School of Biodiversity, One Health & Veterinary Medicine

Grant Writing Checklist

In reviewing grants, there are a number of common things that tend to weaken proposals. The most convincing proposals are written a bit like a crime novel—with gaps in knowledge that motivate the objectives alluded to throughout the background section, leading up to a specific statement of objectives at the end of the introduction, when sufficient background motivation has been provided to understand their basis. The exception to this is the opening summary paragraph, which is best as an abstract of the motivation, significance and overall purpose.

The best proposals also have simple objectives (“simple and elegant” is often the highest praise) that the methods are clearly mapped onto to. Some reviewers prefer lists of hypotheses and some prefer lists of specific questions to be addressed but the weakest approach is stating objectives as methods rather than active aims that are justified by the background section.

Below is a checklist of some things that often elicit criticisms:

Background information

• Is my title catchy and informative and included on the case for support?
• Does my first paragraph grab attention and provide the reviewer with an understanding of what the proposal will be about, what motivates it and what the potential impacts are?
• Does my background section not only review what is known about the subject, but most importantly, what isn’t known that will be addressed in the study?
• Have I made it clear how the proposed work is different from my previous work (or work by others if relevant) and explicitly explained how the work will extend and substantially advance previous knowledge?
• Have I defined or removed all jargon that a nonexpert reviewer (e.g. a panel member) might not understand?
• Would someone who knows nothing about the subject understand the motivation and significance of the proposed project?
• Have I referenced all statements that aren’t my own and made it clear what background is based on my own work?
• Have I presented a logical flow of ideas that clearly lead up to the objectives?
• Have I used sufficient subheadings to break the proposal down into easily readable chunks that a reviewer could scan to find out what the proposal is about but read relevant parts in more detail?

Objectives

• Have I provided both big picture and specific objectives?
• Do the objectives follow on directly from the background section, so that they are clearly motivated?
• Are the objectives stated as simple and clearly achievable goals in the timeframe of the project?
• If relevant, have I clearly justified my hypotheses and/or predicted outcomes?

Methods and Programme of Work

• Have I used subheadings that clearly allow the reviewer to map the objectives onto particular methods so that it is clear how each objective will be achieved?
• Have I clearly explained my experimental design, including justification of choice of samples and sample sizes?
• Have I clearly justified my choice of study system?
• Have I explained methods in sufficient detail to make it clear that I am familiar with them and have thought carefully about the approach to be used?
• Are there any methods that I’m not sure about that might sound that way to a reviewer?
• Have I thought about weaknesses in experimental design that might be picked up by a reviewer and explained contingencies for any high‐risk elements?
• Have I referenced common procedures?
• Have I clearly outlined and justified the statistics to be used in the experiments?
• Have I clearly outlined the predicted timing of work and (if relevant) highlighted milestones?
• Have I clearly explained how the project will be managed and who will do what work?

Significance and Impact

• Have I considered not only potential scientific impact but broader socioeconomic benefits?
• In the pathways to impact, have I identified all possible stakeholders who might benefit from the results and outlined a specific plan for how I would ensure that they do benefit from the work?
• Have I been realistic in the potential significance and not made broad claims that are not achievable? Budget Justification
• Have I provided a detailed calculation of how costs were estimated, including sample sizes and costs per unit? (for JE‐S proposals this now goes on the form, rather than in the budget justification)
• Have I justified salary levels and time for all participants, including Principle Investigators?
• Have I clearly explained the justification for each cost, including choice of conferences attended?