tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post671097152042173026..comments2024-03-14T04:53:49.513-05:00Comments on FemaleScienceProfessor: Proposal ExcellenzzzzzzzzzFemale Science Professorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15288567883197987690noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-11317860152127325962012-03-26T12:59:25.010-05:002012-03-26T12:59:25.010-05:00how to write a good proposal for NSF ? would you b...how to write a good proposal for NSF ? would you be kind to tell us ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-11852603953716584632012-03-21T00:08:27.337-05:002012-03-21T00:08:27.337-05:00ps (I'm anonymous 3/20/2012 06:19:00 AM again)...ps (I'm anonymous 3/20/2012 06:19:00 AM again)<br /><br />The best proposal writing advice I ever got was from a senior person in my field at a Gordon conference. He told me to assume that the person reading my proposal is on a plane to Washington DC with a stack of 20 other proposals he has to read while flying coach to get to the panel. Why? Well, because the person reading my proposal was on a plane to Washington DC with a stack of 20 other proposals he has to read while flying coach to get to the panel!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-83491624150450710042012-03-20T17:28:09.875-05:002012-03-20T17:28:09.875-05:00When I review proposals I am conscious of trying t...When I review proposals I am conscious of trying to review the science and not the writing. But in almost every case, a poorly written proposal makes it impossible to tell if the proposer understands what they are doing. If they don't clearly explain the proposed work and potential stumbling blocks, I cannot tell if they wrote poorly or they really do not understand what they are proposing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-27844932904419013922012-03-20T16:16:33.908-05:002012-03-20T16:16:33.908-05:00No one has mentioned this explicitly, but I believ...No one has mentioned this explicitly, but I believe that being a good scientist includes being able to communicate research findings effectively in a variety of settings (e.g., scientific forums, colleagues, and the general public). If one cannot communicate research results, then the research is essentially worthless. If a research proposal is poorly written, then I think it's fair to question whether results will be effectively communicated. That said, I do think most of us (particularly early-stage investigators) could use more training/guidance on grant and other scientific writing. Unfortunately, such training is usually secondary to our scientific training.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-2645364219680563342012-03-20T06:19:34.821-05:002012-03-20T06:19:34.821-05:00As someone who has written both terrible and good ...As someone who has written both terrible and good proposals (I think they were bad because the reviewers said they were poorly written and they were good because they ended up getting funded), and as someone who teaches scientific writing regularly, I wholly disagree with Anonymous (3/19/2012 10:27:00 AM). The whole point of a proposal is to convince the reviewers and panel that your science is worth funding. Yes, bad writing will sink good science. I torpedoed a proposal 2 months ago because I just. couldn't. bring. myself. to. care. about it. The science was actually somewhat interesting, but it was so poorly described that I just didn't care. In my review, I said as much. I think you owe it to the writer to give them the reasons why the proposal was rejected. Papers will be rejected for bad writing (some of mine, even, gasp!) even if the science is good. <br /><br />On the other hand, when a proposal comes across my screen that is well written (I am thinking of two people in my field in particular whose proposals and papers I've reviewed before, and they are just so well written) then it is SO MUCH easier to write a positive review. Will good writing save bad science? No, I don't think it should. Should good writing move a proposal above another of "equal scientific merit" (whatever that means)? Yes, it should, and does.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-26348871283265325822012-03-19T22:34:26.537-05:002012-03-19T22:34:26.537-05:00A major factor in my boredom-exhaustion level when...A major factor in my boredom-exhaustion level when reviewing proposals has to do with the level of detail given in the proposal. Some people fill their proposals with a lot of unnecessary detail, even starting with this before explaining why this information is presented. Some detail is necessary to show that you know what you are doing, but above a certain level (10+ pages), it just seems like filling space for the sake of filling it. Does this particularly afflict those who are method-driven? I just reviewed a proposal that read like "I have this big machine so I am going to use it, and now I am going to spend 12 pages telling you how the machine works and everything I have ever done with the machine before briefly mentioning some new stuff I'd like to do."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-67971757810295478992012-03-19T22:16:28.787-05:002012-03-19T22:16:28.787-05:00One of the most helpful things I learned from a gr...One of the most helpful things I learned from a grant-writing workshop I attended was the phrase "the tired reviewer". The readability of a grant is totally fair game when assessing it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-391122880776558152012-03-19T21:23:34.086-05:002012-03-19T21:23:34.086-05:00@Anon 09:21 -- Everyone can and should get "o...@Anon 09:21 -- Everyone can and should get "outside help" with proposals, especially early career folks. There is absolutely no substitute for having 2 - 3 colleagues critique your drafts. And the panels would be grateful, too!