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!

Addressing Rigor and Reproducibility in NIH Grant Applications

If you are writing your first NIH R01 proposal for the upcoming deadline, chances are that a well-meaning senior faculty member has given you a copy of one of their funded grants to use as a model for developing your application. This is a kind gesture that can be helpful for those who would like to see an example of a well-explained scientific plan, so I do recommend that you accept these types of offers. However, things change quickly in the grants world. If you follow a previously funded grant as a guide without reading the updated application instructions, you might miss key information or include outdated sections.

For example, there was a brief period of time back in the mid-2010s when Scientific Premise was a required component of the application. However, this terminology changed with a 2019 update that changed the requirement from Scientific Premise to Rigor and Reproducibility. Per policy, most research grants and career development awards submitted for January 25, 2016 and beyond as well as training grants and fellowships as of May 25, 2020 and beyond must address specific aspects of rigor and reproducibility in the text of their application.

Addressing rigor and reproducibility in your grant proposal requires addressing four key areas:

1. The rigor of the prior research. 
• Provide a careful assessment of the rigor of the prior research that helps to identify weakness or gaps in a line of research to provide support for the proposed project. Describe general strengths and weaknesses in the rigor of the prior research that lays the groundwork for the proposed project. Critique the rigor of previous experimental designs, incorporation of relevant biological variables, and authentication of key resources. Describe your plans to address any weaknesses or gaps.
2. Rigorous experimental design for robust and unbiased results. 
• NIH defines scientific rigor as "the strict application of the scientific method to ensure robust and unbiased experimental design, methodology, analysis, interpretation and reporting of results". Clearly state planned experimental details to enable reviewers to assess the proposed research. Enough detail should be provided that other researchers can reproduce and extend the findings.
3. Consideration of relevant biological variables.
• Describe the extent to which biological variables including sex, age, weight, and underlying health conditions will be factored into study design and analyses. In particular, provide strong justification for studies proposing to study only one sex, including animal studies.
4. Authentication of key biological and/or chemical resources.
• Key biological and/or chemical resources such as cell lines, specialty chemicals, antibodies and other biologics should be clearly described. Include the origin of each resource and any steps to ensure quality of the resources that will be used for the project.

As you work to complete your application, be sure to leave time for a final read-through and make sure you address each of these components.

Should I include images on my Specific Aims page?

As you work toward your next NIH grant application deadline, like many others you are probably painstakingly working to construct a Specific Aims page that will convey the importance of your work and excite the reviewers. You may even be wondering whether it would help your Aims page stand out if you include a figure on the page. If you are thinking of including any graphics on your Specific Aims page, there are several factors to consider.

First and foremost, there is a lot of information to cover on a Specific Aims page. You will need to clearly state the problem to be solved by your work, potential impact of the project, briefly summarize your preliminary data, and describe your overall objective, hypothesis, aims, and future directions. All of this needs to be packed into 1 page! Despite advice from well-meaning colleagues, the solution to meeting the page limit is not to condense your font spacing and remove spacing between paragraphs - this will only serve to make your text dense and difficult to read, potentially annoying the reviewers.

Sure, figures can be used in some cases to save space. However, for the Specific Aims page you are better served focusing on writing clearly and concisely, in a manner that is visually appealing, so the reviewers can quickly read the page and understand the key elements of your project. A summary figure that shows your project plan can be included at the end of the Significance section of your proposal. Images of preliminary data should be included in the Preliminary Data section of your Approach. This allows the figures to be placed in more detailed context and will maximize their impact. Just like overusing bold or underlined text, poorly placed figures can lose their effectiveness if not used appropriately.

As with all things grant related, there are exceptions. You may know someone with a funded proposal that included a figure on the Specific Aims page. However, I highly recommend keeping the aims page simple to enable reviewers to quickly read and understand your project without having to interpret a figure.

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!

Have you heard about the new PubMed?

The National Library of Medicine recently announced the launch of a new PubMed, with many changes and new features to enhance the user experience. View the updated user guide to explore the new functionality, such as the ability to easily set up alerts for saved searches.

Visit this link to view an informative presentation about the newly redesigned PubMed.  Although the talk was designed for librarians and other information professionals, much of the content is quite useful.

