The U-M Proposal Writing Guide is a step-by-step guide to writing each section of a proposal for a sponsored activity, such as a research project or a curriculum development program.

The Plain Language Medical Dictionary is a web-based tool developed by the Taubman Health Sciences Library containing over 1,000 medical terms. Search by typing in a specific medical term, browse all terms, or sort alphabetically.

The Research Development Team in the UMMS Grant Services & Analysis office are pleased to offer free NIH grant editing support to medical school faculty who are submitting applications to federal funding agencies.

As a program with limited capacity, we concentrate on the following prioritized grant categories:

• NIH R01, R01-equivalent and large-scale proposals (e.g., P and U series, DP1, DP2, DP5, R37, R56, RF1, RL1 and R35 applications)

• Other NIH research grants (e.g., R03, R21)

• Junior faculty career awards (e.g., K grants)

• Grants in other categories (if possible)

What We Offer:

• Grant editing on near/final drafts including
• Correcting spelling, word usage, grammar, and punctuation
• Cross-checking text with tables and figures for correct association
• Suggesting textual changes for clarity and concision
• Ensuring style consistency
• Suggestions regarding organization and structure
• Feedback and identification of logic gaps

How are these services requested?

Please submit an intake form . We will follow up with availability and additional questions regarding your service request.

When do I need to submit my request?

For NIH R01, R01-equivalent and other proposals: We encourage you to submit your request for services at least 3 weeks in advance of your funding agency deadline.

For NIH Large-Scale Proposals: We encourage you to submit your request for services at least 8 weeks in advance of your funding agency deadline.

What we deliver:

• Within one week after submitting your proposal you will receive an edited Word document with tracked changes and comments.
• Please note: Larger grants (e.g., P and U grants) require additional time and will take longer than one week to return.

If you would like to request grant editing support, please fill out an intake form. Please note: In general, a request for grant proposal editing cannot be accommodated within 10 days of the agency deadline. Please direct any questions to [email protected]. Please refer to this link for more information on our expanded services and policies. Service policies

Provides no-cost services and consultation to assist investigators in designing, writing, and submitting external grant proposals. Visit the MICHR website to get started.

The Medical School Office of Research has developed lists of individuals available for freelance work who can assist with various types of writing, editing, graphics design and medical illustrations needed to advance grant proposals, manuscripts, IRB applications, dissertations, etc.  

Please refer to the individual's description for more information about their experience. If interested, please contact them directly to negotiate the work statement and payment arrangements.   

Note: If you hire a University of Michigan employee to do freelance work, please refer to: U-M Standard Practice Guide 201.85 – Non-Appointment Related University Compensation. In accordance with U-M Procurement Services, a University of Michigan P-Card should not be used for payments of this nature, and any agreement should be signed by Procurement Services, not the individual unit. Please refer to the U-M Procurement Services website for additional information.

Questions about this list can be directed to [email protected].

Freelance Editors

Freelance Graphics Specialists

What is research impact?
Research impact, or “the potential for your research to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of desired society outcomes (see NSF Broader Impacts),” can be difficult to demonstrate and measure; additionally, during proposal development, it takes hard work and persistence to incorporate these considerations. Research impact extends beyond citations and academic recognition — it is the change your work makes to someone or something (i.e., individuals, communities, policies, technologies, methodologies) after your findings are disseminated and utilized by others outside your academic field.

Why it matters
Conveying your research impact enables grant funders and stakeholders to see how your work has the potential to improve health, revolutionize science, or serve society while increasing your visibility to generate new collaborations and advance scientific career development (see Impact of NIH research). Additionally, successful grant funding is driven by demonstrating how an individual’s research significantly impacts the agency’s scientific mission; therefore, as part of their submission process, most grant mechanisms require a statement of the potential broader impacts.

Measuring research impact
Since there isn’t a specific tool or system available, quantifying impact is very challenging. There are many types of research impact, including cultural, environmental, legal, and technological. This NIH website suggests that research impact can be measured within four key areas— economic growth, workforce outcomes, scientific knowledge, and social outcomes. Within academia, a narrower measurement of impact can be quantified using citation counts, the h-index, and journal impact factors. Ultimately, although there is no specific method to perfectly represent a researcher’s impact, the more widely your research is shared with a variety of stakeholders and platforms, the more likely it is to be acknowledged, disseminated, and potentially funded.

Summary
The benefits and reach of your research can be achieved by communication, engagement, and collaboration with other academics, stakeholders, and the public (i.e., through media, collaborations, and other events). Determining research impact is about understanding the value and relevance of research activities, not just within academia but also in broader social, economic, and cultural contexts. Do you have any comments or suggestions to share about research impact? We’d love to hear about them. Contact the UMMS GS&A Research Development team at [email protected] to share your suggestions and resources.

When writing a grant proposal, stating your ideas early ensures your proposal is clear, compelling, and strategically aligned from the start, thereby increasing its chances of funding success. Here we discuss the benefits of using this proactive writing approach in grant development.

Ensuring alignment with funding mission’s goals
Clearly articulating your ideas early helps ensure all parts of your proposal remain aligned with the funder’s core objectives while connecting your goals to the specific needs of your study population. Restate language and terminology the funder used to describe their goals to communicate your alignment with the agency’s mission in every section— from the introduction to the conclusion— to make your argument more coherent, persuasive and impactful.

Clarity, focus and immediate engagement
Presenting your main ideas early in a grant application captures the attention of your audience and helps reviewers quickly grasp your proposal’s potential impact. Ultimately, early dissemination of ideas helps reviewers contextualize the details and specifics of your research as well as the ability to see how each section contributes to the overall objectives.

Structuring and organizing your proposal information
A well-organized proposal is more likely to be understood and considered favorably by reviewers. Whenever it’s appropriate, make your main ideas easy to identify by using bold or italicized text for key points. Additionally, to help reviewers understand the flow of your proposal, use headings, subheadings, bullet points and graphics when possible. Finally, avoid jargon and write in clear, straightforward language.

Key takeaways
In summary, early dissemination of ideas in proposals sets the stage for a clear, engaging, and persuasive argument, while also providing opportunities for strategic research planning and alignment with objectives. Ultimately, by clearly presenting your ideas early, you can help distinguish your proposal from others. If reviewers remember your key ideas, your proposal is more likely to stand out. To learn more, please refer to these strategies.

Do you have any great grant-related resources/tips to share? We’d love to hear about them. Contact the GS&A Research Development Team at [email protected] to share your suggestions and resources.

Grant reviewers must balance their roles as evaluators with their own professional and personal commitments. Most grant reviewers are volunteers, and since they have between 3 and up to 20 grants per session to evaluate, the level of time and attention your grant gets from a panel of reviewers can vary widely. Ultimately, grant reviewers are not merely looking for innovative ideas; they are also seeking clarity, feasibility, and alignment with the funding agency’s mission (see resource).

Keep it simple, clear, and on point
When writing a proposal, it is important to avoid long-winded descriptions that overwhelm reviewers and obscure your main points. Stay focused on your key message by clearly stating your purpose and methods, avoiding jargon or technical writing whenever possible. Refer to NIH grant communication tips for more advice on how to clearly communicate research intent and value.

Outline your proposal with a logic model
Help the reviewers grasp the full picture by writing a grant that flows logically. Start by outlining your proposal, making sure each section has a clear purpose. Explaining your reasoning throughout the grant will ease the reviewer’s job of evaluating your plan while showing your attention to detail.

Make it visually appealing
In addition to creating visuals (e.g., charts, diagrams), add blank spaces to improve readability for the reviewers. This can be achieved by shortening paragraphs and tightening sentences to create white space around figures. Additionally, to break up text monotony and outline critical information, use bullet points or tables. Finally, write clear headers to guide and focus readers.

Be consistent
Use consistent terminology and headers; additionally, make sure to proofread the final version of the entire proposal for continuity. Mismatched information or vague descriptions can easily confuse reviewers, potentially leading to decreased enthusiasm for your grant.

Key takeaways
To facilitate the grant review process, it is up to you to create an application that is not only impactful and logical, but also easy to read. In summary, writing a grant that is well-organized and easy to navigate will stand out in a competitive funding landscape. If you have any additional suggestions or resources, please contact the UMMS GS&A Research Development team at [email protected].

Defining the project scope—or a detailed description of the project’s objectives, goals, timelines, and deliverables— can be challenging since grant applicants need to ensure reviewers do not regard their proposal is “too ambitious”, or conversely, “not ambitious enough.”  Here we discuss strategies to address these concerns during the development of a grant proposal.