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-49864587677794560402012-03-19T20:51:53.945-05:002012-03-19T20:51:53.945-05:00"can I assume that the dense, complicated, no..."can I assume that the dense, complicated, non-linear, dry presentation of the proposed work is an indication of how the research itself will be undertaken, understood, and communicated" --I think not, but this seems like a good empirical question. Take some grants that were near the borderline score but funded ~5 years ago, ask some people to rate the clarity of the proposals, and ask some other people to rate the science that came out.Morgan Pricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09605746270741576772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-53671604319139943642012-03-19T17:35:23.373-05:002012-03-19T17:35:23.373-05:00I think how forgiving reviewers and panels are of ...I think how forgiving reviewers and panels are of shoddily written proposals depends on the panel and the general community, but also what is being proposed. You know what they say "If you have something very important to say, it doesn't matter how you say it; if you have nothing important to say, you'd better say it well." In other words, if the proposed work is really head-and-shoulders above the rest in terms of idea, creativity, how transformative it is ("transformative" is the NSF word du jour), then yeah it probably doesn't matter if it's not well written. But I have never come across one that is so much better than the rest that nothing else matters. So, for mortals who propose good, doable work, it is very important that it be well written.GMPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17872461021953583473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-951190324516685362012-03-19T12:48:39.856-05:002012-03-19T12:48:39.856-05:00As a graduating undergrad this week, I'd be in...As a graduating undergrad this week, I'd be interested if you had specific examples of a "good" proposal in mind that you could cite publicly.Kenneth Finneganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09597995268728038585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-14189534835242292942012-03-19T11:34:27.830-05:002012-03-19T11:34:27.830-05:00I agree and I apply the same criteria for evaluati...I agree and I apply the same criteria for evaluation to papers that I referee.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-8807523903990063932012-03-19T10:27:56.376-05:002012-03-19T10:27:56.376-05:00In my opinion, a proposal should be judged based o...In my opinion, a proposal should be judged based on its merit, and not on its communication. Some people are definitely worse than others when it comes to communication, and I feel they should not be penalized for it. After all, their primary job is doing the work.<br /><br />That being said, it can be incredibly painful to read a poorly written proposal, and the reviewer doesn't deserved to be treated so badly. I feel this is a fixable problem. One way is for departments to devote resources to review and improve PIs proposals. This will also help PIs (particularly early career) get better with their proposal writing skills. <br /><br />Another possibility is for funding agencies to warn PIs who submit good but unreadable proposals to improve their writing skills. While a poorly written proposal (with sound methods) can be tolerated once, this should not be a recurring phenomenon. If a PI who has been warned does submit another poorly written proposal, penalize the rating on that proposal because of poor writing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-12374931180067848082012-03-19T09:21:01.722-05:002012-03-19T09:21:01.722-05:00FSP - I hope you at least explain in your review (...FSP - I hope you at least explain in your review (very clearly without committing the same mistakes as the applicant) that it was difficult for you to see the significance of the work and that in future proposals, the applicant needs to make this more clear from the get-go. I think I was guilty of this in my first grant proposals, but the reviewers seemed to nitpick at other things which did NOT make sense to me. In response, I felt that subsequent proposals were written defensively, were likely even more confusing, and never resolved the original problem. It wasn't until I got outside help that I was able to write a clear proposal that did get funded.<br /><br />I think I would have suffered a lot less (as well as subsequent reviewers) if original reviewers had provided sincere advice and suggestions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-24473215513536669332012-03-19T06:37:33.554-05:002012-03-19T06:37:33.554-05:00I didn't have to connect the dots for the prop...I didn't have to connect the dots for the proposers; that would be a different scenario than the one I described.<br /><br />In this case, the proposal writers did a terrible job of explaining/highlighting what was important. They wrote a lot of empty phrases like "We are going to do important things" on the first page or two, and then buried the real significance later in the proposal.Female Science Professorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15288567883197987690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-52616185229850336512012-03-19T06:09:32.670-05:002012-03-19T06:09:32.670-05:00It is not the reviewer's job to convince the r...It is not the reviewer's job to convince the reviewer that the proposed work is worth expending scarce resources on. That is the job of the proposer.<br /><br />Too often reviewers and panels forget that.<br /><br />Eli has provided reviews which go something like, IF professor X had realized Y and Z and explained A B and C this would have been a much better proposal, however, this being not the case, the proposal is somewhere between good and very good.<br /><br />Somewhat the equivalent of the review reading if I had written this damn thing it would have been higher rated.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29059245.post-74122679185041448042012-03-19T06:08:15.094-05:002012-03-19T06:08:15.094-05:00Sounds quite like the NSF proposal I just read. T...Sounds quite like the NSF proposal I just read. The methods were solid and the data produced would be interesting, but the proposal was a huge slog (typos, sentence fragments, weird structure, odd claims of importance), and I wasn't convinced that the PIs knew what to do with the data (how to interpret it). I only gave it a Good.SocSciProfnoreply@blogger.com