Just finished reviewing #NHMRC Investigator Grant apps 📑 If you’ve emailed me recently & I haven’t written back, I will get back to you soon 😮💨 Going to go have a steamy bowl of wonton soup 🍲 as a reward, but thought I’d also share impressions:
So many outstanding applications from Australian EMCRs! 🌟 Like many, I wish the funding lines are much higher. As excellent as some of these apps are, some will fall just below the cut-off, and this will be absolutely heart-breaking 💔
Some applications need a bit more work, and I have tried to be as detailed as possible in my 1000-character limit feedback. In general, reviewers are looking to fund research, please help them help you.
(1) proposal – first page matters the most. Tell me why this is important, not just interesting. This is a f/ship so tell me why you’re the best person to lead this. Break up text with figures; use formatting to draw attention to key points.
(2) a bit obvious but claims about research impact must be backed up by evidence, sources will be checked
(3) proposing large research programs that span 6-8 studies including RCTs is impressive + ambitious, which is great! But need to also demonstrate feasibility (e.g., other funding sources; access to resources; access to expertise; previous experience)
(4) need to adequately explain your unique intellectual/skill contribution in mid-author pubs included top 10 list (remember top 10 is to highlight your best pubs)
(5) pilot data is important esp if you’re saying that your proposed X method/tool/test is better than current Y method/tool/test (again, need to back up claims); also how is it better? Access? Cost? Sensitivity/specificity? Usability?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
