Common proposal mistakes

The writing style is anemic or lacks energy, enthusiasm, or conviction, which leaves the impression that the PI lacks drive/motivation/passion or is more focused on ‘doing’ than getting results.

• The title is not compelling
• ‘Hopes,’ ‘aims,’ or ‘seeks’ to do things rather than stating what will get done
• It does not invoke a sense of excitement or promise
• Expresses thought in a lazy or rambling fashion, e.g., making generic statements, recapitulating text from research roadmaps rather than sharing original ideas, etc.
• Suffers from wordiness, e.g., using noun forms of verbs (nominalization), passive voice, etc.
• Fails to convince an expert on this topic that the PI has a deep familiarity with the subject and a strong interest in advancing the field
• Fails to convince a non-expert they should care

The proposal has grammar/syntax errors or is not written in a scientific voice, which leaves the impression that the PI is unsophisticated, inarticulate, or lacking training. Poor attention to detail also suggests the PI may be sloppy with execution or not do a good job disseminating results.

• Presentation is sloppy
• Misuses words, e.g., theory, a priori, etc., or imprecisely conveys thoughts
• Uses intensifiers such as truly, very, etc.
• Uses colloquial terms
• Uses erroneous words, e.g., irregardless
• Uses ‘weasel’ words, e.g., somewhat, significant
• Uses the wrong homonym, e.g., insure/ensure, complement/compliment, etc.
• Has poor subject-verb agreement (‘data is’ particularly gets on reviewers’ nerves)

The figures or tables ineffectively support the narrative.

• Are too few
• Are of poor quality, e.g. font size is too small
• Look like template Excel figures rather than custom figures generated in Matlab, R, etc.
• Do not lend clarity
• Are insufficiently introduced or discussed within the text
• Wastes space with passive voice, e.g. ‘Results are shown in Table 1’ rather than ‘Table 1 shows…’
• Poorly captioned
• Uses decorative charts/figures, e.g. pie or bar charts, 3D look for two variables, infographics
• Insufficient annotation on charts and images
• Overuse of tables
• The placement of figures/tables in the text distracts or is too far away from the reference in the text

The writing (style) is off-putting, which invokes reviewers’ bias or disfavor of the PI

• Writes for an expert just like the PI and not a ‘semi-expert’ panel
• Criticizes other research rather than objectively stating limitations or areas for improvement
• Trashing the competition
• Fails to acknowledge past or active contributors (or worse, a reviewer) whose work will benefit the project
• Boasts about capabilities or uses bombastic language such as ‘game changer’ or ‘quantum leap’
• Uses high-flown language
• Incorporates a flowery quote or an anecdote
• Takes a side in controversy rather than appearing balanced, open-minded, and capable of resolving the technical issues preventing all sides from reaching a consensus understanding
• Overuses emphasis, e.g., underline, italics, bold to the point that reviewers feel the PI is trying to do the job for them or force-feed them talking points
• Uses an acronym bad or unwieldy enough to be distracting
• Uses too many acronyms
• Uses gender-specific pronouns instead of avoiding them altogether or alternating genders
• Writing style veers from one paragraph to the next. Appears that more than one person wrote the document (or worse, material lifted from other sources)
• Uses less than 15 pages. Almost guaranteed rejection. No proposal can address all possible questions a panel can come up with. Leaving it short puts you in the “didn’t bother to try” pile. Using all your space can buy you the benefit of the doubt.

The underlying concept does not inspire, stimulate, or “hook” the reviewer.

• Problem statement is not technically or conceptually interesting
• Addresses a societal problem without framing the fundamental science
• Proposes a baby step instead of a significant or foundational contribution
• Is too provincial or unrelatable to a broad audience, i.e. addresses a local issue when the problem is global in scale or failing to consider tools created outside of your research circle
• This is a closed-circuit problem (solved and done), not a career building platform

The proposal is difficult to navigate or does not flow well, which can lead to reader fatigue, confusion, or loss of interest.

