-prepared. It is essential to know which project ideas get the best marks, that is part of knowing the rules and recognizing what the reviewers' value. Which of the state-of-the art project ideas is the one that will generate the most enthusiasm? What are the reviewers looking for? Who are the reviewers? And where, strategically, should the most important material be placed? Should it be up-front or should it appear later? The strategic submission of a proposal to a runding agency and the strategic placement of essential information within a proposal are essential parts of creating a competitive proposal. Not all agencies require the same types of applications. For example, proposals to some Canadian agencies are only six pages long. That is the good news. The bad news is that the six pages must describe the entire project, including methods, significance, references, and what die investigators have done in the past. Canadian proposals must be succinct to get the point across. The shorter Canadian applications have the advantage of increasing the feasibility of getting good reviewers because even busy people can read six pages. Reviewers find that the shorter proposals also result in better reviewing because the information in the proposal is more focused and authors do not have space to digress. But shorter proposals also place a lot of trust in the reviewers to determine whether the PI has the skills to be able to do the research since many of the details normally included in a proposal are simply not there. Although proposals to U.S. funding agencies are typically longer than six pages, the principle of writing a focused, well-organized and succinct proposal that follows the agency guidelines is a sound one. The Abstract-idea In a Nutshell A proposal's central idea must connect with the agency and the reviewers. The proposal must represent a novel idea, a new approach, method or tool, or must address a critical issue that has not been well-studied in the past. There must also be a compelling reason to fund it. The importance of the project must be captured throughout the proposal but is especially critical in the abstract. Reviewers who are assigned as first, second, or third reviewers will read the entire proposal but other reviewers may read only the abstract. Therefore, the abstract needs to be carefully crafted. The abstract as well as the body of the proposal must hook the reader with an interesting and well-articulated idea and a feasible plan of study so that all the reviewers on the panel will be able to understand the merits of the proposal. Project Design-A Slippery Slope Reviewers often single out the quality of the project design as the main reason a proposal makes or misses the funding cut. Many proposal writers focus on the literature review and seem to attend less to the quality of the project design. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,229 | 0,553 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,011 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,012 | 0,009 |
| Communication savante | 0,038 | 0,029 |
| Science ouverte | 0,010 | 0,013 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,043 | 0,021 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,105 | 0,132 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; l’étiquette directe de Gemma et le classifieur distillé Codex s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».