Great advice from NIAID: Name-Dropping Does Not Impress Peer Reviewers

I just came across a fantastic and much-needed article from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).  The article, located at this link, is titled "Name-Dropping Does Not Impress Peer Reviewers".  This is important advice that all applicants, and especially junior faculty, should follow.  When it comes to peer review, a big name is not going to save a poorly planned project or a sloppily written proposal.  In fact, naming individuals who are not investigators on your particular project may introduce unnecessary bias to the review process.  Stick to describing your team for the current project and leave the extraneous names out of it!

New NIH human subjects requirements will encourage you to befriend statisticians

As if data science experts couldn't get any more valuable, NIH has given us one more reason to bestow chocolate, baked goods, lunches, and other gifts upon our statistician colleagues in order to remain at the top of their long lists of priorities. The new Statistical Design and Power attachment is required for NIH applications that propose a clinical trial.  In this section, you must include statistical power calculations and analysis plans for each Outcome Measure listed in the fields in section 4.3 of the human subjects form.

The Statistical Design and Power attachment must include the following for each outcome measure:

• number of subjects you expect to enroll
• expected effect size
• power
• statistical methods to be used

As you can imagine, it is virtually impossible to write this section well without the full involvement of a qualified statistician. Yes, much of this information will duplication what is included in the Approach section of your Research Strategy, but the attachment requires a more in-depth level of detailed explanation than is often included in the text due to space constraints. 

Sample R03 proposal

The June 5th R01 deadline is technically extended to tomorrow because it falls on the weekend.  For those of you preparing for other upcoming June NIH grant proposal deadlines, this sample R03 application may be useful.  Or, you may want to review several examples of successful R21 proposals located here.

NIAID provides questions to ask yourself when writing your aims

On this page, NIAID provides helpful information regarding proposal design, including crafting your aims.  A great list of questions to ask yourself after writing the first draft of your aims includes:

1. My reviewers would see my aims as tackling an important problem in a significant field.
2. They would view my aims as being innovative, but not too innovative.
3. My Specific Aims can test my hypothesis (or hypotheses).
4. They are doable within the grant period I am requesting.
5. The aims and hypothesis (or hypotheses) are concrete and well-focused.
6. I can define endpoints my peer reviewers will be able to assess.

For more helpful tips, view the NIAID NIH grant writing tutorials.

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

Oh no! I am over the page limit! Help!

Are you struggling to cut from 7 pages down to 6? Have you read your research plan 10 times, trying desperately to figure out how and where to cut? Don't panic. Take a deep breath, minimize your Word document on your screen, and trying goofing off for 5 minutes. (Yes, I am suggesting that you procrastinate in order to get your work done!)
First, what not to do. Do not start to think you are a Microsoft Word Master of the Universe. Any trick you can think of- shrinking margins to 0.495, shrinking text to 10.9, decreasing spacing so that lines are almost on top of each other- has already been tried and denied. Second, do not start deleting important pieces of your application just to save space. Third, and perhaps most important, do not start cutting from your research plan and trying to put the text in your Resources section or Appendix. (NIH recently announced that they are cracking down on this practice too.)

So, what's an aspiring scientist to do? Fortunately, there are methods of shortening your research strategy section that do follow NIH rules. Here are some options:

1. Tables and Charts are your friend. There are no text size requirements for tables and charts, as long as they are clear and legible. Have a long list of information? Try turning it into a table to save some space.




2. Check your text wrapping on tables, charts, and images. In many cases you can wrap text to one side or another of a graphic and create more space. Just remember to keep your image/table/chart together with the paragraph that references it. It will make it easier for reviewers to follow.




3. Using Track Changes and a thesaurus, attack your document from an editor's perspective. Rather than looking for content to remove, look for places where you may have a description that is very wordy, or may be able to convey the same message using shorter words or phrases.

If all else fails, talk to a seasoned proposal assistant or research administrator at your institution. An experienced person may be able to take a look and offer more advice on cutting. Don't have one? Email me at grantpwriter "AT" (replace with @) gmail.com and we can see if there is a way for me to help.

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