sample research grant proposal pdf

ANNOTATED SAMPLE GRANT PROPOSALS

How to Use Annotated Sample Grants

Are these real grants written by real students.

Yes! While each proposal represents a successfully funded application, there are two things to keep in mind: 1) The proposals below are  final products;  no student started out with a polished proposal. The proposal writing process requires stages of editing while a student formulates their project and works on best representing that project in writing. 2) The samples reflect a wide range of project types, but  they are not exhaustive . URGs can be on any topic in any field, but all must make a successful argument for why their project should be done/can be done by the person proposing to do it.  See our proposal writing guides for more advice. The best way to utilize these proposals is to pay attention to the  proposal strengths  and  areas for improvement  on each cover page to guide your reading.

How do I decide which sample grants to read?

When students first look through the database, they are usually compelled to read an example from their major (Therefore, we often hear complaints that there is not a sample proposal for every major). However, this is not the best approach because there can be many different kinds of methodologies within a single subject area, and similar research methods can be used across fields.

• Read through the Methodology Definitions and Proposal Features  to identify which methodolog(ies) are most similar to your proposed project. 
• Use the Annotated Sample Grant Database ( scroll below the definitions and features) filters or search for this methodology to identify relevant proposals and begin reading!

It does not matter whether the samples you read are summer grants (SURGs) or academic year grants (AYURGs).  The main difference between the two grant types is that academic year proposals (AYURG) require a budget to explain how the $1,000 will be used towards research materials, while summer proposals (SURG) do not require a budget (the money is a living stipend that goes directly to the student awardee) and SURGs have a bigger project scope since they reflect a project that will take 8 weeks of full time research to complete.  The overall format and style is the same across both grant cycles, so they are relevant examples for you to review, regardless of which grant cycle you are planning to apply.  

How do I get my proposal to look like these sample grants?

Do not submit a first draft:  These sample proposals went through multiple rounds of revisions with feedback from both Office of Undergraduate Research advisors and the student’s faculty mentor. First, it helps to learn about grant structure and proposal writing techniques before you get started. Then, when you begin drafting, it’s normal to make lots of changes as the grant evolves. You will learn a lot about your project during the editing and revision process, and you typically end up with a better project by working through several drafts of a proposal.

Work with an advisor:  Students who work with an Office of Undergraduate Research Advisor have higher success rates than students who do not. We encourage students to meet with advisors well in advance of the deadline (and feel free to send us drafts of your proposal prior to our advising appointment, no matter how rough your draft is!), so we can help you polish and refine your proposal.

Review final proposal checklists prior to submission:  the expectation is a two-page, single-spaced research grant proposal (1″ margins, Times New Roman 12 or Arial 11), and proposals that do not meet these formatting expectations will not be considered by the review committee.  Your bibliography does not count towards this page limit.

Academic Year URG Submission Checklist

Summer URG Application Checklist

METHODOLOGY DEFINITIONS & PROPOSAL FEATURES

Research methodologies.

The proposed project involves collecting primary sources held in archives, a Special Collections library, or other repository. Archival sources might include manuscripts, documents, records, objects, sound and audiovisual materials, etc. If a student proposes a trip to collect such sources, the student should address a clear plan of what will be collected from which archives, and should address availability and access (ie these sources are not available online, and the student has permission to access the archive).

Computational/Mathematical Modeling

The proposed project involves developing models to numerically study the behavior of system(s), often through computer simulation. Students should specify what modeling tool they will be using (i.e., an off-the-shelf product, a lab-specific codebase), what experience they have with it, and what resources they have when they get stuck with the tool (especially if the advisor is not a modeler). Models often involve iterations of improvements, so much like a Design/Build project, the proposal should clearly define parameters for a “successful” model with indication of how the student will assess if the model meets these minimum qualifications.

Creative Output

The proposed project has a creative output such playwriting, play production, documentary, music composition, poetry, creative writing, or other art. Just like all other proposals, the project centers on an answerable question, and the student must show the question and method associated with the research and generation of that project. The artist also must justify their work and make an argument for why this art is needed and/or how it will add to important conversations .

Design/Build

The proposed project’s output centers around a final product or tool. The student clearly defines parameters for a “successful” project with indication of how they will assess if the product meets these minimum qualifications.

The project takes place in a lab or research group environment, though the methodology within the lab or research group vary widely by field. The project often fits within the larger goals/or project of the research group, but the proposal still has a clearly identified research question that the student is working independently to answer.

Literary/Composition Analysis

The project studies, evaluates, and interprets literature or composition. The methods are likely influenced by theory within the field of study. In the proposal, the student has clearly defined which pieces will be studied and will justify why these pieces were selected. Context will be given that provides a framework for how the pieces will be analyzed or interpreted.

Qualitative Data Analysis

The project proposes to analyze data from non-numeric information such as interview transcripts, notes, video and audio recordings, images, and text documents. The proposal clearly defines how the student will examine and interpret patterns and themes in the data and how this methodology will help to answer the defined research question.

Quantitative Data Analysis

The project proposes to analyze data from numeric sources. The proposal clearly defines variables to be compared and provides insight as to the kinds of statistical tests that will be used to evaluate the significance of the data.

The proposed project will collect data through survey(s). The proposal should clearly defined who will be asked to complete the survey, how these participants will be recruited, and/or proof of support from contacts. The proposal should include the survey(s) in an appendix. The proposal should articulate how the results from these survey(s) will be analyzed.

The proposed project will use theoretical frameworks within their proposed area of research to explain, predict, and/or challenge and extend existing knowledge. The conceptual framework serves as a lens through which the student will evaluate the research project and research question(s); it will likely contain a set of assumptions and concepts that form the basis of this lens.

Proposal Features

Group project.

A group project is proposed by two or more students; these proposals receive one additional page for each additional student beyond the two page maximum. Group projects must clearly articulate the unique role of each student researcher. While the uploaded grant proposal is the same, each student researcher must submit their own application into the system for the review.

International Travel

Projects may take place internationally. If the proposed country is not the student’s place of permanent residence, the student can additionally apply for funding to cover half the cost of an international plane ticket. Proposals with international travel should likely include travel itineraries and/or proof of support from in-country contacts in the appendix.

Non-English Language Proficiency

Projects may be conducted in a non-English language. If you have proficiency in the proposed language, you should include context (such as bilingual, heritage speaker, or by referencing coursework etc.) If you are not proficient and the project requires language proficiency, you should include a plan for translation or proof of contacts in the country who can support your research in English.

DATABASE OF ANNOTATED SAMPLE GRANTS

Research Proposal Example/Sample

Detailed Walkthrough + Free Proposal Template

If you’re getting started crafting your research proposal and are looking for a few examples of research proposals , you’ve come to the right place.

In this video, we walk you through two successful (approved) research proposals , one for a Master’s-level project, and one for a PhD-level dissertation. We also start off by unpacking our free research proposal template and discussing the four core sections of a research proposal, so that you have a clear understanding of the basics before diving into the actual proposals.

• Research proposal example/sample – Master’s-level (PDF/Word)
• Research proposal example/sample – PhD-level (PDF/Word)
• Proposal template (Fully editable) 

If you’re working on a research proposal for a dissertation or thesis, you may also find the following useful:

• Research Proposal Bootcamp : Learn how to write a research proposal as efficiently and effectively as possible
• 1:1 Proposal Coaching : Get hands-on help with your research proposal

PS – If you’re working on a dissertation, be sure to also check out our collection of dissertation and thesis examples here .

FAQ: Research Proposal Example

Research proposal example: frequently asked questions, are the sample proposals real.

Yes. The proposals are real and were approved by the respective universities.

Can I copy one of these proposals for my own research?

As we discuss in the video, every research proposal will be slightly different, depending on the university’s unique requirements, as well as the nature of the research itself. Therefore, you’ll need to tailor your research proposal to suit your specific context.

You can learn more about the basics of writing a research proposal here .

How do I get the research proposal template?