• Objectives not clearly stated within the first paragraph
• Sections do not logically flow or are out of order
• Early passages substantially reference latter passages
• Omits connective sentence(s) between sections, making for a ‘choppy’ read
• Contains superfluous information, e.g. explaining basic or well-known concepts in detail
• Omits page numbers
• Does not number (sub)sections
• Sentences are too long (> 25 words = rule of thumb)
• Paragraphs are too long (> 8 sentences = rule of thumb)
• Text is too crowded, e.g., has inadequate space between sections

The opening section fails to convey a big picture, construct, or roadmap to help reviewers absorb and understand what they will read in the following pages.

• Buries the lede or starts the proposal off like a murder mystery, forcing the reviewer to search for the what-why-how and so-what
• Missing key explanatory/roadmap figure early in the document (no later than pg. 2)
• Reviewer cannot figure out what the PI is proposing to do by the end of the first page

The opening section does not make a strong case for why the project is needed, which leaves the impression that there is no urgency to fund this proposal or that the importance of the proposed work is low.

• Does not explain why the problem is acute, chronic, critical, serious, difficult to solve, etc.
• Does not tie in related current events or developments in the field to sell its ‘timeliness’
• Does not reflect on the long-term effects if the problem remains unsolved
• Does not explain why this problem is important to NSF’s goals
• Does not elaborate on the potential for widespread impact in the field
• Does not elaborate on why the results are extensible to the broader scientific community
• Does not demonstrate how the project will help the PI reach long-term goals either by (a) not discussing them or (b) lacking a connection between the project and long-term goals

The background (literature review) section has holes and does not set the stage for the proposed work. Possibly turns reviewers against the PI for not citing their work or others they respect in the field.

The impression left by the reviewer is that the PI lacks the fundamental knowledge required to perform the work or is not gracious for the foundational work of others that led to this proposal in the first place.

• Inadequately attributes past contributors to the knowledge base
• Specifically fails to acknowledge seminal or foundational works
• Does not clearly state the knowledge gap being filled or use the literature to make that assertion
• Fails to present critical context that underpins the research questions and plan
• Fails to demonstrate expert knowledge of current state of the art. Where is the field today, and how will the proposed work will advance it?
• Omits successes in other fields that conceptually overlap but differ in context

The PI’s story goes untold (on a career development grant no less). Loss of the personal touch causes the reviewer to not champion the PI.

• Missing past or preliminary research from PI
• PI does not explain how the project fits within their mid- and long-term goals
• Focuses too much on past accomplishments, using up valuable space to point to the future

The research questions are vague, unfocused, or not optimally scoped, which diminishes the PI’s credibility because the reviewer is left to guess what will happen.

• Research design is a poor fit for the panel, e.g., proposing exploratory work to a panel that expects confirmatory (hypothesis-based) research
• Omits or poorly presents research questions or hypotheses
• Does not lead with research questions or hypotheses
• Research questions or hypotheses address multiple seemingly unconnected elements
• Research questions or hypotheses lack supporting statements
• Research questions or hypotheses are not (easily) testable
• Answers to the research questions or hypotheses are obvious or not compelling
• Presents a laundry list of problems without saying what the PI will work on
• Presents a fishing expedition, particularly a problem if the panel expects hypothesis-driven work

The proposed execution plan is vague, unfocused, or not optimally scoped, which diminishes the PI’s credibility because the reviewer is left to guess what will happen.

