Funders are known for producing reams of guidance documents and bottomless websites that practically need a degree in archaeology to be properly excavated. In the best-case scenario, the guidelines are skimmed. Worst case? They’re ignored.
Yet doing so will practically guarantee a problem with your proposal. Take the formatting guidance. Using the wrong font type or font size and changing the suggested margins may seem like it shouldn’t really matter but this can potentially see your proposal rejected outright: it is no longer possible for the research councils to send proposals back to the applicant for amendment.
It’s even worse for calls. If instructions aren’t followed to the letter—both with regards to formatting and the general topic of the call—proposals can be rejected outright because there usually isn’t enough time available for the PI to re-submit.
Believe it or not, guidance is provided for a reason. The reason may not always be clear to you, and you may not always agree with the reasons, but accepting the instructions and following them will make the funding process smoother for everyone involved. Including you.
See all of the general funding myths ...
- MYTH #1: The only thing you need for a successful proposal is a good idea
- MYTH #2: You are writing a proposal for yourself
- MYTH #3: Guidance documents are optional
- MYTH #4: All proposals should be treated in the same way
- MYTH #5: The funder decides who gets funded
- MYTH #6: The 1-6 score on the review determines how a proposal does at panel
- MYTH #7: A competitive proposal can be written in a weekend / It takes years to write a competitive proposal
- MYTH #8: Copying what successful proposals have done gives you a better chance of getting funding
- MYTH #9: Grand proclamations are a great way to get your research noticed
- MYTH #10: Repeating parts of your proposal is fine
- MYTH #11: Reviewers are chosen at random
- MYTH #12: You can’t ask for any help when writing a grant proposal