You can access our free proposal template here .

Is the proposal template really free?

Yes. There is no cost for the proposal template and you are free to use it as a foundation for your research proposal.

Where can I learn more about proposal writing?

For self-directed learners, our Research Proposal Bootcamp is a great starting point.

For students that want hands-on guidance, our private coaching service is recommended.

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Research Proposal Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

You Might Also Like:

10 Comments

I am at the stage of writing my thesis proposal for a PhD in Management at Altantic International University. I checked on the coaching services, but it indicates that it’s not available in my area. I am in South Sudan. My proposed topic is: “Leadership Behavior in Local Government Governance Ecosystem and Service Delivery Effectiveness in Post Conflict Districts of Northern Uganda”. I will appreciate your guidance and support

GRADCOCH is very grateful motivated and helpful for all students etc. it is very accorporated and provide easy access way strongly agree from GRADCOCH.

Proposal research departemet management

I am at the stage of writing my thesis proposal for a masters in Analysis of w heat commercialisation by small holders householdrs at Hawassa International University. I will appreciate your guidance and support

please provide a attractive proposal about foreign universities .It would be your highness.

comparative constitutional law

Kindly guide me through writing a good proposal on the thesis topic; Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Financial Inclusion in Nigeria. Thank you

Kindly help me write a research proposal on the topic of impacts of artisanal gold panning on the environment

I am in the process of research proposal for my Master of Art with a topic : “factors influence on first-year students’s academic adjustment”. I am absorbing in GRADCOACH and interested in such proposal sample. However, it is great for me to learn and seeking for more new updated proposal framework from GRADCAOCH.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Sample Grant Applications

On this page:

• Research Project Grants (R01): Sample Applications and Summary Statements 
• Early Career Research (ECR) R21 Awards: Sample Applications and Summary Statements 

Exploratory/Developmental Research Grant (R21) Awards: Sample Applications and Summary Statements

Preparing a stellar grant application is critical to securing research funding from NIDCD. On this page you will find examples of grant applications and summary statements from NIDCD investigators who have graciously shared their successful submissions to benefit the research community.

You can find more details about the NIDCD grants process from application to award on our  How to Apply for a Grant, Research Training, or Career Development Funding page.

For more examples of applications for research grants, small business grants, training and career awards, and cooperative agreements, please visit Sample Applications & More  on the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases website.

Always follow your funding opportunity’s specific instructions for application format. Although these samples demonstrate stellar grantsmanship, time has passed since these applications were submitted and the samples may not reflect changes in format or instructions.

The application text is copyrighted. You may use it only for nonprofit educational purposes provided the document remains unchanged and the researcher, the grantee organization, and NIDCD are all credited.

Section 508 compliance and accessibility: We have reformatted these sample applications to improve accessibility for people with disabilities and users of assistive technology. If you have trouble accessing the content, please contact the NIDCD web team .

Research Project Grants (R01): Sample Applications and Summary Statements

Investigator-initiated  Research Project Grants (R01)  make up the largest single category of support provided by NIDCD and NIH. The R01 is considered the traditional grant mechanism. These grants are awarded to organizations on behalf of an individual (a principal investigator, or PI) to facilitate pursuit of a research objective in the area of the investigator's research interests and competence.

Leora R. Cherney, Ph.D., & Allen Walter Heinemann, Ph.D., Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago

"Defining trajectories of linguistic, cognitive-communicative and quality of life outcomes in aphasia"

• Full Application (5.59MB PDF)
• Summary Statement (336KB PDF)

Robert C. Froemke, Ph.D., New York University Grossman School of Medicine

“Synaptic basis of perceptual learning in primary auditory cortex”

• Full Application (5.3MB PDF)
• Summary Statement (608KB PDF)

Rene H. Gifford, Ph.D., & Stephen Mark Camarata, Ph.D., Vanderbilt University Medical Center

"Image-guided cochlear implant programming: Pediatric speech, language, and literacy"

• Full Application (9.63MB PDF)
• Summary Statement (485KB PDF)

Stavros Lomvardas, Ph.D., Columbia University Health Sciences

"Principles of zonal olfactory receptor gene expression"

• Full Application (6.37MB PDF)
• Summary Statement (183KB PDF)

Christopher Shera, Ph.D., University of Southern California

"Understanding otoacoustic emissions"

• Full Application (6.9MB PDF)
• Summary Statement (447KB PDF)

Early Career Research (ECR) R21 Awards: Sample Applications and Summary Statements

The NIDCD Early Career Research (ECR) R21 Award supports both basic and clinical research from scientists who are beginning to establish an independent research career. The research must be focused on one or more of NIDCD's  scientific mission areas . The NIDCD ECR Award R21 supports projects including secondary analysis of existing data; small, self-contained research projects; development of research methodology; translational research; outcomes research; and development of new research technology. The intent of the NIDCD ECR Award R21 is for the program director(s)/principal investigator(s) to obtain sufficient preliminary data for a subsequent R01 application.

Ho Ming Chow, Ph.D., University of Delaware

“Neural markers of persistence and recovery from childhood stuttering: An fMRI study of continuous speech production”

• Full Application (7.64MB PDF)
• Summary Statement (736KB PDF)

Brian B. Monson, Ph.D., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

"Auditory experience during the prenatal and perinatal period"

• Full Application (3.74MB PDF)
• Summary Statement (525KB PDF)

Elizabeth A. Walker, Ph.D., University of Iowa

“Mechanisms of listening effort in school age children who are hard of hearing”

• Full Application (10.2MB PDF)
• Summary Statement (622KB PDF)

The NIH Exploratory/Developmental Research R21 grant mechanism encourages exploratory and developmental research by providing support for the early and conceptual stages of project development. NIH has standardized the Exploratory/Developmental Grant (R21) application characteristics, requirements, preparation, and review procedures in order to accommodate investigator-initiated (unsolicited) grant applications. Projects should be distinct from those supported through the traditional R01 mechanism. The NIH Grants & Funding website explains the scope of this program .

Taylor Abel, M.D., University of Pittsburgh, & Lori Holt, Ph.D., University of Texas at Austin

“Flexible representation of speech in the supratemporal plane”

• Full Application (11.5MB PDF)
• Summary Statement (1.01MB PDF)

Melissa L. Anderson, Ph.D., MSCI, UMass Chan Medical School

“Deaf ACCESS: Adapting Consent through Community Engagement and State-of-the-art Simulation”

• Full Application (1.34MB PDF)
• Summary Statement (354KB PDF)

Lynnette McCluskey, Ph.D., Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University

“Ace2 in the healthy and inflamed taste system”

• Full Application (6.05MB PDF)

Benjamin R. Munson, Ph.D., University of Minnesota

“Race, ethnicity, and speech intelligibility in normal hearing and hearing impairment”

• Full Application (1.35MB PDF)
• Summary Statement (378KB PDF)

(link is external) .

• About Grants
• How to Apply - Application Guide

Samples: Applications, Attachments, and Other Documents

As you learn about grantsmanship and write your own applications and progress reports, examples of how others presented their ideas can help. NIH also provides attachment format examples, sample language, and more resources below.

On This Page:

Sample Grant Applications

Nih formats, sample language, and other examples.

With the gracious permission of successful investigators, some NIH institutes have provided samples of funded applications, summary statements, and more. When referencing these examples, it is important to remember:

• The applications below used the form version and instructions that were in effect at the time of their submission. Forms and instructions change regularly. Read and carefully follow the instructions in your chosen funding opportunity and the Application Guide .
• The best way to present your science may differ substantially from the approaches used in these examples. Seek feedback on your draft application from mentors and others.
• Talk to an NIH program officer in your area of science for advice about which grant program would be a good fit for you and the Institute or Center that might be interested in your idea.
• Samples are not available for all grant programs. Because many programs have common elements, the available samples can still provide helpful information and demonstrate effective ways to present information.

