The Editors' Weekly
Official blog of Canada's national editorial association
The Editors' Weekly
Navigation
  • About the Blog
  • Contact Us
  • Articles en français
  • editors.ca
  • reviseurs.ca
You are here: Home › Letitia Henville › Top Three Fixes for Academic Research Grant Applications
← Empirical Editors: Curse of Knowledge
Special Feature: Keep Busy While Self-Isolating →

Top Three Fixes for Academic Research Grant Applications

March 24, 2020 | Filed under: Letitia Henville and tagged with: academic editor, academic grants, academic research, funding, grant applications, grant proposals, grant writing, grants facilitator, Letitia Henville

As a former in-house grants facilitator in a small health sciences department, and now as a freelance academic editor, I see a lot of the same issues recurring in applications for academic research funding. If I only had an hour or two to review a grant, these are the top three things I’d be looking to fix:

Academic Research Grants
Muhammad Ribkhan © 123RF.com
  1. Background at the beginning
    Researchers will often start their applications by telling you why their work is important: X number of people have Y diagnosis; funding for Z has been increasing for Q years without evidence of any impact; vulnerable population P is unconsidered in field F.

    This kind of information is helpful, but it doesn’t belong at the top of the application, because the reviewer will have no context through which to understand it. Should a reader be paying attention to the X or the Y, the Z or the Q, the P or the F, or some implicit underlying A or B?

    I put these background details second, after one to three sentences on what the researcher is going to do and why. A high-level overview of the proposed project — its goal, intervention, output, or some-such — will provide the reviewer with a frame through which they can view the background information that follows.

  2. Lack of internal alignment
    A grant application will often have passed through multiple sets of hands by the time it gets to my desk. All these different tinkerers can shift the timeline, budget, or research plan so they’re no longer in alignment. Maybe the body of the draft refers to Stages 1 through 4, but the timeline is divided into “recruitment,” “data collection,” and “analysis.” Perhaps the budget doesn’t have money allocated for knowledge translation activities.

    I work to make sure these different components align, and when there’s a mismatch that I can’t figure out how to fix, I flag it for the principal investigator to review. When an application isn’t internally aligned, that can sink its feasibility score at the review stage.

  3. Surprisingly niche jargon
    There’s some early evidence to suggest that the use of jargon is correlated with success in National Science Foundation funding in the U.S. (see Markowitz 2019). I don’t cut jargon — but I do eye it with caution.

When I encounter jargon terms I’m not familiar with, I look them up in Google Scholar. If they have never appeared in any publication other than those written by the principal investigator, then I’ve got a term that needs to be dealt with. If it’s possible for me to include a photo or illustration to explain the term, that’s ideal; if not, I fill my definition with concrete terms that enable the reader to picture the concept in their mind’s eye (for an example, see “Being Understood Outside of Your Discipline,” my Ask Dr. Editor column from May 2019).

These issues are just three of the many things to look for when editing in this niche genre — but in my experience, they’re big-bang-for-buck changes that can make a significant difference for reviewers.

___

Previous post from Letitia Henville: Introducing Editor and Poet Margo LaPierre

The Editors’ Weekly is the official blog of Editors Canada. Contact us.

Did you like this article? Share it with your friends!

Tweet
Letitia Henville

Written by Letitia Henville

Letitia Henville is a freelance academic editor and the advice columnist behind "Ask Dr. Editor," published monthly at University Affairs.

Visit my Website Follow me on Twitter
← Empirical Editors: Curse of Knowledge
Special Feature: Keep Busy While Self-Isolating →

3 Responses to "Top Three Fixes for Academic Research Grant Applications"

  1. Anita Jenkins says:
    March 24, 2020 at 7:33 am

    Thank you. I just sent this article to an organization I know that is applying for grants. Not academic or scientific, but I think the tips still apply.

  2. Lin Gibson says:
    March 24, 2020 at 11:15 am

    May I share this with my clients?

    1. Letitia Henville says:
      March 24, 2020 at 11:26 am

      Yes, of course! I’m happy for this information to be disseminated. Those who like this piece may also be interested in my column: https://www.universityaffairs.ca/career-advice/ask-dr-editor/

Comments are closed.

What we’re talking about

Aaron Dalton author-editor relationship authors book editors book publishing business practices communication copy editing editing editing tools editor editor's role editor advice editorial skills editors editors at work Editors Canada conference français freelance editing freelance editors freelancing French grammar interview James Harbeck language linguistics Linguistics Frankly Marianne Grier marketing networking plain language professional development proofreading publishing Rosemary Shipton révision style translation usage Wasted Words Wilf Popoff word choice writers writing

Email subscriptions

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,041 other subscribers

Most recent posts

  • “Brag docs”: An Aide-mémoire
  • Resumé Writing vs. Resumé Editing: What Do Resumé Writers Do?
  • Happy Holidays 2022
  • Freelance Tips from an Editor with ADHD, Part 1
  • Combining Careers, Part 1: Vocational Discernment

Archives by month

By author

Follow Us Online

Facebook  Twitter  Flickr  RSS Feed

www.editors.ca

The Editors' Weekly is the blog of Editors Canada.

Report an error or a typo

Email us at blog [at] editors.ca

© 2023 The Editors' Weekly

Powered by One Designs