When a project scope is “too ambitious”
If the proposal is deemed “too ambitious,” seek advice from the program officer and colleagues (i.e., consider hosting chalk talks) to get feedback on which aspects of the project seem unfeasible. If you determine the project can be done timely, and within the funding guidelines, outline your plan demonstrating your approach. 

• Scope is too big: Clearly define your specific goals while outlining sub-goals separately. Focus on smaller, manageable objectives to demonstrate project feasibility. 
• Unachievable metrics: Create a clear timeline and outline project milestones to increase reviewer confidence that you have a clear plan for completing your project within the given timeframe. 
• Misjudged capabilities/resources: Showcase your skills, experience, and the U-M facilities and resources which will aid in accomplishing the proposal aims— emphasize preliminary and published data supporting your methodologies, detail these aspects in your Biosketch, and discuss collaborators who will bridge gaps in your expertise.

When a project scope is “not ambitious enough” 
Grants perceived as having limited impact or innovation may be labeled as "not ambitious enough." In these instances, identify areas to expand and strengthen your grant’s impact and objectives. 

• Expand your objectives: Revisit ideas or aspects of the proposal that were initially set aside and consider how they might be included with new insights or resources.  It is important to ensure your expanded goals remain realistic, measurable and aligned with the funding agency’s mission.
• Broaden your impact: Consider identifying and addressing larger questions/issues within your field or branching into other disciplines or populations to broaden the scope and significance of your work.
• Highlight your innovation: Emphasize what sets your project apart from existing strategies, approaches, or theories.  

Summary
A well-defined project scope helps grant writers ensure that all tasks required for successful completion of the proposal are finished within the project timeline and budget. After obtaining feedback, discuss the comments with your program officer and colleagues to assess if the project scope requires revision or whether you need to modify how you discuss the proposal. Oftentimes, shifting your writing’s focus can balance realistic constraints with ambitious objectives. If you have any additional suggestions or resources, please contact the UMMS GS&A Research Development team at [email protected].

Sustained grant funding requires strategic planning, ongoing collaboration, and adaptability. Here we outline strategies for researchers to secure funding, create impactful projects, and advance their careers.

Reuse Applications
Reusing or repurposing unfunded grant applications is a practical way to save time and effort when seeking funding. Consider refocusing grant applications to target other agencies or foundations by adapting your proposal to align with the funder’s specific interests, priorities, and criteria. Don’t give up if your application wasn’t funded—when possible, revise and resubmit, making sure to evaluate and incorporate reviewers’ feedback and concerns.

Diversify Your Funding Portfolio
Research and identify potential avenues of diverse long-term funding sources (e.g., government, foundation or corporate grants). The Office of Corporate and Foundation Relations within Michigan Medicine lists funding opportunities and helps foster relationships between UMMS researchers and professional and corporate foundations. Additionally, the U-M Library offers an impressive range of resources and services, including one-on-one funding search consultations. These consultations provide guidance on how to use databases like Pivot to identify open and forecasted funding opportunities from corporate, foundation, non-profit, state, and federal organizations.

Collaborate for Greater Impact
Consider using the Michigan Experts database to identify potential collaborators whose research interests or expertise could complement your research projects. To help you navigate the landscape of team science, the University of Michigan Medical School (UMMS) Grants Services & Analysis (GS&A) office has compiled a list of resources to assist Medical School faculty and staff who are building interdisciplinary research teams and pursuing large team grants.

Continuous Professional Training and Development
Advancing academic careers is an ongoing process of building knowledge, skills, and relationships. This may involve attending trainings and conferences, conducting research on best practices and seeking out feedback from other colleagues and/or stakeholders. Workshops and events on grant-related topics are put on regularly by the UMMS Office of Research and OVPR. Additional training opportunities and professional development resources are available from the UMMS Office of Faculty Development.

Find Institutional Support
The Grant Services & Analysis office supports researchers throughout the proposal process and can help navigate internal and external resources; further, MICHR provides personalized support and advice for your grant proposals or research ideas with Research Development Consultations.

There are several strategies to diversify your funding portfolio including identifying various funding sources, developing collaborative partnerships and adapting funding plans (i.e., NIH strategies). Do you have any sustainable funding strategies to share? We’d love to hear about them. Contact the UMMS GS&A Research Development team at [email protected] to share your suggestions and resources.

For application due dates and other submissions on or after May 25, 2025, NIH will use the Common Form for Biographical Sketches; additionally, a new NIH Biographical Sketch Supplement will need to be prepared using Science Experts Network Curriculum Vitae (SciENcv) (NOT-OD-24-163). While the NIH has not yet released updated Biosketch details or the new supplement, we encourage researchers to learn about the upcoming changes and start preparing now for the transition to using SciENcv. 

What does this mean for researchers? Beginning on May 25, 2025, NIH will REQUIRE: 

• Use of the Common Form for Biographical Sketches (instead of the current NIH-specific format pages).
  • In addition to the Common Form, NIH will require the completion of a new Biosketch Supplement in SciENcv (supplement and instructions are pending release) which will include Personal Statement, Contributions to Science, and Honors fields.
• Use of SciENcv to complete and certify the Common Forms for Biographical Sketches. 
• Use of an ORCID ID. All Senior/Key Personnel must enter their ORCID ID into SciENcv in the Persistent Identifier (PID) section of the Common Forms, as well as link it to their eRA Commons Personal Profile (see eRA help page). 

What can you do now to prepare?

• Familiarize yourself with SciENcv which will be required to complete the Common Forms and the pending NIH Biographical Sketch Supplement.
• Get an ORCID ID; if you already have one, make sure it’s linked to your eRA Commons Account and that your profile is up to date. You can use your ORCID profile to populate your Biosketch in SciENcv.
• Ensure your My Bibliography is up to date; SciENcv can import publications from sources including My Bibliography so you don’t have to manually enter citations.

Resources

• The U-M Library has a website dedicated to Creating Your Biosketch through SciENcv and Linking SciENcv to ORCID.
• UCLA’s CTSI released a short video that provides an overview of upcoming NIH Biosketch Changes in 2025, including strategies to prepare for these changes.
• To stay on top of NIH updates related to changes to the Biosketch, information will be posted on https://grants.nih.gov/grants-process/write-application/forms-directory/biosketch.

The goal of using Common Forms is to standardize disclosure requirements and processes across federal research agencies, thus reducing the time and effort researchers spend providing disclosure information to federal funders and ensuring integrity throughout the research process. Do you have any questions about the new NIH Biosketch Requirements coming in May 2025? The GS&A Research Development Team is happy to help. Contact us at [email protected].

Letters of support (LOS) are supplemental documents for NIH applications which describe the terms of a collaboration or consultation within a research proposal. LOS are written by those actively participating in the project including the institution, key personnel, collaborators, and/or other significant contributors to the project. The LOS should specify what the contributor will provide for the project, convince the reviewer that the contributor will fulfill the request, and summarize the agreements in place between all involved parties.

Common types of LOS:
•    Institutional letters demonstrate interest in and commitment to the project. These letters can be from a school, department, or affiliated institutes and centers.
•    Departmental letters come from the principal investigators’ department leadership and should communicate excitement for the research as well as outline support available to accomplish the project’s goals.
         -Early-stage investigators (ESIs): Letters for ESIs should include a description of departmental support and resources provided to the ESI (e.g., protected time for research, career development programs, mentorship).
•    Collaborators typically write LOS when they are performing significant work for the project but are not key personnel. These LOS should describe expertise, the type of support provided, and potential or current users of the service/resource proposed in the application.
•    Consultant letters should outline the rate/charge for their consulting services and level of effort/number of hours per budget period anticipated.
•    Including LOS from external partnerships (e.g., patient advocates, non-profit organizations) or communities necessary to conduct the research is a particularly strategic approach, especially if the groups provide support or access to important components of your project (e.g., availability of a specific patient population).

What to Include in a Letter of Support
It is important to familiarize yourself with the SF 424 instructions for details on content to include in a LOS and what to avoid (e.g., data, figures, background details). When you request a LOS, consider providing your collaborator a draft letter with the relevant information to facilitate the process. GS&A, a unit within the U-M Medical School (UMMS) Office of Research, encourages UMMS research administrators and investigators to utilize their new artificial intelligence (AI) platform to assist in the creation of LOS for research proposals. The AI Letter of Support Writer is a tool that will help our investigators draft multiple letters of support for grant proposals. GS&A has also created a short video with guidance on LOS in NIH grant applications.