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)

• Sample Applications and Summary Statements (R01, R03, R15, R21, R33, U01, SBIR, STTR, G11, K, and F)
• NIAID Sample Forms, Plans, Letters, Emails, and More

National Cancer Institute (NCI)

• Behavioral Research Grant Applications (R01, R21, R03)
• Cancer Epidemiology Grant Applications (R01, R21, R03, R37)
• Cancer Control and Population Sciences Grant Applications (R01, R21, R37)
• Healthcare Delivery Research Grant Applications (R01, R03, R21, R50)

National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI)

• ELSI Applications and Summary Statements and biosketches (K99/R00, K01, R01, R03, and R21)
• NHGRI Sample Consent Forms

National Institute on Aging (NIA)

• K99/R00: Pathway to Independence Awards Sample Applications
• NIA Small Business Sample Applications (SBIR and STTR Phase 1, Phase 2, and Fast-Track)

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD)

• Research Project Grants (R01) Sample Applications and Summary Statements
• Early Career Research (ECR) R21 Sample Applications and Summary Statements
• Exploratory/Developmental Research Grant (R21) Sample Applications and Summary Statements

NIH provides additional examples of completed forms, templates, plans, and other sample language for reference. Your chosen approach must follow the instructions in your funding opportunity and the Application Guide .

• Application Format Pages
• Annotated Form Sets
• Animal Document Samples from Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW) for animal welfare assurances, study proposals, Memorandum of Understanding , and more
• Allowable Appendix Materials Examples
• Authentication of Key Biological and/or Chemical Resources Plan Examples
• Biosketch Format Pages, Instructions, and Samples
• Data Management and Sharing (DMS) Plan Samples
• Informed Consent Example for Certificates of Confidentiality
• Informed Consent Sample Language for secondary research with data and biospecimens and for genomic research
• Model Organism Sharing Plans
• Multiple PI Leadership Plan Examples
• Other Support format page, samples, and instructions
• Scientific Rigor Examples
• Person Months FAQ with example calculations
• Plain Language Examples for application title, abstract, and public health relevance statements
• Project Outcome Description Examples for interim or final Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR)

This page last updated on: February 7, 2024

• Bookmark & Share
• E-mail Updates
• Help Downloading Files
• Privacy Notice
• Accessibility
• National Institutes of Health (NIH), 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20892
• NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health

• Privacy Policy

Home » Grant Proposal – Example, Template and Guide

Grant Proposal – Example, Template and Guide

Table of Contents

Grant Proposal

Grant Proposal is a written document that outlines a request for funding from a grant-making organization, such as a government agency, foundation, or private donor. The purpose of a grant proposal is to present a compelling case for why an individual, organization, or project deserves financial support.

Grant Proposal Outline

While the structure and specific sections of a grant proposal can vary depending on the funder’s requirements, here is a common outline that you can use as a starting point for developing your grant proposal:

• Brief overview of the project and its significance.
• Summary of the funding request and project goals.
• Key highlights and anticipated outcomes.
• Background information on the issue or problem being addressed.
• Explanation of the project’s relevance and importance.
• Clear statement of the project’s objectives.
• Detailed description of the problem or need to be addressed.
• Supporting evidence and data to demonstrate the extent and impact of the problem.
• Identification of the target population or beneficiaries.
• Broad goals that describe the desired outcomes of the project.
• Specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) objectives that contribute to the goals.
• Description of the strategies, activities, and interventions to achieve the objectives.
• Explanation of the project’s implementation plan, timeline, and key milestones.
• Roles and responsibilities of project staff and partners.
• Plan for assessing the project’s effectiveness and measuring its impact.
• Description of the data collection methods, tools, and indicators used for evaluation.
• Explanation of how the results will be used to improve the project.
• Comprehensive breakdown of project expenses, including personnel, supplies, equipment, and other costs.
• Clear justification for each budget item.
• Information about any matching funds or in-kind contributions, if applicable.
• Explanation of how the project will be sustained beyond the grant period.
• Discussion of long-term funding strategies, partnerships, and community involvement.
• Description of how the project will continue to address the identified problem in the future.
• Overview of the organization’s mission, history , and track record.
• Description of the organization’s experience and qualifications related to the proposed project.
• Summary of key staff and their roles.
• Recap of the project’s goals, objectives, and anticipated outcomes.
• Appreciation for the funder’s consideration.
• Contact information for further inquiries.

Grant Proposal Template

Here is a template for a grant proposal that you can use as a starting point. Remember to customize and adapt it based on the specific requirements and guidelines provided by the funding organization.

Dear [Grant-making Organization Name],

Executive Summary:

I. Introduction:

II. Needs Assessment:

III. Goals and Objectives:

IV. Project Methods and Approach:

V. Evaluation and Monitoring:

VI. Budget:

VII. Sustainability:

VIII. Organizational Capacity and Expertise:

IX. Conclusion:

Thank you for considering our grant proposal. We believe that this project will make a significant impact and address an important need in our community. We look forward to the opportunity to discuss our proposal further.

Grant Proposal Example

Here is an example of a grant proposal to provide you with a better understanding of how it could be structured and written:

Executive Summary: We are pleased to submit this grant proposal on behalf of [Your Organization’s Name]. Our proposal seeks funding in the amount of [Requested Amount] to support our project titled [Project Title]. This project aims to address [Describe the problem or need being addressed] in [Target Location]. By implementing a comprehensive approach, we aim to achieve [State the project’s goals and anticipated outcomes].

I. Introduction: We express our gratitude for the opportunity to present this proposal to your esteemed organization. At [Your Organization’s Name], our mission is to [Describe your organization’s mission]. Through this project, we aim to make a significant impact on [Describe the issue or problem being addressed] by [Explain the significance and relevance of the project].

II. Needs Assessment: After conducting thorough research and needs assessments in [Target Location], we have identified a pressing need for [Describe the problem or need]. The lack of [Identify key issues or challenges] has resulted in [Explain the consequences and impact of the problem]. The [Describe the target population or beneficiaries] are particularly affected, and our project aims to address their specific needs.

III. Goals and Objectives: The primary goal of our project is to [State the broad goal]. To achieve this, we have outlined the following objectives:

• [Objective 1]
• [Objective 2]
• [Objective 3] [Include additional objectives as necessary]

IV. Project Methods and Approach: To address the identified needs and accomplish our objectives, we propose the following methods and approach:

• [Describe the activities and strategies to be implemented]
• [Explain the timeline and key milestones]
• [Outline the roles and responsibilities of project staff and partners]

V. Evaluation and Monitoring: We recognize the importance of assessing the effectiveness and impact of our project. Therefore, we have developed a comprehensive evaluation plan, which includes the following:

• [Describe the data collection methods and tools]
• [Identify the indicators and metrics to measure progress]
• [Explain how the results will be analyzed and utilized]

VI. Budget: We have prepared a detailed budget for the project, totaling [Total Project Budget]. The budget includes the following key components:

• Personnel: [Salary and benefits for project staff]
• Supplies and Materials: [List necessary supplies and materials]
• Equipment: [Include any required equipment]
• Training and Capacity Building: [Specify any training or workshops]
• Other Expenses: [Additional costs, such as travel, marketing, etc.]

VII. Sustainability: Ensuring the sustainability of our project beyond the grant period is of utmost importance to us. We have devised the following strategies to ensure its long-term impact:

• [Describe plans for securing future funding]
• [Explain partnerships and collaborations with other organizations]
• [Outline community engagement and support]

VIII. Organizational Capacity and Expertise: [Your Organization’s Name] has a proven track record in successfully implementing projects of a similar nature. Our experienced team possesses the necessary skills and expertise to carry out this project effectively. Key personnel involved in the project include [List key staff and their qualifications].

IX. Conclusion: Thank you for considering our grant proposal. We firmly believe that [Project Title] will address a critical need in [Target Location] and contribute to the well-being of the [Target Population]. We are available to provide any additional information or clarification as required. We look forward to the

opportunity to discuss our proposal further and demonstrate the potential impact of this project.

