Thread by @Christy_Avery

Writing a #grant or contemplating a grant? Here is my "top 10" list of mistakes, developed through a lot of blood, sweat, tears (many tears), applications, diverse study section service, and contemplative walks. Hope it helps! #epitwitter #medtwitter

1-Not asking for the “hard” feedback. I put this one first because once you fall in love with an idea, asking for critical feedback is hard! It’s like someone calling your baby ugly. At a minimum, ask for feedback on aims. (Everyone should have time for a 10-minute review.)

2-Thinking reviewers won’t find a weakness. I try to make a list of every weakness and address each one before submission. The reviewers will ALWAYS find the weakness, however buried. Might as well address up front.

3-Not remembering that reviewers are busy and tired! A friend once told me to expect that reviewers only read the first two sentences of each paragraph/section. Gulp! I title each section with what I want the reviewer to think, e.g., “Our rigorous and unbiased study design...”

4-Expecting the reviewers to connect the dots. As a reviewer, I want to be told a story, noting that grants are a salesmanship document. When you connections are missing (tell me why this is important), you probably won’t like what reviewers come up with on their own.

5-Not having the “right” data. This is a big one. Why is your population IDEAL? It’s pretty easy to tell when studies are selected for convenience, not merit, as these studies often have gaps related to significance, rigor, power, availability of important variables etc.

6-Aims dependence. Do Aims 2 and 3 depend on the success of Aim 1? What happens if Aim 1 fails? If you have strong preliminary data to back up the success of Aim 1, acknowledge the potential for this limitation and tell the reviewer (see # 4) why aims dependence isn’t a problem.

7-Statistical power. Sure, statistical power is never as high as presented (e.g., missing data.) However, reviewers need to know there some prob(success). Saying “my sample is large so I obviously have high power” also won’t cut it. Why miss an opportunity to impress reviewers?

8-Grant norms. Read instructions & get a funded example of the type of grant you’re writing. How long are sections, what info is included, & how does the grant flow? Reviewers from your institution are in conflict & cannot review your grant. Ask them about unwritten expectations.

9-Limitations without solutions. Don’t present limitations and assume the reviewer will not care. Is generalizability a problem? Well, what if this is THE ONLY study with biomarker A, providing data for future grants to address limitation. Turn your weaknesses into strengths!

10-Give back. Want to get better at grant writing? Review the grants of others across different mechanisms (e.g., K, R, F) and institutions (NIH, foundation, etc.). Grant help you say up to date on the literature and learn what is (and is not) useful when writing your own grants.

11-Don’t give up. Writing takes practice. Being able to identify important gaps (and fundable questions) takes time. Preliminary data must be collected and analyzed. You’ll get there, although it might take longer than you expect. (It did for me!)