Letters of support provide an opportunity to assure reviewers that collaborations and institutional commitments are established for your project, as well as convey enthusiasm for your research. For more tips, please refer to this NIH podcast. If you have any suggestions or resources regarding writing an LOS, please contact the UMMS GS&A Research Development team at [email protected].
 

Grantsmanship Tips: Articulating your research clearly to reviewers

A common challenge faced by grant writers is breaking down a specialized research topic for reviewers with different levels of expertise. Although it may seem obvious, the link between the “what, why, and how” of your science may not be clear; therefore, it is up to you to explain these key connections to convincingly demonstrate the value of your research plan. So how do you connect the dots? Here are some tips and strategies to consider while developing your grant proposal.

Engage with experienced researchers and other subject-matter experts

Before submitting a grant, it is helpful to get critiques from colleagues as they may anticipate questions reviewers will have about your proposed project. Chalk talks are great opportunities to 1) obtain critical feedback to help shape the aims of grant proposals, and 2) discuss your work with other researchers in your department. 

Deconstruct your research into manageable concepts

Outline the current issues, gaps, and your solution

Start with the Big Picture. In plain language, discuss why the research topic is important to the scientific field and wider community and why there is an urgent need to focus on it now.

Provide context. Explain what research has been done, limitations of the prior work, and what gaps remain.

Refine your research design. Describe how your work will address the current need in the field; explain the novelty of your approach and how it represents a new and substantive departure from the status quo.

Describe the objectives, approach, and expected outcomes

Specific Goals. Specify your objectives; ensure they are clear and connect to the purpose of the project.

Methodology. In detail, describe your approach and how the methods line up with your objectives. Be sure to highlight innovative aspects and the feasibility of each activity.

Results. Explain the potential outcomes and how they support your objectives as well as advance the field. 

Understand your audience 

In your grant application, be sure to explain how your research aligns with the goals and mission of the funding institution and how, if funded, it will benefit you and the funding agency. Before submitting your proposal, it can be helpful to get an idea of which review committees might receive your application.

It’s easy to overlook important details when you're highly familiar with a subject. As this NIH article on General Grant Writing Tips suggests, asking for feedback on your proposal from both experts in your field and those who are less familiar with your science can improve your application. Consider asking an experienced editor to proofread your proposal and check for clarity. The Research Development Team in GS&A offers free grant editing support to Medical School investigators who are submitting applications to federal funding agencies. 

Clear communication of how all the pieces fit together will make it easier for your readers to appreciate the value and impact of your work and go a long way toward the successful funding of your proposal. For additional tips and resources, please refer to The Why - Explaining Your Research. Do you have any great grantsmanship tips to share? We’d love to hear about them. Contact the GS&A Research Development Team at [email protected] to share your suggestions and resources.

Figure legends are brief narratives accompanying a figure. They serve to enhance the clarity, impact, and meaning of the investigator’s results. The main objective of a figure legend is to make it possible for reviewers to interpret and understand the significance of the figure without referring to the main text. Thus, creating an effective figure legend requires attention to detail and an ability to distill complex information into accessible and informative descriptions. Below are some strategies to write a well-crafted figure legend. Please note: In this article, the term figure includes tables, images, charts, graphs, diagrams, timelines, etc. 

A good figure legend includes the following elements:

Title
The title of the figure legend should be self-explanatory, relevant and concise. Summarizing the essence of the figure, the title can be:

• descriptive, stating the type of experiment(s) (e.g., "Flow cytometry analysis of X cells"); or
• declarative, asserting the overall finding (e.g., "Protein Y decreases protein X expression").

Description of the materials and methods
This section provides a guide for reviewers to understand and validate the investigator’s methodology. Here, clearly outline the cell type/animal model(s)/study participants, the conditions/treatments tested, and the control(s) used. Finally, discuss the laboratory and statistical tests applied and the numbers of replicates and repeats. 

Results
In this section, state noteworthy, anomalous, or erroneous findings (e.g., “The structure, marked by a red arrow,”). P-values, if applicable, should be included. Note- if the title is declarative, further explanation of the data may be unnecessary in the body of the legend. 

Definitions
It is important to provide context and eliminate ambiguity by defining or explaining symbols, patterns, lines, and colors in the figure. Additionally, clarify non-standard abbreviations, scale bars, and error bars (standard deviation or standard error) as well as any other potentially non-intuitive features in the figure itself. 

Consistency 
A well-communicated figure legend contains consistent font, color palette, and visual style as well as appropriate use of verb tense (typically, legends present information in the past tense). Ultimately, consistency helps maintain a professional appearance and improves readability.

Additional tips and resources
To learn more about effective figure legends, refer to the articles Figure Legends: How to Align Your Visuals with Your Narrative and Writing an Effective Figure Legend. The NIH has also provided Tips for Tables, Charts, and Figures in grant applications. UMMS investigators can review samples of figure legends from successfully funded applications in the Medical School Grant Proposal Sampler.

Ultimately, by adhering to these principles, figure legends can significantly enhance the clarity and impact of a proposal, making it easier for reviewers to quickly grasp complex concepts and arrive at an informed evaluation. Do you have any great grant-related resources to share? We’d love to hear about them. Contact the GS&A Research Development Team at [email protected] to share your suggestions and resources.

NIH is implementing a new Simplified Review Framework that will apply to most research project grant (RPG) activity codes for application due dates on or after January 25, 2025. While the Simplified Review Framework will affect how reviewers evaluate applications, it’s important to note that it’s not expected to change the application materials submitted by applicants, including the structure of proposals. NIH encourages applicants to carefully read the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) they are applying to (especially the sections detailing submission and review information) for specific instructions and guidance.

What’s Changing in the Simplified Review Framework?

The 5 regulatory criteria currently assessed in the NIH review process (Significance, Innovation, Approach, Investigators and Environment) all receive criterion scores. The new Simplified Framework will reorganize these 5 criteria into 3 Factors:

• Factor 1: Importance of the Research (Scored 1-9) 
  • Significance, Innovation 
• Factor 2: Rigor and Feasibility (Scored 1-9) 
  • Approach (also includes Inclusions and Study Timeline for clinical trials) 
• Factor 3: Expertise and Resources (Not scored)
  • Investigators, Environment (binary evaluation of sufficient/not sufficient; this factor will be considered in the overall impact assessment but will not receive an individual criterion score)
  • Reviewers will be counseled to focus on expertise and resources as it relates to the proposed science, not accomplishments of the investigators and reputation of the institution

In addition, most additional review considerations that do not affect the overall impact assessment (except Authentication of Key Biological and/or Chemical Resources and Budget) will be removed from first-level peer review; responsibility for the remaining additional review considerations will shift to NIH staff.

What is the motivation behind the implementation of the Simplified Review Framework for most RPGs?

NIH developed the Simplified Review Framework in response to concerns about the complexity of the review criteria, administrative burden experienced by peer reviewers and influence of reputational bias in NIH peer review. The overall objective of the Simplified Review Framework is to refocus the role of the peer reviewer to the key task of evaluating scientific merit to improve identification of the strongest, potentially highest-impact research.

Where can applicants find more information about the Simplified Review Framework?

NIH has a website dedicated to the Simplified Review Framework that includes information and resources, including a webinar presented by NIH experts. Training materials and other guidance to help reviewers prepare for the changes are expected to be released in the Spring of 2025.

NIH has indicated that the Simplified Review Framework for most RPGs is fundamentally “the same research strategy, reviewed in a new way.” Do you have any questions about the NIH Simplified Review Framework? The GS&A Research Development Team is happy to help. Contact us at [email protected].

Writing is a dynamic process comprised of distinct steps including prewriting, drafting, revising and editing. Although grant writing styles vary across disciplines and between individuals, several revising and editing practices are effective for improving grant applications as well as the overall writing process. 

Tips for revising your grant proposal
Revising is not fixing commas and spelling- that is called proofreading. Revising, or "re-seeing" your proposal in a new way, will give you a chance to look critically at what you have written and help polish your work. It is done after writing the first draft with the intention of improving your application with additions, corrections, removals and rephrasing. Our most effective revising tips include: 
Begin early. Revising requires time and focus. Find a quiet place where you can concentrate and avoid distractions. Plan. Outline the priorities prior to heavy writing/rewriting. Take breaks. Revise in several short blocks of time and get some distance from the text so you can take a fresh look at the proposal. Request feedback. Constructive criticism is essential. Ask a colleague to review your proposal. Read, read and more reading. Write, write and more writing. The more you do anything, the better you get at it.