• Elements are vague, forcing the reviewer to place trust in the PI that the work will get done
• Omits or gives weak rationale for research design choices, i.e. does not explain the ‘what’ and ‘why’ together
• Also poorly documents the ‘why,’ e.g., claims are made without proper citation, seminal papers not cited, recent literature not cited, etc.
• The scope is too wide, giving the appearance the PI will be spread too thin
• Overpromises or is too ambitious/aggressive. Projected deliverables are unrealistic
• The plan focuses too heavily on collecting data, rather than creating discoveries
• The scope is too narrow, given the impression the outcomes are incremental or lack creativity
• Procedures not adequately defined (under or over)
• Details are too thin to judge the quality and likelihood of success
• Elements are too complicated, or the explanation goes too far into the weeds
• The narrative gives the impression the PI already solved the problem
• Research is too speculative, e.g., focuses too much on the importance of solving the problem rather than explaining how to get there
• Presents an open-ended approach or a cliffhanger
• Project personnel roles are not clearly defined, or responsibilities are not assigned

The research plan is half-baked or has technical flaws/omissions.

• The proposed research does not advance the state-of-the-art
• Elements require subject matter expertise not demonstrated in PI’s background
• Presents unsound methodology, e.g., methods or instruments are inappropriate for the proposed applications
• Makes illogical statements
• Locks in one approach (e.g., method, instrument) instead of proposing to explore alternatives and downselecting when better knowledge is available
• Does not identify the main study variables
• Overlooks minor but critical details, e.g., choosing a sample size, bias control measures, handling uncertainties or measurement limits of instrumentation, etc.
• Omits discussion on theoretical frameworks in an experimental project
• The experimental method is entirely empirical
• Each step in an experiment hinges on the last step being successful, setting up the approach to only be as strong as the weakest link
• Plan has too low of a probability of success
• Attempts to prove the negative
• Uses conventional approaches when newer, better methods exist. Show knowledge of the available toolboxes
• Does not leverage recent advancements from other fields (not a dealbreaker, but lacks polish)
• Does not take advantage of NSF large facilities, data repositories/atlases/databases, or other resources funded by NSF to support the PI’s research community (caution: as appropriate, do not force-fit)

• Fails to acknowledge technical difficulties, giving the impression that the PI does not understand the challenges or is sweeping the issues ‘under the carpet’
• No contingency plan was given for high-risk, high-impact activities, e.g., performing field work in landfalling hurricanes with the possibility that no storms will threaten the US during the performance period. Contingencies: alternative goals using data in hand from other programs. Part B of a non-data-reliant component is proposed as a back-burner element

Project management and dissemination of results are weak.

Impression of PI: The PI may have difficulty executing on task, sharing results, or solving (what are routine) problems before they escalate.

• Omits a timeline, milestones, and other indicators that show the reviewers you have a well-thought-out plan to be productive and self-evaluate during the 5 yr performance period
• No progress metrics proposed (e.g. scholarly outputs in the timeline)
• Does not present a clear plan to disseminate the findings (which conferences & journals and when? How to disseminate to non-academic stakeholders)
• Specific conferences or activities are not called out in the timeline or included in the budget
• Does not show how the program will ‘live beyond’ the five-year performance period (also referred to as a sustainability plan)

The PI does not have the required resources or institutional buy-in, which leaves the impression that the PI is not qualified or adequately supported to perform the work

• Requires equipment or computational resources that is not in hand nor budgeted
• Relies too heavily on other resources or people
• The majority of the budget allocated to buy a major resource
• Insufficient support of students needed to execute research
• The chair’s letter is weak or doesn’t show commitment to the PI’s success

The budget (justification) is wonky.

• The proposed budget is not well aligned with the project goals
• Budget justification is poorly connected to budget or project goals
• Budget justification is thin or missing critical details such as how travel costs were calculated
• Hidden expenses not covered

The education plan is weak, which leaves the impression that it appears to be an afterthought.

• Fails to use the literature to make a case for improving student retention, workforce development, innovative learning techniques proposed, etc. (Citing educational literature is a must)
• Omits a plan to recruit underrepresented groups or stakeholders
• Omits a plan to measure formative (immediate) outcomes
• Omits a plan to measure summative (cumulative) outcomes
• Does not integrate research with the education plan
• Does not convey how the education plan will multiply or amplify the research impact
• No original or forward-thinking elements, e.g. developing a new graduate course. Grad students will help with the research…these are givens, not an innovative integration plan