How to Revise Project Proposals for Clarity

On ruthlessly slashing content from your paper (or the worst pain is self-inflicted). Too often, in my own work, I find myself wanting to keep the perfect sentence - even though that sentence is no longer central to my paper. Less often, I find that I need to lose a whole section - or at least a review panel tells me that I do. When I receive that request, I use a simple process to decide if the reviewers are right. First, I ask: does this section serve the central argument? If a section doesn’t directly support your research question, hypothesis, or key takeaway, it’s probably a distraction. Just because something is interesting doesn’t mean it’s essential. Tip: Write a one-sentence summary of your paper’s main contribution. Then assess each section or paragraph: does it build toward that contribution? Second, I ask is this a “nice-to-have?” If so, I cut it ruthlessly. Tangents in the literature review, extended background details, or exploratory results may feel valuable but often dilute your argument. Keep your focus tight. Tip: If a section interrupts the flow or distracts from the core story, consider moving it to an appendix or cutting it entirely. Third, I focus on my logic, not just length I don’t remove content just to meet a word count. The goal is clarity, not just brevity. So I focus on making sure the argument still makes sense and flows logically. Tip: Start by trimming redundancy and repetition before cutting depth or nuance. Fourth, I save major cuts in a separate file. Some material might work better in a future paper, talk, or grant proposal. Tip: Use a separate document (e.g., “PaperName_Cuts.docx”) to store anything you remove. Name it topically. That way, you can find it more easily later. Finally, I read the paper like a reviewer, not a writer I know what I'm trying to say—but would a reviewer? Ask colleagues what felt unclear or unnecessary. If they skim a section or get lost, that’s a sign. Tip: If multiple readers question the same part, strongly consider revising or removing it. Final thought: Cutting isn’t about making your paper smaller—it’s about making it stronger, focused, and publishable. And the pain? that's self-inflicted? That is what happens when I don't listen to the reviewers - bc the rejection is swift if I fail to either change the paper or offer an adequate explanation for why I did not change it! Best of luck! #academicwriting

5 Common Mistakes I See When Reviewing Funding Proposals As someone who reviews many grant applications, I often see the same mistakes over and over. These mistakes can hurt your chances of getting the funding you need. The good news is that you can identify and fix these mistakes. Here are five common ones: 1. Unclear Story A successful proposal has a clear explanation of the problem you're addressing and why it matters. Many proposals fail because they don't clearly explain what they aim to solve. Think of your proposal like a story — start simple by explaining the problem, why it's important, and how your project will solve it. Make sure anyone, regardless of their background, can understand what you plan to do, how you'll do it, and the project's timeline. 2. Lots of Fancy Words Using technical jargon can confuse people who are not experts in your field. While it's good to show your expertise, using too many specialized terms can make your proposal hard to follow. Remember: the reviewer may not be familiar with jargon specific to your field. Use simple language whenever possible, and clearly explain any technical terms you must use. This makes your proposal easier to understand for everyone, which increases your chances of getting funding. 3. Unrealistic Promises Avoid making promises that are too big or unrealistic. It's tempting to talk about the huge impact your project could have, but this can make reviewers skeptical. Instead, focus on realistic goals that you can achieve with the funding and time available. Show that you have a good plan with achievable steps. This boosts your proposal’s credibility. 4. Lack of Preliminary Data Many proposals don't include enough initial data to show that the project is feasible. Preliminary data can prove that your project is based on solid methods and initial results are promising. Without this, reviewers might doubt your project’s viability. Include relevant initial data to show that your project has a good chance of success. 5. Poor Budget Justification An unclear or excessive budget request can be a major problem. Often, proposals request more funding than seems necessary without explaining why. Be detailed in explaining how the funding will be spent and why it’s necessary for your project. A clear and well-justified budget can greatly enhance your proposal’s credibility. Conclusion When writing a funding proposal, remember these five tips: tell a simple and clear story, avoid complex language, make realistic promises, include preliminary data, and provide a detailed budget explanation. By following these guidelines, you increase the chances that reviewers will understand and support your project, making it more likely that you'll receive funding. #engineering #science #research #mtvconsortium #funding #writing #proposal Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences—University of Michigan University of Michigan College of Engineering

When they said, "Just revise and resubmit (your proposal), you will be fine," I am certain that they didn't mean this ⬇ 🙃 Revising and resubmitting a rejected proposal requires careful planning, consideration, and improvement of various aspects. Here are some tips. 1. Review feedback thoroughly: Start by thoroughly reviewing the feedback provided by the reviewers. Understand their suggestions, as this will be the basis for the revisions. 2. Address reviewer comments: Read each comment and criticism thoroughly from the reviewers (not in the R&R but internally to plan). Think about how you will incorporate their suggestions or why you choose not to if you believe your original approach is sound. 3. Improve clarity and organization: Ensure that the proposal is clear and well-organized. Make your goals, objectives, activities, methods, and significance of the project explicit and easy to understand. Include a TOC and/or LM. 4. (If NSF) Strengthen the Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts: Emphasize the IM and BI of your project. Explain how your project advances scientific knowledge and benefits society. 5. Update data: Include new preliminary data or results that strengthen your case. This can demonstrate the progress or the feasibility of your project. 6. Highlight collaborations: If applicable, highlight any new collaborations or partnerships that have developed since your initial submission. 7. Revisit budget and timeline: Review them to ensure they are realistic and well-justified. 8. Seek external input: Consider seeking feedback from colleagues, mentors, or peers who were not involved in the initial submission. Fresh perspectives can be valuable. 9. Follow guidelines: Ensure that you follow all solicitation guidelines and formatting requirements to the letter. This includes adherence to page limits, font sizes, and other formatting rules. 10. Resubmit strategically: Timing is important. Don't rush to resubmit immediately after receiving feedback. Take the time needed to plan and make substantial improvements. 11. Write a stronger project summary: Pay attention to your project summary or abstract. It should provide a clear and compelling overview of your project. 12. Stay positive: Remember that rejection is common in the world of grant funding. Be persistent, maintain a positive attitude, and keep refining your proposal with each resubmission. 13. Maybe consider a different program: If your proposal is repeatedly rejected, it may be worth exploring whether another program might be a better fit. 14. Consult w/Program Officers: Reach out to the POs for guidance. Attend office hours/webinars. 15. Peer review: Consider having your revised proposal reviewed by colleagues/mentors who have experience with similar grants. Yes, the resubmission process can be challenging and time-consuming, but it's also a good opportunity to strengthen the proposal and increase the chances for success. 0 submission = 0 success.