BC Environmental and Occupational Health Research Network

Page Contents:

       What Reviewers are Looking for Overall

       Common Weaknesses in Proposals

       Reviewers’ Common Complaints

       Proposals are Rejected Because…

              Your Research Problem

              Your Research Approach

              The Investigator

       Reviewer Comments

              On Originality and Practical Applicability

              On Importance

              On Methodology

              On Knowledge, Expertise and Experience of the Research Team

              On Overall Evaluation

       If Your Proposal is Rejected

       Think of the Reviewers

       Tell a Tidy Story

 

What Reviewers are Looking for Overall

• Are you aware of relevant background literature?
• Are your hypotheses clear and testable?
• Do you and your research team have the skills (as judged by your training, experience, and publications, if any) to complete the proposed project?
• Have you initiated collaborations (with supporting letters) to help with skills that you do not possess?
• Can the proposed objectives be completed within the requested granting period and with the requested resources (personnel, supplies, equipment)?

 

Common Weaknesses in Proposals

• Poorly identifying and substantiating a significant issue
• Unclear in how money will be spent for project activities
• Nature of the problem is unclear
• Inappropriate method selected to address the problem
• No clear plan for evaluating the project
• Objectives are not clearly measurable
• Time schedule is unreasonable
• Problem is more complex than can be addressed within the funding parameters
• Community was not involved in the planning process
• Agency does not have any experience in the proposed area

 

Reviewers’ Common Complaints

• Excessive use of unnecessary jargon
• Incomplete or improperly completed forms
• Too much unnecessary text
• Not conforming to formatting requirements (e.g., font too small)
• Poorly organized proposal (e.g., insufficient use of headings)
• References are incomplete

 

Proposals are Rejected Because…

Your Research Problem

• The problem is more complex than the investigator appears to realize
• The problem is unlikely to produce new or useful information
• The research involves too many elements under simultaneous investigation
• The problem is scientifically premature and warrants, at most, only a pilot study
• The research hypothesis is not based on sufficient evidence

Your Research Approach

• The description of the approach lacks clarity
• The methods proposed are inappropriate for the objectives
• The research design/approach is poorly developed
• The equipment to be used is unsuitable
• The statistical approach is poorly developed

The Investigator

• The investigator has inadequate experience for the research
• The investigator requires more collaboration with colleagues
• The investigator appears unfamiliar with recent pertinent literature or methods
• The investigator is spreading him/herself too thin
• The investigator’s publications in the field do not inspire confidence

 

Reviewer Comments

Comments provided by reviewers come in different forms. They may bring attention to some of the shortfalls of the research proposal. In some cases, reviewers will commend an applicant and their team on the research they are proposing to conduct. Many reviewers will even provide recommendations on how to improve the proposal. In any of these cases, there is a lot to learn from their comments. Try to keep an open mind when reviewing those comments. Be sure to make the changes necessary to improve your application for next time (if rejected), or to improve your project further (if accepted).

To follow are some excerpts from actual reviews conducted by peer reviewers, highlighting the area they are commenting on, however, maintaining the anonymity of the applicant by removing any exposing keywords.

On Originality and Practical Applicability

"… It is felt that this project is innovative, applicable to population of study, and could have significant contribution to a clinical area of strong need. It is agreed that education and awareness of X is quite poor, and the author has selected a population where there is likely very little vigilance to the issues. The originality and practical applicability is the greatest strength of the outlined protocol and the author should be commended for dedication in this respect …"

On Importance

"… The knowledge transfer and exchange element of this proposal is underdeveloped. It is restricted to the environment of the immediate organization. Furthermore, there are no letters of support attached to the application. Only a list of partners is provided, which puts into question the cohesiveness of the network suggested …"

"… This project has the potential to serve as a model for other healthcare settings as well as the methods for determining what improvements are needed … has the potential to be utilized in any industrial setting …"

