FY2022

科
研費
KAKENHI

Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research
Strategic Guide指南書

3rd Edition

There is more to an excellent grant proposal than just a great idea!
A strategy is necessary to translate your idea into a great proposal thatwill communicate its message to reviewers clearly and effectively. Thismanual will guide you through the process of applying for Grants-in-Aid
for Scientific Research (KAKENHI) in English.
落ちる申請書には理由があった！ 科研費にも「死の谷」がある
科研費指南書-戦略編 外国人研究者がキャリアアップしていくなかで陥Study Group to Support Foreign Researchers in Japan
りがちな罠から免れるための手引き

外国人研究者支援勉強会

Table of Contents
KAKENHI and Your Career

科研費と研究者キャリア・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

Application to Award Decision Schedule for Scientific Research (S),(A), (B), (C) and Early-Career Scientists
科研費申請スケジュール(基盤S, A, B, C, 若手研究）・・・・・・・・・・

Main Research Categories and the KAKENHI Review System

研究種目の概要と審査方法について・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

Structure and Design in Grant Writing

申請書作成の構成とデザイン・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

How to Write a Proposal Document for KAKENHI

申請書の書き方・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

What Your Proposal Needs

なにが申請書に必要か・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

Writing Tips

ヒント・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・“researchmap”

リサーチマップ・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

Rating Elements

評価の基準・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

Link between Rating Elements and a Proposal

評価の基準と申請書内容の関係・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

Tips for Figures and Tables

図表のヒント・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

Effort (%)

エフォートの考え方・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

Research Expenditures and Necessity (Budget)

研究経費とその必要性（予算）・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

Disclosure of Review Results

審査結果開示の見方・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

About Grants in Japan

科研費以外の外部資金・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

3

4

5
6
8
8
8
8
9
9
11
12
12
13
15

Edition: Sep. 1, 2021

KAKENHI and Your Career 科研費と研究者キャリア
As a professional scientist, obtaining public research funding according
to competitive criteria is an unavoidable task. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific
Research (KAKENHI) program is Japan’s largest competitive researchfunding program aimed at all scientific fields and levels. It uses a peer
review system and are the most reliable source of domestic funding inJapan. These grants have long supported international researchers
throughout development of their careers, whether the language of theirapplication was in English or Japanese.
It is worth noting that international researchers are regarded as essential
members of the Japanese scientific community that will change its
mindset into one of greater inclusion. This is one of the reasons why
university research administrators (URAs) throughout Japan have united
to create this brief KAKENHI guide. We hope that you will find it useful.

Positioning of KAKENHI 科研費の位置づけ
Researchtype

Research based on a
researcher’s creative idea(s)(curiosity-driven research)

Mission oriented researchCompetitive
research funding(through open
calls and review)

Larger research
projects supported by
KAKENHI

Research funded byindividual ministries(AMED, JST, etc.)

Basic funds(noncompetitive)

Smaller research projects
conducted at universities andinter-university

National projects and strategicallypromoted projects conducted by
National R&D Agencies

Funding
type(following policy imperatives)

Edited from "Handbook on the Grants-in- Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI) Program”
https://www.jsps.go.jp/english/e-grants/data/handbook.pdf

Considerations regarding Japanese Translated Proposals
If you plan to have your proposal translated into Japanese, it isessential that you be able to judge the quality of thetranslation. If you are not able to, then we recommend
submitting the proposal in English. Generally speaking, thecontent of a proposal is much more important than thelanguage used.
3

Schedule for Scientific Research “Kiban” (S), (A), (B), (C),and Early-Career Scientists “Wakate” for FY 2022
公募スケジュール（基盤研究 S,A,B,C, 若手研究）

KAKENHI are competitive funds that are intended to significantly develop
all scientific research, ranging from basic to applied science, and from thehumanities and social sciences to the natural sciences. KAKENHI grants
provide financial support for creative, pioneering research that will become
the foundation of social development. Research projects are selected using
a peer-review screening process by multiple researchers whose fields are
similar to that of the applicant.
<Major Changes in the Fiscal Year 2022 Call for Proposals>
The KAKENHI schedule now has earlier dates for both calls and proposal deadlines!

