My two endless complaints on grant reviewing (a) funding agencies, stop with the insane multiple assessment axes. There are perhaps two or three (science vision/excellence, feasibility, competition) and some yes/nos (ethics, data management etc). Focus on overall narrative
(b) Authors; please please do a power calculation, however light and talk about it. *I* am doing back of envelope power calculation on your grants because you haven't done it and *I am sure* you would do a better power calculation than me.
A reminder - power calculations are not a guarantee things will work out. But it means you can't just pretend you will get an answer with (...give me strength...) 4 vs 4 mice.
And it is *super* impressive you can get 100,000 health records, but if your disease is 0.02% incidence then you dealing with very thin numbers and the big number that doesn't have the disease of interest can't save the small number.
It honestly takes a wet afternoon to do power calculations and it is just about not kidding *yourself*. All I want is evidence in the grant that you have just vaguely thought about it. Honestly. I'd take a jpeg of a napkin when you wrote it down.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
