Academic Writing & Research Development Series

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 every day (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.

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 for 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.

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 flexible learning opportunities. 

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 not only to understand the grant guidelines and requirements, but also to fill any gaps in your research plan and to 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's 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. 

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 revision 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 whether 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 that 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. 

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 & 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. 

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 as “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 that 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. 

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, & 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. 

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 the 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, & 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 & 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.

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. 

An evaluation plan is an integral part of compelling proposals. This is in part due to funding agency requirements—organizations expect to see a clear outline of your goals, the strategies you’ll use to monitor progress, and the ways you’ll measure your project’s effectiveness (see NSF Handbook for Project Evaluation and W.K. Kellogg Foundation Evaluation Handbook). Instead of a static checklist, an investigator’s evaluation plan should be an evolving, adaptable resource designed to be regularly reviewed and refined in response to new findings or shifts in project priorities (see PMC4592485). Here we discuss strategies to develop evaluation plans that best fit your proposal’s context, objectives, and funding agency’s mission.

Frameworks for developing an evaluation plan
Start with clarifying your research goals and objectives by asking: “What are the main questions you want to answer that align with the funder’s mission?” Next, establish the methods you will use to evaluate your project. These may involve tools including logic models and/or theories of change (ToC). 

• A logic model is a graphical representation describing the “what” and “when” or connections between the proposal’s inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and goals (see Logic Models: A Planning and Evaluation Tool). For reviewers, this visual tool generates a clear and shared understanding regarding how the project will be implemented, improved and evaluated.
• A theory of change (ToC) explains “how” and “why” the project will work and details the necessary steps to achieve desired outcomes. This tool, which details complex, nonlinear relationships between actions and outcomes, is often used by the investigator before and/or during a project’s implementation to guide strategies and decisions.

Logic models and ToCs can be used together or separately when creating an evaluation plan—notably, each generates insights into how projects will be implemented and how success will be determined. 

Posting Evaluation Questions: Formative vs Summative Assessments
A compelling evaluation plan incorporates both formative and summative components, thereby demonstrating the proposal will be monitored and refined in real-time and rigorously assessed for impact at the project’s end (it is also recommended to incorporate timelines to demonstrate feasibility). Formative assessments, which take place during the planning or implementing phase of a research project, inform improvements on the project as it progresses (e.g., surveys, interviews). Summative assessments, which occur at the end of the project, measure effectiveness and outcomes of the program as well as research product outputs (e.g., quantitative and qualitative data). Using a dual approach ensures transparency, adaptability, and credibility.

Takeaway
Integrating evidence-based assessments and frameworks in an evaluation plan can help ensure a research proposal is well-designed and aligned with a funder’s mission. Additionally, these strategies support a project’s growth and sustainability by identifying areas for improvement and guiding future actions. Ultimately, a well-structured evaluation plan not only demonstrates the proposal’s impact but provides valuable insights into the project’s effectiveness and feasibility.

Closing the Gaps: One-Page of NIH Grantsmanship Tips for Proposal Success
NIH reviewers don’t score what you meant to say; they score what they can understand, trust, and argue for in peer review meetings. Unfortunately, even great science can miss funding when the writing isn’t clear— what you mean can get lost on the page, your logic may not land the way you intended, and your big-picture message might not give reviewers enough to champion your proposal. A few practical writing habits can bring your message, logic, and impact into focus.

Write to connect, not to distance 
Start by reviewing your proposal for language that could distance reviewers. These may include vague claims, acronyms that slow reading, and hedges that sound like uncertainty. Keep the tone enthusiastic but credible by pairing urgency with a feasible path forward: discuss the problem and consequence of inaction (leverage data to show scope), and the practical reason your team can act now (e.g., preliminary data, established cohorts, pipelines, or methods). Use plain descriptive language when possible and technical terms only for precision. 

Confidence matters, but it must be earned. Statements such as “we hope” may be interpreted as signals of weak feasibility. Use phrases such as: “Our prior work demonstrates…,” and “We currently… therefore we will….”. Finally, write in person-first, systems-aware language, especially in health disparities work, to reflect mechanisms and contexts rather than personal blame (e.g., use “people facing barriers to care”). This isn’t just about tone; use this language to support scientific clarity by linking cause-and-effect explanations with how the system works.

