They're or Their: Avoiding Common Grammar Mistakes in Grant Applications

Many words and phrases are commonly confused with each other when writing in English. (The same problem might exist in other languages as well, but unfortunately I am not fluent enough to pick up these nuances in another language. My high school French teacher, who was impressed with my ability to converse with strangers on a school trip to Paris, would be very disappointed.) 

Unfortunately, many of these confused words and phrases are not picked up by the Microsoft Word spelling and grammar review that so many of us have come to rely on. This includes common typos that might change the meaning of a sentence but are still grammatically correct. 

To catch these types of mistakes, it is important to allow enough time to review your final proposal draft, paying close attention to each word, as well as to ask at least one colleague or professional editor to review the proposal prior to submission. This means that if you are working on an R01 proposal for the October 5th deadline, you should not plan to finish writing your Research Strategy on October 4th. It takes time to read and absorb every word of a document - most of us have a tendency to skim over text we have written and already read multiple times.

Examples of word and phrase substitutions and common typos to watch for include:

• advise - advice
• affect - effect
• cancer - canker
• data - date
• flight- fight
• flow - fowl
• food - flood
• its - it's
• light - lite
• phase - phrase
• prostate - prostrate
• then - than
• they're - their - there
• to - too
• veterinarian - vegetarian (yes, I have seen this one!)
• who - whom
• your - you're

This list is, of course, not exhaustive. There are many possible typos and mistakes that can occur during the course of writing your NIH grant proposal. Often, typing quickly leads to typos in acronyms. For example, HPLC becomes HLPC. To help catch this if you are working on the document in Word, I recommend searching for each acronym that has been used in your proposal. The acronyms should have red lines under them, which indicate spelling errors. If you ignore the spelling error, the red lines with disappear under all instances of the acronym. If you do this for all of your acronyms and there are still red lines remaining in the text, it will help to alert you of typos.

I hope these examples help to illustrate why it is vitally important to begin the writing process early and finish your materials early enough to allow time to incorporate review by colleagues or professional staff. The more eyes on the proposal, the better!

Are you guilty of using active links and hypertext in NIH grant proposals?

So much of our daily lives include links, looking up information, and hopping between websites.  Clicking on active links in documents makes things seamless and fast.  Like other aspects of grant applications (human subjects attachments, anyone?), links have unfortunately been abused by some applicants who are seeking to circumvent the rules. In an effort to level the playing field, NIH created a policy that expressly prohibits hyperlinks in grant applications.  The policy can be found in the Grant Application Guide.  It states, in part:

Hyperlinks and URLs are only allowed when specifically noted in funding opportunities and/or form field instructions. It is highly unusual for a funding opportunity to allow links in Specific Aims, Research Strategy, and other page-limited attachments.

Hyperlinks and URLs may not be used to provide information necessary to application review. Applications must be self-contained and reflect the information available at time of review. 

Reviewers are not obligated to view linked sites and are cautioned that they should not directly access a website (unless the link to the site was specifically requested in application instructions) as it could compromise their anonymity.

When allowed, you must hyperlink the actual URL text so it appears on the page rather than hiding the URL behind a specific word or phrase (hypertext).

Since applicants were either unaware or routinely ignored this policy, NOT-OD-20-174 was released as a reminder. Although this policy has been in existence for years, there are many who continue to attempt to include hyperlinks in the text. The notice "serves to remind the applicant community about existing guidance that restricts use of hypertext (e.g., hyperlinks and URLs) in NIH applications".  It also lists multiple concerns related to the use of hypertext in grant applications, including overstuffing of applications, reviewer confidentiality, and use of malware.

In summary, keep the hyperlinks out of your entire proposal.  Allow enough time to review your complete application and remove any hypertext. Do not take a chance that your proposal will be withdrawn due to noncompliance!

Grant application writing help - a technical checklist

The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) provides a very useful checklist to guide applicants in development of their grant applications.  The list, located here, is relevant to applicants to other NIH institutes as well.

Perhaps my favorite item on this list is in the Specific Aims section.  It states:
"Are they "win-win" - i.e., will an outcome consistent with the null hypothesis still be a contribution to the field?"
This question is something people often lose sight of as they develop grant applications.  I highly recommend using this checklist as a guide to improve the competitiveness of your NIH grant application.