How should you go about the process of revising? 
-Print out a clean copy of your proposal.
-Read the grant out loud to see how well things flow.
-Focus on global changes-adding, rewriting, deleting sentences or paragraphs, reorganizing parts of the proposal. 
-Think honestly about your proposal; ask lots of questions including if there are opposing viewpoints you haven’t yet considered. Stay organized throughout the process. Sort files in an easy, predictable way.
-Be sure to save each draft with a new number before you start making changes.

Once you have revised your application, consider using this checklist to edit your proposal. Additional editing practices
-Read the paper out loud again.
-Try Backwards Editing. Review one paragraph at a time in reverse order, starting with the last paragraph. Editing out of order makes it easier to notice missing transitions or missing information and focus on individual words and phrases.
-If you’re short on time, you may wish to prioritize. Use digital tools. Most writing software has a function which allows for track changes as well as spell-check, find and replace (these are far from foolproof; you will need to double-check on your own).
-Keep a running list of errors that you are prone to, such as incorrect article usage, word order, or plural/singular nouns. Read through your paper once for each of those error types—i.e., one at a time, checking only for that problem. 

By following these tips and working to continuously improve your proposal development processes, you can increase the likelihood of producing a competitive application and ultimately securing grant funding. Do you have any great grant-related resources to share? We’d love to hear about them. Contact the GS&A Research Development Team at [email protected] to share your suggestions and resources.

The National Institute of Health (NIH) has a variety of programs and funding mechanisms to support biomedical research at different career stages. While navigating the grant landscape at NIH can seem overwhelming, several resources are available to explore funding opportunities and help guide you through the process:

Find a Match for your Research at NIH
NIH is comprised of institutes, centers, and offices (ICOs) that make grant awards, and each ICO has its own mission, funding priorities and budget. The Matchmaker tool can help you find which ICOs and grant mechanisms have funded similar research – simply enter an abstract or research statement that describes your project to find potential ICOs and review panels for your project. NIH has also created a new online resource, Find a Fit for Your Research: NIH Institutes, Centers, and Offices (ICOs) that includes a compiled list of ICO funding profiles as well as guidance for finding funding opportunities. After identifying a potential ICO, be sure to contact a Program Officer to assess the alignment of your research aims with the ICO’s current funding priorities and to discuss the most appropriate funding mechanism for your project.

Explore NIH Research Training and Career Development Programs
NIH has several programs to help prepare individuals for careers in biomedical research. The Research Training and Career Development website has resources for researchers seeking funding support at various career stages, from undergraduate education through investigator development and training. NIH also provides interactive guides that describe relevant programs along a specific research career pathway, including a Research-Scientist Infographic that outlines funding opportunities for individuals interested in completing a PhD and pursuing a career in research.

Additional Tips
In addition to utilizing the NIH resources listed above, consulting with colleagues and mentors in your research area who have successfully obtained NIH grants can add valuable information to your funding search. U-M Medical School researchers who have identified a relevant NIH funding opportunity are encouraged to utilize the Medical School Grant Proposal Sampler to review internal examples of funded applications, including K awards, R awards, Diversity Supplements and more.

The GS&A office supports research teams throughout the proposal process to successfully obtain and maintain extramural funding. Do you have any great grant-related resources to share? We’d love to hear about them. Contact the GS&A Research Development Team at [email protected] to share your suggestions and resources.

Preparing a grant is a time-consuming process, so planning your application well in advance is critical to ensure a proposal that is responsive to a funding opportunity as well as compelling to the reviewers. Below are some tips to help you prepare a competitive grant proposal.

Start Planning Early
Begin the grant development process well in advance of the funding agency deadline. This gives you ample time to not only understand the grant guidelines and requirements, but to fill any gaps in your research plan and solidify your aims and approach. Ask yourself:

• What expertise do you need? Try using Michigan Experts, a searchable database of researchers across the University of Michigan where you’ll find subject matter experts and potential collaborators.
• What additional resources do you need? Explore the many services, equipment, and instrumentation that the University of Michigan offers across campus using the Michigan Research Cores web portal.

Create a Proposal Management Plan
A proposal management plan outlines the proposal team roles, responsibilities, tasks, schedules, and deadlines. It is important to include internal deadlines in the proposal management plan to ensure time for internal reviews and institutional routing approvals. Your grant routing deadline (i.e., your “school deadline”) is before the sponsor deadline (see GS&A website). To explore Project Management software in use at U-M that could help you with a proposal management plan, please refer to this list compiled by ITS Software Services.

Set Aside Time to Write
Your grant isn’t going to write itself! Block off time on your calendar to focus on grant writing and treat it as a meeting that you can’t miss. Writing a grant can be daunting, so it’s important to break the writing process into smaller, manageable stages—such as creating an outline, drafting each proposal section, and revising. Avoid trying to write the entire proposal in one sitting. Instead, work to develop writing habits that increase productivity: prioritize writing, schedule your writing, and write early and often.

By following these tips and working to continuously improve your proposal development processes, you can increase the likelihood of producing a competitive application and ultimately securing grant funding. Do you have any great grant-related resources to share? We’d love to hear about them. Contact the GS&A Research Development Team at [email protected]  to share your suggestions and resources.

Researchers at the University of Michigan are fortunate to have access to a wide range of programs to help them with grant development. Many internal opportunities including workshops, seminars and webinars are hosted regularly, and U-M community members who are interested in events across the research enterprise are encouraged to sign up for the Medical School Office of Research newsletter Research News and OVPR’s Research Blueprint.

In addition to on-campus opportunities, U-M faculty, staff, and learners have access to several on-demand resources that provide tips on preparing grant applications. The following are currently available at no-cost to U-M researchers through sponsored university memberships:

National Center for Faculty Development & Diversity (NCFDD)
The National Center for Faculty Development & Diversity (NCFDD) provides on-demand resources that focus on increasing research and writing productivity while maintaining work-life balance. Examples of webinars available through NCFDD include Moving from Resistance to Writing and How to Align Your Time with Your Priorities (an NCFDD account is needed to access).

Nature Masterclasses
Nature Masterclasses is a new suite of online courses available to researchers at all 3 U-M campuses. Nature Masterclasses offer self-paced instruction and flexibility to accommodate busy schedules. The course selection includes relevant content throughout the research lifecycle, including grant-related topics such as Persuasive Grant Writing, Finding Funding Opportunities, and Effective Science Communication. More information about the platform, including instructions on how to register can be found here.

UMMS Office of Research YouTube Channel
The Grant Services & Analysis Office (GS&A), a Unit of the U-M Medical School Office of Research, hosts a YouTube playlist dedicated to grant topics. The playlist includes on-demand videos that highlight best practices for developing and enhancing the administrative components of NIH grant applications, including Biosketch Basics and Budgets in NIH Grant Applications. There are also several videos to assist faculty in navigating grant resources in UMMS.

The University of Michigan has a wealth of resources for faculty and learners developing grant proposals, including on-demand options that provide flexibility learning opportunities.  Do you have any great grant-related resources to share? We’d love to hear about them. Contact us at [email protected] to share your suggestions and resources.

Sharing scientific data accelerates research discoveries and enables large-scale analyses and reproducibility. Data sharing is an important part of open science, and many funding agencies have policies requiring the sharing of research data. NIH issued their Data Management and Sharing (DMS) policy (effective January 25, 2023) to promote the sharing of scientific data generated from NIH-funded research, thus requiring applicants to submit a DMS Plan for proposals including Research Projects, some Career Development Awards (Ks), Small Business (SBIR/STTR) grants, and Research Centers.

Planning & Budgeting for Data Management and Sharing
NIH expects applicants to submit a plan to describe how they will manage and ultimately share data. Applicants are also allowed to include certain costs associated with data management and sharing in their budget. NIH encourages applicants to consider the following

• Determine if your proposed research is subject to the DMS policy. NIH has a website that provides information about research and activities covered by the DMS policy.
• Identify appropriate methods/approaches and repositories for managing and sharing scientific data. NIH encourages the use of established repositories, and prioritizes discipline-specific data repositories. Refer to the list of NIH-supported data repositories to make a plan for your data.
• Develop a plan for managing and sharing scientific data and include it in your application or proposal. NIH recommends that six elements are included in DMS Plans: 1) Data type; 2) Related Tools, Software and/or Code; 3) Standards; 4) Data preservation, access, timelines; 5) Access, distribution, reuse considerations; and 6) Oversight of data management. More detailed information on the elements to include in the DMS Plan, including an optional format page, can be found here. 
• Estimate and request funds for data management and sharing. Investigators may request funds toward data management and sharing in the budget and budget justification sections of their applications. See Budgeting for Data Management and Sharing to find out what data sharing related costs may be requested in an application for funding.