Build an Aims page that can be summarized in 30 seconds 
Many reviewers will only read your Specific Aims page; therefore, it must carry the argument that your proposal should be funded. Use the following four-paragraph structure to write a strong Aims page that resonates. Paragraph 1 (Problem): starts with the unmet need: explain who is affected and what happens if nothing changes. Support these statements with a small amount of high-quality data leveraged from reliable sources. Paragraph 2 (Approach logic): concisely explains your central strategy and discusses why it fits the problem. Introduce your long-term goal and overall objective to demonstrate your project is purposeful rather than incremental. Paragraph 3 (Aims): states your objectives, not methods. Lead with what you’ll learn and leave the Approach section to explain the how. Paragraph 4 (Impact): is not a formality; it equips reviewers to vote for you. Make the impact concrete and memorable: what will change, for whom, and what your results will achieve (e.g., a validated target, a scalable intervention).

Demonstrate rigor through visibility, not claims
Make every key decision explicit: state your data collection methods, key measures, and an analysis plan that matches each aim. Align explicitly with NIH rigor and reproducibility expectations by addressing the (1) scientific premise; (2) rigor in design; (3) relevant biological variables; and (4) authentication of key biological/chemical resources.  For qualitative methods, show trustworthiness by including concepts such as dependability/feasibility (documented, consistent procedures) and confirmability (audit trail that reduces single-investigator bias).

Write a strategy that reviewers can repeat 
By discussion time, the reviewer needs sentences they can borrow to advocate funding your science. Make your Research Strategy read as one continuous argument. This includes Significance (which establishes the need); Innovation (which clarifies the advancement and impact on the field); and Approach (which demonstrates feasibility, credibility, and rigor). Additionally, whenever you use statistics, provide context: what the number means and why it matters for your project’s choices. Highlight outcomes in a way reviewers can visualize, including milestones and timelines to show measurable outcomes. Finally, position partnerships as scientific infrastructure, not performative checkboxes—describe what each partner enables (e.g., implementation, dissemination) and how those elements improve feasibility, impact, and rigor.

Summary
Across the entire application, apply two writing style rules to quickly engage reviewers: one sentence/ one idea and specificity over generality. NIH grantsmanship is not just about communicating your science clearly; you should also ensure the proposal’s reasoning and impact are easy to follow and advocate for in funding decisions.

Grant funders are increasingly seeking proposals grounded in evidence and supported by measurable data that both clearly define project goals and demonstrate significant societal impact or translational potential.  In this guide, which is applicable to all types of research areas, we discuss how to effectively leverage data to create compelling proposals.

Data Types & Sources
Proposals may use quantitative and/or qualitative data to demonstrate impact and need. For example, quantitative data—such as statistics, frequencies, and ratios—are commonly used to demonstrate the scope of the problem, while qualitative information (e.g., testimonials, surveys, and case studies) adds a crucial human element to proposals, which is especially important when applying for Foundation funding.

Sources of persuasive and accurate statistics can be gathered from: 

• Pubmed: to conduct literature reviews to evaluate prior research outcomes and methodologies relevant to your proposal.
• U.S. Census Bureau: Demographic and economic data (with webinars to help investigators use data effectively) to provide evidence for why you propose to study certain subpopulations within communities, etc.
• American Community Survey (ACS): Data on various socio-economic factors, including income, education, housing, and employment at the local and regional levels to provide insights into the changing needs of the communities you propose to study.
• National Center for Health Statistics | CDC: The most up-to-date health statistics to discuss prevalence, mortality rates, and healthcare burden relevant to your study.

Leveraging Data in Proposal Writing – Putting It Together
At various points in your proposal, strategically placed data reinforces key messages and arguments that enhance the proposal’s impact and relevance. These data elements include:

• Needs Assessment: Use external/internal data to determine healthcare needs, disparities, and your project’s target audience. Start your proposal by providing a detailed overview of the need, highlighting research gaps by citing relevant statistics and findings.
• Goals and Objectives: Define clear, quantifiable goals and objectives that directly respond to the identified needs by leveraging data to provide baseline metrics and design specific interventions to evaluate the effectiveness of the program.
• Data Interpretation and Visualization: Use graphs, charts, or maps to visualize the data and make it easy for funders to grasp.
• Evaluation and Measurement: To determine program success, outline your methods to collect and analyze data throughout and after the project, thereby demonstrating your potential impact on real-world problems.
• Sustainability and Long-Term Impact: Emphasize how addressing the need can lead to long-term positive outcomes and contribute to sustainable improvements in your research field. Incorporate plans for ongoing monitoring and scale beyond the grant period.