No more Palatino Linotype or italicized text on your resubmission

In a recent notice, NIH  has changed the policy regarding marking new or significantly changed text in revision (a..k.a. resubmission) applications.  You will no longer need to identify changes in text using brackets or other types of text. Instead, all substantial changes, edits, deletions, and responses to reviewer comments must be summarized in the Introduction to the Application. Also, as a reminder, you should address all weaknesses outlined by reviewers - not just the ones you agree with. This change will minimize the headaches involved with submission of revised applications.
Oh, happy day!

Don't forget about the Resource Sharing Plan

Perhaps because it is buried beneath mounds of other text in most funding solicitations, or perhaps because they are so focused on the Research Strategy component, many investigators seem to forget about Resource Sharing plans until the last minute, when a grants administrator requests the document for upload.  What is a Resource Sharing Plan?  Here are links to a variety of resources that will help you to determine whether you need to include a Data or Resource Sharing Plan, as well as examples and advice on meeting the NIH requirements.

• NIH Resources Sharing Plan (PDF document)
• NIH Sharing Policies 
• Sample Data Sharing Plan from NIAID

Matchmaker, matchmaker...

In keeping with the spirit of Valentine's Day, let's talk a little about relationships and needs.  No, I am not turning this blog into a matchmaking site for lonely researchers. (I am sorry to disappoint some of you.)  The relationship I am referring to is the one between research grant proposal authors and grant reviewers.

Like any great partnership, it is important to consider the needs of each person.  The needs of the researcher who submits the proposal should be clear.  This need is fully explained in your research strategy, and should be organized and expressed in a way that makes a clear and compelling argument.  The needs of the grant reviewer should also be considered.  The Center for Scientific Review is responsible for selecting the reviewers based on specific criteria, essentially serving as your matchmaking service.  As you write your research plan and focus on describing your needs, also think about the needs of your reviewers. 

Reviewers are tasked with reading and scoring your proposal based on a set of defined criteria.  For example, an R01, R03, R21, or R34 is scored in the Significance category based on the following questions:
"Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?"
If you read your Significance section, how easy is it for you to pick out the answers to these questions?  Does it require searching through the section or putting different ideas together, or is each answer clearly presented?  Can a reviewer easily determine the answers to all of these questions, or will some key elements be missed due to lack of clarity?

Considering the needs of the reviewer will not only help to guide you to create a clearer argument, but will also help to ensure that your score accurately reflects the elements of your proposal.  Unclear explanations leave room for things to become muddled and pieces of information that are critical can be missed if not properly and adequately described.  Help your reviewer to do his/her job, and help yourself to create your best possible proposal in the process. 

A lot can be learned from writing program grants

The funding climate right now is difficult not only for researchers, but also for nonprofits and community organizations.  Funders of community projects are focusing more closely on the potential for a project to continue to make an impact after the money runs out.  In other words, when developing grant proposals for community projects, sustainability is key.  The traditional way of thinking about research proposals is to write a project that will start and finish within the timeframe provided, provide something to publish, and contribute in a meaningful way to the body of knowledge that exists about a topic.  However, there is something to be said about the sustainability of a research program.  Will your project be a "one and done" kind of thing, where you will complete the project and then move on to something else?  Or will it be one piece in an overall plan that will continue to delve deeper beyond the question posed in your hypothesis?  Considering the difficulty that exists in getting funded right now, it is worth it to at least consider describing the possibility for a project to contribute to further knowledge over time.  This type of thinking may help you to show the significance and impact of your project to reviewers. 

Finding the answer requires asking the question

I understand that the title of this blog post has me sounding a little like Yoda, but one fundamental piece of information that guides the entire research grant proposal is the research question.  Without a clear, well-defined question, how can one expect to obtain an answer through research?  While drafting a hypothesis is something that was probably covered in your elementary school science class, it is easy to forget the importance of refining this piece before setting out to write a large, complicated research plan. 

One method of drafting the research question that is used often in health sciences research is PICO.  The letters stand for Patient Problem, Intervention, Comparison, & Outcome.  Using the PICO framework can help you to logically think through the problem you are hoping to address through your research.  If you are struggling to draft your research plan, perhaps going back and applying this method will help you to realize that your research question is too broad, too narrow, or perhaps too insignificant.  If you are following my advice and have started working on your proposal far in advance of the next deadline, you should have plenty of time to make adjustments as needed!

If you are looking for a good reminder of the scientific method and development of objectives...

Research Methodology

View more presentations from Vikas Dalmia

What is a hypothesis?