Please find attached the required supporting documents, including our detailed budget, organizational information, and any additional materials that may be helpful in evaluating our proposal.

Thank you once again for considering our grant proposal. We appreciate your dedication to supporting projects that create positive change in our community. We eagerly await your response and the possibility of partnering with your esteemed organization to make a meaningful difference.

• Detailed Budget
• Organizational Information
• Additional Supporting Documents]

Grant Proposal Writing Guide

Writing a grant proposal can be a complex process, but with careful planning and attention to detail, you can create a compelling proposal. Here’s a step-by-step guide to help you through the grant proposal writing process:

• Carefully review the grant guidelines and requirements provided by the funding organization.
• Take note of the eligibility criteria, funding priorities, submission deadlines, and any specific instructions for the proposal.
• Familiarize yourself with the funding organization’s mission, goals, and previous projects they have supported.
• Gather relevant data, statistics, and evidence to support the need for your proposed project.
• Clearly define the problem or need your project aims to address.
• Identify the specific goals and objectives of your project.
• Consider how your project aligns with the mission and priorities of the funding organization.
• Organize your proposal by creating an outline that includes all the required sections.
• Arrange the sections logically and ensure a clear flow of ideas.
• Start with a concise and engaging executive summary to capture the reader’s attention.
• Provide a brief overview of your organization and the project.
• Present a clear and compelling case for the problem or need your project addresses.
• Use relevant data, research findings, and real-life examples to demonstrate the significance of the issue.
• Clearly articulate the overarching goals of your project.
• Define specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) objectives that align with the goals.
• Explain the strategies and activities you will implement to achieve the project objectives.
• Describe the timeline, milestones, and resources required for each activity.
• Highlight the uniqueness and innovation of your approach, if applicable.
• Outline your plan for evaluating the project’s effectiveness and measuring its impact.
• Discuss how you will collect and analyze data to assess the outcomes.
• Explain how the project will be sustained beyond the grant period, including future funding strategies and partnerships.
• Prepare a comprehensive budget that includes all the anticipated expenses and revenue sources.
• Clearly justify each budget item and ensure it aligns with the project activities and goals.
• Include a budget narrative that explains any cost assumptions or calculations.
• Review your proposal multiple times for clarity, coherence, and grammatical accuracy.
• Ensure that the proposal follows the formatting and length requirements specified by the funder.
• Consider seeking feedback from colleagues or experts in the field to improve your proposal.
• Gather all the necessary supporting documents, such as your organization’s background information, financial statements, resumes of key staff, and letters of support or partnership.
• Follow the submission instructions provided by the funding organization.
• Submit the proposal before the specified deadline, keeping in mind any additional submission requirements, such as online forms or hard copies.
• If possible, send a thank-you note or email to the funding organization for considering your proposal.
• Keep track of the notification date for the funding decision.
• In case of rejection, politely ask for feedback to improve future proposals.

Importance of Grant Proposal

Grant proposals play a crucial role in securing funding for organizations and projects. Here are some key reasons why grant proposals are important:

• Access to Funding: Grant proposals provide organizations with an opportunity to access financial resources that can support the implementation of projects and initiatives. Grants can provide the necessary funds for research, program development, capacity building, infrastructure improvement, and more.
• Project Development: Writing a grant proposal requires organizations to carefully plan and develop their projects. This process involves setting clear goals and objectives, identifying target populations, designing activities and strategies, and establishing timelines and budgets. Through this comprehensive planning process, organizations can enhance the effectiveness and impact of their projects.
• Validation and Credibility: Successfully securing a grant can enhance an organization’s credibility and reputation. It demonstrates to funders, partners, and stakeholders that the organization has a well-thought-out plan, sound management practices, and the capacity to execute projects effectively. Grant funding can provide validation for an organization’s work and attract further support.
• Increased Impact and Sustainability: Grant funding enables organizations to expand their reach and increase their impact. With financial resources, organizations can implement projects on a larger scale, reach more beneficiaries, and make a more significant difference in their communities. Additionally, grants often require organizations to consider long-term sustainability, encouraging them to develop strategies for continued project success beyond the grant period.
• Collaboration and Partnerships: Grant proposals often require organizations to form partnerships and collaborations with other entities, such as government agencies, nonprofit organizations, or community groups. These collaborations can lead to shared resources, expertise, and knowledge, fostering synergy and innovation in project implementation.
• Learning and Growth: The grant proposal writing process can be a valuable learning experience for organizations. It encourages them to conduct research, analyze data, and critically evaluate their programs and initiatives. Through this process, organizations can identify areas for improvement, refine their strategies, and strengthen their overall operations.
• Networking Opportunities: While preparing and submitting grant proposals, organizations have the opportunity to connect with funders, program officers, and other stakeholders. These connections can provide valuable networking opportunities, leading to future funding prospects, partnerships, and collaborations.

Purpose of Grant Proposal

The purpose of a grant proposal is to seek financial support from grant-making organizations or foundations for a specific project or initiative. Grant proposals serve several key purposes:

• Funding Acquisition: The primary purpose of a grant proposal is to secure funding for a project or program. Organizations rely on grants to obtain the financial resources necessary to implement and sustain their activities. Grant proposals outline the project’s goals, objectives, activities, and budget, making a compelling case for why the funding organization should invest in the proposed initiative.
• Project Planning and Development: Grant proposals require organizations to thoroughly plan and develop their projects before seeking funding. This includes clearly defining the problem or need the project aims to address, establishing measurable goals and objectives, and outlining the strategies and activities that will be implemented. Writing a grant proposal forces organizations to think critically about the project’s feasibility, anticipated outcomes, and impact.
• Communication and Persuasion: Grant proposals are persuasive documents designed to convince funding organizations that the proposed project is worthy of their investment. They must effectively communicate the organization’s mission, vision, and track record, as well as the specific problem being addressed and the potential benefits and impact of the project. Grant proposals use evidence, data, and compelling narratives to make a strong case for funding support.
• Relationship Building: Grant proposals serve as a platform for organizations to establish and strengthen relationships with funding organizations. Through the proposal, organizations introduce themselves, highlight their expertise, and demonstrate their alignment with the funding organization’s mission and priorities. A well-written grant proposal can lay the foundation for future collaborations and partnerships.
• Accountability and Evaluation: Grant proposals outline the expected outcomes, objectives, and evaluation methods for the proposed project. They establish a framework for accountability, as organizations are expected to report on their progress and outcomes if awarded the grant. Grant proposals often include plans for project evaluation and monitoring to assess the project’s effectiveness and ensure that the funding is being used appropriately.
• Sustainability and Long-Term Planning : Grant proposals often require organizations to consider the long-term sustainability of their projects beyond the grant period. This includes identifying strategies for continued funding, partnerships, and community involvement. By addressing sustainability in the proposal, organizations demonstrate their commitment to long-term impact and the responsible use of grant funds.

