admin

A key word that underpins much of proposal writing is balance. For example, it’s necessary to find the right balance between providing too many details (which can take up valuable space and overwhelm the reader) and not enough information (the reviewer is unable to determine if the idea is feasible or if the PI is […]

There is a little nuance to keep in mind before reading about the next myth. There is absolutely nothing wrong with looking at past proposals that have been funded. The problem comes when they’re treated as a template or viewed as the ONLY way to write a competitive proposal. There are two reasons why this

Reading about this myth is going to solve climate change, eliminate poverty, and cure cancer. It will save the government trillions of pounds and help every man, woman, child, and dog in the country. It will revolutionise every area of research it touches and be considered better than sliced bread and the invention of the

Ctrl-C. Ctrl-V. These two commands can save loads of time, but there’s one place you should be cautious using them: your proposal. Space in a research council proposal is at a premium, and every section should be used as a way to demonstrate why your research should be funded. Repeating the same thing multiple times

Reviewers and funders tend to get all the blame for unsuccessful proposals. There is a standard litany of complaints: The funder picked reviewers from the wrong research areas. The reviewers didn’t understand the project. Were names picked from a hat? And so on. This brings us to the penultimate myth of this series. For the

This is it. The final funding myth that I’m sharing as part of this series, and the one that can unfortunately cause the most trouble. Throughout school, we’re indoctrinated with the idea that we should do our own work. This makes complete sense when it comes to avoiding cheating or plagiarism, but it can have