On Methodology

"… In general, there is lack of detail about the project making it difficult to assess. There are also design and measurement issues. The design issue is critical to making conclusions based on your findings. There is no control group, and thus, you have nothing to compare your results to …"

"… The methodology is the weakest aspect of the proposal. Better clarification is needed. For example, once the population is baselined, how will X be specifically diagnosed, triaged, and reported to the lead researcher? …"

"… It is clear that the author simply cut and pasted several aspects of the language in this document. For example, the description of X is verbatim out of the manual, and the definition/description of Y is taken directly from a manuscript. This is not appropriate for a scientific review. The author should not use language in the third person to describe aspects of the protocol, and some statements should be specifically referenced for the reader. Better scientific writing would add to the credibility of the project …"

On Knowledge, Expertise and Experience of Research Team

"… This is the most seriously flawed aspect of this application. The team is made up of one single member. The limited academic training is not particularly compensated by experience. A single applicant with no other team members can not address all the complex facets of X and Y. There is also no one available as a partner who could provide the expertise to conduct the complicated analysis …"

"…There are concerns that the author may be naive to some core methodological issues and research concepts. Clarification of the methods is needed …"

"… The authors are well qualified and have done a lot of research in the proposed area. They may wish to consult with a statistician for adequate sample sizes …"

"… The letters of support are excellent and it is clear that the applicant is perceived as highly regarded, conscientious, and will likely be highly vigilant in terms of follow-through of the study. The education component of the protocol will be effective and of significant value."

On Overall Evaluation

"… This proposal addresses an important and timely topic and could provide some unique and interesting results. However, the proposal suffers from a faulty research design (no control group) which would seriously limit the interpretation of results. The proposal also lacks details on the intervention and how it would be implemented …"

"… It is unfortunate that the applicant is isolated – the applicant would benefit from a stronger team where the applicant’s skills and interests could be supported, and this would also provide a learning environment …"

"… If the methodology is better clarified, this would improve the project’s credibility. It is recommended that the specific research hypotheses, baseline and testing protocols, potential confounding variables, and statistical considerations of the specific hypotheses be revised. With these improvements, the protocol would be of significant value, especially from a general education and health improvement standpoint …"

"… This project has solid design characteristics and a research team that is capable of successfully completing the project in the time and with the resources proposed. The research is practical and would likely provide both immediate and long-term benefits. The project has the potential to make a long term contribution to X…"

 

If Your Proposal is Rejected

• You are not alone!
• Carefully read through the reviewers’ comments
• Make the suggested changes to improve your proposal
• Resubmit to the same or another funding agency
• Treat this as an opportunity to review the ENTIRE proposal, while addressing the specific issues raised by reviewers. BUT remember a new panel will treat your next application as an entirely new proposal and will not see the previous reviewers comments

 

Think of the Reviewers

• Avoid verbosity - be clear - answer all questions carefully and in detail
• Reviewers do not simply read, they interpret
• Do not force the reviewer to hunt through the application for information
• Write to convey and inspire confidence
• Establish the need, importance and originality of your research
• Set challenging yet realistic goals
• Clearly articulate the theoretical or conceptual framework: prepare the literature review carefully
• Pay close attention to describing your methodology and the relevance of your project

  

Tell a Tidy Story

• What you want to do
  • central hypothesis/research question: the big idea
  • specific objectives and goals
• Why is your research question a reasonable one to address
  • review the previous literature: what is known about the topic
  • describe any knowledge gaps
  • succinct rationale for your project: concept and approach, how can it be applied
• How are you going to do it
  • detailed work plan with a logical sequence and timelines
  • describe how you will analyze and interpret results
  • identify any pitfalls, how you will overcome them, and any alternatives
• Why you should take on this project
  • what are your relevant skills and experience
  • who are your collaborators to fill any technical gaps in your experience
  • report on any baseline data demonstrating feasibility of your project

 

Need assistance? Contact Dr. Tanya Wahbe, Research Capacity Development Officer.

 

Continue with Toolkit: Building Partnerships

Back to Toolkit Menu