How to write an application; and how it will be judged

1
How to write an application and how it will be
judged

• Mats Larsson
• Fysikum
• Stockholm universitet

2
Outline

• Why do we write applications
• To whom do we write applications
• How are applications handled
• How do we write applications
• How are the applications evaluated

3
Why do we write applications?
Money from external funding source
Money needed to do research
Money available from the department
4
To whom do we write applications?

• Vetenskapsrådet (VR Swedish Research Council)
• Rymdstyrelsen (Swedish Space Board)
• Foundation for Strategic Research (SSF)
• KA Wallenberg Foundation
• Swedish Institute
• EU 6th Framework Programme
• Keep your eyes open for sources of funding

5
Application to Swedish Research Council
Application submitted
Classification
Review Panel meeting
Peer review
Decision by the Research Council
Approval Contract is sent to the applicant
Rejection
6
Peer
A person who has equal standing with another or
others, as in rank, class, or age children who
are easily influenced by their peers.
7
VR Approval/Rejection

• The fraction of approved applications has
  decreased in recent years
• Fewer and larger grants
• In some cases, there are boundary conditions that
  causes an application to be rejected

8
1992-03-08 Örjan Skeppstedt
9
How to write an application

• Start by reading the instructions carefully

10
www.sr.se

• Bilaga A - Forskningsprogram
• Bilagan ska bestå av en kortfattad (12 punkters
  text, högst åtta A4-sidor) men fullständig
  beskrivning av forskningsuppgiften med följande
  rubriker
• Specifika mål, en redogörelse för syftet med det
  föreslagna forskningsprojektet/motsv.
• Områdesöversikt, ett sammandrag av egen och
  andras forskning och tidigare resultat inom
  forskningsområdet. Nyckelreferenser anges.
• Projektbeskrivning, en sammanfattning av
  projektets/motsv. uppläggning. Teori, metod och
  genomförande ska framgå. 
• Preliminära resultat, en beskrivning av egna
  försök/förstudier inom forskningsområdet
• Betydelse, en kortfattad redogörelse för
  projektets/motsv. betydelse för forskningsområdet

11

• Under särskild rubrik ska i relevanta fall i
  projektbeskrivningen också redovisas/kommenteras
  
• Utrustning, kortfattad beskrivning av befintlig
  basutrustning relevant för projektet som
  huvudsökande/gruppen kan disponera
• Internationellt och nationellt samarbete,
  kortfattad beskrivning av samarbete med utländska
  och svenska forskare/forskargrupper
• Etiska överväganden
• Kommersiella intressen
• Genusperspektiv

12

• I förekommande fall, övriga medverkande forskares
  bidrag, en redogörelse för beviljade och sökta
  bidrag från andra finansiärer som är av betydelse
  för hos Vetenskapsrådet sökt bidrag.
• Personal i forskargruppen/projektgruppen, namn, 
  ev doktorsexamen (år, disciplin/ämnesområde),
  nuvarande anställning samt lönefinansiär.
• I förekommande fall  skall motivering till varför
  ytterligare ansökan/flera ansökningar skickas
  till Vetenskapsrådet  skrivas överst i bilagan.

13
Make sure that the application is complete
14
(No Transcript)
15
(No Transcript)
16
The application must be

• Written in a clear and concise way
• Possible to read also for someone who is not
  exactly in the same research field
• Including a well written abstract
• Including a good introduction
• Written without typos and major grammatical
  errors. Proof reading is important.
• Delivered on time
• Not too bombastic(?)

17
1985-03-11 Bengt Gustafsson
18
N knowledge, t time needed to acquire
knowledge, P area of paper

needed to transmit knowledge
19
Verbosity
20
(No Transcript)
21
"People really underestimate the value of good
English," remarks Tim Nilsen, a molecular
biologist who reviews applications for the
National Institutes of Health's (NIH's) Cell
Development and Function study section. Nilsen
observes that applicants are still "very casual
in the way they write"--possibly because they
"write grant applications as if they're talking
to labmates who already know and understand their
projects." Reviewers, however, become frustrated
at having to read, reread, and decipher a
research plan before understanding a project.
http//nextwave.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/19
99/09/20/2
22
What do you intend to do? Why is the work
important? What has already been done? How are
you going to do the work?
Abstract should contain
23
Grant reviewers all agree that the body of the
research plan should begin with a basic but
thorough introduction to the subject. "I really
appreciate a good introduction," reveals NIH
reviewer Sally Camper, who complains that many
applicants automatically expect reviewers to be
familiar with their field of research and so they
skip over basic information that can help clarify
their research project. This can be a fatal
mistake. "People don't realize how diverse the
audience is," explains Camper, referring to the
variety of peers who assess applications.
24
without basic information to help reviewers fully
understand a proposal, reviewers can "get lost in
a sea of detail." Ideally, you want to "guide
the reviewer through the entire proposal. Feed
them everything they need to know slowly,"
suggests assistant professor Klaus Nuesslein, a
microbiologist at the University of
Massachusetts. Nuesslein says it's very important
for readers to understand the substance of your
research plan from the beginning. "Your research
plan is like a very high-level sales plan," he
declares. "Don't let your reviewer's mind wander
or jump. Give them absolutely everything. Be
explicit." And don't shy away from stating the
obvious, he encourages.
25
Example of scientific writing at its best
Dirac Quantum mechanics
26
Be realistic about the amount of money you apply
for
27
(No Transcript)
28
How it will be judged (by VR)

• The application undergoes a classification
• It is sent to one review panel (beredningsgrupp)
• The review panel consists of a chairperson
  appointed by VR and panel members appointed by VR
  after suggestion by the chairperson
• One panel member will be primary responsible for
  your application. Two others will be secondary,
  or it will be sent to an external reviewer

29
Examples of review panels

• BgM Astronomy, high-energy physics, nuclear
  physics
• BgN atomic and molecular physics, space physics,
  plasma physics, fusion
• BgO Condensed matter physics

30
The review panel evaluates the following

• The scientific quality of the project
• The qualification(s) of the applicant(s)
• The feasibility of the project, explaining both
  strengths and weaknesses
• Novelty and originality of the research
  proposal are important components of the
  scientific quality. For young scientists, their
  future potential is considered an important
  component of their scientific competence.

31
Evaluation scale in the 1990s

• Utmärkt (excellent)
• Mycket bra (very good)
• Bra (good)
• Fair (godtagbar)
• Poor (dålig)

32
(No Transcript)
33
Application
34
(No Transcript)
35
Appeal
36
Final decision
37
Application
38
Evaluation
39
It is very important that your primary reviewer
is making a good job. A well written review and
an engaged and authorative presentation in the
review panel are important. Note that the
review panel may change from year to year, and
not all review panels may handle applications in
an identical way. VR does not have programme
officers
40
Review
41
Decision
42
Sometime other boundary conditions can enter in a
review
43
The new VR evaluation scale

• 5 ledande/outstanding
• 4 utmärkt/excellent
• 3 mycket bra/very good
• 2 bra/good
• 1 otillräckligt/insufficient

44
Priorities

• 5 högsta prioritet
• 4 hög prioritet
• 3 medelhög prioritet
• 2 låg prioritet
• 1 avslag