Additional Resources
Fortunately, there are several internal and external resources to assist U-M investigators with constructing a DMS Plan. DMP Tool is a free external service that simplifies data management and sharing plans for researchers and institutions. DMP Tool provides a click-through wizard for creating a DMS Plan that complies with funder requirements.

The U-M Taubman Health Sciences Library provides services and expertise for U-M researchers managing data and creating data management/sharing plans. They also provide consultations to researchers who are creating DMS Plans for NIH proposals. For examples of DMS Plans provided by University of Michigan Medical School Researchers, as well as guidance on budgeting considerations for DMS Plans, UMMS faculty and staff are encouraged to utilize our Grant Proposal Sampler (Level-2 login information required).

DMS Plans help researchers consider the management and sharing of scientific data at the design phase of a research project, making the process of disseminating data more efficient. Do you have any great grant-related resources to share? We’d love to hear about them. Contact us at [email protected] to share your suggestions and resources.

If your grant application was not funded on the first submission, don’t be discouraged. Many applications are not funded on the first try—in fact, resubmission success rates are higher across nearly all federal agencies. Revising and resubmitting grant applications is an expected component of grant seeking, and the resubmission process should be viewed as an opportunity to use reviewer comments to improve a grant application and increase the likelihood of funding.

For NIH, a resubmission is an unfunded application that has been modified following review of the initial (A0) application and resubmitted for consideration. Only a single resubmission (A1) is allowed, and it must be submitted within 37 months of the A0 application (for more details on the resubmission policy, visit the resubmissions webpage). Resubmission applications must include a one-page introduction that responds to the weaknesses raised in the summary statement and summarizes substantial changes to the application (do not mark changes within the application; see NOT-OD-24-061). 

When Should You Resubmit?
Investigators who are considering a resubmission application should be willing and able to address all the reviewers’ comments outlined in the summary statement. Resubmissions are expected to be highly responsive to the weaknesses described in the summary statement, and may require additional experiments or preliminary data to respond adequately to these issues. After taking time to review your summary statement, it’s a good idea to email the assigned program officer (PO) to discuss the reviewers’ comments and seek advice on your plan to address the critiques. The PO can provide feedback on the probability of a successful resubmission or other potential funding opportunities that might be a fit for your application.

Developing a Strong Resubmission Application
In addition to seeking advice from the assigned program officer, it’s wise to seek input from colleagues in your scientific field when preparing a resubmission application. If you’re open to sharing your summary statement with colleagues, especially those with review experience, they can help you interpret the reviewers’ comments and provide insight on how to strengthen your resubmission. Consider asking colleagues outside your scientific field to review a final draft of your resubmission, particularly the Approach section, to ensure clarity to a broad scientific audience of potential reviewers. For examples of successfully funded NIH resubmission (A1) applications here at U-M, UMMS faculty and staff can utilize our Grant Proposal Sampler (Level-2 login information required). Many of the examples include summary statements from the A0 application, as well as the one-page introduction in the A1 application that responded to the reviewers’ critiques.

Resubmissions provide an opportunity to improve grant applications and the research they propose through the scientific review process. Do you have any great resubmission resources to share? We’d love to hear about them. Contact us at [email protected] to share your suggestions and resources.
 

Scientific collaborations can provide opportunities for researchers to learn from other disciplines, exchange ideas and resources, and accelerate impact on complex health issues. Research teams with complementary expertise may also have more options in obtaining research funding. Many grant funding agencies, including federal agencies and private foundations, are encouraging collaborative approaches through their funding priorities. For example, funding agencies are increasingly structuring funding opportunity announcements (FOAs) and programs to favor interdisciplinary research teams.

While collaborative research has many benefits, it can also present challenges. Developing and sustaining effective collaborations takes planning and continuous work to succeed. Below we’ve highlighted areas to consider when preparing to establish a new research team.

Establishing Your Team
As outlined in this article from NIH, an important aspect of forming an interdisciplinary research team is to find collaborators that complement your experience and expertise. Constructing a research team with different areas of expertise offers an integrated approach to scientific questions, and helps to convince grant reviewers that your project is feasible. 

Are you looking for an experienced investigator to join your research team? Use Michigan Experts to find research expertise and foster collaboration. Michigan Experts is a searchable database of faulty profiles across the University of Michigan, where you’ll find publications, social media activity, and potential collaborators.

Building An Effective Team  
Scientific collaborations, like other long-term relationships, require trust and ongoing work to remain successful. When problems arise in scientific collaborations, it’s often because team members failed to define and communicate expectations of one another at the start of the partnership. The authors of Collaboration and Team Science: From Theory to Practice point out that while the scientific goal sits at the center of a collaborative research effort, other factors need to be in place for teams to succeed. In addition to trust, supporting elements of an effective research team include:

• Developing a shared vision
• Strategically identifying team members and purposefully building the team
• Promoting disagreement while containing conflict
• Setting clear expectations for sharing credit and authorship

Scientific collaborations facilitate innovation and discovery, and provide benefits for both researchers and institutions. Building effective research teams requires careful planning and continued investment in people and resources. The UMMS Research Development Team has compiled a list of resources to assist Medical School faculty and staff who are building interdisciplinary research teams and pursuing large team grants. Do you have any great collaboration or team science resources to share? We’d love to hear about them. Contact the UMMS Research Development team at [email protected] to share your suggestions and resources.
 

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is a federal agency that provides funding in basic research and innovation across certain fields of fundamental science and engineering.  NSF’s mission is to promote the progress of science; advance national health, prosperity, and welfare; and secure national defense. The agency is organized into directorates and offices that invest in specific areas of research and technology, and 93% of their $9.9 billion budget is allocated for grants and awards to support research projects, education, and related activities.

NSF held their Fall 2023 Grants Conference virtually this year from December 4-7, 2023, and provided current information on specific funding opportunities, policies, and resources. Researchers and administrators who are new to NSF funding should check out the Proposal Preparation presentation to learn tips from NSF staff including:

Finding Funding Opportunities
There are a few different ways to search funding opportunities and learn about program areas at NSF:

• Use the NSF Funding Search to find active funding opportunities by keyword or other criteria. Potential applicants can also search NSF's database of previously funded awards to find projects in similar areas and see which NSF programs might be a fit for funding.
• Performing a search in Grants.gov with key words will display opportunities at NSF as well as other agencies (e.g., DOD, NIH) that may potentially fund grants in your field.

Proposal Preparation
NSF has several types of funding opportunities, and proposal preparation can vary according to the specific opportunity. It is important that applicants read solicitations carefully to determine the goals of the program, eligibility of the PI and institution(s), and special proposal preparation or award requirements. 

NSF’s Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) outlines general guidance for the preparation and submission of proposals. The PAPPG is updated annually and provides details on submission procedures, NSF proposal documents and sections, and the review process. Proposals submitted to NSF must follow the instructions in the PAPPG unless otherwise stated in the solicitation.

NSF has numerous on-demand recordings of grant-related topics available on their Resource Center webpage. Do you have any NSF grant resources to share? We’d love to hear about them. Contact the UMMS Research Development team at [email protected] to share your suggestions and resources.

Building relationships with grant funders is an important part of strategic grant seeking. Unfortunately, many grant applicants with great research ideas have their proposals declined because they do not align with the funding agency’s priorities. For applicants seeking federal funding, communicating with Program officers (POs) is an important part of the application process that can improve the chances of funding. For both NIH and NSF, building a relationship with a PO is a strategic way for researchers to align their scientific interests with the specific goals of an NIH Institute or an NSF Directorate.

Why you should contact a program officer
Program officers typically provide technical and administrative assistance to applicants who are preparing grants, and often serve as the liaison between an applicant and the grant review committee. As Robert Porter outlined in the article Can We Talk? Contacting Grant Program Officers, engaging in dialogue with a PO can: 1) determine whether the researcher’s concept is a good fit for the program’s objectives; 2) provide advice about project design and appropriate funding mechanisms; 3) ascertain trends in preferred research methodologies; and 4) identify possible limits in project duration and budget.

Finding and contacting a program officer
Applicants can identify POs by looking for contact information on a specific Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), or searching agency websites. NSF recommends searching the NSF funding website using keywords or research areas to explore funding opportunities. NIH has a tool called Matchmaker where applicants can enter abstracts or other scientific text to find potential POs and ICs for their research. Always email a PO first (no cold calls!) and do it early in the grant development process. Don’t wait until right before your grant deadline to reach out – POs are busy people. Be prepared to share a project overview or specific aims draft, and don’t overwhelm the PO with papers and materials.

