Successful grant writing
Getting it right

Critical stages of grant applications...
Generate an idea•••••

Why is this interesting and who cares?
Who will benefit from your work?
How novel is this idea?
Why am I the best person to do this?
Can I realistically achieve what I claim?

Find a matching funding opportunity•••••

Look at who funds similar research
Be aware: different agencies support different types of projects
Scan for available calls
Be willing to cast a wider net
Think outside of the box. Keep your mind open

Background research••••Understand the different agencies and their styles
Talk to the Program Manager – they are used to cold calls!
Do the literature search, it can save you weeks of writing!
Assume the panel members know nothing about your work, buteverything about your competitors• Don’t expect the panel members to be experts in your field, put
your idea into context

Write the technical portion

••
•
•
•
•

What problem are you addressing?
Why hasn’t it been solved yet?
Why do you think you will succeed?
What is your hypothesis?
What is your work plan and what are your milestones?
How will you measure success?

Check the administrative parts

Top tips and tricks
Time keeping: Be realistic about the time it takes towrite the grant - grants are like an ideal gas, they fill
all the space available to them.
Check your style: Do not use tiny fonts, even if thecall doesn’t have a lower limit. 11 point is probably
as low as you can go. Leave ample margins (3/4 in ispushing it). Avoid passive voice and tell a story.
KnowFindfunding agency and use it to your advantage e.g.
emphasize basic science for NSF, healthcare for
NIH or technology for DARPA etc.
Connect and network: Grant calls include thecontact information for a reason. Call the Program
Manager as they seldom can answer all their emails.
Prepare all your questions in advance.
Recycle but be warned: If you reuse parts of older
grants (everybody does it) watch for the items
specific to older grants in those texts - nothing
reveals a quick hack job better.
Size matters: When it comes to budget be frugal butrealistic. The average size of the award specified inthe call is a good indication of the scope of work theProgram Manager has in mind.
Be original! Try to be original and propose ideas thatmake sense, not just the “boilerplate”. Reviewers haveread the “boilerplate” many times before. But don’t
forget to explain things that look unusual.

Time and effort for atypical grant••••

Read the call – again and again and again…
Calls are usually specific about the formats they require
Terms like “required” and “must include” should be adhered toWork on your budgets and other documents in advance – beprepared• If you need external letters, give people enough time to get themto youSubmit and forget about it• Allow enough time to upload the files and check pdfs for readability
and errors• Many agencies systems get very busy during submission times –accept and prepare for this• Once submitted, forget about the proposal until you hear from thereview panel• Make sure that the agency communications don’t get filtered into
your spam folder• Many agencies will return detailed reviews. Use the review to revise
and resubmit your grantContent produced by: Aleksandr Noy, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Memberof Editorial Advisory Panel, Materials Today & Natasha Noy from Stanford University,
USA. In association with Elsevier & Materials Today

researcheracademy.com

And remember…
• Always assume any problems were your fault, notthe reviewer• If the reviewer has misunderstood something,then you did not explain it clearly enough• Make sure you invest considerable work andeffort in any revision – reviewers will likely dothe same…and finally – good luck!

How to Get PublishedWhat distinguishes a good manuscript from a bad one?

A good manuscript...
…is in scope

Investigate all candidate journals and find out about the:• Aims and scope• Accepted types of articles• Readership• Current hot topics by going through the abstracts ofrecent publications…adheres to publication ethics• Avoid plagiarism of others’ work
• Avoid multiple publication of the same work, neversubmit your manuscript to more than one journal at a time
• Cite and acknowledge others’ work appropriately• Only list co-authors who made major contributions…follows the Guide for Authors• Stick to the Guide for Authors in your manuscript, editors
do not like wasting time on poorly prepared manuscriptss

You can find the Guide for Authors on the journal‘shomepage on elsevier.com.

Illustrations
Illustrations are critical, because…

• Figures and tables are the most efficient way to presentresults• Results are the driving force of the publication“One picture is worth a thousand words.”
Sue Hanauer (1968)• Captions and legends must be detailed enough to makefigures and tables self-explanatory• No duplication of results described in text or otherIllustrations

Use proper manuscript language
Publishers do not correct language, this is the author’ssresponsibility.
• Ask an experienced colleague or use a language editing
service like to improve your paper before you submit it• Poor English makes it difficult for the editor andreviewers to understand your work and might lead torejection of your paper• Be alert to common errors:n Sentence constructionn Incorrect tenses
n Inaccurate grammarn Mixing languages• English language should be used throughout themanuscript, including figures, charts, graphs and photos

Are you ready to submit?
Roughly 35% of all submitted manuscripts are rejected before
peer review. Make sure you revise before you submit.