◆Scientific Research(B), (C),
Early-Career Scientists◆Scientific Research(S), (A)July 1st 2021

Call for proposals1,2 for grants
available during the next fiscal year

August 1st 2021

Mid August

Department/Institution deadlines
Researchers submit applications
via the “e-Rad” system

Mid September

Sep. 6th 2021

JSPS deadline
Research institution submits
application documents(S) Early May(A) Late Feb. 2022

Temporary decision to fund the grant
Request for fund disbursement
may be initiated(S) Late May(A) Early April 2022
(S) Early July(A) Late June 2022

Formal application for funding
should be submitted
Official decisionof grant delivery is issued

Oct. 6th 2021

Late Feb. 2022
Late April 2022
Late June 2022

1 The category “Research Activity: Start-up” has an earlier schedule.
2 From FY2024, the call for “Scientific Research (S)” will start in mid April 2023. The provisional grant

decision will be in Early February 2023.

For detailed information, please check the following links:
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS)
https://www.jsps.go.jp/english/e-grants/index.html
KAKENHI Pamphlet 2020
https://www.jsps.go.jp/english/e-grants/data/kakenhi_pamph_e.pdf
Handbook on the KAKENHI Program FY2021 New!
https://www.jsps.go.jp/english/e-grants/data/handbook.pdf

4Main Research Categories
and the KAKENHI Review System
研究種目の概要と審査方法について

Researchers applying for KAKENHI must choose an appropriate research
category, the selection of which depends on the stage, contents, and scale of
the research plan. Researchers must also choose an appropriate review
section. Considering which review section is best for a proposal is a key
point1. The table below shows the pertinent information for research
categories (S), (A), (B), (C) and Early-Career Scientists.
Pertinent Information
Research Category

Scientific Research (S)Total
Budget50-200
million yen

Review
Review
Section1
MethodBroad Section
5 years(11 sections)
Comprehensive
Medium-sized
Review
3-5 years
Section(64 Sections)
PeriodScientific Research (A)20-50
million yen

Scientific Research (B)5-20
million yen

3-5 years

Scientific Research (C)5 million yen
or less

3-5 years

Early-Career Scientists2

5 million yen
or less

2-5 years

Basic Section(306 Sections)Two-Stage
Document
Review,(B):
6 reviewers;(C), Early-C:
4 reviewers

1 See 'Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research-KAKENHI- "Review Section Table"‘and select the appropriate option.
https://www.jsps.go.jp/english/e-grants/data/09/2022/review_section_table_e.pdf
2 Less than 8 years after receiving Ph.D. (as of April 1 of the funding start year).

Moreover, grants for “Early-Career Scientists” may not be awarded to the same
individual more than twice.
Tip: Grant-in-Aid for Transformative Research Areas is worth considering if a specificarea matches your field of research.

[The on-going research category of “Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research on
Innovative Areas”, formerly “Transformative Research Areas”, started in
FY2020.]5Structure and Design in Grant Writing
申請書作成の構成とデザイン

Start by viewing your research as a whole

まずは研究全体のイメージ

A great idea alone does not guarantee a successful grant proposal. The challenge
for you as an applicant is to express your idea effectively so that reviewers will
see its potential. Viewing your research as a whole will help you to create aclearer picture.
Research phaseYour final goal(c) (academic importance, impact)(b) Your proposed research(a)Your findings
to dateApplication submission

TimeYour research as a whole begins with (a) your findings to date, then continues
through (b) your proposed research, and leads toward (c) your final goal. Consider
this view when preparing your proposal by following these steps:
1.

Examine and organize your findings to date to determine where you currently
stand in your research.

2.

Consider your final goal, its impact on your field, its impact on society, and how
it will influence other areas (ripple effect).

3.

Based on 1 and 2, express the importance and originality of your idea, as wellas the landmarks to realize it. To accomplish this, be sure to clearly state:✓✓✓✓Your hypothesis and specific aims
Your solution to the problem (including your plan and timeline)
Your backup plan in case things do not go as planned
Necessary facilities and expenses

Doing the above will allow reviewers to see all the phases of your research. Apply
this design when preparing the summary section of your proposal as well.
Tip: Ensure that there are no contradictions between your proposal andgoal. Even small discrepancies will draw the reviewers’ attention andreduce your credibility.
6

Importance, originality, and feasibility
重要性・独創性・実現可能性

As alluded to earlier, importance and originality are criteria that reviewers will use toevaluate your proposal (see Rating Elements, page 9). But what is importance? Whatis originality? Useful questions to ask yourself are:••••Will this research lead to a major advance or simply an incremental advance?
Do similar studies exist? If so, how does my proposal differ?
Does it have broader impact in academia, technology, or society?
Will reviewers think, “Wow, I wish I thought of that!”?