Program officers are a key resource in grant seeking, and ultimately your research career. Don’t hesitate to reach out to a PO and begin building this important relationship. Do you have any great grant-related resources to share? We’d love to hear about them. Contact the UMMS Research Development team at [email protected] to share your suggestions and resources.

When writing a research proposal, it is important to consider who will be reviewing your grant application. Successfully communicating your research plan to its intended audience is essential to developing a fundable proposal. Once you have confirmed that your research idea is a fit for a sponsor, aim to do the following before applying for a grant:

Identify Your Reviewers

A strategic approach to grant development includes familiarizing yourself with the review process of the potential grant funding agency of your proposal. Taking the time to investigate your target audience can help you tailor your application accordingly. Ask yourself:

• Who is likely to be a reviewer for this proposal?
• What knowledge does the audience already have? What will need to be explained to them?

If you are applying for funding from a foundation, for example, the reviewers may be more of a lay audience. Conversely, the primary audience for a grant application submitted to NIH is a scientific review group (study section) made up mostly of scientists in academia. For additional information on study sections, refer to this NIH article Know Your Audience.

Tailor Your Proposal for Your Grant Audience

Once you’ve done your homework to figure out who your reviewers will be, write your proposal with that audience in mind. Your goal is to convince your grant audience that your research project is well planned and feasible, and that you and your team are qualified to conduct it. Make sure your proposal is persuasive, appropriate for the sponsor’s goals, and uses accessible language. In general, grant audiences tend to share the following attributes:

• They have at least a broad knowledge of the proposal’s content area, but may not be an expert in your field – make sure to write at a level all audience members can understand.
• They are busy people with many grants to review– make sure your proposal is well written and organized to help the reviewers.

Beyond that, the sponsor’s specific requirements and review criteria are the best guide for what your grant audience expects. It is critical to read the application guidelines and follow the instructions closely to convey your research plan appropriately to reviewers.

Tailoring your research proposal to its intended grant audience can capture the attention of reviewers and increase your chances of funding success. Do you have any great grant-related resources to share? We’d love to hear about them. Contact the UMMS Research Development team at [email protected] to share your suggestions and resources.

The Specific Aims page is widely regarded as the most important page of an NIH grant application. In this component of your grant, the objectives of the proposal should be described clearly and concisely since it will be used by the Scientific Review Officer (SRO) to recruit reviewers for your application. In addition, most members of the study section who review your proposal will only read the Specific Aims page and the project summary/abstract of the application. Thus, the purpose of the Specific Aims is to tell the entire story of your proposal in one page that will excite reviewers, inspire confidence in the PI and research team, and set the framework for the rest of the application.

Components of an Effective Specific Aims Page

There are several helpful online resources available that provide examples and guidance on how to construct a compelling Specific Aims page, including a BioScience Writers article NIH Grant Applications: The Anatomy of a Specific Aims Page and an article from NIH/NIAID on how to Draft Specific Aims. Briefly, the suggested structure and content of a Specific Aims page is as follows:

• Introductory paragraph: Use the first paragraph to capture the attention of the reviewers. Describe the significant gap in knowledge that directly relates to the critical need the granting agency funds.
• Second paragraph: Use this paragraph to introduce the solution that fills the gap in knowledge described in paragraph #1. Lay the groundwork for convincing your reviewers that you (and your team) have the knowledge and expertise to solve the problem.
• The Aims: In this section, you will briefly describe each of the aims you will use to test your hypothesis. Within 2-4 sentences per aim, describe the experimental approach and how each aim will help answer your larger hypothesis.
• Final/summary paragraph: The final paragraph should describe what is innovative about your project, the expected outcomes of the proposal, and the broader impact it would have on your area of research.

Assessing Your Aims

Writing a Specific Aims page should be an iterative process. After you have constructed the first draft of your Specific Aims, ask yourself:

• Would reviewers see the proposed project as tackling an important problem in a significant field?
• Would reviewers view the Specific Aims as capable of opening new discoveries in this field?
• Would reviewers regard the work as new and unique?
• Would reviewers view the Specific Aims as likely to exert a significant influence on the research field involved?
• Are the Specific Aims written clearly and are they easy to understand?

After you do a self-assessment on your Specific Aims, it’s beneficial to get critiques from colleagues as well as others who aren’t in your research field. If a diverse group of researchers understands your Specific Aims and gets excited about them, it’s more likely a panel of reviewers will as well. Consider doing a Chalk Talk within your department for added benefit, and be sure to invite investigators who have been successful in obtaining funding and those with experience serving on study sections.
 
While the guidance provided above highlights an effective structure of a Specific Aims page, there is flexibility in how elements can be organized and presented. For specific examples of Specific Aims pages from funded proposals in various fields of research, UMMS faculty and staff are encouraged to utilize our Grant Proposal Sampler (Level-2 login information required). Do you have any great grant-related resources to share? We’d love to hear about them. Contact us at [email protected] to share your suggestions and resources.

Transformative discoveries often happen as a result of bold scientific breakthroughs rather than incremental advances, but the conventional grant review system is largely designed for focused research projects and “safe science.” Securing funding for innovative, high-risk projects generally requires different strategies, including targeting specific grant mechanisms that support risky science. These innovative grant mechanisms generally put less emphasis on preliminary data than on vision, logical reasoning, and potential impact. Several federal funding mechanisms and programs are available for investigators with ambitious ideas:

• NIH’s High-Risk, High-Reward Research (HRHR) Program supports scientists at all career stages who are proposing outstanding high-risk, high-impact research. Preliminary data and detailed experimental plans are not required for any of the HRHR mechanisms, and any topic relevant to NIH’s mission are welcome for submission. Grant mechanisms in the HRHR Program include:
  • Early Independence Award Program (DP5)
    • For exceptional junior scientists bypassing postdoctoral training to launch independent research careers
    • Single PI only; Must be in non-independent research position; Limit of 2 applications per institution
  • New Innovator Award Program (DP2)
    • Must be Early Stage Investigator; Single PI only
  • Pioneer Award Program (DP1 )
    • Open to all career stages; Single PI only; Must be new research direction
  • Transformative Research Award (R01)
    • Supports individuals or teams proposing transformative projects that are inherently risky and untested but have the potential to create or overturn fundamental paradigms
    • Open to all career stages; No preliminary data required; Anonymized review process; Not on regular R01 cycle (only one deadline annually)
• The Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H ) is a recently launched federal funding agency that provides research funding to create new opportunities and solve important problems through ambitious, well-defined, and measurable programs. Each program is led by a Program Manager who champions a core idea, frames a challenge, and awards projects to multidisciplinary teams of performers, whose work is then measured and evaluated to ensure that only the best solutions advance. ARPA-H currently funds performers through:
  • Targeted Programs that are proposed by Program Managers
    • Targeted programs are updated frequently, are typically open for a short period of time, and have tight deadlines
  • An Open Broad Agency Announcement (Open BAA) that seeks to fund proposals that investigate unconventional approaches and enable leaps forward in science and technology

The U-M Medical School Office of Research is also investing in researchers’ bold science through the Research Scouts program, an internal program that funds early-stage ideas that can transform our current understanding of a scientific concept or field, challenge common dogma, or are wildly new and imaginative. The primary goal of the Research Scouts program is to catalyze new, exciting lines of investigation by making bold, creative ideas possible. Medical School researchers with radical scientific ideas are encouraged to apply for funding.

Do you have any bold research ideas or great grant-related resources to share? We’d love to hear about them. Contact the UMMS Research Development team at [email protected] to share your suggestions and resources.

Writing successful grant applications is a lengthy process that begins long before a great research idea is born. Grant applicants who are well-positioned to seek funding are at a competitive advantage compared to other applicants who have not done advanced preparation in “grant readiness.” In the field of Research Development, grant readiness is the concept of strategic planning for research funding - i.e., augmenting the qualifications, expertise, resources, networks and preparation needed for investigators to develop competitive grant proposals.