When to Write a Grant Proposal

Knowing when to write a grant proposal is crucial for maximizing your chances of success. Here are a few situations when it is appropriate to write a grant proposal:

• When There is a Funding Opportunity: Grants become available through various sources, including government agencies, foundations, corporations, and nonprofit organizations. Keep an eye out for grant announcements, requests for proposals (RFPs), or funding cycles that align with your organization’s mission and project goals. Once you identify a relevant funding opportunity, you can begin writing the grant proposal.
• When You Have a Well-Defined Project or Program: Before writing a grant proposal, it’s important to have a clearly defined project or program in mind. You should be able to articulate the problem or need you are addressing, the goals and objectives of your project, and the strategies and activities you plan to implement. Having a solid project plan in place will help you write a more compelling grant proposal.
• When You Have Conducted Research and Gathered Data: Grant proposals often require evidence and data to support the need for the project. Before writing the proposal, conduct thorough research to gather relevant statistics, studies, or community assessments that demonstrate the significance and urgency of the problem you aim to address. This data will strengthen your proposal and make it more persuasive.
• When You Have a Strong Organizational Profile: Funding organizations often consider the credibility and capacity of the applying organization. Before writing a grant proposal, ensure that your organization has a strong profile, including a clear mission statement, track record of accomplishments, capable staff or volunteers, and financial stability. These factors contribute to the overall credibility of your proposal.
• When You Have the Time and Resources to Dedicate to Proposal Writing: Writing a grant proposal requires time, effort, and resources. It involves conducting research, developing project plans, creating budgets, and crafting compelling narratives. Assess your organization’s capacity to commit to the grant proposal writing process. Consider the timeline, deadline, and any additional requirements specified by the funding organization before deciding to proceed.
• When You Have Identified Potential Partnerships or Collaborators: Some grant proposals may require or benefit from partnerships or collaborations with other organizations or stakeholders. If your project can be enhanced by partnering with other entities, it’s important to identify and secure these partnerships before writing the grant proposal. This demonstrates a collaborative approach and can strengthen your proposal.
• When You Are Committed to Project Evaluation and Accountability: Grant proposals often include requirements for project evaluation and reporting. If you are willing and able to commit to evaluating the project’s outcomes, tracking progress, and reporting on the use of funds, it is an appropriate time to write a grant proposal. This shows your dedication to transparency, accountability, and responsible use of grant funds.

Also see Proposal

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

How To Write A Proposal – Step By Step Guide...

How To Write A Business Proposal – Step-by-Step...

Business Proposal – Templates, Examples and Guide

How To Write A Research Proposal – Step-by-Step...

Proposal – Types, Examples, and Writing Guide

How To Write A Grant Proposal – Step-by-Step...

University of South Florida

Research and Scholarship

College of Arts and Sciences

Main Navigation

Proposal tools, proposal samples, proposal narrative samples.

• NSF BCS Human-Environment and Geographical Sciences Program

Complete Proposal Samples

• NSF Proposal (Biological Sciences - DBI)
• NSF Proposal (Geosciences - AGS)
• NSF Proposal (Geosciences - OCE)
• NSF Proposal (Geosciences - DUE - IUSE)
• NSF Proposal (Physical Sciences - DUE - IUSE)
• NSF Proposal (Social Sciences - DUE - ATE)
• NSF CAREER Proposal (Geosciences - EAR)
• NSF EAGER Proposal (Social Sciences - BCS)
• NSF EAGER Proposal (Social Sciences - HRD - Core Research)
• NSF RAPID Proposal (Geosciences - DEB)
• NIH R01 Proposal
• NIH R03 Proposal
• NIH R21 Proposal
• More NIH Proposals (nih.gov)
• NEH Proposal
• More NEH Proposal Narratives (neh.gov)
• ACLS Proposal (Philosophy)
• ACLS Proposal (History)
• ACLS Proposal (World Language)
• NASA Proposal

Cover Page Samples

Biographical sketches.

See NSF Biographical Sketches .

Facilities & Equipment Descriptions

• NSF-USF Facilities, Equipment, & Resources
• Facilities & Equipment Description 1
• Facilities & Equipment Description 2

Data Management Plans

Data Management and Open Access Storage (at USF) blurb :

A long term (indefinite) data preservation plan will be used to store the data beyond the life of the project, using Digital Commons Data, a USF Libraries supported, accessible, data management repository.

Digital Commons Data adheres to FAIR principles of Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse. All data is "archived in perpetuity for long-term availability, with Data Archiving and​ Networked Services" ( https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/digital-commons/data ). To support open data, all published datasets will have a clear license and a DOI for ease of citation.

Digital Commons Data is a module of Digital Commons, an institutional repository system used by the USF Libraries. In use since 2007, the USF Libraries has supported persistent access and preservation to scholarly works and datasets created at USF with Digital Commons. The datasets created as a result of this project align with key library research collections, notably the Florida Environment and Natural History Collections Initiative ( https://lib.usf.edu/library-administration/innovative-research-collections/ ).

See our guide on how to use the repository: https://guides.lib.usf.edu/dcd

• NSF DMP (Biological Sciences - DBI)
• NSF DMP (Geosciences - DEB)
• NSF DMP (Physical Sciences - DUE - IUSE)
• NSF DMP (Social Sciences - HRD - Core Research)

NSF CAREER Post-Doctoral Mentoring Plans

• NSF CAREER Post-Doctoral Mentoring Plan

Graphics & Captions

• Samples that demonstrate how graphics and captions propel proposals forward.

USF CAS Core Facilities Descriptions & Available Equipment

• CAS Core Facilities Descriptions & Available Equipment

Do grant proposal texts matter for funding decisions? A field experiment

• Open access
• Published: 19 May 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Müge Simsek   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3559-6874 1   na1 ,
• Mathijs de Vaan 2   na1 &
• Arnout van de Rijt 3 , 4   na1  

14 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Scientists and funding agencies invest considerable resources in writing and evaluating grant proposals. But do grant proposal texts noticeably change panel decisions in single blind review? We report on a field experiment conducted by The Dutch Research Council (NWO) in collaboration with the authors in an early-career competition for awards of 800,000 euros of research funding. A random half of panelists were shown a CV and only a one-paragraph summary of the proposed research, while the other half were shown a CV and a full proposal. We find that withholding proposal texts from panelists did not detectibly impact their proposal rankings. This result suggests that the resources devoted to writing and evaluating grant proposals may not have their intended effect of facilitating the selection of the most promising science.

Similar content being viewed by others

The Participation and Motivations of Grant Peer Reviewers: A Comprehensive Survey

An efficient system to fund science: from proposal review to peer-to-peer distributions.

Anatomy of a Successful Grant Proposal

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Science funding is predominantly issued by national governments, science agencies, and philanthropic institutes. Seeking to fund the best science and achieve the highest marginal return on investment, funding organizations often organize competitions to allocate a limited number of grants. In many of these competitions, scientists are invited to write and submit a proposal describing a future research endeavor along with a CV or summary of academic accomplishments. The funding organization then reviews these submissions and selects those deemed most worthy of funding (Wahls, 2019 ).

Participation in funding competitions comes with some benefits to the individual researcher. Writing a detailed research proposal forces one to critically reflect on one’s ideas and develop rigorous research plans that may be of value also if no funding is obtained (Barnett et al., 2017 ). In addition, the applicant receives valuable peer feedback that may lead to an improved research design. Science funding based on research proposals may also reduce organizations’ reliance on prior accomplishments in their selection of awardees, and thus dampen Matthew effects in scientific careers (Bol et al., 2018 ; Merton, 1968 ).

These potential benefits notwithstanding, competing for funding through grant proposal writing is time-consuming (Ioannidis, 2011 ). A survey among scientists at top U.S. universities found that faculty spend about 8% of their total time on writing grant proposals and about 19% of the time available for research (Gross & Bergstrom, 2019 ). These percentages are likely to be higher at universities with lower endowments and in disciplines that require investments in expensive equipment or complex data collection efforts. Moreover, the costs of writing grant proposals are exacerbated by the low average funding rates in science funding competitions worldwide (Herbert et al., 2013 ). As budgets of funding agencies fail to keep up with the growth of science, the rate at which applications are funded keeps dropping (Lauer & Nakamura, 2015 ). The effort that goes into unfunded research proposals has been estimated to equal the total scientific value of funded research (Gross & Bergstrom, 2019 ). Proposal-based grant competitions are not only taxing on the applicant, but also on reviewers. A submitted proposal is typically reviewed by several panelists as well as multiple external reviewers (Bol et al., 2018 ), each sacrificing many hours of research time.