Importance and originality are then tempered by feasibility. You will need toconvince the reviewers of the feasibility of your plan by showing appropriate
methods, ample experience, and sufficient (or obtainable) resources.
Many applicants make the mistake of either being too ambitious or not ambitious
enough. A strong proposal maximizes impact within the constraints of feasibility.
Tip: Support your claims of importance and originality as concretely as possible byproviding data and references. Strive to demonstrate that your idea has potential.
Tip: Strive for balance between background and methods content. They are both
important. Background shows importance, while the methods convey feasibility.

Process of building a proposal

作成過程（構想・準備・書き・確認）
Creating an effective KAKENHI proposal is more than just sitting down and writing.
Writing should be part of a more thoughtful process that also includes ample
preparation and polishing. Follow the process below when building your proposal:
Envision

Prepare1.

Envision the outcomes of your research, and collect andorganize information on the field.

2.

Based on your collected information, envision a plan torealize the research outcomes.

3.

Once you have a full, workable plan, begin writing theapplication.

4.

Address each required item clearly and concisely, anduse figures and data to help convey your message.

5.

Ask your supervisor and other colleagues to review yourproposal.

Write

Review

7

How to Write a KAKENHI Proposal
申請書の書き方The goal of a proposal is to secure financial support for your research byexplaining its merits to reviewers who may or may not be familiar with yourresearch specialty.

1. What your proposal needs なにが申請書に必要か① A concise summary of the proposed research at the beginning- A good summary will enhance reviewer understanding of your proposal.

② A description of what will be learned during the research period- A research plan must include appropriate methods, a schedule, a budget,etc.

③ An explanation of potential obstacles to completing the researchand how these will be circumvented- If the research project involves co-investigators, add a researchgroup organizational chart.
Only a small number of writing tips are given below due to space limitations. They
will help you write a successful proposal for any type of grant, including KAKENHI.

2. Writing tips ヒント① Use plain language so that reviewers who are not familiar withyour field can understand your proposal.
- It is best to avoid unnecessary technical jargon.

② Use headings for each subsection.

- All evaluation points must be included in your proposal.

③ Proofreading is a must!

- Ask your supervisor, co-workers, family members, URAs, and KAKENHI
advisers at your university to comment on your proposal. Since
KAKENHI is a universal, fundamental research grant in Japan, almost
all scientists in Japan could be useful advisers.

Website: “researchmap” リサーチマップ
Prior to submitting a KAKENHI application, researchers need to prepare their
publication information on the “researchmap” website because reviewers will
utilize the CV information from “researchmap” during the review process.
https://researchmap.jp/?lang=english
8

Reviewers will evaluate KAKENHI proposals by using the following Rating
Elements. Thus, applicants needs to satisfy these criteria.
(For details, please refer to the “Assessment Criteria” on the JSPS website:
https://www.jsps.go.jp/english/e-grants/grants03.html )Rating Elements

評定要素① Academic Importance of Research Projects- academic significance and originality- clearly stated key research question- academic, scientific, technological, and/or social impact② Validity of Research Methods- concrete and appropriate research method for the research
objective with adequate budget, plan, and preparation③ Appropriate Ability to Conduct Research and Appropriate
Research Environment- readiness to perform the proposed research with regards to theapplicant’s experience and achievements- research environment: accessibility to necessary facilities,
equipment, and other participants

Instructions on the Form and Rating Elements
評定要素と申請書の記載指示との関係

The numbered elements in the proposal form instructions (below) correspond to therating elements. Therefore, it is important to include all instructed items in your proposal.

Rating Element ①

Rating Element ②
9Tip #1
A proposal should be Easy to read
✓ Short sentences/paragraphs with clean margins and spacing✓ Headings to structure and indicate the key information
 Easy to understand✓ Write in plain language✓ Make sure the logical flow is sound Compelling and convincing✓ Clearly identify the issue(s)✓ Provide supportive facts for your statements✓ Compare & contrast your research with others in the field✓ Explain how you developed the idea for the project✓ Show what impacts (academic/social) your results may have

Tip #2The key scientific question should be The big picture – your final goal, may/may not be directly testableAND A research question at the fundamental
core of the projectzz
Some applicants define only the former. However, it is equallyimportant that your research yield tangible results. A testablequestion should also be stated.