From Merriam-Webster:

Definition of HYPOTHESIS
1a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
3: the antecedent clause of a conditional statement

There is a definition of hypothesis for children here.

I am providing this as a public service. Recently I received a proposal to review from "scientists" whose hypothesis was actually a list of aims and methods. Perhaps it is wrong to assume that everyone with a science degree knows what this word means?

My advice on length (size matters!)

Since I just got off the phone and finished giving this advice I thought I should share it with the rest of the blog universe: When writing your grant proposal, it is much easier to cut material than to go back and add more material. Chopping is simpler than creating! So as you work on your grant proposal, dissertation, letter to the editor, or psychotic manifesto, just put all of your ideas and information on paper. Don't worry about section or page limits until after you have finished a first draft and are able to take a break from the document for a short period of time, then review it with a clear head for cuts that can be made.

If you are concerned about having to go back and change your reference citations if any are removed, my response is- you shouldn't be! With EndNote, RefWorks, and so many similar products on the market right now, there is no excuse for you to be numbering citations by hand! Create a great database of papers that you may need to cite, and these programs make it very easy to go back and make text edits later.

Clearing up confusion over structuring of Research Strategy related to Specific Aims in NIH grant proposals

One of the most common questions I received from Principal Investigators when NIH released the new Research Strategy section guidelines was regarding Specific Aims. Though NIH has gone to great lengths to clarify the allowed structure of Research Strategy with regard to the aims, the question still seems to pop up.

Here is the official answer, right from the NIH Enhancing Peer Review site:

How I should organize the Research Strategy section to address the Significance, Innovation, and Approach for each Specific Aim, assuming I have more than one?

Applicants should use their discretion in organizing the information to best convey the desired information to the reviewers. For example, if an application had two specific aims, an applicant might choose to organize the Research Strategy in one of the following two ways:

Significance: Specific Aim 1, Specific Aim 2 Innovation: Specific Aim 1, Specific Aim 2 Approach: Specific Aim 1, Specific Aim 2

OR:

Specific Aim 1: Significance, Innovation, Approach Specific Aim 2: Significance Innovation, Approach

Look for free advice first

I was surprised to see the cost of this instruction manual for NIH grant applications. Don't get me wrong- I understand the value and importance of seeking advice from very experienced NIH grant applicants, especially if you are a new or younger investigator. However, the manual was not developed or approved by NIH. Before you fork over hundreds of dollars for the manual, take a look at some of these great (FREE!) resources provided by NIH. While they are maintained by specific centers and institutes, much of their advice and guidance applies universally to NIH R01, R03, and R21 applications.

Biosketch, Bibliography, and Facilities/Resources Advice from NIAID: http://funding.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/cycle/pages/part06.aspx

NIH Tips for Avoiding Common Errors in Electronic Submission: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/ElectronicReceipt/avoiding_errors.htm

Research Plan Advice from NIAID (geared toward R01s, but useful for other mechanisms): http://funding.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/cycle/pages/part05.aspx

Embedding extra information in your Resources section is not a good idea either

As I mentioned in my previous post, applicants are attempting to be very creative in circumventing the new NIH research plan page limits. Allowable contents of the Appendix are clearly defined by NIH, so for obvious reasons it is not wise to place extra research plan content in your appendix. Another possible target for abuse is the Resources and Environment section. This section is one of the few that does not have any page limits. The section should be tailored to each individual proposal, and provide information on the resources unique to the project and how they will be used by the project. One can argue that it is difficult to discuss the use of resources without at least mentioning the research in some way. However, that is not an excuse for cutting the extra half page of methods you have written and pasting it into the research plan. Reviewers know what belongs in the Resources section and what does not. Attempting to get more information in front of them by placing it in this section will only make you look dishonest. One reviewer I spoke to recently described a proposal with a Resources section that rambled on for several pages and was clearly an extension of the Research Strategy section. Needless to say, that proposal did not fare well. Bottom line: Just follow the page limits. You may think you have found a creative way to get around them, but it has probably already been done and already annoyed reviewers. If you start writing early enough and allow adequate time for editing and review by your peers, you won't have to frantically cut text at midnight the night before the proposal is due.

Hate the new NIH page limits? Don't try to cram things into the Appendix!