The high cost of proposal-based funding practices naturally raises the question of whether under this status quo, funding agencies make better decisions than under a less demanding alternative regime that does not require detailed research proposals. A number of funding agencies are currently experimenting with less taxing decision systems, including lotteries (Adam, 2019 ; Avin, 2015 ; Fang et al., 2016 ; Ioannidis, 2011 ). Yet evidence on the returns of the use of detailed proposals is lacking. Some research has examined agreement among reviewers of science and finds only moderate to low levels of agreement among reviewers in their assessments of grant applications (Cicchetti, 1991 ; Cole et al., 1981 ; Jayasinghe et al., 2003 ; Marsh & Ball, 1991 ; Mutz et al., 2012 ; Pier et al., 2018 ). While this suggests that proposal quality is not something academics readily agree upon, the funding decisions reached by diverse crowds may nonetheless be wise (Becker et al., 2017 ; Hong & Page, 2004 ; Lorenz et al., 2011 ). Another strand of research correlates aggregate evaluation scores with measures of scientific impact, netting out the impact of funding. Results are not unequivocal: Some find sizable correlations (Li & Agha, 2015 ), while others find them to be moderate to weak (Bol et al., 2018 ; Fang et al., 2016 ; Jacob & Lefgren, 2011 ; Wang et al., 2019 ). Moreover, the impact measures used in these studies may themselves be questioned on validity grounds (Bollen et al., 2009 ; Bornmann & Leydesdorff, 2013 ; Radicchi et al., 2008 ; Wang et al., 2013 ) and exclude forms of non-academic, societal impact (Eysenbach, 2011 ).

We circumvent the problem of measuring the quality of realized funding allocations by avoiding the direct assessment of decisions reached through proposal review. Instead, we ask whether the use of proposals makes reviewers evaluate grant applications differently compared to the scenario in which reviewers have no access to the research proposal. A necessary condition for proposals to lead to superior funding decisions that could not have been reached without them is that these decisions are at least different from the decisions that would have been made in their absence. We refer to such a difference as a proposal effect .

It is not obvious that proposals should have substantial impact on how an application is evaluated. First, applicants with stronger CVs may write stronger proposals causing the variation in proposal quality to become redundant if reviewers have access to CVs. Second, research suggests that when quality is ambiguous or difficult to observe, evaluators will base their judgments on status markers (Manzo & Baldassarri, 2015 ; Merton, 1968 ; Simcoe & Waguespack, 2011 ). Some controlled studies indeed confirm that in merit review evaluators rely on applicant seniority status, past citations, and publication record (Waguespack & Sorenson, 2011 ). If the quality of grant proposals is ambiguous and reviewers fall back on quality signals from the CV, then again funding decisions with and without proposal should be similar.

The procedures of many funding agencies nonetheless continue to heavily rely on proposal writing and review, under the implicit assumption of a substantial proposal effect. To evaluate the presence of a proposal effect, we first develop a model to derive the prediction of a proposal effect from explicit assumptions. We then discuss our empirical setting and the field experiment that we designed. The field experiment builds on the idea that we introduced earlier: if a proposal effect is present, there should be a difference in how an application, with and without a full proposal, is evaluated. Then, with the data from the field experiment we proceed to test the hypothesis that two panelists will disagree more on the merit of an application if only one has access to the proposal compared to when both have access. Footnote 1

We investigate this question drawing on novel data from a field experiment conducted by the Dutch Research Council (NWO), the premier science funding organization in the Netherlands. Footnote 2 The experiment involves the first round of NWO’s 2018 Vidi competition for investigator awards of 800,000 euros in which panelists make a preselection of promising applications. For the purpose of the experiment NWO recruited duplicate “shadow” panelists from its Scientific Advisory Board ( https://www.nwo.nl/en/scientific-advisory-board ). Proposal texts were withheld from a random subset of shadow panelists who rated applications only on the basis of the applicant’s CV and a one-paragraph proposal summary. This created two treatment groups: a proposal group and a no proposal group. We compare the extent to which evaluations of the applications in these conditions were aligned with the evaluations of the regular panelists.

In a series of tests, we find that withholding proposal texts from panelists did not substantially impact the evaluation of a proposal as measured by comparing rankings and scores from the experimental conditions to those of the regular panelists. These results suggests that the resources devoted to writing and evaluating grant proposals may not have their intended effect of facilitating the selection of the most promising science.

Consider a sample of applications that are reviewed by panelists who either have access to a full proposal and CV (i.e. the proposal ( P ) condition) or who only have access to a CV (i.e. the no-proposal ( N ) condition). Comparing these applications to the same set of applications reviewed by regular panelists creates two groups: (1) those where both panelists can read the proposal text ( P–P ) and those where the proposal text is accessible to one panelist but not the other ( P–N ). We argue that when both panelists have access to the proposal text ( P–P ) there should be more agreement on the quality of the application than when only one has access ( P–N ).

The theoretical basis for our argument that agreement should be higher for an application evaluated in the P–P group versus a proposal evaluated in the P–N group can be articulated in terms of two panelists j  = 1,2 who evaluate applications i  = 1…. I . Each application consists of a CV and a proposal text, which have a quality C i and T i respectively, each with a normal distribution with zero mean. Footnote 3 CV quality and proposal quality are measured on the same scale and therefore have the same variance. The quality of the CV and the proposal may be correlated but not perfectly, as otherwise, trivially, the CV is a perfect substitute for the proposal and the omission of the proposal cannot be consequential.

In the P condition, a panelist j provides an evaluation X ij P of application i that equally weighs the quality of the CV and that of the proposal, plus a normally distributed error E ij P with zero mean:

In the N condition, a panelist j achieves an evaluation X ij N the same way, except that they use the quality of the CV as their best guess of the quality of the proposal, again with a normally distributed error E ij N with zero mean:

The Pearson correlation in panelists’ evaluations of applications from the P–P and P–N groups respectively then equals:

The correlation for applications in the P–P group (3) will exceed that for applications in the P–N group (4) if Footnote 4 :

Inequality (5) will be met under the assumption that proposal evaluation is reasonably informative, which is the implicit rationale for the continued use of proposal writing and evaluation in many leading funding competitions. Proposal evaluation is informative if it measures something distinct from CV quality (lower Cov( C i , T i ) which increases the left side of inequality (5)) and if proposal quality is not in the eye of the beholder (lower E i 1 P which decreases the right side of inequality (5)). Panelist agreement on application evaluation will then be greater when both panelists evaluate applications in the P condition ( P–P ) than when only one does ( P–N ):

Panelists’ evaluations of grant applications agree more when both have access to the proposal text than when only one has access.

In our statistical analysis we use two related measures of panelist agreement. Our first measure of agreement is the probability that two applications evaluated by two panelists have concordant rankings, which amounts to a Kendall’s Tau statistic. Given that the correlations in question pertain to bivariate normally distributed quantities, we can use the fact that Kendall’s Tau monotonically increases in the correlation following 2arcsin(Corr())/π to derive that any two applications are more likely to be ranked concordantly by two P panelists when both panelists have access to both proposals ( P–P ) than when only one panelist has access ( P–N ).

The second measure of agreement is the absolute difference in the evaluation, | X i 1 P — X i 2 P | or | X i 1 P — X i 2 N |. For normally distributed variables, the mean absolute deviation is √(2/π) times the standard deviation, which in turn monotonically decreases in Corr( X i 1 P , X i 2 P ) respectively Corr( X i 1 P , X i 2 N ), so must be smaller when both panelists have access to the same proposal than when only one has access.

Experimental design

The experiment was conducted in the Social Science & Humanities domain of NWO’s 2018 Vidi competition which consists of eight panels representing different disciplines (see Supplementary Information for further details). NWO duplicated these eight panels for the experiment. Each submitted application (N  =  182) was assigned to two out of 58 regular panelists as part of the regular evaluation process as well as to two out of 41 shadow panelists from the corresponding shadow panel. Funding decisions were based only on regular panelist evaluations.