Before you begin writing your proposal, you should lay the groundwork to effectively communicate your research ideas and qualifications to potential funders. Consider the following suggestions to enhance grant readiness:

• Before you write, Read:
  • Does your research idea closely match the interests of the funding agency?
    • Thoroughly research the funding agency and mission. Learning about sponsors’ missions, priorities, and grant processes will help you determine the best source of funding for your projects. Furthermore, targeting your proposed ideas to a funder’s needs is critical to successful funding outcomes.
  • Have you read through the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) and application instructions?
    • It is essential to ensure each grant proposal thoroughly addresses the guidelines in a program solicitation and follows the requirements of the specific funding agency.
• Before you write, Assess:
  • Assess Yourself
    • Do you have the necessary expertise, resources, personnel and preliminary data (if applicable) to be competitive? If not, what is your plan and timeline to obtain them?
  • Assess Potential for Your Idea
    • What has already been done, reported and funded in your field?
    • What are the “gaps”?
    • How can you take your field a step further?
    • The Research Roadmap utilized by the UMMS R01 Boot Camp Program can help you in these assessments.   
      • Assess the Competition
      • Who are the important “players” in your field?
      • What have they accomplished?
      • Identify “what” and “who” sponsors have funded. For example, if you are targeting NIH funding, use the NIH RePORTER database to search NIH-funded research projects and the Matchmaker tool to find similar projects and potential Institutes/Centers and review panels for your research.

Assessing grant readiness and getting to know potential funders are important parts of a strategic plan to increase funding success. Do you have any great grant-related resources to share? We’d love to hear about them. Contact the UMMS Research Development team at [email protected] to share your suggestions and resources.

THE WRITE STUFF

Given the constant demands and competing priorities of academia, it’s no wonder many researchers feel they don’t have time to dedicate to writing projects. In order to be productive, academic writers need to intentionally set aside protected time for writing and create accountability for themselves. Below we’ve outlined a few tips and resources for meeting your academic writing goals.

Develop a regular writing routine
Making a commitment to consistent, frequent writing time is one of the most important practices academic writers can cultivate to increase scholarly productivity and success in obtaining grant funding. If you want to find writing time you need to schedule it, just like any other important activity. Start by blocking out time in your calendar for writing and treat it as if it’s an important meeting that can’t be missed. Pick time windows that are feasible everyday (or at least several days a week) for writing to help you develop a regular writing routine. Brief, frequent writing sessions (e.g., 30-60 minutes a day) are often more productive in the long run than “binge writing” to meet a deadline.

Set writing goals
Setting goals for writing sessions can help writers develop a plan and stay motivated. In his book How to write a lot: a practical guide to productive academic writing, Paul J. Silva advises that the best writing goals are concrete. For instance, instead of setting a goal to “get some writing done”, consider defining concrete goals for a writing session. Some examples of goals for a writing session could include: 1) write at least 200 words; 2) make an outline for your next journal article; 3) finish your Specific Aims page; or 4) read some sample grant proposals to get some tips. If you’re interested in seeing samples of successfully funded grant proposals, our UMMS Research Development team maintains a Grant Proposal Sampler (Level-2 login information required) for our faculty and staff to utilize.

Create accountability
Like many aspects of academia, finding a supportive network can help you establish good writing habits and increase your chances of success. To maintain accountability in your writing practices, consider asking a mentor or colleague to be your writing accountability partner. Some faculty also find Writing Accountability Groups (WAGs) to be helpful in improving writing productivity. To initiate your own WAG, check out Johns Hopkins School of Medicine’s Writing Accountability Groups (WAGs) website for information and resources. The UMMS Research Development team is also available to assist Medical School faculty and departments in setting up WAGs.

Additional resources
For those interested in learning more about writing practices and time management, the National Center for Faculty Development & Diversity (NCFDD) has on-demand webinars and workshops on these topics. The University of Michigan has a membership to this wonderful resource, so faculty and staff members can create an account to access the materials (when setting up an account, choose U-M as your institution). Examples of webinars available through NCFDD include How to Develop a Daily Writing Practice and Mastering Academic Time Management (a NCFDD account is needed to access).

When establishing a writing routine, you must find what works for you. Keep an open mind about the various methods that are available, and feel free to seek advice from colleagues and mentors who are productive writers. For more information about achieving your academic writing goals, or to express interest in joining a facilitated Writing Accountability Group, please contact Gina Stouffer ([email protected]).

The NIH biographical sketch (biosketch) is a required component of an NIH grant proposal that enables reviewers to evaluate the qualifications of the Principal Investigator and scientific team involved in the research project. Biosketches give applicants the opportunity to describe the magnitude of their scientific contributions, as well as provide detailed information about their research experience in the context of the proposed project. Since the biosketch factors into how you rate on NIH’s Investigator review criterion, it is important to use this ancillary document as an opportunity to show the reviewers that you have what it takes to successfully carry out the aims outlined in the grant proposal. If you’re interested in building a better biosketch, check out the information and resources below.

Get Started Creating Your Biosketch
NIH biosketches must conform to a specific format. If you are creating your first biosketch or need to update an existing one, NIH has a web page with Biosketch Format Pages, Instructions and Samples to get you started. If you’re looking for a tool that can help you prepare your biosketch in the correct format, NIH encourages applicants to use SciENcv to create and maintain their biosketches. SciENcv quickly formats everything, including citations, according to NIH rules. The UMMS Research Development Team has also created several internal resources to assist our faculty and learners in the creation of their biosketches. This Biosketch Basics video gives an overview of how to construct a biosketch. In addition, we created a NIH Biosketch Checklist (Level-1 log-in credentials needed for U-M Dropbox) that outlines elements to include in the Personal Statement and Contributions of Science sections of your biosketch.

How To Create a Strong Biosketch
The Personal Statement and Contributions to Science sections of the biosketch should be utilized strategically to convey your expertise and scientific impact to reviewers. The Personal Statement (Section A) should describe how your experience qualifies you for the specific role on the project, including relevant education, expertise, and accomplishments. The Personal Statement can include up to 4 publications or research products that highlight your qualifications relevant to the project. In the Contributions to Science section (Section C) you can describe up to 5 of your significant contributions to science, and each of the contributions can include up to 4 of your publications/research products. The Contributions to Science section should focus on the impact of your work and describe how your findings have influenced or progressed science. For a more detailed breakdown on how to enhance your biosketch, check out our Boost Your Biosketch video.

The biosketch is an opportunity to sell yourself to an NIH review panel and ultimately increase the overall competitiveness of your grant application. We hope you find the resources above helpful in creating and enhancing your biosketch.

Do you have any great grant-related resources to share? We’d love to hear about them. Contact us at [email protected] to share your suggestions and resources.

The National Institute of Health (NIH) is the nation’s medical research agency that provides grant funding for basic, clinical, and translational studies. NIH is made up of 27 different Institutes and Centers (ICs), each with its own specific research agenda that often focuses on a particular disease or body system. There are numerous grant mechanisms available to each IC to support research related to their mission. Each grant mechanism has a specific purpose, and each IC uses a mix of mechanisms to structure its research portfolio.

Given the complexity of NIH’s structure and the variety of grant mechanisms, it can be difficult to navigate NIH’s processes and funding opportunities. Fortunately, NIH has several on-demand resources to help researchers understand grant-related topics and agency policies along the funding spectrum. A few of these helpful on-demand resources are described below.

NIH Virtual Grants Conference on Funding, Policies, and Processes
NIH hosts a virtual conference every year that provides opportunities to learn about grant processes, engage with experts, and gather information. The virtual format of the conference allows NIH to record presentations and share related materials after the event occurs. This year’s conference took place on February 1-2, 2023, and covered a variety of topics including Understanding NIH Programs, and Grant Writing for Success. NIH has compiled recordings, slide sets and transcripts of the presentations on the NIH Grants Conference website which you can view at your convenience.

All About Grants Podcasts
NIH hosts a podcast called All About Grants that presents information on various grant topics. The podcasts are categorized by themes such as “Advice for New & Early Career Scientists” and “Peer Review”, and are available as mp3s for download on the website and other audio streaming platforms (e.g., Apple and Spotify). Each podcast episode is short (typically less than 15 minutes) and provides valuable insight from NIH staff and content experts.

NIH Grants YouTube Channel
The NIH Grants YouTube Channel contains grant and funding information that is updated regularly. Investigators and research administrators can explore videos on specific areas of interest, including NIH’s new Data Management and Sharing Policy.

Utilizing NIH on-demand resources can help you learn about the agency, understand new policies, and provide you with pertinent knowledge from subject matter experts. Do you have any great grant-related resources to share? We’d love to hear about them. Contact us at [email protected] to share your suggestions and resources.

The UMMS Large Team Grant Core has compiled a list of resources to assist Medical School faculty and support staff who are building interdisciplinary research teams and pursuing large team grant (LTG) proposals. If you have additional resources to help the Medical School research community navigate LTG proposal support at U-M, please email us at [email protected]. Click on the image below to navigate LTG resources at UMMS and beyond.

The UMMS Large Team Grant Core created a Medical School Large Team Grant Resources library to assist Medical School faculty and support staff who are developing and submitting large team grant (LTG) proposals. The resource library introduces what is required to lead and submit an LTG and provides tailored planning and writing resources, guidance, and templates.

