Moving from Excellent (2.0) to Outstanding (1.0)
Confessions and Obsessions of a Member of a Study Section
Judith M. Ford
Psychiatry Department
Yale University School of Medicine
My own perspective as a reviewer
Reviewing grant proposals is difficult and extremely time-consuming.
Your proposal will be read by 3 people, some of whom may be only relatively familiar with your topic.
They are your advocates before the committee.
Make them like you.
Help them understand what you propose.
Don't annoy them with inconsistencies, typos, errors, arrogance, narrow margins and a small font.
Before you start to write
Pick a topic that you can "pitch" in 30 seconds or less.
The primary reviewer of your proposal has only a few minutes to make that same pitch to the committee.
The primary reviewer of your proposal might say something like this:
"This is a proposal by an established team to test the hypothesis that a dysfunction in the corollary discharge mechanism underlies auditory hallucinations. The corollary discharge is a mechanism by which sensory perception is reduced when sensation results from self-generated actions. The PI proposes to collect ERP and fMRI data while subjects hear speech that they produce as they speak, that they deliver themselves by pressing a button, and that follows a visual cue. The PI has published data showing that sensation is reduced to self-produced speech in normal controls, but not in patients with schizophrenia. Thy propose to also collect DTI data to allow assessment of fiber tract integrity between speech production and perception areas of the brain. As such, this is an important extension of the previous work………"
Title and Abstract
It needs to communicate clearly what you propose to do.
It may determine which study section it will go to.
It may determine who is asked to review your proposal.
Reviewers will rely heavily on the abstract when providing a summary in front of the committee.

下一页