Takeaway
Ultimately, a well-researched application that incorporates relevant statistics and well-designed implementation strategies can paint a compelling picture of a proposal’s mission and its alignment with the funder’s priorities, thereby increasing chances of securing funding.
 

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, & 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.

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 is 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
  • Other Open Funding Opportunities

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.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is a federal agency that provides funding for 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 its 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 for 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 keywords 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. 

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 its Resource Center webpage.

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 & 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.

Starting October 1, 2025 (FY2026), the NIH will no longer publish funding announcements in its NIH Guide, per NOT-OD-25-143. The NIH guide will only be used for policy and information notices. Therefore, funding announcements will no longer be included in the weekly NIH Guide Table of Contents subscription emails. 

Grants.gov will serve as NIH’s single official source for grant and cooperative agreement funding opportunities, both forecasted and published. 

What this Means
This policy change is an opportunity to streamline your funding search by receiving notifications tailored to your research interests and funding goals. 

Set up notifications using a combination of the following tools:

• Grants.gov is suitable for receiving emails about forecasted and published opportunities. Archived opportunities are searchable.
• Simpler.Grants.gov is a more user-friendly version of Grants.gov and is suitable for receiving emails about forecasted and published opportunities. Archived opportunities are searchable.
• Pivot is appropriate for receiving emails about published opportunities only. Archived opportunities are NOT searchable.

Resources

• Guidance comparing Grants.gov, Simpler.Grants.gov, and Pivot
• The U-M Library has a Research Funding and Grants Guide.
• The U-M Library can help researchers and research administrators navigate Grants.gov during a tailored Research Funding Search Consultation. 

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).

NIH Highlighted Topics are a centralized and simplified resource created to both inform the research community about particular areas of science of interest to the NIH and facilitate innovation and discovery through a strong focus on more investigator- initiated driven research.  

This consolidated resource was created as part of a wider ongoing strategy across NIH to simplify and streamline the application and funding process. Thus, instead of visiting various NIH institutes, centers, offices, or program-specific webpages, the Find a Fit for Your Research webpage presents a simple, easily explorable tabular format listing NIH’s latest scientific interests. 

The NIH recommends visiting this resource early and often when conceptualizing research ideas. If a researcher is interested in a particular topic, they must apply through an appropriate funding opportunity such as a parent announcement or other broad NIH funding opportunity on Grants.gov.

To further understand Highlighted Topics and how they differ from a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), the Grants Services & Analysis (GS&A) office has developed a one-page reference guide. Additionally, please refer to the NIH FAQ website for more information.

NIH has implemented updated guidelines for Biosketches (and Other Support) for application due dates and other submissions on or after January 25, 2026. NIH will now use the Common Form for Biographical Sketches; additionally, a NIH Biographical Sketch Supplement will need to be prepared using Science Experts Network Curriculum Vitae (SciENcv) (NOT-OD-26-018).

What does this mean for researchers? NIH will REQUIRE: 

• Use of the Common Form for Biographical Sketches.

  • In addition to the Common Form, NIH will require the completion of a Biosketch Supplement in SciENcv 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. 

Preparing to create the NIH Biosketch Common Form and Biosketch Supplement 

• Familiarize yourself with SciENcv which is now required to complete the Common Forms and the NIH Biographical Sketch Supplement.

  • Tip: Watch GS&A’s video on Creating the NIH Biosketch Common Form & Biosketch Supplement in SciENcv for submissions starting January 25, 2026. 

• 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 Bibliographyis up to date.

  • Why? SciENcv can import publications from sources including My Bibliography so you don’t have to manually enter citations. 

• Assign a delegate, such as a Research Administrator or other research support person to collaborate on creating and modifying documents in SciENcv

  • Check out the Guide we created to help U-M researchers and support staff navigate the process of adding delegates in SciENcv. 

Resources 

• We have produced a video overview of the new NIH Biographical Sketch Common Form and Supplement Form that must be made in SciENcv and included in NIH Applications starting on January 25, 2026. 

• The U-M Library has a website dedicated to creating biosketches and linking ORCID in SciENcv. 

• NIH frequently provides new updates to their FAQs related to the Common Forms for Biographical Sketch: https://grants.nih.gov/faqs#/common-forms-biographical-sketch-current-pending-support.htm

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 they relate 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.”