The Large Team Grant (LTG) Core in UMMS Grant Services & Analysis provides proposal development assistance for Large-Scale Proposals (i.e., proposals with multiple projects and cores, typically with direct costs ≥ $1 million/year). We recognize that LTGs require additional support, so our LTG Core staff members can provide project management services and proposal expertise to enhance the competitiveness of complex proposals. LTG specialists coordinate large-scale proposal submissions in collaboration with the Principal Investigator (PI) and their Research Administrator(s). This free service is available to Medical School faculty serving as the lead PI on a complex, large-scale grant proposal on a first come, first served basis. Medical School PIs who are interested in this service must fill out and submit an intake form.

Details:

The sooner LTG teams contact us, the more effectively we can assist them. Ideally, we would like to start working with your team at least 6-9 months before the agency deadline. After filling out an intake form, we will follow up by scheduling a Zoom meeting to discuss availability and additional questions regarding your service request. Please refer to this link for a more detailed list of large-scale grant services. If only grant proposal editing services are desired, please request services at least eight weeks in advance of the agency deadline. 

Finally, if an LTG Research Team cannot meet the deadlines established in collaboration with the LTG Core, we reserve the right to reschedule or cancel support to assist other faculty.

Team Planning & Management 

• Interpret funding announcements 
• Develop a project plan including timelines and checklists
• Facilitate and coordinate project tasks and team communication
• Manage team meetings with the PI
• Establish and maintain a document storage system

Proposal Development

• Distribute LTG templates, samples, and boilerplates of proposal documents
• Develop tailored research plan templates
• Assist with developing and reviewing non-technical sections of proposals
• Review the grant for consistency, integration, and synergy across all components
• Grant proposal editing services are provided by the GS&A editor 

In addition to the services described above, we have created a Medical School Large Team Grant Resources library. The resource library introduces what is required to lead and submit a large team grant and provides tailored planning and writing resources, guidance, and templates. Questions? Contact us at [email protected]. 

During this time of restricted financial resources, describing the wide range of institutional resources available at the University of Michigan will help demonstrate to your sponsor the ready-for-success environment for your study.  Financial cost sharing is not typically an option, but conveying the depth of support already available to you can equally convince peer reviewers that your study has all the integral components to be a complete success.

When composing sections of your grant proposal, be sure to highlight the scientific environment and institutional investment at U-M that will contribute to the success of your research. Your sponsor will consider environment as part of their evaluation of your grant proposal, so be sure to give as much detail as possible about the available institutional resources that are relevant to your research. For example, at the NIH reviewers are asked to consider the following criteria:

1. Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success?
2. Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed?
3. Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?

In each of the following sections of a proposal, you may wish to address the specific concepts below.

Consider adding comments on:

• The physical location of your co-investigators/collaborators. Describe...
  • The physical proximity to the study site
  • Videoconferencing capabilities that facilitate interaction among members of the research team
• The attendees of lab meetings if they are externally-funded investigators not formally named in your specific research study, but who complement your research or provide intellectual support.
• Any unique opportunities, programs or cores provided by your department or the university that may set you apart from other applicants.

For instance, the University of Michigan is a resource-rich scientific environment that has invested in research infrastructure and support to enhance your science and ensure your success. Below are some facilities and resources that may be relevant to highlight in your grant proposal:

• Biomedical Research Core Facilities (BCRF) is a collection of centralized facilities or labs which offer shared services, shared equipment, resources and expertise to biomedical researchers and investigators on a fee-for-service basis. The BCRF has 12 cores, including DNA Sequencing, Flow Cytometry, Epigenomics, Bioinformatics and more.
• Central Biorepository (CBR) facilitates discovery and improves healthcare outcomes by providing high-quality, highly annotated biospecimens donated for basic, clinical and translational research.
• Fast Forward Medical Innovation helps U-M Medical School’s biomedical researchers with innovation and commercialization of medical treatments. FFMI’s resources include commercialization education and training, funding and mentorship, investments in biomedical startup companies, and business development.
• MICHR, U-M’s NIH-funded CTSA program, is a central resource providing facilities and support for clinical and translational research including project management, regulatory assistance, data management, statistical support, participant recruitment and other study-related activities.
• There are several options for statistical resources to implement and execute your research proposal, including:
  • MICHR Biostatistics services
  • Consulting for Statistics, Computing & Analytics Research (CSCAR)
  • The Center for Cancer Biostatistics
  • Statistical Analysis of Biomedical and Educational Research (SABER)
     

It may make a difference to highlight the accessibility to equipment that is not common in most labs. Do you have a shared item that is essential to your project and is available to you on demand? Is there a piece of equipment that is important to your success and is already provided at no cost for its use, or do you get subsidized rates?

• Be sure to list major items of equipment already available for your project, including reference to non-standard equipment that is available at cores throughout the university. For a comprehensive directory of university-wide research core services including a catalog of equipment available, please visit the University of Michigan Research Cores website.
• Where appropriate, identify the equipment's location and pertinent capabilities.

Keep in mind that research investigators may need to report Other Support/Pending Support to funding agencies. This provides additional opportunities to highlight research environments that will help convey a culture of success. If Other Support is required in the submission, use it as another place to highlight access to support the research.

Some sponsors require details of all financial and non-financial resources to which a faculty member may have direct (or indirect) access.  This may include descriptions of access to resources through material transfer or data use agreements; research-related grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements (regardless of whether the award is at U-M); or affiliations to other institutions through other non-U-M appointments/positions.   All of these may open doors and opportunity to resources provided by non-U-M entities that are not freely available to other researchers (e.g., laboratory equipment, research materials, lab personnel, etc.)

The NIH requires extensive detail for Other Support.  The Office of Research and Sponsored Projects (ORSP) offers clarification and guidance. See Disclosure of Other Support below for additional information.

Consider including letters of support from the chair, a close mentor, colleagues or the Chief Scientific Officer (for large scale projects) that convey the structural support that U-M will provide for your study.  More importantly, obtaining enthusiastic letters of support from leadership in the organizations or communities necessary to conduct your study is a particularly strategic approach, especially if the groups provide assistance or access to something that you wouldn’t typically have for your research (e.g., laboratory equipment to run samples, availability of a specific patient population, etc.)  However, don’t overdo it– it is important to keep the letters focused on executing your research aims so that reviewers aren’t overwhelmed; use them to demonstrate you have leadership and collegial support in your unit as well as relevant organizations and communities within the envelope of support around you.

AI Letter of Support Writer

Additional Medical School Office of Research Units work to contribute resources to the success of your research. The Grant Services & Analysis unit provides materials for developing the Facilities and Other Resources element for your grant application, including information on requirements and resource profile templates.

Consult with the Cores to help establish the scope and budget of your project, coordinate funding applications, and for investigator-focused training opportunities.

Facility & Resource Profile Templates - These boilerplate descriptions are meant to be adapted by the user to fit his or her needs, e.g., writing grant proposal resource sections, marketing, recruiting.

Requesting Letters of Support/Commitment - Strengthen your proposal by requesting a letter of support or a letter of commitment for cost sharing from the leadership of Michigan Medicine or the Medical School.

Budgeting Research Proposals - A list of common components in proposal budgets, including information about Budgeting and Justifications, Full Cost Budgeting, and Facility & Administrative Costs (F&A or Indirect Costs).

Budget Templates - View a variety of budget templates, including embedded formulas in editable Excel spreadsheet(s).

NIH Requirements for My Bibliography and eRA Commons - A video and slide presentation created by the U-M Office of Research and Sponsored Projects related to the NIH Public Access Policy.

NIH Authentication of Key Biological and/or Chemical Resources - An overview of NIH's required Authentication of Key Biological and/or Chemical Resources proposal documentation.

• "Inserting Graphics into Grant Applications & Other Word Documents" (PDF) – This document offers instruction on the efficient and proper placement of images, charts, and graphics into grant proposal applications. Basic features in Microsoft Word such as image placement, captioning, and text wrapping are explained. Workshops on this topic are offered through the Taubman Health Sciences Library, and you can view a video of the workshop. Contact Merle Rosenzweig for information on upcoming workshops.
• NIH Public Access Policy and Uploading Articles to the Manuscript Submission System - This video focuses on learning how to use the NIH Manuscript Submission System (NIHMS) and My Bibliography for NIH Progress Reports.
• NIH Peer Review Revealed - This video from the NIH provides a front-row seat to a NIH peer review meeting. Real scientists from the scientific community review fictional but realistic grant applications for scientific merit.