Many veteran researchers are frustrated with the new NIH page limits that took effect in 2010. This is understandable. For parent R01 proposals, what was previously a 25 page research plan is now cut down to 12 pages plus a 1 page aims section. There is much less space to get your point across and convince reviewers that your idea is the best, most innovative, and most worthy of their praise and ultimately NIH funding. This new page limit was created mainly to decrease the burden on reviewers, who devote hours of their time to reading and critiquing applications. The result, unfortunately, is that some researchers have decided to look for a way around the new page limits. Instead of following the rules, they prefer to try to sneak one past NIH and put extra information into other sections of the proposal. This is a terrible idea, and one that is sure to backfire and annoy reviewers. Perhaps the first place investigators seek to add extra information is in the Appendix section. Many years ago, placing materials in the Appendix was routinely done to avoid page limit requirements. NIH grew wise to this, however, and over the years began to more tightly regulate what can be included in the Appendix section. Now the instructions are very clear. Ignoring the instructions and trying to pull a fast one may be viewed as being unresponsive to the directions. In an agency that may refuse to score your application because you haven't followed proper font or margin requirements, do you really want to take a chance on including erroneous information in the Appendix?

Here are some excerpts from the SF424 instructions on the Appendix section:

• Only one copy of appendix material is necessary. Use the Add Attachments button to the right of this field to complete this entry.
  
• A maximum of 10 PDF attachments is allowed in the Appendix. If more than 10 appendix attachments are needed, combine the remaining information into attachment #10. Note that this is the total number of appendix items, not the total number of publications. When allowed there is a limit of 3 publications that are not publicly available (see below for further details and check the FOA for any specific instructions), though not all grant activity codes allow publications to be included in the appendix.
  
• Do not use the appendix to circumvent the page limits of the Research Strategy. For additional information regarding Appendix material and page limits, please refer to the NIH Guide Notice NOT-OD-10-077.

Items that must not be included in the appendix:

• Photographs or color images of gels, micrographs, etc., are no longer accepted as Appendix material. These images must be included in the Research Strategy PDF. However, images embedded in publications are allowed.
  
• Publications that are publicly accessible. For such publications, the URL or PMC submission identification numbers along with the full reference should be included as appropriate in the Bibliography and References cited section, the Progress Report Publication List section, and/or the Biographical Sketch section.

What should I write first?

After you review the lengthy proposal instructions (yes, you need to do this), your head will likely be spinning. "How am I going to get all of this done?", you may think, "And where do I begin?" A common mistake made by newer applicants is to begin by drafting the budget. This is actually one of the last pieces you should be worrying about.

To get started on your proposal outline, sit down and write out the specific aims that you hope to accomplish with this project. Use this process to jot down all of your ideas for the project, without regard to budget or other factors. Limit yourself to no more than 2 pages.

Then read the NIH instructions for the Specific Aims section:

• State concisely the goals of the proposed research and summarize the expected outcome(s), including the impact that the results of the proposed research will exert on the research field(s) involved.
• List succinctly the specific objectives of the research proposed, e.g., to test a stated hypothesis, create a novel design, solve a specific problem, challenge an existing paradigm or clinical practice, address a critical barrier to progress in the field, or develop new technology.
• Specific Aims are limited to one page.

Now look at your page again. How many aims have you proposed? Ideally, they should be narrowed down to no more than a handful, depending on the type and duration of project. There is a reason that NIH does not want to see more than a page worth of aims- one major complaint of reviewers is that some proposals attempt to do too much! Look at the ideas you have written down and determine which few are reasonable to expect to complete in your project's time period. Remember to focus on aims that are innovative but achievable.

Once you have completed a draft of your aims, be sure to discuss it with your collaborators and any experienced individuals in your field who may be willing to help. When you have something narrowed down that you are relatively happy with, I highly recommend talking to an NIH program officer. Typically an RFA has a contact person listed, and that may be a good place to start. If you know which institute or center your proposal will be likely to be assigned to, it can be very helpful to talk to someone there. All of the institutes and centers have websites that include contact information.

Advice from NINDS on writing your research plan

One great resource that I recommend reading is "How to Write a Research Project Grant Application", written by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. While some of the content in NINDS-specific, the page contains quite a bit of informaiton that can be generalized to all research proposals. For example, it provides suggestions on developing your hypothesis, including emphasizing that your hypothesis should be stated in both your abstract and your specific aims.

A word of caution- the site has not yet been updated to reflect the revised research plan guidelines. It still contains sections A through E, which are holdovers from previous requirements. However, some of the advice on getting started is still relevant and very useful.