NWO matched both regular and shadow panelists to applications based on the similarity between proposal content and panelist expertise, panelist preferences, and conflicts of interest. NWO gave regular and shadow panelists guidelines and standard evaluation sheets and asked them to provide three scores on a scale of 1 (excellent) to 9 (bad) — one for the quality of the researcher (the CV score), one for the quality, innovative character, and academic impact of the proposed research (the proposal score), and one for the potential for utilization of knowledge for society and for the economy (the knowledge utilization score). The overall score NWO calculates is a weighted sum of the CV score (weighted 0.4), the proposal score (weighted 0.4), and the knowledge utilization score (weighted 0.2).

After shadow panelists were assigned to proposals, they were randomly assigned to an experimental condition using a randomized block design: within each shadow panel half of the panelists were assigned to a proposal condition (P) and the other half to a no-proposal condition (N) . The randomized block design ensures that there are balanced numbers of applications in both conditions within each panel, ensuring the treatment is orthogonal to panels. In line with our hypothesis, our analysis considers applications belonging to one of two groups : (a) applications assessed only in the proposal condition (“proposal group” or P–P group) and (b) applications assessed once in the proposal and once in the no-proposal condition ( P–N group). To ensure perfect balance in the composition of these two groups, for each application one evaluation always comes from a regular panelist, and one from a shadow panelist. Table 1 provides a breakdown of applications and panelists by panel and condition. For example, the table shows there are 6 regular panelists in the CW panel who all naturally reviewed in the P condition, and there were 4 shadow panelists, of which 2 were assigned to the P and 2 to the N condition. There are exactly 21 cases where an application in the CW panel was reviewed by at least one regular panelist in the P condition and at least one shadow panelist in the P condition. There are exactly 19 cases where an application in the CW panel was reviewed by at least one regular panelist in the P condition and at least one shadow panelist in the N condition.

Analytical strategy

Our analytical strategy is to take two approaches to test our hypothesis. First, we evaluate panelist agreement on rankings. To this end, for each pair of applications in the P–N group reviewed by the same shadow panelist in the no-proposal condition we determined which of the two applications received a better score Footnote 5 and then took two evaluations of the same two applications by a panelist from the regular panel and determined if the order of the scores was the same. Analogously, for each pair of applications in the P–P group evaluated by the same shadow panelist in the proposal condition we determined which was evaluated better and computed how often panelists in the regular panel agreed with this ranking. Together there were 722 such comparisons. Ties were broken randomly. We measure agreement on rankings as the percentage of cases where the rank orders in the shadow and regular panel agree. Our estimand for this approach is the difference in this agreement percentage between applications in the P–N group and applications in the P–P group. The rationale for conducting this analysis is that in the presence of a proposal effect and in line with our hypothesis, rankings of applications in the proposal condition compared to rankings of applications in the no proposal condition should be more in line with rankings in the regular panel.

Second, we compare panelist disagreement on scores – which we measure as the absolute difference in scores between two panelists reviewing the same application – between applications in the P–N group and applications in the P–P group. Our estimand for this second approach is the difference in mean disagreement between applications in the P–N group and applications in the P–P group. In line with our hypothesis, we predict that average disagreement among panelists regarding the quality of an application will be more pronounced when only one of the two panelists has read the proposal compared to when both have read the proposal. The existence of such a difference in disagreement across the two groups would indicate a proposal effect in panelist judgment.

In evaluating panelist agreement on rankings and panelist disagreement on scores, we used nonparametric randomization tests. Panelists evaluated multiple applications, so we cannot assume independence of observations in any test for group differences across applications. Accordingly, we generated the sampling distribution of each of our estimands under the null hypothesis, i.e. the permutation distribution, by way of randomly reassigning the condition labels to panelists 1000 times. Specifically, we took the P and N labels in the shadow panels and randomly reassigned those labels to panelists. We only reshuffled the condition labels within panels, so that the block design was preserved. At each permutation we recalculated the estimand. We then calculated the two-sided p-value as the fraction of 1000 permuted panelist assignments for which the estimand exceeded its value in the non-permuted data.

First, we examined whether not being able to access the full proposal text altered the way a panelist ranked those applications. A concordance percentage of 50% is achievable with random scoring and 100% is perfect agreement. We find that the percentage of concordant pairs in the P–N group (55.2%) is 3.7 points lower than that in the P–P group (58.9%) (see Table  2 ). The results of the randomization test, shown in Fig.  1 , indicate no significant difference at the 5% level in disagreement between applications evaluated in the P–N and those in P–P groups (two-sided p -value = 0.43). Table 2 shows that the rankings calculated separately for CV, proposal, and knowledge utilization scores also yield only small differences, none of which are significant (see Supplementary Fig. 1). Noteworthy is that when both panelists can read both proposals ( P–P ), they agree on which is better only 53.4% of the time. This provides an explanation for the rejection of the hypothesis: It was derived under the assumption of informative proposal evaluations, and this assumption is not supported in the data.

The vertical line represents the observed difference (− 3.7%) between the percentage of concordant pairs in the P – N group (only regular panelists can read the proposal) and the percentage of concordant pairs in the P–P group (both shadow and regular panelists can read the proposal). White bars display the distribution of the differences obtained from hypothetical re-randomized assignments of panelists to conditions. With the difference in agreement in the unpermuted data being closer to zero than in the 5% most extreme cases of the permutations, the analysis finds no statistically significant difference at the 95% level in agreement between groups

In the subsequent analysis, we examined the average disagreement levels in overall scores between the P–P and P–N groups. Table 3 shows disagreement among pairs of panelists in the evaluation of different elements of an application (rows) by proposal group (columns). Overall, panelist disagreement varied little between groups. As seen in column 1 of Table  3 , the mean level of disagreement on the overall scores was 0.04 lower in the P–N group than in the P–P group. This difference is small compared to the standard deviations of the two groups (0.67 and 0.63, respectively). Comparing the actual group difference with the distribution of differences generated from reshuffled samples showed no significant difference between the two groups at the 5% level (two-sided p -value = 0.36) (Fig.  2 ). We conducted similar tests for disagreement on CV scores, proposal scores, and knowledge utilization scores, all of which yielded consistent results (see Supplementary Fig.  2 ).

Overall, we conclude from these results in combination with the results of the ranking analysis that one panelist not being able to read a proposal does not lead that panelist to disagree more with the other panelist on the application’s merit. The main hypothesis is rejected.

The vertical line represents the observed difference (− 0.04) in mean disagreement between the P–N group (only regular panelists can read the proposal) and the P–P group (both shadow and regular panelists can read the proposal). Disagreement is measured as the absolute difference in standardized overall scores between two panelists reviewing the same application. White bars display the permutation distribution of the difference in mean disagreement between the two groups, obtained from hypothetical re-randomized assignment of panelists to conditions. With the difference in mean disagreement being closer to zero than in the 5% most extreme cases of the permutations, the analysis finds no statistically significant difference at the 95% level in disagreement between groups

We conclude that panelist assessment of an application changes little when the proposal text is omitted from it. Writing and evaluating proposals comprises the lion’s share of the costs of grant peer review (Graves et al., 2011 ). Our findings suggest that funding agencies using single-blind panel review, at least in a pre-selection stage prior to external review, can expect to achieve similar candidate selections by screening on the basis of CV and proposal abstract only. We hasten to reiterate that the writing of proposals may have intrinsic value to applicants also when not funded, and may together with reviewer input improve the quality of the work ultimately done once funded.

Studies of Matthew effects in science funding suggest that an emphasis on CV in merit assessment will strengthen the self-reinforcing character of winning grants (Bol et al., 2018 ; Wang et al., 2019 ). However, our results indicate that the presence of a full proposal text may not substantially alter evaluative outcomes. In a system that preselects on CV and proposal abstract only, then, the Matthew effect would likely not be much stronger despite there being little to go on besides applicant reputation.

Several limitations to the present investigation deserve consideration. First, limited statistical power renders it possible that writing a strong proposal does mildly increase an applicant’s chances for advancement to the next round. Our best estimate is that being able to read two proposals raises the chances a panelist will agree with another panelist who read both proposals on which of the two applications is the stronger one by about four percent points. This effect is small when compared to the dominant role of chance associated with one’s application being assigned to two favorable panelists (Cole et al., 1981 ).

