Facebook Twitter LinkedIn


> Sneak Peek: Table of Contents

> Sneak Peek: Study Section Insider: 5 Common Mistakes That Will Sink Your Grant

Grant money is the life-blood of your research survival

What if you had access to a network of grant experts the next time you are working on your application? Most likely, you'd significantly increase your chances of getting approved.

What if you had decades of experience guiding you through the process? You could avoid many of the mistakes other less experienced principal investigators are making in their proposals.

80% of NIH grant applications don't get funded

In the competitive world of federal funding, getting your research grant into the winner's circle is getting tougher. This is your chance to get an incredible collection of informative articles to help you better understand - and make the most of - your grant application and award.

Expert advice on winning NIH grants

"Winning Your NIH Research Grant" is a collection of NIH grant articles and guides from some of the foremost experts in the country. This 140-page report from Principal Investigators Association is divided into two parts: 1.) articles on grants, reprinted from Principal Investigator Advisor monthly newsletter and 2.) reader-submitted questions on grants with expert comments from P.I. eAlert weekly eZine.

These how-to advice articles and insightful comments will give you the edge you need to win your next award, and to manage it wisely.

Don't write another word in your grant application without this unique compilation at your side. Order immediately.

Limited-Time Offer: Purchase this Special Report in digital (PDF) format at the special rate of $149 (reg. price $298). For a print version, please add $20 more.

Excerpt from "Winning Your NIH Research Grant"

Study Section Insider: 5 Common Mistakes That Will Sink Your Grant

The challenge that all reviewers face as they try to separate the outstanding from the merely good is to convert their intuitive, emotional response to a grant into a series of bullet points that encapsulate the proposal’s strengths and weaknesses. Over the years I’ve been writing my own reviews and listening to other panelists at review meetings, I’ve come to appreciate that grants that score poorly appear to share one or more of a common set of flaws. Avoiding these pitfalls, and appreciating the issues that frequently diminish reviewer enthusiasm, should help you to write a better grant.

  1. The reviewers did not find your central scientific question interesting.
  2. The preliminary data are weak, and call into question the feasibility of the proposal and the validity of your central hypothesis.
  3. The proverbial house of cards: the overall success of the grant depends on the outcome of a key experiment, which has yet to be performed.
  4. The scope of the project is too ambitious, with multiple hypotheses or rationales that pull the grant in disparate directions.
  5. The PI and/or research team lacks the experience to carry out the proposed work.

Read this complete 3-page article with expanded information in "Winning Your NIH Research Grant"

This manual is brought to you as a training tool by the Principal Investigators Association, which is an independent organization. Neither the manual nor its contents have any connection with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), nor are they endorsed by this agency. All views expressed are those personally held by the author and are not official government policies or opinions.