Rating Element ③

Tip #3 (regarding the instructions from section 2 of the form)
 Discuss your previous work and the results obtained; help
reviewers follow the arrow of your research.
 Add your publication record, third-party evaluation results,
patents, invited talks, and other achievements.
 How are you/your institution equipped with what you need forthis project?
10Tip #3 (continued)

Section 2 writing examples(1) Applicant’s research activities
2019 – present Assistant Professor, Dept of ****, University of ****
I have been working on ***** for the purpose of *****. So far, I
found that **** [1][2]This research was funded by ****
2015 -2019
Post Doctoral Fellow, Research Institute of ****…….
[Publications, awards, invited talks, patents, etc.]
1. Authors (if there are many, indicate your position), title, journal
name, volume, issue, and pages, and publication year
2. ….
(2) Research Environments
University of **** is equipped with all measuring instruments …

Tips for Figures and Tables

図表のヒントVisual aids such as diagrams, flowcharts, tables, and images can help
reviewers better understand your proposal. Make sure to….
 Make it simple✓ Use minimally. It should*

Explain/illustrate background info/concept
Explain/illustrate your object/model/system/scheme
Display preliminary data
Support your argument✓ A busy figure is not informative - display only necessary info
✓ State conclusions in the figure titles✓ Add brief legends telling what message the figure should convey
 Avoid using unmodified figures from past publications
 Make it big (recognizable) and in high resolution (300 dpi+)
 Align position, size, style for a better look
 Refer to it (by figure #) in the text
 Print your document in black and white and check legibility

Applications are printed for reviewers in black and white.
*modified from https://www.bu.edu/gwise/files/2014/07/Grant-Writing-Seminar-Cyndi-Bradham.pdf page 14

11

Write “N/A (not applicable)” if the proposal does not involve these issues.
If it does, write simply. For example: “Appropriate measures have been taken
to protect human rights and to assure legal compliance.”

Effort (%)

エフォートの考え方

Never write 100% in your effort! It includes your working hours: paperwork,
management meeting, teaching, research for other grants, etc. The amount ofeffort that you input varies depending on all of your obligations, but even if you
don’t teach, the maximum effort for KAKENHI is 70%. Please consult a KAKENHI
adviser at your institution if you have any questions.

Research Expenditures and Necessity (Budget)
研究経費とその必要性（予算）The budget plan should be honest, persuasive, thoughtful and specific.
• Don’t include equipment cited in research achievements. (That means you
already have it, or have access to it.)
• Generally, the approved funding amount is 70% of your proposal budget.
• Include consumables in case the budget is reduced when approved.
You can also refer to advice from foreign researchers who secured KAKENHI
funding. E.g., EURAXESS Japan maintains 2016 KAKENHI presentation data here:
https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/worldwide/japan/boost-your-career-grantspractice#custom-collapse-0-kakenhi-sessions-grantees-amp-alumnipresentations

12

Disclosure of Review Results
審査結果開示の見方

Review results are disclosed directly to applicants to make the review process moretransparent. Researchers whose proposals were not adopted can make use ofreview results in revising future proposals. Below is a sample of a Two-Stage
Document Review that you would see for Scientific Research (B), (C) and EarlyCareer Scientists. (Note: This information is currently only offered in Japanese.)

View review results

Basic Information(Research category,review section and titleof research project)

Grade of Proposal

Number of applications/
Number of award/
Success rate
Letter grades indicatethat the proposal was
A: Top 20% of unaccepted
applications
B: Upper 21-50%
C: Lower 50%① Academic importance of
research project② Validity of researchmethods③ Appropriateness of ability
to conduct research andresearch environment

Your average score/
Average score ofawarded projects

In the first stage of review,each reviewer grades 1-4
for each rating elements
using an “absolute” scale.

13

①Academic Importance of the
Research Project- Is it an important research
project from an academic pointof view?
- Does the “key scientificquestion” comprise the core of
the research plan? Is it clear,and scientifically significant,with evident originality?
- Is it clear how the history
leading to the conceived
research plan and domestic andoverseas trends are related tothe proposed research? Does
the proposal indicate thepositioning of this research in
the relevant field?
- How will the proposed
research affect the wider
academic, scientific, or
technological community
or society?
②Validity of Research Method- Is the research method
concrete and appropriate inorder to achieve its research
objective? Also, does theresearch expenditure ensure
consistency with the researchplan?
- Is the preparation statusappropriate in order toachieve its research
objective?

③Appropriateness of Ability to
Conduct Research and Research
Environment- Does the author possess
sufficient ability to conduct the
research plan based on past
research activity?
- Is the research environment
suitable (facilities, equipment,
research materials, etc.) to
conduct the research?

Scoring classificationand equivalentassessment criteria. (4:Excellent, 3: Good,
2: Somewhat insufficientor 1: Insufficient)

Points to be noted (e.g.,
issues relevant tohuman rights protection
and legal compliance)

Specific items rated 2(somewhat unsatisfactory) or
1 (unsatisfactory) areindicated with asterisk.
The number of asterisks (＊)
represent the number ofreviewers who gave a rating of
2 or 1.