Second, one may wonder whether shadow panelists assessed applications less meticulously or were less committed to the appraisal process. While our analysis revealed no systematic differences along any scoring dimensions between regular and shadow panelists evaluating the same proposals, we cannot rule out that there are differences we were not able to detect.

Third, our investigation was limited to peer review in an individual funding competition. In such competitions the CV of the applicant may play a more dominant role than otherwise. One may speculate that in competitions with collaborative proposals the proposal effect may be stronger so that the omission of the full proposal text would have a larger impact.

Finally, the experiment was limited to the initial scoring of candidates by panelists, preventing us from assessing a proposal effect in later stages of evaluation that involve expert reviewers. Nonetheless, even if a strong proposal effect exists in later rounds, most applications are already discarded in the preselection stage before the detailed description of the proposed research on which so much time was spent gets a chance to make a difference.

Data availability

All data are available in the supplementary information files. We conducted all data preparation and analysis using R. The code used for this purpose can be found at  https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/TRMEB

We preregistered additional hypotheses that do not directly speak to the main question asked here. The tests of these hypotheses can be found in the Supplementary Information file. The preregistration can be found here: https://aspredicted.org/md45e.pdf .

As executive researchers, we assisted with the random assignment of panelists to conditions and shared our opinion with NWO on the comparability of the information presented to the panelists in different conditions. Aside from this assistance, we were not involved with the design and execution of the experiment. Our study design concerning the use of data from this experiment was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences of Utrecht University.

The score variables in our data are indeed approximately normally distributed (see Supplementary Figs. 5 and 6).

We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this theoretical possibility.

We standardized the scores within panelists, because the funding agency makes preselection decisions based on standardized scores. To this end we first computed the mean and standard deviation over all scores given by a panelist and then subtracted the mean from each individual score and divided it by the standard deviation.

Adam, D. (2019). Science funders gamble on grant lotteries. Nature, 575 (7784), 574–575.

Article   Google Scholar  

Avin, S. (2015). Funding science by lottery. Recent developments in the philosophy of science: EPSA13 Helsinki (pp. 111–126). Cham: Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Barnett, A. G., Clarke, P., Vaquette, C., & Graves, N. (2017). Using democracy to award research funding: An observational study. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 2 (1), 1–9.

Becker, J., Brackbill, D., & Centola, D. (2017). Network dynamics of social influence in the wisdom of crowds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114 (26), E5070–E5076.

Bol, T., de Vaan, M., & van de Rijt, A. (2018). The Matthew effect in science funding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115 (19), 4887–4890.

Bollen, J., Van de Sompel, H., Hagberg, A., & Chute, R. (2009). A principal component analysis of 39 scientific impact measures. PLoS ONE, 4 (6), e6022.

Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2013). The validation of (advanced) bibliometric indicators through peer assessments: A comparative study using data from InCites and F1000. Journal of Informetrics, 7 (2), 286–291.

Cicchetti, D. V. (1991). The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14 (1), 119–135.

Cole, S., Cole, J. R., & Simon, G. A. (1981). Chance and consensus in peer review. Science, 214 (4523), 881–886.

Eysenbach, G. (2011). Can tweets predict citations? Metrics of social impact based on Twitter and correlation with traditional metrics of scientific impact. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13 (4), e2012.

Fang, F. C., Bowen, A., & Casadevall, A. (2016). NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity. eLife, 5 , e13323.

Graves, N., Barnett, A. G., & Clarke, P. (2011). Funding grant proposals for scientific research: retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel. BMJ, 343 , 1.

Gross, K., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2019). Contest models highlight inherent inefficiencies of scientific funding competitions. PloS Biology, 17 (1), e3000065.

Herbert, D. L., Barnett, A. G., Clarke, P., & Graves, N. (2013). On the time spent preparing grant proposals: An observational study of Australian researchers. British Medical Journal Open, 3 (5), e002800.

Google Scholar  

Hong, L., & Page, S. E. (2004). Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101 (46), 16385–16389.

Ioannidis, J. (2011). Fund people not projects. Nature, 477 (7366), 529–531.

Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2011). The impact of research grant funding on scientific productivity. Journal of Public Economics, 95 (9–10), 1168–1177.

Jayasinghe, U. W., Marsh, H. W., & Bond, N. (2003). A multilevel cross-classified modelling approach to peer review of grant proposals: The effects of assessor and researcher attributes on assessor ratings. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (statistics in Society), 166 (3), 279–300.

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Lauer, M. S., & Nakamura, R. (2015). Reviewing peer review at the NIH. New England Journal of Medicine, 373 (20), 1893–1895.

Li, D., & Agha, L. (2015). Big names or big ideas: Do peer-review panels select the best science proposals? Science, 348 (6233), 434–438.

Lorenz, J., Rauhut, H., Schweitzer, F., & Helbing, D. (2011). How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108 (22), 9020–9025.

Manzo, G., & Baldassarri, D. (2015). Heuristics, interactions, and status hierarchies: An agent-based model of deference exchange. Sociological Methods & Research, 44 (2), 329–387.

Marsh, H. W., & Ball, S. (1991). Reflections on the peer review process. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14 (1), 157–158.

Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew Effect in Science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159 (3810), 56–63.

Mutz, R., Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2012). Heterogeneity of inter-rater reliabilities of grant peer reviews and its determinants: A general estimating equations approach. PLoS ONE, 7 (10), e48509.

Pier, E. L., Brauer, M., Filut, A., Kaatz, A., Raclaw, J., Nathan, M. J., & Carnes, M. (2018). Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115 (12), 2952–2957.

Radicchi, F., Fortunato, S., & Castellano, C. (2008). Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105 (45), 17268–17272.

Simcoe, T. S., & Waguespack, D. M. (2011). Status, quality, and attention: What’s in a (missing) name? Management Science, 57 (2), 274–290.

Waguespack, D. M., & Sorenson, O. (2011). The ratings game: Asymmetry in classification. Organization Science, 22 (3), 541–553.

Wahls, W. P. (2019). Opinion: The National Institutes of Health needs to better balance funding distributions among US institutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116 (27), 13150–13154.

Wang, Y., Jones, B. F., & Wang, D. (2019). Early-career setback and future career impact. Nature Communications, 10 (1), 1–10.

Wang, D., Song, C., & Barabási, A. L. (2013). Quantifying long-term scientific impact. Science, 342 (6154), 127–132.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Dutch Research Council for their support in implementing the research design, Alexandros Gelastopoulos for helpful comments on the theoretical model, and  an anonymous reviewer and the organizers and participants of the Field Experiments Conference at Duke University, the Yale Conference on Computational Social Science, and the Social and Political Sciences Department Colloquium at Bocconi University for general feedback we received on earlier versions of our paper.

Author information

Müge Simsek, Mathijs de Vaan, and Arnout van de Rijt have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Müge Simsek

Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, USA

Mathijs de Vaan

European University Institute, Fiesole, Italy

Arnout van de Rijt

Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to analyzing the data, designing the study, interpreting the results and editing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Müge Simsek .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

Authors have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 1239 KB)

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Simsek, M., de Vaan, M. & van de Rijt, A. Do grant proposal texts matter for funding decisions? A field experiment. Scientometrics (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04968-7

Download citation

Received : 20 February 2022

Accepted : 13 February 2024

Published : 19 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04968-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Peer review
• Research funding
• Grant proposal
• Science policy
• Matthew effect
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government, request access.

Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs.

If you are human user receiving this message, we can add your IP address to a set of IPs that can access FederalRegister.gov & eCFR.gov; complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". This process will be necessary for each IP address you wish to access the site from, requests are valid for approximately one quarter (three months) after which the process may need to be repeated.

An official website of the United States government.

If you want to request a wider IP range, first request access for your current IP, and then use the "Site Feedback" button found in the lower left-hand side to make the request.