Article Structure• Do your findings advance understanding in a specificresearch field?
• Is your work of interest to the journal’s audience?
• Is your manuscript structured properly?
• Are your conclusions justified by your results?
• Are your references international/accessible enough?
• Did you format your figures and tables properly?
• Did you correct all grammatical and spelling mistakes?

Make sure you are equipped!
RESEARCH
PREPARATIONWRITING FORRESEARCH

PUBLICATIONPROCESSNAVIGATINGPEER REVIEWCOMMUNICATINGYOUR RESEARCH

Discover our free resources
Visit researcheracademy.com

researcheracademy.com

Research and publishing ethics
Authorship, plagiarism and responsibilities

What is plagiarism and how
is it detected?

What does it mean to bean author?
An “author” is generally considered tobe someone who has made substantive
intellectual contributions to a publishedstudy.”
Remember• Being an author comes with credit but also responsibility• Decisions about who will be an author and the orderof authors should be made before starting to write up
the paper

Four criteria to be met toattain author credit
1 Substantial contribution to the study conception anddesign, data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation
2 Drafting or revising the article for intellectual content
3 Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work
related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work
4 Approval of the final version

Three types of unacceptableauthorship
1 “Ghost” authors, who contribute substantially but are notacknowledged (often paid by commercial sponsors)
2 “Guest” authors, who make no discernible contributions,but are listed to help increase the chances of publication
3 “Gift” authors, whose contribution is based solely on atenuous affiliation with a study

Key author responsibilities
Authorship:••••

Report only real, unfabricated data
Originality
Declare any conflicts of interest
Submit to one journal at a time

Avoid:• Fabrication: making up research data
• Falsification: manipulation of existing research data
• Plagiarism: previous work taken and passed off as
one’s own

researcheracademy.com“Plagiarism is the appropriation of anotherperson’s ideas, processes, or words without
giving appropriate credit, including thoseobtained through confidential review ofothers’ research proposals and manuscripts.”
Federal Office of Science and Technology Policy, 1999

• Crossref Similarity Check is a huge
database of 30+ million articles, from50,000+ journals, from 400+ publishers• The software alerts editors to any similarities between
your article and the huge database of published articles• Many Elsevier journals now check every submitted article
using Crossref Similarity CheckWork that can be plagiarised includes…
••••••••••••••

Words (language)
Ideas
Findings
Writings
Graphic representations
Computer programs
Diagrams
GraphsIllustrations
Information
Lectures
Printed material
Electronic material
Any other original work

Declare conflicts of interest

Conflicts of interest can take many forms:• Direct financial: employment, stock ownership, grants,patents• Indirect financial: honoraria, consultancies, mutual fundownership, expert testimony• Career and intellectual: promotion, direct rival 		institutional Personal belief

The consequences

Authors could:• Have articles retracted (carrying a note why they wereretracted, e.g. for plagiarism)• Have letters of concern or reprimand written to themInstitutes and funding bodies could carry out disciplinary
actionHow to review manuscripts
Peer review, your role and responsibilities

Peer review

Your ultimate checklist forreviewing a paper…is critical because it• Improves the quality of the published paper

DO:• Ensures previous work is acknowledgedo Summarize the article in a short paragraph• Determines the importance of findingso Give your main impressions of the article• Detects plagiarism and fraudo Assess whether the article conforms to journal-specificinstructions• Plays a central role in academic career development…will benefit you because it

o Check the graphical abstracts and/or highlights
o Carefully review the methodology, statistical errors,
results, discussion, and references• Keeps you up to date with the latest researcho Keep your comments strictly factual and don’t speculate• Stimulates your own researcho Use short, clearly-defined paragraphs• Helps you build association with journals and editors• Is imperative for academic career developmento Provide feedback on the presentation of data,
methodological sustainability and reproducibility, data
analysis and whether the conclusions are supported bythe data

…Before you review

o Inform the editor if you suspect plagiarism, fraud or otherethical concerns• Does the article match your area of expertise?
• Do you have competing interests?

o Be aware of the possibility for unconscious bias in yourreview• Do you have time? Make sure you can meet the deadline• Familiarize yourself with the peer review process on
Researcher AcademyDON’T
o Feel the need to comment on the spelling, grammar or
layout of the articleo Make ad-hominem commentso Dismiss alternative viewpoints or theories that might
conflict with your own opinions
o Share information about the review without permissions
from the editors and authorso Suggest that the author includes citations to reviewers’ (ortheir associates’) work

Editors’ view: what makes a good reviewer?
• Promptly responds to the invitation to review• Submits the report on time
• Provides a thorough and comprehensive report• Demonstrates objectivity• Provides a clear recommendation to the editor

researcheracademy.com

Source: Elsevier Reviewer hub (elsevier.com/reviewers)