Other evaluation items(e.g., validity of researchexpenditure)

For more detailed information about assessment
criteria, please check the following link:
Scientific Research (B/C) (Application Section“General”) and Early-Career Scientists Assessment
Criteria for Document Review
https://www.jsps.go.jp/english/egrants/data/2021/r3hyoutei03_en_general.pdf

14About Grants in Japan

科研費以外の外部資金

The Japanese government provides competitive funds via related
ministries and agencies, which are based on Japan's science andtechnology policies.
A list of all national competitive funds:
https://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/english/index.html
・AMED (Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development)
https://www.amed.go.jp/en/index.html
Grants: AMED-CREST (Research Team), PRIME (Individual
Researcher)https://www.amed.go.jp/en/program/list/16/02/001.html
・JST (Japan Science and Technology Agency)
http://www.jst.go.jp/EN/
Grants: PRESTO (Sakigake) (A grant for individual researchers.)
https://www.jst.go.jp/kisoken/presto/en/index.html
FOREST (Sohatsu)
https://www.jst.go.jp/souhatsu/en/call/index.html

Information about Private Foundations:
The Japan Foundation Center
http://www.jfc.or.jp/eng/english-top/
Recent grant list (in Japanese)
http://www.jfc.or.jp/grant-search/news/• Most of the calls of private foundations are for limited fields.
But some accept proposals of all the fields.
• Sometimes the success rate is much better than KAKENHI.
• There are also application calls in English.
• Even the application guidelines are in Japanese some accept
English applications.
• Please try to see if there are suitable calls for your research.
• Information from your colleagues is precious about these calls.
Consult with a URA or staff member in charge of external funds
at your institution for more information.
15

Remember that the reviewers are doing the reviews as a task over and above their daily mandated
activities (...). They may be overwhelmed with applications and manuscripts requiring reviews. They
often carry out the reviews under less-than-ideal conditions (evenings, weekends, holidays, at meetings,
or even on the way to review committee meetings). They may wait until the last minute to begin theirreview.
Reviewers often do their reading in bits-and-pieces. Have your application so organized so that it canbe read in this way. You do not want them to have to go back to the beginning after each break.
Assume that you are writing for a reviewer in a somewhat related field, rather than for an expert
directly in your area.
(3.1 General)
THE ABSTRACT SHOULD SERVE AS A SUCCINCT AND ACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
EVEN WHEN IT IS SEPARATED FROM THE APPLICATION. IT MUST STAND ON ITS OWN.
It must be understood by both experts in your field and by "generalists".
The primary reviewer(s) read the entire application for which they are responsible, but others on thereview committee may only read the abstract. (see also Appendix - the process in the review
committee).The abstract may be the only part of the application that is read by all the members of the
grants committee who are not primary reviewers, even though ALL members may have to give their
independent scores (given equal weight to the scores of the primary reviewer(s)).
(3.4 Abstract / Summary of Proposal)

From The Art of Grantsmanship By Jacob Kraicer

With KAKENHI grants comes independence to pursue research ofyour own choosing. For this reason, these grants are competitive,and your proposal may not be accepted the first time. But do not
let this discourage you! Both failures and successes will help you togrow as a researcher. Keep trying, and best wishes with your
KAKENHI application!
Instructions about copyright (FY2021)
This guide is published with the cooperation of the members and institutes mentioned below.
Editors/Contributors:
Study Group to Support Foreign Researchers in Japan
Avsar Eriko (Mie University)
Chen Chen (University of Tsukuba)
DaSalla Charles (Tokyo Institute of Technology)
Ishida Kimiko (Doshisha University)
Kubo Yosuke (Association of Science and Technology for Advanced Research OperaTion Help)
Mio Saeko (Toyota Technological Institute)
Nishimura Kaoru (Tokyo Institute of Technology) (Study Group representative)
Okada Yoshio (Nagoya University)
Okano Keiko (Yokohama City University)
Okutsu Saeko (Nagoya City University)
Sakai Hanami (Kumamoto University)
Salonga B. Reginald (Nagoya City University)
Sanderson Jason (Kumamoto University)
Sano T. Eriko (Tokyo University of the Arts)
Tsuzuku Junko (The University of Tokyo)
Yabugami Azusa (Nagoya Institute of Technology)
Gifu University, Kyoto University, Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology, Shizuoka University,
Toyohashi University of Technology
Collaboration: Association of Science and Technology for Advanced Research OperaTion Help (ASTAROTH)
Support: Research Manager and Administrator Network Japan (RMAN-J)
Published September 1, 2021